They're in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and Dragon #366, and, yes, they're a very neat idea to distinguish characters. I may need to implement them in my campaigns and expand the list and purpose of the backgrounds.
Cheers!
Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?
- Thread starter Wik
- Start date
They're in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and Dragon #366, and, yes, they're a very neat idea to distinguish characters. I may need to implement them in my campaigns and expand the list and purpose of the backgrounds.
Cheers!
No, that's not it. If he said that it was more fun for him to do things that way, or it better matched his concept for the character, I'd be fine with that. I've done that with a lot of PCs (remember my Ranger who had a lot of ranks in profession (artist)?). Arguing that spreading skill points around is not a poor decision from a pure game-mechanics perspective is what's bothering me.
Heck, for much the same reason, Neel (my fighter, same game) took a feat that made some Knowledge skills class skills for him, because I saw him as a well-educated guy, and by default it's hard to make a fighter that way. Would it have been more mechanically useful to take Cleave or some other combat feat? Yup.
MichaelSomething
Legend
ProfessorPain
First Post
Not my intent, as I alluded to in my previous post. Even if I had max ranks in Hide & Move Silently, the rogue would still be better because of ability scores.
Against peons, maybe. But we're 15th level (and started at 8th level) so that doesn't really come up. And the thing is, if I accompanied the rogue on scouting missions, I would just bring him down - his super-high rolls don't matter much when he's walking next to my +8 or whatever. So I don't get to use that part of my character. There's no situation that calls for stealth that we wouldn't simply say, "let the rogue do it." He's great at it, my character is better than the rest of the group but is terrible in comparison to his scores.
As I said in my post, I can't keep upgrading those skills because I don't get enough skill points. 6 per level, with priority going to Concentration, various Knowledge skills that no one else in the party has, Psicraft, and Survival. Hide & Move Silently are cross-class. Now, as a 14th level psion, I have a lot of other power to make up for the lack of skills, and that's the trade-off, and I'm ok with that. I could have taken more ranger levels, but didn't because 3e's multiclassing screws over casters. In the end, the character concept wasn't possible to bring to life in 3e without sacrificing some major effectiveness somewhere. But that's true of any caster/X hybrid that doesn't have a PrC tailored for it, and is getting off-topic.
My point was simply that those skill points are wasted, and I spent them anyway knowing that, because they were appropriate for the character. And I know the rules well enough to be able to sacrifice some points here and there without losing a lot of overall effectiveness at my specialties. I'd prefer to be able to make some use of that part of my character though, and I would have been able to if the character was built in 4e (given rules for a kalashtar race and a psionic teleporter class).
Here I do agree. Non rogue classes should have been given more skill points. But the problem isn't the ranking system. It is not having enough points to do what you want.
ProfessorPain
First Post
Wizards didn't release one, but I do remember an experts book being released by a third party.
ProfessorPain
First Post
And for dungeon delves, what you are saying is mostly correct. Though I would much rather spread out and increase my chances of not falling down a cliff or getting stuck halfway up the cliff. Since Rondo's jump skill won't really impact my leap over the chasm. But most of what I said applied to city adventures, and those are very different in terms of skill use. You have yet to engage me on any of the points I made. Choosing instead to insult. I have yet to be in a city adventure campaign, where individual successes are not very important. In city adventures, you tend to split up number one, so there is a good chance your ace man might not be there when you need to succeed at diplomacy. Having a 6 or 7 to his 12 or 13 in this case, is still useful. Also, as I said multiple times, having one guy succeed for everybody isn't always good for things like diplomacy roles (especially if that person is clearly a rogue). What is effective in any game, depends on how the game is being played. If your group relies heavily on the best guy in the group getting the whole party through, then sure it is much better to coordinate the party's skill selection. Personally, I find the one guy success thing, a little unrealistic, and discourage it in most of my games (unless it makes sense in the indidual case). Again, much of this comes from your focus on overall party sucess, and my focus on individual success. But to just declare that a two 7s are useless when you could have a single 13, doesn't mean anything outside the context of how the game is played. Sure the 13 will be a sure bet for that one skill. But on occassions where you really want to succeed at both skills, the two 7s is a better bet.
