Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4287063" data-attributes="member: 710">I generally agree, though maybe the analogy should be more:"If you don't like the government in the USA, stay in Canada". Because that's what you can with 4E. Ignore it. But if you like to discuss it, discuss it. Anyone here probably wants to discuss it, after all <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />But the situation where they are problems are corner cases. Why does a Wizard get BAB at all in 3E if he never makes an attack roll? (It's not like a lot of spells require them!) Does this corner case make the whole idea bad? From a system point of view, it is the essence of consistence. The rule basically applies to every check or roll you make. And if I can rationalize the most, it is doing a very fine job. And if it works and creates satisfying results in-game, it is also a good system. Climbing is based on Strength. Pull-Ups require Strength (*). So why shouldn't it apply to Climb? Wouldn't that be inconsistent? (Especially since in 3E, both would probably fall under Athletics.)*) pull-ups might also fall under endurance. About risks and side effects, please consult your local fitness trainer.</blockquote>