D&D 4E What Doesn't 4E Do Well?

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, the PHB allows it.



There is no specific skill challenge rule in the DMG that overrides this general rule.

The update just verified it.



Secondary skill checks have nothing to do with Aid Another. They are just another skill, merely a skill the DM did not think of when creating the challenge. There is nothing special about them. If the DM disallows them, he does. What has that to do with Aid Another?


Is the skill in the list of skills for the skill challenge? Yup. Then one can Aid Another that skill.

Is the secondary skill one that the DM allows for the skill challenge? Yup. Then one can Aid Another that secondary skill.

No, you're taking a rule from the COMBAT chapter where there is an action, Aid Another, and applying it to a non-combat situation, a skill challenge. Actions apply to combat only. We've been using the term "Aid Another" as a convenient tag for this mechanism but more properly it is covered in the skill chapter in the topic "Cooperation". This topic clearly states that "In some situations" one PC can cooperate with another to provide a skill bonus. Its not a mechanism that PCs are universally entitled to. A player CANNOT assume that cooperation is always available.

In non Group Skill Check situations the DM is perfectly within his or her rights to simply state that any characters using a skill need to make their own checks and that those checks count for success or failure. I don't even see how that fails to model cooperation in most cases. It just doesn't make the challenge easy cheesy and likely motivates unskilled PCs to try something different. Honestly how helpful is a fighter with no specialized knowledge of Arcana going to be to the wizard who is a master of Arcane knowledge? If I were working on a set of partial differential equations do you think the janitor is going to be helpful? (OK, maybe if he's the MIT janitor ). If the PCs are all trying to climb a cliff, sure, but that's the exact kind of situation where a GSC is appropriate.

The whole point of discussing secondary skills was only to point out that any mechanism that lets a PC participate which isn't better than just using "Aid Another" might as well not exist if you assume you can always AA. The very existence of such things suggests that AA was not envisaged as being an option that was always available.

See, this is the problem with your supposition about AA, the rest of the SC system simply makes no sense when you assume anyone can AA at any time in any challenge. Either its at the DMs discretion or the whole SC system is mostly nonsensical. Criticizing it on the basis of a rules interpretation that breaks it is well sort of just itself kinda nonsensical when you can simply not interpret the rules that way.

 

[korjik]

Judging from recent discussions, I would say one place where 4e is a bit worse is in allowing a DM to DM.

I dont mean preparing for the game, in that respect 4e is a light-years ahead of nearly any game I have seen.

I mean in having the DM as an ajudicator. The rules in 4e are much more strict in leaving wiggle room. The discussion above about wether someone can aid another on a skill check is a real indication of this. The rule should be 'do whatever the heck you want you morons, just realize that if you allow aid another that you are going to have the skill checks be +2 to +8 higher'.

Technically, this has been a problem for a while. The note in everything that raised dead in 3.5 that went something like 'if the person reached the end of his natural life, this dosent help' was another one. If I wanted raise dead to make people effectively immortal, why is there an exessively repeated rule to prohibit it?

Before anyone mentions house rules, I will mention that effectively wasted page space makes me less likely to buy a book. I will also mention that I am not a professional game designer, and having to make massive changes to the rules means that continuing to buy that product is a waste of money.

I have not liked the 'gimp the powergamer cause the DM wont' attitude. If a player of mine starts deliberately making my job hard, I tell them what the problem is. If that dosent correct it, then I have alot bigger box of toys to fix the problem with. I didnt need flexability removed to keep the players inline

 

[Alex319]

Before anyone mentions house rules, I will mention that effectively wasted page space makes me less likely to buy a book. I will also mention that I am not a professional game designer, and having to make massive changes to the rules means that continuing to buy that product is a waste of money.

I have not liked the 'gimp the powergamer cause the DM wont' attitude. If a player of mine starts deliberately making my job hard, I tell them what the problem is. If that dosent correct it, then I have alot bigger box of toys to fix the problem with. I didnt need flexability removed to keep the players inline

I'm a little confused about this argument.

It seems like there are two possible cases:

CASE 1: You have a "powergamer" who is "making your job hard", and you want to "gimp" him. Since (at least as I infer from your post) you would prefer that you be able to do this within the confines of the rules rather than having to make up house rules, it seems like you would PREFER the rules to "gimp the powergamer", so you don't have to make up house rules on your own to do it. Or is there a distinction between "DM adjudication" (which you like) and "house rules" (which you would prefer to avoid) that I am missing here?

CASE 2: You don't have a powergamer, In that case the rules that "gimp the powergamer" aren't having any effect on your game, since there is no powergamer to gimp. Or are you arguing that there are rules that "gimp powergamers" but also have negative effects in other areas of the game? If so, what are they?

 

[KarinsDad]

No, you're taking a rule from the COMBAT chapter where there is an action, Aid Another, and applying it to a non-combat situation, a skill challenge. Actions apply to combat only.

So you are claiming that Aid Another can only be done in combat?

I can Aid Another someone else to pick a lock in combat, but not out of combat?

Teleportation is in the combat section. Do the line of sight and line of effect rules not apply out of combat as well as in combat? Or are you claiming that teleportation cannot be done out of combat?

Your position here is totally unsupportable.

We've been using the term "Aid Another" as a convenient tag for this mechanism but more properly it is covered in the skill chapter in the topic "Cooperation". This topic clearly states that "In some situations" one PC can cooperate with another to provide a skill bonus. Its not a mechanism that PCs are universally entitled to. A player CANNOT assume that cooperation is always available.

The phrase "in some situations" is vague and not a rule. It could mean anything. It could mean, like you claim, when the DM allows it. It could mean when the PCs are standing next to each other. It could mean anything. You cannot use a vague phrase to force a given interpretation.

This is called inference. You are inferring something from a sentence where the sentence is vague and not explict.

Sorry, that's not a rule.

In non Group Skill Check situations the DM is perfectly within his or her rights to simply state that any characters using a skill need to make their own checks and that those checks count for success or failure. I don't even see how that fails to model cooperation in most cases. It just doesn't make the challenge easy cheesy and likely motivates unskilled PCs to try something different. Honestly how helpful is a fighter with no specialized knowledge of Arcana going to be to the wizard who is a master of Arcane knowledge?

Happens every day in real life. Someone not knowledgeable about cars says "What if you clean out the carburetor?" and even though the car does not even have a carburetor, it triggers a thought in the mind of the auto expert to clean out something else.

It gives the expert a bonus.

If I were working on a set of partial differential equations do you think the janitor is going to be helpful? (OK, maybe if he's the MIT janitor ). If the PCs are all trying to climb a cliff, sure, but that's the exact kind of situation where a GSC is appropriate.

The whole point of discussing secondary skills was only to point out that any mechanism that lets a PC participate which isn't better than just using "Aid Another" might as well not exist if you assume you can always AA. The very existence of such things suggests that AA was not envisaged as being an option that was always available.

Secondary skills have nothing to do with gaining a +2 bonus. Quote the rule.


There are two bonuses possible in the skill check section of the rules.

1) DM's Friend in the Running a Skill Challenge section.
2) +2 in the Group Skill check section.

Your logic is flawed. A DM could allow both #1 and #2 here. They are not mutually exclusive like via your theory.

Both are allowed. The update clearly indicates that not only is the second one allowed for non-group skill skill challenges, but that there is even a limit of one or two of them.

On checks that aren’t described as group checks, consider limiting the number of characters who can assist another character’s skill check to one or two.

This does not state: consider limiting the number to zero. It states, consider limiting the number to one or two. For your interpretation to even be close to valid, the update would have to have the DM limit assistance to zero to disallow assistance. Sure, the DM can do whatever he wants and ignore this rule, but this is the rule. You have no counter rule to it.

Yes, via the rules, the players are ENTITLED to use group skill check limited to a max of one or two in a skill challenge. And yes, the DM can overrule that for certain circumstances.

It cannot be used where the PCs cannot cooperate. For example, chasing a Thief down an alleyway and using Acrobatics to get over a wall cannot use the assist if the PC ally is far away. He can typically (unless the DM is a rat bastard) use the assist if the PC ally is next to the wall (i.e. he gives the other PC a boost).

The DM is final arbitrator of this, but the general rule still stands. Group Skill is allowed in skill challenges, even if the skill is not considered a Group Skill skill. The update clearly spells this out.

See, this is the problem with your supposition about AA, the rest of the SC system simply makes no sense when you assume anyone can AA at any time in any challenge. Either its at the DMs discretion or the whole SC system is mostly nonsensical. Criticizing it on the basis of a rules interpretation that breaks it is well sort of just itself kinda nonsensical when you can simply not interpret the rules that way.

