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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

It discourages multiclassing. Especially between natural fits. Its also a bit strange to attack with a non-physical stat. Not that i don´t like my bard attacking with charisma.

(I would have however made sure that a shaped classes at least have secondary strength or dexterity for all melee attacks, so that multiclassing to fighter is easier. And maybe a multiclass feat to swap secondary and primary. Something like that.)

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Err, no. He repeatedly said:

If you are allowed to use AA then pray tell why are there secondary skills (with much higher DCs than AA which is always 10) listed for virtually every skill challenge that do nothing more than add +2 to some other character's skill check?

No, they do not do that.

From the example in the book, he assumed:

1) that secondary skill checks always added +2 to someone else's skill check (they don't)

2) that secondary skill checks did not add to the success / failure rate (they do)

His logic was based off of these two misconceptions from reading the example.

He did not realize that the example +2 was based on DM's Friend and not on the secondary skill checks. So yes, secondary skill checks have nothing to do with the subject. Whether the DM allows one or not says nothing about whether the DM is going to allow a bonus for DM's Friend and/or Group Skill. Both DM's Friend and Group Skill are allowed by the rules to give bonuses and both can be used simultaneously. They are not mutually exclusive.

So what was that you were saying about someone missing the point?

 

[Garthanos]

It discourages multiclassing. Especially between natural fits. Its also a bit strange to attack with a non-physical stat. Not that i don´t like my bard attacking with charisma.

In martial arts we are trained to use timing and energy and spirit. The first and the last of that list are not overtly physical... make of it what you will but thinking combat is all muscle made no sense to me when I first heard of it in D&D, my dad was in martial arts and even though I wasnt trained in anything at age 15, it still sounded way out of sink.

A charism, is a divine gift, for the religious it may include allowing the supernal to guide your hand it is also an expression of spirit and emotional energies, it generally includes mental creativity and deceptiveness... Spirit bolsters strength... (in real life I have seen them measure the effects striking with passion is like hitting half again stronger)
How could that not be useful for fighting with? Your bard should feel fully justified.

Wisdom includes a heavy dose of perception it also includes discipline (which is used to improve training so that your tried and true moves have precision) and isnt it central to analysing the intent of other beings .... does there seem like any form of conflict that wouldnt deeply value those?

Intellect includes fast thinking (probably the timing I mentioned)... again does there really seem anything but arm wrestling where out-thinking and out-guessing your enemies couldnt be made central?

As I said every cat can be skinned different ways, you are still using your strength and the speed of movement it grants but a style can emphasize different routes to success.

Useful in narraration... it isnt just "I hit it with my sword"

(I would have however made sure that a shaped classes at least have secondary strength or dexterity for all melee attacks, so that multiclassing to fighter is easier. And maybe a multiclass feat to swap secondary and primary. Something like that.)

hmm interesting... The idea of having one stat for to hit and another for damage was also bandied about.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thanks for your replies Garthanos.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Why not compare more expensive vehicles? An epic type weapon is an incredibly powerful tool, that - most of the time - isn't really needed unless you're trying to do some outlandish, epic stuff. So why wouldn't the natural point of comparison for a +6 item be something like a rocket boosted, jet powered "car" made because someone is trying to set a new land speed record? Or how about dedicated race cars - where added costs are needed because they engage in potentially deadly competition against other teams also going for high performance?

We could also broaden our category from cars to means of transportation - what's the ratio of a private jet compared to a cart?

For that matter, why stick with the bottom end being a brand new car? Second hand cars go down really really cheap. Or how about cars in other countries? A D&D campaign is rarely played in the same place at epic as it is at first level: Third world second hand cars change hands for prices measured in cents...

And that's not even thinking about bicycles.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Err, no. He repeatedly said:



No, they do not do that.

From the example in the book, he assumed:

1) that secondary skill checks always added +2 to someone else's skill check (they don't)

2) that secondary skill checks did not add to the success / failure rate (they do)

His logic was based off of these two misconceptions from reading the example.

He did not realize that the example +2 was based on DM's Friend and not on the secondary skill checks. So yes, secondary skill checks have nothing to do with the subject. Whether the DM allows one or not says nothing about whether the DM is going to allow a bonus for DM's Friend and/or Group Skill. Both DM's Friend and Group Skill are allowed by the rules to give bonuses and both can be used simultaneously. They are not mutually exclusive.

So what was that you were saying about someone missing the point?

