D&D 4E A simulationist DM has a few reluctant questions about 4E

[Roman]

Now that 4E is out and some people have the books, I wonder if somebody could find the time to answer a couple of questions for me. I am a simulationist DM and have been mostly unimpressed by the previews of 4E, so it is rather unlikely I will actually convert to 4E. Nevertheless, I would appreciate if some things that appeared to be major 4E flaws in the previews, from my point of view, actually manifest themselves in the books themselves, or if the more detailed information in the books mitigates these faults.

1) Is there a way to remain bad at a skill with advancing levels? I know that all skills (and ability bonuses, etc.) advance automatically at 1/2 point per level, so on the surface of it, I would have to assume that the answer is negative, but perhaps there is a flaw system, or some other system to enable characters to remain bad at given skill(s).

2) Is it true that most of the problematic but interesting spells and effects are gone (a select few being converted to rituals) or modified beyond recognition as seemed to be the case from the previews? (e.g. Baleful Polymorph)

3) Are the per-encounter powers explicit per-encounter powers, or implicit per-encounter powers?

4) Since hit points are now even more abstract than before, is there a system for more persistent injuries (that only heal slowly or with the aid of magic)?

5) Have most of the non-combat abilities of monsters, creatures and NPCs really been removed as previews seemed to indicate they would be?

Thank you for answering these questions for me. I suspect the answers will not be to my liking, but I want to make sure that the books actually fit the impressions I got from the previews.

 

[Mort_Q]

1. Wouldn't it just be easier, as the DM, to just assign DCs for tasks in a way that only a trained PC could possibly succeed? Add a special situational penalty for untrained PCs if you need to. Not that house ruling a flaw system is bad, it's just needless work.
2. Seems so, not that new ones won't crop up.
3. The rules are explicit, if you choose to follow the rules.
4. No wound or injury rules.
5. Non-combat abilities are up to the DM, if that's what you mean.

 

[Roman]

1. Wouldn't it just be easier, as the DM, to just assign DCs for tasks in a way that only a trained PC could possibly succeed? Add a special situational penalty for untrained PCs if you need to. Not that house ruling a flaw system is bad, it's just needless work.
2. Seems so, not that new ones won't crop up.
3. The rules are explicit, if you choose to follow the rules.
4. No wound or injury rules.
5. Non-combat abilities are up to the DM, if that's what you mean.

Ok, thank you Mort_Q! I appreciate the fact that you took the time to answer my questions.

 

[mrtomsmith]

1. Not in the RAW, but it shouldn't be too hard to house-rule.

2. Yes, 'problematic' spells are generally either rituals or gone. There are a few powers that could count as 'problematic' - clerics have some pseudo-summoning powers, wizards have some wacky utility spells, but you're generally right.

3. I believe they're explicit to everyone, but I don't have a page reference to that. There are various threads already that discuss ways to explain that in-world.

4. Not really, but sorta. In addition to disease rules, the DMG talks about using Healing Surges as a way to mark long-term damage or exhaustion. If you're wandering around the wilderness and the players fail a roll, mark off a HS and if they run out of them they collapse.

5. Monster non-combat abilities aren't mentioned, they're left up to the DM.

 

[Roman]

1. Not in the RAW, but it shouldn't be too hard to house-rule.

2. Yes, 'problematic' spells are generally either rituals or gone. There are a few powers that could count as 'problematic' - clerics have some pseudo-summoning powers, wizards have some wacky utility spells, but you're generally right.

3. I believe they're explicit to everyone, but I don't have a page reference to that. There are various threads already that discuss ways to explain that in-world.

4. Not really, but sorta. In addition to disease rules, the DMG talks about using Healing Surges as a way to mark long-term damage or exhaustion. If you're wandering around the wilderness and the players fail a roll, mark off a HS and if they run out of them they collapse.

5. Monster non-combat abilities aren't mentioned, they're left up to the DM.

Thanks for expounding on the answers to my questions. I appreciate it.

 

[SableWyvern]

1) Is there a way to remain bad at a skill with advancing levels? I know that all skills (and ability bonuses, etc.) advance automatically at 1/2 point per level, so on the surface of it, I would have to assume that the answer is negative, but perhaps there is a flaw system, or some other system to enable characters to remain bad at given skill(s).

Nope.

3) Are the per-encounter powers explicit per-encounter powers, or implicit per-encounter powers?

Well ... they're kind of treated like explicit per-encounter powers, but they aren't really. In actual fact, they're "Need 5 minutes to rest and recuperate before you can use them again" powers. So, if you're fighting an extended series of encounters with little or no opportunity to rest between them (constantly on the run, for example), then they cease being per-encounter. On the other hand, if you could somehow manage to take 5 minutes and sit in the corner relaxing in the middle of a melee, you could use your encounter powers again in the same fight.