Jack99
Adventurer
And how many were sold, to the 5-6 million D&D players? 240? Just because something was released does not mean it was a necessity, nor something people actually wanted.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I'm going to jump over most of this with the general idea that Wik (and others) are basically making the same points I would. 
I did want to tease out this, because I think it's illustrative of the difference in focus:
Compare that lantern with even the lowly light spell (which that lantern is basically the equivalent of in 4e). It's basic purpose was pretty clear (you use it if you don't have a torch), but 2e included rules for using it to blind enemies (casting it on their eyes!), and in 3e, the idea of using it to negate darkvision was present.
In those games, that spell was a tool -- it generated some effect, and how you used that effect was up to you (fireball to start campfires, etc.)
In 4e, that spell is an effect -- it basically generates that effect. The tool used to accomplish that is mostly up to you (making it easy to reskin, and also very clear in its effect). Anything else is not given real support.
In 3e, when you cast fireball, you made a fireball, and the spell described the effects that fireball would have in certain circumstances (but, it was implied, by no means all).
In 4e, when you cast a fireball, you simply deal a kind damage in an area. This is clear and unambiguous, but it's also not much of a launching point for imagination; it's just a mechanical effect.
It's that Simulationist/Gamist divide. And I'd say I'm with Wik when he says if he wanted pure gamism, he'd go play Xbox. A D&D that doesn't focus on what D&D can do that Xbox CAN'T do is, overall, less useful to me.
I'm OK with 4e. I play and DM 4e. I'll probably end up doing some 4e design sooner or later (I can't resist tinkering with whatever I'm playing with). But that doesn't mean that 4e couldn't do better in many areas.
One of the areas that 4e really and honestly could do better in is in providing more variety and strategy in the rules for solving noncombat challenges.
It has the potential to do better than any edition before it for that.
It just depends on if the designers have any interest in doing that.
I did want to tease out this, because I think it's illustrative of the difference in focus:
Compare that lantern with even the lowly light spell (which that lantern is basically the equivalent of in 4e). It's basic purpose was pretty clear (you use it if you don't have a torch), but 2e included rules for using it to blind enemies (casting it on their eyes!), and in 3e, the idea of using it to negate darkvision was present.
In those games, that spell was a tool -- it generated some effect, and how you used that effect was up to you (fireball to start campfires, etc.)
In 4e, that spell is an effect -- it basically generates that effect. The tool used to accomplish that is mostly up to you (making it easy to reskin, and also very clear in its effect). Anything else is not given real support.
In 3e, when you cast fireball, you made a fireball, and the spell described the effects that fireball would have in certain circumstances (but, it was implied, by no means all).
In 4e, when you cast a fireball, you simply deal a kind damage in an area. This is clear and unambiguous, but it's also not much of a launching point for imagination; it's just a mechanical effect.
It's that Simulationist/Gamist divide. And I'd say I'm with Wik when he says if he wanted pure gamism, he'd go play Xbox. A D&D that doesn't focus on what D&D can do that Xbox CAN'T do is, overall, less useful to me.
I'm OK with 4e. I play and DM 4e. I'll probably end up doing some 4e design sooner or later (I can't resist tinkering with whatever I'm playing with). But that doesn't mean that 4e couldn't do better in many areas.
One of the areas that 4e really and honestly could do better in is in providing more variety and strategy in the rules for solving noncombat challenges.
It has the potential to do better than any edition before it for that.
It just depends on if the designers have any interest in doing that.
GnomeWorks
Adventurer
Not everyone plays the game like you.
ProfessorPain
First Post
I never said it was a necessity. I just said someone released it. My guess is it didn't do terribly well. But I haven't checked any reviews or numbers.
Numbers don't really matter though. If a few gamers enjoy it, that is their right. Why does it matter so much that others might take a different track than you? If they find an aspect of the game interesting and want to explore it more, more power to them.
I just don't unerstand why people get so heated over something as subjective as how and why people play the game.
Last edited:
