Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4394203" data-attributes="member: 48965">I think this point as some validity but ultimately I would have to disagree.&nbsp; XP is as fundamental to D&amp;D as &quot;kill thins and take there stuff&quot; and ultimately, as the game is setup, it is the only reason to attempt something.&nbsp; The game is designed around risk for reward and thus all actions need to have an incentive.I'm sorry but as of right now I'm pretty much lost on what the paradigm for sill challenges (as supported by the rules) is for 4e.&nbsp; First it was espoused that they were designed to include every instead of for one character to try with aid aother used by secondary characters.&nbsp; Yet the math didn't support this, and even some of the designers espoused a belief that many characters were supposed to be aiding others...just like in 3e.&nbsp; Then the eratta came out and skill challenges dropped the initiative and requirement for all to participate, now it's even more appealing to let only the highest skilled character(s) complete a task as a mes up with a low skill still constitutes a failure.&nbsp; The funny thing is with higher level skill challenges it makes even more sense as 3 failures always result in loosing the skill challenge.Again I disagree, with the advent of roles all D&amp;D 4e has done is make it so that character build now equals party build, and with an odd combination the DM still has to adjust encounters to deal with it.&nbsp;&nbsp; This has nothing to do with player cleverness as without a wizard...a party probably can't take on the same amount of minions as they could with one (and a strikers effectiveness; large amounts of damage is totally neutralized).&nbsp; Without a striker they will have a hard time with solos (and a defenders primary effectiveness; keeping a creature from attacking others is pretty much neutralized), and without a defender and leaders...well they will just have a harder time overall (everybody else is just too squishy without them to defend).&nbsp; I'd actually like a system for this...and there are alot of games on the market that handle it in an elegant and fun manner.Again disagree, I think non-combat abilities would benefit from an attack vs. hit point type system, and it would open the game up for characters who really want to play a skill monkey or social-based character.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 4394203, member: 48965"] I think this point as some validity but ultimately I would have to disagree. XP is as fundamental to D&D as "kill thins and take there stuff" and ultimately, as the game is setup, it is the only reason to attempt something. The game is designed around risk for reward and thus all actions need to have an incentive. I'm sorry but as of right now I'm pretty much lost on what the paradigm for sill challenges (as supported by the rules) is for 4e. First it was espoused that they were designed to include every instead of for one character to try with aid aother used by secondary characters. Yet the math didn't support this, and even some of the designers espoused a belief that many characters were supposed to be aiding others...just like in 3e. Then the eratta came out and skill challenges dropped the initiative and requirement for all to participate, now it's even more appealing to let only the highest skilled character(s) complete a task as a mes up with a low skill still constitutes a failure. The funny thing is with higher level skill challenges it makes even more sense as 3 failures always result in loosing the skill challenge. Again I disagree, with the advent of roles all D&D 4e has done is make it so that character build now equals party build, and with an odd combination the DM still has to adjust encounters to deal with it. This has nothing to do with player cleverness as without a wizard...a party probably can't take on the same amount of minions as they could with one (and a strikers effectiveness; large amounts of damage is totally neutralized). Without a striker they will have a hard time with solos (and a defenders primary effectiveness; keeping a creature from attacking others is pretty much neutralized), and without a defender and leaders...well they will just have a harder time overall (everybody else is just too squishy without them to defend). I'd actually like a system for this...and there are alot of games on the market that handle it in an elegant and fun manner. Again disagree, I think non-combat abilities would benefit from an attack vs. hit point type system, and it would open the game up for characters who really want to play a skill monkey or social-based character. [/QUOTE]

Verification