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: 5711626" data-attributes="member: 98255">And none of them need to. All of these things are adequately represented by an ad-hoc model. The first example shouldn't even be an issue in most campaigns, especially not past first level but ok, let's assume that for whatever reason, it is. Ad-hoc method like mine works fine. Make your check, DM makes a judgment call and you're done. In real life, I don't even think it matters. I've given money to street performers, but do you actually think I gave a crap how 'good' they were? Heck no. I gave out of charity, or pity, or whatever. I respected the fact that they were doing something to earn it rather than flat out panhandling. I know lots of people who feel the same way.Competition for a monetary prize? My (or a similar) model still works. But if this is actually something in the campaign's plot, or even a sidequest, I sure hope that it isn't decided by a couple of dice rolls in some obscure overly specific skill. I should hope there is more to it than that. Intruigue, sabotaging the competition, trying not to be sabotaged yourself, etc. Something like a skill challenge. Preferably one involving more than just one character.If it is even a part of the story at all, more than likely the DM put it there knowing that you put ranks in a relevant skill, or you went looking for it to justify your investment.  Your third example is no different. If all you want to do is brag and show off about how high your skill in a given area is, the ad-hoc model works just fine. It's not a lot different than anything you would have done under 3.x - you just don't have to blow skill points on it - I'll take your word that your character is as good as you say he is. Though, you have to put some thought or effort into it. You have to have roleplayed it previously, or written it into your story, or whatever. End of the day? Same results. When it actually matters.Most of the rest of the time though, it's just not important.These are the same old arguments you've used before, and I'm still not buying them. It's just such a corner case that I don't care to bloat the skill system with that stuff. It's fluff. It's background. And when it becomes important there are ways to make it work.That said, I'm a clever guy, I can come up with this stuff. Not everyone can, so I do wish they would have put more effort into helping DMs with this area of the game, but by and large page 42 has it covered.I see no reason why a Starlock should automatically have any knowledge of the things he is making a pact with. I've read plenty of Lovecraft, and most of the time the pact-makers are clueless or insane, or both.That said, I agree that it should be on the Warlock's class list, since that is what it covers.Though if someone in one of my games came to me about this, I would let them take the skill if they had a good reason (like that one).Of course, now there are backgrounds (since PH2?) and you can put it on  your class list that way, and maybe even snag a bonus while you're at  it.Kind of a non-issue these days.</blockquote>

Verification