D&D 4E 4E's "Proud Nails"

[Grazzt]

Skill Math. They finally went and made a clear, predictable progression for most numbers in the game ("increase by 1 per level")... only to leave skills behind? At least since the skill DC update that came with the Essentials books, the system more or less works, but I'd much rather have it be consistent with how attacks and defenses work in the game.

Didn't everything advance at 1/2 level (+1 per 2 levels); attacks, AC, saves, skills, etc? Difference being the +5 for being trained in a skill.

 

[pemerton]

Well, the concept is one of heroic pacing in the narrative--the characters push on despite their injuries and fatigue. That's well enough. But the mechanics of getting one milestone per two (meaningful) encounters (even if you vary it), and this basicaly unlocking action points (and before, a few item activations)--besides being ticky tacky and weak, doesn't give you much mechanical levers to move, no decisions to make, etc.

<snip>

Milestones are supposed to increase participation, but yet we have the original skill challenge rules needing to require participation by fiat to work right.

I don't have anything to add to your comments on milestones - other than to say thanks, that did clarify your first point for me - so will say something about participation in skill challenges instead!

I think the advice on running skill challenges is not very good. (It's not a proud nail. It's just not very good. Maybe it's part of what makes the skill challenge system as a whole a proud nail.) It's advice on participation is particularly poor. The game has always forced full participation in combat (or near enough to it), because everyone gets attacked. Full participation in a skill challenge can (in my view) only work on a similar principle - every player has to have a reason to have his/her PC participate. That reason can be metagame (if I don't fight in the combat, I won't get XP; if I don't take part in the skill challenge, I won't get milestone rewards) or ingame (if I don't fight in the combat, I'll die; if I don't try and talk politely to these people, they'll think I'm an idiot). But it has to be there.

Among other things, good advice would talk about how to frame scenes so that every player has a stake, and hence a reason to get his/her PC involved. (This also solves the "only the face guy does the talking" problem in a very organic way.)

 

[Leatherhead]

Didn't everything advance at 1/2 level (+1 per 2 levels); attacks, AC, saves, skills, etc? Difference being the +5 for being trained in a skill.

You forgot ability score boosts.

 

[Psikus]

Didn't everything advance at 1/2 level (+1 per 2 levels); attacks, AC, saves, skills, etc? Difference being the +5 for being trained in a skill.

The level/2 bonus is only one component of the total bonuses. For the most part, character (and monster) numbers tend to grow at a rate of roughly 1/level. Here is a summary of the increase in some stats from level 1 to level 30:[sblock]

Stats that increase at ~1/level

• Monster attack, defenses: +29
• Attack: +15 (level/2) + 6 (enhancement) + 4 (ability score increase) +3 (expertise) = +28
• AC (Heavy armor): +15 (level/2) + 6 (enhancement) + 6 (masterwork) +1 (specialization feat) = + 28
• AC (Light armor): +15 (level/2) + 6 (enhancement) + 4 (ability score increase) + 2 (masterwork) +1 (specialization feat)= +28
• For/Ref/Will (Good ability): +15 (level/2) + 6 (enhancement) + 4 (ability score increase) +3 (improved defenses) = +28

Stats with irregular increases (should be fixed!)

1. For/Ref/Will (Bad ability): +15 (level/2) + 6 (enhancement) + 1 (ability score increase)+3 (improved defenses) = +25
2. Initiative (Good Dex + Improved Initiative) : +15 (level/2) + 4 (ability score increase) +4 Improved initiative = +23
3. Initiative (Bad Dex) : +15 (level/2) + 1 (ability score increase) = +16
4. Skill (Good ability): +15 (level/2) + 4 (ability score increase) = +19
5. Skill (Bad ability): +15 (level/2) + 1 (ability score increase) = +16

Increase in skill DCs (after last update)
Skill DC (easy): +16
Skill DC (moderate): +20
Skill DC (hard): +23[/sblock]

 

[avin]

- Milestones: never used.

- Skill challenges for social encounters: too clunky for using, IMO, examples in book interrupting roleplay (hey, you are granted a +2 bonus in diplomacy for that) killed them for me. I've only used it on physical challenges.

- CAGI: die die die! Marking is fine. Using non magical abilities to force opponents was bad... (aware of the nerf).

- Progressive challenges: if I could point one thing that made me nuts on 4E is this. Everything should pose a challenge to parties, wherever they are. City guards level increasing to make a decent challenge. A common lock "DC" increasing just for the sake of the challenge. ARGH! I've never DMed it that way. I've just ignored that kind of suggestion and module adventures and make things make sense...

 

[Mircoles]

Essentials classes.
The symmetry between the classic classes was a good game design. If you didn't like a new build, there would usually at least be a few powers that you could use.
It also made hybridization between the classes possible, which had the feel of classic AD&D multiclassing that I liked.

Fighting insubstantial creatures. UGH!

 

[Hussar]

For me, it would be bards. I just could never wrap my head around what the bard was actually doing in game. None of the other classes has really bugged me, but that one did.

 

[Mercule]

You forgot ability score boosts.

Those were an actual bug, not just a proud nail, IMO.

Healing Surges - I liked not having to have a cleric (etc.), but they just didn't quite work, for me.

Save for Duration - I actually really like the concept of truly unpredictable durations and not having to track how many rounds have passed. I don't like the one-size-fits-all approach, though. More save modifiers might have been a good thing.

Attacks with alt Abilities - Makes sense that wizards use int for their spells and rogues can use dexterity for light weapons. Somewhere along the way, though, it went too far.

Everyone has Powers - I gave it a chance, but I really did feel the pain of sameness.

Definite Effects - I'm not going to argue in favor of broad hand waving, but 4e (and even late 3.5) tightened down the creative variance on what you could do. And, while I liked having a finite list of conditions, they didn't always make sense in the mind's eye.

Rituals - Possibly the biggest fumble of 4e. So much potential. So poor in execution. Too expensive. Anyone can cast. Felt like they were put in an appendix, like 1e psionics. Keep the idea for 5E, but rework from scratch.

NPCs are Different - This is probably the biggest reason I wanted to move to 4e. I was totally burned out from high-level, PC-race dominant, home brew 3.5. I like quick NPCs. I have no problems with "different path to similar feel". Ultimately, it was a string of stock NPCs that had powers the PCs could never get, and felt very overpowered in play, that killed our run at 4e.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I am a proud 4e supporter but man there are some 'proud nails' that irritate me. If I were to narrow it down to one, it would be:

The 'hard line' between encounters and exploration, and the encounter (as opposed to the story narrative) being the defining unit of combat.

Over time this became more and more jarring and artificial. Espionage/Infiltration style adventuring became impossible. Even the clasic, archetypal D&D dungeon exploration became tiresome due to the way everything was structured so rigidly around encounters.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Well the things that did not bug me every session (which the main one was combat time) but just every so often was the skill challenge descriptions in modules. The SC system is a great idea but they way they are written in (the early) modules made no sense and we could never get our heads around them. Which made me sad every time I came across one