Search results

The skill system in 4e and 5e are only superficially similar. People can argue otherwise and maybe even use them both in the same way in their home games, but RAW, they are nothing alike. I can run a whole campaign in 5e without asking for ability checks while 4e has specific rules that call...

It is laughable if compared to Hypnotic Pattern. And don't do "solo" fights. That just doesn't work.

Spells and feats do indeed jump straight to the mechanical resolution level with minimal input from the DM required. I don't think anyone here was claiming otherwise.

Semantics. Hard pass. Have a good one.

Nope. Never. Spells are powerful enough when you run them as written. You don't need to give casters any more help. Also, Magic Missile to destroy inanimate objects was a bad example.

You are not role playing while your character is dead too. I don't see your point.

Precisely! That's the core mechanics in which Skill Challenges relied upon. The player choses a Skill to roll (among a selection of available skills in that particular Challenge) then, player and DM work together to create the fiction based on that roll's result.

Because I wasn't only talking about Skill Powers. Let me give you another example: the Intimidate skill. Back in 4e, you had the option to use your standard action to force a blooded enemy to surrender with an intimidate roll. This action could only be taken once per encounter.

Nope. 4e had very specific actions called "skill Powers". Some even had limited uses by short rest.

You mean like the 4e origin/type classification system?

You are absolutely right and it took quite some time for my group to adapt to that mindset when 5e came out. You see, back in 4e skills were indeed "buttons" you could push thanks to the nature of Skill Challenges and Skill Powers. Even during combat encounters you could chose to "Use Arcana"...

Speaking of 4e, even that used to be handled better back then. Each creature had both a type and origin. So aboleths for example, would have been "Aberrant Beasts" while mind flayers were "Aberrant Humanoids"

I disagree. We don't have to protect "NPC agency" because that's not real a thing to begin with. Players and DM are not playing on equal footing and the rules should not be the same for both.

Yes, the distinction is very clear and supported by the rules themselves.

If you are sitting for hours listening to a narrative without any active input, "playing" is a bit of a strong word to call it.

Risking getting red texted by mods here, but I'll bite: Hanging out to see each other doesn't make it role-playing. It's just... hanging out. There, I said it.

I'd rather send my players an email telling them what happened than having them sit down for 4 hours straight of "consequences".

Yes, remove players agency and you cannot call it roleplay anymore, no matter how you twist it.

But did you had the option to choose not to attack the demigod? Did your approach to the situation change anything in the outcome? Was there any way to improve your chances to stop the demigod? If you don't get to make choices and chose your own actions, it's really hard to justify calling...

I will be keeping the evil humanoid races in my games. Dungeons and Dragons is already silly in many ways and that has never bothered my group.