There really was no way I could think of to shorten that title 
I've been thinking a lot about how certain classes seem to be lacking in some fundamental areas. In most cases this isn't a huge issue but in some I see it as significant. The minor ones are that wizard should have Arcana as a free skill, clerics should have Religion for free and druids should have Animal Handling or Herbalism Kit proficiency.
The major one that I see as problematic is with the warlock. In my opinion the warlock should have Eldritch Blast as a free cantrip and Agonizing Blast as a free invocation. Classes without these skills and abilities don't make much sense and few people make characters without them anyway which makes it feel more like a tax than a choice.
Are there any others you can think of or do you agree/disagree and think it's just fine as is?
Considering that the DCs for ability checks are intentionally set low enough that there are reasonable chances of success without including proficiency bonus, or even a particularly high ability modifier, I think that the system is fine as is.
I think that the tactical combat module should offer the option of choosing a role and then give you a free ability to enable a character to fulfill her role better. As it stands, no character can really be a decent defender without taking at least a couple of specific feats.
The entire list of skills needs to be increased by an order of magnitude. We'll see what if anything is said in the DMG with regards to adding skills.
draegn wrote:
@mechapilot Broken down into smaller, more specific skills. For example, instead of a single spell casting skill you have spell casting illusions, spell casting divinations, etc.... You can do the same with weapons, any "thievery" activitity and so forth.
MechaPilot wrote:
draegn wrote:
I can think of a couple more skills that I would like to see, but I pray that it is never "an order of magnitude". It's just not meant to be that sort of game.
Shasarak wrote:
Well truth be told there are plenty of priests in real life that don't seem to know anything even about their own religion... so a Cleric without the skill may actually have a logical parallel. 
Given that the religion skill would apply to more than just the priest character's religion, I think that a priest without that skill illustrates a priest that knows nothing about other religions.
One of my crazy ideas for home rules is a module to add more abilities scores: Courage, technique, karma and astuteness.
Astuteness would be used for evil clerics and social skills.
Techniques are for slow or pre-learnt actions: crafting, art, dance, martial arts....
Courage would be useful for horror campaigns.
Karma would be like luck or fate, used for favored souls.
To avoid abuses by munchkins with the max-min I suggest to use two different pools of buy-points, and player could swamp a couple of abilities socres.
Yeah, you could potentially give each class a free skill. Some players might not like having that choice made for them, though. What if someone wants to play a wizard who flunked out of Arcane Theory 101? He's got the practical side of casting spells down, but he can't tell you anything about liches or Limbo. It'd be like someone who learns to play guitar by ear without learning how to read musical notation and or studying musical theory.
pukunui wrote:
draegn wrote:
Nesian42Ryukaiel wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
My Warlock likes the utility of his invocations, and does not have Agonizing Blast. Weird, I know o_O
(also, I love how they did skills this edition. You can choose Thievery and Stealth as a rogue, but don't HAVE to. A Bard doesn't HAVE to know Arcana. The Sorcerer knows they have powers, but not necessarily why. And due to backgrounds, anyone can, essentially, get any skill. Which is great! It allows any "gaps" in the party composition to be filled, if the group thinks that's necessary. OR it can just be used as an RP device. "Yeah I'm a rogue. But I know Arcana because I dropped out of school..." And let's not forget you only make a roll when the DM says. You may not be trained in religion, but if your whole family was slaughtered by mummies before your eyes, you probably won't need to make a roll to certain knowledge checks about them! So they might not know a thing about vampires, or the difference between a WIght and a Zombie, but dammit they know about mummies!)
lawrencehoy wrote:
I would rule something like that:
- Clerics have proficient with their own religion, always. If they do take the Religion skill they know about religions in general, not just his own.
- Wizards have proficient with arcane matters related directly to what he uses in his class and spellcasting. The wizard with Arcana skill knows about magic in general, even from other classes or whatever random magical effects he may encounter.
- Rangers have proficient with animals and plants (any check related to that) in his Favored Terrain, or at least in the region he comes from. If he has the skill he has general proficiency with those things.
And so on...
It's a simple matter of adding the proficiency bonus whenever you think some check would be pertinent to that character despite his skill choice.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Joe_the_Rat wrote:
Joe_the_Rat wrote: