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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6297287" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Yes, and it absolutely should. I prefer "acolyte" to "priest" because it is much easier to have that flexibility with a background name/concept that may, but need not, imply an ongoing profession. It's the inclusive phrasing.And the main reason we are debating these sorts of minimally important quibbles is simply that they're mostly finished with the game and haven't been giving us a lot of meaty material to tear apart.Yes, yes, and yes. I guess a lot of people weren't around when this was talked about extensively on multiple occasions by the designers months ago.There is a mechanical aspect, it is core, but it is extremely easy to ignore if you aren't interested. (The jury is still out for me on how I plan to use it.)I'm currently thinking of just treating them as one of the default NPC creature listings, such as commoner or warrior, or whatever else is in the MM that fits. Then adjusting their ability scores. Then giving them a background. Then applying expertise to skills that make sense. Last we heard, proficiency is going to start at +2, and expertise is double proficiency. So if I give a typical sage a 16 Int, proficiency in three knowledge skills, and then apply expertise to one of those fields, we have a character with a +5 to a couple knowledge skills, and a +7 to his best one. He's definitely going to be better than low-level PCs in his area of expertise, and even better than most mid-level PCs who aren't focused on that skill. So he fulfills his role as a sage quite well. All while following very similar rules to PCs, without being built as a full PC-class build.So MM entry + background + expertise = satisfying generic NPCs for most professions.</blockquote>

Verification