It is at the DMs discretion. Every aspect of the game is. If I say something stupid in a skill challenge and rolled a 20 on the dice for Diplomacy, the DM can still call that a failure.


Your entire POV hinges on a +2 example for a secondary skill that is explained via the DM's Friend text. However, secondary skills have nothing to do with this conversation. They don't give +2 bonuses. You have no explicit rules to support your POV and hence, nobody else can be expected to intuit that POV from the rules. This is called interpretation (and a very off the wall one at that), but it is not rules.


And for the rest of this discussion, I will not use the term Aid Another. It really is that, but I'll use the term Group Skill.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, single attribute classes are a failure

No: IMHO the paladin and the starlock are the only classes, where the dual attribute failed:

All paladins melee powers should have been strength based. All ranged powers should have been wisdom based. Kicker charisma... no this doesn´t work well for the poor paladin since he should not have an only ranged build Maybe he should not have ranged powers at all, but aura like powers.

So strength for all his attacks. Aura like attacks wisdom kicker and melee charisma kicker. His implement should be his weapon.

All (star)warlock powers should have been int based with kicker con and cha.

Light weapons should always be used with dexterity for base attacks. (opposite of heavy thrown)

edit: i don´t consider math a failure for combat encounters in general. Just for leaders which can´t empower themselves to get their needed attacks in so that the "gapfillers" start working as intended.

 

[DracoSuave]

So you are claiming that Aid Another can only be done in combat?

I can Aid Another someone else to pick a lock in combat, but not out of combat?

Teleportation is in the combat section. Do the line of sight and line of effect rules not apply out of combat as well as in combat? Or are you claiming that teleportation cannot be done out of combat?

Your position here is totally unsupportable.

This above is true, only if a skill check in a skill challenge represents the exact same action as a skill check does in combat.

If the skill check represents something different, more involved, not resolvable in the course of a standard action, anything -at all- that takes longer than a turn (read 6 seconds) then the Aid Another bonus would go away before the act involved is complete.

At that point, Aid Another no longer works (or is feasible) and you need a new rule: Cooperation.

The phrase "in some situations" is vague and not a rule. It could mean anything. It could mean, like you claim, when the DM allows it. It could mean when the PCs are standing next to each other. It could mean anything. You cannot use a vague phrase to force a given interpretation.

No, that's the DM's job.

This is called inference. You are inferring something from a sentence where the sentence is vague and not explict.

He is infering that something that requires interpretation is the DM's job to interpret in his game.

That's not 'inference.' That's 'obvious.'

Sorry, that's not a rule.

Right, which means that cooperation is entirely in the province of the DM.

Happens every day in real life. Someone not knowledgeable about cars says "What if you clean out the carburetor?" and even though the car does not even have a carburetor, it triggers a thought in the mind of the auto expert to clean out something else.

It gives the expert a bonus.

And sometimes that's applicable. And often times, that guy hands the expert a wrench.... and accidentally spills a fuel can in the process. That also happens often.

Secondary skills have nothing to do with gaining a +2 bonus. Quote the rule.

You missed the point.

He's saying that there's no point for secondary skills if Aid Another is always allowed, but they're there, so perhaps that is an indication that Aid Another is not always allowed.

Perhaps you should read the point before criticising it.

There are two bonuses possible in the skill check section of the rules.

1) DM's Friend in the Running a Skill Challenge section.
2) +2 in the Group Skill check section.

Your logic is flawed. A DM could allow both #1 and #2 here. They are not mutually exclusive like via your theory.

Neither of which are secondary skills, which may have a result of a bonus to a future check.

Both are allowed. The update clearly indicates that not only is the second one allowed for non-group skill skill challenges, but that there is even a limit of one or two of them.

Yes, a limit.

This does not state: consider limiting the number to zero. It states, consider limiting the number to one or two. For your interpretation to even be close to valid, the update would have to have the DM limit assistance to zero to disallow assistance. Sure, the DM can do whatever he wants and ignore this rule, but this is the rule. You have no counter rule to it.

Please notice: It says consider limiting. It does not say 'Always use Aid Another.'

And with a minimum of 4 successes needed on the simplest of skill challenges, 2 Aid Anothers as a general maximum is a decent guideline.

