Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8954267" data-attributes="member: 82106">I'm OLD, and I started back at the beginning of all this <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> So, yeah, I know, 1e even still says "the character knows what the player knows" (unless you use background skills rule, but it has no mechanics attached). And that's basically what I'm saying, you can still do that in 4e! The ranger PROBABLY knows a good bit about bows and arrows, though there's no specific skill covering this. The druid who used to be a farmer can probably tell you all about cows. In any situation where they might need to make a check they can get a +5 (a proficiency bonus) for stuff like that, just tell me what plausibly indicates your character knows X, Y, or Z (and backgrounds from PHB2 are really all about this IMHO). Again, no real mechanics are attached, and 4e's system will let you do this quite painlessly. Nor do you have to spend 'slots' of some sort on this, like in 3.x.Yeah, again, I think the existing class, theme, feats, and background are pretty much adequate to this task.Now, here I'm a bit different. I see the skills more as 'approaches' to how you typically solve problems. So the guy who uses moves based primarily on strength, in a loose sense, is solving problems with athletic means. The guy who relies on sheer quickness and agility is doing 'acrobatic' stuff. I admit, these two are somewhat closely related, but it still feels like there's a decent flavor difference (and I'm not looking for realism, but more for portrayal). In the case of Diplomacy and Intimidate, they are just DIFFERENT approaches! I wouldn't combine them. And I don't see what Bluff and Thievery have in common at all. Someone MIGHT be a 'scoundrel' and rely on a mix of the two, but its equally possible I'm all bluff and I have no thieving skills at all. Or conversely my thieving is right out there in the open and no deception is required. I wouldn't consider tricking someone with sleight-of-hand 'bluff' either, really. The more I thought about it when I wrote up the HoML skill list the less I wanted to change the 4e one.MCing is MUCH MUCH BETTER than most 'charops' and casual players seem to think. Giving the ability to just swap without any cost is actually pretty OP. I know MOST people here will probably not agree, but I know [USER=12749]@MwaO[/USER] has stated this same opinion. I would agree though that PMC sucks, though there might be a very few specific ones that are OK. Certainly the hybrid rules killed PMC stone cold dead, and its easy to see why. As with MCing though, Hybrid characters can be quite 'gifted', and there are some fairly obvious build patterns that are almost too good to pass up if hybrid rules are being used. Such as taking a hybrid in Shielding Swordmage if you have INT as your primary. Warlock can be pretty potent as well, as can Paladin. I wouldn't call these characters 'broken' exactly, but clever builds can be pretty interesting...</blockquote>

Verification