D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[Barastrondo]

Honestly I think the ultimate answer to that is if you don't dedicate SOME resources to any particular area of character development then your character IS MEANT to not be the most adept in that area. It is a set of trade-offs, pure and simple. The character that has no skill feat investment probably WON'T be too good at difficult skill checks at higher levels. This is the price the player pays for concentrating on other things.

I understand this: but like I say, it's a shift in design policy, and it's something that affects a game already in motion. Characters who were pretty good a year ago are less so now, and nothing has changed but WotC shifting core design to account for people who don't play like we do. This is fine for people who were already playing that way. It's not very cool for us. But like I say, we have a solution. And it penalizes nobody: there's nobody at the table who's going to feel threatened because now other people are able to succeed about 50% of the time at hard challenges without sinking sparse resources into the privilege.

Honestly, it seems to me that the proper skill system for a play style where there is a desire for everyone to be able to attempt everything and always be able to contribute in any given way is no skill system at all.

That's not what I was arguing for. I was contending that everyone should have at least one thing to do in a good skill challenge without screwing the group up, which is sort of like saying that everyone should have something to do in a combat without screwing the group up. There's a notable difference between wanting everyone to be able to contribute in some way (in situations which expect the entire group to try contributing) and wanting everyone to be able to contribute in any way.

For the latter, I'd prefer not to require trade-offs just to get back up to par. Trade-offs can happen if people want to be extra good, or on the way to the best ever, but to my mind if you're trained in a skill that keys off your best stat, you should be quite good already.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I understand this: but like I say, it's a shift in design policy, and it's something that affects a game already in motion. Characters who were pretty good a year ago are less so now, and nothing has changed but WotC shifting core design to account for people who don't play like we do. This is fine for people who were already playing that way. It's not very cool for us. But like I say, we have a solution. And it penalizes nobody: there's nobody at the table who's going to feel threatened because now other people are able to succeed about 50% of the time at hard challenges without sinking sparse resources into the privilege.



That's not what I was arguing for. I was contending that everyone should have at least one thing to do in a good skill challenge without screwing the group up, which is sort of like saying that everyone should have something to do in a combat without screwing the group up. There's a notable difference between wanting everyone to be able to contribute in some way (in situations which expect the entire group to try contributing) and wanting everyone to be able to contribute in any way.

For the latter, I'd prefer not to require trade-offs just to get back up to par. Trade-offs can happen if people want to be extra good, or on the way to the best ever, but to my mind if you're trained in a skill that keys off your best stat, you should be quite good already.

Here's the thing though. If a character is trained in a skill on a boosted stat, they don't fall THAT far behind. Sure, at 30th level they probably need somewhere around 50% on a hard check. They can still do it. Someone else in the party is probably even better. The untrained or trained on off stat character will still do well on many checks (easy and medium are well within his reach). Characters will have some boosted skills, they will have some skills that have bonuses that they simply got for other things they picked for totally different reasons or only partly for skill purposes. So it really isn't such a huge choice. Realistically a character can say super optimize for some combat purpose, and still ace a couple skills, and still have the slot free for the one critical defense feat or whatever. Another character might have invested in quite a bit more defenses and is top stuff in a couple other different skills. Maybe he doesn't do mega damage or whatever but he will still also have the critical combat feats.

I just think it works out pretty well. I mean really is it so bad that every character has a bit of a weak point somewhere? Some defense that they are weak on, some skill challenge where they have to think of something outside of a skill to use? Remember, you can do a lot more than just use skills in an SC, especially at high levels. Even if you aren't a Christmas tree you will still have useful items, etc.

And I guess I don't get the whole 'major change in policy' thing either. I don't think it really is. There were always some best feats to have. If it wasn't this it was that. Yes, there has been a little number inflation in some things, but PHB1 characters actually fare quite well. One of the really good things about the feat and power systems is they allow existing classes to evolve. This was a problem with 3.x where some classes were just left in the dust. At least in 4e you CAN inflate things a little without fighter becoming a worthless class.

 

[Barastrondo]

Here's the thing though. If a character is trained in a skill on a boosted stat, they don't fall THAT far behind. Sure, at 30th level they probably need somewhere around 50% on a hard check. They can still do it. Someone else in the party is probably even better.

