Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4668283" data-attributes="member: 2067">Both of those things are related to granularity, to each character contributing something unique ("noncombat roles" elsewhere). A character with 5 ranks in Use Rope was different than a character with 10 ranks in it, and both of those characters were different than someone with 7 ranks in Appraise.I'm not totally on board with the idea that this specific granularity (skill ranks and more skills) is the (or even a) big reason 3e does it better, but it is fair to say that overall, 4e's equalization of everyone across the noncombat spectrum is one of the big reason that 4e sucks so hard at giving us an interesting noncombat challenge. In combat, the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric all contribute in markedly different ways to success. In the skill challenge system (for instance), everyone is equal as long as their case to the DM is vaguely persuasive. This is good if you don't want to focus much on using the skill challenge system (it's a nice patch to get you through that and onto what you really want to focus on -- a fun minigame), but if the focus of your game is on things the skill challenge system would model, it leaves a lot to be desired.</blockquote>