Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6030713" data-attributes="member: 87792">That's blatantly obvious.&nbsp; And 4e has out of combat skills so this isn't a point of difference.&nbsp; You don't use Diplomacy in the middle of a fight.&nbsp; Or Streetwise.&nbsp; So the possibility is there.&nbsp; What 4e lacks are non-adventuring skills.&nbsp; Skills like craft and profession.&nbsp; And the rules for Perform fit that category - the skills you use when you aren't actually doing much at the table.&nbsp;And I've seen both played in 4e.&nbsp; Ultimately it's charisma, class, and background.&nbsp; This is a tax to fit the character concept.&nbsp;&nbsp;Thie might be a point.&nbsp;&nbsp;So can everything else.&nbsp; Like the existance of backgrounds, of themes, of rituals (and with just the ritual caster abilities, 4e concepts leave 3.X ones in the dust).&nbsp;&nbsp;You mean that they are there and never used in play?&nbsp; Huh.&nbsp; I find that for worldbuilding what I need is a set of rules that won't force themselves too hard into my game.&nbsp;&nbsp;I do wonder if there is a divide between roleplayers and D&amp;D players.&nbsp; Most of the general roleplayers I know come down on the 4e side of the edition wars - and weren't too impressed by earlier editions.&nbsp;&nbsp;I get annoyed at it because it is a bare faced lie.&nbsp; 4e literally has more capacity to handle non-combat baked into the structure of the game than any other edition of D&amp;D that preceeded it.&nbsp; With ritual casting it finally opens a vast range of PCs that not even 3.X with its supposed flexibility could touch.&nbsp; Concepts like The Grey Mouser - one of the heroes of Appendix N.Perversely there are two things 4e does worse than earlier editions.&nbsp; The first is High Powered Anime/Wuxia style.&nbsp; The second is combat-heavy dungeoncrawling.&nbsp; And what are the normal accusations levelled at 4e?&nbsp; (Of course to do those everyone needs to be a caster in 3.X).&nbsp;&nbsp;Likewise.&nbsp; My interest is in it being a good game.&nbsp; I don't give a damn about the traditions of D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6030713, member: 87792"] That's blatantly obvious. And 4e has out of combat skills so this isn't a point of difference. You don't use Diplomacy in the middle of a fight. Or Streetwise. So the possibility is there. What 4e lacks are non-adventuring skills. Skills like craft and profession. And the rules for Perform fit that category - the skills you use when you aren't actually doing much at the table. And I've seen both played in 4e. Ultimately it's charisma, class, and background. This is a tax to fit the character concept. Thie might be a point. So can everything else. Like the existance of backgrounds, of themes, of rituals (and with just the ritual caster abilities, 4e concepts leave 3.X ones in the dust). You mean that they are there and never used in play? Huh. I find that for worldbuilding what I need is a set of rules that won't force themselves too hard into my game. I do wonder if there is a divide between roleplayers and D&D players. Most of the general roleplayers I know come down on the 4e side of the edition wars - and weren't too impressed by earlier editions. I get annoyed at it because it is a bare faced lie. 4e literally has more capacity to handle non-combat baked into the structure of the game than any other edition of D&D that preceeded it. With ritual casting it finally opens a vast range of PCs that not even 3.X with its supposed flexibility could touch. Concepts like The Grey Mouser - one of the heroes of Appendix N. Perversely there are two things 4e does worse than earlier editions. The first is High Powered Anime/Wuxia style. The second is combat-heavy dungeoncrawling. And what are the normal accusations levelled at 4e? (Of course to do those everyone needs to be a caster in 3.X). Likewise. My interest is in it being a good game. I don't give a damn about the traditions of D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification