Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7584911" data-attributes="member: 6919838">First, I agree with your notion, that the addition of more skills is not the right way to address the issue you describe. I also agree that skills will not be equally frequent.But...I'm just brainstorming here. My point is that the skills aren't balanced right, and you don't want to exacerbate that problem by introducing a ton of minor skills that are more-unique but less-powerful.&quot;Let me put forth my own perspective - nothing is balanced right. Unless two things are identical, they are not balanced right.The key to balance is that it comes more from the challenge than from the aptitude or definition. The most powerful &quot;element&quot; or character trait in the first session of my campaign, the thing that really mattered at the end... was speaking draconian and negotiating. The notion that any elements will be balanced as a matter of course or mechanics falls down when you realize that from one campaign or arc to the next the challenges may be very different&nbsp; If Animal checks are rare, it's because those kinds of encounters or challenges are not being seen. But also, frequency if rolls is only part of the balance. Sure, perception is called for a lot, but in my experience a lot of those are for initial info breakdowns that turn out to be middling important at best. How many times is a trait very important? How many times does it become key? That's really what a player is looking for imx when they take one trait over another. Even if it's to avoid not having it.Rambling I guess but, to me it boils down to this - skills are balanced or not in play by the GM choices and the players choices and no amount of point buy scaling or details in function matters more than that. So, to me, a player choosing a proficiency is their way of telling me &quot;I want this to matter.&quot; After that it's on me (mostly) but also them to make it matter enough in play that they see it as having been worth taking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7584911, member: 6919838"] First, I agree with your notion, that the addition of more skills is not the right way to address the issue you describe. I also agree that skills will not be equally frequent. But... I'm just brainstorming here. My point is that the skills aren't balanced right, and you don't want to exacerbate that problem by introducing a ton of minor skills that are more-unique but less-powerful." Let me put forth my own perspective - nothing is balanced right. Unless two things are identical, they are not balanced right. The key to balance is that it comes more from the challenge than from the aptitude or definition. The most powerful "element" or character trait in the first session of my campaign, the thing that really mattered at the end... was speaking draconian and negotiating. The notion that any elements will be balanced as a matter of course or mechanics falls down when you realize that from one campaign or arc to the next the challenges may be very different If Animal checks are rare, it's because those kinds of encounters or challenges are not being seen. But also, frequency if rolls is only part of the balance. Sure, perception is called for a lot, but in my experience a lot of those are for initial info breakdowns that turn out to be middling important at best. How many times is a trait very important? How many times does it become key? That's really what a player is looking for imx when they take one trait over another. Even if it's to avoid not having it. Rambling I guess but, to me it boils down to this - skills are balanced or not in play by the GM choices and the players choices and no amount of point buy scaling or details in function matters more than that. So, to me, a player choosing a proficiency is their way of telling me "I want this to matter." After that it's on me (mostly) but also them to make it matter enough in play that they see it as having been worth taking. [/QUOTE]

Verification