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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6852588" data-attributes="member: 6790260">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=93444" target="_blank">shidaku</a> : Well, you specifically said "That's 4-5 skills for the 'low skill' classes," which is somewhat disingenuous. Yes, 6/10 races *can* get some kind of thing that affects proficiencies in general, sure, though (as stated) only four of those are actual skill proficiencies, which was clearly how your post was oriented. I was ignoring the Gnome subrace's Tinker's Tools/Artificer's Lore and the Dwarf basal Artisan Tool (and Stonecunning, which is equivalent to Artificer's Lore) for the reasons I had already outlined, and because they weren't skills which is what I thought you were specifically talking about. (The Dwarf thing is also sort of a crappy selection, with smith's tools being the only one I could see getting any significant use, and even then.)I admit, the thing I was reacting to--"usually 1-2 more"--technically came after you spoke of skill OR tool proficiencies...but the way it was worded strongly indicated you were talking about skills, at least to me. That's why I focused on skills, and *actual* bonus skills are not at all "usual." Bonus artisan tool proficiencies are, frankly, THE most underwhelming bonus in all of 5e, in part because they require mutual DM *and* player buy-in in order to amount to anything at all, and I have an extremely low opinion of features that absolutely positively MUST have DM buy-in in order to have any more weight than that of the ink on the page. (It's part of why I don't, generally, care much for 5e as a system.)But yes, if you meant to cast the net wide, including all forms of anything vaguely related to non-combat proficiency, sure, you're right. I'd just argue that you're right in a way that is not meaningful to most players.Edit:As for the "that's the way the cookie crumbles" argument, well....I guess I just fundamentally disagree with the assertion being made when you say "you WANTED to not be skilled." It's the same as the problem with, "You can have any color you want, as long as the color you want is black." You're painting something as a TOTALLY FREE CHOICE when it really isn't nearly as "free" as you're implying--in fact, it's actually pretty limited, and as you noted, some options are just unfairly crapped upon for no reason other than the designers said so.(As for not resorting to violence, well, I just flat choose not to play characters that are murderhobos. IRL, I believe harm done to others is always a tragedy, regardless of the motives or situation--but because we live in a flawed, broken world, some tragedies can't be avoided. In a game, though, I can (almost) always TRY non-violent solutions. You typically can't back down once the gauntlet of violence has been thrown down, but you can always escalate when non-violence critically fails to achieve your goals.)</blockquote>

Verification