Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[drothgery]

Not at all. Please show me where I have been angry because someone disagreed with my position. You like the 4E skill system, and thats fine. I don't think it makes you wrong. We just disagree on preferences. And the only time I have expressed anything approaching "heat" is when you have insulted me. And that is a different thing entirely. We can disagree politely. But if you are going to call my intelligence into question because of my position, that is not acceptable.

There's the thing. I haven't insulted you. I have said that you're making a mathematically unsound argument. That's it.

 

[Dragonblade]

Compare that lantern with even the lowly light spell (which that lantern is basically the equivalent of in 4e). It's basic purpose was pretty clear (you use it if you don't have a torch), but 2e included rules for using it to blind enemies (casting it on their eyes!), and in 3e, the idea of using it to negate darkvision was present.

In those games, that spell was a tool -- it generated some effect, and how you used that effect was up to you (fireball to start campfires, etc.)

In 4e, that spell is an effect -- it basically generates that effect. The tool used to accomplish that is mostly up to you (making it easy to reskin, and also very clear in its effect). Anything else is not given real support.

In 3e, when you cast fireball, you made a fireball, and the spell described the effects that fireball would have in certain circumstances (but, it was implied, by no means all).

In 4e, when you cast a fireball, you simply deal a kind damage in an area. This is clear and unambiguous, but it's also not much of a launching point for imagination; it's just a mechanical effect.

Like I said several posts ago this is the crux of the argument. Are open-ended effects good or bad? And it really depends. In 2e, featherfall gave you the mass of a feather. This made it so you didn't take damage from falling, but also opened itself to all sorts of ridiculous abuses. In a 2e game I played in way back in the day, four PCs once rode across the country on a single horse because everyone had feather fall cast on them.

This is certainly a creative use of an open-ended spell, but the game took on a Piers Anthony Xanth-like silliness. Realistically speaking, why don't whole armies start traveling like this?

And Light is another example. Once the player's realize they can use a 1st level spell effect to blind an enemy why cast anything else? It becomes the defacto tactic from there on out. Who needs a paltry 1d4+1 magic missile when another first level spell not only makes an effective weapon it provides light too.

Animate Dead can create whole hordes of undead in 1e. Unlimited labor you don't have to feed and that can work all day and all night without rest? You can revolutionize the economy with that. So why isn't it being done already?

 

[MerricB]

It depends on what you are setting the DCs at. But even then a +7 isn't that bad compared to a +13. A plus 13 is much better. But a +7 certainly beats a +0 if your going up against a DC 20. This is an adventure design issue. If you are making adventures so only the people with maxed out ranks can suceed at anything, then that is a design flaw. You don't use the higher end numbers as baseline. In a balanced adventure the guy with the 7 should still have a shot.

Hmm.

One of the major troubles I have with 3e is the scaling of the mathematics. I bring this up because it's a factor with non-maximised skills. The trouble 3e faces is emphasised at the higher levels, so I'll give a few examples for 16th level characters (which is where several of my 3e campaigns finished).

Imagine a Wizard. By 16th level, his initial Intelligence of 16 has been increased to 20 by stat increases, and another +6 from a magic item. At this point, we're talking about a +8 bonus to Intelligence skills. Meanwhile, his initial 10 Strength hasn't changed.

Now, let's give him four types of skills: untrained, half-ranks, full ranks, and full ranks + skill focus. I'm ignoring magic items that further increase skills, including them in the skill focus.

Ranking the combinations from lowest to highest:
Strength, untrained: +0
Intelligence, untrained: +8
Strength, half-ranks: +9
Intelligence, half-ranks: +17
Strength, full-ranks: +19
Strength, focused: +22
Intelligence, full-ranks: +27
Intelligence, focused: +30

By this point, the disparity between the half-ranks and full-ranks have reached a point where the gap is just too big for both types of characters to participate on the same action. It's much, much worse when the ability scores are taken into account.

Yes, there's a time during earlier levels when the disparity isn't so big, but once stat-boosting items start becoming part of the standard kit, skills give 3e a lot of problems (as does a lot of the mathematics of the system).

Cheers!

 

[ProfessorPain]

There's the thing. I haven't insulted you. I have said that you're making a mathematically unsound argument. That's it.

