A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[pemerton]

In 4e I am not able to make an estimate of my ability to pick a particular lock by it's in-world description

<snip>

Am I correct?

Not entirely. The 4e PHB, p 262, has a table of DCs to break or burst common items. The 4e DMG, pp 64-65, has the same information, correlates it with suggested levels for which each item is appropriate (in effect, CRs for doors and portcullis), and also suggests that the DCs can be used for locks as well.

This is pretty similar to the first edition of HeroWars - there is an assumption that difficulties will be set with metagame considerations in mind, but there is also guidance being given to the GM as to what are the canonical ingame examples of doors that those difficulties correspond to.

So from its description, a player can work out how hard a door is to break down. Projecting this to locks will depend on how often the GM includes locks that are harder to pick than the door they are on is to break down.

But in any event, the notion that you can't tell how hard a lock is to pick is in my view a little unrealistic. If you have no DEX and no training you know you have a 65% chance of making an Easy check, but much less chance at anything more difficult. Unless the GM tells you the lock looks simple to you, you have not much chance. If you have DEX or traning but not both, you have around a 90% chance of making a simple check, and a 65% chance of making a Medium check. Unless the GM tells you the lock looks hard to you, you know your chances of picking the lock are better-than-even. If you have DEX and training - as is the case for most Rogues - then you have a 65% chance of making a Hard check, around a 90% chance of making a Medium check, and no chance of failing an Easy check. You'll only raise a sweat if the GM tells you the lock looks hard to you.

If the lock is going to require multiple checks to open (eg the GM has set up a 4/3 skill challenge along the line of some trap disablement mechanics) then you'd also expect to know that going in - the GM would give some description of the complexity of the lock, or its puzzle-like nature, or the fact that there is both a lock and a padlock on the bolt, or whatever.

Uhm, because the DM would describe it as such... "Before you is an old and rusted lock... as you examine it you realize it is of a simple make and crude design, something only the poor or cheap would use to guard their wares."

If the GM described the lock in this way, and your PC had training in Thievery, why would you think the lock was anything other than a very mundane obstacle?

Again, I'm not sure if these diagnoses of 4e's skill system are based on play experience, or are purely theoretical hypotheses.

 

[Lanefan]

Not entirely. The 4e PHB, p 262, has a table of DCs to break or burst common items. The 4e DMG, pp 64-65, has the same information, correlates it with suggested levels for which each item is appropriate (in effect, CRs for doors and portcullis), and also suggests that the DCs can be used for locks as well.

This is pretty similar to the first edition of HeroWars - there is an assumption that difficulties will be set with metagame considerations in mind, but there is also guidance being given to the GM as to what are the canonical ingame examples of doors that those difficulties correspond to.

For brute strength stuff e.g. lifting a portcullis, as long as neither the challenge nor the ability to overcome it go up with level it's fine. A given portcullis should be just as hard for a 15th level Str-17 fighter to lift as a 1st-level Str-17 fighter. (the mechanical advantage higher level characters get is that their actual stats go up).

So given that, what's wrong with 1e's bend bars-lift gates system for this?

Note this is different than for something like locks, where learned skills *can* make a difference and this needs to be reflected by the game mechanics (and is, in every edition).

But in any event, the notion that you can't tell how hard a lock is to pick is in my view a little unrealistic. If you have no DEX and no training you know you have a 65% chance of making an Easy check, but much less chance at anything more difficult. Unless the GM tells you the lock looks simple to you, you have not much chance. If you have DEX or traning but not both, you have around a 90% chance of making a simple check, and a 65% chance of making a Medium check. Unless the GM tells you the lock looks hard to you, you know your chances of picking the lock are better-than-even. If you have DEX and training - as is the case for most Rogues - then you have a 65% chance of making a Hard check, around a 90% chance of making a Medium check, and no chance of failing an Easy check. You'll only raise a sweat if the GM tells you the lock looks hard to you.

If the lock is going to require multiple checks to open (eg the GM has set up a 4/3 skill challenge along the line of some trap disablement mechanics) then you'd also expect to know that going in - the GM would give some description of the complexity of the lock, or its puzzle-like nature, or the fact that there is both a lock and a padlock on the bolt, or whatever.

If the GM described the lock in this way, and your PC had training in Thievery, why would you think the lock was anything other than a very mundane obstacle?

