Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 4670349" data-attributes="member: 20998">I think the OP has made it quite clear at this point that he's not just talking about the skill system. In fact, I'd argue the skill system/skill challenges is the least of his concerns. Of course I can't resist putting my 2 copper into the ring <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /> While I understand and somewhat agree with the argument that the 4e skill system "removes the shackles" of the system from non-combat skill use, I believe this interpretation is somewhat polarized by your experiences. Firstly, there are GMs/players out there that will interpret the lack of an Appraise skill to mean characters just can't appraise things. We can argue until we're blue in the face over the relevancy of Appraise to a game and that's not my point. My point is, not everyone is the type to be able to just finagle some ad hoc rules if someone wants to, for example, play a jeweler turned adventurer (who would arguably be quite capable of sizing up items of worth). And while I use the omission of a skill as an example here, the OP's comments about how the Web power is written is another demonstration of this. While /you/ might be capable of going very outside of the box with these things, and therefore less is more to /you/, it's quite the opposite for others. And in their cases, less is just less.Secondly, in 4e everyone is reasonably good at everything. Sure it prevents everyone waiting for the skill monkey to do her thing, but it introduces other problems. The two big problems I see are that it's just not very plausible and it's certainly not all that interesting when everyone can do everything. It's a bit insulting to post up that "a lot of people" apparently have it all wrong and that their brains haven't pieced it together yet. Speaking for myself, I'd prefer if you could refrain from implications that if I or others don't see your point of view we are somehow mentally behind the curve.Furthermore, comparing 4e to video games isn't a nonsense comparison. The OP makes a very arguable point. Just because you disagree with him doesn't make it "nonsense." 4e is clearly /heavily/ influenced by MMOs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a whole different topic. But the simple fact that 4e plainly takes inspiration from video games makes comparisons to video games anything but nonsense. A tad off topic if we truly delve into it, but not nonsense.All of this aside, I think the OP spelled out some pretty solid examples of non-combat /class features/ (not just skills) that existed in 3e but have went the way of the dodo in 4e. I've seen heaps of talk about skills but not a lot about class features. What I have seen rings a bit contradictory to me, however. A few folks have spoken out that they are happy spells like Speak with Dead are gone and that their absence /strengthens/ 4e non-combat resolutions (basically the less is more argument). I have two issues here: 1) In a world of magic, which DnD is, why wouldn't it be second nature to use magic to solve crimes? Conversely, why wouldn't it be second nature for villains/criminals to use magic to mask their crimes? Are folks running mysteries for the local police but sending the SWAT team (aka the PCs) in to investigate? 2) The less is more argument is based on the foundation that players and GMs alike can think outside the box, working out details and unwritten effects of abilities free of the "shackles" of written rules. So how can someone possess the creative chops to handle all of this but be completely foiled by Detect Evil?</blockquote>

Verification