M. Petry's page

The concentration skill is okay but, IMO, everything that it does could easily be governed by a Will save instead...

Spellcasters already have good Will saves,
They represent the ability to focus one's mind to overcome outside influences,
There is very little difference in a character's ability to make a saving throw at about the same level they could meet or beat a similar concentration check, and,
It removes the "skill tax" associated with spellcasting.

I could go on but this isn't a pesuasive post - it's just how I handle the "concentration vs. spellcraft" issue in my game. I hope it helps.

My initial thought was that the O.P had an almost valid point (don't just make a statement, cite an easy escape and leave it at that) until I scrolled down to the 'dumb' comment.

That prompted me to make a few suggestions of my own:

First, don't begin a sentence with a conjunction and call other people 'dumb'. That doesn't help your cause. This one is a slap on the wrist for insulting your fellow gamers.

Second, avoid posting (as far as I can tell) intentionally inflammatory comments. It negates your credibility. I'm honestly trying to help you with this suggestion because you might have had a partially valid point if you had approached it from a different angle.

Finally, unless you are absolutely certain that your bulleted points are invalid arguments (which you cannot be - too many variables are left undefined and people have a right to their opinions), maybe you should just focus on not using them yourself. Making suggestions (like I am now) helps people improve. You are trying to assert a prohibitation you have no right (or ability) to enforce.

I hope this helps. Have a great day.

I like the new ritual rules or, at least, the concept of them. The thing that I like most about them is that anyone, of any class, who has the right skills, can use them. "Failed to pick that lock? Bust out the arcane components and come at it again from a different angle,"
fits my idea of adventuring more than, "Wait for the wizard to make everything all better - and why didn't you just let him Knock it open in the first place?"

Divinations, bindings, raising the dead - I've always imagined them as ceremonial and time consuming, so rituals work for me conceptually.

I do like the "20 equals critical, critical equals maximum damage" thing as well. It is simple, streamlined and effective. Rolling to confirm a threat and failing is a let down. Confirming but rolling low damage is depressing. I don't mind that it reduces the relative worth of scimitars, scythes, kukris and their kin. Threatening to critical over and over again just adds a second confirmation roll and a x4 multiplier just asks, again, for more dice rolling. I'd rather count on the maximum and let the next player take his turn. I like pace.

I don't like healing surges. I like Monte Cook's "grace" system a lot though. It's more cinematic and keeps the players up and fighting longer without turning the cleric into a full time healer.

I like modifiers. If the vancian spellcasting system were somehow removed, stats could just be referenced by their modifiers. Writing 12 or 13 in one box and then +1 in another is fine but a simplified "Strength: 4 Dex: 2 Con: -1 Etc: ," would save on time. We know that a +/- 2 to any stat will result in a +/- 1 modifier (hence racial mods being even numbers). Why not streamline it?

Starting hit points equal to constitution score...yeah. That works. Racial modifiers to con would be accounted for, so biggun's and lil' ones are represented well. I don't really like set increases to hit points based on level though. That means that every high level character would end up having hp totals that are far too similar, every time. That seems kind of lackluster to me.

Then there's leveled magical items. That's probably a big help to beginning DMs who don't balance things well on their own. Plus it makes the Enchant ritual simple.

All in all, I think there are plenty of things that were 'introduced' in 4E that really do streamline play. I won't actually ever play 4E again, out of my need to think for myself (sorry, couldn't resist) but it is a solid system for what it focuses on doing.

Oh, and I like the Ability Mod + 1/2 level thing. Don't really know why, but I like it.

So no one else is bothered by the lack of craft or profession skill sets of any kind? Okay then, what about immersion and metagame thinking? 4th edition seems to favor grid based, tactical descriptions for almost every aspect of the game. Speed, range, area of effect - all of these and more are expressed in "squares". Discussion of any kind that references any of those things will invariably include metagame terms. It is very mechanically oriented and precise but, cosmetically, bland.

"I charge 20 feet and then attack," may be a boring declaration but "I move 4 squares and then attack" obliterates flavor text and immersion in favor of keeping track of tactical movement. Now I'm sure there are many people who can think past this but new players being introduced to table top RPGs are not. They will take that terminology at face value and that will be the game - metagame terminology will be the norm.

IIRC, the rules for "initial attitudes" are also absent. Diplomacy skill rolls aren't targeted against Indifferent to Friendly, categorical, DCs. They are pass/fail situations more than likely based in Skill Challenge scenarios.

So, while I do think that a good role player can certainly get into character and exchange social fu with everyone they might encounter, I believe that the 4th edition rules certainly take the emphasis off of role playing by removing the majority of the mechanics that made it interesting. I don't intend to restate my points repeatedly but I had never considered having a PC who ran a business "on the side". When those rules were presented, I was intrigued and used them to add another dimension (and source of income) to my character. The business (a tavern) provided a stream of adventure hooks and NPCs that enhanced the entire groups perspective on "everyday life in a fantastic setting." For me and mine, losing the ability to 'stay in town every once in awhile and still gain something,' is a serious let down.

As far as going to work everyday and not wanting to imagine another work week, we never did. The suggested option of having cohorts and hirelings run it while we used it as a base of operations worked exceptionally well. Irregardless, my point is that 4th edition amputated too much of that sort of mechanic to measure up, as a role playing experience, to its predecessor(s).

There are no Craft or Profession skills in 4th ed. 3.5 had rules for starting and running businesses / having a life (and income) outside of adventuring. The new rules cover destroying pretty much anything your character encounters but not one sentence, in any of the three core books, instructs you on how to create something.

Unless you count creating magical items; Have components? Have feat? POOF. Item. Congrats.

Bards have been mentioned. That class is based around having a skill many "adventurers" would consider useless: creating music. Outside of combat, in a town, they had a way to earn income and keep a roof over their heads. The other characters did not inherently possess that type of ability.

I've read more than a few comments from WotC's development team that stated, in no uncertain terms, that they thought DnD was about adventure and not about mundane experiences like haggling over the price of a room. I agree with them. However, the option to engage in the exchange of services not directly related to "kill creatures and collect reward" should never have been abandoned.

Does role playing have a place in 4th edition? Yes. Your PC still has the ability to speak and that is really all you need to engage in social exchange. But there used to be many other avenues a player could explore within a given community that are now absent the game. I, for one, will be house ruling them back in as soon as I can decide on the mechanics.