General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Gamers Online Now: 792
124 members and 668 guests
Most users ever online was 4,029, 8th April 2009 at 05:04 PM.
This product is 56 pages long and free. Cover, credits, intro and ToC take up 4 pages. I counted 17 pages of adds many of them for other Rite... [Read More]
Evocative City Sites Lorn's Entrepot (Abandoned Warehouse) by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. This product is 47 pages long. Cover, Credits, two pages of... [Read More]
Feats 101 by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. I have not yet played using these feats my review is based on reading the feats and checking a few against... [Read More]
The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos is a 4e D&D product describing some of the different planes in the 4e Cosmology. The book is a typical hard bound book that Wizards of the Coast... [Read More]
Well, super rolling has two basic benefits: one, it lets you pull off a Hard difficulty check, and two (though this really depends on the group), it tends to have some roleplaying impact. It might be improvised as a mechanical benefit — if you pass a Diplomacy check by 20, you may wind up making the target particularly impressed, and the next Diplomacy check gets a +2 bonus. Or maybe it's just a straight-up roleplaying thing wherein if you pass your Acrobatics check by 20, you look damn good. That is of zero utility to some groups, but in other groups, looking damn good is not only fun, but critical successes and critical failures can help shape how you see your character.
We used to have critical successes on skill rolls in the 3.5 game - if you first rolled a 20 and then confirmed with a second successfull skill roll, you got something extra out of it. That way one of my characters got taken for a goddess on a 20-20 diplomacy check, got involved in the religious life of the indigenes, and started her own cult - not to mention got a few religius conundrums herself... wonderful roleplaying times.
It got removed in the shift to 4E as "not in the spirit of 4E" and "incompatible with the skill challenge mechanics"... Now its just "what's the tally on this skill challenge..." - individual rolls does not matter
Quote:
I dunno if that's the intention. It seems more like the desire to make your skill choices relevant outside of appropriate roleplaying situations, and relevant in any combat you get into. It doesn't seem to be so much "man, I wish I had more reward for beating a check by 10" as "man, I wish I could use my training in Bluff in some way against this behir."
The problem with that is that you probably already has something better in your regular powers for the behir...
__________________ -Monster? Tell me, what makes you call a pretty young lady like me a... a... monster?
-Come on! You walk through fire, you walk through walls, you rip holes in the celling, and you can even fly.
-Very good reasons, but not good enough!
Last edited by Tuft; 2nd September 2009 at 03:51 PM..
We used to have critical successes on skill rolls in the 3.5 game - if you first rolled a 20 and then confirmed with a second successfull skill roll, you got something extra out of it. That way one of my characters got taken for a goddess on a 20-20 diplomacy check, got involved in the religious life of the indigenes, and started her own cult - not to mention got a few religius conundrums herself... wonderful roleplaying times.
It got removed in the shift to 4E as "not in the spirit of 4E" and "incompatible with the skill challenge mechanics"... Now its just "what's the tally on this skill challenge..." - individual rolls does not matter
The way we play it, individual rolls do matter, particularly outside of a skill challenge. (You probably don't have to have a straight-up skill challenge to make a Streetwise check to gather rumors, for instance.) It's just that in a skill challenge, one player doesn't "win" the whole thing for the entire group with a roll or two. It's sort of like combat — for all that some people complain about games that invoke frequent combat, combat is one of the things that engages every member of the group at once. That doesn't happen as often away from combat unless your players are very entertaining to watch; sometimes the rest of the group just tunes out when the bard starts trying to chat up the bartender. I definitely agree with the design goal of skill challenges as something that mechanically gets the entire group participating outside of combat. They shouldn't replace single rolls, they should just be set pieces.
I tend to invoke skill challenges whenever I feel that it's something that could contribute to a milestone, something that the entire group should potentially get XP for, or if it just feels like a situation's too complicated to handle with a single die roll.
This is part of why I'd like to see unscripted skill challenges addressed: how to call them, and how to know when not to call them.
Quote:
The problem with that is that you probably already has something better in your regular powers for the behir...
Generally speaking, yeah. Over on RPGnet they're discussing potential house rules to just grant bonus skill powers: for example, you can pick one per tier, and retrain it as you go up in level as usual if you feel so inclined. I think that's not a bad idea if your players don't have trouble keeping a higher number of powers straight.
__________________ -------
Ethan Skemp
CCP NA/White Wolf Publishing
Where is that "no way, no how" statement? I just now looked in the PHB and DMG, and did not find it. I did find that
I'm talking about non-thieves. The golden rule was thieves (and thieves alone) could find traps, but other classes could only find them with magic (ie find traps) or by blundering into them. The "one-in-six" rule was for non-thieves (aka fighters, wizards, or clerics) to find a trap via their own perception.
Compare
2e
Fighter: I search the door.
DM: You find nothing.
Thief: I search the door for traps.
DM: *rolls* You find a poison needle!
vs.
BFRPG
Fighter: I search the door.
DM: *rolls* You see something funny on the door, it might be trapped.
