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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6163658" data-attributes="member: 5143">As I mention in my previous post.  This would be fine if the traits and powers seemed to have any effect on the game at all except slightly different die sizes.That's the reason a lot of people complain about 4e and all the powers feeling "the same".  I understand their concerns, though I disagree with them(mostly).  However, 4e powers still feel more connected with the fiction than MHRP powers do.  At least if you use a power that stuns someone, your attack roll is based on the weapon being used and the feats you have, your damage is likewise based on the weapon you are using and feats you have.  It's effect(stunning) is based on the fiction of you hitting them especially hard.It doesn't seem to differentiate between ANY defensive power unless they have SFX.  They all simply add a dice to your defensive pool.  Spiderman's ability to dodge is exactly the same as Wolverine's skeleton which is exactly the same as Captain America's shield which is exactly the same as Scarlet Witch's luck field which is exactly the same as someone else's toughness.  Which is fine, as I've said.  It's just VERY disconnected from the fiction.It's different than "This makes you faster, so you get bonuses to Reflex saves.  This makes you tougher so you either get damage reduction, bonuses to your fort save or AC depending on the situation".The less rules there are, often the more abstract the rules that do exist get.  Of course, if there are too many rules then they become confusing and difficult to keep track of(Hero System comes to mind).  D&D has always attempted to be somewhere in the middle.  Which I like.Oh, I agree.  Unfortunately, there are so FEW situations that have enough interesting things to narrate to require that complexity of skill challenge that they should almost never be used.  Plus, for a lot of DMs, they have no idea how much interesting things they have to narrate until they come out of their mouth since they are DMing mostly on the fly.Though, that doesn't stop the DMs who are pretty much improvising on the spot from saying "I need to give them a bunch of XP, so I'll use a high complexity skill challenge because I don't want to run a combat." and then end up spending the next 15 minutes saying "That's not enough successes, roll again".This almost always feels artificial, in my experience:"I tell the king that the kingdom will fall to the horde of demons we saw approaching and he needs to ride out and meet them.  There were hundreds of them and we can't defeat them alone!""Make a Diplomacy check." "I get 30.  That should convince him.""He's not completely convinced.  Maybe if you demonstrated your strength, he'd be convinced.""Really?  An army of demons isn't enough to convince him?  I have to lift a table over my head as well?""Yeah, sorry, I didn't expect you to make such a great point as your first check, and this is a complexity 5 skill challenge."I find "I'll keep asking for skill checks until I'm convinced they've succeeded in their goal" works much better than setting a specific number of successes required.  If it takes only 1 skill check to succeed in something, then so be it.  If it takes 30, that's fine as well.  I think skill challenges are just too formal.</blockquote>

Verification