D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[SkidAce]

*must spread XP blah blah* Couldn't have said it better myself.

covered.

 

[Warbringer]

I want a return to when being a hero was an outcome and not a playstyle.

That's a fair enough goal.

Is the heart of hat a player "earning" the right get a player to that point, and in 4e you feel the player hasn't earned the right, either through the play style, or the starting power level?

I ask because one of the associated splits i see on the boards is gritty vs gonzo paralleling non-4e vs 4e preference, I wonder how much of that is at he core of this schism.

 

[the Jester]

*must spread XP blah blah* Couldn't have said it better myself.

Covered as well.

Is the heart of hat a player "earning" the right get a player to that point, and in 4e you feel the player hasn't earned the right, either through the play style, or the starting power level?

I ask because one of the associated splits i see on the boards is gritty vs gonzo paralleling non-4e vs 4e preference, I wonder how much of that is at he core of this schism.

Personally, to me the heart of this playstyle is that the pcs must be free to make choices that meaningfully affect their odds of success.

For one exaggerated example, if the pcs are first level and know of two nearby dungeons- one known to be the dwelling place of kobolds and their pet badgers, and the other said to be the lair of the lich Destructomax, they should be free to attack the lich and probably die.

OTOH if they are 20th level, they should be free to go wipe out the kobolds (and earn a pittance for their efforts, both in xp and loot).

Pcs should be able to choose their own rate of advancement by choosing the danger level they seek.

 

[Warbringer]

Personally, to me the heart of this playstyle is that the pcs must be free to make choices that meaningfully affect their odds of success.

Pcs should be able to choose their own rate of advancement by choosing the danger level they seek.

Agreed, but then the implication is that edition has something to do with that, and I simply don't see it.

Or am I simply misunderstanding you

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Only if the DC of a task scales with player level. And I can't think of any instance where 3E gave any indication that this should be the case. A lot of people seem to have played this way, but by the advice/rules in 3E the DC of the obstacle is independent from the PCs level.
Imo a lot of problems people had with skills in 3E come from this misunderstanding. By scaling the DC of obstacles the only way for PCs to keep up was to focus on a few skills and max them (PRC requirements were another reason). If the DCs were calculated only by the difficulty of the task spreading skill points around would have been much more viable.

My observation would be that of course things get more difficult as you level up in 3e. Why would level 9 PCs wander around taking on challenges that are so trivial for them that level 1 PCs could probably succeed? You don't fight goblins at level 9, nor do you play around with simple snares and pits. If you DO run into those things they're just set dressing at that point. I'd also point out that 4e DOES establish default conventions for the DCs of specific challenges. There are numbers for climbing, opening doors, and several other things (the RC has at least one example per skill, though weirdly it switches halfway through to level scaling them, but whatever). Anyway, the point is you will know what DC a specific type of door is in 4e. In both games relevant challenges are going to have similarly high DCs. The problem with 3e is that the spread is monstrous, you're either taking levels in a skill or you are totally irrelevant to any situation that's relatively challenging that uses that skill. That's the problem.

Different skill systems for different type of games.
The 4E skill system is good for scene based games where the PCs are not supposed to fail (fail forward which gets mentioned here and there also falls into this category).
The PCs meet an level appropriate obstacle, everyone rolls dice to "combat" it and when it is defeated they continue to the next scene. And much like 4E doesn't allow someone to be bad in combat, it doesn't allow someone to be bad in skills as in the end both are just a type of obstacle.
The 3E skill system is much better for goal based games. The PCs are given a goal and can decide by themselves how to approach it. Depending on their skills and the situation at hand they can try different methods and failing just means they have to try something else. Here being bad at something is not a problem as you can choose to approach the problem in a way you are good at.

5E seems to fall more into the "never fail" category like 4E even just by the virtue of flat math and the D20 allowing people to succeed at most tasks. And the lack of skill points is really troublesome to me as now everyone is born good in a skill instead of trained to be good in a skill.

I don't really agree. The problem is you can't take just the core 4e skill mechanics in isolation. First of all nothing stops you from running a game much in the vein of 3e where if the party can't unlock the door tough luck. It is just more likely that someone has a decent chance of breaking it down or picking the lock and a single lone character will have SOME chance of doing either or both, even if they aren't his specialities. Said character will still probably want an alternative in that mode of play.

However, you have to understand that in 4e there are powers, feats, items, and even some racial features, that provide specific narrow situational capabilities to do specific things. Beyond that skills in the raw are not intended to be the last word. There are backgrounds, which will allow the DM to adjudicate things like "you were once a blacksmith, you know X, Y, or Z about that" without needing to pin down exactly what that means or turn it into another skill nobody else can be good at. Finally, and most importantly, the basic skill system is the complement for SCs. If you have a situation that is meant to be interesting and challenging then its not going to be a simple skill check, its going to be developed into a process.

