Why only allow yourself 7 Skills to GM level?
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:18 am
I noticed everyone wants a 6 0r 7 GM character. Wouldn't that be a nuisance for a well balanced rogue for instance? How about a fighting class character that uses magery? Should he drop his parry and open himself up to Archers whom I have discovered firsthand are hindered by the sheild tremendously? Am I wrong to say that even a 25-40 in real points skill have a higher percentage then that to succeed under normal conditions?
Isn't a well rounded character supposed to have primary and secondary abilities after all?
No one likes to fail, but even at GM levels it happens. What do you think about having only 3 or 4 Gm skills ? I mean you can have 5 skills at 80 3 at 100 as an example.
The reason I am bringing this up is I want a well rounded rogue who can do it all, but maybe not all the time that would benefit a party. One who sticks to the shadows and attacks if needed and can heal himself in the isolation of self preservation but his main focus is the tricks of the adventuring trade.
I am not talking street theif here...but a glorified treasure hunter who can pick locks and scout ahead or behind to cover the tracks.
Many characters are strong in their areas of knowledge because they venture out alone almost 90 percent of the time and they depend on their skills to not fail them ever even though their gameplay might.
I mentioned my fighting class mage. I was running at an archer at one of the events and he was pegging me every shot. I had only 35 parry at the time and had raised my sheild up after being riddled with arrows. After that he could no longer hit me. I closed in and then had the advantage. He had to yeild and give up his position which left the way open for the rest of my team. Without the sheild the battle may have gone in the opposite direction. Normally a tank mage would drop that skill entirely, but for me just a little went a long way.
So besides ideas for a well rounded adventuring class rogue, I pose this question to all of you. Is knowing alot about a little worth more then knowing a little of alot?
Isn't a well rounded character supposed to have primary and secondary abilities after all?
No one likes to fail, but even at GM levels it happens. What do you think about having only 3 or 4 Gm skills ? I mean you can have 5 skills at 80 3 at 100 as an example.
The reason I am bringing this up is I want a well rounded rogue who can do it all, but maybe not all the time that would benefit a party. One who sticks to the shadows and attacks if needed and can heal himself in the isolation of self preservation but his main focus is the tricks of the adventuring trade.
I am not talking street theif here...but a glorified treasure hunter who can pick locks and scout ahead or behind to cover the tracks.
Many characters are strong in their areas of knowledge because they venture out alone almost 90 percent of the time and they depend on their skills to not fail them ever even though their gameplay might.
I mentioned my fighting class mage. I was running at an archer at one of the events and he was pegging me every shot. I had only 35 parry at the time and had raised my sheild up after being riddled with arrows. After that he could no longer hit me. I closed in and then had the advantage. He had to yeild and give up his position which left the way open for the rest of my team. Without the sheild the battle may have gone in the opposite direction. Normally a tank mage would drop that skill entirely, but for me just a little went a long way.
So besides ideas for a well rounded adventuring class rogue, I pose this question to all of you. Is knowing alot about a little worth more then knowing a little of alot?
