D&D 4E 4e skill system -dont get it.

[Andur]

Natural 1's and 20's have no special significance on skill checks (only on hit rolls and saving throws).

You are right, it was one of the first house rules we did and I often forget we never have played D&D RAW due to the number of inconsistencies. Makes no sense that a 1st Level Wizard with a Two Handed Sword with a -4 to hit can hit a creature with an AC of 40 on a 20 but can't make a DC 40 skill check with a +10 on a 20. Likewise a +30 to hit can miss an AC of 10 on a 1, but a +30 to a skill check means you don't have to roll for anything under DC 31...

 

[LostSoul]

But the real problem from my perspective with running the above social problem in 3e isn't that you can't do it with multiple skill checks, its that diplomacy skill (and skills in general) are in 3.X much more lightly valued in the rules than combat ability which makes skills to easily broken by anyone that wants to min-max them.

The real difference is that, apparently, in 4e your rolls will result in success or failure regarding the conflict.

In 3e, maybe the rolls will add up to success or failure. Maybe not. There's no guarantee.

Take a look at the conflict in Escape from Sembia: escape from the city. In 3e, I could make a hundred successful Hide checks and never get out. Or fail a hundred and never be caught. In 4e, that's not the case.

 

[JesterOC]

I think a better question would be, "Can you show me a rule from official sources which would prevent you from doing a series of skill checks to resolve an encounter?"

Everything that isn't forbidden, is permitted.

While it is true, and the spirit of D&D relies on the ability of the DM to wing it, such a blanket statement implies that checkers is a better roleplaying game than D&D because it has absolutly no player character rules thus nothing is forbidden.

I think it is wrong to compare homebrew 3E to RAW 4E. You have to compare RAW to RAW or else everyones comparisons will be different. WOTC can't be expected to say. "In 4e you can do X and in 3e only Paul Johnson from Wisconson and Celebrim did it that way."

JesterOC

 

[Celebrim]

Why should there be a chance of something happening that you never want to happen?

Because that is what makes a game interesting.

Every time I play a game, I want to win. I'm a fierce competitor. I believe I ought to win every game of 'Settlers of Cataan' I play. I believe I ought to win every game of 'Bloodbowl' I play. I play to win. I never want to lose.

But I'd never play a game I couldn't lose either.

There should be a chance of me losing, even though I never want it to happen. It's the losing that makes the game interesting. If I really did win every game of 'Settlers of Cataan' I played, I'd have stopped playing it very quickly.

Same sorts of things apply to RPG's, but in a way even more so. Not only am I being competitive, but I'm being emmersed in the story world. If that story world is one where death 'ought' to happen, then it ought to be able to happen to my character ('me') - even if I never want it to actually happen. It's part of the spice that makes things interesting. If it couldn't happen, the game would be less fun.

I've never yet met a player that prefers to see through illusionism. Illusionism is occasionally good for a game, but its never good to be reminded about it.

 

[JesterOC]

You are right, it was one of the first house rules we did and I often forget we never have played D&D RAW due to the number of inconsistencies. Makes no sense that a 1st Level Wizard with a Two Handed Sword with a -4 to hit can hit a creature with an AC of 40 on a 20 but can't make a DC 40 skill check with a +10 on a 20. Likewise a +30 to hit can miss an AC of 10 on a 1, but a +30 to a skill check means you don't have to roll for anything under DC 31...

I disagree. It makes no sense that randomly rolling a skill can yeild better results than a take 20. Perhaps there could be a 1 in a million chance that a person just winging it will do better than if they took their time, but 1 in 20 I don't think so.

Combat is chaotic, there is always a chance that the better fighter takes a mistep, has a minor lapse in concentraition etc.

JesterOC

 

[JesterOC]

Campaigns should never end in TPK's either, but sometimes there has to be the risk of it. Failure can't always consist in 'not getting your reward'. I met play the game that way for 5 year olds, but this isn't 'Fluffy Bunnies & Lollipops'.

