Return of the DonkeyHorse!

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But the entire argument that a WotC Book of Mundane Stuff including nonmagical soft boots (+1 Stealth) would automatically be "core" and thus would lead to the destruction of 4E's delicate balance surely leans heavily toward the absurd.

A +1 bonus to any d20 roll in 4E is the equivalent of gaining 2 levels or raising the relevant stat 2 points. Mundane boots that can accomplish that are indeed unbalancing.

If the intent of the Book of Useless Stuff (or if produced by WotC, Complete[ly] Useless) is to add mechanical bonuses to the game then I agree that it would be a horrible idea and I hope to never see it happen. If the intent is merely to add flavor to the game so you can play Dress Me Up Barbie with your character then I see no harm in such a book. Although I still hink you'll never see the book from WotC.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

4e PHB1 (pg.221)...

Thieves' Tools: To use the thievery skill properly you need the right picks and pries, skeleton keys, clamps, and so on. Thieves' tools grant a +2 bonus to Thievery checks to open a lock or to disarm a trap.

Uhm... isn't this exactly what most of the naysayers are arguing against? It's not a penalty to your skill without tools... it's a small bonus that stacks on to your skill in a particular circumstance.

Seriously though, isn't this most peoples point of why this wouldn't be a good idea?

Not exactly. The Thievery skill requires a set of abstract tools to work properly. The DM can assume that the character will have or will not have these tools when planning his encounters. If a book included Superior Stealth Gear that gave a +2 bonus that would work roughly the same. What I'm arguing against is Low Soft Boots (+1 Stealth), Footpads (+1 Stealth), Black Face Paint (+1 Stealth), Weaponblack (+1 Stealth), Black Clothing (+1 Stealth) , etc. etc. etc. until you have a bonus out the wazoo.

 

[Ourph]

4e PHB1 (pg.221)...

Thieves' Tools: To use the thievery skill properly you need the right picks and pries, skeleton keys, clamps, and so on. Thieves' tools grant a +2 bonus to Thievery checks to open a lock or to disarm a trap.

Uhm... isn't this exactly what most of the naysayers are arguing against? It's not a penalty to your skill without tools... it's a small bonus that stacks on to your skill in a particular circumstance. O

Seriously though, isn't this most peoples point of why this wouldn't be a good idea?

Edit: In other words, it's already part of the core rules... just not expanded upon.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm arguing against. I don't think it's a good idea for Thieves tools and I certainly don't want to see more of it. I don't think it's going to "break the game" in any reasonable sense of the word, but I definitely think that the equipment bonus for Thieves Tools goes against the basic philosophy of the rules not reflecting the game-world physics and makes the game a tiny bit worse. I definitely don't want to see a whole book full of similar items and bonuses as part of the core rules.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yep, that's exactly what I'm arguing against. I don't think it's a good idea for Thieves tools and I certainly don't want to see more of it.

At least Thieves Tools are mentioned specifically in the Thievery Skill. It is a core assumption of the game. I agree it should have been implemented as a circumstance penalty, but at least as part of the skill writeup it becomes an assumption the DM and designers can work with.

 

[Zaran]

Ok, if an item gave some kind of bonus like that it would probably be an item bonus and not stackable with other bonuses of the same kind of modifier.

And you guys are dwelling on this too much. One of the reasons why I believe Wizards of the Coast should make such a book is because they would put their expertise into it that other third parties might not have. They will make sure that soft leather boots won't break their game.

 

[Mark Chance]

What I'm arguing against is Low Soft Boots (+1 Stealth), Footpads (+1 Stealth), Black Face Paint (+1 Stealth), Weaponblack (+1 Stealth), Black Clothing (+1 Stealth) , etc. etc. etc. until you have a bonus out the wazoo.

But nobody has argued in favor of what you're arguing against. They make certain men out of the material that constitutes your argument.

 

[darjr]

Heh, I had it exactly backwards.

 

[Imaro]

Yep, that's exactly what I'm arguing against. I don't think it's a good idea for Thieves tools and I certainly don't want to see more of it. I don't think it's going to "break the game" in any reasonable sense of the word, but I definitely think that the equipment bonus for Thieves Tools goes against the basic philosophy of the rules not reflecting the game-world physics and makes the game a tiny bit worse. I definitely don't want to see a whole book full of similar items and bonuses as part of the core rules.

And yet there is more than just the Thieves' tools in the CB, so while you may not like it, and can totally ignore these items, they certainly don't go against the philosophy as far as the developers are concerned... see below for more examples of these items that are in the CB.

At least Thieves Tools are mentioned specifically in the Thievery Skill. It is a core assumption of the game. I agree it should have been implemented as a circumstance penalty, but at least as part of the skill writeup it becomes an assumption the DM and designers can work with.

So are all of these items mentioned in their relevant skill write ups? Because they all are in the CB and all give bonuses with skills...

Camouflaged Clothing
Climber's Kit
Crowbar
Disguise Kit
Footpads
Hunter's Kit
Inquisitive's Kit

 

[Ourph]

And yet there is more than just the Thieves' tools in the CB, so while you may not like it, and can totally ignore these items, they certainly don't go against the philosophy as far as the developers are concerned

I think that specific parts of the game created by one designer can certainly go against a philosphy espoused by other designers or the designers as a group. At any rate, I think all of the mundane items that give minor bonuses to skills are completely unnecessary and (while they in no way break the game) they are flaws which I wish weren't there (mostly for aesthetic reasons).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think that specific parts of the game created by one designer can certainly go against a philosphy espoused by other designers or the designers as a group. At any rate, I think all of the mundane items that give minor bonuses to skills are completely unnecessary and (while they in no way break the game) they are flaws which I wish weren't there (mostly for aesthetic reasons).

To me, it is fairly clear that 4e's designers don't embrace the idea that simulationist tendencies are taboo.

While 4e certainly takes big steps away from simulating, no game that has a friggin' encumbrance system is going to ever achieve that escape velocity.

D&D in general has a grand tradition of accounting that I've ignored, by and large, but I don't think the game would necessarily be any better in any absolute sense for abandoning it. Maybe closer to what I play, but I'm not going to assume that what I play is what should be played by all people who play D&D.

I'm really OK with the game providing a boost for people who want and enjoy that kind of thing. Rather than making the game worse, I think it makes the game more diverse and inclusive, and it doesn't hurt me one bit. I'm certainly not intimidated by a bevy of +1 bonuses (easily limited by being the same type anyway) to a check that, at best, grants you a success in a skill challenge that the rest of your party might still fail for you. I am confident enough in my DM authority that whenever someone says "Nuh-uh!" I can say, "Are you five?"

I don't get the hatred of these fiddly bits. I get not really using them -- I don't really use them -- but I don't get how their presence is somehow a philosophical anathema upon to the edition, or the paranoia that it will unleash a catastrophic avalanche of +1's.

Some people want donkeyhorse braybeasts. I'm really OK with the game giving them donkeyhorse braybeasts. Just like I'm OK with the game giving Conan dorks a ready-made evil wizard race, even if I'm not a fan of the new Tiefling, and I think Conan is a juvenile power fantasy. I'm OK with sharing this game with people who play it differently than me.