Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 4353470" data-attributes="member: 172">Hyperbole.He doesn't have to encounter an unlimited number of locks. Just more than the wizard is willing to prepare knock spells. In a standard dungeon: not outlandish at all.Well, I think its safe to say our experience differs, but I think it's safe to say your experience is at odds with the fundamental philosophy of the game. Sure, there is the possibility of creative spell use, but rules-wise, spells are limited. Skills were constantly being subjected to batches of &quot;new uses&quot;. But like you needed new uses. It was clear to me from the beginning that skills could be applies anywhere where it would logically apply.Whereas I found Sep's story hour a wonderful example of the way a game should be run (with one exception...)If you find it difficult and find 4e suits you better, then by all means, play 4e.I find it natural, and better, a very compelling way to run a game.I'm talking about adventure design, not &quot;recognizing&quot; anything, so I'm not sure what you are on about here.No, actually, at this point, we are not. I addressed the issue of magic vs. skills following my last quoted point. In the point you are replying to now, I was responding to the issue of why I think that 4e narrowed the scope of skills and made them less significant. If you don't wish to address my point, then by all means don't. Don't tell me what I can talk about.If that's what you are debating about, you are out in left field. In 3e, fabricate gives you speed, not crafting skill:</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 4353470, member: 172"] Hyperbole. He doesn't have to encounter an unlimited number of locks. Just more than the wizard is willing to prepare knock spells. In a standard dungeon: not outlandish at all. Well, I think its safe to say our experience differs, but I think it's safe to say your experience is at odds with the fundamental philosophy of the game. Sure, there is the possibility of creative spell use, but rules-wise, spells are limited. Skills were constantly being subjected to batches of "new uses". But like you needed new uses. It was clear to me from the beginning that skills could be applies anywhere where it would logically apply. Whereas I found Sep's story hour a wonderful example of the way a game should be run (with one exception...) If you find it difficult and find 4e suits you better, then by all means, play 4e. I find it natural, and better, a very compelling way to run a game. I'm talking about adventure design, not "recognizing" anything, so I'm not sure what you are on about here. No, actually, at this point, we are not. I addressed the issue of magic vs. skills following my last quoted point. In the point you are replying to now, I was responding to the issue of why I think that 4e narrowed the scope of skills and made them less significant. If you don't wish to address my point, then by all means don't. Don't tell me what I can talk about. If that's what you are debating about, you are out in left field. In 3e, fabricate gives you speed, not crafting skill: [/QUOTE]

Verification