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

[catsclaw]

b) Many of the things that designers have said are now fully supported by the rules are not in fact actually rules issues. For example, the notion of a trap as part of an encounter is not something that is a rule issue, but an encounter design issue. The notion of an encounter space being larger than a single room isn't an issue of rules, but one of encounter design.

I think when a rule book says "Traps at this level should do this much damage. Encounters should look like this, and be worth this much experience. Monsters should only be fought in small groups because large groups will kill the party." those are rules.

Clearly you disagree. Of course, you could have just as easily said "The magic system isn't a rule issue, it's a magic design issue" or "Weapon damage isn't a rule issue, it's a weapon design issue". There's really no use arguing the point, since it's semantics, but I'll bet 95% of the people on here consider encounter design to be part of the rules.

I could show examples of exception based designed not just in published modules, but in published modules by WotC. If they now want to tell me that in 4e we have permission to break the rules occassionally as DMs, that's like telling me that thier new blender makes milk shakes. Swell. It's a blender right? Of course it makes milk shakes.

It's more like you have a blender, and I show you a new food processor. Sure, you could use the blender to chop onions and grind peanuts, but the food processor is designed for it and makes it a lot easier. And yes, you can disassemble the blender and change the gearing, and cut the bottom out of a plastic bowl and retrofit one of the food processor blades to fit the connector, but good god man! I understand your grandmother gave you that blender, and you're very fond of the color, but food processors cost $30! $30!

If you refuse to switch, fine. But don't sneer at people just because they appreciate the difference.

 

[Celebrim]

Most of these newfangled thingies are part of the Dungeon Masters Guide.
The DMG is more then just a set of rules. It contains advice, guidelines and rules. As such, it can very well change "gamesmanship", as you call it. If the DMG recommends the DM "say yes" and then gives advice on how to say "yes", this means it can make your gamesmanship better. True, it is only a hope, people can ignore any advice giving to them, but if you're just not that great as a DM and are willing to improve, such advice is gold.

Which returns us right back to my orginal post in this thread.

 

[Celebrim]

I think when a rule book says "Traps at this level should do this much damage. Encounters should look like this, and be worth this much experience. Monsters should only be fought in small groups because large groups will kill the party." those are rules.

Except it doesn't say that exactly. It says, "The system was designed with the following assumptions... On average the following should happen... Encounters should normally span this range of CR..." and so forth. Those are guidelines.

Of course, you could have just as easily said "The magic system isn't a rule issue, it's a magic design issue" or "Weapon damage isn't a rule issue, it's a weapon design issue".

Oh good grief. Clearly encounter design is not nearly as tightly as specified as say the rules for resolving combat. In theory a DM has the option of designing new spells or weapons (and it should be noted that he has only guidelines for this), but he is expected to engage in some sort of encounter design and given very broad latitude in doing so. I certainly haven't been praising the 4E team for constraining DM options, just explaining them better.

There's really no use arguing the point, since it's semantics, but I'll bet 95% of the people on here consider encounter design to be part of the rules.

95% of all statistics are invented on the spot.

It's more like you have a blender, and I show you a new food processor. Sure, you could use the blender to chop onions and grind peanuts, but the food processor is designed for it and makes it a lot easier. And yes, you can disassemble the blender and change the gearing, and cut the bottom out of a plastic bowl and retrofit one of the food processor blades to fit the connector, but good god man! I understand your grandmother gave you that blender, and you're very fond of the color, but food processors cost $30! $30!

Analogies really aren't your strong point. Extending a loose intentionally humorous analogy way past its intended use doesn't prove a point. So let's dispense with them a while. It isn't like a blender at all.

It's like telling me that the new encounter system lets me do things that my system could already do, but that now more detailed examples and better guidelines will be provided. That's what its like. My point is to the extent that the examples are useful and the guidelines better, they'll largely apply to 3rd edition as well - which is why the 4e DMG might be the only 4e book I buy.

If you refuse to switch, fine. But don't sneer at people just because they appreciate the difference.

Those that actually understand the difference, don't get sneered at. In fact, no one gets sneered at until they make a point of sneering at me.

 

[Thaniel]

Except it doesn't say that exactly. It says, "The system was designed with the following assumptions... On average the following should happen... Encounters should normally span this range of CR..." and so forth. Those are guidelines.

No one knows exactly what the rulebook states. Unless you have seen it, in which case you're most likely under an NDA. An argument of "I don't think the rulebook will state that" is one thing. Saying "It doesn't say that" is quite another at this stage.

 

[WyzardWhately]

Running these scenes, I'd say that at least 50% of the time, I'd have some player say "well that's not the way the DMG says a chase scene is supposed to be run," or "well the rules say that my web spell should bypass this entire encounter." So, from that perspective, I'm happy to see this new system. I've seen a need for some sort of official system that grants XP for noncombat, nontrap skill challenges, and that's exactly what this is. There wasn't such a system in the 3.x RAW before, and now there is.

