Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Scribble]

Ugh! Glad it works for you, but no thank you!

Care to elaborate on why?

I'm also glad that "craft" was taken out as one of the yes/no type skills. It seems strange to have a skill like that. Spend a few points, and now using the amazing power of your brain you can make anything... A sword? No problem I'll think one up no sweat!

I prefer what 4e seems to be putting in place (admitedly currently you'd have to house rule making normal stuff) of a feat to have the background knolwedge, and then "blueprints" for making the thing. (Alchemical stuff, rituals etc...)

To me this style will allow for much more variation on what you can make.

Were it my campaign and someone wanted to have his "brewmaster" backgroun come into play I'd implement a feat for it, then let him pick up recipeis for various drinks... Since it's D&D some of which would have magic like effects on the drinker, and such...

 

[Lizard]

What's the benefit of having a multitude of separate Perform/Create Art skills?

Character definition.

What's the benefit of ANY skill system? At the most extreme, you could argue there's only one needed skill:"Do Stuff". You can take the feat "Be Real Good At Stuff" for +3.

Some games (such as C&C) basically have just Attribute checks, with some Attributes getting a bonus (more technically, the check is lower). Other games (such as, say, GURPS) have exhaustive skill lists, breaking skills down to very fine levels of detail. Which is preferable depends on playstyle and personal tastes. Some people like being able to say, "I can dance well, but I can't sing; I'm a good speaker but a poor writer.", and have this mechanically reflected.

 

[Lizard]

Where are the rules that cover this in 3e? I don't remember seeing any target DC's for ale-tasting in any of the books I own.

You can set a DC and roll against a skill. There's no roll against "I am the brewing GOD!!!" written on your character sheet at first level -- and that's the point of my entire rant. It boils down to "The DM decides to allow you to succeed" or "The DM doesn't decide to allow you to succeed", and if people liked that style of play, Theatrix would be known for more than its softcore porn supplement.

You need to stop thinking everyone games with people who act like spoiled children.

But the reason we have rules AT ALL is because of that factor. How would most gamers react to "Just write down if you're good at combat, or not, on your character sheet."

It's not contempt, it's just efficiency. How big would the skill list/system have to be to cover every oddball, outlier concept that a gamer might want to make? --and I say this a gamer with a large number of oddball, outlier characters to his credit.

GURPS, Rolemaster (as of Companion II, at least), and HERO (as of 4th edition) all managed to have enough skills for me, and probably for you. Hell, so did D&D 3e, because it had broad "umbrella" skills (Craft, Perform, Profession, Knowledge) which could be used to cover almost anything a character might want to do.

 

[Scribble]

I think there really ARE two types of people who game... Those that want the rules to reflect what their character can do, and those who want to use the rules to reflect what happens when we do something we've decided they can do.

I would say I'm in the later type, because I would prefer to fit the rules to my situation then my situation to the rules. IE I want to sing a song to impress the Noble Lady. Can I use diplomacy to do so?

If you need/want a skill to reflect everything your character can do wouldn't the list of available skills have to be infinitely long? Otherwise aren't you essentially doing what I do anyway?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah I would say I would fit into Scribble's later group as well. He described it pretty well my own view on it.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Actually, they did take that approach to combat...

In 4E, everybody gets a bonus to attacks, AC, Fortitude, Reflex and Will equal to 1/2 their character level (the same as skills). Weapon proficiencies act as "training" for different weapon groups, giving you a flat bonus to hit based on the weapon. Either you are proficient ("Trained") or you aren't ("Untrained"). Either way, anyone can still use a sword, just not everybody gets that extra +3 bonus for being trained to use it.

Likewise, the defenses all get the 1/2 level bonus, but your class determines which ones you are "trained" in... Rogues get a "trained" bonus to Reflex and are "untrained" in Fortitude and Will, Wizards get a "trained" bonus to Will, etc.

