D&D 4E Breaking the 4E Math - Major Design Flaw?

[Crosswind]

So, about 3 months ago, I put forth the following argument:

Defenses and Attacks are balanced, scale with level, work pretty gorgeously. This math works. People can defend against wizard spells, sword swings, and nobody ever gets an unsurmountable advantage.

Skill numbers are not balanced against defense numbers. Defense is Level/2+stat. Skill is Level/2+stat+5 (if trained) + 3 (if focused).

Therefore, if you can make a skill check versus a defense, the math is going to break, badly.

There are quite a few examples that I've heard of of using a skill check versus a defense. Intimidate versus will, for instance - there is almost no way to resist somebody who wants to intimidate you.

Am I correct in this assessment, or is there something I'm missing in the rules?

-Cross

(Edit: Err, I guess I forgot to point out why I consider this a flaw. I consider it a flaw because one of the strengths of 4E is the ability for a DM to arbitrate a challenge by naming an appropriate check and an appropriate DC. "You want to push over a table to knock down two monsters? Make a strength vs. reflex check!". It seems inevitable that at some point, skills will be part of that arbitration. Wouldn't it have been nice for them to be on the same scale as everything else?)

 

[Piratecat]

Don't forget that magical defenses (a cloak of protection, say) add to your defense numbers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, about 3 months ago, I put forth the following argument:

Defenses and Attacks are balanced, scale with level, work pretty gorgeously. This math works. People can defend against wizard spells, sword swings, and nobody ever gets an unsurmountable advantage.

Skill numbers are not balanced against defense numbers. Defense is Level/2+stat. Skill is Level/2+stat+5 (if trained) + 3 (if focused).

Therefore, if you can make a skill check versus a defense, the math is going to break, badly.

There are quite a few examples that I've heard of of using a skill check versus a defense. Intimidate versus will, for instance - there is almost no way to resist somebody who wants to intimidate you.

Am I correct in this assessment, or is there something I'm missing in the rules?

-Cross

I think what might be missing is that if you use an attack, you usually deal damage (unless the "rider" effect is strong enough to not require that). Skills won't offer this benefit.
It is a trade-off between effectiveness and reliability, so to speak.

At least that's my guess so far.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Don't forget that magical defenses (a cloak of protection, say) add to your defense numbers.

There might be items that improve skills, too. I don't know about that. If not, this would be a "weakness" of skills over time - at low levels, you don't have those defense bonuses, but at high levels, you will.

 

[Crosswind]

PirateCat - interesting thought, but one of the hallmarks of this edition is that things are balanced throughout the game. I can have a +8 bonus (before stats and half level) immediately from two feats. It seems unlikely that you could get a +8 bonus to any defense from as much.

Mustrum - Skills almost certainly offer effects, though. And effects are often as good as or better than damage.

Honestly, my only conclusion here is that you should never make a skill check versus somebody's defense. You should only make one versus another skill (Stealth vs. Perception, Bluff vs. Sense Motive, Intimidate vs...?????)

-Cross

 

[hong]

The brokenness of an exploit depends not only on the probability of success, but also the actual consequences of the exploit. If Intimidate vs Will needs a std action and gives you +1 on one attack, then it doesn't matter if you succeed 99% of the time, it still won't be broken.

 

[Obryn]

Star Wars Saga Edition's Force rules are almost crippled by this.

It balances once you reach 20th level, but at low levels, it's not good.

I will need to see what kinds of effects Skill vs. Defense rolls have... I mean, I can't imagine that mearls & co. would have just completely missed this.

-O

 

[Crosswind]

Obryn - Yeah. Honestly, this was one of the things I thought it was important for 4E to correct.

Hong - Obviously. I am not claiming that it is, necessarily broken. However, 4E claims to fix the math. 4E makes it gloriously simple to make rules for opposed checks. It seems strange that something like this would be overlooked.

Thus my concern/question - this is a pretty obvious problem. Can anybody, dev or otherwise, comment on 4E's fix to it?

-Cross

 

[Irda Ranger]

Honestly, my only conclusion here is that you should never make a skill check versus somebody's defense. You should only make one versus another skill (Stealth vs. Perception, Bluff vs. Sense Motive, Intimidate vs...?????)

This is my initial impression as well, but it's still a little early yet to assume I know the rules better than the developers. This is a pretty commonly used mechanic (not like a single poorly considered feat), so I'm sure it got a lot of attention during playtesting. Patience.

 

[Ginnel]

So, about 3 months ago, I put forth the following argument:

Defenses and Attacks are balanced, scale with level, work pretty gorgeously. This math works. People can defend against wizard spells, sword swings, and nobody ever gets an unsurmountable advantage.

Skill numbers are not balanced against defense numbers. Defense is Level/2+stat. Skill is Level/2+stat+5 (if trained) + 3 (if focused).

Therefore, if you can make a skill check versus a defense, the math is going to break, badly.

There are quite a few examples that I've heard of of using a skill check versus a defense. Intimidate versus will, for instance - there is almost no way to resist somebody who wants to intimidate you.

Am I correct in this assessment, or is there something I'm missing in the rules?

-Cross

(Edit: Err, I guess I forgot to point out why I consider this a flaw. I consider it a flaw because one of the strengths of 4E is the ability for a DM to arbitrate a challenge by naming an appropriate check and an appropriate DC. "You want to push over a table to knock down two monsters? Make a strength vs. reflex check!". It seems inevitable that at some point, skills will be part of that arbitration. Wouldn't it have been nice for them to be on the same scale as everything else?)

Let me add a few suggestions

Characters can have implements which can be up to +6 I believe so while not immeadiately comparable to skills they are invariably better come later levels, I'll agree though that skill focus should have been rubished.

if you compare to melee you get level/2+stat+2/+3 (profieciency) +1/6 (magic bonus)

skills are Level/2+stat+5 (if trained) + 3 (if focused).

not outrageously different, also while determining an off the cuff challenge like kick the table I would advise at least adding +2/+3 to the victims defence or -2/-3 to the role because of not having a power so its not a reliable battle manouver, otherwise they wouldn't be skills they'd be powers