Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Ranger and Druid can chose to be proficient in Nature (chosing Wanderer background typically) but only at a low + value unless you invest in intelligence.
Druids and Rangers class important scores are Wisdom, Dexterity and Constitution, which means if you want to have a high nature proficiency + you have to have to invest points in a non-class score.
To compare with Wizard. Wizards need high Intelligence, and typically a good choice is Academic since it gives Arcana proficiency (and also nature proficiency).
My point is Wizard will end up typically having a much higher nature score than a Druid or Ranger because in this game nature is under Intelligence. That is imbalanced and does not fit with logical class skill proficiency.
Therefore nature bonus proficiency needs to be under Wisdom (a class score of Rangers and Druids) to make it fit with relative class skills. Since it would be expected that nature is more relative to Rangers and Druids not Wizards.
Nature, like Arcana and Religion, is a knowledge skill which is why it uses Intelligence rather than Wisdom. The classes that classically have knowledge of nature get to choose to be proficient in the skill.
Did you even read what I wrote?
I read what you wrote, considered it irrelevant to the way the skills work, and reiterated what I wrote since you clearly didn't read it the first time.
It's obvious you just don't understand what I'm getting at.
You offered your opinion on how you think the skills should be. I replied with the reason why the skills are the way they are. If you look at the game as a whole, you might just find that skills aren't specifically designed for the classes that normally use them. They are assigned to the attribute that makes the most logical sense. That's why you have:
Wisdom
Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition.
Survival. The GM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to follow tracks, hunt wild game, guide your group through frozen wastelands, identify signs that owlbears live nearby, predict the weather, or avoid quicksand and other natural hazards.
Intelligence
Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.
Nature. Your Intelligence (Nature) check measures your ability to recall lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles.
Thanks for taking a continued interest. :)
It seems to me you made my arguement for me....
The definition of *Wisdom* includes knowledge (with it's experience and application),
Which is what you have said here; vis-a-vis *ability to recall lore and interaction with* why in a game like this about professions and a *skill check* about nature belongs more to the profession (Druid/Ranger) that daily interacts with nature *hands on* more than a profession (Wizard) that studies it academically.
Another way to look at it is:
2 characters roll dice for stats, they each roll 5x10 and 1x18.
A druid will put the 18 in Wisdom, a Wizard will put the 18 in Intelligence, (all other stats at 10 give a flat zero bonus). Typically the Wizard takes Academic as background since that gives the arcana proficiency (but it also gives nature). The Druid or Ranger takes Wanderer background since that gives survival and nature proficiancy.
The Wizard will get a proficiency in *Nature* with a +6 bonus.
The Druid or Ranger will get a proficiency in *Nature* but with only a +2 bonus.
That does not seem correct. Each class has maxed their most important stat, yet the Druid or Ranger is sadly lacking in area that it really ought to have a high score for. The only way the Druid or Ranger could get a +6 proficiency is by having 18 intelligence also (but of course Intelligence is not really a class skill for Druids or Rangers).
I think it should be the other way around. The max bonus should be under Wisdom giving the Druid or Ranger +6 Nature and the Wizard gets +2 Nature. That would seem to be more accurate.
The Ranger or Druid not having a high nature lore skill would be like Arragorn or Legolas (in LOTR) getting lost because they can't remember what a particular hill or forest looks like.....or not able to tell the time of day by the position of the sun or moon because somehow they *forgot* how to do that. Which of course would be silly.
I can't really disagree with either one of you Cartesian Duelist is correctly stating how the current rule set works. While Sticky Wicket is making a logical argument for how they think it should work. They are definitely not the first to mention how the system chooses who makes rolls on lore checks is not that intuitive. It appears to be functioning correctly but the way it does function can leave one scratching their heads with the way the choice is implemented in the rule set.
The Intelligence-based Nature skill is what you use to know that Owlbears live in temperate forests and eat people. The Wisdom-based Survival skill is what you use to know that there is an Owlbear living in this forest which has eaten several people. The Nature skill is knowledge about nature and requires zero Wisdom. I'm not sure how you think that makes you point for you. You want Nature to be Survival but they are two totally different skills.
Not at all.
