Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5616868" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Yeah, there are differences in taste between different players/groups/DMs. I don't mean to insult anyone's opinions. I am just stating a very reasonable counterpoint. My feeling is that this is exactly the position the 4e devs were coming from, that advancing skill checks based on level would keep all the PCs roughly in the ballpark where any of them could in a pinch at least TRY a good variety of skill checks, thus both reducing the chances of an adventure derailing and increasing the opportunities for players to participate. The downside being what I consider a pretty small corner case that again will simply never come up in play. I mean as a DM if I want to have an NPC that is portrayed as far more knowledgeable about Arcana than the 30th level Barbarian, he's going to have an Arcana score far beyond what some low level apprentice wizard has. And said apprentice wizard would simply never show up in a campaign running at that level. Remember, NPCs don't run by PC rules, their skill bonuses effectively are nothing more than DCs and can be set as appropriate (maybe the wizard IS an apprentice, but if so he's the greatest prodigal apprentice wizard in history and has an Arcana of 40, an eventuality which 4e is perfectly willing to countenance). In fairness you could do the same thing in 3.5 or PF too if you wished. These kinds of issues are only issues if you insist that the numbers are some kind of 'physics engine' for describing the world instead of tools to help you tell the story you want to tell. Again, you can view it however you want and that's OK, but it is meaningless to criticize 4e based on criteria that 4e isn't interested in being measured by. All you can say is &quot;I'll play something else&quot;, which is great. I just don't understand why people insist on calling it a fault in 4e when it has no practical impact in play whatsoever.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5616868, member: 82106"] Yeah, there are differences in taste between different players/groups/DMs. I don't mean to insult anyone's opinions. I am just stating a very reasonable counterpoint. My feeling is that this is exactly the position the 4e devs were coming from, that advancing skill checks based on level would keep all the PCs roughly in the ballpark where any of them could in a pinch at least TRY a good variety of skill checks, thus both reducing the chances of an adventure derailing and increasing the opportunities for players to participate. The downside being what I consider a pretty small corner case that again will simply never come up in play. I mean as a DM if I want to have an NPC that is portrayed as far more knowledgeable about Arcana than the 30th level Barbarian, he's going to have an Arcana score far beyond what some low level apprentice wizard has. And said apprentice wizard would simply never show up in a campaign running at that level. Remember, NPCs don't run by PC rules, their skill bonuses effectively are nothing more than DCs and can be set as appropriate (maybe the wizard IS an apprentice, but if so he's the greatest prodigal apprentice wizard in history and has an Arcana of 40, an eventuality which 4e is perfectly willing to countenance). In fairness you could do the same thing in 3.5 or PF too if you wished. These kinds of issues are only issues if you insist that the numbers are some kind of 'physics engine' for describing the world instead of tools to help you tell the story you want to tell. Again, you can view it however you want and that's OK, but it is meaningless to criticize 4e based on criteria that 4e isn't interested in being measured by. All you can say is "I'll play something else", which is great. I just don't understand why people insist on calling it a fault in 4e when it has no practical impact in play whatsoever. [/QUOTE]

Verification