Your chance to pick it should never* be 0 (a failing of 3e's skill system is that there's such a divide between needing to roll 20 and needing to roll 21 on a d20, particularly with that awful take-20 rule) nor should it be 100%. So why not just try to pick the bloody thing and find out if you're able?

* - assuming you're not up against magic

Lan-"this is why I like % rolls, so much more granular than d20"-efan

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Actually, given the Take 20 rule, there is no way a 1st level character cannot unlock a DC 20 lock.

Yes there is. They are not allowed to make an untrained check.

You can't have it both ways though. In 3e, locks are dictated by the mechanics. In 4e locks are dictated by the in game situation. A lock is as complicated as the DM deems it needs to be to make the game interesting, instead of the mechanics telling the DM that the lock must be a particular DC.

You see having the DM/GM playing funny buggers with the DCs is something some of us really detest! Making a change to the DC based upon nothing more than optimizing the percentage chance of success (with no relevance to effects within the gameworld) makes it feel more like a game and less like a world we're roleplaying in: and thus hampering verisimilitude. No biggie for some, a big deal for the rest of us.

If I want the lock to be very difficult, I can, regardless of how skilled the PC's are. In 3e, the lock is dictated by the mechanics and I have to over rule the mechanics (something I certainly can do) in order to make the lock fit the setting.

You make a decision (or the module's author makes a decision) as to how hard the lock is but once it's in play and you have addressed it to the players, mucking around with the DC just seems wrong. YMMV.

Thus, locked doors remain in play regardless of the PC's level, whereas in 3e, locks as written stop being challenges by a certain level. And that level isn't all that high with the Take 20 rule in play. A by the book, most difficult lock, pre-epic, only needs a character with a +21 skill check to be automatically bypassable. +21 skill check is reachable by about 10th level without too much difficulty. So, in 3e, locks become redundant about 10th level.

As if they weren't already. Knock, or the barbarians axe can become as good as picking a lock. By the time the wizard has disintegration it is all academic anyway. Do you really want higher level characters getting stumped over a lock? Fair enough if it is a plot device but otherwise...

See, the problem I have with this is people seem to want it both ways. If 4e divorces the mechanics from the narrative, and 3e doesn't, that means that 3e mechanics dictate the narrative. They have to. You cannot link the mechanics to the narrative without having the mechanics dictate the narrative. Now, divorcing the mechanics from the narrative has problems - CaGI is a good example, but, OTOH, it has some advantages too - greater flexibility. OTOH, wedding mechanics to narrative has some advantages - greater consistency, and some disadvantages, less flexibility.

I don't know whether Pemerton would have something to say about this with the just in time stuff he was talking about on another thread. I think he was trying to indicate some level of harmony between the two by such an approach - unless I've got it way wrong which is possible.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[pemerton]

You see having the DM/GM playing funny buggers with the DCs is something some of us really detest! Making a change to the DC based upon nothing more than optimizing the percentage chance of success (with no relevance to effects within the gameworld) makes it feel more like a game and less like a world we're roleplaying in: and thus hampering verisimilitude.

I agree with your last sentence. The GM, in my view, is obliged to explain what is going on in the gameworld to make the difference. (Like all such obligations, there may be individual occasions where it gets glossed over - I mean an "in principle" obligation, should the issue become salient to anyone at the table).

The 4e DMG, p 67, addresses this issue in relation to terrain (and this can be applied mutatis mutandis to locks):

Terrain scales in order to keep it relevant as PCs and monsters gain higher attack bonuses and hit points. It is an element of game balance and a reflection of the greater magical power present in paragon or epic locations.​

The Rules Compendium, p 306, is similar:

Terrain effects are scaled in this way so that terrain stays challenging as adventurers and monsters gain higher skill modifiers and more hit points. For instance, the cave slime found in the deeper reaches of the Underdark is thicker and more slippery that the thin sheen found in higher dungeon levels, so the Acrobatics DC to avoid falling prone is higher.​

So the DMG gives three reasons for scaling: a metagame reason (relevance), a gloss on the metagame reason (balance), and then an ingame rationale (increased magical power in certain locations). The RC compresses these into two reasons: metagame (challenge), and ingame rationale (thicker cave slime, et al).

