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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 6244515" data-attributes="member: 43019">It's odd, but I've repeatedly seen some posts that turn having some PCs which are okay at combat and some PCs which are good at combat to "all PCs are equal at combat". It seemed out of place the first time, so I tried to be really clear the next few times, but it keeps coming back to it.Even in systems that claim equal combat parity, they really don't have that, so I think it's safe to drop completely equal combat capabilities as an objection. They'll always _try_ to have the fighter be all combat all the time, and some other classes like the rogue or bard have more non-combat stuff. Even if I'm not entirely clear that supports the fiction (courtly knights, thieving barbarians, acrobatic duelists, etc), it's _D&D_ legacy at this point.  Now, if you really do want all rogues to suck at combat (as opposed to just the rogues who choose to do so), that's probably still worth discussion to figure out why.I'll say - you may have had SkC run very differently than I have and do (across a number of DMs, groups, and adventures). Benchpressing the King for your (Athletics-Diplomacy) check isn't really common, so they don't work the way they maybe have for you. Even in a situation where the DM is good with it, note it may not pay off - a fighter with Diplomacy +10 and Athletics +20 may need a Hard Athletics instead of an Easy Diplomacy, and actually be more likely to fail.That said, we don't have to worry about SkCs in 5e, we know this. So, doesn't really matter.</blockquote>

Verification