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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 5647757" data-attributes="member: 529">Diatribe?  It certainly didn't come off to me as a diatribe.  It seemed more like an earnest attempt to communicate.  Agree, absolutes are generally bad. I guess this depends on how important realistic skills are to you.  In D&D, particularly in a theoretical 4E where skills are optional, I'd say they're not that important and modeling on a single ability score is reasonable.  I'd hardly call this "inexperienced" design.  In fact, I'd reason that bowing to the pressure of making it more realistic is more inexperienced.I sort of agree with you on the issue of absolutes, in particular, the talent that allows you to never fall from a bad roll seems to be a bit much, but these are details, and I don't think that's the main point he's trying to debate.  I think the main point of the article is:  Would it be a good idea to go in this direction of having the rules for systems such as climbing tied to ability scores so that Skills could be an optional system?  I'd say yes, as it allows for more choices.  I could then use Skills or not.  Have to disagree.  I think it would be more fun than the existing 4E climbing rules, but would need some tweaks/refinement.  I'd give him a respectful B, especially considering this wasn't even meant to be a playtest article, much less a DDI article or an official rule change.  In fact, I'd give it an A+ for its intended purpose, that is, to open up a conversation with fans about the rules.I also agree with an above poster who is wondering about the skill talents overlapping in the design space with feats.  But I have a feeling Mearls already has an answer for that, and hopefully will share that with us in a future article.  Feats need an overhaul more than anything IMO.</blockquote>

Verification