D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[Hussar]

Whoops, missed the reply to the earlier post, so, I'm editing this one to reply:

/snip

Did I say had a chance at doing anything in the game? Did I say had a chance at doing the impossible in the game?... Come on, here we go again. Can you go back and read what I actually wrote and address it or just quit replying to me because again we're headed towards mis-understandings because somehow from can succeed at some of the hardest tasks in the game... you've interpreted my meaning to be succeeds at all of the hardest tasks in the game even the impossible... or any of the hardest tasks in the game including the impossible... neither of which I actually said.

If a task is impossible for someone without training... then it's not one of the hardest tasks in the game world... it's an impossible task without training... is that really so hard to comprehend it's in a different category? Now what constitutes an impossible task for someone vs a very hard task is a DM call in 5e... but we knew that already.

Just to illustrate further... can you ride a horse without having a horse? Can you pick a lock with no tools? Can you play an instrument without an actual instrument to play... I wouldn't call any of these tasks some of the hardest in the gameworld... but there are still circumstances where they are impossible to succeed at. Determining a particular usage of a skill is trained only is no different.

There is a significant difference here @Imaro that you are ignoring. You are claiming that the DC is objective, but, it isn't. The ONLY reason that the task requires training to succeed is because you, the DM, have decreed it so. After all, there are a number of other ways I could achieve the DC without being trained - Guidance spells as an easiest example.

So, again, is the DC objective - as in the DC is fixed and so long as I reach that DC, regardless of HOW I reach it, I succeed, or is the DC subjective, and walled off by you the DM who has decided that regardless of whatever number I achieve, I cannot possibly succeed unless I am trained?

Sorry, but, your other examples are complete red herrings. Of course you can't ride a horse with no horse. But, that's not the same thing. The DC for riding that horse doesn't change depending on whether I'm trained or not. The DC remains fixed. It's objective. But, if the only way I can make my horse jump across that open space is if I'm trained in Animal Handling, then, no, that's not an objective DC. That's a subjective DC based on the DM's understanding of how to make a horse jump.

Is that clear enough now?

 

[Imaro]

.
Just to make sure I parse this correctly : it is within the engine to auto-deny a significant chance of success, whilst simultaneously not doing so for other tasks set to the same probability. Yes?

I'm not saying changing the meaning of a DC depending on the character's level is bad in any way, shape or form, I'm just asking if this is what you're advocating for here. Because the first half says "no", and then the second says "yes".

You're asking a question but then your second paragraph is based on assumption that doesn't necessarily follow. So to your first question... Yes it is within the engine to auto-deny a chance of success while simultaneously not doing so for other tasks which have the same DC.

To address your second paragraph... I'm not changing the meaning of a DC... the DC is 25 (Very Hard) it will always be 25 for any character granted a roll... so it is DC 25 (Very Hard) but in the stage where a DM is deciding whether a roll is appropriate or not... when at X or above level the roll is appropriate otherwise there is no uncertainty to be rolled for and it is plainly impossible to do at a lower level and to rol would be inappropriate...

The DC hasn't changed the judgement on whether a particular character warrants a roll against said DC is what has been decided before we even get to what the DC for the task is.


EDIT: Here's a possibly better example... If I set a hard DC of 25 to hold your breath underwater for 3 hours during a raging storm in the sea for a semi-amphibious PC but give no roll for a non-amphibious PC is that changing the DC or is it judging a roll is inappropriate for the non-amphibious PC because it's just inappropriate, they can't do it?

 

[Imaro]

Whoops, missed the reply to the earlier post, so, I'm editing this one to reply:



There is a significant difference here @Imaro that you are ignoring. You are claiming that the DC is objective, but, it isn't. The ONLY reason that the task requires training to succeed is because you, the DM, have decreed it so. After all, there are a number of other ways I could achieve the DC without being trained - Guidance spells as an easiest example.

