Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[MerricB]

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.

What happens to the characters who haven't put ranks into that skill at all?

How important is the obstacle? Must every character pass it or the group fails? In that case, surely there's an alternative method of passing it (which makes the ranks somewhat irrelevant in the first place). If it's not relevant to the success of the party, then the ranks are irrelevant as well.

Can you give some actual examples of these challenges and use of skills?

Cheers!

 

[ProfessorPain]

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.

Just because spells exist that can take over the function of a skill, that doesn't mean your character will have access to the spell. It is also a waste of a spell slot for the day if you do have access and spend it instead of rolling a skill check. And it isn't limited to physical skills that allow you escape dangerous situations. Again, what I am saying applies to city adventures, where groups tend to split up and investigate, or pursue personal goals. I can think of all kinds of scenarios where I may be in a tavern without the rest of the party and need to make a diplomacy check. Or where another character's success doesn't automatically give me a pass (the example I gave earlier where the Rogue gets on the King's good side but he is still sizing my guy up).

Any skill could, it all depends on how it is being used.

 

[ProfessorPain]

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).

Options. It is fun to have more skills to choose from and be able to focus on specific skills rather than broad categories of skill. In my opinion 3E could have used more skills. The problem is, they need to break them into logical categories, and give out skill point pools, so you can put points into the skills that are obviously more important to survival. Consolidation makes it harder to fine tune character concepts. I may want a character who is good at some very specific skills. And the more specific the skill system, the easier that is for me to do (provided all the numbers are sound). Personally I don't want all of my specific skills wrapped up in groups. This is a matter of taste. Some people prefer a more generalized skill list. In D&D, the only time I really care about the skill system, is city adventures. Because those tend to be more in the style of modern genres. Which usually means using lots of skills. If you are in a dungeon hacking at something, skills really are not that important. So the distinction in a medieval fantasy game, isn't enough to make me not want to play one system or the other, just because it has a consolidated skill list. But for modern games I can't stand consolidated skill lists. I want to get into the nitty gritty with my skill selection in those kinds of games.

 

[ProfessorPain]

What happens to the characters who haven't put ranks into that skill at all?

How important is the obstacle? Must every character pass it or the group fails? In that case, surely there's an alternative method of passing it (which makes the ranks somewhat irrelevant in the first place). If it's not relevant to the success of the party, then the ranks are irrelevant as well.

Can you give some actual examples of these challenges and use of skills?

Cheers!

I addressed this in earlier posts. The adventure should never hinge on a single skill check roll. If one bad roll means everything falls apart, then the GM is either going to have to fudge, or stop the adenture mid way through. You need to have creative consequences for failure. If you have a ravine and the party knows the guy with no ranks, isn't a good jumper, they should seek an alternate path (and there should probably be one). If they want to risk it, they can do so. Say the characters who took the skill make their Jump Skill Check. But the last guy, who has no ranks, fails. If you are a tough GM, you have him fall to his death (which doesn't mean the party has failed, just been gimped a little). In my campaigns, I would make the failure mean further challenges before the party can move on. Maybe the guy falls down into a river and is forced to find his way back to the party. And so the group is split for some of the adventure (trust me, splitting the party up can be lots of fun-- you just want to throw encounters at the lone party member that he can handle alone). Or perhaps the party doesn't want to go on without him, so they organize an expedition into the ravine to save their pal. These are the kinds of suspensful and exciting scenes we see in movies all the time, and they are normally a product of a character failing his "skill roll". Even though failing the roll, hasn't caused the party to fail at the adventure, it has raised the stakes and is therefore relevant. If failing a skill check means that the adventure comes to a halt, and there is not other path around, then you are always going to rig it so the players pass. In that case, the skills themselves are not even relevant. What you need to do, is make failure a possibility, but know how to keep things going and keep things interesting when the failures occur. Besides you don't want to rail road the party or have adventure bottlenecks. The whole point is to create excitement, suspsense and fun.

 

[Remathilis]

Options. It is fun to have more skills to choose from and be able to focus on specific skills rather than broad categories of skill. In my opinion 3E could have used more skills. The problem is, they need to break them into logical categories, and give out skill point pools, so you can put points into the skills that are obviously more important to survival. Consolidation makes it harder to fine tune character concepts. I may want a character who is good at some very specific skills. And the more specific the skill system, the easier that is for me to do (provided all the numbers are sound). Personally I don't want all of my specific skills wrapped up in groups. This is a matter of taste. Some people prefer a more generalized skill list. In D&D, the only time I really care about the skill system, is city adventures. Because those tend to be more in the style of modern genres. Which usually means using lots of skills. If you are in a dungeon hacking at something, skills really are not that important. So the distinction in a medieval fantasy game, isn't enough to make me not want to play one system or the other, just because it has a consolidated skill list. But for modern games I can't stand consolidated skill lists. I want to get into the nitty gritty with my skill selection in those kinds of games.

