Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7714827" data-attributes="member: 57112">There is a significant difference between &quot;this is what you can do with X&quot; and &quot;this is an example of what you can do with X.&quot;The former is the 3.X style; the latter is the 5e style.One way in which 3.X did this was by trying to codify everything under the sun; through a ridiculously large and detailed skill list and a &quot;trained only&quot; mechanic for some skills. It was gating abilities. 4e did this in different ways, as you describe. There were positives to the 3.X skill system (particularly for unprecedented degree of expression-seeking behavior it accommodated) but it was very much a &quot;here is what you can do with X&quot; model.However, one look at 5e's section on ability checks shows that it's more about &quot;rulings over rules&quot; and &quot;here are some examples of when you'd call for an X check&quot;. Which is great for all the reasons you and Oofta and others have expanded upon.The problem with 3.X was that the base rule were meant to represent everything. Thus, every new thing they released that you could do was an expansion of the rules as already established; that is, the rules were all-encompassing and thus about setting limits. Any new rules (for example skill tricks) simply expanded upon those limits.But that's not what's happening in 5e at all. The overarching theme is still &quot;rulings over rules&quot;. These feats, then, aren't about broadening already existing limits at all; they are about providing new examples.And as I've argued, the presence of more examples in such a framework only serves to expand creativity. If the only limiting factor is your imagination, as is the 5e code, then the best way to expand those limits is by providing more fodder for players' collective imagination. They exist to say &quot;hey, here's a new cool thing you can do with this skill that you might not have thought of.&quot; How well they accomplish that goal is up to interpretation (see again: Performer) but as a hamper on creativity? These will really only limit the imagination of those who are trying to play 5e with a 3.X or 4e mindset. Something you yourselves have mentioned are explicitly not a part of what 5e is supposed to be in the first place.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 7714827, member: 57112"] There is a significant difference between "this is what you can do with X" and "this is an example of what you can do with X." The former is the 3.X style; the latter is the 5e style. One way in which 3.X did this was by trying to codify everything under the sun; through a ridiculously large and detailed skill list and a "trained only" mechanic for some skills. It was gating abilities. 4e did this in different ways, as you describe. There were positives to the 3.X skill system (particularly for unprecedented degree of expression-seeking behavior it accommodated) but it was very much a "here is what you can do with X" model. However, one look at 5e's section on ability checks shows that it's more about "rulings over rules" and "here are some examples of when you'd call for an X check". Which is great for all the reasons you and Oofta and others have expanded upon. The problem with 3.X was that the base rule were meant to represent [I]everything.[/I] Thus, every new thing they released that you could do was an [I]expansion of the rules[/I] as already established; that is, the rules were all-encompassing and thus about setting limits. Any new rules (for example skill tricks) simply expanded upon those limits. But that's not what's happening in 5e at all. The overarching theme is still "rulings over rules". These feats, then, aren't about broadening already existing limits at all; they are about providing new examples. And as I've argued, the presence of more examples in such a framework only serves to expand creativity. If the only limiting factor is your imagination, as is the 5e code, then the best way to expand those limits is by providing more fodder for players' collective imagination. They exist to say "hey, here's a new cool thing you can do with this skill that you might not have thought of." How well they accomplish that goal is up to interpretation (see again: Performer) but as a hamper on creativity? These will really only limit the imagination of those who are trying to play 5e with a 3.X or 4e mindset. Something you yourselves have mentioned are explicitly not a part of what 5e is supposed to be in the first place. [/QUOTE]

Verification