I tend to see the best person in the party getting roughly around 50%, personally. It's a fairly minor thing, but again bear in mind we're talking about groups where there probably isn't someone else in the party better than you at your best stat. The best Diplomacy check in my current longest-running Wednesday game belongs to a goliath bard; there's no half-elf present to add racial bonuses. If the DC for hard checks has been set with the understanding that there would be a half-elf bard instead, I understand why that works for the D&D audience for a whole; doesn't do that goliath much good, though.

The untrained or trained on off stat character will still do well on many checks (easy and medium are well within his reach). Characters will have some boosted skills, they will have some skills that have bonuses that they simply got for other things they picked for totally different reasons or only partly for skill purposes. So it really isn't such a huge choice. Realistically a character can say super optimize for some combat purpose, and still ace a couple skills, and still have the slot free for the one critical defense feat or whatever. Another character might have invested in quite a bit more defenses and is top stuff in a couple other different skills. Maybe he doesn't do mega damage or whatever but he will still also have the critical combat feats.

Sure. I'm just saying that the party you describe isn't my group. Picture a group playstyle in which flavorful or "new trick" feats are the most dominant choice by far, the occasional Expertise feat is taken, and defense/skill feats are rare and scattered. If that seems pretty alien and throws off a lot of default assumptions of how the math should work, no worries, I'm not offended; I know it'd be alien to the CharOp boards over at Wizards. But that's what there is.

I just think it works out pretty well. I mean really is it so bad that every character has a bit of a weak point somewhere?

With all respect, that's just not what I've been talking about. At no point do I assert players should be good at everything: my concern is about them being less good at the things they were best at, and the (unsatisfying to me) rationale that they should build their characters differently if they want to continue to be at the same relative competence level they were before the DC shift.

Characters having weak spots is a whole 'nother kettle of fish entirely. I'm not against it at all. I just like the default strong spot to be legitimately strong without adding elective bonuses, in much the same way that I would like a defender to have legitimately strong hit points even if the player doesn't take Toughness.

One of the really good things about the feat and power systems is they allow existing classes to evolve. This was a problem with 3.x where some classes were just left in the dust. At least in 4e you CAN inflate things a little without fighter becoming a worthless class.

Absolutely agreed on that point.

(But the fighter should still have more than three trained skills to start with. Every class should have at least four.)

 

[Balesir]

Just as a comment on the skill DC levels, as well as inflating the DCs, the Essentials changes also made a functional system for "aid another" rolls. The DCs have to take this into account, and my experience so far is that the formerly 'boring'/'gamey' nature of "aid another" can now be turned around. By the simple addition of requiring an explanation of how one character is "aiding another" I have had some pretty good skill challenge atmospherics. Aiding is now, perhaps, the most "free-form" part of the SC field, since I don't require that the skill used to "aid" is the same as that used for the actual attempt on the DC, as long as there is a good explanation of how it "aids". Two successful "aid another" rolls, and that Hard DC isn't looking so tough, any more - and teamwork is put even further in the 4E spotlight (one of 4E's great strengths, IMO).

 

[Ryujin]

Just as a comment on the skill DC levels, as well as inflating the DCs, the Essentials changes also made a functional system for "aid another" rolls. The DCs have to take this into account, and my experience so far is that the formerly 'boring'/'gamey' nature of "aid another" can now be turned around. By the simple addition of requiring an explanation of how one character is "aiding another" I have had some pretty good skill challenge atmospherics. Aiding is now, perhaps, the most "free-form" part of the SC field, since I don't require that the skill used to "aid" is the same as that used for the actual attempt on the DC, as long as there is a good explanation of how it "aids". Two successful "aid another" rolls, and that Hard DC isn't looking so tough, any more - and teamwork is put even further in the 4E spotlight (one of 4E's great strengths, IMO).

Our group has been doing this for years, already. One additional thing we did, however, was add 5 to the Aid difficulty per tier (10 at Heroic, 15 at Paragon, 20 at Epic).

*EDIT* I see that they've improved the mechanic, after checking the Compendium.

 

[Balesir]

*EDIT* I see that they've improved the mechanic, after checking the Compendium.

Yep - hence my post. You clearly addressed part of the problem - as did we - but some groups seem just to have disallowed "aid another" under the old rules - the revisions mean that isn't necessary any more.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

(But the fighter should still have more than three trained skills to start with. Every class should have at least four.)

Well, I won't argue with you on that one. On the other points suffice it to say we will just have to disagree. I think the new DCs are an improvement and deal well with issues that previously plagued high level skill use.