Fighter: Thief, can you disarm it?
Thief: I find and remove the trap.
DM: *rolls* Its a poison needle trap. You think you manage to disarm the trap.
I'm talking about non-thieves. The golden rule was thieves (and thieves alone) could find traps, but other classes could only find them with magic (ie find traps) or by blundering into them. The "one-in-six" rule was for non-thieves (aka fighters, wizards, or clerics) to find a trap via their own perception.
Compare
2e
Fighter: I search the door.
DM: You find nothing.
Thief: I search the door for traps.
DM: *rolls* You find a poison needle!
vs.
BFRPG
Fighter: I search the door.
DM: *rolls* You see something funny on the door, it might be trapped.
Fighter: Thief, can you disarm it?
Thief: I find and remove the trap.
DM: *rolls* Its a poison needle trap. You think you manage to disarm the trap.
So, wouldn't that make BFRPG closer to 4e? Since, earlier in the thread it was mentioned, one character might make a better trap finder while a second might be a better trap remover? In other words, in BFRPG, everyone has a chance to participate, which is similar to 4e?
__________________ Best line from current campaign:
The pirates assembled on your deck are wearing an assortment of fishnet stockings, high heels and fashionable earrings. They brandish dim and dented cutlasses.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
The golden rule was thieves (and thieves alone) could find traps ...
I'm not seeing that rule in the books. Thieves get a special chance to find the sort that would come up in their lock- and pocket-picking, and dwarves to find stonework traps, pits, and deadfalls. Other characters can find and deal with things just as you or I might.
Likewise, any character could fight -- but warrior types were better at it. There were qualitative differences such as armament by class (ability to use magic swords being especially big, magic arrows and bows being notable as well).
Now, there are heaps of different combat powers, and that seems to be where views focus. I think there's about as much (if not just the kinds of) differentiation as one might reasonably expect. It happens not to interest me enough to warrant the demands on time and energy, but that's another matter. I like a simple "roll to hit, roll for damage" method most of the time, to save time and get on with the adventure.
How about those 17 skills and however many feats? The number may be fewer than in 3e, and feats even more concerned with what might seem petty details, but is there really a dire shortage of "crunch"? There's certainly more than in the 1970s-80s.
Maybe the big, basic problem for some people is not that there are "wrong" mechanisms but that there is too much focus on them; maybe different ones or -- especially! -- more won't solve the problem.
The bottom line for some may be that 4e is simply not the game for them. For others, perhaps the answer is to look elsewhere than the number-crunching, board-game moves, etc., for the variety that is the spice of life.
So, wouldn't that make BFRPG closer to 4e? Since, earlier in the thread it was mentioned, one character might make a better trap finder while a second might be a better trap remover? In other words, in BFRPG, everyone has a chance to participate, which is similar to 4e?
Its a natural rejection of the 1e/2e/3e mindset where only one class can do something and the rest of you can bug off. have no problem with letting others do something out of class (like trapfinding) as long as the class that is supposed to do that role is subsequently better at it than everyone else. Pathfinder removed the restriction, BFRPG removes it, D&D 4e does it. I. Each does it differently (my problem with 4e's method is that other classes do it BETTER than usually trapfinder class: rogue).
(Then again, the rogue's main job isn't to be a sneak or trapfinder, but to deal massive damage in combat. So perhaps it makes sense after all...)
Speaking of which...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariosto
I'm not seeing that rule in the books. Thieves get a special chance to find the sort that would come up in their lock- and pocket-picking, and dwarves to find stonework traps, pits, and deadfalls. Other characters can find and deal with things just as you or I might.
And how would that be? There's no rule for non-thieves (or dwarves in special cases) to determine a trap is set. NONE. Find me a quote, page #, or Dragon article that lets my fighter find a trap, and I'll agree.
Oh, there is no rule for Pick-pocketing if your a fighter either. Its called Niche-protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariosto
Likewise, any character could fight -- but warrior types were better at it. There were qualitative differences such as armament by class (ability to use magic swords being especially big, magic arrows and bows being notable as well).
Yeah, but the PHB SPELLS OUT how badly a wizard can fight. He has the worst attack-rate, spelled-out poor weapon selection, and the -5 for fighting with a non-proficient weapon. I see no rule like that on trapfinding. Its really "Thieves can do this, dwarves in unique situations, and the rest of you are blind as a bat when it comes to trapfinding."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariosto
Now, there are heaps of different combat powers, and that seems to be where views focus. I think there's about as much (if not just the kinds of) differentiation as one might reasonably expect. It happens not to interest me enough to warrant the demands on time and energy, but that's another matter. I like a simple "roll to hit, roll for damage" method most of the time, to save time and get on with the adventure.
How about those 17 skills and however many feats? The number may be fewer than in 3e, and feats even more concerned with what might seem petty details, but is there really a dire shortage of "crunch"? There's certainly more than in the 1970s-80s.
Maybe the big, basic problem for some people is not that there are "wrong" mechanisms but that there is too much focus on them; maybe different ones or -- especially! -- more won't solve the problem.
