Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5431814" data-attributes="member: 22779">Went back and reread the PHB since the SRD quote isn't clear.Under the Open Locks skill you cannot open a lock without a tool.  You MUST have at least a basic tool for opening a lock in order to use the skill (page 76 (I think) of the 3.5 PHB and p74 (again I think) of the 3.0 PHB)  ((Don't have the books in front of me again)).  So, I'm not sure how this is a "particular reading" of the rules.  The rules are pretty clear.  If your thief is locked in a dungeon and stripped naked, he cannot use open locks on the door in 3e.In other words, sure, I can ignore the rules and say that my spoon is an "improvised tool" and use it, but, that's exactly what I'm doing - ignoring the rules.  Not that I can't do that.  Of course I can.  But, in 4e, I don't have to - the rules actually accept my choice without forcing me to do an end run around the mechanics.--------I think the problem comes with this discussion in that people focus on the 4e PHB and not the DMG.  If you take the 4e DMG out of the picture, then, I totally agree, 4e is an overly complicated combat engine.  The 4e PHB does a very poor job of presenting a game that is more than just an endless series of fights. OTOH, the 4e DMG does a very, very good job of telling a new DM how to run a fun game.  It might not be Shakespeare or the greatest game ever, but it will be a fun, solid game.  And that's what you want from a guide to dungeon mastering, IMO.  A lot of the issues that people bring up - endless streams of fights, no non-combat mechanics, etc are a result of looking at the PHB.Totally understandable.  Fumetti has a point here.  A new player is going to look at the 4e PHB and probably think the game is nothing but combat.  While the skills are presented in the 4e PHB, the idea of skill challenges waits in the DMG.  Page 42 is in the DMG, so how is a player supposed to know that he can swing from the chandelier and kick the ogre into the fire pit?The 4e DMG does a fantastic job of giving DM's the tools to run a game.  It really does.  I do put it as the best DMG D&D's ever had - it beats out the AD&D 1e DMG in my mind because of organization.  If the 1e DMG was written as clearly as the 4e DMG, it truly would be the greatest DMG ever.  But I digress.The 4e PHB, OTOH, does not do a fantastic job of giving players tools for interacting with the world.  It presumes that players know how to role play and will automatically do it without any prompting from the books.  I think this is a serious flaw in the 4e PHB.  The 4e PHB needs about ten or fifteen more pages spread throughout the book telling players how to engage the game without simply hacking everything in sight.  Something like the Designer sidebars in the 4e DMG, only geared for players.And the WOTC modules have not helped matters at all.  They are hack fests.  Again, unfortunate since it presents the game in such a limited light.  Then again, 1e survived having lots of the same kind of modules, so, maybe it's okay at the end of the day.But, after all is said and done, I think the big issue is that people plant their flags in particular books and sections of the rules and argue from that position.  Fumetti and Shazar are not wrong in their criticisms.  Not really.  It's just that they are basing their opinions on sections that others like Pemerton or Prof C generally don't worry about so much.  And Prof C and others are not wrong either.  Just arguing from a different hill so to speak.Does that make sense?  ((And sorry to call people out like that, not intending that as a shot))</blockquote>

Verification