But having a TPK based on an abstract social roleplay mechanic will not make the core D&D play very happy. At the very least you would end the encounter with the King calling the guards and then ask the players how they want to react. If it means a fight to a TPK then fine, but I as a player would feel so ripped off if my character was killed by a failed Diplomacy roll.

JesterOC

 

[Celebrim]

While it is true, and the spirit of D&D relies on the ability of the DM to wing it, such a blanket statement implies that checkers is a better roleplaying game than D&D...

No it doesn't.

...because it has absolutly no player character rules thus nothing is forbidden.

This claim does not justify the prior one.

I think it is wrong to compare homebrew 3E to RAW 4E.

Really? What else am I supposed to compare it to when being asked to convert?

And you'll note, I'm not actually being critical of 4E here. I don't like the 4e skill system, but in terms of explicit encounter design I've always been pro 4E's approach. So to the extant that I am comparing it is to say, "4e is encouraging people to play more like I do (and more like the DM that taught me and other skilled DM's I've had the pleasure of playing with)".

All I'm saying is that 4e's skill system isn't a necessary change for designing 4e style encounters. You can't prove to me otherwise, because I've been playing like this since first (before we even had an explicit unified skill system).

WOTC can't be expected to say. "In 4e you can do X and in 3e only Paul Johnson from Wisconson and Celebrim did it that way."

I'm certainly not the only player/DM playing this way. I can expect WoTC to say, "In 4e we will be explicitly encouraging a certain style of play. One benefit of the new skill system is that it makes it easier for everyone to involve themselves in a big way in every skill challenge." without dissing earlier editions and without making completely false claims that the 'new' style of play is somehow completely new, innovative, and unsupportable without 4e rules.

 

[Celebrim]

But having a TPK based on an abstract social roleplay mechanic will not make the core D&D play very happy. At the very least you would end the encounter with the King calling the guards and then ask the players how they want to react. If it means a fight to a TPK then fine, but I as a player would feel so ripped off if my character was killed by a failed Diplomacy roll.

JesterOC

Sure. Not really my point.

Diplomacy Check

Success = 'King forgives you.'
Failure = 'King orders you imprisoned.'

Wouldn't want it to happen often, but it should be a valid situation. The point is not that you died instantly upon failing the diplomacy check, but that failing it in that situation was 'utter failure' and afterwards you had no good options.

 

[Celebrim]

The real difference is that, apparently, in 4e your rolls will result in success or failure regarding the conflict.

In 3e, maybe the rolls will add up to success or failure. Maybe not. There's no guarantee.

Take a look at the conflict in Escape from Sembia: escape from the city. In 3e, I could make a hundred successful Hide checks and never get out. Or fail a hundred and never be caught. In 4e, that's not the case.

It seems to me that it has always been true that the DM decides the outcome of a skill check, regardless of whether you succeed or fail. Are you suggesting that its not possible for a 3e DM to have an 'escape from the city' scenario that depends on the outcome of one (or a 100) hide checks? Ditto for 4e.

I haven't played 'Escape from Sembia' so I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about, but I would be very surprised if this was not the case. The only way it would stop being the case is if D&D became a 'fortune at the beginning' narrative system in which the player could specify the outcome of the skill check and the DM was somehow obligated (rather than encouraged) to provide that as a potential outcome. Based on the discussion, some people seemed to interpret the skill challenge in that way. I think its more of an example of making sure a situation is not so abstract that it can't be used in tournament style play, rather than a constraint on how 'Can you escape the city' is handled in the general case, but I'd actually have to read the text.

 

[catsclaw]

Because that is what makes a game interesting ... There should be a chance of me losing, even though I never want it to happen. It's the losing that makes the game interesting.

Based on your logic, when you play Monopoly you should agree that the loser has to sell their house to the winner for $1. Because that chance makes the game fun!

There are a lot of "lose" conditions less severe than a TPK, just as most people feel the risk of losing at Monopoly is enough of a disincentive without risking your house on top of it. I've never been especially sanguine when my character died in battle even though I knew I was going to be raised. Getting captured, losing equipment, and failing to protect the kingdom are all less severe ways of punishing the characters than hitting the reset button and starting over.