Yep - hence my post. You clearly addressed part of the problem - as did we - but some groups seem just to have disallowed "aid another" under the old rules - the revisions mean that isn't necessary any more.

Yeah, it is a good bit more mechanically sensible now, as in not broken. Though personally I never would have allowed Aid Another without an explanation any more than I would allow any skill use without an explanation. Often the explanation is pretty obvious and might not really have to be specified, but I don't think it was ever even implied by the rules that skills just 'magically work' in any given context. I know vast numbers of people who never read the SC system very carefully will insist otherwise, but so it goes...

 

[pemerton]

I don't think it was ever even implied by the rules that skills just 'magically work' in any given context. I know vast numbers of people who never read the SC system very carefully will insist otherwise, but so it goes...

And those vast numbers of people drive me nuts! It seems you can't talk about skill challenges, or about 4e more generally, anywhere else on these boards without those same assertions being made.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And those vast numbers of people drive me nuts! It seems you can't talk about skill challenges, or about 4e more generally, anywhere else on these boards without those same assertions being made.

We can form a club, and drink something bad tasting that leaves a nasty hangover and just imagine the old days before Internet flame wars and idjits!

 

[eriktheguy]

You and AbdulAlhazred make some excellent points towards this discussion - particularly in relation to "Exploration Mode" skills. In regards to "Combat" skills however, with the 20th level Wizard, he or she is going to have a lot of hit points and so what can the 2nd level assassin achieve? Particularly with a book interpretation of what hit points represent. The 20th level wizard within 6 seconds is still going to be standing while the assassin's a puddle on the floor. Can the spot check truly be considered a "fail" or just an obscure blip on the encounter radar?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Well we weren't talking about balance, we were talking about simulation. A level 30 wizard should be better at noticing an assassin than a level 1 wizard. He should be able to do this as a consequence of his experience and without having to invest resources into it. In this respect, 4e delivers and 3.x does not.

The wizard is a bad example. They had skill points to throw around in 3.x because of their Int scores. Consider instead a fighter. Over your entire career you either develop a small range of skills to the point of mediocrity, or a tiny allocation of skills to their upper levels.
It actually makes no sense for a level 20 fighter to have the same endurance, spot, stealth, climb and survival skills as a level 1. This can easily happen if you have other skills you are interested in and Int as a dump stat. It also happens to clerics and maybe some other classes (it's been awhile...) This isn't very good simulation.
4e's approach is "everything improves a bit as you level up, and you can expend character resources to improve some aspects even more."
3e's approach is "you can expend character resources to improve some aspects of your character a bit".

I think 4e makes more sense.

I DM 7 games of 4e a week for ESL students. This month I started playing my first ever Pathfinder game (only played AD&D before).

One aspect I really liked about Pathfinder was skills ranks - being able to chose which areas your character improved in. In 4e, everything jumps 1 pt. every 2 levels. After your initial +5 training, only feats are going to give skill bonuses, but in my experience those feats are rarely chosen.

Has anyone came up with their own version to give more skill improvement options while leveling in 4e?? I'd love to hear your ideas.

There's a ton of non-houserule ways to do it.

Skill training feats might seem ugly to an optimizer, but there are cross class feats that grant you skill training packaged with a nifty class feature. Skill powers and some feats allow you to improve specific aspects of your skills. Moreover you can do this without causing other skills in your move pool to stagnate (like they would in 3e).

Check out the following:
Duelist's Panache (feat) - Adds Cha to all acrobatics and athletics checks. Not only does it allow you to increase skill checks by a substantial amount, but it comes with a juicy flavor. This is actually a viable option; these skills come up in combat a lot and the bonus is large and scaling.
Hop up (skill power) - Once per encounter knocking you prone allows you to shift 1 and stand up. A way to develop your acrobatics skill, and far more interesting than allocating another skill point into it.
Wasteland Wanderer - +2 to nature, perception, initiative. It's not bad, not even for an optimizer, and something you could apply after an adventure in the wild.
Sneak of Shadows (rogue multi-class feat) - Training in thievery and use sneak attack once/encounter. Someone upthread used an example of a fighter who did some lockpicking for awhile in one adventure. In 4e you might represent this facet of your development using this feat.
Magpie Filch (rogue power) - Snatch an item from a target you hit with a melee attack, no check required. One way to improve the thieving aspect of your character without having to change the number next to 'thievery' on your character sheet.