I'm going to guess your games feature A LOT of city-based, "lets-split-up" style of gaming.

I think the general argument we're having boils down to this.

"I want a PC who has some training in open locks, a bit of training in sleight of hand, and a lot of training in disable device, and no real skill in forgery."

"Meh, I want a decent score in thievery in case I need to make any of those checks. I'll take training in it."

Personally, I've found D&D at the former micro-management level to be boring and tedious. However, I can understand how some people love to grind out every last skill point, feat, and such.

Where we've missed point is on effectiveness vs. "vanity", where the former makes senses mechanically (it makes sense for your typical 5 person party to max out a variety of different skills, with little/no overlap) the latter can sometimes be rewarding (see the ranger/psion and his stealth skills).

There are a lot of people who are arguing the former is much better for gameplay (having a PC who has a near-certain chance of success in the party generally is sufficient coverage of said skill) based on the escalation of DCs for many skills (such as disable device, open lock, diplomacy or opposed skills) vs having a few insurance points in case that roll gets called upon (so you have a minor edge if you find yourself talking to someone while the bard is neutralized). The latter can be rewarding though for those who either believe it "fits the PC" or "wants a chance to roll a 20" on a skill check.

Neither is wrong, but I generally prefer having PC trained a selection of broad skills (as a DM) since I feel I can call on a variety of different tasks and know my PCs have a good chance at making the skill checks without worrying about vast differences in skill (-2 vs. +13) and not having proper training (sorry, knowledge: nobility in trained only). However, I don't like fiddly systems, pick 4-6 skills and lets roll.

As always YMMV.

 

[Obryn]

So how did we move from a potentially cool thread about which game system is better for which kind of game style, to a thread about whose skills can beat up the other one's skills?

I mean, really, it's obvious that 3e has a better system for people who want to tweak and minutely manage their skills. If you want your campaign to be largely skill-dependent, 3e will suit your game better than 4e - but probably a skill-based game like GURPS, HERO, or even WFRP would be a better fit. You can argue about whether or not 3e and 4e are functionally identical for skills, or about the utility of diversifying, but this is a clear difference to me.

Of course you can use 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e to run any kind of D&D game you want. Each does some things better than the others - systems matter, after all. I think discussing which is better at which kind of game is potentially a very good and productive thread.

Clearly not here, though.

-O

 

[Wik]

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.

It's that Simulationist/Gamist divide. And I'd say I'm with Wik when he says if he wanted pure gamism, he'd go play Xbox. A D&D that doesn't focus on what D&D can do that Xbox CAN'T do is, overall, less useful to me.

I'm OK with 4e. I play and DM 4e. I'll probably end up doing some 4e design sooner or later (I can't resist tinkering with whatever I'm playing with). But that doesn't mean that 4e couldn't do better in many areas.

One of the areas that 4e really and honestly could do better in is in providing more variety and strategy in the rules for solving noncombat challenges.

It has the potential to do better than any edition before it for that.

It just depends on if the designers have any interest in doing that.

Said exactly my point, in a much better way. Hats off, sirrah.

For what it's worth, in our 4e session today, we sort of broke from the "rules-only" mindset and played things by ear. It was definitely more interesting. Powers are still limited (in comparison to non-combat abilities possessed by pre-4e classes), but the game experience was still fun.

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.

See, I thought that, too. BUT. It doesn't work that way. If I had an effect like Fireball knock my PCs prone, they'd flip - I was essentially taking away their move action, and not following rules. And why would I allow them to use Fireball to knock all the bad guys prone?

Yeah, Fireball can light stuff on fire in 4e - but really, only if the GM either writes it into the terrain description, or thinks on his feet. And Fireball is a limited spell in most editions.

Imagine, say.... Silent Image (one of my favourite spells). In 3e, there was a LOT you could do with it. In 4e, it's a spell that inflicts damage (in the wizards Dragon article). Maybe it'll be a utility one of these days.

So how did we move from a potentially cool thread about which game system is better for which kind of game style, to a thread about whose skills can beat up the other one's skills?

I've been thinking that, too. It makes me sad.

I think that thread should be made. And make the thing flame-retardent.

 

[Wik]

Alright. A spin-off thread, re-askign the original question, has been asked here. This thread is interesting, and let's keep it going, but I kind of want to see what sort of answers I can get if I narrow my question down a bit.

