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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6577667" data-attributes="member: 48965">I'm not following your logic here... you brought up weapons as an example of an insignificant detail, not me... but now you seem to be back-tracking and claiming yest weapons are important because D&D has a combat focus to the game... well then why did you present them as an example?A few points as to your question about whether I was asserting 4th ed is "crippled"...because it doesn't have a separate lute skill vs. ukulele skill...1. Hyperbole... can we tone it down?  D&D isn't called Athletics and Acrobats... yet it has separate skills for those.2. This line of conversation didn't start because I commented on 4e... it started because you claimed the tool proficiencies were incoherent and cited the musical instruments as an example...3.  No I don't think 4e is "crippled by not having a Ukulele vs. Lute skill, it's mmusc too broad-based for that... however I do think it should have some type of performance skill... as opposed to a person having to be proficient in whatever the DM deems appropriate at the particular time to perform using various art forms... Of course I don't think this makes 4e incoherent... just incomplete for my own tastes.   Again your analogy falls apart... we have weapon proficiencies in 3e, 4e, 5e and even earlier... so if it's not a resource and doesn't add capability to a character why are there weapon proficiencies in every modern edition of D&D?  Because it grants you capability in said weapon, in the same way tool proficiency in a musical instrument grants one capability in said musical instrument...Well no I want it to be under one pretty clear skill as opposed to multiple DM fiat based applications of other skills... as you have demonstrated by swinging back and forth between Diplomacy, Intimidate and a plain old Charisma check... of course you also pre-suppose that the artist never makes mistakes of a physical nature such as strumming the wrong string on a lute, mis-reading a note, etc. which as someone who plays a musical instrument I can vouch that it happens... because then we also need to make Perception checks, and a Dex check and so on... which IMO, makes no sense and is more incoherent to me than just having a musical instrument/perform/whatever skill that encompasses the total package of being able to play a lute or Ukelele... apparently in your world musicians are the greatest enforcers, leaders, and all-around charming people known to man... in mine they can just play an instrument really well.This all seems rather arbitrary... so a player can decide he's a master musician... but not a master in the rapier without expending resources... why?  According to you the rapier didn't grant him any more capability and yet in 4e it is a Superior Melee Weapon and thus resources must be expended to use it.  My issue with your claims of D&D not focusing on playing music is that D&D (at least in 5e) has 3 major pillars... exploration, social and combat... I have seen tons of genre examples where the protagonists ability to  play a musical instrument impacts at least 2 of those pillars (social and exploration) and possibly the 3rd, combat (though admittedly in fantasy stories it's often used to avoid this pillar)... In other words the abiliity to play a musical instrument can impact the game just as much as any other skill depending on the DM and players involved.  I understand your personal preferences but your personal likes or dislikes don't make the game objectively incoherent...So basically just let the DM throw a skill out there and hope you're good enough at it... though you are a "skilled" musician... So how dexterous I can play doesn't matter... how well I can recall the notes of the song don't matter... basically nothing surrounding the actual playing of an instrument matters... got it.I'm assuming if I went through the effort of making the skill of playing an instrument a part of my character... I do care how well he plays.  Now in a game where no one cares... it's probably not going to get picked as a proficiency and the DM is probably never going to frame challenges around it because, like you said who cares.  Personally I don't think it should be eliminated from the game because a sub-section doesn't care about it... since they can choose not to take it. Eh, I would say different strokes for different folks.  Again you personally not liking something does not make it objectively worse for another thing... apparently many people didn't like 4e's ...focus on "effect" and disregard of "way"  For you maybe it works but for me it's simpler, faster and connects more logically when one of my players says he plays his lute to soothe the savage beast and I say ok... add the proficiency bonus for your lute to your Charisma... or he says he competes with the court musician to see who can play the fastest without messing the song up and I say okay roll Dex + lute proficiency...No it's not one "technical" ability... but cover the proper usage of the tool in accomplishing what you are trying to do... You on the other hand are claiming it's more coherent to call on wildly disparate skills to play the lute... yet never is the actual ability (an all that this entails) used to play.  So your "Background" would be houseruled I believe... is this correct?  Because I though the rules for Backgrounds were that you apply a +2 to one skill... I also find this strange because what you're proposing here (a floating +2 when an instrument is used) is doing exactly what the musical instrument tool proficiency would do... add a prof bonus anytime he uses an instrument to accomplish his task... the only difference is that prof bonus in 5e doesn't stack so you don't add it to a skill... but instead to an attribute.</blockquote>

Verification