Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8477165" data-attributes="member: 7031982">No, it absolutely makes sense in a common parlance way.&nbsp; Just like I keep using &quot;moot&quot; in the common, but tecnically incorrect, way.But, if we are trying to have a conversation about technical correctness, then we need to be technically correct, yes?&nbsp; So what I'm interested in is not whether everybody understands what is meant (however technically incorrect) by, &quot;I'll make an Investigation check&quot;, but rather that if by accepting that language we are somehow turning &quot;Investigation checks&quot; into a mechanic with the same specificity of, say, the Hide action or the Shove action.The argument in question is that a skill is specific enough to override the general case.&nbsp; But, really, the way a skill is used it's just an add-on to an attribute.&nbsp; Right?&nbsp; You don't make a skill roll, you make an attribute roll, and sometimes you add proficiency bonus if you have a skill.&nbsp; So, if the theory that skills are specific exceptions to the general rule is to be true, it means one of two things:1. Attribute roll are also meet the definition of specific, which basically means everything meets the definition of specific.&nbsp; Which means the general rule is always overridden, and isn't actually a general rule.2. Attribute rolls without a skill proficiency aren't specific, but if you get the skill bonus somehow it suddenly becomes specific enough.&nbsp; ???&nbsp; I don't really think either of those arguments make sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bill Zebub, post: 8477165, member: 7031982"] No, it absolutely makes sense in a common parlance way. Just like I keep using "moot" in the common, but tecnically incorrect, way. But, if we are trying to have a conversation about technical correctness, then we need to be technically correct, yes? So what I'm interested in is not whether everybody understands what is meant (however technically incorrect) by, "I'll make an Investigation check", but rather that if by accepting that language we are somehow turning "Investigation checks" into a mechanic with the same specificity of, say, the Hide action or the Shove action. The argument in question is that a skill is specific enough to override the general case. But, really, the way a skill is used it's just an add-on to an attribute. Right? You don't make a skill roll, you make an attribute roll, and sometimes you add proficiency bonus if you have a skill. So, if the theory that skills are specific exceptions to the general rule is to be true, it means one of two things: 1. Attribute roll are [I]also[/I] meet the definition of specific, which basically means [I]everything[/I] meets the definition of specific. Which means the general rule is always overridden, and isn't actually a general rule. 2. Attribute rolls without a skill proficiency aren't specific, but if you get the skill bonus somehow it suddenly becomes specific enough. ??? I don't really think either of those arguments make sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification