Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6026557" data-attributes="member: 14506">I think you misunderstand. The concept is stuff that is common to everyone climb, jump, talk, read, hide, balance, resist stuff, lift, carry, swim, spot, find info in a library, convince... you should put these literally under each stat as things you can do with a stat roll. Now as to the trickier stuff lock picking, tracking, being a sage on some topic, weapon smith, or any other skill you can only use with extensive training. These are where backgrounds can come in.Conseptually the stats represent what a normal person without extensive training could do. Real strong makes you excellent at carrying, climbing and swimming. Quick? You can hide balance dodge etc. real good. The point is that stats already represent what your character is good at. I really do not see a reason to confound that.For me the question is what if you are playing Elric, a sickly warrior. Your str and con scores are 8 say. So now you are at a distinct disadvantage as a warrior. For basic skills you have a tough time swimming climbing and running for a while. This makes sense! Would it be appropriate to have a player decide I do not want to have that be a disadvantage. And they take skills to shore up the swimming and climbing and running. Is that right? I really feel like those should be inherent problems for taking low stats. Raise stats if would to have a way of improving your everyday skill at things like climbing and swimming. Outside of everyday common skills though backgrounds could play a big part. And this can be open ended. If you are a brewer as part of your background. You know your way around a brewery, you can use int to appraise ingredients, cha to sell goods to those on the road, the options are immense. Of course brewer might have been one of the three skill choices that came with the commoner background. This would be a system I would be interested in.</blockquote>

Verification