D&D 3E vs. 4E: An Essay

[sparkletwist]

I like the feeling of PCs being able to take on a series of escalating non-combat challenges of increasing difficulty and dering-do as they level.  In a straight proficient/non-proficient system, where you either are traiend in a skill or not and there's no numeric range/spectrum/granularity, once you've acquired a skill you're suddenly capable of taking on any challenge germane to that skill, with no room for upward mobility.

Well, that's true, but I don't think proficiency necessarily needs to come with a static bonus. That's the 4e way of doing it and is one way of doing it, but that's not the only way of doing it. You could also have proficiency add your level or half your level or some other scaling bonus, too, if you wanted to. Another option would be multiple levels of proficiency (Trained/Adept/Expert, or whatever) to allow some semblance of "ranks" without the full complexity of using skill ranks. Both of these would allow for a sense of improvement while still making the ranges of talents the characters may have at a given level more predictable for the GM (e.g., you're either 0 [or Z] or X, not any number between 0 and X), and thus making it easier to set DCs.
 

So what's wrong with having a wide disaprity in lockpicking and stealth ability between a fighter and a rogue?  Or a wide disparity in tracking and woodsmanship between a ranger and a paladin?

Nothing, but what's wrong is that we're talking about the skill system, which all classes have access to. If you want this to be a Fighter/Rogue thing or a Ranger/Paladin thing, then these should be class features, not skills. (The examples you gave about spell casting and healing ability and such were all class features, too)

Well, to me, part of the good part about being a Rogue is having skill points to spare.  The skills are one of the mechanical draws of the class

I understand your reasoning, but I personally sort of dislike that "having skills" is supposedly a class feature. It just makes Fighters suck more, because they can't have skills or they start to intrude on the Rogue's role, or something. Like I said, it just seems punishing to the Fighter. Multiclassing is one solution, but all it says is, "Yes, Fighters do suck, if you don't want to suck, be something else."

To be remotely on topic for a moment, Xeviat, in whatever houserules you create, please give Fighters nice things. :grin:

[Elemental_Elf]

As an aside, I sort of dislike those "core cluster" skills because, if everybody needs them, they're just a point tax, and it's a regressive tax at that: Rogues and Wizards usually have skill points to spare, while meanwhile Fighters are already sort of screwed due to their low skill points. So if there are skills they simply must put ranks into or they'll risk being pushed even further down into uselessness, it prevents them from diversifying and sort of reinforces the already large problem that Fighters are simply not good at anything other than dealing damage.

Well, to me, part of the appeal of being a Rogue is having skill points to spare.  The skills are one of the mechanical draws of the class, like a Barbarian's high HD, or the Fighter's many feats, or a Sorcerer's spontaneous casting.  It's also a major draw of playing a Human in 3.X instead of the more exotic races.

In broad strokes, you are right however after 13 years of experience with the system we all know that - in general - the Rogue's skill points are more meaningful than the Fighter's Feats because they touch on every aspect of the game, from combat, to RP, to exploration. The Fighter's feats only shine in combat and, after mid-level, they are generally pointless as those around you far outstrip your meager capabilities. :(

The nice thing about skill ranks is they don't demand you put all of your skill points into the same skills at every level.  What I mean by the core cluster idea is that, as time goes on, most players occasionally dump a point or two into those core skills, not that everyone has to level them like mad to keep up with the exacting demands of the "skill tax."  And the nice thing about 3.X is that Fighters and the like can diversify in part by taking non-Fighter levels - you know, the old "dip" approach.  Doubtless this approach has its abuses, but it kind of makes sense that a clunky Fighter who finds that his martial training isn't sufficient in the adventuring life picks up a few pointers from the Rogue or Ranger, or a few spells from the Wizard, represented by a level in those classes.

But you have so many fewer skill points in Pathfinder than 3.x, which disincentives people from spreading their skill points around. Doubly so for classes where INT isn't a priority and/or classes that receive few skill points per level. Putting a few skill points into a new skill is generally pointless as you level up as you will never come close to matching a specialist. By your own admission, challenges focusing on skills that are not being specialized in are tailored downward so as to accommodate lower rolls. There's no need to put spread your meager skills around because challenges are, generally, going to be tailored around you.