4) Since hit points are now even more abstract than before, is there a system for more persistent injuries (that only heal slowly or with the aid of magic)?

Not that I've spotted.

5) Have most of the non-combat abilities of monsters, creatures and NPCs really been removed as previews seemed to indicate they would be?

Pretty much, yeah.

 

[Obryn]

1) Is there a way to remain bad at a skill with advancing levels? I know that all skills (and ability bonuses, etc.) advance automatically at 1/2 point per level, so on the surface of it, I would have to assume that the answer is negative, but perhaps there is a flaw system, or some other system to enable characters to remain bad at given skill(s).

Not really, no. It's basically the same system for Star Wars Saga Edition.

2) Is it true that most of the problematic but interesting spells and effects are gone (a select few being converted to rituals) or modified beyond recognition as seemed to be the case from the previews? (e.g. Baleful Polymorph)

By and large, yes - for now. One man's "problematic and interesting" is another man's (mine, in this case) "pain in the ass to look up mid-game."

3) Are the per-encounter powers explicit per-encounter powers, or implicit per-encounter powers?

Well, it's basically once per 5 minutes. So, explicit if you wanted to call it that. The flavor's up to the DM, though.

4) Since hit points are now even more abstract than before, is there a system for more persistent injuries (that only heal slowly or with the aid of magic)?

Even more abstract than before? They've been completely abstract since 1e. People have only pretended that they've been concrete in any way. There are powers that can do damage on a miss, but then again - 3e fireballs still do half on a save, too.

Diseases are quite persistent, though, and look to be very deadly in the long term. Sadly, poison sucks.

5) Have most of the non-combat abilities of monsters, creatures and NPCs really been removed as previews seemed to indicate they would be?

They're not in the MM as such. Out-of-combat stuff is left up to DM judgment. On the positive side of the coin, I don't need to spend half an hour prepping a demon in order to look up his dozens of obscure spell-like abilities.

Thank you for answering these questions for me. I suspect the answers will not be to my liking, but I want to make sure that the books actually fit the impressions I got from the previews.

If you want simulationism, 4e is absolutely not going to delight you. Unless, that is, you are looking for a simulation of an action movie or fantasy novel. (There aren't any good fantasy books I can name where buff-scry-teleport was the protagonists' main strategy. ) 3e tries to be internally consistent by treating the game rules as akin to physical laws and using exactly the same rules for monsters and characters. 4e tosses that.

-O

 

[Surgoshan]

1) Adventurer skills advance at 1/2 per level, but DCs advance as well. So if you have a strength of 12 and are untrained and are wearing plate armor (weird paladin build), then you'll have a -1 to your Athletics check, and will have to roll 16 or better to get an easy DC at first level. At 30th level, still untrained and with a strength now of 14, he'll have -2 armor check, +2 from strength, +15 from level, and need a 15 to pass an easy skill check at 30th level.

By contrast, your trained character in inappropriate armor will need an 11 on the first check and a 10 on the second. A trained and focused character will need an 8 and a 7. A trained and focused character in appropriate armor will need a 6 and a 5. A trained and focused character in appropriate armor and using a skill with a maxed stat will need a 3 or a 2.

That is to say, there will always be a difference between people who know what they're doing and people who don't.


2) No more save or die spells, if that's what you mean. No more broken spells (hopefully) either. This isn't a simulationist issue, though.

3) What do you mean by explicit vs implicit? It's explicitly stated that you need a short rest to recover an encounter power (a few minutes of rest to get your breath back, let the adrenaline wash away). Thus you can use an encounter power once per combat, regardless of combat length, or once every few minutes outside of combat.

4) There are diseases, which are persistent and can get better or worse. There's no system for persistent injuries, but I can't really recall one in earlier editions, except that HP took time to recover. If you want such, you'll have to house rule it like normal. The disease system seems to offer a nice framework for that.

cured<>initial effect<>moderate effect<>serious effect<>final state

You make an endurance check, failure moves you to the right, success to the left. A competent healer can help you with this. Some diseases have permanent effects that persist, regardless of state, until you're cured. Such is a handy model for serious injury as well.

cured<>leg broken, speed -2<>leg infected, speed -3<>leg gangrenous, speed -5<>crippled, cannot move

5) Yep. You'll have to make stuff up.

 

[MarkB]

4) Since hit points are now even more abstract than before, is there a system for more persistent injuries (that only heal slowly or with the aid of magic)?

I don't have the books yet, but as I understand it, certain environmental effects can sap your available number of healing surges over time, and you can only recover them by resting outside of the hostile environment. Taking a leaf from this, reducing a character's number of healing surges per day would be a good way to simulate a persistent injury.

 

[SableWyvern]

What do you mean by explicit vs implicit?

Explicit would be: "You may use this power once per encounter."

Implicit, OTOH: "We've placed a limit on the use of this power which means that, functionally, you get to use it once per encounter."