Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chris_Nightwing" data-source="post: 6004415" data-attributes="member: 882">No, it's like this.. in 3E you have to guess how tough the blacksmith is based on his blacksmithing skill, telling you that he probably has at least that BAB and at least that many HD (which might be too high, and if I were using a homemade NPC class it would be known by the players). In 4E you've no idea - you have to sense the DM's motive, guess how he will handle your attack on the blacksmith, discern what combat abilities he might have given this blacksmith (or indeed, whether he will give you a tough encounter or not on the fly).In either system I would feel mighty pissed off if the blacksmith's skill wasn't supported by the same mechanical structure I used - if he had a smithing skill beyond his true level I would be annoyed if I challenged him to a hammer-off, and I'd be equally annoyed if his combat prowess was way higher than I might expect for his smithing. The DM has fiat though, and where in 3E, if he did either of these things I'd understand he was violating the mechanics, in 4E he just can, and I have to deal with it. In my opinion, 'a wizard did it' style DMing violates the social contract of the game, and is no fun (unless it's for a laugh, of course). 3E let's me be pissed off at the DM, 4E tells me to shut up and go back to my player mechanics where I belong.Obviously an ideal system would be more nuanced, and the amazing blacksmith would have skills based on his age and experiences. As a player I would be able to discern his level, and in turn recognise that by investing all that time in smithing he probably wasn't terrible in combat, but he wasn't as good as me, a guy who did that all his life instead of smithing. He definitely hasn't had time to read up on arcane lore though, or even learn to walk a tightrope.</blockquote>

Verification