Multiclassing to get more skills is such an inelegant solution to the problem. Why should my Paladin be forced to level dip into Bard to keep four skills both classes share at max rank? It's a clunky way of solving a real problem in the game.

[Steerpike]

You could also have proficiency add your level or half your level or some other scaling bonus, too, if you wanted to.

Isn't this basically the same thing as skill ranks/points, but more rigid?  In Pathfinder/3.X you can just keep putting 1 point into all the skills you gained at first level, effectively allowing you to add your level bonus to your skills.  What's the real advantage to just adding your level or half your level over skill points?

Another option would be multiple levels of proficiency (Trained/Adept/Expert, or whatever) to allow some semblance of "ranks" without the full complexity of using skill ranks.

I think this is totally an acceptable alternative.  Still, in my experience, setting DCs isn't really that hard.  The only time that the big disparities become much of an issue is in the upper levels (10+), at which point the PCs in your average 3.X game usually have access to enough magic items, NPC support, spells (to either circumvent obstacles entirely or provide stat bonuses), and other resources that help with these things.

...what's wrong is that we're talking about the skill system, which all classes have access to. If you want this to be a Fighter/Rogue thing or a Ranger/Paladin thing, then these should be class features, not skills. (The examples you gave about spell casting and healing ability and such were all class features, too).  I understand your reasoning, but I personally sort of dislike that "having skills" is supposedly a class feature. It just makes Fighters suck more, because they can't have skills or they start to intrude on the Rogue's role, or something. Like I said, it just seems punishing to the Fighter. Multiclassing is one solution, but all it says is, "Yes, Fighters do suck, if you don't want to suck, be something else."

I guess I see your point, but by the same token everyone has Feats, but Fighters get way more of them (close to double depending on your class) in exactly the same way that Rogues get more Skill points.  Everyone has a base attack bonus, but the Fighter has a better progression than many other classes (in 3.X, anyway).  Everyone has HP, but the Barbarian has way more of it.  There are lots of features that everyone has that some classes have more of.  It's true that spells are class features, but 7/11 Pathfinder core classes (8/11 if you count the Rogue Talents "Minor Magic" or "Major Magic") have spellcasting ability, so it's hardly a unique class feature.  And because every character effectively has "access" to every class at all times - multiclassing is free and encouraged, especially in Pathfinder where the Paladin and Monk can freely multiclass, and you can even retrain your levels, abilities, and skills - I think this criticism is mitigated pretty substantially compared to something like 4E or other systems where your class is the one you're stuck with.

I agree, though, that as a class the 3.X Fighter needs more unique and exciting class features (i.e. beyond its numerous Feats) to make it attractive as a class to pursue "straight through."  4E's martial power solution kind of has its heart in the right place, but I don't like the implementation.  Personally, if I were rewriting the class, I might have the upper-level fighter gain various leadership-based, stronghold-building type abilities.

In broad strokes, you are right however after 13 years of experience with the system we all know that - in general - the Rogue's skill points are more meaningful than the Fighter's Feats because they touch on every aspect of the game, from combat, to RP, to exploration.

I'll again agree that the Fighter probably still needs work.  Again, I prefer Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and Monks (all of whom except the Paladin get 4-6 skill points per level - and the Paladin's buttload of fairly unique class features kind of mitigates his lack of skills) to Fighters, and I rarely see players pursue pure-class Fighters.  3.X/Pathfinder are definitely not perfect, and the Fighter is one of the most glaring flaws.

The Fighter's feats only shine in combat

Perhaps his Fighter-only bonus feats, but there's absolutely nothing stopping a Fighter from choosing any of the plethora of non-combat Feats (from Story Feats to any of the many skill-boosting Feats to other Feats like Squire, Leadership, Rugged Northerner, Endurance, etc) for his regular Feats.

Putting a few skill points into a new skill is generally pointless as you level up as you will never come close to matching a specialist.

Why do you need to match a specialist?  I'm just talking about sinking the odd point into Acrobatics or Climb to help out with adventuring, like when you come up on a cliff or a narrow walkway or whatever.

