Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 4018782" data-attributes="member: 5038">Sorry, this is stepping on the DMs toes. How special rings are should be, imo,&nbsp; a DM decision based on the campaign not the designers. Accept a) a guide mentiions insitituting training rules. b) the DM saying no to putting ranks in a certain skill due to lack of training or having encountering situtations where the character could have developed the skill.Then there is also Sean Reynolds Fewer Absolute article which opens up many trained skills to untrained characters without granting automatic bonuses based on level.My problem is with the paladin falling from orbit.&nbsp; I have no problem with the paladin not being a good climber. The character sould have been buying ranks in the skill if he had been climbing during his early training or later during his adventures (the same goes for swimming).I never said Vancian was good. I am glad that they removed Vancian. However, the solution has introduced its own problems that are just as bad, imo.&nbsp; Better solutions already exist in 3e from third parties. Simply introducing hp loss or some other mechanic to represent strain and fatigue that can be recovered by taking time to rest or at a slower pace by engaging in non-strenous activites.My&nbsp; issue is not with differences between 4e and past editions. Every edition has its odd rules.&nbsp; My issue is with the designers of the new edition introducing odd rules of their own -especially, when the rule attempts to fix problems with spell casting and stale combat&nbsp; would have been fine if it had not broke verisimilitude, Why were 3rd parties able to offer solutions that fixed the problem while not breaking verisimitude?&nbsp;&nbsp; As for taking the time to explain odd gamist rules that break verisimilitude, the fact that I can do so doesn't change the fact that the rules requiring me to do so exist.&nbsp; And, attempting to explain some of the rules to fit the world is still going to strain credibiity (per encounter for instance).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greg K, post: 4018782, member: 5038"] Sorry, this is stepping on the DMs toes. How special rings are should be, imo, a DM decision based on the campaign not the designers. Accept a) a guide mentiions insitituting training rules. b) the DM saying no to putting ranks in a certain skill due to lack of training or having encountering situtations where the character could have developed the skill. Then there is also Sean Reynolds Fewer Absolute article which opens up many trained skills to untrained characters without granting automatic bonuses based on level. My problem is with the paladin falling from orbit. I have no problem with the paladin not being a good climber. The character sould have been buying ranks in the skill if he had been climbing during his early training or later during his adventures (the same goes for swimming). I never said Vancian was good. I am glad that they removed Vancian. However, the solution has introduced its own problems that are just as bad, imo. Better solutions already exist in 3e from third parties. Simply introducing hp loss or some other mechanic to represent strain and fatigue that can be recovered by taking time to rest or at a slower pace by engaging in non-strenous activites. My issue is not with differences between 4e and past editions. Every edition has its odd rules. My issue is with the designers of the new edition introducing odd rules of their own -especially, when the rule attempts to fix problems with spell casting and stale combat would have been fine if it had not broke verisimilitude, Why were 3rd parties able to offer solutions that fixed the problem while not breaking verisimitude? As for taking the time to explain odd gamist rules that break verisimilitude, the fact that I can do so doesn't change the fact that the rules requiring me to do so exist. And, attempting to explain some of the rules to fit the world is still going to strain credibiity (per encounter for instance). [/QUOTE]

Verification