I'll cheerfully agree with Crazy Jerome that this isn't the best rules text or guidance ever. But I think the intent is clear - the gameworld is to be presented in such a way as to make sense of the scaling difficulty. It also has a clear presupposition - higher level PCs will be spending their time in the Underdark, and not in higher dungeon levels - and hence the issue of "What is the DC for a mundane lock, or mundane slime, when the party is Epic tier?" simply won't arise.

This is one of the reasons why I say that 4e is about the unfolding game reflecting "the story of D&D". If you want to play a different sort of game - say, one in which Paragon PCs are still mucking around with rusty old locks on warehouses - then I don't think 4e is so well suited (I mean, you could do it, but bits of the game - like scaling DCs - would stick out a bit more than they probably should).

You make a decision (or the module's author makes a decision) as to how hard the lock is but once it's in play and you have addressed it to the players, mucking around with the DC just seems wrong.

Robin Laws tackles this one in HQ 2nd edition. If for scaling/pacing reasons you want to change the DC, you just add extra features to the situation - a divine boon, reduced stress, or even just good luck, if you want to drop the DC - and horrible weather, the stress of approaching monsters, or something similar, if you want to raise the DC.

So we could add - when the Epic tier PCs reenter the 1st level dungeon, the reason they still find the cave slime challenging is because they are also having to force their way through the Abyssal winds that are blowing out of the portal to Pazunia that has suddenly opened up.

Again, if you want a different sort of game 4e won't work as smoothly.

I don't know whether Pemerton would have something to say about this with the just in time stuff he was talking about on another thread. I think he was trying to indicate some level of harmony between the two by such an approach - unless I've got it way wrong which is possible.

Well, I've already cross-promoted my "Actual play - balance between mechanics and fiction" thread. On that thread I have two actual play examples of skill challenges from my game on Sunday, and try to analyse the interaction between fiction and mechanics. My view, in summary, is that the fiction plays an important role, but that (i) the mechanical structure of a skill challenge plays a role in establishing pacing and the arising of complications as the challenge unfolds, and (ii) the players, when thinking about how to engage the fiction, play plenty of attention to their mechanical options.

Of these two points, I think (i) is very different from my previous Rolemaster game, but (ii) not so much - it's just that the mechanical options on a 4e character sheet are in some ways quite different from those on a RM sheet.

I think (ii) would be quite different from an AD&D game, if only because the AD&D character sheet is, in comparative terms, so sparse.

 

[pawsplay]

Pawsplay, is your claim that a skill challenge is "a roulette game in disguise" based on actual play experience (whether with 4e, or similar systems like HeroWars/Quest)? Or
is it a theoretical intuition?

And I'm not meaning this as a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely curious.

I've got another thread going discussing actual play examples of two skill challenges from my own game. I'd be interested to see what you think.

Assume that 4e specifies that a level appropriate skill challenge is X successes before Y failures and so forth and the DCs range from A to B. For any given appropriate challenge, the probability of sucess can be calculated, irrespective of what specific skills are chosen and how the DCs are rationalized. The chance of success at a level-appropriate skill challenge is G.

As long as you follow guidelines and the challenge and the PC capabilities are always "appropriate," resolution of the encounter becomes purely a matter of chance.

The only way you can move away from that is a willingness to let the approprioateness of the challenge be broken, whether by special modifiers, DCs set to a level based on something other than appropriateness, or letting PC abilities outstrip what are normally considered "appropriate" DCs.

 

[pemerton]

Pawplay, I'm still curious whether you're basing this on theory or practice.

I assume you're not objecting to the use of dice per se (maybe you are, but dice are very firmly ingrained in all editions of D&D, and certainly aren't unique to 4e).

If you're suggesting that there is nothing that the players can do (via their PCs) to vary the probabilities, I don't think that's true. They can take steps to use skills in which they have bigger bonuses - whether changing the gameworld, or thinking of innovative things that they can do. They can take steps to grant one another bonuses to their checks. They can use rituals to vary the situation (and DMG2 offers guidelines - admittedly somewhat sparse - for incorporating ritual use into skill challenges). As per the DMG2, I also allow an action point to be spent for a reroll.

Furthermore, even if we put the probablities to one side, the choices that the players make in the course of tackling the skill challenge make differences to the fiction. They change the state of the gameworld. These changes may frequently be significant even if the skill challenge is a failure.