Multiclassing to get more skills is such an inelegant solution to the problem. Why should my Paladin be forced to level dip into Bard to keep four skills both classes share at max rank? It's a clunky way of solving a real problem in the game.

I think it depends.  It can be clumsy and clunky, or it can be handled as part of the organic development of a character.  I think that overall multiclassing is more helpful than harmful to character development, both mechanically and from a roleplaying standpoint.

For the Paladin, putting your Int in the 12-13 range (also useful for Feats) and being Human or Half-Elf could as-easily give you 4 points/level without having to dip into Bard.

[Elemental_Elf]

You could also have proficiency add your level or half your level or some other scaling bonus, too, if you wanted to.

Isn't this basically the same thing as skill ranks/points, but more rigid?  In Pathfinder/3.X you can just keep putting 1 point into all the skills you gained at first level, effectively allowing you to add your level bonus to your skills.  What's the real advantage to just adding your level or half your level over skill points?

Simpler to track and, if you give half-level bonus to non-trained skills, makes those skills more useful as you level up.

Another option would be multiple levels of proficiency (Trained/Adept/Expert, or whatever) to allow some semblance of "ranks" without the full complexity of using skill ranks.

I think this is totally an acceptable alternative.  Still, in my experience, setting DCs isn't really that hard.  The only time that the big disparities become much of an issue is in the upper levels (10+), at which point the PCs in your average 3.X game usually have access to enough magic items, NPC support, spells (to either circumvent obstacles entirely or provide stat bonuses), and other resources that help with these things.

The game generally starts to break down at 10+ due to the collective weight of all the ways PCs can reasonably circumvent challenges but that's a whole different issue.

...what's wrong is that we're talking about the skill system, which all classes have access to. If you want this to be a Fighter/Rogue thing or a Ranger/Paladin thing, then these should be class features, not skills. (The examples you gave about spell casting and healing ability and such were all class features, too).  I understand your reasoning, but I personally sort of dislike that "having skills" is supposedly a class feature. It just makes Fighters suck more, because they can't have skills or they start to intrude on the Rogue's role, or something. Like I said, it just seems punishing to the Fighter. Multiclassing is one solution, but all it says is, "Yes, Fighters do suck, if you don't want to suck, be something else."

I guess I see your point, but by the same token everyone has Feats, but Fighters get way more of them (close to double depending on your class) iun exactly the same way that Rogues get more Skill points.  Everyone has a base attack bonus, but the Fighter has a better progression than many other classes (in 3.X, anyway).  Everyone has HP, but the Barbarian has way more of it.  There are lots of features that everyone has that some classes have more of.  It's true that spells are class features, but 7/11 Pathfinder core classes (8/11 if you count the Rogue Talents "Minor Magic" or "Major Magic") have spellcasting ability, so it's hardly a unique class feature.  And because every character effectively has "access" to every class at all times - multiclassing is free and encouraged, especially in Pathfinder where the Paladin and Monk can freely multiclass, and you can even retrain your levels, abilities, and skills - I think this criticism is mitigated pretty substantially compared to something like 4E or other systems where your class is the one you're stuck with.

I agree, though, that as a class the 3.X Fighter needs more unique and exciting class features (i.e. beyond its numerous Feats) to make it attractive as a class to pursue "straight through."  4E's martial power solution kind of has its heart in the right place, but I don't like the implementation.  Personally, if I were rewriting the class, I might have the upper-level fighter gain various leadership-based, stronghold-building type abilities.

I'd add the stronghold aspects in (like old school D&D) and I would also make the Fighter into the ultimate Weapons Master, meaning that the Fighter is the class to go to if you want to seamlessly shift between different weapons with ease and utilize them in highly effective ways. There was a cool power called Weapon Master's Strike in 4E that gave the Fighters the ability to sheathe and draw a weapon as a free action before attacking. The power then listed 4 effects based on the kind of weapon you were using (Axes do more damage, Maces move the enemy, Heavy Blades gave you a bonus to AC from attacks made by that enemy and Polearms allowed you to get an Opportunity Attack when if the enemy 5 foot stepped away). The idea that the Fighter constantly switches between different styles of combat really appeals to me. It gives the Fighter a theme and a set of aptitudes that no other class can Xerox. You can kind of replicate this with Fighter Bonus feats but it isn't as elegant or as easy to achieve.