The nice thing about 4e skills is that they ARE broad, so they act as a pretty good set of descriptors of your character. In fact they are a lot closer to being in the same vein as FATE descriptors than they are specific knowledge indicators. The character trained in Athletics is a guy who solves problems by physical means. He's ATHLETIC. He may also be the village strongman and have a 20 STR, etc, or not. Likewise with the other 4e skills (though I note some people have expressed dissatisfaction with knowledge skills being lumped in with the others). Personally I like it. If my character has Athletics, Perception, and Streetwise its pretty easy to get a handle on what sort of chap he is. He's observant, solves problems with physical means, and has developed a knack for rooting out information from people. Even without knowing stats or class we have a handle on at least part of the character's personality and background. While I wouldn't say 3e style skills have NO value there they are too narrow to really contribute a whole lot to the big picture.

 

[Mournblade94]

As was pointed out upthread, I did not mention an impossible cliff (which perhaps by definition cannot be scaled by a mortal).

Anyway, my sense of genre-coherence is obviously personal to me. But out of curiosity, which heroic fantasy characters can you point me to who have the prowess to lop the head of a dragon, but lack the prowess to scale a cliff?

I don't recall Beowulf scaling a cliff, or St George. Maybe they COULD, but there is nothing in there telling me they CAN for sure.

I am saying the ability to do one does not make the other a foregone conclusion.

I don't see it as being particularly coherent. Where then is the purpose of the trope of the sage, or the guide? Players should no longer need to consult a sage because it is not coherent that a mage who is intelligent and can blast a dragon to bits yet cannot be knowledgeable in all things.

What about lopping the dragon's head off makes him a better nature guide (Survival)?

I don't see the necessity.

 

[sheadunne]

My observation would be that of course things get more difficult as you level up in 3e. Why would level 9 PCs wander around taking on challenges that are so trivial for them that level 1 PCs could probably succeed? You don't fight goblins at level 9, nor do you play around with simple snares and pits. If you DO run into those things they're just set dressing at that point. I'd also point out that 4e DOES establish default conventions for the DCs of specific challenges. There are numbers for climbing, opening doors, and several other things (the RC has at least one example per skill, though weirdly it switches halfway through to level scaling them, but whatever). Anyway, the point is you will know what DC a specific type of door is in 4e. In both games relevant challenges are going to have similarly high DCs. The problem with 3e is that the spread is monstrous, you're either taking levels in a skill or you are totally irrelevant to any situation that's relatively challenging that uses that skill. That's the problem.

That's a pretty good summary of the issue with the 3x system. While I don't particular like the 4e system, it does address the problem in its own way.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

covered.

Thanks a mil!

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Covered as well.



Personally, to me the heart of this playstyle is that the pcs must be free to make choices that meaningfully affect their odds of success.

For one exaggerated example, if the pcs are first level and know of two nearby dungeons- one known to be the dwelling place of kobolds and their pet badgers, and the other said to be the lair of the lich Destructomax, they should be free to attack the lich and probably die.

OTOH if they are 20th level, they should be free to go wipe out the kobolds (and earn a pittance for their efforts, both in xp and loot).

Pcs should be able to choose their own rate of advancement by choosing the danger level they seek.

Thank you as well.

 

[sheadunne]

I don't recall Beowulf scaling a cliff, or St George. Maybe they COULD, but there is nothing in there telling me they CAN for sure.

I am saying the ability to do one does not make the other a foregone conclusion.

I don't see it as being particularly coherent. Where then is the purpose of the trope of the sage, or the guide? Players should no longer need to consult a sage because it is not coherent that a mage who is intelligent and can blast a dragon to bits yet cannot be knowledgeable in all things.

What about lopping the dragon's head off makes him a better nature guide (Survival)?

I don't see the necessity.

I don't think it's a matter of the character getting better at the particular skill, as more that the challenge because significantly less important. The party has resources to bypass a particular challenge without relying on skill checks. If a party has the resources necessary to lop off a dragons head, then they probably have the resources to get over the cliff without much effort (like flying or levitating, or teleporting). Like in 3x when a wizard reaches 3rd level, locks are no longer a problem for a party. At 5th level cliffs are no longer a problem. When a party has resources that expand beyond the simple challenges, whether or not they have ranks in the skills to deal with them, use of those skills become annoyances rather than interesting scenarios. Oh no, a locked door, my fighter does 150 points of damage to it in one swing. Locked doors are a non-issue. 4e attempted to deal with that in its own way, more on the metagame level, which is why you add level. It's assumed that a party will have the resources necessary to handle the challenge, so why bog down game play. (There are other issues that the 4e skills systems attempts to address, but I'm focusing on resources.) Anyway, that's the way I see it. I personally am not a fan of it, but I appreciate 4e attempting to deal with it. I would like a different system, one that makes skills more important rather than less important based on party resources, but that would require another thread.