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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4919255" data-attributes="member: 80487">I'm not seeing that rule in the books. Thieves get a special chance to find the sort that would come up in their lock- and pocket-picking, and dwarves to find stonework traps, pits, and deadfalls. Other characters can find and deal with things just as you or I might.Likewise, any character could fight -- but warrior types were better at it. There were qualitative differences such as armament by class (ability to use magic swords being especially big, magic arrows and bows being notable as well).Now, there are heaps of different combat powers, and that seems to be where views focus. I think there's about as much (if not just the kinds of) differentiation as one might reasonably expect. It happens not to interest me enough to warrant the demands on time and energy, but that's another matter. I like a simple "roll to hit, roll for damage" method most of the time, to save time and get on with the adventure.How about those 17 skills and however many feats? The number may be fewer than in 3e, and feats even more concerned with what might seem petty details, but is there really a dire shortage of "crunch"? There's certainly more than in the 1970s-80s.Maybe the big, basic problem for some people is not that there are "wrong" mechanisms but that there is too much focus on them; maybe different ones or -- especially! -- more won't solve the problem.The bottom line for some may be that 4e is simply not the game for them. For others, perhaps the answer is to look elsewhere than the number-crunching, board-game moves, etc., for the variety that is the spice of life.</blockquote>

Verification