Talk:D20r:Skills
From Fax Encyclopedicus
m (Talk:Skills moved to Talk:D20r: Skills) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Fax> But yeah, GI and Dip may become one, and Search->Awareness, DD -> Dungeoneering, OL -> Legerdemain | Fax> But yeah, GI and Dip may become one, and Search->Awareness, DD -> Dungeoneering, OL -> Legerdemain | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | NekoIncardine PROPOSAL: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Fax has cited dissatisfaction with two different ideas: | ||
| + | * Skill points being largely as-is, except for multitraining synergies replacing skill-to-skill ones. | ||
| + | * Skill points ceasing to be, in favor of being "trained" in x skills, rank = Hero Value + 3. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Neither quite works, but both work ''in some cases''. | ||
| + | |||
| + | My proposal is that this, like how stats are rolled, is a GM option - they can pick either, or let their players pick either. All skill lines are formatted as follows: | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Skills: A Wizard is trained in the Mage skill set and chooses one other. If using Skill Points, a Wizard gains 2+INT skill points per level, and are trained in the Scribe skill set.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some people will prefer one road over the other, and simply using ranks preserves more compatibility with general 3.5, which seems to be at least somewhat desirable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | From a play standpoint, the point-based method is better for being really good at a few thins, while the training method can be better for having a diverse skill set. | ||