 

[MerricB]

I mean, really, it's obvious that 3e has a better system for people who want to tweak and minutely manage their skills. If you want your campaign to be largely skill-dependent, 3e will suit your game better than 4e

I don't see how you get from the first sentence to the second one.

The first is obvious: you have skill points in 3e, you mostly only have training/focus in 4e.

However, to make a game skill-dependent - which I take you mean a game where most challenges are resolved by skill use - does not have anything to do with the first. What you need there is a good skill resolution system... and the success of that in 3e is quite debatable. As we've discussed, at higher levels the numbers become quite disparate and problematic. (Indeed, they can do that at lower levels with specific application of feats and magic items).

Do the skills cover the actions your characters need to take?
Do the PCs have enough skills to face the challenges?

One of the biggest failures of specific 3e character design occurred in one of the early adventures I ran of the Mark of Heroes Eberron campaign. My good friend Sarah took the pregenerated Changeling Rogue... only to discover, a short time into the adventure, it didn't have the Disable Device skill. Of course, as she was the only "rogue", she was the only one with the possibility of even using it for trapfinding.

That's the reason I like the Thievery skill in 4e so much: the Rogue always has the skill to carry out the tasks most associated with the class.

But 4e does go further than that: characters are more skilled than in 3e; and that is a key point for making it a much better system for me for skill-based challenges.

Cheers!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

It really depends what you set the DCs at. As someone else mentioned, if you use opposed checks against any monster with a CR close to theirs, they are all going to fail except for the one who has maxed out ranks.

If you set the DC to 20, then it is fine having +7. But it's going to be extremely easy for the 11th level guy with a +5 modifier in the stat. So, the question is, are you going to plan around the fact that the guy with the high modifier will be there?

I think this depends heavily on how often the group splits up. Mine never does. I've been playing Living Greyhawk in 3.5e and Living Forgotten Realms in 4e. I've played in 8 or 9 different cities now with strangers from various locations. I've gotten a good cross section of playstyles and learned things I like and don't like about the way other people play. However, one constant remains, and that's that NO group I've ever played with splits up. Even in city adventures. We work together. The person with the +27 Diplomacy is always in the group and is always the one making the check. Anyone who doesn't work WITH the party tends to be berated with not being a team player. The feeling is "we are all here to play the game together, we all want to accomplish our goal, the point of the game is for us all to contribute our individual skills to the cause". This seems to be the major difference between how I think of the situation and how you do.

There's a number of reasons we don't ever split up, most of which I made in a previous post(mostly, it involves not wanting to sit around and watch other people play for 1-2 hours before the DM gets back to you).

I have not just made the assertion, I have built a case for my position. And I have managed to do it without being insulting. You disagree, and maybe in your games the spread doesn't work, because you rely more heavily on team work.

I don't believe you built the case that half ranks are worthwhile. You made the case that half ranks are worthwhile in a small subset of circumstances.

For instance, is it worthwhile to have +7 to your skill check in these situations:

1) The DC of the check is 28 or higher.

2) It doesn't matter who uses the skill, your entire party is together, someone in the group has +30, and he is willing to use the skill.

3) Someone has a spell that allows the entire group to bypass the check and there is no need to use the spell for anything else in a day(for instance, Mass Fly to avoid jumping over the pit and there is no need to fly for the rest of the day)

4) The DM gives you the benefits of succeeding even if you fail.

Mathematically, it just doesn't matter at all in these situations. It matters when:

1) The highest skill check character is unavailable(or something prevents him from using his skill), the DC is lower than 28, and no one has a spell to bypass the skill check.

To me, this seems a small subset of "times a skill check will be made in all styles of D&D game". A very, very small subset. It may work in your game, but understand that your game appears to work very different from the average game, from what I've heard.

On the other hand, even when the biggest difference between skill checks happens in 4e, there's still a minor chance to succeed. For instance, if you start with a 8 the stat for a skill and never increase it or train in the skill, then at level 30, you have +15 to the roll. If someone starts with a 20 in the stat and increases it every chance they get(including taking Demigod as their Epic Destiny for another +2) and train in the skill, and have skill focus, they have +33. If the DC is 35, you still have a chance of succeeding and the expert still has a chance to fail. The DM can set that as a DC and know that there is a reason to roll the die because the party MIGHT fail. And everyone should roll the die because they have a chance of contributing. It also still lets the person who is good at the skill shine.

And this is in the most extreme case. Most of the time, the numbers will be closer together than that. If no one has a stat quite that maxed out and no one took skill focus, the difference should be closer to 10. When the DC is 35 and the lowest is +16 and the highest is +26, there is a real sense of "I can still help out the group here. I still have a 10% chance."