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: 5712089" data-attributes="member: 98255">Nothing stops you from doing that with your 4e character but your own imagination. I have stuff like that on my sheets too, in every edition, in (almost) every RPG I've played. What of it? What's stopping you from doing it in 4e?That just doesn't make sense, in game or out. That's why separate pools need to exist. It's hard to justify calling someone the deadliest assassin  around if you've had to blow a bunch of resources on fluff that could have been spend more efficiently defining your primary archetype. You've just described a two-tier skill system here.I am too. Most of us arguing here are (I think). The part that really fails to make sense is the sacrifice. In this regard the 2e system of proficiencies and background skills makes more sense than 3.x style skill points.This is where it doesn't make sense to me. You should not need to burn an "game" useful resource to garner a (mostly) RP benefit. That's bad design. Resources are stretched thin enough as it is. For example, unless you had a ridiculously high Int, in 3.x, there simply weren't enough skill points to make a well-rounded human being, let alone an adventuring character, and forcing you to burn some on giving your character depth was just a horrible design choice. My groups always houseruled more skill points (and largely ditched the idea of cross class skills) but that didn't really solve anything, because with a lot of players, those points just went into combat stuff, and that was a little unbalancing. If there had been a separate extra pool for, as AA called them, the "CraPPer skills" I would have had much less of an issue with it.Though skill points were still far too fiddly for my tastes. Trying to build a character above first level was a complete nightmare.Nothing stops you from building a character like this now, except that in addition to languages and History, you might have a few others as well, and it would be fair to say some amount of Dungeoneering. The other stuff is easily covered by fluff and RP. That's only an issue if you have an unimaginitive DM that won't allow it.Or, you know, just write it on your sheet at full value because for the one time per campaign that it's going to come up it won't matter as far as balance is concerned. Or, more logically, have a separate pool for that junk. Why does it have to be "my way or the highway" with you? You refuse to give at all, but expect the reverse? We've heard a lot of criticism from you. How about you come up  with something besides, "use the skill system from D&D 3.x"? I challenge you to come up with a workable compromise on this like I have. Something that gives depth of character but doesn't penalize you for doing so.And yes, the 3.x method is penalizing you for representing depth with mechanics. The game is balanced on the assumption that characters will take every possible advantage. It has to be, because given the option, some players will go that way, so modules and tournament play have to account for that.I see no reason why any future versions of the game can't include those skills, but I see no convincing reason why it should not be a separate pool.</blockquote>

Verification