Forum

I am not heartened by the promise to expand the skill list. Twenty-five is a lot. Even Shadowrun doesn't have that many anymore.

If I were the one making the call, I would condense the weapon skills to 3 (melee, ranged, brawling-or-equivalent), leaving room for at most 3 new skills. I'd still aim for 16, that's a good number.

I am personally strongly against this. While i can agree that i am currently unsure if 25 is the right amount ( i personally think i lean more towards 20-22 but overall not too fuzzy) i am not keen on the idea of condensing down all the weapon skills like this.

If we take what Tomas wrote on the other swedish form (as stated by Fenhorn): "The amount of combat skills is lower but still about a third. We think that this is needed - combat is after all a central part of the game. To have just two combat skills (melee and range) would just lead to that all players would choose those which would devalue the Fighter and the Knight. Just to be able to pick up any weapon should be the Fighters specialty."

Condensing down weapon skills into just Melee, brawling and range would remove ways of differing the pcs from one and another in terms of combat ability. Sure, you can make the argument that you have heroic abilities for that, and that your character can just stick to a certain weapon type for flavor. But Even if my pc is a spear man who's never wielded a sword before, if a magical sword pops up, why would i not pick it up? I can already use it flawlessly sense both weapons classes as "Melee" and it would be an upgrade, even if it would potentially clash with the backstory of my character.

I like the idea that most weapons are their own skill. It means you need to consider what kind of weapon you want to be good at, and as mentioned, the flavor of the fighter/warrior is that they are the "weapons guy" (having few practical skills, but can use practically any weapon you stumble upon). If you want to use something else, you need to train your skill in it first. It might even be a story hook that the party finds a legendary weapon they need to defeat a mighty foe, but it is a weapon none of them are used to, thus one of them must train themselves to use it.

Now i am not strictly against the idea of potentially condensing down the weapon skills a bit if possible. I just do not want it all condensed down to a single option.

Well, I at least hope they'll aim a bit lower on the additions--like 2 or 3, not 9.

I'm totally against adding more skills, they just be come redundant - we don't need to know if someone 'swims' better than they 'jump' when playing a light RPG. I'd rather the team focuses on more abilities and the like than skills!

That said - a couple of more Charisma skills wouldn't go astray... and adding a Ride skill. Maybe we end up with 2 or 3 more not 9 or so!

That said - a couple of more Charisma skills wouldn't go astray... and adding a Ride skill. Maybe we end up with 2 or 3 more not 9 or so!

Pretty much in agreement myself here.

Sneaking is only possible when you can see or hear the enemy you wish to avoid - what is the reasoning behind this? It seems to go against the basic principle of stealth: if you wander about until you see or hear the enemy, it's a bit late - surely there's a good chance they will see or hear you at the same time, or earlier if they are on guard duty.

I would delete that paragraph.

Why is the skill for thrown weapons based on STR? I can see STR affecting range and damage, but surely the actual roll to hit should be based on AGL?

Sneaking is only possible when you can see or hear the enemy you wish to avoid - what is the reasoning behind this? It seems to go against the basic principle of stealth: if you wander about until you see or hear the enemy, it's a bit late - surely there's a good chance they will see or hear you at the same time, or earlier if they are on guard duty.

I would delete that paragraph.

It's to avoid situations of "i'm sneaking JUST IN CASE there is a big, horrible monster/guard patrol/something i want to avoid entierly, and they can't find me because i already beat my SNEAKING check even though i would'nt know in advance i need to sneak".

Sense the rules advocates to only roll skill checks when it is necessery or if there are stakes involed, it makes sense to only roll when there is a threat i'm aware of, rather for every time i try to move quietly.

To give an example: My character is infiltraiting an orc fortress. I know it has guards but i get in via a window. I'm in a corridor, no guards, and i tell my dm i move carefully and quietly down it. Sense there are no immediate threats they say "ok your sneaking", and i move quietly. I tip toe my way into a larger room when i hear footsteps from an adjacent corridor, most likely a patrol. I tell my dm i wanna hide. Sense there is an incoming danger i'm trying to hide from, they tell me to roll SNEAKING, with the dice and my skill level deciding if i succed or not.

I'm totally against adding more skills, they just be come redundant - we don't need to know if someone 'swims' better than they 'jump' when playing a light RPG. I'd rather the team focuses on more abilities and the like than skills!

Meanwhile I'm against merging different traversal skills into a single Athletics skill, because it trivializes environmental hazards and traps, diminishing the importance of excitement of exploration. Plus I have alsways been pretty awful at swimming, and it's only thanks to climbing that I managed to get a mediocre grade in highschool PE instead of a godawful one...

I’d like to throw out an appeal that a ”Ride” skill be Charisma based rather than Agility.

Being a good rider is more about building trust, a relationship, and reading the animal more than about physical coordination. The latter plays a role but it’s not the most important one. And from a game design perspective Charisma can always use a bit more love.

Thanks for the feedback here! We're listening.