Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 5492281" data-attributes="member: 38357">D&amp;D rules aren't realistic. You might get realism in the fiction, but if I had to give a numerical value to the &quot;realism index&quot; of various editions I'd say:1e: exactly zero.2e: not enough data for a significant result.3e: exactly zero.3.5: exactly zero.4e: exactly zero.The only issue I've seen with realism in 3e and onward is that the battlemat (or dungeon tiles or whatever) draws attention away from the fiction, leading to players mistaking the squares and figures for an accurate representation of what's happening in the fiction.The fiction asks the question: &quot;Can the fighter jump across the chasm without provoking an OA from the flying whoosit?&quot; The dice and rules (including the figures and map) are consulted for an answer, in this case &quot;Yes.&quot; And then the fiction proceeds based on that response.Getting back to the OP: I can see where the loss of a specific mechanical way to enforce your character's aptitudes sucks. It seems to me that the WotC design team decided that it was a fair tradeoff for reduced complexity, and personally I would agree. However I think that the real tragedy would be if you felt that there was no other way to display your character's aptitude. The skill system is meant to enhance the game, and while it can have iffy to outright detrimental effects at times (my fighter can't easilly be good at fightery stuff like sneaking around or commanding troops?) it and other rules shouldn't be seen as an absolute limit on who your character is. I would hope that, if you approached your DM with the concept of your character being a comedian she would be willing to help you to make that meaningful in any way that she could, and to find mechanical things that could be made to fit. IMO re-fluffing is a core rule in 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kaomera, post: 5492281, member: 38357"] D&D rules aren't realistic. You might get realism in the fiction, but if I had to give a numerical value to the "realism index" of various editions I'd say: 1e: exactly zero. 2e: not enough data for a significant result. 3e: exactly zero. 3.5: exactly zero. 4e: exactly zero. The only issue I've seen with realism in 3e and onward is that the battlemat (or dungeon tiles or whatever) draws attention away from the fiction, leading to players mistaking the squares and figures for an accurate representation of what's happening in the fiction. The fiction asks the question: "Can the fighter jump across the chasm without provoking an OA from the flying whoosit?" The dice and rules (including the figures and map) are consulted for an answer, in this case "Yes." And then the fiction proceeds based on that response. Getting back to the OP: I can see where the loss of a specific mechanical way to enforce your character's aptitudes sucks. It seems to me that the WotC design team decided that it was a fair tradeoff for reduced complexity, and personally I would agree. However I think that the real tragedy would be if you felt that there was no other way to display your character's aptitude. The skill system is meant to enhance the game, and while it can have iffy to outright detrimental effects at times (my fighter can't easilly be good at fightery stuff like sneaking around or commanding troops?) it and other rules shouldn't be seen as an absolute limit on who your character is. I would hope that, if you approached your DM with the concept of your character being a comedian she would be willing to help you to make that meaningful in any way that she could, and to find mechanical things that could be made to fit. IMO re-fluffing is a core rule in 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification