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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6576775" data-attributes="member: 82106">Everything in modern D&D systems DOES work pretty much the same, especially in 4e! Lets face it, D&D has a special focus on fighting monsters, so yes, they add a few minor details onto the weapons ON TOP OF the 'weapon skill', which invariably applies to EVERY WEAPON IN THE GAME with some minor variation in some versions depending on if you are proficient with that specific weapon type or general class of weapons. D&D does not focus to the same extent on ANYTHING else. So your point seems very weak to me. Are you really suggesting that 4e is crippled because it doesn't have a separate skill for a Lute vs a Ukulele and there's some profound difference between them? If it was 'Rock Band the RPG' or 'Bards & Beholders' then it might matter.Its not a character resource because it doesn't add some kind of capability to the character. Like a weapon it is just a vehicle for accomplishing a task. Unlike weapons there are several possible tasks you can accomplish with a song/musical performance, so it could be governed by any of several skills. Honestly its YOU that wants to lump it all into one 'vague skill' where all that matters is how dexterously the character can strum the strings of his instrument and he can try to achieve any old effect equally well, and regardless of the characters insight or any other aspect of his personality at all. That's not what I said. I said that since being able to play an instrument doesn't add any specific capability to a character that the character doesn't already have, in game mechanical terms, there's no need for it to be a controlled player resource that has to be be paid for or rationed. The player should be able to simply decide he can play or not as it suites him. If he does decide to play then NARRATIVELY, in the fiction, yes the music can affect people, it just doesn't do so to any greater degree than other options. Its possible that in some corner case being able to play might open up some otherwise closed narrative option, but given the lack of focus in D&D on playing music I don't believe its necessary to dole out playing ability carefully, any other kind of backstory can equally have an effect on the game.No, it is not 'DM fiat', if you want to scare people, use Intimidate, if you want to tell them a lie, use Bluff, if you want to get them on your side or to do something for you/that you want, use Diplomacy. I'd say if you just want to entertain them then use a basic CHA check, though Insight might also be useful as a way to determine what they'll like (other knowledge skills might work too, History, Nature, etc). As for "how well you play an instrument" there's two answers to that. Answer one is "well enough to succeed" and answer two is "who cares?" I mean really, who cares how well you play? Narrate it as good or bad playing, its not relevant. If you want to get into a dueling banjos with Asmodeus set a DC to win and make it a DEX check if you wish, but I'd think an SC including again History, Insight, maybe Bluff, etc would be more exciting for such a unique event, and there's probably going to be a lot more involved than just the playing itself.Sure, why not? Inigo Montoya fences his best and the ogre caves his skull in with an unguardable club shot right to the head. Nothing at all dictates that you 'did worse' because there was a low check. Maybe you slipped, maybe the situation was hopeless, maybe you just had bad luck. I see no reason why a player is required to narrate failure as being a poor performance. Nor is this line of reasoning useful in countering my argument, which is simply that 4e's skill system uses 'check against objective' rather than 'check against means', and I assert that the former is superior to the later and that 5e's skill system suffers for the difference. Sure there is, there's plenty of incoherence! I already pointed it out above. You are collapsing the whole thing down to one technical ability check that isn't even necessarily representing only technical ability, since checks represent a lot of different things. Its not better in any way shape or form.I'm perfectly happy to give a character who has something like 'Entertainer' a +2 bonus when in a situation where knowledge of entertaining is useful, such as being on a stage entertaining people. This is exactly in accordance with the sidebar in PHB2. You might ALSO be applying a skill bonus from one of several skills depending on the goal of your music. Again, IF this game was 'Bards & Beholders' and playing instruments was a specific focus then I would imagine there would be elaborate rules for exactly which instrument works best for each task, how to play with a group, etc. Its D&D, we can live with "you have the background Entertainer and a note 'can play lute' on your sheet, so yeah, go ahead and get up on stage and try to rally the crowd in favor of the Young Duke! Diplomacy check, add a +2 for background." And, again, if the character is say a Bard and has some special magical resource that will sway people (a ritual or power) then great, that will work even better and it has its own specific rules for using that character resource, which the player paid for in some fashion or other. This is all quite clear, isn't it?</blockquote>

Verification