I know the Languages skill in 3E becomes the Linguist feat in 4e. What's the other one?in two cases feats
I know the Languages skill in 3E becomes the Linguist feat in 4e. What's the other one?in two cases feats
I don't mind the V-shaped classes, although I can see that they obviously create some complexities - and suck for humans wanting to take their bonus at-will!There were some pretty shallow bugs in the PHB - V-shaped classes, a few insane powers, Solos that were a grind, the so-called "expertise gap", and so on.
4e doesn't focus completely on balanced tactical combat. This is for two reasons. First, it doesn't focus on balanced combat. It is easy - and, judgingn from posts around here, common - to design combat encounters that will be unbalanced in various ways. What 4e offers is transparency for the GM as to how a combat is mechanically likely to resolve.Yeah, its not that the edition with unified mechanics which allowed for, compared to other D&D editions, a lot of non combat play was widely successful and that the edition which focused completely on balanced tactical combat was a huge failure...
Ironically, the combat/non-combat emphasis of both those editions was very similar.Yeah, its not that the edition with unified mechanics which allowed for, compared to other D&D editions, a lot of non combat play was widely successful and that the edition which focused completely on balanced tactical combat was a huge failure...
1) Both also gave the DM guidelines for non-combat challenges, DC's, obviously, experience for completing non-combat challenges, expanded, in 4e, to Skill Challenges.
2) D&D has always put a heavy emphasis on combat.
Skill challenges can aid roleplaying quite nicely. They're a good format for a structured challenge that has concrete goals and stages for resolution.
It also just makes the game better by generally embracing a fail forward concept (while 3E mostly ran with fail backwards assumptions) but that's not really a roleplaying thing. That's just a fun thing - fail forwards is nearly always better than fail backwards.
Overall I've found a lot of the criticisms of skill challenges either involve truly terrible DMs, or just fall flat.
1) If I have successfully had great roleplaying sessions with skill challenges, they cannot be the antithesis of roleplaying.
2) You might have had bad experiences with some DMs
Which is the antithesis of role-playing.
I agree with GreyICE. Anyone who follows the link in my post above (which I just fixed) and who follows links from that post can see skill challenges facilitating role playing.Skill challenges can aid roleplaying quite nicely. They're a good format for a structured challenge that has concrete goals and stages for resolution.
It also just makes the game better by generally embracing a fail forward concept (while 3E mostly ran with fail backwards assumptions) but that's not really a roleplaying thing.