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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 5711595" data-attributes="member: 98255">And I completely disagree.In my group (of mostly AD&D grognards) we have no square peg round hole issues with the skill system. Like, at all. Other areas of 4e, sure. But not the skills.As for playstyles, we're RP-heavy; RP-centric even. So your implication that it's about playstyle doesn't fit. Unless that's not what you mean?I think the heart of the issue is one of approach, and how literally one wants to interpret the rules.And I still fail to understand how using skills in the ways described above is "logic defying." Makes perfect sense to me.In fact, to me, I actually don't get the point of having a skill in the game that only represents your technical ability with something.It's very well and good to say, "I play some sweet riffs on my hurdy gurdy. Sweet! I got a 36!" What does that prove? You can play well? Great. So what? More to the point,  what are you trying to accomplish with that? That's where a roll on another skill is involved. The game just assumes that you play well enough, but what it needs to know is how you intend to direct that action.I guess if you are the kind of person that needs to have a number to know how good you are, fine. 4e can account for that, as I've said (anywhere from just rolling an associated stat to stat + training + focus). But being good at a thing, and being able to apply that to different situations are completely different.It's pretty clear that we're not going to see eye to eye here, ever. That's why I hope to heck that the next incarnation of this game incorporates both (or more?) points of view, because I thought 3.x skill system was a complete mess. A time-consuming, fiddly, over-nuanced mess. You don't, and that's fine. Variety is the spice of life and all that.</blockquote>

Verification