Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Catolias" data-source="post: 7881472" data-attributes="member: 7017236">I don’t agree that the 5e skills are fine. The issue with 5e skills are that they are built like a secondary mechanic in the game. This sits uneasily with me given that in any game skills are central for 2 out of 3 key components in any D&D game - exploration and interaction. Indeed, skills and are central to realising the third component of combat insofar as determining if it’ll happen at all. Players in 5e only directly influence skills at two points. This is at character creation and then at 3rd level when there is a further selection on a particular character. After that, there is no active involvement in changing skills. This sort of suggests that characters beyond 3 do not learn or grow unless they multi class. This is one of the most disappointing parts of 5e for me. It just does not ring true that characters don’t learn and improve - and something PF2e addresses with TEML bonus modifiers so +1 to GlassJaws fix.Sure, characters can enhance skills by way of ability improvements. However, skills are disproportionately focussed on Dex, Wis and Chr. So it is fair to say that anyone seeking to enhance their character’s skills will be looking to these first. This is especially given the heavy lifting that Wis and especially Dex have in D&D. PF2e seems to try and shift more into Int. I don’t agree that the skills provide the right granularity. This is both in 5e or PF2e. There is some real dissonance when reflecting on the modifiers being attributed to particular skills. Athletics is an obvious one. While strength might be accurate for a quick sprint or a jump from one ledge to another, it is not the modifier useful for determining skill checks for rock climbing (less strength and more the fine motor skills required to find the hand holds) or swimming (once you have the technique from training, it is more about constitutional endurance than dexterity or strength).</blockquote>

Verification