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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 4078301" data-attributes="member: 55966">I think I would say that 4e will still allow you to specialize, but allows for a much greater amount of flexibility in roleplaying.  I guess the best example would be the NWP from 2e of the Etiquette and Heraldry proficiencies to allow you to move in high society.   The etiquette skill was bundled up into Diplomacy in 3e, which allowed you not only to know what fork to hold, but also how to be a good dealmaker.    The problem was that you had the odd thing of being good at diplomacy but perhaps horrible at bluff (because you're a paladin) or not good a sense motive (because you're wisdom is low).   4e takes measures to solve problems like these by bundling more skills together, and by allowing some reasonable proficiency as you go up in levels.   So now, you may be better at dealmaking, but you still have a decent ability to bluff or sense motive, which makes a lot more sense.I can see an objection being made to characters being allowed to do too many things, like being able to ride horses as a city thief, or ballroom dance as a barbarian fighter.   I would say the best solution would be to simply allow the player to opt out of his abilities that he doesn't want until a suitable training time is given.  However, I see too much good in the more flexible spell system.  It will be great to have an aristocratic PC fighter who can dance, knows how to eat politely, has a passing familiarity with the noble families of the region, and can seduce the blonde haired daughter of the Viceroy without nerfing his dungeon and athletic skills that he needs out in the field.   As well, I also approve of moving unlikely skills that a player will not need or use to a general proficiency so that he doesn't waste it in preparation for a situation that never arises.</blockquote>

Verification