In broad strokes, you are right however after 13 years of experience with the system we all know that - in general - the Rogue's skill points are more meaningful than the Fighter's Feats because they touch on every aspect of the game, from combat, to RP, to exploration.

I'll again agree that the Fighter probably still needs work.  Again, I prefer Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and Monks (all of whom except the Paladin get 4-6 skill points per level - and the Paladin's buttload of fairly unique class features kind of mitigates his lack of skills) to Fighters, and I rarely see players pursue pure-class Fighters.  3.X/Pathfinder are definitely not perfect, and the Fighter is one of the most glaring flaws.

I think Pathfinder did an amazing job with the Paladin. The class is so much better in PF. The Barbarian and the Ranger had fewer changes but the changes did improve their lot in life. Sadly, the Fighter is broken. Even Pathfinder's wondrous additions didn't amount to much in the end. The class really needs to be completely redesigned from the ground up.

The Fighter's feats only shine in combat

Perhaps his Fighter-only bonus feats, but there's absolutely nothing stopping a Fighter from choosing any of the plethora of non-combat Feats (from Story Feats to any of the many skill-boosting Feats to other Feats like Squire, Leadership, Rugged Northerner, Endurance, etc) for his regular Feats.

Any character can take those same feats and none of those really improve his ability to interact with the world outside of combat with the same diversity as a Rogue. :(

Putting a few skill points into a new skill is generally pointless as you level up as you will never come close to matching a specialist.

Why do you need to match a specialist?  I'm just talking about sinking the odd point into Acrobatics or Climb to help out with adventuring, like when you come up on a cliff or a narrow walkway or whatever.

Putting a point or two into Acrobatics or Climb for anyone wearing Medium or Heavy Armor is fairly pointless as the check penalty far outweighs the messily point or two you are sinking into the skill. The only way to surmount the negatives is to either remove your armor (terrible idea in a dungeon) or become a specialist in that skill. :(

Multiclassing to get more skills is such an inelegant solution to the problem. Why should my Paladin be forced to level dip into Bard to keep four skills both classes share at max rank? It's a clunky way of solving a real problem in the game.

I think it depends.  It can be clumsy and clunky, or it can be handled as part of the organic development of a character.  I think that overall multiclassing is more helpful than harmful to character development, both mechanically and from a roleplaying standpoint.

You are fundamentally altering the character and his place in the world to pick up a few skills? Seems a bit ham-fisted to me.

[sparkletwist]

Isn't this basically the same thing as skill ranks/points, but more rigid?  In Pathfinder/3.X you can just keep putting 1 point into all the skills you gained at first level, effectively allowing you to add your level bonus to your skills.  What's the real advantage to just adding your level or half your level over skill points?

One big advantage is that you can decide to become "level appropriate" at any time and just get there without the point expenditure needed rising dramatically. They're basically the same if you've been putting in skill points since level 1, but to get a +Level bonus at level 10 requires 10 skill points, which a lot of characters simply won't have. (You can argue that it's realistic because of all the training that you haven't been doing, but I'd counter that level is supposed to denote a general rise in ability anyway. I'm also admittedly looking at this from a "gamist"/balance perspective right now, so that's a less important argument to me at the moment.)

The only time that the big disparities become much of an issue is in the upper levels (10+), at which point the PCs in your average 3.X game usually have access to enough magic items, NPC support, spells (to either circumvent obstacles entirely or provide stat bonuses), and other resources that help with these things.

Or to make the disparities really really big. :grin:

I guess I see your point, but by the same token everyone has Feats, but Fighters get way more of them (close to double depending on your class) in exactly the same way that Rogues get more Skill points.  Everyone has a base attack bonus, but the Fighter has a better progression than many other classes (in 3.X, anyway).  Everyone has HP, but the Barbarian has way more of it.  There are lots of features that everyone has that some classes have more of.

