Ability Checks - Should they be errata'd?

[babinro]

The rules for an ability check are found on pg26 of the PHB. It basically states that a situation such as breaking down a door would apply your Strength Modifier + 1/2 level + any other applicable modifier.

My friends enjoy putting the most extreme scenario's in order to illustrate themselves...but it works. So based on this logic, they indicate that Stephen Hawking (high level character based on his experiences in life) would easily defeat a typical well built adult male in arm wrestling simply because he would add his half level bonus to the check.

Is the door stuck? Who needs a level 1 Minotaur when that level 20 dext based halfling has a far greater ability score check.

Can anyone help justify why they get a half level bonus to ability scores? In my mind, 1/2 level bonuses should be removed from all ability score checks. If this was done, would it unbalance or destroy any game mechanics?

The following is a bit of an aside where I get these questions from that people may enjoy:
I play with two D&D groups, my 4e group that I DM, and a 3.5 group who has not played 4th edition and hates the sound of everything <IE; Monsters utilize different rules from PC's, Saving throws are static and don't change based on level, you have to roll for Fort/Ref/Will, no BAB means a wizard can progress in the same manor as a fighter, multiclassing takes feats, classes feel to restricted with choices of A or B rather than anything you want, etc> . As such, I tend to try and defend some of the points they don't like about 4E. The above issue was brought up and I had no defense for it.

 

[Mistwell]

This game is not meant to simulate real life. It's a game about extraordinary heroes in a cinematic type adventure. If you are looking for simulation, you will probably enjoy some other games out there more.

No, it should not and will not be errata'ed for the reasons you name.

The "defense" to the group that doesn't like 4e before they have tried it is to tell them that overwhelmingly people have said that actually playing the game for a little while over comes many objections to the game. That it turns out to be a more fun game than the simulationist questions people come up with it. So tell them to just try it for a couple of sessions before coming to a conclusion about the game. And make sure to tell them to leave the snarky comments at home and to just play and try to have fun. Usually, people change their minds once they actually play it and see how fun it can be.

 

[Dalzig]

If Stephen Hawking is considered a High-Level character [21-30?], then he better be damn well able to break down that door. A crippled person doesn't get to Epic levels without learning how to move around environments. He could probably use telekinesis to bust open the door. Or maybe he summons a black hole for a micro-nanosecond to obliterate the door.

The justification is that Epic characters are AWESOME! Yes, they are "Caps Lock is Cruise Control for Awesome" Awesome. For an Epic character to be stopped by a door that a level 1 minotaur could open is a travesty.

Then again, this discussion negates the fact that since Stephen Hawking developed ALS, he would have died within weeks of his first showing of symptoms if he were in a D&D world.

As for ramifications of getting rid of 1/2 level bonuses to ability checks... Well, for one thing, DCs in Paragon/Epic would become ridiculously hard compared to the heroic tier.

Second, you would have level 30 wizards getting stuck in a room with a wooden door. There are no rules for getting through a door besides breaking it down, blowing it up, or bypassing it. The wizard would be unable to break down the simple door because that relies on Str. He could blow it up, but that would be highly inefficient depending on how many doors you come across. He could bypass it, but that also requires spells or rituals, which are even more time consuming than destroying the door.

In short, get rid of 1/2 level bonus if you want Epic wizards to be unable to open a stuck jar of pickles. Funny? Maybe. Heroic or Epic? No.

 

[Stalker0]

If Stephen Hawking is considered a High-Level character [21-30?], then he better be damn well able to break down that door. A crippled person doesn't get to Epic levels without learning how to move around environments. He could probably use telekinesis to bust open the door. Or maybe he summons a black hole for a micro-nanosecond to obliterate the door.

I think this explains it well.

I like to use the example of an 8 strength wizard swimming. The wizard doesn't swim well naturally, but he knows the exact body movements to conserve his strength, he mutters a quick magic incantation to boost his swimming knowledge, and oh he's epic....the god of oceans owes him a favor, etc.

In fact, skills and ability checks to me are the hidden power of 4e. Its not as flashy and overt as 9th level spells in 3rd, but the reality of 4e is that an epic level character is just plain awesome in nigh everything he does.


The only thing I don't particularly like about ability checks is my ability to "take 20" on most of them. For example, my current 6th level fighter can destroy any normal ADAMANTINE door if I try enough. I don't mind a character being able to take 10, but taking 20 can lead to even low level characters defeating obstacles that are supposed to be tougher.

 

[Mengu]

The other thing to remember with 4e, is that all challenges are based on your level. So the door that the epic halfling is facing, will probably be an epic door, and will not bust so easily despite the halfling's seemingly high strength check. Otherwise, it's a trivial door any one of the PC's can open. As already mentioned, the system is not simulationist. It simply resolves conflicts involving the heroes, as designed by the DM to challenge the PC's.