I think you missed MY point KD or you just keep ignoring it. The whole thing about secondary skills is just an example of the concept that the SC system doesn't anticipate one character making all the rolls with the other characters simply aiding them. It doesn't make sense if you interpret it that way. REGARDLESS of what the effect of using a secondary skill is why would ANY character ever do anything except aid the guy with the highest skill bonus on the easiest skill in the SC? Might as well just have no other skill even specified at all. Obviously the guy that wrote the SC system did NOT anticipate that people would interpret it to mean that aiding was always universally allowed.

You can go on all you want to about "DM's Friend" or whatever the heck but it just doesn't matter, its at best VERY tangential to the point I was making. If you care to address that point directly I'd certainly be interested in hearing an alternate take on it, but there's no point in going on with a pointless discussion of a side issue. Aiding, by whatever mechanism may exist for it, is either optional and not the norm, or the skill challenge system itself in general simply doesn't really make sense.

 

[Garthanos]

Thanks for your replies Garthanos.

Your welcome, 4e encourages cracking open a healthy can of imagination.... and wide open thinking we definitely can't put that on the doesn't do well list. But sometimes it doesn't give as much guidance as it might.

 

[Nifft]

REGARDLESS of what the effect of using a secondary skill is why would ANY character ever do anything except aid the guy with the highest skill bonus on the easiest skill in the SC? Might as well just have no other skill even specified at all. Obviously the guy that wrote the SC system did NOT anticipate that people would interpret it to mean that aiding was always universally allowed.

We did that for a while, because it was obviously the most optimal way to handle a challenge, and the rules seemed to allow it -- then we got bored with that and started using secondaries (as likely intended).

The Skill Challenge system does need fixing. If there is an optimal solution, and it's the most boring solution, then you're punishing the players for playing well.

Cheers, -- N

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you missed MY point KD or you just keep ignoring it. The whole thing about secondary skills is just an example of the concept that the SC system doesn't anticipate one character making all the rolls with the other characters simply aiding them. It doesn't make sense if you interpret it that way. REGARDLESS of what the effect of using a secondary skill is why would ANY character ever do anything except aid the guy with the highest skill bonus on the easiest skill in the SC?

Sorry, I thought the answer to this was obvious.

If I have a huge bonus with a skill, it makes sense for me to often try to use it as a secondary skill if I can think of a way to do so. Many PCs have one or two skills that they are generally better than the rest of their skills and sometimes better than the difference in difficulty between a primary and a second skill check.

If none of my skills are primary for a given encounter, then I should also be participating and that means two options: Group Skill cooperating for another PC, or trying to figure out a secondary skill.

If I am really good at History and the DM allows History as a secondary skill check, then it often makes sense for me to try to make the skill check because I have a huge bonus. I could fail, or I could succeed. But, I am the only PC with that huge bonus to History, so it sometimes makes more sense for me to use History (my best skill) even with the fact that secondary skills have a higher DC then it does to Group Skill someone else.

Anyone in the group (and then limited to one or two PCs) can Group Skill any other check during that round. So while I am doing my secondary skill check, so other PC should be Group Skill cooperating for other PCs.

In fact, it makes a lot of sense for other PCs to Group Skill my History check since it does have a higher DC.

But, the entire skill challenge will be easier if each "round" of the skill challenge focuses on just a few skills with some PCs duing skill checks and other PCs doing Group Skill than it does if every single PC tries to do a primary or secondary skill check every single "round" (note: I quoted the word "round" since each skill can be done over an extended period).


This is no different than combat. Smart DMs have minions sometimes Aid Another and flank with the big nasty instead of attacking themselves.

Smart players Group Skill on some rounds and do skill checks for their better skills on other rounds.

Why would someone be stupid and try to do a skill check every single round, without at least trying to get occasional help from your allies?

In my home game, players are cooperative. They don't care who kills the foes, as long as they are contributing to the group effort. Ditto for a skill challenge. They don't care who gets the success, as long as the group succeeds.


And note: a Group Skill check is a skill check, so that player is having his PC do a skill check every "round".

Whether it’s the use of a primary or secondary skill, or whether a character is cooperating to help another character make a check, every character participates in a skill challenge.

The rules obviously allow and encourage both. Each round some PCs should do primary or secondary checks and other PCs should do cooperation in order to maximize success.

 

[Elric]

Sorry, I thought the answer to this was obvious.

If I have a huge bonus with a skill, it makes sense for me to often try to use it as a secondary skill if I can think of a way to do so. Many PCs have one or two skills that they are generally better than the rest of their skills and sometimes better than the difference in difficulty between a primary and a second skill check.

The worst thing you can do in a skill challenge is to roll a skill that's bad (not trained, low ability score). A naive player who assumes that he should "just try the most relevant skill for the sake of it" may result in the party having a very low chance to succeed at a skill challenge that's a very likely bet if the players stick to their best skills.