Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7148601" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Oh I agree here.&nbsp; The athletics skill I don't advocate for removing.&nbsp; In fact I've said many times that acrobatics is the one that should go away and get lumped in with it.Should I also be able to build a character where I add my proficiency bonus to feats of cooking?&nbsp; What about feats of cleaning?&nbsp; What about feats of brewing strong drinks?&nbsp; What about feats of screaming louder than anyone else?&nbsp; I can even contrive examples where all these skills could be &quot;useful&quot; in a campaign.&nbsp; That doesn't mean they should be in the campaign.&nbsp; Being able to build a character where you add your proficiency bonus to something is a terrible reason for adding a skill in the game.&nbsp; If that's the case let's bring back 3.5e skills (which I don't think anyone advocates for?).&nbsp; The point is contriving a few examples where a skill can shine and then further rationalizing that you need to be able to get proficiency bonuses on whatever you want doesn't make a good argument in favor of any skill.Let me explain the difference.&nbsp; Athletics should be a skill because it can be taken to apply to almost anything where your character is performing physical activity.&nbsp; Whether it involves agility or strength athletics just makes sense.&nbsp; As such it's a very broad skill.&nbsp; Training in athletic endeavors generally helps you in other types of athletic endeavors as well.&nbsp; It's useful in many situations and even makes a great way to resolve whether your character can push, grapple, break a grapple etc.&nbsp; It's not likely that this skill will change a campaign, but it could with the right NPC.&nbsp; But even though it may never do that it's going to come up enough that it should be in the game.By proficiency in athletics coupled with their higher base strength or higher base dexterity.&nbsp; High Strength + Athletics = conditioned strongman.&nbsp; High Dexterity + Athletics = circus performer.&nbsp; I quoted the book on what other dex checks there were and that's the response I get.....Some games will get more mileage out of some skills.&nbsp; That's why another important consideration is not just having a list of skills for everything but tailoring the list of available skills to your campaign.&nbsp; The balance of skills in 5e is good.&nbsp; Why do you think a small number of skills is better than a large number even though it means there's less mechanical differentiation for certain activities?Which is why I didn't advocate for a totally DM discretion system where skills are removed altogether.&nbsp; It could get confusing and would likely be unsatisfying.&nbsp; Why is it people keep telling me I want a skill less game and then telling me why that would be bad?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7148601, member: 6795602"] Oh I agree here. The athletics skill I don't advocate for removing. In fact I've said many times that acrobatics is the one that should go away and get lumped in with it. Should I also be able to build a character where I add my proficiency bonus to feats of cooking? What about feats of cleaning? What about feats of brewing strong drinks? What about feats of screaming louder than anyone else? I can even contrive examples where all these skills could be "useful" in a campaign. That doesn't mean they should be in the campaign. Being able to build a character where you add your proficiency bonus to something is a terrible reason for adding a skill in the game. If that's the case let's bring back 3.5e skills (which I don't think anyone advocates for?). The point is contriving a few examples where a skill can shine and then further rationalizing that you need to be able to get proficiency bonuses on whatever you want doesn't make a good argument in favor of any skill. Let me explain the difference. Athletics should be a skill because it can be taken to apply to almost anything where your character is performing physical activity. Whether it involves agility or strength athletics just makes sense. As such it's a very broad skill. Training in athletic endeavors generally helps you in other types of athletic endeavors as well. It's useful in many situations and even makes a great way to resolve whether your character can push, grapple, break a grapple etc. It's not likely that this skill will change a campaign, but it could with the right NPC. But even though it may never do that it's going to come up enough that it should be in the game. By proficiency in athletics coupled with their higher base strength or higher base dexterity. High Strength + Athletics = conditioned strongman. High Dexterity + Athletics = circus performer. I quoted the book on what other dex checks there were and that's the response I get..... Some games will get more mileage out of some skills. That's why another important consideration is not just having a list of skills for everything but tailoring the list of available skills to your campaign. The balance of skills in 5e is good. Why do you think a small number of skills is better than a large number even though it means there's less mechanical differentiation for certain activities? Which is why I didn't advocate for a totally DM discretion system where skills are removed altogether. It could get confusing and would likely be unsatisfying. Why is it people keep telling me I want a skill less game and then telling me why that would be bad? [/QUOTE]

Verification