Parties screwed without an Int-based PC?

[James McMurray]

That's exactly what we're doing.

 

[zag01]

What it means is that they can choose to be super-optimised for their class (and dump Int) or they can choose to be a more well-rounded character rather than pump the key stats and have more flexibility in doing other stuff - like, for instance, finding magic items with Arcana skill.

Otherwise, why not just ditch ability scores altogether, if you don't want to give them the penalty for not picking them? What do you do if diplomacy or bluff is important and none of the classes are Cha focussed? What if athletics is important to climb something and none of the classes are Str focussed?

Different party compositions mean that different parties will have different ways of resolving problems. Just like an all fighter party will fight differently from an all rogue party or an all wizard party, they will have to have different ways of resolving skill related problems.

Regards

To me that been one of my problems with 4e in general. If you’re not an idiot savant, you suck at your class. Sure you can choose to be a well-rounded character but the feel of the current edition discourages that.

As for the original post, is a party without an Int-based PC screwed? Yes, but they screwed themselves. They choose not to have an Int-based PC and it sounds like they all choose to dump Int. Actions have consequences. You want to hold their hand, go ahead its your game, but don’t blame the rules.

 

[Tellerve]

I misquoted the rule. It is DC 15 + 1/2 level. Even that doesn't make it guaranteed at higher levels, which means a party needs someone heavily focused on Arcana (or Int-based and trained) in order to find all of the parcels that the balance of the system assumes they have.

I'm fine with low Arcana making it harder to find traps or hidden things (just as I'm fine if they don't cover all the knowledges, or nobody trains in Perception). Its the possibility of throwing the game's baseline assumptions out the window that bothers me.

Where's this rule? The 15+1/2 level is for zones and conjurations but you are looking for the magical effects, which is 20+1/2 or was there errata bringing these all down by 5?

 

[Herschel]

If you intend for magic items to be mysterious and usually masquerading as real items, keep the rules as they are. A party full of Wizards shouldn't complain about lack of melee ability, and this is a similar situation in my opinion...

This.

They chose their characters, let them deal with the ramifications of those choices, both good and bad. That's half the fun.

 

[webrunner]

The PHB says you can use arcana to find magic items.. it does not say that it is the expected way to find magic items, just that it helps locate ones they can't see.

DMG 125 says that over the course of a level a party of five should find 4 magic items. If they don't, that means that you've made them too hard to find.

If they encounter a magic item that they can see, they will probably know it's magic. If you notice, the magic items displayed in most of the pictures glow very obviously. The lack of a rule for "determine if an item is magical" is pretty telling in itself.


Putting it this way: A party with nobody trained in arcana gets 4 magic items just like any other party. If you know a party has good arcana rolls then putting them in such a way that you need to arcana to find them is good because it rewards them for having arcana.. but if they don't you shouldnt punish them for that.

 

[James McMurray]

Where's this rule? The 15+1/2 level is for zones and conjurations but you are looking for the magical effects, which is 20+1/2 or was there errata bringing these all down by 5?

Sorry about that yet again. I've gotten the DC wrong several times and so have taken to doubting myself solely on principle.

You're right. It is 20 + 1/2 level, which means that even if he had a +5 Int mod, +2 for level, and +5 for training he still could not find any items from a 4th level adventure's treasure parcels by taking 10 except for the one 10th level one. I'm even happier now that we dumped this rule.

The PHB says you can use arcana to find magic items.. it does not say that it is the expected way to find magic items, just that it helps locate ones they can't see.

DMG 125 says that over the course of a level a party of five should find 4 magic items. If they don't, that means that you've made them too hard to find.

If they encounter a magic item that they can see, they will probably know it's magic. If you notice, the magic items displayed in most of the pictures glow very obviously. The lack of a rule for "determine if an item is magical" is pretty telling in itself.

We tend to follow the rules whenever possible. I see a rule that says how you sense magic items with a skill. I see a rule that says you can identify an item by experimenting over the course of a short rest. I see no rule that says one need merely see an item to know that it has magical properties.

I suppose I could make it up as a house rule. Oh wait, that's is exactly what we did.

Putting it this way: A party with nobody trained in arcana gets 4 magic items just like any other party. If you know a party has good arcana rolls then putting them in such a way that you need to arcana to find them is good because it rewards them for having arcana.. but if they don't you shouldnt punish them for that.

I'm not punishing them, hence the change in rules.

 

[Ryujin]

This.

They chose their characters, let them deal with the ramifications of those choices, both good and bad. That's half the fun.

That's essentially the way that I feel about the issue. When I first made up my character I looked at the various skills, in addition to my class's attacks, and ended up with an unoptimized Warlock with INT higher than CHA. My Arcana, Religion, and History skills are quite high. In fact at 8th level my Arcana was 18, because I was considering rituals and magic detection. We had no one who was going to play a Wizard, so I ended up handling rituals and magic detection.

If you create a character that is all about the hack and slash, and not about what comes between, then be it on your own head. I see it as a means of mitigating against the power gamers. If they don't find all the treasure possible, then they end up being more in balance with the power of unoptimized characters.

 

[James McMurray]

I can certainly understand the "sacrew the bastards" school of thought, and used to be that kind of GM. I decided a while back that I'd rather everyone have fun though, so it doesn't work for me anymore.

If you create a character that is all about the hack and slash, and not about what comes between, then be it on your own head. I see it as a means of mitigating against the power gamers. If they don't find all the treasure possible, then they end up being more in balance with the power of unoptimized characters.

True. Then again, it would take a bit of a leap to go from "nobody has an Int-based class" to "everyone focused on fighting and ignored the rest of the game system."

 

[Ryujin]

I can certainly understand the "sacrew the bastards" school of thought, and used to be that kind of GM. I decided a while back that I'd rather everyone have fun though, so it doesn't work for me anymore.

True. Then again, it would take a bit of a leap to go from "nobody has an Int-based class" to "everyone focused on fighting and ignored the rest of the game system."

No, not really much of a leap. What is someone doing when they take a 20 in their class's primary stat? Is it, "I'm going to be the best Cleric that I can be", or is it, "I could really use that high Insight skill for when we're interrogating captives", or is it, "I'm really gonna rock all that radiant damage!"?

 

[James McMurray]

Why can't it be all of the above? Sure, it's mostly going to be "I wanna be the best cleric." But that's a lot different from "and screw all that investigative, talking to NPCs, and knowledge crap." "I want a 20" != "I only care about hitting things."