Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5931493" data-attributes="member: 27160">I don't think any rules system can either "allow" or "disallow" GM fiat, to be honest. As I said, some level of adjudicating stuff not covered by the rules is inevitable - and thus new rules are born.Agreed - and no set of rules will eliminate bad GMs or bad GMing. That's not what I'm arguing.You said it yourself, here: it's not GM fiat, it's just a good system. I can see the advantages in 4e's way, too - you just get one number per skill to track/refer to. But as a rule - either a houserule to 4e or a rule in D&DNext - I would have no objection at all to decoupling attributes from skills and using them just as you describe. In such a system, though, I would want to see a very clear definition of what is meant by each attribute (as well as by each skill). Oddly, the playtest documents do this pretty well for attributes, but fail spectacularly to do it for the "skills" (while 4e essentially ended up with it the other way around). It seems to be that some kind of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to these things in the WotC designers' minds...If you strip short rests from 4e you just say "Encounter" powers can be used three times per day. I'm pretty sure this is where the design came from in the first place; the designers observed how, once they reached high enough level, spellcasters picked the same spell multiple times for combat use, so they thought "why not balance these things up and allow them at all levels?". Good call, in my view, but I can see that some folks have aversions to it.Removing short rests in both 4e and the playtest material will change the monetary balance, perhaps significantly, as potions (or CLW wands, or whatever) suck up money to buy. Possible outcomes would include shorter "adventuring days", lower party power from offensive magical/alchemical gear or increased monetary treasure. Or all three or something different.Modularity is interesting, but I think it will necessarily have limits. I'm not that convinced it's significantly different than just having different systems and selecting from among them, but some folk seem to swallow the "brand name" thing hook, line and sinker, so maybe it'll open out their horizons a little (or they'll just pick the modules that are "obviously right" and sail blithely on...)</blockquote>

Verification