1) The math isn't unsound. It is campaign and expectation dependent.

2) You have been insulting. I suggest you re-read your own posts. They are clearly meant to antagonize and insult. There is a difference between saying "that math doesn't look right to me" (which wouldn't have bothered me) and "this isn't vector calculus here". One makes the point you disagree with my numbers, which is fine. The other implies I am having trouble with simple math, and I lack the intelligence to see it.

 

[LostSoul]

In 3e, when you cast fireball, you made a fireball, and the spell described the effects that fireball would have in certain circumstances (but, it was implied, by no means all).

In 4e, when you cast a fireball, you simply deal a kind damage in an area. This is clear and unambiguous, but it's also not much of a launching point for imagination; it's just a mechanical effect.

To me, I read the 3E Fireball spell and I see exactly what you're saying 4E does. The 3E version seems much more clear and unambiguous, explicitly stating what the spell does - and the implication is, for me, that it does nothing more than this.

Since 4E is pretty bare-bones, the way I read it is that you can do whatever you can imagine you can do with a "globe of orange flame" that "you hurl at your enemies".

This includes blowing people off their feet with the force of the blast.

It also seems to me thta 4E is set up to work this way; allowing a Fireball to knock someone Prone is not going to break anything.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Hmm.

One of the major troubles I have with 3e is the scaling of the mathematics. I bring this up because it's a factor with non-maximised skills. The trouble 3e faces is emphasised at the higher levels, so I'll give a few examples for 16th level characters (which is where several of my 3e campaigns finished).

Imagine a Wizard. By 16th level, his initial Intelligence of 16 has been increased to 20 by stat increases, and another +6 from a magic item. At this point, we're talking about a +8 bonus to Intelligence skills. Meanwhile, his initial 10 Strength hasn't changed.

Now, let's give him four types of skills: untrained, half-ranks, full ranks, and full ranks + skill focus. I'm ignoring magic items that further increase skills, including them in the skill focus.

Ranking the combinations from lowest to highest:
Strength, untrained: +0
Intelligence, untrained: +8
Strength, half-ranks: +9
Intelligence, half-ranks: +17
Strength, full-ranks: +19
Strength, focused: +22
Intelligence, full-ranks: +27
Intelligence, focused: +30

By this point, the disparity between the half-ranks and full-ranks have reached a point where the gap is just too big for both types of characters to participate on the same action. It's much, much worse when the ability scores are taken into account.

Yes, there's a time during earlier levels when the disparity isn't so big, but once stat-boosting items start becoming part of the standard kit, skills give 3e a lot of problems (as does a lot of the mathematics of the system).

Cheers!

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the skill system in 3E was perfect. I was just saying in a typical game, diversifying is fine and can be beneficial. Most games of 3E I played in peaked at level 10, because after that much of the system starts to fall apart. I do agree many of the numbers (not just in skills) start to break down at much higher levels. But not when it is a difference between a rank 13 or 7. The reason it doesn't work is a that skill levels advance too much over time. What they should have done was given people lots of skills off the bat, and rigged it so the skills advanced at a much slower rate or were capped at a reasonable number (say a range of 1-10). I just don't think the solution was to scrap the ranks. Better to build a tighter ranked skill system in my view.

 

[ProfessorPain]

If you're giving the guy with 7 a shot then the guy with 14 is going to find it trivial even before you throw in ability modifiers.

Sure. But we are talking about skill checks where one guy can't get a success for the entire party. It is a question of what you would rather have. Lets say you take the 13, and as a result you find one obstacle trivial, but then you are stuck with a +0 on the check for the skill you didn't take any ranks in. This is fine, there isn't anything wrong with it. But I have had plenty of characters be better off taking the two +7s. So that they a fair chance of overcoming both checks.

 

[Pbartender]

Imagine a Wizard. By 16th level, his initial Intelligence of 16 has been increased to 20 by stat increases, and another +6 from a magic item. At this point, we're talking about a +8 bonus to Intelligence skills. Meanwhile, his initial 10 Strength hasn't changed.

