D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[Garthanos]

ie rulings not rules if you arent a caster "separate but cough cough cough equal"

 

[Imaro]

Like the spells arent tons of little rules in themselves? which sure you always have the freedom to change but claiming its not excessive when we have so many games with actual light rules is against just not something i am buying

It's how Vancian magic works that's what you keep missing... Vancian (the magic system D&D uses) is defined by discrete spells that one memorizes and then forgets upon casting... without individual spells to memorize you can't really do that. In other words those individual spells map to the individual skills one can have proficiency in and yes the DM can in fact modify them, make them harder or easier to cast, change their effect and so on, just as he can with skills.

 

[Imaro]

for some things like Warlords do you have something to point me towards because that is part of why I even talk about 5e....

EDIT no I didnt take it as snarky

No not offhand, it's not something I was really looking for though.

 

[Garthanos]

It's how Vancian magic works that's what you keep missing... Vancian (the magic system D&D uses) is defined by discrete spells that one memorizes and then forgets upon casting..

D&D is a list based system but one of the lists is really lacking in clarity about what might be achievable and how those achievements might balance and interact with all the others.

 

[Imaro]

D&D is a list based system but one of the lists is really lacking in clarity about what might be achievable and how those achievements might balance and interact with all the others.

For some... I guess. For others it works just fine.

 

[Garthanos]

ie rulings not rules if you arent a caster "separate but cough cough cough equal"

but remember just in case skill based characters accidentally get too powerful due to rulings.... casters get skills too and all is good.

 

[Imaro]

but remember just in case skill based characters accidentally get too powerful due to rulings.... casters get skills too and all is good.

Dude I honestly can't even follow what your issue is anymore... Have we now moved the goalposts to skills should do the same things as magic or are we talking about examples.. set DC's or something else? there is a point where it's ok to admit a game isn't for you... especially if what you are complaining about seems to work for most people playing it.

 

[Garthanos]

Dude I honestly can't even follow what your issue is anymore...

The reason one wants skill ability to be well defined is those who rely on them should be as well served by the game as those who can just pop off a spell. Do they do the exact same things ummm tell me something a spell will never do so we can avoid overlap in effect (something to wait forever on).

 

[Imaro]

The reason one wants skill ability to be well defined is those who rely on them should be as well served by the game as those who can just pop off a spell.

They are, that's the beauty of DM rulings being equally viable for both.

Do they do the exact same things ummm tell me something a spell will never do so we can avoid overlap in effect.

Wait... so this is the issue now?

Short answer... whatever I as the DM and my players agree upon (see above).

 

[Parmandur]

The reason one wants skill ability to be well defined is those who rely on them should be as well served by the game as those who can just pop off a spell. Do they do the exact same things ummm tell me something a spell will never do so we can avoid overlap in effect.

Open a lock quietly, without alerting an army of Sahuagin to the player's presence and location.

Convince somebody to help or not hinder you without causing violent consequences later on.

Moving freely without resource usage.

Indeed, WotC went to some trouble to make all Skill-avoiding Spells both cost resources and have major complications inherent in their usage.