NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8270693" data-attributes="member: 6704184">The bolded text is directly false.This is a bit tangential to the point, though. It is easier in some systems than in others to add new mechanics to do a specific thing, that then do not impact the rest of the game after you've done that thing. We can see this by just looking at 5e combat vs 5e interaction. It is easier to add mechanics and play dynamics to interaction than to combat, because one is more detailed and prescribed than the other. But more importantly to the OP, none of this creates a scenario wherein it is helpful, if I say, "I would like advice for certain elemtns of my Space Fantasy! setting for an upcoming "Casablanca In Space!" adventure I'm going to run", for you to say, "Don't even try, it won't work."I'm not talking about specific party makeup at all.The game doesn't lack functional conflict resolution mechanics.But you can do all that in 5e, as well. The DMG includes suggestions for combining Ability Score and Skill differently to suit the fiction. ie let the fighter use wisdom rather than Charisma to give a rousing speech. he's not charismatic, but he understands people. Not only can the roll be Wisdom (Persuasion), or even just Wisdom (Insight), it could be Wisdom (Proficiency due to being from this town and knowing the people, or from being a Folk Hero, or from being a Veteran of the war that left this area embittered against the person the fighter is rousing them against, etc. Again, this is another area where the rules allow a thing, but don't highlight it like they should, don't organize it well, and use examples in place of explanation to an excessive degree.The system math is friendlier to broad competence than 4e's was. I was talking about reducing the math progression (success rate math and HP/Damage math) ten years ago on the wotc forums for this exact reason. Having a decent Wisdom makes you not suck at Wisdom checks. Proficiency makes you good at them. You don't have to do anything to stay good, and you can convince an epic dragon as a level 1 character.In your experience, perhaps.It may need those things for you to enjoy using fail forward and success with complications. It doesn't need to mechanize them in order for those tools to work.Except it does provide several answers. That isn't any less "rules for doing XYZ", it's just a different style of rules than it uses for casting sleep or shooting someone with arrows, because dnd is a game that doesn't try to shoehorn all tasks into the same style of resolution, which in turn is one reason that so many people enjoy it.yep. glad we agree.But that isn't what those rules say.My wife's paladin in our Eberron game says yes. Enthusiastically. While winking at her cute tiny-but-dangerous elf girlfriend, or flirting with the imposing medusa with the Morpheous sunglasses who designed the group's townhouse in Sharn, or thirsting respectfully after a priestess of the Blood of Vol during a ceremony, or carousing with her best friend and playing wingman for eachother. Etc. But then again the question isn't whether we can do another game in dnd, but if we can do a genre/story type in dnd.Your entire framework for looking at this stuff is so alien to me that I can't meaningfully interact with it, if the above actually makes sense to you. You...you know an optional rule is still a rule, right? Like...feats are part of dnd 5e. Feats are optional. Feats can support a given fiction, lets say the fiction of being such an incredible cook that you can lift people's spirits with your food. What you are doing above is saying, the DM decides if feats are available, therefor DnD does not support the fiction of being an incredible cook. It's completely absurd on every level. That also ignores the reality of play, which is that the character has skills on their sheet, access to the PHB wherein resides the descriptions of the skills and information on how tasks are meant to be adjudicated, and thus players will asks to make checks, even if simply via implication, by positing their approach to a tasks in a way that supports a given skill or at least Ability Score, based on what their character is good at. Regardless of whether the DM decides that a roll for that ability score and skill is necessary, or possible, the check is actually "made". The DM just is empowered to skip rolls that can't have or shouldn't have more than one possible outcome, and go straight to narrating the results. Claiming that rules that don't always have to be used literally don't exist is either so far into illogical thinking that I refuse to follow, or it's a case of being too wound up in winning an argument and/or not being seen to change position.This is a thing that was bothering me earlier. We are talking about "stealth missions"....and assuming that the Paladin is wearing plate? Why?</blockquote>

Verification