Ok, but you were talking about how "Rogues should do these things, what's it matter if Fighters can't," which really sounds like it should be a class feature, even if the feature applies to multiple classes, like spells or whatever. If we're going to use a system set up so that Disable Device is pretty much a trap option for Fighters (and it pretty much is) then why even bother having it available?

[Steerpike]

Simpler to track and, if you give half-level bonus to non-trained skills, makes those skills more useful as you level up.

Yeah, that's true.  I guess I can see the advantage. Still prefer skill ranks  :P but OK.

I'd add the stronghold aspects in (like old school D&D) and I would also make the Fighter into the ultimate Weapons Master, meaning that the Fighter is the class to go to if you want to seamlessly shift between different weapons with ease and utilize them in highly effective ways. There was a cool power called Weapon Master's Strike in 4E that gave the Fighters the ability to sheathe and draw a weapon as a free action before attacking. The power then listed 4 effects based on the kind of weapon you were using (Axes do more damage, Maces move the enemy, Heavy Blades gave you a bonus to AC from attacks made by that enemy and Polearms allowed you to get an Opportunity Attack when if the enemy 5 foot stepped away). The idea that the Fighter constantly switches between different styles of combat really appeals to me. It gives the Fighter a theme and a set of aptitudes that no other class can Xerox. You can kind of replicate this with Fighter Bonus feats but it isn't as elegant or as easy to achieve.

Yeah, these sound like great features - the Fighter needs more unique stuff, for sure.

Any character can take those same feats and none of those really improve his ability to interact with the world outside of combat with the same diversity as a Rogue.

Yeah, that's true, though that's kind of the Rogue's thing.  Maybe the Rogue is just too powerful in combat as well?

Putting a point or two into Acrobatics or Climb for anyone wearing Medium or Heavy Armor is fairly pointless as the check penalty far outweighs the messily point or two you are sinking into the skill. The only way to surmount the negatives is to either remove your armor (terrible idea in a dungeon) or become a specialist in that skill.

...unless you're a Pathfinder Fighter, whose Armour Training decreases check penalties and increases maximum Dexterity.

You are fundamentally altering the character and his place in the world to pick up a few skills? Seems a bit ham-fisted to me.

It can definitely be ham-fisted, but I think it can also be handled elegantly.  Like, Fafhrd or Conan really make sense as Barbarian/Rogues, for example, more than they would as pure Barbarians or Rogues.  Elric is clearly a Fighter/Wizard.  Multi-classing can work really well when it simultaneously helps a character mechanically and in terms of their concept.  It works less well when it's just a clumsy ability-grab, although explaining such a "strange dip" could provide interesting roleplaying challenges in and of itself.  Like in your example above, with the Paladin, maybe he's taken to singing holy hymns in combat and the player composes some scriptural-sounding incantations to intone during a fight, Pulp Fiction style.

One big advantage is that you can decide to become "level appropriate" at any time and just get there without the point expenditure needed rising dramatically

I'm not sure I'm following.  Are you talking about acquiring new skills, here?

Ok, but you were talking about how "Rogues should do these things, what's it matter if Fighters can't," which really sounds like it should be a class feature, even if the feature applies to multiple classes, like spells or whatever. If we're going to use a system set up so that Disable Device is pretty much a trap option for Fighters (and it pretty much is) then why even bother having it available?

Because otherwise it discourages multiclassing.  Like, let's say I'm a Rogue who decides to take some levels in Fighter for bonus feats, armour training, and increased HD - maybe I've had too many close calls and want some more toughness, or the group needs a stronger melee combatant, or maybe I just like the idea of being a kind of swashbuckling swordsman and I feel that a Fighter/Rogue best represents this concept.  Let's say I'm a Human, and as a Rogue my Int is my second-best stat (let's say it's a 14).  For my Fighter levels I will get 5 Skill points/level (2 for being a Fighter, 1 for Human, and 2 for my Int).  If Stealth, Disable Device, Sleight of Hand, Use Magic Device, and Escape Artist (or whatever my favorite Rogue-y skills are) are skills that only increase with your Rogue level because they're considered Rogue-only class features, then I can't improve them when I take a level of Fighter, but if Fighters have access to the full skill list like everyone else, I can take my FIghter level and still boost my Rogue skills.

