Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9334397" data-attributes="member: 23751">I would make something up.&nbsp; A foot race against something naturally faster would be a losing proposition from the get go, and a winning one against something slower.&nbsp; It would only matter if speeds were the same.&nbsp; Feats would matter.&nbsp; If you had the run feat and could by RAW sprint faster, you'd win unless your opponent also had that feat. If it was a marathon, then the person with endurance would have a significant advantage. And so on. It's not.&nbsp; It only identifies what spell, not anything else.&nbsp; If you want to know about the practical applications of magic, you'd use knowledge arcana.Possibly.No.No.&nbsp; Knowledge history is a general skill, which is why DCs go way up for esoteric pieces of information.&nbsp; Someone who is highly specialized in one narrow aspect of history wouldn't have DCs that high for the same piece of information.&nbsp; For knowledge that deep, you go to a sage.Agreed. That was a points issue, though, not a skill issue.&nbsp; And one that is easily solved by simply giving a 4 point minimum per level, and further solved by getting rid of the bogus notion of class and cross class skills.No. That all made sense as well.&nbsp; A lot of people can hide much better than they can move silently, and searching and spotting things are very different skills.&nbsp; One is perceptual(spot), and the other(search) is more about the method than perception.&nbsp; And listening isn't even related to the rest of those.&nbsp; Grouping them all together is nonsensical. I've known folks who were so oblivious that they wouldn't notice a bull if it was standing in front of them, couldn't find lost keys because they just sort of randomly walked places in the house and half assed looked, yet had hearing so sharp a mouse would have trouble sneaking up on them. The skills you describe above are not related to one another and don't belong in a group.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 9334397, member: 23751"] I would make something up. A foot race against something naturally faster would be a losing proposition from the get go, and a winning one against something slower. It would only matter if speeds were the same. Feats would matter. If you had the run feat and could by RAW sprint faster, you'd win unless your opponent also had that feat. If it was a marathon, then the person with endurance would have a significant advantage. And so on. It's not. It only identifies what spell, not anything else. If you want to know about the practical applications of magic, you'd use knowledge arcana. Possibly. No. No. Knowledge history is a general skill, which is why DCs go way up for esoteric pieces of information. Someone who is highly specialized in one narrow aspect of history wouldn't have DCs that high for the same piece of information. For knowledge that deep, you go to a sage. Agreed. That was a points issue, though, not a skill issue. And one that is easily solved by simply giving a 4 point minimum per level, and further solved by getting rid of the bogus notion of class and cross class skills. No. That all made sense as well. A lot of people can hide much better than they can move silently, and searching and spotting things are very different skills. One is perceptual(spot), and the other(search) is more about the method than perception. And listening isn't even related to the rest of those. Grouping them all together is nonsensical. I've known folks who were so oblivious that they wouldn't notice a bull if it was standing in front of them, couldn't find lost keys because they just sort of randomly walked places in the house and half assed looked, yet had hearing so sharp a mouse would have trouble sneaking up on them. The skills you describe above are not related to one another and don't belong in a group. [/QUOTE]

Verification