But the players are not entitled to them (or any roll in a skill challenge). They have to explain what they are doing to help. This step is a part of skill challenge resolution... role play.

Yes, via the rules, the players are ENTITLED to use group skill check limited to a max of one or two in a skill challenge. And yes, the DM can overrule that for certain circumstances.

No. 'Consider limiting' does not mean 'players are entitled to them.'

That's a huge misrepresentation. That's taking a guideline and claiming it's a hard-and-fast rule. That's fail.

It cannot be used where the PCs cannot cooperate. For example, chasing a Thief down an alleyway and using Acrobatics to get over a wall cannot use the assist if the PC ally is far away. He can typically (unless the DM is a rat bastard) use the assist if the PC ally is next to the wall (i.e. he gives the other PC a boost).

Obviously.

The DM is final arbitrator of this, but the general rule still stands. Group Skill is allowed in skill challenges, even if the skill is not considered a Group Skill skill. The update clearly spells this out.

If the player can find a way to justify it, like every other roll in a skill challenge.

It is at the DMs discretion. Every aspect of the game is. If I say something stupid in a skill challenge and rolled a 20 on the dice for Diplomacy, the DM can still call that a failure.

No argument here.

Your entire POV hinges on a +2 example for a secondary skill that is explained via the DM's Friend text. However, secondary skills have nothing to do with this conversation. They don't give +2 bonuses. You have no explicit rules to support your POV and hence, nobody else can be expected to intuit that POV from the rules. This is called interpretation (and a very off the wall one at that), but it is not rules.

Again, this stems from a lack of understanding his point. You're attacking something he didn't say, not what he did say.

And for the rest of this discussion, I will not use the term Aid Another. It really is that, but I'll use the term Group Skill.

No, it really isn't. You forgot the part where Aid Another only works if the skill aided is completed on the target's next turn, or it goes away. Skill Challenge turns can be longer than combat turns, and can even include a combat within them.

So, no, it -doesn't- always work that way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So you are claiming that Aid Another can only be done in combat?

I can Aid Another someone else to pick a lock in combat, but not out of combat?

Teleportation is in the combat section. Do the line of sight and line of effect rules not apply out of combat as well as in combat? Or are you claiming that teleportation cannot be done out of combat?

Your position here is totally unsupportable.

Nonsense. You're being absurd. Out of combat characters can use the Cooperation rule, which is effectively exactly the same thing as Aid Another, but they can only use it "In some situations" whereas the combat rules are pretty much absolute (though note that AA has its own requirements). Only a truely idiotic DM would tell a player he can't Cooperate to open a lock when in a combat situation AA would work. This is a perfectly good example of why the "in some situations" wording is there, so the DM can say "well, you have to be standing next to the rogue to aid him" etc. so that things work consistently.

The phrase "in some situations" is vague and not a rule. It could mean anything. It could mean, like you claim, when the DM allows it. It could mean when the PCs are standing next to each other. It could mean anything. You cannot use a vague phrase to force a given interpretation.

This is called inference. You are inferring something from a sentence where the sentence is vague and not explict.

Sorry, that's not a rule.

Really? Its nice that you decide what is and isn't a "rule" in order to support your argument but I'm sorry that I look askance at that and will call people out for it. Its a specific instance of a whole class of statements in the core books like the DM can decide when and if Free Actions are allowable. These clauses exist as rules hooks that point out specific situations where the DM should exercise judgment. Thus cooperation is not something that PCs are entitled to at all times but only under DM arbitrated circumstances.

Happens every day in real life. Someone not knowledgeable about cars says "What if you clean out the carburetor?" and even though the car does not even have a carburetor, it triggers a thought in the mind of the auto expert to clean out something else.

It gives the expert a bonus.

Yes, it COULD happen in some situations. Its going to be up to the DM to decide when it is appropriate or not. There are plenty of times when its not. I don't personally believe that all knowledge type checks or social skill checks are valid instances. The case with physical skills is usually more clear cut. Cases where an expert is exercising their expert knowledge are likely to be the cases where an untrained non-expert simply hasn't anything meaningful to contribute.

Secondary skills have nothing to do with gaining a +2 bonus.

[...]

Your entire POV hinges on a +2 example for a secondary skill that is explained via the DM's Friend text. However, secondary skills have nothing to do with this conversation. They don't give +2 bonuses. You have no explicit rules to support your POV and hence, nobody else can be expected to intuit that POV from the rules. This is called interpretation (and a very off the wall one at that), but it is not rules.