The same thing could be done with a "just add your level" system, but then you either A) have to restrict the number of skills you take to those you have at first level or B) are left with a very weird situation where suddenly a character who was previously totally un-skilled in a given skill abruptly becomes an overnight expert when the acquire Disable Device at 15th level, or something (is this the situation you were describing before?), which apart from being totally implausible goes against the grain of the whole "small improvements over time" concept that levels represent.

EDIT: I will admit that it's possible for the same "overnight expert" thing to occur in a skill rank system, but it's less likely, since most players aren't going to want to dump all their skill points at a given level into a single skill.

[sparkletwist]

Are you talking about acquiring new skills, here?

Yes. You hit it later on so I'll just address it there.

Because otherwise it discourages multiclassing. ... If Stealth, Disable Device, Sleight of Hand, Use Magic Device, and Escape Artist (or whatever my favorite Rogue-y skills are) are skills that only increase with your Rogue level because they're considered Rogue-only class features, then I can't improve them when I take a level of Fighter, but if Fighters have access to the full skill list like everyone else, I can take my FIghter level and still boost my Rogue skills.

I don't think what you're describing is really a benefit of the skill system, as such, but rather, a problem with multiclassing.

The fact is that there are plenty of class-feature-ish things that do work like you described that can cause all sorts of problems: falling behind on spell levels by multiclassing out of a casting class, getting screwed on BAB when you try to multiclass fractional BAB classes, and, in general, the common problem that what you get at level 1 of some other class not being a very good trade vs. what you get for level N+1 of your current class. So, I think the solution is to make it so that multiclassing doesn't have these problems.

Way back on page 1 of this thread I opined that the 4th edition approach to multiclassing where you can pick and choose class features and hopefully end up with something cohesive and capable for your level is actually a pretty decent approach. (4e then broke it in actual execution, but that's no surprise) But, anyway, if you could pick and choose class features instead of entire class levels, then you could take whatever "multiclass feat" or pick off a power list or whatever if you wanted a certain Rogue power, and you could just get it, while not sacrificing other stuff that is essential to your progression in your main class.

a very weird situation where suddenly a character who was previously totally un-skilled in a given skill abruptly becomes an overnight expert when the acquire Disable Device at 15th level, or something (is this the situation you were describing before?), which apart from being totally implausible goes against the grain of the whole "small improvements over time" concept that levels represent.

Well, I was thinking of things in more of a game balance way, but if you're approaching this from the perspective of verisimilitude, keep in mind that levels really don't represent "small improvements over time." They represent sizable improvements at discrete intervals. If you're a Fighter or something, you abruptly get a lot better at combat and a lot tougher and so on. If you instead take your next level in a casting class, it's even weirder; you suddenly gain the ability to cast magic that usually is described in-setting as taking years of study or a special gift or something like that. The guy who becomes really good at picking locks overnight seems positively realistic by comparison.

Of course, in either case, you can always fluff it that it wasn't really "overnight" anyway. :grin:

[Steerpike]

The fact is that there are plenty of class-feature-ish things that do work like you described that can cause all sorts of problems: falling behind on spell levels by multiclassing out of a casting class, getting screwed on BAB when you try to multiclass fractional BAB classes, and, in general, the common problem that what you get at level 1 of some other class not being a very good trade vs. what you get for level N+1 of your current class. So, I think the solution is to make it so that multiclassing doesn't have these problems.

Way back on page 1 of this thread I opined that the 4th edition approach to multiclassing where you can pick and choose class features and hopefully end up with something cohesive and capable for your level is actually a pretty decent approach. (4e then broke it in actual execution, but that's no surprise) But, anyway, if you could pick and choose class features instead of entire class levels, then you could take whatever "multiclass feat" or pick off a power list or whatever if you wanted a certain Rogue power, and you could just get it, while not sacrificing other stuff that is essential to your progression in your main class.

