Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seusomon" data-source="post: 4417038" data-attributes="member: 68641">I agree with what others have posted.If you'd like to know my personal take on this as a DM, here goes.I would use the rules as written (untrained characters can attempt thievery any time). The "spirit" of skill checks in 4e is to not worry about details and rules idiosynchrasies. All PCs are adventurers, so they have some basic competence at all adventuring skills. The +5 for training is just there because it's fun to have different characters be good at different things, and to be able to routinely pull off something others have difficulty with. By keeping it simple, you also keep the game moving and can focus on narrating the events.If I were to take up the house rule suggestion, it would probably be connected to some campaign background. Perhaps there is a powerful thieves' guild that guards their secrets fiercely, so that only "one of their own" has the inside knowledge needed to pick the locks they have designed or disarm their traps. So these would be special locks, not just difficult (but otherwise ordinary) locks.Of the two possibilities you suggested, I would prefer the one where training is required because of the complexity of the task, rather than requiring it for a whole category (such as picking any lock). The latter seems to go against the grain of 4e, where all characters are heroic and can do cool stuff without fussing over rules and requirements. Saying that no one except a trained thief can ever pick a lock shuts down too many fun play options. There are less blunt ways to reward PCs with the training.</blockquote>

Verification