Yes, and this is a system that doesn't suit my taste. But at least it does offer powers tied to your class. So there is some depth and texture to the game. So while I would have prefered they treated combat differently, I wouldn't say it lacks what the skill system lacks.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I give up. Given the play style of ever game I've ever played in, every published adventure I've ever read, and what seems to be the experience of the vast majority of players, it clearly makes much more sense to maximize skills. You may be playing in a game where that's not the case, but the existence of cross-class skills and the low number of skill points that most classes have make it pretty clear that's certainly not the expectation of the designers.



Sigh.

-Can you please refrain from insults and sarcasm. This is the last time I am going to ask. All I am doing is telling you how I enjoy the game, and you are telling me I am wrong. And you are responding in a tone that doesn't invite polite responses; but I have made every effort to consider your statements and reply in a reasoned manner.-

The experience clearly breaks down on edition lines. People who play 3E have stated over and over that they agree with me. The 4E people agree with you.

Don't get me wrong, I think cross class skills are bad, and I believe classes should have been given more skill points overall. But that doesn't mean the ranking system had to be junked. They could have improved it, by fixing a few details, rather than go in the direction they did. Though I don't see how that proves it wasn't the intention of the designers. Maybe that they wanted certain classes to shine more in non-combat situations; but it is no indication they wanted everyone to maximize their skills every time.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ugh! Glad it works for you, but no thank you!

I don't know... That was one of the problems specifically of Profession, but to a lesser extent of Perform.

The standard example was always Profession (Sailor). Shouldn't this cover balance and use rope? And maybe Knowledge (Nature) in regards to the sea?

And Perform (Oratory) - how can it be it doesn't offer any help with Diplomacy? Being able to "craft" words before an audience to entertain them and to make them feel emotions, why can't this be applied for convincing someone of your position?

I think that this might actually be the way I will handle Craft, Profession and Perform in the future.
Pick a Profession or Craft and one skill that fits its common task. This is now your Profession skill.

Craft (Alchemy) might become Arcana or Nature
Craft (Armorsmithing) might become History (tradition of smithery) or Nature (knowledge of materials)
Profession (Sailor) becomes Nature (Knowledge of the Sea, Weather, Navigation) or Acrobatics (movement on a ship, handling knots etc.)
Perform becomes Diplomacy or Bluff.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think a nice way to handle it with 4e Skill System for those that want Craft, Perform, Profession, etc. back into the game be something like the Storytelling System.

After you pick your initial Trained Skills. You can choose three Skills to "Specialize" in. When your using this Skill in a task that involves this specialization your Skill bonus goes up (lets say by 5).

So, if you put Sailing into Acrobatics for instance you would get a +5 bonus to Acrobatics when sailing.

I could see a whole series of feats based off this too. You could take more of them for a more minor bonus (+2), or increase the bonus of your Specialized Skills. Perhaps even have Specializations built into all Paragon Paths (sorta like what we have seen for a couple PPs).

One thing I like about this is that it makes it more, "personal". Since the background behind this isn't as broad. So, to continue with Sailing and Acrobatics. You can say you worked the crows nest on a ship and thus have gotten good at scrambling up the ropes and such. But it doesn't mean you know how to sale a ship or fire a cannon as would be mechanically suggested by a simply broad "Profession: Sailing".

I think too this could be used to specify already established parts of Skills even more. So Thievery you could Specialize in Disarming Traps or Pickpocket.

 

[keterys]

I've been pretty happy just being able to say what my background is, without worrying that I was taking away points from skills I might need for a prestige class, or skills that might actually come up in play.

I mean, Brewing only comes up so often, so it's nice if the system doesn't punish me for wanting a dwarf that can do it. Or a fighter that can sing passably on journeys. A halfling wizard who whittles designs into staves and wands and occasionally makes a toy for children.

Things that add a touch of color to the game, but for which devoting skill points would be mathematically inefficient or possibly even completely wasteful.