Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7881558" data-attributes="member: 6777737">I would absolutely agree that removing skills isn't necessarily an improvement, either. Honestly, my original post had to be abbreviated because I'm travelling, but it was a point that I wanted to make.That said, I don't think the 5e skill system has appreciable depth, nor do I think it couldn't withstand some attrition. I would like to see more skills, but I'm not really interested in more skills just to have more skills.I think the core problem is that each attribute has one skill that seems like &quot;use this attribute to do what this attribute does.&quot; Strength has only one skill, Dex is Stealth, Con is Napoleon Dynamite, Int is Arcana, Wis is Perception, and Cha is Persuasion. Then only a few attributes have a secondary skills. Dex has Acrobatics, Int has Investigation, Wis has Survival or Insight (depending on the campaign, IMX), Cha has Deception. Everything else is not really useful.Agreed. I think that partially has to do with the fact that tools are poorly defined. Like if I'm using Smith's tools to forge something, is that a Strength check? Int?Agreed again on both counts. Too many examples easily looks like a comprehensive list of skill modes, especially in an edition with strictly defined features and powers.Personally, I think Expertise should either be a flat +2 or +3. Anything more than that, and dice rolling becomes irrelevant for most DCs. The game should never ask for die rolls when failure is impossible. It's a waste of table time and it should not be a built-in mechanic. Being so good that you can't fail also means you're not challenged. You should not reward XP for that. No challenge means no reward.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 7881558, member: 6777737"] I would absolutely agree that removing skills isn't necessarily an improvement, either. Honestly, my original post had to be abbreviated because I'm travelling, but it was a point that I wanted to make. That said, I don't think the 5e skill system has appreciable depth, nor do I think it couldn't withstand [I]some[/I] attrition. I would like to see more skills, but I'm not really interested in more skills just to have more skills. I think the core problem is that each attribute has one skill that seems like "use this attribute to do what this attribute does." Strength has only one skill, Dex is Stealth, Con is Napoleon Dynamite, Int is Arcana, Wis is Perception, and Cha is Persuasion. Then only a few attributes have a secondary skills. Dex has Acrobatics, Int has Investigation, Wis has Survival or Insight (depending on the campaign, IMX), Cha has Deception. Everything else is not really useful. Agreed. I think that partially has to do with the fact that tools are poorly defined. Like if I'm using Smith's tools to forge something, is that a Strength check? Int? Agreed again on both counts. Too many examples easily looks like a comprehensive list of skill modes, especially in an edition with strictly defined features and powers. Personally, I think Expertise should either be a flat +2 or +3. Anything more than that, and dice rolling becomes irrelevant for most DCs. The game should never ask for die rolls when failure is impossible. It's a waste of table time and it should not be a built-in mechanic. Being so good that you can't fail also means you're not challenged. You should not reward XP for that. No challenge means no reward. [/QUOTE]

Verification