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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N0Man" data-source="post: 4894433" data-attributes="member: 64066">I'm a little confused by this post, since on one hand it sounds like you are mocking that design decision (with the "lol), and on the other hand lament not being able to have a discussion without people defending their preferences.Should we take this to mean that we shouldn't be on the defense, just the offense?This might be the topic of a another subject completely, but I actually very much support the statement.  I don't like relying on a skill system to define your characters interests, background and secondary skills.  The chances of most of these skills coming up in play were pretty low, even without taking into account the extreme variability based on the setting, DM, and other factors.I actually found 3.x skill systems to be rather confining.  Most classes had limited skill ranks in the first place, and had skills that they were expected to have because of their class.  Choosing background skills was a sacrifice which was frequently punished when encounters came, and rarely mattered (at least mattered 10 times less often than skills you could have picked).I'll take the 4E approach of just stating backgrounds (one of which can even have a mechanical bonus) and allowing them to either perform certain basic actions or give them a small bonus to related actions.The idea that numbers on a character sheet, dice rolls, and specific roleplay rules are required to roleplay is completely counterintuitive to me.  I've had tons of fun playing a game of Clue where we all roleplayed our characters, and Clue has no mechanic at all to encourage or define roleplay.That said, I think the first DMG was the best 4E book published, and probably my favorite D&D book every published, and I'm really looking forward to the DMG2.</blockquote>

Verification