Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8011146" data-attributes="member: 16814">What issue -- the only issue you've actually mentioned is multiclassing.&nbsp; You caution me about assuming motivations, but I'm not assuming motivations -- you've pretty much only specifically talked about multiclassing.&nbsp; I don't need to guess your motivation for doing so to note that this is the only handle you've provided so far.&nbsp; Hence, I respond in terms of multiclassing.I call for ability checks and do not mention skills.&nbsp; I could summon a number of other posters that expressly do this as well.&nbsp; Your experience that GMs you know do not follow the rules as presented is nice -- you don't have to and it's not a bad thing at all -- but it doesn't hold much water when talking about removing an element of the game fundamentally presented as how you adjudicate actions. Secondly, I've been reliably told that you shouldn't assume motivations.&nbsp; I don't know you, or how you play, of if you're aware that the rules refer to ability checks (many seem surprised by this, I can provide multiple thread spanning the release of 5e to very recently where this happens).&nbsp; Making sure there's a baseline understanding to discuss deviation from is critical, in my book.I don't know what your options are meant to fix.&nbsp; And, I was responding to your response to me of &quot;skills.&quot;&nbsp; If you intended me to consider your other responses, you could have been more expansive.&nbsp; &nbsp;You say compatibility is &quot;entirely unchanged,&quot; but this is trivially easy to show as incorrect.&nbsp; If I have a monster with STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, and CHA scores, which do I use for a Heart save?&nbsp; Is that Charisma, which covers strength of character, or Wisdom, which covers mental fortitude?&nbsp; I dunno.&nbsp; Further, there are hundreds of monsters, each of which would have to be evaluated on theme and existing scores to determine what the new roll-up score would be. Each would have to be evaluated this way and changed if used.&nbsp; That makes my Monster Manual incompatible with play until I do the conversion.&nbsp; I'm not sure you've considered all of the impacts of this change rather than focusing on the high-level mechanics and assuming that all of the downstream conversion work is done or trivial.&nbsp; Using different stats is simple at the high level, if the game is already built that way.&nbsp; But, you're talking about changing a fundamental aspect of the game that interacts with combat, spells, saves, and action adjudication.&nbsp; It's present throughout the game system.&nbsp; Just coming up with a different schema doesn't make it a simple conversion or make your schema actually simple in practice rather than in isolation.&nbsp; Design work is harder than having an idea -- you have to look at what that idea entails.&nbsp; Here, it's a lot of conversion work.</blockquote>[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8011146, member: 16814"] What issue -- the only issue you've actually mentioned is multiclassing. You caution me about assuming motivations, but I'm not assuming motivations -- you've pretty much only specifically talked about multiclassing. I don't need to guess your motivation for doing so to note that this is the only handle you've provided so far. Hence, I respond in terms of multiclassing. I call for ability checks and do not mention skills. I could summon a number of other posters that expressly do this as well. Your experience that GMs you know do not follow the rules as presented is nice -- you don't have to and it's not a bad thing at all -- but it doesn't hold much water when talking about removing an element of the game fundamentally presented as how you adjudicate actions. Secondly, I've been reliably told that you shouldn't assume motivations. I don't know you, or how you play, of if you're aware that the rules refer to ability checks (many seem surprised by this, I can provide multiple thread spanning the release of 5e to very recently where this happens). Making sure there's a baseline understanding to discuss deviation from is critical, in my book. I don't know what your options are meant to fix. And, I was responding to your response to me of "skills." If you intended me to consider your other responses, you could have been more expansive. You say compatibility is "entirely unchanged," but this is trivially easy to show as incorrect. If I have a monster with STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, and CHA scores, which do I use for a Heart save? Is that Charisma, which covers strength of character, or Wisdom, which covers mental fortitude? I dunno. Further, there are hundreds of monsters, each of which would have to be evaluated on theme and existing scores to determine what the new roll-up score would be. Each would have to be evaluated this way and changed if used. That makes my Monster Manual incompatible with play until I do the conversion. I'm not sure you've considered all of the impacts of this change rather than focusing on the high-level mechanics and assuming that all of the downstream conversion work is done or trivial. Using different stats is simple at the high level, if the game is already built that way. But, you're talking about changing a fundamental aspect of the game that interacts with combat, spells, saves, and action adjudication. It's present throughout the game system. Just coming up with a different schema doesn't make it a simple conversion or make your schema actually simple in practice rather than in isolation. Design work is harder than having an idea -- you have to look at what that idea entails. Here, it's a lot of conversion work. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Verification