More 4E stuff

[subplotkudzu]

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.

Comments

[mylescorcoran]

Meh, I just can't get that exercised about it. It's simpler, and I'm kind of glad the skill points are gone, as it was a constant bone of contention for those poor f*ckers with 2+INT per level. If the skills are thought of as a customisable part of the character class then I've no problem with them climbing up as the character rises in level.

D&D 4e is clearly a Gamist game first and foremost. The skills are there to be used in adventures, usually down a dungeon. Not everyone's cup of tea, to be sure.

[mneme]

I didn't see a need for removing skill points, but it does simplifying things a lot.

More particularly, it allows for the "sensible defaults" rule, which more or less -is- a really nice feature of 4E.

In some ways, its easier to explain why the 3E system is bad than why the 4E system is good. In any RPG, there are certain kinds of things you want people to be able (try to) do. For example, they should be able to lie without being immediately found out, hide and listen to people's conversations, see what's going on around them, search an area and find something interesting there, at least try to balance on a rickety wooden bridge, and make friends and influence people. It's cool that in D&D, there are certain types of people who are -better- at this kind of Nancy Drew stuff than others, but really, everyone should be able to play.

In 3E, due to the large, large difference in skills between characters (I mean, really large; at highish levels, 40 points or higher! I mean, hell, my 3.5 16th level Arcane Trickster (ok, 5th level wiz, 3rd level rogue, 2nd level Unseen Seer, 6th level Arcane Trickster. Same difference), Coravin, has a search bonus of 28, and can have a bonus of 43 once (or more) per day!

So to challenge characters of these levels, you need things with appropriate target numbers. Or worse, you need (since you'll note most of the "Nancy Drew" stuff above is opposed) opposition with appropriate skills at the right level. Which means that after not too long, only the specialists can play -- the rogue (or better, beguiler) does all your searching, the bard does -all- the talking, with anything anyone else says being just an "assist" on his roll, and the entire party will never sneak anywhere without magic or tricks like the "teamwork" benefits in later 3.5 books. At first level, everyone could -try- to do nearly everything, and maybe succeed, but at 10th level, "maybe" has turned into "never" except for tasks that a specialist wouldn't even need to roll on.

So what 4e tries to do instead is start with the idea that everyone's gong to be able to do everything -- by 21st level, they get a minimum of a +11 (+2 bump to all stats, remember) on what they were doing at first level. So the specialists can arguably do incredibly impressive things--and level 21 traps and challenges -should- be more impressive than level 1 traps, even if the relative difficulty is similar--but if an ally needs to step in, they've got -some- chance of success, even if its slim.

Another matter is that page 42 is used to set difficulty for ad-hoc actions. The thing is, if you're doing something that doesn't matter, it doesn't need to be "at level" in terms of difficulty, but if you want to, say, grab a rope and swing into the big torch, spilling burning oil all over the bad guy, the difficulty needs to be at least somewhat similar to that of just hitting him -- which means it needs to scale by level. If it matters, it should be an appropriate challenge.

Of course, some skills should be completely unusable for some things unless you actually know how to use it, but that's why there's "trained only" (ok, only Detect Magic is trained-only. At the moment).

I do think they've got the beginnings of a "little bits of stuff" subsystem in the "backgrounds" system they shopped around on the wizards site.

[mneme]

I don't think I ever posted this:

aand, I totally forgot to actulaly put my reply chain up here. Here it is!

(mind if I stick this reply verbatm (including quotes) into a reply or
a couple of replies? It's nice to have it all there, and it's been an
interesting discussion overall, so it would be nice to have it up).

Brian Rogers writes:
>My read of the 4E rules is that they are moving towards a looser, broadly
>based, more adventurous style for the use of skills.

Moving toward, yeah. Not quite there yet, but they've made some
f that direction.

>stats for a hero (2d+2 to 3d+1) you have a fair chance on a lot of tests
(TN
>10). In 4E A 8th level cleric with a 10 Dex has a Sneak of +4 rather than
+0
>Move Silent in the old system. This is a legitimate design decision, and
one
>I have no problem with - it's nicely heroic, even if it is more simplistic
>than I care for in D&D.

*nod*

>But as in the d6 system nearly everything can be framed as a skill check,
>and there's no penality to not having the skill: an easy action has a DC
of
>X, a moderate one a DC of X+5, and a hard one of X+10.

Right. The penalty for not having the skill is that you don't get the
+5 -- but racial benefits and a good stat can more than cancel that
out (wrt a character with training but no other bennies, anyway).

>For me to make the system workable in my head, I have to set the target
>numbers on that score: "Is this easy/moderate/hard for anyone", not "Is
this
>easy/moderate hard _for someone with training_".

