D&D 4E A simulationist DM has a few reluctant questions about 4E

[ryryguy]

1) Adventurer skills advance at 1/2 per level, but DCs advance as well. So if you have a strength of 12 and are untrained and are wearing plate armor (weird paladin build), then you'll have a -1 to your Athletics check, and will have to roll 16 or better to get an easy DC at first level. At 30th level, still untrained and with a strength now of 14, he'll have -2 armor check, +2 from strength, +15 from level, and need a 15 to pass an easy skill check at 30th level.

<snip>

That is to say, there will always be a difference between people who know what they're doing and people who don't.

Note that this is going to give weird results if you have characters of uneven levels competing or characters facing lower than usual level challenges.

For example, take a level 20 wizard with 8 strength. He gets +9 on strength checks. A level 1 fighter with 18 strength gets +4. So, the wizard has an advantage over the burly fighter in an arm wrestling contest down at the inn. The same scrawny wizard can break down a wooden door pretty easily.

Now, to some extent this is like the minion question: the level 20 wizard should be facing adamantium (or whatever) doors instead of wooden ones. I think the system will probably work pretty well in the majority of situations that are actually going to come up. But there's definitely some weirdness in the corner cases.

 

[WyzardWhately]

Welcome to HERO... Where if a power does enough 'damage' to kill someone, it can alternatively do whatever you want, including turning them into a newt. Seriously, that's exactly how they balance transformation attack powers; they have a 'damage' roll, and if it exceeds the 'Body' of the target, they get transformed.

You can even set things up so that the 'damage' persists (with a specified wear-off rate) and a second use of the power will add to previous damage.

On the other topic, I intend to use a modification of the disease system for long term injuries; which will probably only come into play when people fall below 0 hp.

Also very good reasoning, I'm familiar with that explanation as well. I'm pretty sure it holds up in this case - there's actually also some support for that in the D&D rules already. You'll notice that the way knockout blows work is that it's simply a choice. They player who reduces a monster to zero can simply declare that they knock them out.

 

[DSRilk]

As a fellow "simulationist"...

1) Is there a way to remain bad at a skill with advancing levels? I know that all skills (and ability bonuses, etc.) advance automatically at 1/2 point per level, so on the surface of it, I would have to assume that the answer is negative, but perhaps there is a flaw system, or some other system to enable characters to remain bad at given skill(s).

The DCs scale with level also. Some tasks will be easier -- ones that were hard at level 1 will be easy at level 20. However, tasks that were designed to be moderately difficult at level 20 will be moderately difficult, so the +5 trained and +3 skill focus will make a huge difference even at higher levels. This is the same way skill vs skill works - because both sides get the same level modifier, you'll basically be the exact same level of "badness" against equal level foes. Yes, your level 20 guy will have a better chance of spotting the kobold than your level 1 guy would, but his chance of spotting a level 20 stealthy guy will still be poor without training and a good wisdom (or skill focus).

2) Is it true that most of the problematic but interesting spells and effects are gone (a select few being converted to rituals) or modified beyond recognition as seemed to be the case from the previews? (e.g. Baleful Polymorph)

Yes and no. The really powerful ones are - like polymorph. However, there are plenty of powers that can still be used in interesting ways. The fact that wizards get infinite access to things like prestidigitation (which has been greatly expanded in scope) and mage hand will allow for some good creativity. You'll be less likely to see game breaking high power flexibility. As a simulationist though, this is great for me - because it fixes issues I had with 3.5. It's only bad if you're also a power gamer.

3) Are the per-encounter powers explicit per-encounter powers, or implicit per-encounter powers?

They are explicity per encounter (I'm not sure how you could have an implicit rule that states "Once per encounter you may...").

I can rationalize the martial stuff by thinking of it as "it's basically impossible to pull this off twice against the same crowd in a short period of time," however, this does not apply to all powers nor to spell casters (for me). If you were okay with 3.x wizards simulating "reality" though, this shouldn't be a problem. I've hated D&D spell casting for a loooong time, and always used my own custom system since 2e. However, 4e doesn't seem as hard to "fix" so I actually just plan on allowing wizards to treat their encounters, dailies, and utilities as spell slots (kind of like the 3.x sorcerer). Dailies can be traded down for encounters, and encounters for utilities. It's how much magic a mage can control without getting worn out. He recovers encounter slots after 5 minute rests -- those are easy to recover from -- daily slots take so much out of the character that they require a good day's rest to get them back. I don't think it should be game breaking as in theory dailies are supposed to be equal in power. Yes, it'll make casters more flexible, but I'm okay with that.

4) Since hit points are now even more abstract than before, is there a system for more persistent injuries (that only heal slowly or with the aid of magic)?

Just like 3.x, there's no rule for this. I implemented custom rules for 3.x for my games, though I find the rules for 4.0 MUCH easier to work with in this regard. I'm simply going to say that once you hit 0, you are wounded: you are -2 to all actions and can only spend one healing surge per day (and must make a death save for it to work). You are no longer wounded once you reach max HP. I may make it -5 to actions until you reach bloodied, then -2 until you're at max. I haven't needed to do that yet. I find this much cleaner than what I had to do under 3.x, especially since 4e damage is much more controlled.

5) Have most of the non-combat abilities of monsters, creatures and NPCs really been removed as previews seemed to indicate they would be?

