Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BookBarbarian" data-source="post: 7509311" data-attributes="member: 6802553">It doesn't matter if the Wizard has a higher bonus to investigate than Fighter, If the Wizard never describes what their character does in a way that the DM calls for a Intelligence (Investigation) Check, but the Fighter does.At this point my group's druid has a +6 to Survival, but she has never described her character doing any tracking or other wilderness activities in any of our sessions.My Barbarian has a +4 to Survival, and when we were trying to track some missing villagers and discover what happened to them. I had him examine the tracks. He made the check, but would have failed without proficiency, and was able to determine where the villagers went and that there were larger than humanoid tracks heading the same direction.I had fun doing that. Would it have been better if the Druid had made the check, or if we had a Ranger in the Party, or if some spell has cast that could have imparted the information to us without a chance of failure? Absolutely. But none of those things happened so I did what I could and was grateful to have 14 Wis and just measly Survival proficiency.Now I'm not saying that the skills system couldn't be improved, just that a certain style of play mitigates the problem of only some players contributing to Ability Checks, even if it's known that they have the best chance at it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BookBarbarian, post: 7509311, member: 6802553"] It doesn't matter if the Wizard has a higher bonus to investigate than Fighter, If the Wizard never describes what their character does in a way that the DM calls for a Intelligence (Investigation) Check, but the Fighter does. At this point my group's druid has a +6 to Survival, but she has never described her character doing any tracking or other wilderness activities in any of our sessions. My Barbarian has a +4 to Survival, and when we were trying to track some missing villagers and discover what happened to them. I had him examine the tracks. He made the check, but would have failed without proficiency, and was able to determine where the villagers went and that there were larger than humanoid tracks heading the same direction. I had fun doing that. Would it have been better if the Druid had made the check, or if we had a Ranger in the Party, or if some spell has cast that could have imparted the information to us without a chance of failure? Absolutely. But none of those things happened so I did what I could and was grateful to have 14 Wis and just measly Survival proficiency. Now I'm not saying that the skills system couldn't be improved, just that a certain style of play mitigates the problem of only some players contributing to Ability Checks, even if it's known that they have the best chance at it. [/QUOTE]

Verification