You said in your post (which is what the game description pretty much says too) re: nature "ability to recall lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles." that is most assuredly what a Ranger or Druid would need to have in their daily life to a high degree of skill...or they would be really bad at what they do. Like I said about Arragorn or Legolas (or Radagast ~ who certainly could be thought of as a Druid) they know exactly how to recall lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles...or they would be clueless fools stumbling around the wilderness.
One of my posts was the copy/pasted text from the 5e SRD, there is no "pretty much" about it. That is exactly what the rules say. Just because a Druid or Ranger would be able to make the best use of the skill in no way indicates that it must be Wisdom-based just because that's their primary stat. It's not impossible for Rangers or Druids to take a decent Intelligence score so that their Nature skill bonus is higher. Arcana, History, Nature, and Religion are all Intelligence skills because they reflect knowledge/lore about subjects which is a function of Intelligence and not Wisdom. From a mechanical standpoint, a Druid or Ranger with proficiency in Nature and no Intelligence bonus will eventually know more about Nature than the world's smartest wizard with no proficiency in Nature and a maximum Intelligence bonus (+6 vs +5).
Your argument that the Nature skill should be Wisdom-based is like saying that the Athletics skill should be Dexterity-based because Rogues use it more than Fighters do. The classes that primarily use a skill are irrelevant to the attribute that the skill falls under.
For a start I think Athletics is correctly under strength and rogues in my experience use acrobatics more than athletics.
You obviously think the rules are right/the game is right (in this particular instance), but I disagree and nothing you have said convinces me otherwise.
I have provided very logical reasons and points, but I do not think you have actually addressed nor answered them yet. Simply repeating the game rules makes no further arguement either.
What you have said here (above) is just way off.....I don't see how you can possibly think the relationship between primary stats and usage of skills is irrelevant. The most important skills for a character should fall under the most important stat that governs it, if this were not so the game rules would be illogical.
The fact remains that because Intelligence is the most important stat for Wizzards (and probably rogues too), and given that this game seems to default ability checks to the character with highest intelligence when it comes to any area under it what you have said above does not actually happen.
For example: I have a rogue in my party that has the highest intelligence, and the game seems to default relative ability checks to them nearly all the time (but ignoring the fact that they may not have the highest proficiency scores in the particular category under intelligence).
Yes, it is not impossible for a Ranger or Druid to have a decent intelligence score (and have a decent proficiency nature score accordingly) but intelligence is not a primary stat for rangers and Druids, meaning their skill in nature is typically always going to be less than that of a Wizard or Rogue . That does not seem correct to me. Their score should not be *decent* but *good* by default.
It should not be that a Ranger or Druid should have to invest points in a non-class area to be highly proficient in a skill that has more relevance to them. Putting nature under Intelligence is like if the game put arcane under wisdom.
Thanks for that. It's good to see that at least one other person agrees that I have a valid point to make. :)
I am a new player to this game, (but I am a veteran player of Neverwinter Nights; been playing that ever since it came out 20 years ago), and I am indeed finding the mechanics of Solasta puzzling.
The more I play it the more I am convinced it is doing odd things with regard to skill/ability checks, in some cases it almost seems to be random. Pretty much every single scripted conversation that I have come across so far where possible responses/actions are decided by ability checks seem to be unfathomable: chosing a character with no skill in deception saying "lets trick them" (zero percent chance of success), chosing a character with no skill in persuasion to attempt to persuade (zero chance of success), Chosing the character with highest Intimidation score +8 to say *lets kill them* (whilst defaulting intimidation option to a character with no skill in intimidation).
Again, it seems intelligence is being overused as a skill check when it really ought to be more relevant to actual skills.
~~~~
On a more general point; the idea of Solasta having an editor that is as involved and complex as the NWN toolset is very appealing.
I think if they would of made those lore skill checks the same as the ones for the dialogue choices it would be much more palatable to players, giving them a feel of agency on who does what. I can see the point that Rangers and Druids should get a bonus to nature based on the class concept, I would in fact run it that way as a DM in any campaign, Unfortunately TA hewed very close to the 5E D&D rules which generally is a good thing but in this case I see it as a negative. It is still valid for CD (sorry I am lazy) to state that is how the rules are implemented in the game so the only option for the main campaign is to build characters to take that into account.