Brian Rogers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
subplotkudzu) wrote2008-09-14 12:51 pm
subplotkudzu) wrote2008-09-14 12:51 pm
Entry tags:
More 4E stuff
I commented previously on how the ad hoc difficulty table advises the GM to ramp up the Target Number of checks based on the PCs level (and, by one possible by unlikely reading, whether the PC has the skill or not). The objective appears to be that Easy actions have a success chance of roughly 65%, moderate one 45% and hard ones 10%. The scaling is required because everyone adds one half their level to the rolls, so to keep the preferred targets you have to ramp up the difficulty.
The Skills chapter in the PHB runs a little counter to this, giving some more stable numbers (though it takes pains to point out that these age guidlines and the GM has specific rules). The default Target Numbers for Swim and Climb (just to grab the first ones I see) tie to the suggested difficulties for 1st level PCs in the DMG.
These stable numbers also correspond to the 3rd edition PHB. In 3rd edition, this made it possible for characters to hit a certain reliable level in a skill and then stop raising it - get you Climb or Swim to a +7 at 4th level and you could just "take 10" (an unhindered average skill check) and reliably climb cave walls or swim in rough water. This freed the character up to spend skill points elsewhere if they weren't trying to get really good at something. Meanwhile, some characters would never take any points in those skills and would rely on their attribute defaults and assistance from their more skilled allies.
In 4th edition there aren't skill points in that sense. Everyone just gets better at everything all the time. a 10th level Warlock has a +5 on his Climb and Swim rolls even if he never tries to climb and doesn't practice swimming. Mind you, this only matters if he tries to do something predictable where the PHB numbers would apply - any ad hoc action would have a +5 on the difficulty to balance it against his level.
This just strikes me as madness. Can someone playing 4E explain why this makes sense?
Is it to prevent the problems of bad adventure design, where modules had areas where everyone in the plarty had to make a DC 25 climb test? If so, I would think the very celver 4E Skill Challenge rules dealt with that.
Is it just number inflaction to make the players feel like their characters are better than they are?
The argument can be made that the new skill system silos off the skills that will be useful in a dungeneering/adventure context (the existing skill list) and those that aren't (everything that got cut) to prevent the PCs of casual players from being outlcassed by those who have maximized the rules - anything that isn't directly applicable to the numerics of adventuring is handwaved. I find this unsettling. I happen to like the little character filigrees - Hiram spending weeks wandering Emirikol to get a point or two in Knowledge: Emirikol; Cybele spending a point or two in Craft: Calligraphy, and so on. Yes, we could hand-wave them, but we could hand wave a lot of things. I like the Pcs having the option to flesh out and have the system reflect that, rather than a flat +5 bonus if they have the skill. That hearkens back to 2E Non-Weapon proficiences, which is not a step forward. I don't need the mechanics to protect my players from inefficient decisisions - first, I can do that myself; second, if everyone makes them no one is going to "get ahead".
Maybe that's just me.
The Skills chapter in the PHB runs a little counter to this, giving some more stable numbers (though it takes pains to point out that these age guidlines and the GM has specific rules). The default Target Numbers for Swim and Climb (just to grab the first ones I see) tie to the suggested difficulties for 1st level PCs in the DMG.
These stable numbers also correspond to the 3rd edition PHB. In 3rd edition, this made it possible for characters to hit a certain reliable level in a skill and then stop raising it - get you Climb or Swim to a +7 at 4th level and you could just "take 10" (an unhindered average skill check) and reliably climb cave walls or swim in rough water. This freed the character up to spend skill points elsewhere if they weren't trying to get really good at something. Meanwhile, some characters would never take any points in those skills and would rely on their attribute defaults and assistance from their more skilled allies.
In 4th edition there aren't skill points in that sense. Everyone just gets better at everything all the time. a 10th level Warlock has a +5 on his Climb and Swim rolls even if he never tries to climb and doesn't practice swimming. Mind you, this only matters if he tries to do something predictable where the PHB numbers would apply - any ad hoc action would have a +5 on the difficulty to balance it against his level.
This just strikes me as madness. Can someone playing 4E explain why this makes sense?
Is it to prevent the problems of bad adventure design, where modules had areas where everyone in the plarty had to make a DC 25 climb test? If so, I would think the very celver 4E Skill Challenge rules dealt with that.
Is it just number inflaction to make the players feel like their characters are better than they are?
The argument can be made that the new skill system silos off the skills that will be useful in a dungeneering/adventure context (the existing skill list) and those that aren't (everything that got cut) to prevent the PCs of casual players from being outlcassed by those who have maximized the rules - anything that isn't directly applicable to the numerics of adventuring is handwaved. I find this unsettling. I happen to like the little character filigrees - Hiram spending weeks wandering Emirikol to get a point or two in Knowledge: Emirikol; Cybele spending a point or two in Craft: Calligraphy, and so on. Yes, we could hand-wave them, but we could hand wave a lot of things. I like the Pcs having the option to flesh out and have the system reflect that, rather than a flat +5 bonus if they have the skill. That hearkens back to 2E Non-Weapon proficiences, which is not a step forward. I don't need the mechanics to protect my players from inefficient decisisions - first, I can do that myself; second, if everyone makes them no one is going to "get ahead".
Maybe that's just me.
no subject
I think the best mindset here is that the "ever scaling challenges" are really for things that -are- challenges; for things that are either: 1. direct help defeat monsters (and give you xp) or 2. -are- challenges that give you xp. Either way, the difficulty should match the level of the challenge (otherwise, why are the players being rewarded for being challenged?). But if it's not a challenge, it doesn't need a scaling DC (and quite a number of 4e things don't have a scaling DC -- Jump checks, acrobatic rolls to reduce falling damage, swimming, Insight, etc).
Reversing the argument would be that at higher and higher levels of skill, you can do more and more to help yourself (or your friends), so this should be accounted for in the numbers; you'd have part of the difficulty of a high-level challenge assume that you'd be getting extra-special help (and thus be, say, 8 points higher if it expected that two people could help you for +4 each or whatnot). The problem with that is that then the difference between "I came up with a way to get help" is between certain failure and probable success (which is clearly worse than "I came up with away to help" being the difference between probable failure and certain success, but neither is all that compelling; you want a situation where you've got a good chance to fail, but with skill and teamwork, you've got a good chance to succeed instead).
I'd argue that 4e isn't an awful solution (some static number targets that give you a baseline, just as bigger and more interesting monsters give a baseline for how more powerful you've gotten even though your odds of success per-fight are similar, but the math in both cases remains the same), but I certainly won't say it's the ultimate expression of the idea.