Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DreamChaser" data-source="post: 4072328" data-attributes="member: 1190">Barring the player asking the DM to allow him / her to simply drop the automatic stealth skill.I agree with you completely. Half my current group belongs to each half and it is pretty frustrating to watch each side struggle. The "rules first" group with the character background and the "background first" group with the rules.Perhaps by virtue of being a DM and a player, I tend to think about both simultaneously. How can I currently play a character with X, Y, Z to fit into my A, B, C background. This allows me to avoid unsupported backgrounds ("I want to play a lawful neutral human with a squirrel ancestor who can cast invisibility and fireball but is otherwise a heavily armored paladin with an awakened acorn for a mount.") and allows me to judiciously power game to remain in line with the group i'm in.I don't think that 4e is actually making things more rigid...i think it is more clearly defining the classes while enhancing multiclassing to facilitate more complex builds from more novice gamers.What 4e is doing (as any new edition will) is making some current builds more complicated / impossible based upon what we currently know. For example, I won't be able to play my gnome archivist draconic prophet when 4e comes out (nor could I make it with 3e first came out). Not for a moment to I attribute this to a problem with 4e, however.DC</blockquote>