So I don't fully feel the force of your point. But maybe I've misunderstood it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What does Bluff do in 4e, outside of skill challenges?

There are many instances when your character might wish to dupe someone else. Examples from the Compendium: fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, gamble, or pass off a disguise or fake documentation.

You can also use Bluff to gain Combat Advantage and to create a diversion to hide.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

In contrast, skill challenges of 4Ed are different from any previous incarnation of D&D. 4Ed's system says the challenge of lockpicking scales with PC level (please correct me if I'm wrong). Because of this, just looking at your PC's sheet, you cannot guess what your odds of success are.

Picking a lock is a skill check, not a skill challenge. If it is a skill challenge, it is not a normal tumbler lock, but instead more like a puzzle-lock. There are static DC for locks in 4E.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For brute strength stuff e.g. lifting a portcullis, as long as neither the challenge nor the ability to overcome it go up with level it's fine. A given portcullis should be just as hard for a 15th level Str-17 fighter to lift as a 1st-level Str-17 fighter. (the mechanical advantage higher level characters get is that their actual stats go up).

That depends. Technique will have improved as will knowledge of gates. And I have no objection to wizards using cantrips to assist them to lift gates.

So given that, what's wrong with 1e's bend bars-lift gates system for this?

It's an unneded subsystem?

You make a decision (or the module's author makes a decision) as to how hard the lock is but once it's in play and you have addressed it to the players, mucking around with the DC just seems wrong. YMMV.

All else being equal, yes.

As if they weren't already. Knock, or the barbarians axe can become as good as picking a lock. By the time the wizard has disintegration it is all academic anyway. Do you really want higher level characters getting stumped over a lock? Fair enough if it is a plot device but otherwise...

It depends. And if the wizard is using disintegration on a lock, he's got too many spells.

Pawplay, I'm still curious whether you're basing this on theory or practice.

I'm not sure it's either. I've called him out directly twice on this thread for making assertions about 4e that seem to have no grounding in the game - and have yet to see retractions.

Given that just skimming the monster manual should have shown him that the claim about auto-levelling monsters was false, and his confusion between skill checks and skill challenges I can only conclude that he is neither familiar with the theory nor the practice.of 4e.

If you're suggesting that there is nothing that the players can do (via their PCs) to vary the probabilities, I don't think that's true. They can take steps to use skills in which they have bigger bonuses - whether changing the gameworld, or thinking of innovative things that they can do. They can take steps to grant one another bonuses to their checks. They can use rituals to vary the situation (and DMG2 offers guidelines - admittedly somewhat sparse - for incorporating ritual use into skill challenges). As per the DMG2, I also allow an action point to be spent for a reroll.

You missed one huge one. They can find a way to play to their strengths. Thinking creatively to bring in your +14 thievery rather than your +10 bluff (as in the plant the evidence for a smear campaign) really changes the probabilities.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Assume that 4e specifies that a level appropriate skill challenge is X successes before Y failures and so forth and the DCs range from A to B. For any given appropriate challenge, the probability of sucess can be calculated, irrespective of what specific skills are chosen and how the DCs are rationalized.

False. The probability of success is very much dependent on the skills chosen because the characters have different modifiers in different skills.

The chance of success at a level-appropriate skill challenge is G.

So wait a second. First your complaint was that you couldn't have an idea of the chance of success and now your complaint is that the chance of success is set in stone. Both of which are clearly and demonstrably false.

As long as you follow guidelines and the challenge and the PC capabilities are always "appropriate," resolution of the encounter becomes purely a matter of chance.

Resolution of any skill check is a matter of chance. Are you arguing for a diceless checkless system out of combat? In which case why are you arguing against skill challenges rather than the entire skill system?

The only way you can move away from that is a willingness to let the approprioateness of the challenge be broken, whether by special modifiers, DCs set to a level based on something other than appropriateness, or letting PC abilities outstrip what are normally considered "appropriate" DCs.

You mean things that are actually in the skill challenge guidelines? Or otherwise in the 4e rules? You no more have to give level 5 skill challenges to level 5 PCs than you have to make them meet level 5 monsters just because they are level 5. Special modifiers are provided for within the framework and suggestions are made within the DMG2. And of course PC abilities vary.