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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8247771" data-attributes="member: 87792">Only inarguable in the sense of false in probably most cases. If you don't have sword proficiency it doesn't mean that you can't try to stab someone with a sword. You're just going to get penalties or not get bonuses for doing so. And not having armour proficiency doesn't mean you can't wear armour. It just means it's awkward, bulky, and gets in the way.Proficiencies, feats, and codified mechanics in general can work in multiple ways which I call "Must", "May," and "If you must".You're talking about Must abilities there. Which work the way you say and are frequently very bad design (especially when a "Must" ability manages to retroactively affect the rest of the game)May abilities are ones like weapon and armour proficiencies, spells, and most 4e powers. They make you better at doing things than the baseline in terms of reliability or effectiveness. Just because you have a climb speed doesn't mysteriously prevent other people from climbing walls - it just means you are really really good at it and that you don't have to roll to climb something that isn't utterly ridiculous. Building a character in 4e is an exercise in choosing what your character will excel at. And the 5e monk getting the ability to run across water isn't what prevents characters without this ability (or the water walking spell or any other way) from walking on water.And "If you must" abilities can be written into the core rules of the game but are too weak to be worthwhile 99% of the time (the basic push/bull rush abilities in all of 2e, 3e, or 4e) or are too fiddly and obnoxious to be worth using so people groan when you try (many had this reaction to the 3.X grapple rules).</blockquote>

Verification