 

[babinro]

Good points...I do agree that you could potentially severely hurt the fun of the game by having epic level characters stopped by seemingly simple obstacles like a jammed door. The party of 3.5 players will eventually be trying the game sometime next year when the current campaign is done...and I hope, like myself and my 4E players they can see the game for what it is, fun.

I also agree that granting the ability to take 20 can hurt the game's high level barrier intentions at times. It makes adamantine door almost 'typical' where it should be extrodinary. I suppose you could just continually make stronger materials which may not technically exist in the D&D world but have crazy break DC's for Epic characters that want to take 20. Personally, I think characters should be limited to passive checks of 10 as a minimum, with a d20 roll to try and be 'outstanding' or 'lucky' in better performing said task.

 

[keterys]

The only thing I don't particularly like about ability checks is my ability to "take 20" on most of them. For example, my current 6th level fighter can destroy any normal ADAMANTINE door if I try enough. I don't mind a character being able to take 10, but taking 20 can lead to even low level characters defeating obstacles that are supposed to be tougher.

Actually, this is something I like about an RPG I was reading the other day - I think it was Burning Wheel - where you "roll with it". You roll once for any task, and then you can't roll again for that particular task. So if you fail to open the door with brute strength, you need to find some other way.

Also, I think you were setup for partial failures more. So maybe you do manage to burst through the door, but wrench out your shoulder doing it. Etc.

 

[HarbingerX]

The only thing I don't particularly like about ability checks is my ability to "take 20" on most of them. For example, my current 6th level fighter can destroy any normal ADAMANTINE door if I try enough. I don't mind a character being able to take 10, but taking 20 can lead to even low level characters defeating obstacles that are supposed to be tougher.

4e cut out 'take 20' except for the situation when characters are searching a room in non-combat situations. Are you finding that you still need to allow 'take 20' for handling things like opening doors? I would play this saying that if their passive take 10 value is not good enough, they get a single roll to try to bash the door in. If they don't make it, they can't take 20 but must find some other way in. Of course, I wouldn't put such an obstacle in their way except on purpose and allow a way to bypass it.

 

[DracoSuave]

Here's why the Minotaur and the Halfling aren't analogous.

Minotaur finds the stuck door, and starts bashing himself against it. He's never encountered a door like this, so brute force is his option.

The halfing, while not as strong, has experience with these kinds of doors, he's been dealing with them for years. He yawns, takes out a tiny bit of oil, slips it in the hinges and the cracks of the doorframe, grabs the handle, turns it, and the door slips open because while he's learned a few tricks in his days that make things easier.

Experience makes a -huge- difference.

'Oh yeah, Cowman, there's a -trick- to these sorts of doors. The dwarves who made them wanted them to be sturdy and avoid war, but, if you hold the handle just right... not all the way, but just a little way, it'll slip right open... see!'
'You're full of crap, little man.'
'Maybe, but I got this door open for you. How's your shoulder?'

 

[Runestar]

Personally, I find that the 1/2 lv bonus does not seem to make any difference at all.

If we assume that every PC is going to want to keep their core skills maxed out at every turn (similar to the skill point system in 3e), then it makes no difference whether the game auto-assigns those ranks for you or if you have to manually assign them yourselves.

And if the skill DCs are to be high enough to sufficiently challenge a PC who has put effort into optimizing said skill, this means that the PC who has relied on the boost every 1/2 lv alone still cannot consistently succeed at said check. What matters is not the PC's absolute skill check, but his skill check relative to the rest of the party, because the latter is what will determine the final DC in the end.

For example, an elven cleric with maxed out wis, skill focus, +2 racial skill bonus and a misc magic item granting a skill bonus is going to have a perception score +20 higher than a typical fighter PC at epic lvs, with or without the 1/2 class lv bonus. So in the end, the cleric is still going to be the one to make all the necessary perception checks.

So the lv30 wizard can easily open a door with a DC of 30 (since his check is +25). But the bigger question is - what DM would, in his right mind, throw such a door in the face of the party? It cannot challenge the wizard, because the party fighter will have a str check of +34 (including his str of 28). To challenge the party, you will want the final DC to be somwhere around +45 - +50 (to account for aid another). So the wizard still has no chance of opening the door in the first place.

As such, the point about a high lv wizard being able to open a door that would stymie a lower lv fighter is moot, because he would never ever encounter such a door to begin with!

In the end, I find that the only purpose said rule seems to achieve is to save you the hassle of having to manually distribute your skill points (sort of 4e's way of idiot-proofing the game). Dnd is a system that clearly rewards overwhelming specialization in a single role, rather than trying to be a jack of many trades, so the new skill system "auto-maxes" out your skill ranks for you, so that you do not make the error of trying to spread yourself out too thinly by putting a few ranks here and there in a variety of skills, and making yourself too weak to be of any use to the party as a result.