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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5715753" data-attributes="member: 82106">Ah, but you can rationalize, or fail to rationalize, practically anything. The lazylord is SMART, that's his shtick is being intellectually better equipped and using his problem solving ability to apply superior tactics, reflected in his powers. The sorcerer's arcane power comes from some natural source, he is just 'brimming with power'. He doesn't understand that power or know any of the theory behind magic, he just channels it by pure instinct and practice. There's no reason he is more likely to understand ritual magic than any fighter. I'm fine with the idea of letting characters sub a different ability score for a skill, because again you can pretty much rationalize most anything, but ALL arguments on all sides about this or that ability score being applicable to any given situation are always going to be arguable. People have rationalized EVERY single one of the six scores being a sensible attribute to apply to an attack role for instance (and just right here in this thread are plenty of examples). All such arguments are doomed to lead to disagreement that nobody is going to resolve.Skills just need bonuses to be reworked so that there's less stacking. If I were doing 5e I'd also immediately get rid of ability score boosts, they create more math nightmare than all other aspects of the game combined. Half the reason there ARE so many ways to boost up a skill was motivated in the first place to give non-primary skill users some chance to actually be useful.</blockquote>

Verification