Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5977614" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>Unless someone gains skill training, (through feat or, more normally, multiclass feat) yes. Are you also prepared to accept now that this is very different from 3.X where the disparity in skills between trained and untrained rises every level?</p><p> </p><p>Also are you prepared to accept that 4e is literally the only edition of D&D where there is a decent way of bringing the skill disparity down for a non-class skill by investing resources? In 1e it's almost impossible. 2e it depends on the NWP. 3e you'd have to buy ranks in a cross-class skill and are limited to half level rather than level. 4e you simply spend a feat for a new trained skill or gain a new skill through a multiclass feat.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Plus powers (normally but not exclusively utility powers) plus items plus class features, stances, and utility powers which can change the way the skill is used.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>So your new claim is that 4e provides numerically measurable bonusses and that is bad? If one person has an Underwater Basketweaving rating of +17, and the other has a +18 then it is always mathematically better to let the person with the +18 make the roll. This applies to AD&D stat rolls every bit as much as to 3.X skills or 4e skills (or, indeed, thief skills and NWPs).</p><p></p><p>At least it's always better unless there is a systematic reason to have more than one person rolling a given skill. Something like a mechanic where the total number of successes matters. And what is the only edition of D&D to have one of those in the core rules? You guessed it. 4e with Skill Challenges.</p><p> </p><p>(I say the core rules because the skill challenge mechanics are little different to the complex skill checks in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana).</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I don't know what system mastery you think you have. But it isn't mastery of 4e, whatever else it may be.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You know the single best way to show you are not interested in compromise? To continually distort the other position and unfairly denigrate its strengths, thereby demonstrating you are not interested in a constructive dialogue. It's even better than the RPGPundit's method of breaking Godwin's Law and suggesting that Monte Cook's vocal cords be surgically removed. </p><p> </p><p>Even a superficially uncompromising line may merely be opening a negotiating position - different people haggle in different ways. Distorting the other position demonstrates you are not negotiating in good faith.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Nah. </p><p>OD&D = Adam West.</p><p>1e and 2e = Batman and Batman Returns</p><p>3e and 3.5 = Batman Forever and Batman and Robin</p><p>4e = Batman Begins</p><p> </p><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p> </p><p>And Batman and Robin wasn't a reboot. 4e certainly was <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p> </p><p>And yes, 3.5 was a different edition to 3.0. It changed the shape of a horse ffs. (Essentials isn't a different edition - you can have essentials 4e alongside regular 4e and not even notice).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5977614, member: 87792"] Unless someone gains skill training, (through feat or, more normally, multiclass feat) yes. Are you also prepared to accept now that this is very different from 3.X where the disparity in skills between trained and untrained rises every level? Also are you prepared to accept that 4e is literally the only edition of D&D where there is a decent way of bringing the skill disparity down for a non-class skill by investing resources? In 1e it's almost impossible. 2e it depends on the NWP. 3e you'd have to buy ranks in a cross-class skill and are limited to half level rather than level. 4e you simply spend a feat for a new trained skill or gain a new skill through a multiclass feat. Plus powers (normally but not exclusively utility powers) plus items plus class features, stances, and utility powers which can change the way the skill is used. So your new claim is that 4e provides numerically measurable bonusses and that is bad? If one person has an Underwater Basketweaving rating of +17, and the other has a +18 then it is always mathematically better to let the person with the +18 make the roll. This applies to AD&D stat rolls every bit as much as to 3.X skills or 4e skills (or, indeed, thief skills and NWPs). At least it's always better unless there is a systematic reason to have more than one person rolling a given skill. Something like a mechanic where the total number of successes matters. And what is the only edition of D&D to have one of those in the core rules? You guessed it. 4e with Skill Challenges. (I say the core rules because the skill challenge mechanics are little different to the complex skill checks in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana). I don't know what system mastery you think you have. But it isn't mastery of 4e, whatever else it may be. You know the single best way to show you are not interested in compromise? To continually distort the other position and unfairly denigrate its strengths, thereby demonstrating you are not interested in a constructive dialogue. It's even better than the RPGPundit's method of breaking Godwin's Law and suggesting that Monte Cook's vocal cords be surgically removed. Even a superficially uncompromising line may merely be opening a negotiating position - different people haggle in different ways. Distorting the other position demonstrates you are not negotiating in good faith. Nah. OD&D = Adam West. 1e and 2e = Batman and Batman Returns 3e and 3.5 = Batman Forever and Batman and Robin 4e = Batman Begins :p And Batman and Robin wasn't a reboot. 4e certainly was :p And yes, 3.5 was a different edition to 3.0. It changed the shape of a horse ffs. (Essentials isn't a different edition - you can have essentials 4e alongside regular 4e and not even notice). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top