The bottom line for some may be that 4e is simply not the game for them. For others, perhaps the answer is to look elsewhere than the number-crunching, board-game moves, etc., for the variety that is the spice of life.
Did you reply to the wrong thread? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, other than you don't like 4e. Fine, I don't either. I gots my Pathfinder and BFRPG, you got your thing. Cool.
This thread has gone in various different ways, and I'm enjoying it a lot. It seems that it managed to avoid the mighty edition wars of doom.
It's been a long time since I last followed a thread around here post by post for more than half a dozen pages, and I've not even adopted 4E as my D&D of choice!
Now something I'm thinking of: how to bring the various older edition mechanic themes under the 4E system to offer more variety?
Psionics seems to be a step on that direction, but what I'd really like to know is how, for example, to discard the power system for a class without making it unplayable?
Do we have a book with information regarding how much average damage a character of a given role should deal per round during a 10-round combat to be considered balanced in a given level?
Do we have a book with information regarding how much average damage a character of a given role should deal per round during a 10-round combat to be considered balanced in a given level?
Cheers,
There is no way to determine this without knowing how many encounters are done per day. And average damage is just a start.
The problem with leaving the specific power framework is that the power balance changes depending on how long combats are or how often you fight each day. 3E was balanced under certain assumptions - assumptions that were easily broken.
I think another thing that might be possible is to create a type of "charging" powers. Instead of making an attack, a character spends his action to charge a power. That could increase the powers overall effect - damage, conditions, area - when it is finally. The end result of the power would be balanced against a character spending the charge actions making regular (basic/at-will) attacks and a normal power of that level. This isn't necessarily easy to balance, either, since you don't just want to deal more damage, you want also to benefit from conditional effects that you have sacrificed in charging the power.
Another approach is to change the rules of resting or recovering powers, as mentioned above.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Find me a quote, page #, or Dragon article that lets my fighter find a trap, and I'll agree.
Maybe there's a special rule somewhere for a fighter eating a bowl of stew, or using a garderobe afterward, but the notion that a written rule is necessary to permit any activity strikes me as patently ludicrous.
Now, BFRPG has less in the way of game factors than 4e; in quantifiable terms, the latter thus appears to me less homogeneous. So, I am not surprised to find that such a vague characterization is not very helpful.
Last edited by Ariosto; 2nd September 2009 at 07:40 PM..
I think another thing that might be possible is to create a type of "charging" powers. Instead of making an attack, a character spends his action to charge a power. That could increase the powers overall effect - damage, conditions, area - when it is finally. The end result of the power would be balanced against a character spending the charge actions making regular (basic/at-will) attacks and a normal power of that level. This isn't necessarily easy to balance, either, since you don't just want to deal more damage, you want also to benefit from conditional effects that you have sacrificed in charging the power.
I think that's how the assassin is going to work. Maybe not spending a standard action chargin his lazer but the damage supposedly gets bigger the longer you "observe your target".
Maybe there's a special rule somewhere for a fighter eating a bowl of stew, or using a garderobe afterward, but the notion that a written rule is necessary to permit any activity strikes me as patently ludicrous.
That's not the point of his example. A character class can explicitly do a specific activity. A character race can do so under certain circumstances. Does that, or does that not, imply that others cannot do that particular activity?
To me, that implies a certain amount of exclusivity with that particular activity.
Regarding the bowl of stew, if a fighter had a 15% to eat a bowl of stew at 1st level and the advancement table said that he got 5% better per experience level... what would that say about a cleric eating a bowl of stew?
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Last edited by billd91; 2nd September 2009 at 08:03 PM..
There is no way to determine this without knowing how many encounters are done per day. And average damage is just a start.
Indeed. The long-term resource management of milestones and encounter/daily powers makes it more difficult to break down "average damage per round" figures. This is particularly true because so many powers are built to capitalize on teamwork: try running the numbers for a rogue who is assumed to always have a party member helping her flank versus the numbers for a rogue who must rely on her own powers to achieve combat advantage. The latter is at a serious disadvantage.
Ironically, with a bit more homogeneity in 4e, this calculation would be a little easier to run.
__________________ -------
Ethan Skemp
CCP NA/White Wolf Publishing
To me, that implies a certain amount of exclusivity with that particular activity.
As a 2E DM, I always looked at the thieving skills as a base chance of success that nothing could resist. I mean, everybody can try no move silently or hide in shadows, but a thief had a chance of doing so regardless of how good was the perception of those looking for him, that's why he rolled on a d% and all important modifiers were related to himself.
In the same manner, a fighter would be able to find a trap, but he goes purely on his own perception, working against the complexity of the mechanism and the degree of success of the one who set it there trying to hide it. A thief, though, with extraordinary skill, has his eyes especially trained to find them, much like the dwarf with the stone workings.
I don't know if this solves your problem, but it has always worked for me, and also make the thieving skills more extraordinary and interesting than class-exclusive non-weapon proficiencies.
Gamers Online Now: 792
Linear Mode
