Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 6024025" data-attributes="member: 54877">If we are going to get something similar to the current model (i.e. not something out of left field that turns out to be more nifty than I can imagine), then I'd like to see skills broken into two distinct pieces:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Category A gives narrow but significant bonuses in something. DefCon1's discussion of &quot;Commerce&quot; fits this category.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Category B provides breadth. A character can now do something that they couldn't do otherwise.</li>
</ul>And never the twain shall meet. I'd guess that about half the problems in the 3E/4E/Next skill systems are because the same skills expand what can be done and provide bonuses to it.&nbsp;Alternately, replace Category A with Category C - a handful of relative broad, modest bonus picks that apply across several activities. If this option is chosen, then it needs to be clear that such picks apply to multiple ability scores.&nbsp;In Next terms thus far, C would be something like the background itself (&quot;Commoner +2&quot;), A would be like that &quot;Commerce&quot; skill, and B would be a new thing, perhaps &quot;training&quot; which would deliberately be changed by campaign. Though obviously since A and C aren't meant to be used together, the exact combination used would free up &quot;skill&quot; in different ways.&nbsp;But let's say for sake of argument that we go with &quot;training&quot; as A and &quot;skill&quot; as B. Then backgrounds and class features (e.g. rogue schemes) provide &quot;training&quot;. They expand what your character can do using the normal ability checks. Meanwhile, &quot;skill&quot; is getting better at whatever you can do, regardless of how you got that training in the first place--or even when it &quot;comes with breathing as an adventurer&quot; through the ability checks. &quot;Skill&quot; comes with level (including first, perhaps).&nbsp;Then provide default lists for A and B, but there is no particular need for a given group to stick with those defaults. And it's pretty easy to determine them. Not everyone can swim. So swim is &quot;training&quot;. But some campaigns decide that practically everyone can. So it's no longer &quot;training&quot; but rolled up into Str and/or Con. Playing a rather &quot;rogue-ish&quot; campaign where everyone is rather shady, but no one takes the rogue class? Maybe &quot;lock picking&quot; and &quot;handle traps&quot; are rolled into Dex. Play more traditional, they are &quot;training&quot;. Meanwhile, &quot;skills&quot; are merely specializations where you excell, while ability score bonuses are more broad.&nbsp;Finally, you'll note that inherent in this idea is that there is a default list of &quot;training&quot; options that are assumed to be turned off and thus rolled into the ability checks--just in case you want to narrow this somewhat. That is, somewhere they list &quot;jump&quot; and &quot;balance&quot; and &quot;spot&quot; and so on as &quot;training&quot; options that are not necessary to take in order to use. This clarifies what ability checks can do for everyone, and explicitly encourages you to change it here if you don't quite like the list.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 6024025, member: 54877"] If we are going to get something similar to the current model (i.e. not something out of left field that turns out to be more nifty than I can imagine), then I'd like to see skills broken into two distinct pieces: [LIST] [*]Category A gives narrow but significant bonuses in something. DefCon1's discussion of "Commerce" fits this category. [*]Category B provides breadth. A character can now do something that they couldn't do otherwise. [/LIST]And never the twain shall meet. I'd guess that about half the problems in the 3E/4E/Next skill systems are because the same skills expand what can be done and provide bonuses to it. Alternately, replace Category A with Category C - a handful of relative broad, modest bonus picks that apply across several activities. If this option is chosen, then it needs to be clear that such picks apply to multiple ability scores. In Next terms thus far, C would be something like the background itself ("Commoner +2"), A would be like that "Commerce" skill, and B would be a new thing, perhaps "training" which would deliberately be changed by campaign. Though obviously since A and C aren't meant to be used together, the exact combination used would free up "skill" in different ways. But let's say for sake of argument that we go with "training" as A and "skill" as B. Then backgrounds and class features (e.g. rogue schemes) provide "training". They expand what your character can do using the normal ability checks. Meanwhile, "skill" is getting better at whatever you can do, regardless of how you got that training in the first place--or even when it "comes with breathing as an adventurer" through the ability checks. "Skill" comes with level (including first, perhaps). Then provide default lists for A and B, but there is no particular need for a given group to stick with those defaults. And it's pretty easy to determine them. Not everyone can swim. So swim is "training". But some campaigns decide that practically everyone can. So it's no longer "training" but rolled up into Str and/or Con. Playing a rather "rogue-ish" campaign where everyone is rather shady, but no one takes the rogue class? Maybe "lock picking" and "handle traps" are rolled into Dex. Play more traditional, they are "training". Meanwhile, "skills" are merely specializations where you excell, while ability score bonuses are more broad. Finally, you'll note that inherent in this idea is that there is a default list of "training" options that are assumed to be turned off and thus rolled into the ability checks--just in case you want to narrow this somewhat. That is, somewhere they list "jump" and "balance" and "spot" and so on as "training" options that are not necessary to take in order to use. This clarifies what ability checks can do for everyone, and explicitly encourages you to change it here if you don't quite like the list. [/QUOTE]

Verification