Huh. I'm not sure I see the downside with some of that. If you were doing the "guards chase us" scene, SHOULDN'T the player be able to use a Web spell (or whatever other power) to help out? Or do you abstract that into the skill-checks, by using streetwise to get into a narrow alley, bluff to get them to chase you heedlessly, and Arcane to set up the Web? If you do it that way, in a sense just as flavor text, do you still make the player check off the power? If they take that disadvantage, should they get a bonus to the roll/success/etc?

 

[LostSoul]

The new skill challenge 'system' is a rules laywers paradice. Some people are already claiming its new more legalistic approach is a feature not a bug. Sheesh.

The new approach will, I think, result in rules lawyers changing their cover from "But I'm just trying to follow the rules!" to "Why don't you ever let me use the skill I want?"

The new approach, as I see it, facilitates communication between players, and shows a poor player or DM to be what he is.

Now, when you are playing with decent players, requiring them to describe how they use their skill means more cool description in play. Instead of saying, "I got a 25 on my Hide check", players will be required to explain how hiding is applicable to succeeding at the challenge. "I duck into the shadows of an alley, hiding as the guard passes by. I got a 25 on my Hide check."

Yeah, it increases handling time. Oh well.

So I see it as a feature, not a bug.

 

[LostSoul]

Huh. I'm not sure I see the downside with some of that. If you were doing the "guards chase us" scene, SHOULDN'T the player be able to use a Web spell (or whatever other power) to help out? Or do you abstract that into the skill-checks, by using streetwise to get into a narrow alley, bluff to get them to chase you heedlessly, and Arcane to set up the Web? If you do it that way, in a sense just as flavor text, do you still make the player check off the power? If they take that disadvantage, should they get a bonus to the roll/success/etc?

This is what I'm most interested in seeing - how the "comabt" powers and skills interact with the skill challenges. I think it's the trickiest part of the design.

My gut says a successful use of an applicable power will result in a success.

 

[Celebrim]

No one knows exactly what the rulebook states. Unless you have seen it, in which case you're most likely under an NDA. An argument of "I don't think the rulebook will state that" is one thing. Saying "It doesn't say that" is quite another at this stage.

I believed we were talking about what the 3E DMG said. Sorry I didn't make that clear enough.

 

[catsclaw]

Except it doesn't say that exactly. It says, "The system was designed with the following assumptions... On average the following should happen... Encounters should normally span this range of CR..." and so forth. Those are guidelines.

Once again, you're arguing semantics. The rules very clearly state the level of traps and associated experience point rewards for them. The rules give very detailed instructions for calculating the CR of monsters and groups of monsters, and how to gauge how difficult an encounter will be for the party. Those are rules, and the 3.5 rules covering this stuff are terrible.

Also, you seem to feel like just because you call a rule a guideline you win the argument. You don't. The point is that 4e is going to provide much better support for the GM in handling complex encounters, both combat and social. Call that "support" a guideline, call it a rule, I don't care. It's something 4e will do better than 3.5. The fact it exists at all means it's better than 3.5.

95% of all statistics are invented on the spot.

Maybe so, maybe not. What I said was "I'll bet 95% of the people on here consider encounter design to be part of the rules" which is a statement of fact.

Analogies really aren't your strong point.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. Mine may not have been great, but I was forced to extend yours, and was limited by the source material.

It's like telling me that the new encounter system lets me do things that my system could already do, but that now more detailed examples and better guidelines will be provided. That's what its like.

Yes! That's exactly what it's like. 3.5 contains a collection of shoddy guidelines which don't work for social encounters and barely work for combat encounters, so you're forced to invent a system that does. 4e has that built it. That's what people are saying.

Those that actually understand the difference, don't get sneered at. In fact, no one gets sneered at until they make a point of sneering at me.

This is demonstrably false. In response to my first post on this thread, you said "I'll let you ponder the complete lack of logic in that statement." If you're wondering why I'm being so uncivil to you, that's why. You started the debate by insulting me. And you've done nothing afterward to improve my opinion of you.

Look, you've staked out a logical position which is quite simply indefensible. Sure, you could do all this in 3.5. As you yourself said, "... they should be saying, 'In 3e we didn't tell anyone to do this, you had to learn on your own.'" It's exactly as if someone defended checkers as a good role-playing game, because the rules didn't explicitly prevent imagining the pieces had different personalities. That's not exactly a winning premise.

 

[Celebrim]

The new approach, as I see it, facilitates communication between players, and shows a poor player or DM to be what he is.

Now, when you are playing with decent players, requiring them to describe how they use their skill means more cool description in play. Instead of saying, "I got a 25 on my Hide check", players will be required to explain how hiding is applicable to succeeding at the challenge.

You mean that they aren't already?

Isn't the situation, "A guard is coming, what do you do?"

With responces like:

"I duck into the shadows of an alley, hiding as the guard passes by. I got a 25 on my Hide check."

"I tell him that "He went that away!" and point down the dark alley. I got a 25 on my Bluff check."

"I climb up the nearby buidling. I got a 25 on my Climb check."

"I draw my sword and attack. I have a 25 on my initiative check."

"I try to squeeze through the sewer grate. I have a 25 on my escape artist check."

"I try to cast sleep on the gaurd. I have a 25 on my initiative check."

Or whatever.

Don't we already have to use skills when they are applicable to the situation?