D&D 4E Skills - Breaking the 4E Math?

[Crosswind]

One of the things that is most attractive to me about 4E is how the math on opposed checks seems to scale nicely. Unlike in 3rd edition, where at high levels making your low save was an auto-failure, and making your high save was an auto-success, there always seems to be a decent chance of either.

Further, because saves, AC, and attack are all on the same scale (1/2 level, ability mod, small modifier), there's some amount of balance. This is neat for obvious reasons - it affords the DM the ability to go "Eh, sounds like a strength attack vs. fortitude".

This brings me to the question: Why aren't skill checks balanced on the same scale?

Your skill bonus is 1/2 level + modifier + (small racial modifier) + 5 (trained).

This means that, on an optimized character, you could have a +7 (+2 racial, +5 trained) advantage when making an attack against the opponent's best defense. A +7 advantage on a d20 is basically game over (You have an 80% chance of succeeding, or so). This is before you add in something like Skill Focus (maybe a +3 modifier?), which would put you up around 90% chance of success.

This seems to limit a DM's ability to mix and match between checks. You can't so much say "Make a bluff check vs. will", for instance - the bluffer is very likely to win.

I realize that you can get around this, as a DM, by assigning bonuses to defenses, etc, but I'm wondering why they chose to make skills on a different scale than other things?

-Cross

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think they do stuff to make it more balanced.
1) If you use an attack power, you deal damage plus gain a special effect. If you would only use a skill, you get just a special effect. So, the attack might be little less likely to succeed, but it will have a higher impact as a whole, so the "average" result is similar.
2) Profiences seem to grant bonus to attacks. This can close the gap between skills and attacks, too.
3) Some classes also seem to get a "kicker" to their attacks. Again, closing the gap.

As a whole, I think one of the main reasons is because attacks work with powers, but skills do (usually) not. Since you can use powers to differentiate attack abilities, but usually can't do the same for skills, skills need a different way to support differentiation - if you're trained/expert, you gain a bonus, if not, then not.

I am not sure how well this will actually work in the long run. It might in fact be a flaw or at least an imperfection of the system. Ask me again later (in 8 years?).

 

[DeusExMachina]

One thing I can imagine is that certain magical items typically enhance your defenses, but not so many of them give generic skill boosts. That would even things out a little...

Also, the trained/non-trained thing is exactly to indicate that yes, somebody trained and even focused on bluffing will succeed most of the time. That's the idea of specialization.

 

[KevinF]

It's skill vs skill

I believe the problem is that you are thinking the game allows skill vs def, which I don't think is the intention. I believe it should be skill vs skill.

So its Bluff vs Insight. If you want to eliminate the defensive die role for the monster/NPC simply use passive insight, and it scales similarly to the DEF scores.

 

[Stalker0]

I believe the problem is that you are thinking the game allows skill vs def, which I don't think is the intention. I believe it should be skill vs skill.

We've already seen examples with the grapple rules that shows skill checks vs defenses, so it appears to be in the game.

I think the game is designed so that a person whose very good at the skill (trained, plus high mod) is going to succeed the majority of the time. However, the difference is that majority doesn't skyrocket into automatic success as levels get higher.

For example, lets take a guy with a 16 strength, and trained in athletics (+8 modifier). Among the pregens, the average fort defense was 13. So that means an 80% chance of success. However, against the fighter guy (fort defense 16), that's only a 65% chance. And its likely these modifiers won't change a lot over the course of the game. But hey, isn't a guy trained in a skill supposed to be good at it?

Further, there's some speculation that a 1 on a skill roll is an auto failure now, but I haven't heard anything about that in a long while now.

One final thought, it would probably be a good idea to take a look at the monster's average numbers and see how those compare. Since the monsters don't follow the same rules as the players, we may see different results when we compare them.

 

[jaelis]

Seems like your main concern is the +5 bonus for being trained? That's not big enough to matter so much... if an untrained character has a 50% chance of success, a trained one would have a 75% chance. Seems about right to me.

But more to the point, the bonus is static, so nothing changes as you level up. So I wouldn't say it breaks the math.

 

[Spatula]

SWSE has a similar problem, especially since one skill check in particular (Use the Force) is often used as an attack roll. And indeed, UtF is ridiculous at low levels, where you can easily get a +10 to hit roll - before stats adjustments for high Cha - while everyone else is dinking around with +0 or +1 (also before stat adjustments).

However, I don't think it will be as bad in 4e. A lot depends on whether or not the Skill Focus feat is still around, and if so, what kind of bonus it gives (in SWSE, Skill Focus is +5). Remember that weapon proficiency gives you an average of +2 to your attack roll, which isn't as good as the +5 from skill training, but is close. It will also probably be easier to pump up your attack bonus than your skill bonuses - magic weapons, etc. So I think attack rolls and skill checks will be in the same ballpark, although Skill Focus (if it still exists) can throw things out of whack at low levels.

 

[KarinsDad]

For example, lets take a guy with a 16 strength, and trained in athletics (+8 modifier). Among the pregens, the average fort defense was 13. So that means an 80% chance of success. However, against the fighter guy (fort defense 16), that's only a 65% chance. And its likely these modifiers won't change a lot over the course of the game. But hey, isn't a guy trained in a skill supposed to be good at it?

The problem here is that the Fighter (or other defender) cannot also be trained just as well unless there are special rules that we are not aware of. For example, if the rule is Athletics vs. higher of Fort or Athletics, then it might be ok since the defender can be trained as well as the attacker and the attacker then only has a 55% chance of success (assuming skill vs skill works the same as skill vs def where ties go to attacker).

If there are no such special rules, then an 80% chance of success is pretty darn high against same level opponents.

 

[Lacyon]

The problem here is that the Fighter (or other defender) cannot also be trained just as well unless there are special rules that we are not aware of. For example, if the rule is Athletics vs. higher of Fort or Athletics, then it might be ok since the defender can be trained as well as the attacker and the attacker then only has a 55% chance of success (assuming skill vs skill works the same as skill vs def where ties go to attacker).

If there are no such special rules, then an 80% chance of success is pretty darn high against same level opponents.

The grapple rules I've seen use Strength attack versus Reflex Defense to resolve. The skill check vs. Defense only comes in when you're trying to break free.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Actually, I think the rules actually incorporate the math for trained skills vs defenses. Remember, we DO have a 'Trained' equivalent for weapons in Proficiency. Proficiency, in 4th, gives you a bonus to the hit depending on the weapon. It might not be as big a bonus as the Trained skill bonus, but it is there.

You also have to incorporate the bonuses that magical items give to hit and to defenses. We dont know if magic items will give similar bonuses to skill checks yet, so that's another additional mod that could even things out.