Ok, now turn it around -- you've got a set of difficulties:

1. Trivial. Anyone can do it, even if they're normally bad at this
sort of thing. (~level/2+5).

2. Easy. Anyone can do it if they get lucky, on raw ability, but
skilled people will rarely or never fail. (~level/2+10)

3. Moderate. Anyone with raw talent has a good chance of doing
this. Easy for someone with a relevant skill, but not an automatic
success. (~level/2+15).

4. Difficult. Someone working on raw talent -might- have a chance of
doing this. With a relevant skill, possible, but as good a chance of
success as failure. (~level/2+20).

5. Nigh-impossilbe. Only someone with serious skills has a chance of
succeeding at this, and even they have a very good chance of failure
(~level/2+25).

6. Impossible. Even the most skilled character would have no reason
to believe they could accomplish this, and if they do, it's only by
the intervention of fate (~level/2+30).

Of course, what these really are are two set of difficulties -- from
"below level, you probably don't need to roll" to "this is an
above-level challenge, but feel free to try" for both skill-uses and
not, just overlapping on the same chart. If it's plausible that
someone without a skill would be able to do something, it's in the 1-5
range. If it's really something you'd -expect- someone to need a
skill for, it's in the 2-6 range. And, of course, some thing can
reasonably be slotted into "trained-only", though 4e discourages this
for the most part (though the obvious is that only Arcana-trained
characters can detect magic, as that's actually in the rules).

Now, -some- challenges really should scale difficulty, as using one
stat is of similar difficulty to using a different skill -- for
example, I'd argue that using Strength to open a chest vs using
Theivery should be of similar actual difficuties (ie, the theivery
challenge should be at +5 difficulty). Of course, in that case, using
Strength destroys the chest and risks damaging the contents -- but
that's why they're not exactly the same.

(cont in next comment)

[mneme]

>I start having real problems. By giving everyone bonuses in everything
they
>set a certain expecation for game play - everyone can try everything. By
>stating that task difficulties should also be judged on _whether the task
>requires special training_ undercuts that expectation.

Does it, though? I mean, if you've got a trap that can be destroyed
through damage, or bypassed via Theivery, shouldn't the thievery check
be scaled such that an expert thief with tools will -probably-
succeed, whereas a longsword fighter (with a 16 dex) without training
or tools will -probably- fail? (and, in fact, such that the rogue
will disable it faster than the fighter will, but the fighter isn't
better off using thievery than just swinging a sword at it?)

>In my vision the GM would set the easy/moderate/hard DC and then if the
>player can frame a skill bonus, so be it.

Personally, I'd rather set the DC based on the 1-6 scale (including
ranges in between). If this means the difficulty is on the upper end,
well, yeah, you do have to look at your PCs when you're framing
nigh-impossible challenges (or make sure that those are bypassable
without ruining a game).

>This would be very different if the rulebook had framed this as "this is
the
>DC that would challenge PCs of this level - compare this to the suggested
>DCs for various actions under each skill; if the closest approximate has a
>DC lower than the 'easy' listed, don't bother with a roll, the PC just
does
>succeeds.

I think this was more or less what they intended -- but the rules are
framed to only model the things that are challenging and give
experience and synergy bonuses.

It -is- important that only "challenging" things give synergy bonuses,
btw -- if the same thing that gets you a +2 at level 1 also gets you a
+2 at level 30, then the system has to escallate the normal challenges
to assume you're going to be cheesing things up with cheap potions,
skill synergy, etc. Yeah, I know, we've gone around this row before,
but I think it's a really important part of the 4e design, not that at
30th level, that characters find the same kinds of tasks of equal
difficulty (as you've mentioned, that's silly), but that at 30th
level, that characters have -roughly- the same level of difficulty
from the actual tasks they're dealing with than they did with the
tasks they encountered at 1st level. Otherwise, you end up with the
situation that was noticed with previous editions of D&D -- that
characters start out utterly unsuited to the tasks that present
themselves, during a certain few levels are capable individuals who
are challenged, but with skill and teamwork, can overcome the tasks
they face (ie, the sweet spot), but after a certain point find
themselves becoming supermen and women who laugh at any "reasonable"
challenge that attempts to get in their way.

If one attempts (as the 4e designers clearly, by result and direct
claim, have) to maintain this sweet spot over all 30 levels of play,
one must not only make first level characters capable and worthy
individuals, but also make sure that 30th level characters face
challenges worthy of them -- this does mean letting them jump 30 foot
gulfs with ease (and without a roll), but it also means that when they
want to climb up the rock wall and ambush the acid magma god in his
lair, they're going to find that the wall is made of glass and covered
in acid.