D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Ahnehnois]

The 3e skill system so far as the "roll 1d20 and add modifiers to achieve one of the things listed on this table" is indeed rather elegant. The 3e skill system in it's implementation is one of the great failures of the system. Which one were you referring to?

I'm not sure what your objection to it is; the problems I see it are the sheer rate of scaling (no one should ever get to +23 in a d20 system game in anything) and the stupidity of cross-class skills. Of course, the skills themselves could be and have been defined many ways, and certainly could be done better.

 

[n00bdragon]

Problems with 3e skills:
- Rate of scaling
- Ability bonus becomes obsolete almost immediately
- Cross-classing skills is more or less mechanically prohibited (ridiculously expensive for almost no benefit)
- Skill DCs, the nature of most checks being solvable by a single person, and the average party size encourage players to max Int Mod + X skills and leave the rest blank

 

[pemerton]

In terms of CaGI, it doesn't matter how many times the BBEG/former teammate has seen you pull the same tired stunt, they walk up to you anyway because "This time she'll let me kick the football for sure!"

Leaving to onse side how predictable people can be, how often is this going to come up in play?

If it did, I could see that it might spoil immersion. But given that it typically won't, I don't see any reason that CaGI is per se inconsistent with immersion.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Problems with 3e skills:
- Rate of scaling
- Ability bonus becomes obsolete almost immediately
- Cross-classing skills is more or less mechanically prohibited (ridiculously expensive for almost no benefit)
- Skill DCs, the nature of most checks being solvable by a single person, and the average party size encourage players to max Int Mod + X skills and leave the rest blank

I pretty much agree with most of that. And it seems that you pretty much agree that the basic format is simple and elegant.

The rate of scaling is easily fixable (probably one of the few things 4e did right; not letting any of the level bonuses go higher than 1/2 level), which makes ability modifiers more relevant. Cross-class skills are indeed too restrictive, and that concept can simply be ignored (with a less extreme measure being used to tie skills to classes if still desired). The last issue is thornier; I'm not 100% sold that encouraging specialization is a bad thing, but I do think that teamwork and redundancy could be better emphasized in certain rules. Insert my spiel about tiered skills. In any case, skill points, skill checks, and skill DCs can be implemented better than they were in core 3e.

 

[FireLance]

the problems I see it are the sheer rate of scaling (no one should ever get to +23 in a d20 system game in anything)

Just as a mathematical aside, I'm not sure why. If the concern is that the PCs should always have a non-trivial chance of success and a non-trivial chance of failure, then regardless of the size of the bonus, the DC can always be set at an approprite amount (even a PC with a +23 modifier has a 50% chance to fail against a DC of 34).

If the concern is that there is too much difference between the modifiers of the best PC and the worst PC, then regardless of the size of the bonus of the best PC, the difference between PCs can be constrained by limiting the size and number of bonuses that would not apply to all PCs.

Hence, I don't see much downside in having a high (+20 and up) modifier in a d20 game. In fact, the idea that you could have a character that finds it trivial to accomplish tasks that would be impossible for normal men (DC 21 and up) is gaming aesthetic that appeals to me (and why I don't really like bounded accuracy).

Of course, YMMV.

 

[LostSoul]

One problem I have with skills as they have traditionally been done is that the PC's action, and resolution of that action, is wrapped up in the skill itself.

Bluff lists modifiers to the Bluff/Sense Motive checks and in-combat uses; Diplomacy has its little table; Intimidate has its rules for making characters Shaken.

This leads to "button-pushing" play, where the player says "I make a Bluff check to feint him" instead of describing a feint.

 

[pemerton]

IMO the only justifiable reason to use rules for NPCs at all is to create an equivalency with PCs. If you don't need to do that, you can ad hoc it.

Not if you want non-fiated action resolution. The principle function of NPC stats in many RPGs is to feed into action resolution.

 

[pemerton]

I want the DM to present the situations and adjudicate the environment's reactions to my character's choices. I don't want to be making decisions for other characters or the environment itself save for those choices my character makes.

My point is that there is nothing inherent to CaGI at odds with this. The PC imposes his/her will on the situation. Then, when the NPCs' turns come around, the GM plays them.

CaGI does not require the player to play the NPCs.

If you want to stay as close to actor stance as possible a power like CaGi forces you to step out of it and into director/author stance because you are now controlling the actions that the affected PC/NPC/monsters are taking.

In the canonical narration of CaGI, the player does not control the actions of the NPCs: the PC does. By imposing his/her will on the situation.

this is an example of conditional fear (massive big dragon, that can eat you, flying over head). Read my post again and you will see I made room for this kind of thing. While it isn't my favorite mechanic in the world, something like dragon awe is different from say a mundane encounter power that causes the same effect. I can buy my character trembles at a dragon, but at Dirk the Mighty when he sneers once per encounter? Not so much.

Two things.

First, CaGI is a power that is used by players/PCs against NPCs/monsters. A player's character will not be targetted by CaGI in the default 4e game.

Second, the whole point of CaGI is that a 7th level fighter (one level short of Superhero in Gygax's terminology) is as awe-inspring as a dragon. That's why s/he is able to impose her will on her enemies as CaGI allows.

So you've never had conflict arise between party members? I have and it didn't always end non-violently... just sayin.

So now the objection to CaGI is that it will break down in PvP play? Givent the 100 other ways that 4e will break down in PvP play, I don't see any special need to fasten on CaGI for that purpose.

As to your earlier posts, at post 326 upthread you said "The difference is that hit points, as a mechanic, do not force you to play from author stance. . . as opposed to our favorite whipping boy CaGi, where no matter what, you will decide where the DM's character's has in fact decided to move if you use the power . .. deciding and moving characters explicitely under the DM's control, is not the same as controlling (for all intents and purposes) a character resource/abiltiy you have." (ellisions mine).

I took that to be an argument that, as far as CaGI is concerned, it has inherent features that impede immersion. If your only claim is that some people can't immerse while using it, that is obviously true. But [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] (I think) once posted about a friend of his who couldn't play his mage unless rolling red dice for fireball and white dice for ice storm. No interesting generalisation can be drawn from those preferences to general properties or features of dice design and dice mechanics!

 

[JamesonCourage]

No, I think the attack vs. Will was appropriate.

Cool. I'd prefer it be a skill check. And there we are.

I didn't mind it when it was automatic either, mind, but I like the other effect of making it an attack vs. Will - hit or miss, it's a big Burst 3 Mark, so the enemies are paying attention to the Fighter even if they weren't conned.

Cool. I still don't like it, but as I said, there we are. As always, play what you like

 

[Bedrockgames]

Two things.

First, CaGI is a power that is used by players/PCs against NPCs/monsters. A player's character will not be targetted by CaGI in the default 4e game.

I understand that. But the idea still applies.

Second, the whole point of CaGI is that a 7th level fighter (one level short of Superhero in Gygax's terminology) is as awe-inspring as a dragon. That's why s/he is able to impose her will on her enemies as CaGI allows.

How Gygax characterized a 7th level fighter, doesn't really matter to me. 7th level isnt the same as being a dragon though. Suggesting that a 7th level character is as awe inspiring as a dragon feels like a huge strecth to me.

So now the objection to CaGI is that it will break down in PvP play? Givent the 100 other ways that 4e will break down in PvP play, I don't see any special need to fasten on CaGI for that purpose.

!

For me, problems with 4E go far beyond come and get it. That power is just what people happen to be discussing at the moment.