So, again, is the DC objective - as in the DC is fixed and so long as I reach that DC, regardless of HOW I reach it, I succeed, or is the DC subjective, and walled off by you the DM who has decided that regardless of whatever number I achieve, I cannot possibly succeed unless I am trained?

Yep the DC is ojective... of course part of getting a roll for said DC is being trained and it applies to everyone in the gameworld equally. So no the guidance spell, unless it imparts training would not make it appropriate for you to roll.

But, if the only way I can make my horse jump across that open space is if I'm trained in Animal Handling, then, no, that's not an objective DC. That's a subjective DC based on the DM's understanding of how to make a horse jump.

It's objective as long as the animal handling requirement is in place for every character in the gameworld who tries to accomplish it.

Is that clear enough now?

Tone it down buddy...I wasn't the one who mis-represented what you stated, argued against my own strawman then played the victim role and accused you of somehow spinning the argument into confusion... a point you still haven't addressed...

 

[pemerton]

I'm not changing the meaning of a DC... the DC is 25 (Very Hard) it will always be 25 for any character granted a roll... so it is DC 25 (Very Hard) but in the stage where a DM is deciding whether a roll is appropriate or not... when at X or above level the roll is appropriate otherwise there is no uncertainty to be rolled for and it is plainly impossible to do at a lower level and to rol would be inappropriate...

The DC hasn't changed the judgement on whether a particular character warrants a roll against said DC is what has been decided before we even get to what the DC for the task is.


EDIT: Here's a possibly better example... If I set a hard DC of 25 to hold your breath underwater for 3 hours during a raging storm in the sea for a semi-amphibious PC but give no roll for a non-amphibious PC is that changing the DC or is it judging a roll is inappropriate for the non-amphibious PC because it's just inappropriate, they can't do it?

This appears to contradict your earlier claim that 5e DCs are "objective" in a way that contrasts with 4e DCs. As you present it here, first the GM has to decide whether or not something is possible independent of setting the DC, and then the GM has to decide whether or not the task is Very Hard (or whatever) for the PC in question. Why is the PC's skill bonus not part of that caluclation? Obviously it can't be, or the whole point of the DC system breaks down - but now we have a weirdness where some bits of the PC's ability factor into the DC setting but others don't.

This is not giving me the sense of a straightforward elegant system that contrast with 4e in key respects.

 

[Imaro]

This appears to contradict your earlier claim that 5e DCs are "objective" in a way that contrasts with 4e DCs. As you present it here, first the GM has to decide whether or not something is possible independent of setting the DC, and then the GM has to decide whether or not the task is Very Hard (or whatever) for the PC in question. Why is the PC's skill bonus not part of that caluclation? Obviously it can't be, or the whole point of the DC system breaks down - but now we have a weirdness where some bits of the PC's ability factor into the DC setting but others don't.

This is not giving me the sense of a straightforward elegant system that contrast with 4e in key respects.

A few corrections to your assumptions...

1. Yes the first step is determining if a roll is appropriate or not (elegant way to deal with corner cases, silliness, etc without having a ton of keywords or references for special or absurd cases)

2. I'm not deciding whether the task is X for a particular PC I'm deciding the task is X... now whether you can roll to attempt the task has already been decided above (and honestlyif it's no, we don;t even need to move to this step), if you can roll...the task is X, it doesn't scale & it doesn't change.

3. Why would PC skill bonus factor into an objective DC?

4. There is no weirdness. You assumed the DC was being set on an individual level but it's not it's being set at an objective level but the DM has a step beforehand to judge whether a roll is appropriate or not... this step is not setting the DC, scaling the DC or anything in terms of the DC it is a simple decision on whether a roll is appropriate or not. If not no DC even needs to be set.

It seems pretty straightforward and elegant to me, what's the hang up?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

I'm not deciding whether the task is X for a particular PC I'm deciding the task is X

<snip>

There is no weirdness. You assumed the DC was being set on an individual level but it's not it's being set at an objective level but the DM has a step beforehand to judge whether a roll is appropriate or not

Your example was of an amphibious character holding his/her breath.

