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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 7361994" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Firstly, I'm not actually sure this addresses my concern, and in fact seems entirely orthogonal. Some of the most anti-"tactical" people I've known have spoken the way I mentioned. That is, they consider invoking any feat, or any other character feature, as being "trapped by the character sheet" or something like that. But when it's "using a spell off-label" (or even on label, all to frequently), doing that is great roleplay, being deeply invested in the character, being creative and engaged. The two types of mechanics are treated vastly differently, despite both being something on the character sheet, which requires very little actual thought to employ.Secondly, it's entirely reasonable to argue that different "pillars" (to use the 5e term) warrant different approaches. I liked the way 4e did it. You were given a baseline of tools, and a reliable (if poorly explained) framework for creating actually-weighty expanded challenges that had nothing to do with "combat" proper. More or less what I'm saying is, 4e "got out of the way" with RP, because the designers knew RP was far too variable, and far too contextual, to make enough assumptions that reliable, testable designs could be implemented. I actually think Heinsoo and Tweet captured this excellently in the 13A core book, which has much the same attitude as 4e about RP-related stuff, when discussing the "linguist" feat. Its adventurer-tier (base) version lets you be semi-conversant and literate in most languages (potentially even fluent in some); its champion-tier version makes you fluent in damn near everything, and able to puzzle out even the most obscure spoken or written expressions given a bit of research time. Then, they write, "There shouldn't be any need for an epic tier linguist feat. If you really want one, you know what you want it for better than we do." (emphasis in original) This is not a cop-out; it is an admission that the potential upper limits go beyond the ability to be designed, and must thus be custom-made.I like there to be a solid baseline of flexible, universal, easily-explained mechanics, which can then accept the occasional intrusion of creative applications of other things. For example, a 4e character expending a relevant Daily power to get a bonus during a Skill Challenge, or even just to a single important skill roll; or, a player considering the possible applications of, say, a Fire at-will, to deal with a situation. The former reflects flexibility and adaptation; the latter reflects critical thinking about the resources one has, vs. the problems one must solve. I prefer 4e's powers over other editions' spells, both because all characters get powers, and because spells are often very complex to explain, while powers are easy to read and explain. This also requires that DMs be willing to allow their players "off-label" uses for their abilities, e.g. allowing a Knock spell to (say) bust a small hole through a stone door to pass an object through it, or allowing someone with the Actor feat to mimic the sound of an animal to throw off an attacker. It's surprising how reluctant many DMs are to do this, even though they claim to want spontaneity, cleverness, and creativity.</blockquote>

Verification