I'd agree with this - a "pick and choose class features" system could work really well if implemented elegantly, and the spellcasting/multi-classing thing in Pathfinder does bug me.  For all that I like multiclassing there are definitely some issues (if Pathfinder ever does put out a second edition, I really hope they address this).

They represent sizable improvements at discrete intervals.

Eh, sort of, but not that sizeable.   Most level-up bonuses are fairly small: +1 to attack  - at most an extra attack per round and the ability to hit a very-slightly-better-amoured opponent - or +1 more on your saving throws or a few extra hp etc, as opposed to suddenly going from +0 in Swim to +12 in it (for example), the equivalent of going from an untrained landlubber who's never swum a stroke in his life to an olympic swimmer able to swim up current of a raging river.

When you gain spells it takes multiple levels of experience to gain new spell levels, and even then it's just a single spell level at a time, and anyway with magic it's much easier to suspend your disbelief because there are no real-world comparisons to be drawn.  Anyway, I think it can generally be assumed that characters do have a "special gift" in magic if they're Sorcerers or Witches or whatnot; and with Wizards, you acquire new spells very slowly (a measly 2 spells per level) unless you actually find and research spells, which takes considerable money and/or adventuring time, not to mention more time (and skill checks) to perform the research.

[Xeviat]

Look what a couple of night shifts does to my thread. LOL.

Real quick answer to Steerpike's question for earlier: my idea for a skill proficiency system would allow for multiple proficiencies on a single skill. There might be a Stealth proficiency which gives a bonus to the stealth skill. A higher proficiency could lessen the penalty when moving full speed; it doesn't make you harder to Notice, but it does give you more options. This way, a higher level character has more tricks, and is able to use their skills in more situations and with less limitations, all while not breaking that coveted 10 point spread on the d20.

I'm also very interested in why it is I'm able to not let a very gamey system get in the way of my roleplaying (ever roleplayed a game of monopoly? Sure, the rules don't help, but ...). It's a very interesting issue, how having even some rules for it (like 3E's rules for craft and profession) makes it suddenly an option for players.

[Steerpike]

I'm also very interested in why it is I'm able to not let a very gamey system get in the way of my roleplaying (ever roleplayed a game of monopoly? Sure, the rules don't help, but ...).

You're probably a damn good DM!

As much as I dislike 4th edition, I'm sure it's more than possible to have fun playing it with the right people and a good adventure.  Ultimately, I think, these factors matter much, much more than what system's being used.

[Xeviat]

As much as I dislike 4th edition, I'm sure it's more than possible to have fun playing it with the right people and a good adventure.  Ultimately, I think, these factors matter much, much more than what system's being used.

Incredibly, ultimately, and intrinsically true. A good portion of my group are character optimizers. A good portion are casual with the rules but hard core when it comes to playing. Most are savvy towards rule balance. 4E worked for a large number of us, but not all.

It's really interesting, though, how the changes 4E made could be so group dividing. I wasn't around during 2E, but I've never heard anyone personally who loved 2E but hated 3E. I suppose 4E simply changed just a little too much for some people.

[LordVreeg]

For better or worse, yes.   Getting rid of Vancian magic, balancing classes on combat effectiveness, player wish lists, epic destinies as part of the class.....big changes.   Easier to gm, easier to learn, but too much that could be seen as, ' not D&D.'.   

We will see where 5e goes. 

[sparkletwist]

The whole "Vancian" thing can go both ways considering the whole existence of "Daily powers" kind of makes everyone Vancian, at least as the word is usually used in D&D-playing circles.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

The whole "Vancian" thing can go both ways considering the whole existence of "Daily powers" kind of makes everyone Vancian, at least as the word is usually used in D&D-playing circles.

I'm no fan of Vancian magic... But I don't think too much of daily powers either. I guess I like something closer to the 3.5 psionics system.

[Steerpike]

Just thought I'd share this link, which describes a very unusual hack of 4E with elements from 2nd edition and OSR games like Labyrinth Lord and Lamentations of the Flame Princess.  I thought it might of interest to you, Xeviat, given your own hack-in-progress.  I'd also like to emphasize that while I'm no fan of 4th edition, as this thread obviously attests, I'm very interested to see what you come up with and would look forward eagerly to updates!