Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
To use or not to use feats
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 7206125"><p>But you really only prove my point. In order for a Fighter to be good at a "Face Skill" he has to <em>try</em> and even then he has to <em>really</em> try. The Fighter class does not provide proficiency in any Face Skill except Intimidate. So, you're either A: multiclassing (unlikely if your table doesn't run feats) or B: picking a background that gives it to you.</p><p></p><p>A Rogue or Bard can get proficiency in Face Skills without multiclassing and without taking a background. But if they <em>did</em> take a background, they're going to be better at those Face Skills than you, because they're designed to be better at it. </p><p></p><p>Your argument basically breaks down to: In order for me(the Fighter) to be good at Face Skills, everyone else has to choose to be bad at them. </p><p></p><p>Even then, for a Fighter to be good at Face Skills, assuming stats are finite resources and you cannot have a 20 in everything, you have to allocate your points <em>away</em> from what the Fighter was designed to be good at (hitting things and being hit by things). A Rogue, or a Bard does not. They can choose <em>not</em> to be a Face, and <em>still</em> walk away with good scores in Face Skills.</p><p></p><p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 26px"><strong>BUT</strong></span> (and this is a big butt!)</p><p></p><p>I agree with not setting DCs with the expectation of expertise. Fully agree there.</p><p></p><p>But I'll add that AMT (at my table) I like to treat Proficiency more like 4E "Trained". So that people like you who <em>want</em> to be the Face will always be a step ahead of people who are just naturally inclined towards a task. I will at times even limit certain attempts to people <em>only</em> with proficiency, because I value the effort that people like you made to make your Fighter a Face, against all the odds, when McStabby the Rogue just <em>happens</em> to be good at it.</p><p></p><p>And I feel that is a better solution than artificially inflating the DCs. Just raise your DM hand and say "No, due to Bob's extensive training, only he can attempt this." I will even sometimes give different DCs to different players based on their backgrounds. McStabby may be more inclined towards lock-picking and thus a DC 18, but Joe the Wizard took the Locksmith background and he comes from a family line of locksmiths so he gets a DC 14. </p><p></p><p>But this is also why I don't tell players the DC they need to hit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 7206125"] But you really only prove my point. In order for a Fighter to be good at a "Face Skill" he has to [I]try[/I] and even then he has to [I]really[/I] try. The Fighter class does not provide proficiency in any Face Skill except Intimidate. So, you're either A: multiclassing (unlikely if your table doesn't run feats) or B: picking a background that gives it to you. A Rogue or Bard can get proficiency in Face Skills without multiclassing and without taking a background. But if they [I]did[/I] take a background, they're going to be better at those Face Skills than you, because they're designed to be better at it. Your argument basically breaks down to: In order for me(the Fighter) to be good at Face Skills, everyone else has to choose to be bad at them. Even then, for a Fighter to be good at Face Skills, assuming stats are finite resources and you cannot have a 20 in everything, you have to allocate your points [I]away[/I] from what the Fighter was designed to be good at (hitting things and being hit by things). A Rogue, or a Bard does not. They can choose [I]not[/I] to be a Face, and [I]still[/I] walk away with good scores in Face Skills. [CENTER][SIZE=8][B]BUT[/B][/SIZE] (and this is a big butt!)[/CENTER] I agree with not setting DCs with the expectation of expertise. Fully agree there. But I'll add that AMT (at my table) I like to treat Proficiency more like 4E "Trained". So that people like you who [I]want[/I] to be the Face will always be a step ahead of people who are just naturally inclined towards a task. I will at times even limit certain attempts to people [I]only[/I] with proficiency, because I value the effort that people like you made to make your Fighter a Face, against all the odds, when McStabby the Rogue just [I]happens[/I] to be good at it. And I feel that is a better solution than artificially inflating the DCs. Just raise your DM hand and say "No, due to Bob's extensive training, only he can attempt this." I will even sometimes give different DCs to different players based on their backgrounds. McStabby may be more inclined towards lock-picking and thus a DC 18, but Joe the Wizard took the Locksmith background and he comes from a family line of locksmiths so he gets a DC 14. But this is also why I don't tell players the DC they need to hit. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
To use or not to use feats
Top