Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 5711252" data-attributes="member: 98255">And I remember that thread. I don't agree with that method either, which is why I suggested handling it differently. As I implied, this would be a trained check, maybe even with skill focus, based on a stat. The stat could depend on how you describe your skill(s).Someone who is technically good might use Dex or Int in this case. Someone who is a performer, probably Charisma, maybe Wisdom.It's hardly worth getting angry over. But having a separate skill for riding seems like a waste, for the few times it actually comes up in the typical game. If your campaign is all about that stuff, sure, add something (maybe like I suggested above), but in an average game, I think it's safe to assume that most characters can ride competently, and if your background or theme or feat choices indicate you are better at it, then you are. In lacking a specific skill, all you have to do is adjust the DC down by 5.As others have said, the 3.x skill system was also garbage design IMHO. For the opposite reasons, as others have also said.But sorry, unless you have a campaign focus on any area that the skills do not cover, then I hold that it is little more than anatomy measuring to need to have a number to know just how good you are. It's purely fluff the vast majority of the time.If 5e can do anything right in this regard, it will be to make the skill system modular enough that it can accommodate a more nitpicky "ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage" approach, as well as the current, simplified system. And preferably a few notches in between. Because I'm not saying that you're wrong to want these things (I do think you are wrong for calling it bad design), I just don't want the same things you do, but I want us to both get what we want.</blockquote>

Verification