Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4091306" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm a fan.I was a fan when I saw the idea seed in Unearthed Arcana, but I'm a fan. It's a really nice complex skill resolution mechanic.I like the fact that the DM is empowered to say &quot;Yes.&quot; How the DM can set up the skills that should be used, and that a player can use other skills if the idea is clever, but perhaps at a penalty (the cleric using Religion instead of Diplomacy is nice). Presumably, there'd be some skills that wouldn't necessarily work, but I like it when the game system let sme say &quot;Yes!&quot; as often as possible.In fact, that's my main problem with 4e's monster rules....but that's several other threads.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I don't see how this system *isn't* improvisation. The in-game example of the cleric using Religion is a case of imporovisation on the part of the cleric, and the DM let it work (it was a believable tactic), but at a penalty. I like how it's basically &quot;If you can give me a good reason for why your skill should work, I will let it happen, and if it's only a marginally good reason, I'll give you a penalty, but still let you try. And you could always try the skills that were MEANT to work, because you shouldn't be too shabby at them, either!&quot;I fully embrace a philosophy that allows the DM to permit madcap schemes to work if the player rolls high enough. It encourages player creativity. And if they fail, it encourages DM creativity in menacing them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />This makes me optimistic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 4091306, member: 2067"] I'm a fan. I was a fan when I saw the idea seed in Unearthed Arcana, but I'm a fan. It's a really nice complex skill resolution mechanic. I like the fact that the DM is empowered to say "Yes." How the DM can set up the skills that should be used, and that a player can use other skills if the idea is clever, but perhaps at a penalty (the cleric using Religion instead of Diplomacy is nice). Presumably, there'd be some skills that wouldn't necessarily work, but I like it when the game system let sme say "Yes!" as often as possible. In fact, that's my main problem with 4e's monster rules....but that's several other threads. :D I don't see how this system *isn't* improvisation. The in-game example of the cleric using Religion is a case of imporovisation on the part of the cleric, and the DM let it work (it was a believable tactic), but at a penalty. I like how it's basically "If you can give me a good reason for why your skill should work, I will let it happen, and if it's only a marginally good reason, I'll give you a penalty, but still let you try. And you could always try the skills that were MEANT to work, because you shouldn't be too shabby at them, either!" I fully embrace a philosophy that allows the DM to permit madcap schemes to work if the player rolls high enough. It encourages player creativity. And if they fail, it encourages DM creativity in menacing them. :) This makes me optimistic. [/QUOTE]

Verification