What about a particularly agile PC skilled at climbing (eg a 3rd level thief with the Second Story Work ability). If the task is get to the top of the Cliffs of Insanity before dawn then does the DC change for that character compared to another character who lacks that ability? Or grant advantage (which is functionally comparable to, if not strictly mathematically equivalent to, a DC change across a fairly wide range of DCs).

In deciding that something is Impossible or Very Hard or whatever you seem to be factoring in relevant PC capabilities (at least, ones that are not already expressed as skill/stat check bonuses). It's not clear to me why the amphibiousness would count but the climbing ability wouldn't. But if it would then we have DC being set by reference to a particular PC.

This sort of thing is fairly common across a range of RPGs. It's not objectionable. But to me it doesn't suggest a freeform approach to resolution.

I'd contrast with, say, a HeroQuest revised PC who has the descriptor Amphibious or Second Story Work. In that system there is the relatively freeform adjudication is this declared action feasible given this PCs capabilities in the fiction?, and then there is the system-dictated (based on pacing considerations) setting of a DC. There's no need in HeroQuest revised to factor in all the sub-systems that bear upon what can be achieved with a stat/skill check (like being amphibious or being skilled a second story work) but that aren't already expressed in the stat/skill itself.

The hangup is this is another proxy battle in a pointless war.

Some people just like to watch the editions burn.

Hey, I'm not the one arguing that 5e is uniquely or distinctively freeform in contrast to its very close cousin (skill/stat check-wise) 4e.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

Hey, I'm not the one arguing that 5e is uniquely or distinctively freeform in contrast to its very close cousin (skill/stat check-wise) 4e.

Nobody is claiming that: the claim in question is that between the two of them, 5E is relatively more free-form: if 4E is a 5 on a 10 point scale, 5E is a 6., or 5.5 even. It literally has the same Skill system, just with streamlined math and less suggested inherently in the system (that is, the form is more liberated for improvised action resolution, and differences from table to table).

 

[MoutonRustique]

The hangup is this is another proxy battle in a pointless war.

Some people just like to watch the editions burn.

This post (and others of similar ilk) do not seem particularly constructive. If you feel the discussion pointless, please do not participate in it.

[...] It seems pretty straightforward and elegant to me, what's the hang up?

A possible hangup (one I have) is that I'm not seeing how/when then difference in kind is triggered in the fiction.

Since in one situation you assign a DC, and in another you do not, this isn't a difference of scale, it is of kind. As an hypothetical player, having my fighter character progress from low to mid to high level, I will have encountered many situations where a check was asked of me. At low levels, I wanted to push a boulder and was asked to roll vs DC 15. Later on, at mid levels, I wanted to push another (similar) boulder, and was asked to roll vs DC 15. That tracks, no worries. Later, within the same adventure, I wanted to uphold a massive stone door to let my friends escape. This was a very hard task and I was asked to roll vs DC 25. Harder task, higher DC, that tracks, no worries. At very high levels, I wanted to hold up the world as my friends rebuilt the Pillars of Creation and was asked to roll vs DC 25. It was a very hard task, and so...wait... how does that track?

Since I'm not invoking any special skill, where does the demarcation come from? The DC can't go up much, as my chances to succeed would be abysmal. I'm not harping on "DC 25", I'm just not seeing how a game could work in this context without prior rolls set at the same DC having very different scale in fiction - with the DC still being "not subjective to level". I... I don't get it.

EDIT: Here's a possibly better example... If I set a hard DC of 25 to hold your breath underwater for 3 hours during a raging storm in the sea for a semi-amphibious PC but give no roll for a non-amphibious PC is that changing the DC or is it judging a roll is inappropriate for the non-amphibious PC because it's just inappropriate, they can't do it?

This is a good example of what I was talking about when I used the term "kind" vs "scale". As such, it doesn't help me. But, if you feel you've already explained it, I can live with "not getting it".