There weren't any to remove, as far as I'm concerned. They are description-lite in many cases, but I never really needed or used rules for habitat, feeding, and other non-sense that was tossed into some of the 3.x books. I knew how they interacted in my world. Personally, I like 4e monsters because it's easy for me to find the stats without digging through tons of garbage I didn't want and then wrap them in my own design - which is what I did in 3.x. In reality, I didn't use many 3.x monsters because they were such a pain to tweak to work the way I needed. I did what 4e does: I create a creature with the abilities that I want. This is the first edition in a while that will actually allow me to use the monster writeups in the MM for something other than just ideas.

To be blunt, your questions strike me more as someone that doesn't like change, not so much someone that likes simulation. I also think you are wearing rosy glasses if you think 3.x had most of the stuff you imply that 4e should have. No version of D&D was built for my simulationist leanings, so it's always been a question of how much do I have to do on my own and how hard is it to do it. As a general rule, 4e is FAR easier for me to make simulationist than previous versions of D&D. There is one exception to this though... powers.

If you want to find something to grouse about, it's powers you're looking for. They are THE most irrational thing in the game. Not the per day, per encounter issue - that's very easy to address. For me, the problem is things like a rogue shooting up to 9 targets in one standard action with a crossbow or... 9 daggers. That just makes no sense. It also doesn't make sense that it blinds every target. I mean, okay, even if he somehow managed to hit all 9... he hit them ALL right above the eyes so that they end up blinded by the blood? It's THAT type of thing I'm going to have the most issue addressing. Most likely, I'll just eliminate access to certain powers just like I had to do with most 3.x spells. I'll probably create a couple to take their place. Most powers are FAR more reasonable, but this, imo, is the biggest problem with 4e from a simulationist stand point. Yeah, square fireballs are goofy, but that's so easy to address there's not really any point to even talking about it.

 

[redwulf25_ci]

Welcome to HERO... Where if a power does enough 'damage' to kill someone, it can alternatively do whatever you want, including turning them into a newt.

A NEWT??!!??!!






Do they get better?

 

[JDillard]

Here's my thoughts from what 4e I've played and read...

1) Is there a way to remain bad at a skill with advancing levels? I know that all skills (and ability bonuses, etc.) advance automatically at 1/2 point per level, so on the surface of it, I would have to assume that the answer is negative, but perhaps there is a flaw system, or some other system to enable characters to remain bad at given skill(s).

No, not exactly. This is intentional though, as other's have said. Apart from some apparently bizarre situations (and I really think the strangeness is only there at first glance), this has big benefits. It keeps things scaleable at all levels, removes a lot of the frustrations that people have had with assigning skill points, and makes the system run more quickly and smoothly.

As for the bizarre stuff, well, I think it's a matter of adjusting your viewpoint. For example, someone mentioned above the situation of a level 20 wizard with Str of 8 having a +9 to a Str based skill (like knocking down a door) vs a level 1 Fighter with Str 18 having only a +4.

This is not as weird as it first sounds. Now that PC's and NPC's are separate entities as far as game rules are concerned, the meaning of "leveling" has changed, I think. It represents time and experience spent adventuring. As a PC, you can't really level without doing all that adventure stuff (represented by the skills list for 4th ed). If you want to be a character with the power of a 20th level wizard who's never left his tower, you're not a PC, you're an NPC. The DM can do that easily, because he can set whatever numbers he wants on the NPC's info. If you're a PC at 20th though, it's therefore assumed you've adventured your way up there.

So to go back to the bizarre example above, think about it like this: the +9 represents 20 levels of the wizard watching other fighters bash through things. By then, he's probably got a pretty good idea of where on that wooden door to hit. Conversely, the level 1 fighter is fresh out of fighter school and is using merely his brute strength with no real experience to back it up. It's still not perfect, but something I can far more easily swallow.

2) Is it true that most of the problematic but interesting spells and effects are gone (a select few being converted to rituals) or modified beyond recognition as seemed to be the case from the previews? (e.g. Baleful Polymorph)

Some of them, yes. I can't argue too much. As a DM who at one point had a BBEG killed because of one first round, first action Finger of Death with a 1 rolled on the save, I think of this as a good thing. The party fighter seriously looked about ready to cry. The group decided to pretend the finger of death didn't happen, and do the rest of the fight that way.

I expect as more time goes by, a lot of those "problematic" spells will start to come back into the game, albeit in a less problematic form. For the PHB, they were just trying to get the whole framework of the system going. Now that it's set and working, they can start to see how far they can take other things.

4) Since hit points are now even more abstract than before, is there a system for more persistent injuries (that only heal slowly or with the aid of magic)?

As others have said, no, not really. However, the disease rules are awesome and could be easily modified into something like that. 4th is really attempting to model an action/fantasy movie-like world. Having characters stuck in bed for weeks getting over a broken leg is great for a drama, but you don't see that sort of thing in an action movie except possibly at the very end (and by then it's purely a story element, no need for rules).

5) Have most of the non-combat abilities of monsters, creatures and NPCs really been removed as previews seemed to indicate they would be?

Yes, as also mentioned above. If you need or want a monster to do something out of combat, then do it. No reason for the rules to constrain your storytelling there.

 

[Nikolai II]

I'm not particularly a narrativist as I think has been made clear, but I'd fault the GM in that scenario. When the party came to the last fight it would have been appropriate for him to say "You all feel a surge of triumphant relief as you see that your perseverance has paid off and you still have time to save the Princess. New Encounter."

Hey, that one's neat enough that I'll have to remember it