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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6083620" data-attributes="member: 7006">I agree that classes shouldn't be getting new or additional "skills", because as has been said... what "skills" are in DDN is different than what they were in 3E and 4E.Ability checks are what we now use to denote what everybody knows.  Every Fighter already has Intimidation.  We just call it now a CHA check.  Or a STR check (depending on what the PC does to intimidate someone).  Those Fighters who have a higher STR or CHA are better at intimidating people than those who don't.  Unlike 3E/4E... our ability check modifiers are our baseline for what PCs are capable of.  What every character has learned over time being an adventurer.All Backgrounds do is tell us those couple of subjects that a particular PC has studied above and beyond normal adventuring education.  And usually... those do end up defaulting to just a couple subjects where a person is head and shoulders above his fellow men, because most PCs spend their lives doing their jobs rather than learning a huge swathe of different subjects in which they outclass everybody else (and the ones that do are Rogues).I mean, everybody on these boards here probably have a fairly extensive knowledge or ability in lots of random things.  And if we were "in-game" all of this knowledge and physical ability would be shown via our ability check modifiers.  But each of us probably has a couple subjects where we are hands-down more knowledgeable or just better than most everybody else.  Whether it's having earned a Master's Degree in Greek and Roman History, or playing semi-professional baseball, or 10 years of dance training, or is an expert in cold reading, or can run a marathon, or can rebuild a car engine... THESE are the kinds of thing where in DDN you'd have a "skill" (IE a bonus to your ability check).  And each of these things are a very isolated and specific endeavor.  None of us are the most knowledgeable person in the room in every part of History.  We each have a focus in only one part.  And if someone DID know more about all eras of history than everybody else... that should be denoted by just having an higher INT, rather than a generic "History" skill that encompasses ALL of it. So in my mind... anything you get as "skills" should not be a wide and generic thing (like 'Perception'), but instead a very specific skill you are trained head and shoulders above everyone else in (IE 'Forensics').  Because that is much more in tune with how the game seems to be set up.  And so long as every "skill" that is created is that laser focused where it's more of an "Ah ha!" moment when one of the players in the game realizes that he has something that would apply to a check (whereas the current 3E/4E system where it's expected that every single check rolled has an applicable skill associated with it and that at least one, if not two or three, PCs in fact are trained in that skill)... we will finally all get to thinking about the game's skill system in the correct way.For my money... I think the DDN system should be set up that like 50% of all ability checks a DM will ask for in the game will not in fact have any applicable "skills" associated with it that at least one of the PCs has.  Because only then will we finally come to realize that HAVING a "skill" that applies to a situation is in fact a rare and special occurrence... and not something that should be the expectation with each and every roll.</blockquote>

Verification