Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Korgoth" data-source="post: 3388846" data-attributes="member: 49613">That's an interesting quote.&nbsp; I would point out that, as I understand the &quot;Climb Walls&quot; ability, we're not talking about the same thing as the 3E &quot;Climb&quot; skill, yes?&nbsp; Because as I understand Classic and 1E, anybody can climb a rope, just like anybody could climb a ladder or a wall into which handholds have been carved or onto which they have been affixed.Just like &quot;Hide in Shadows&quot; is not the same as &quot;Hide&quot;.&nbsp; Anybody in Classic or 1E can hide, assuming they have something to hide behind.&nbsp; A Thief can hide without being behind anything... just by being in shadows.If the Thief were called &quot;Ninja&quot; and Thief Skills were called &quot;Ninja Skills&quot; would Gary's opinion be more palatable?&nbsp; Because what he's talking about in the article is not the ability to climb anything whatsoever, but to climb walls, which is really tough.&nbsp; He is talking about skills that require years of training, hence his unicycle example.So if you let, say, Fighters and Magic-Users climb walls, you're playing a game where anybody can be a Ninja even if they don't have any training in it.&nbsp; That would be like allowing a Fighter to just out of nowhere cast an arcane spell.&nbsp; It breaks the assumptions of the game, therefore I can see his justification for saying that it is no longer AD&amp;D.The &quot;Climb&quot; skill in 3E is for climbing anything, including all those things you could just automatically climb in previous editions.&nbsp; You would not be deviating from AD&amp;D, if I understand Gary correctly, if you let a Fighter climb a tree, a rope or a series of handholds.&nbsp; The sense in which you go outside the framework of AD&amp;D is when you let just anybody be able to accomplish an extraordinary task like climbing a wall or hiding in nothing but shadow.&nbsp; Likewise, anybody can manage to move &quot;quietly&quot;, but only a Thief can move &quot;Silently&quot;, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Korgoth, post: 3388846, member: 49613"] That's an interesting quote. I would point out that, as I understand the "Climb Walls" ability, we're not talking about the same thing as the 3E "Climb" skill, yes? Because as I understand Classic and 1E, anybody can climb a rope, just like anybody could climb a ladder or a wall into which handholds have been carved or onto which they have been affixed. Just like "Hide in Shadows" is not the same as "Hide". Anybody in Classic or 1E can hide, assuming they have something to hide behind. A Thief can hide without being behind anything... just by being in shadows. If the Thief were called "Ninja" and Thief Skills were called "Ninja Skills" would Gary's opinion be more palatable? Because what he's talking about in the article is not the ability to climb anything whatsoever, but to climb [i]walls[/i], which is really tough. He is talking about skills that require years of training, hence his unicycle example. So if you let, say, Fighters and Magic-Users climb walls, you're playing a game where anybody can be a Ninja even if they don't have any training in it. That would be like allowing a Fighter to just out of nowhere cast an arcane spell. It breaks the assumptions of the game, therefore I can see his justification for saying that it is no longer AD&D. The "Climb" skill in 3E is for climbing anything, including all those things you could just automatically climb in previous editions. You would not be deviating from AD&D, if I understand Gary correctly, if you let a Fighter climb a tree, a rope or a series of handholds. The sense in which you go outside the framework of AD&D is when you let just anybody be able to accomplish an extraordinary task like climbing a wall or hiding in nothing but shadow. Likewise, anybody can manage to move "quietly", but only a Thief can move "Silently", etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification