Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 4257253" data-attributes="member: 3400">How do you really expect this to be all that different with 4e? Because you don't have as many options to create characters not suited to the table you're playing with? Because that's the fundamental problem. The characters weren't suited to the groups you've been playing with.Now, maybe it's because you were playing with people focused too much on the "back to the dungeon" mode of D&D while the 3e rule set provided tools to reach beyond that type of play, where skills not important in the dungeon can actually play an important role. I've played a couple games like that and, when I run, I try to include the non-adventuring skills (various cooking-type skills particularly seem to come up for some reason). But then, I learned to do that sort of thing back when running 1st edition Oriental Adventures where a serious and important encounter could revolve around handling a tea ceremony correctly or going to an impromptu poetry contest could net you serious connections with the local lord.So, please, could everyone STOP blaming a rule set for any problems you've all had with min-maxing and realize where the blame really lies: with the table's style of play decision.</blockquote>