For comparison, here's that same character at 1st level. 10 Strength, 16 Int, no other stat boosts:

Ranking the combinations from lowest to highest:
Strength, untrained: +0
Strength, half-ranks: +2
Intelligence, untrained: +3
Strength, full-ranks: +4
Intelligence, half-ranks: +5
Strength, focused: +7
Intelligence, full-ranks: +7
Intelligence, focused: +10



Now, just to take it to an absurd extreme, depending on how much your players like to powergame, here's something that's not necessarily uncommon at 1st level...

A halfling (bard, ranger or rogue) with a 20 dexterity.

Hide: +16 (4 ranks, +5 Dex, +4 Race, +3 Skill Focus)

Even without Skill Focus you've got a +13 to Hide, and a Halfling Rogue with a 20 Dex is not especially uncommon even at 1st level.

Sure. But we are talking about skill checks where one guy can't get a success for the entire party.

Such as what...

Hide and Move Silently? Invisibility Sphere and Silence take care of that.
Balance, Climb or Jump? Levitation, Fly, Teleport, Spider Climb and Tenser's Floating Disk.

I can't honestly think of any other skills that fit that bill, other than Swim... And let's be honest, any adventurer who finds themselves swimming is in for trouble, whether their skilled at it or not.

That's the trouble... I understand what you're saying, I largely agree with the general idea of what you are saying, but in practical play for most players, it simply doesn't work that way.

 

[MerricB]

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the skill system in 3E was perfect. I was just saying in a typical game, diversifying is fine and can be beneficial. Most games of 3E I played in peaked at level 10, because after that much of the system starts to fall apart. I do agree many of the numbers (not just in skills) start to break down at much higher levels. But not when it is a difference between a rank 13 or 7. The reason it doesn't work is a that skill levels advance too much over time. What they should have done was given people lots of skills off the bat, and rigged it so the skills advanced at a much slower rate or were capped at a reasonable number (say a range of 1-10). I just don't think the solution was to scrap the ranks. Better to build a tighter ranked skill system in my view.

Is there that much a difference between giving people lots of skills and consolidating the skills? Certainly, 4e gives PCs more skills (in general; not quite true of characters that were Int-based in previous edition or Rogues, although "Thievery" covers a multitude of skills in 4e).

Doing a similar analysis of the skill bonuses for 4e...
A 16th level character in 4e is likely to have a 11 in their lesser stat (Strength) and a 22 in their primary stat (Intelligence).

The levels of skills becomes Untrained, Trained, Focused

Strength, Untrained: +8
Strength, Trained: +13
Intelligence, Untrained: +14
Strength, Focused: +16
Intelligence, Trained: +19
Intelligence, Focused: +22

Well, at least they're closer!

There are two additions to the system which change the values around a bit:

* Jack-of-all-trades: +2 to all untrained skill checks. In effect, half ranks (insofar as how training just gives a +5).
* Backgrounds. With between a +1 and +3 to one or two skill checks, you have the effect of half-training as well.

Cheers!

 

[Spatula]

It depends on what you are setting the DCs at.

Yes.

If task DCs are what they are (e.g. the Balor has a +38 Spot bonus), it is suboptimal to not maximize skills.

If task DCs are set by the DM with the group's (or a particular character's, if the group is split up) capabilities in mind (e.g. you have a chance to successfully hide from the Balor regardless of your skill bonus), then it doesn't really matter what you do with your skills. Specialize, or not, the DM will set the DC so that you can succeed. I'm not sure why you'd even bother with skill points in this case.

Compare that lantern with even the lowly light spell (which that lantern is basically the equivalent of in 4e).

Wouldn't the 4e light cantrip be the equivalent of the lowly 3e light spell? And light spoiling darkvision - wha? There's nothing about that in the 3e spell description.

In those games, that spell was a tool -- it generated some effect, and how you used that effect was up to you (fireball to start campfires, etc.)

That's a bit extreme. Flaming sphere would light fires and cause less collateral damage in the process.

Of course, this illustrates a problem with rules-based effects. Some fire spells (fireball, flaming sphere, flame blade) have text stating that they can light combustible materials on fire. Other fire spells do not, and so by implication, cannot. Which is pretty silly to me, but I've heard it before. As Scribble and LostSoul note, the enumeration of what a spell is capable of can be just as limiting (it says it does X, therefore it doesn't do anything else).