Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5514894" data-attributes="member: 42582">I was more thinking of remarks that get made from time-to-time that SCs are just an amped-up version of 3E's complex skill checks (which I don't think is right at all), as well as the more general failure of the 4e rulebooks to expressly address the difference between narrative/metagame factors in action resolution and challenge design, vs ingame/fictional factors (with two exceptions - combat encounter building, and languages). The absence of this discussion leads many D&amp;D players to read the rulebooks under the assumption that there is no need to think about the metagame/narrative separately from ingame causal logic (just as they did not draw that distinction when reading 3E or earlier D&amp;D rulebooks) and therefore (in my view) to not realise how some aspects of 4e are meant to work.And there are other failings as well. For example, it strikes me as completely obvious that Athletics skill is meant to be used in two very different ways - for resolving tactical movement in combat encounters, and for contributing to success/failure in skill challenges. But the entry for Athletics skill in the PHB and the Essentials rules only addresses the first way of using the skill. A similar remark applies to Stealth skill. Acrobatics skill, on the other hand, was treated differently in the PHB (which had the generic notion of &quot;acrobatic stunt&quot;) although this has changed in the Essentials presentation.In short: the rulebooks don't even give a coherent picture of how the same skill set is to be used in two very different mechanical frameworks for action resolution!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5514894, member: 42582"] I was more thinking of remarks that get made from time-to-time that SCs are just an amped-up version of 3E's complex skill checks (which I don't think is right at all), as well as the more general failure of the 4e rulebooks to expressly address the difference between narrative/metagame factors in action resolution and challenge design, vs ingame/fictional factors (with two exceptions - combat encounter building, and languages). The absence of this discussion leads many D&D players to read the rulebooks under the assumption that there is no need to think about the metagame/narrative separately from ingame causal logic (just as they did not draw that distinction when reading 3E or earlier D&D rulebooks) and therefore (in my view) to not realise how some aspects of 4e are meant to work. And there are other failings as well. For example, it strikes me as completely obvious that Athletics skill is meant to be used in two very different ways - for resolving tactical movement in combat encounters, and for contributing to success/failure in skill challenges. But the entry for Athletics skill in the PHB and the Essentials rules only addresses the first way of using the skill. A similar remark applies to Stealth skill. Acrobatics skill, on the other hand, was treated differently in the PHB (which had the generic notion of "acrobatic stunt") although this has changed in the Essentials presentation. In short: the rulebooks don't even give a coherent picture of how the same skill set is to be used in two very different mechanical frameworks for action resolution! [/QUOTE]

Verification