Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4529928" data-attributes="member: 48965">Why is this true?&nbsp; My philosophy is if you don't have enough of a game, or it's not fleshed out to the point of your previously released edition (talking core only here)... you should really reconsider releasing the new edition until you do have enough material to make it equal to your previous offerings.&nbsp; Case in point Exalted 2nd edition actually had more in it than Exalted 1e and while I have since stopped playing Exalted 2nd, I don't feel like I wasted my money on it.&nbsp; 4e not so much.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I'm a little lost on this logic but I believe my answer above encompasses this questiion as well.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Uhm, no...You see by breaking the skills down in a more granular way (Heck even just having the ability to specialize) yet creating a blanket rule that a skills total cannot go above a certain number...you can avoid this problem.&nbsp; If the average range for skills at 1st level is a +5 to +8 total, you make it so that no one can have a total skill bonus above +10...no matter what they stack.&nbsp; Thus someone who wants to be really good at a specialization has that option without it being an infinite and uncontrollable number.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Huh?&nbsp; The designers at WotC stressed how good the skill system they created was going to be, and how it was going to be leaps and bounds beyond 3.5.&nbsp; Yet, IMO, it's the same skill system with extended rolls now (something other game systems have been doing for years, and much better than D&amp;D) with less options of what skills to use, because it's been cut back so much.This isn't being &quot;better&quot; in a specialization of thievery...it's being sub-par in everything but your specialization in which your the same as an average individual who was trained...there's a big difference.QFT, this is why people make the claim that D&amp;D 4e has less roleplay.&nbsp; While not correctly stated, I get the gist of it.&nbsp; I think it's more 4e has less trappings, mechanics, and tools, to mechanically represent the effects of those things I wish to portray through my roleplaying, As opposed to those things centered around the pure game aspect of the rpg (mostly combat).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 4529928, member: 48965"] Why is this true? My philosophy is if you don't have enough of a game, or it's not fleshed out to the point of your previously released edition (talking core only here)... you should really reconsider releasing the new edition until you do have enough material to make it equal to your previous offerings. Case in point Exalted 2nd edition actually had more in it than Exalted 1e and while I have since stopped playing Exalted 2nd, I don't feel like I wasted my money on it. 4e not so much. I'm a little lost on this logic but I believe my answer above encompasses this questiion as well. Uhm, no...You see by breaking the skills down in a more granular way (Heck even just having the ability to specialize) yet creating a blanket rule that a skills total cannot go above a certain number...you can avoid this problem. If the average range for skills at 1st level is a +5 to +8 total, you make it so that no one can have a total skill bonus above +10...no matter what they stack. Thus someone who wants to be really good at a specialization has that option without it being an infinite and uncontrollable number. Huh? The designers at WotC stressed how good the skill system they created was going to be, and how it was going to be leaps and bounds beyond 3.5. Yet, IMO, it's the same skill system with extended rolls now (something other game systems have been doing for years, and much better than D&D) with less options of what skills to use, because it's been cut back so much. This isn't being "better" in a specialization of thievery...it's being sub-par in everything but your specialization in which your the same as an average individual who was trained...there's a big difference. QFT, this is why people make the claim that D&D 4e has less roleplay. While not correctly stated, I get the gist of it. I think it's more 4e has less trappings, mechanics, and tools, to mechanically represent the effects of those things I wish to portray through my roleplaying, As opposed to those things centered around the pure game aspect of the rpg (mostly combat). [/QUOTE]

Verification