This whole thing with secondary skills was only illustrative, it simply doesn't bear on the fundamental logic of the argument at all. You can have any amount of analysis of that and it really isn't going to seal any kind of argument. Nothing "hangs on" any +2 bonus, secondary skills giving bonuses is only supportive evidence.

This does not state: consider limiting the number to zero. It states, consider limiting the number to one or two. For your interpretation to even be close to valid, the update would have to have the DM limit assistance to zero to disallow assistance. Sure, the DM can do whatever he wants and ignore this rule, but this is the rule. You have no counter rule to it.

Yes, via the rules, the players are ENTITLED to use group skill check limited to a max of one or two in a skill challenge. And yes, the DM can overrule that for certain circumstances.

It cannot be used where the PCs cannot cooperate. For example, chasing a Thief down an alleyway and using Acrobatics to get over a wall cannot use the assist if the PC ally is far away. He can typically (unless the DM is a rat bastard) use the assist if the PC ally is next to the wall (i.e. he gives the other PC a boost).

The DM is final arbitrator of this, but the general rule still stands. Group Skill is allowed in skill challenges, even if the skill is not considered a Group Skill skill. The update clearly spells this out.

It is at the DMs discretion. Every aspect of the game is. If I say something stupid in a skill challenge and rolled a 20 on the dice for Diplomacy, the DM can still call that a failure.

And clearly I disagree. Cooperation is subject to DM arbitration as amply demonstrated. PCs are in no way shape or form entitled to use it unless the DM determines that situation warrants it. As I said before, the text certainly could be cleaned up a whole lot on some of these points, but clearly SCs are a very open framework. Its hard to even claim they are hard and fast rules in any sense beyond complexity and level and the associated DCs (and even the DCs don't appear to be set in stone).

Fundamentally this to me is the nut of the whole thing. As a DM I consider an SC to work whatever way I decide its going to work so that it works WELL at the table. The various sections of the SC rules simply outline some things you can do and recommendations. Notice how even the example SCs introduce all sorts of minor mechanics (some of the DMG2 ones are barely recognizable as using the SC system at all). Its just not meant to be like combat where everything is normally expected to follow a pretty standardized set of rules unless there's a very special reason to alter one of them.

Getting off the SC subject for a minute this bears on Korjik's statement. I think its better to think about the 4e rules much the same way as any rules of any other RPG. Yes they are pretty extensive and precise within certain limits but they are only the 'standard' way to do things. 4e also tends to stay well away from dictating things that are related to character development, setting, etc. and when it does provide SUPPORT in these areas its just suggesting an approach. IMHO this is the best that any RPG can do. I think 4e does it fairly well. There are really simple systems that might give you less cause to argue rules but they also tend to leave you on your own when it be nice to HAVE a rule. Kind of a two-edged sword there.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yes, single attribute classes are a failure

No: IMHO the paladin and the starlock are the only classes, where the dual attribute failed:

All paladins melee powers should have been strength based. All ranged powers should have been wisdom based. Kicker charisma... no this doesn´t work well for the poor paladin since he should not have an only ranged build Maybe he should not have ranged powers at all, but aura like powers.

So strength for all his attacks. Aura like attacks wisdom kicker and melee charisma kicker. His implement should be his weapon..

Actually, it's Strength for offensive and Charisma for defensive, with both builds using Wisdom as kicker.

It's definately an incomplete class until Divine Power, which helps the pally a lot for thier build options.

Now it's quite decent, and both are quite fleshed out.

 

[Garthanos]

Yes, single attribute classes are a failure .

Weirdly that was one of my exact initial thoughts... less obvious design choices for characters is "better" by some philosophy and diverse capability is something that might be encouraged if all attributes are useful...etc.(see my sig). I have been ... won over, however. There is something you might call "winners playing to their strengths". There are always more than one way to accomplish anything and those who win... do so by exploiting there personal advantages. Maximizing ones own best capabilities is exactly how very successful people operate.

 

[KarinsDad]

Cooperation is subject to DM arbitration as amply demonstrated.

And that is done by using the Group Skill rules in a Skill Challenge.

DM decides if it is applicable for a given skill check, Group Skill rules apply. They are not just for Group Skill skills, but for any skills as per the update.