They're a bit... rigid and narrow, aren't they?

 

A hunter, one would presume, would know a fair bit about traps and such. That's mechanics right there. And survival of course, that's in. Good chance they know a fair bit about poison, so you've got your alchemy. And stealth is very important, but oops, we've hit the cap of 3 bonuses per background. Oh, and what about athletics?

 

Same goes for dissident. History, intimidate, stealth, sure, all fine choices. But what kind of bomb-throwing anarchist wouldn't have, say, explosives and philosophy?

 

It'd be a bit much to expect every background to give out a +1 to every skill that could vaguely be related to a background, but I think it would be Cool and Good if each background had, say, a half-dozen or so skills associated with it, and we got to pick 3 of them. It's a pretty minor thing - it's just a couple +1s, after all - but I think it could go a long way towards making character creation feel good for a lot of people. It's also more-or-less the model that every remotely modern D&D game has followed, for what it's worth.

Maybe reduce the number of skills from classes? Some people feel very pidgeonholed due to backgrounds having skills in the first place, so increasing the number of skills points from backgrounds would probably not make them happy.

If it was up to me, the background (both the culture and profession) wouldn't have any effect on your skills or stats (they'd be purely for RP purposes)

.

.

.

I would probably remove the skills from classes as well. Just give the people the number of skills and let them build their own characters, i say. I mean, all of the skills seem pretty universal and don't really seem like they should be dependent on your characters class/background.

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by Juodas Varnas

I do like OP suggestion - each background have a range of skills which apply and than you choose what those skills are.

I don't think the backgrounds are specific enough for this. I mean, what about the mercenary? You can be a soldier, a bodyguard, or a constable. What about the merchant? You can be a craftsman or some other things as well. Some might be focused enough (say Scholar with lore) but for most the specifics you can pick in dialogue options are too different. 

I don't think the backgrounds are specific enough for this. I mean, what about the mercenary? You can be a soldier, a bodyguard, or a constable. What about the merchant? You can be a craftsman or some other things as well. Some might be focused enough (say Scholar with lore) but for most the specifics you can pick in dialogue options are too different.

 

Wouldn’t multiple skill options be better for this? If you picked the fisherman background under hunter, you probably would pick something else over mechanics, for example.

They really need to replace intimidate with explosives on the dissident.

I don't think the backgrounds are specific enough for this. I mean, what about the mercenary? You can be a soldier, a bodyguard, or a constable. What about the merchant? You can be a craftsman or some other things as well. Some might be focused enough (say Scholar with lore) but for most the specifics you can pick in dialogue options are too different. 

 

Yes, but I don't think we need game systems for this. Recent discussions have railed about how changes have reduced "role playing". Game systems are not needed for this. You have the options to put your skills where you want them, I don't think there should be any bonus skills so you could pick which ever skills you wanted that fit your character, but I am just weird that way. 

I would probably remove the skills from classes as well. Just give the people the number of skills and let them build their own characters, i say. I mean, all of the skills seem pretty universal and don't really seem like they should be dependent on your characters class/background.

Agreed. Correct me if my interpretation is wrong but wasn't the original vision behind skills in PoE about them being universal, about them not being at all class-specific? If I wanted to make a fighter who was really stealthy and good with traps, or a really athletic wizard I should be able to do so, is that not why all classes have the same number of skill points and access to all skills? The idea of giving bonuses to certain classes/backgrounds, even if only a minor +1 or +2, seems to contradict that concept entirely and what we end up with is a system which guides the player towards a pre-determined result while attempting to maintain the notion of freedom. To do-away with class skill-bonuses altogether is the best option - allow the player to experience true flexibility.

I think your pushing the "every build and character concept is viable" train a little too far. 
Having +1 stealth for a rogue simply lets you play a character who thought they could become a thief when they stole a pie from their deaf and rheumy eyed grandmother.
Likewise a i can't see that many players creating a hunter, who hasn't learn't that putting poison ivy down their pants is a really bad idea.
A few skill points in the wrong area isn't going to ruin a play through and will still likely have some use.

I think your pushing the "every build and character concept is viable" train a little too far. 

Having +1 stealth for a rogue simply lets you play a character who thought they could become a thief when they stole a pie from their deaf and rheumy eyed grandmother.

Likewise a i can't see that many players creating a hunter, who hasn't learn't that putting poison ivy down their pants is a really bad idea.

A few skill points in the wrong area isn't going to ruin a play through and will still likely have some use.

 

Then put one of your points in stealth. Viola, you have exactly what you want. 

 

Mechanics should endeavor not to interfere with role playing, but they should focus on making the game technically sound and consistent. Give players the room to role play, and in my opinion (which is very possibly wrong), the outcome will satisfy both the players and the objectives and the design documents.