add 1/2 level to ability checks? What? Why?

[Thasmodious]

The half level mechanic makes a lot of sense in a lot of situations. The examples presented here do not make so much sense.

That's why they are called corner cases. And when you sit around hurling corner cases at something long enough, you are going to find a thing or two that sticks. That's doesn't mean the system is broken, it means they didn't waste time worrying about silly corner cases that don't actually cause problems in the games or minds of reasonable people.

I find it incredulous that whilst running around for a few levels (without a rogue or other thief in the party) a fighter would become better at picking locks. Forget the superhero comparisons of level 30, I'm talking low levels. If I wander through 20-30 encounters bashing down doors, without ever witnessing a lock being picked, why would I be better at picking the locks afterwards?

But you don't find it incredulous that he becomes better at shooting bows, even if he only fights with a greatsword? Cause he has in every edition of D&D. Or you don't find it incredulous that a rogue that didn't pick a single lock at 3rd level, gets better at picking them when he reaches 4th? Those are core design conceits that have been true of D&D since the beginning. If you have a problem with such things, then D&D is not the best system for you, many other systems employ a direct experience based skill system (Runequest pops in mind).

Thing is, it isn't even a stretch to rationalize this. Adventurers are in the career of adventuring, that's what they do. Experience counts, training and study and practice counts. Fighters don't train solely to fight, rogues don't train solely to rogue. The wizard does pullups so the next time he has to climb a rope, it doesn't exhaust him. The fighter listens to the rogue explain the basics of lockpicking. The cleric preaches to the party about religion, such that all of them know more than they want about the subject. Thief in the party or not, the party has encountered locks, in all likelihood, over their encounters. And if they haven't, well, its simply a matter of D&D not being a game system that worries about direct experience based skill increases. Accept that or find another system. No harm in that. It got to me years ago and I ran Runequest for 5 years or so, but seeing such systems actually play out, I missed D&D and came back.

 

[silentounce]

Please stop with the "if you don't like it then play another system" comments you keep posting in every thread. They're as inane and useless as saying "if you don't like the government move to Canada."

And applying half level to ALL ability checks is not a corner case, it's an entire class of checks. Just because you can rationalize an explanation for most of them doesn't make it a good or consistent system. You happen to like it, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that everybody should like it or that they'll think about it the way you do. Anyway, all of those examples you gave are related to SKILL checks, not abilities. Except for maybe the wizard doing pullups, but you still applied it to climbing, a skill check in D&D. Let me give you a taste of your own medicine. You don't like this thread, why don't you find another one?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Please stop with the "if you don't like it then play another system" comments you keep posting in every thread. They're as inane and useless as saying "if you don't like the government move to Canada."

I generally agree, though maybe the analogy should be more:
"If you don't like the government in the USA, stay in Canada". Because that's what you can with 4E. Ignore it. But if you like to discuss it, discuss it. Anyone here probably wants to discuss it, after all

And applying half level to ALL ability checks is not a corner case, it's an entire class of checks.

But the situation where they are problems are corner cases.
Why does a Wizard get BAB at all in 3E if he never makes an attack roll? (It's not like a lot of spells require them!) Does this corner case make the whole idea bad?

Just because you can rationalize an explanation for most of them doesn't make it a good or consistent system.

From a system point of view, it is the essence of consistence. The rule basically applies to every check or roll you make.
And if I can rationalize the most, it is doing a very fine job.
And if it works and creates satisfying results in-game, it is also a good system.

You happen to like it, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that everybody should like it or that they'll think about it the way you do. Anyway, all of those examples you gave are related to SKILL checks, not abilities. Except for maybe the wizard doing pullups, but you still applied it to climbing, a skill check in D&D.

Climbing is based on Strength. Pull-Ups require Strength (*). So why shouldn't it apply to Climb? Wouldn't that be inconsistent? (Especially since in 3E, both would probably fall under Athletics.)

*) pull-ups might also fall under endurance. About risks and side effects, please consult your local fitness trainer.

 

[Thasmodious]

Please stop with the "if you don't like it then play another system" comments you keep posting in every thread. They're as inane and useless as saying "if you don't like the government move to Canada."

Le sigh, that's not what I'm saying and I think you're smart enough to understand that.

D&D has never been a direct experience based system, where you only gain in the things you do directly in the course of the game. Not in any edition. Its part of the core of the game that experience is generalized. I was saying if that is something that snaps your suspension of a game system, then D&D is not the game for you, and that there are plenty of others that are built on direct experience. Its a perfectly valid statement and not some version of "love it or leave it."

It would be like you starting a thread saying that 4e is stooopid because there are no laser beams and space ships in it. Then crying foul when others suggest that a scifi game would be more to your liking and daring to suggest one. "I want to play D&D MY way, and if MY way isn't in the game, then its stooopid!"

And applying half level to ALL ability checks is not a corner case, it's an entire class of checks.

And it is easily rationalized that it makes sense for adventurers, by adventuring to get better at such things. The corner cases come in with statements like, what about a fighter who has only ever bashed down doors and never even seen a rogue being better at lockpicking?

Just because you can rationalize an explanation for most of them doesn't make it a good or consistent system.

When the system itself makes sense, and the corollary is that adventurers don't get better at adventuring, then yeah, I'd say its a good and consistent system. It makes sense that adventurers get better at the things they need to do while adventuring. 1/2 lvl is a simple and elegant way to represent that.

Anyway, all of those examples you gave are related to SKILL checks, not abilities.

Abilities and skills, and everything else are inexorably tied. A character doesn't gain ranks in a skill without feats, he improves in those because of his general experience. It doesn't actually change the party dynamic, fighters still handle the heavy lifting and rogues still pick the locks and wizards still know stuff.

What it does, mechanically, is account for experience and allow for DCs to be internally consistent and remain a challenge.

 

[Dausuul]

Apropos of nothing, I don't think you really need a controller. The role you REALLY won't be able to do without is a leader, either cleric or warlord. You still gotta have a party medic, WotC's claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Well, you don't gotta have a party medic, but it's really really helpful.

I'd say it's about on the level of 3.X. You could get on okay in 3.X without a divine caster--just have the rogue UMD a wand of cure light wounds--but life was a lot easier if you had somebody who could clear up nasty effects like ability damage and energy drain, without having to keep running back to town to buy scrolls.

Likewise, you don't have to have a leader in 4E, but combat becomes a lot more forgiving if you do. When a couple of lucky crits put your defender on the ground, it's handy to have somebody who can get him back in the fight.

 

[Mallus]

And applying half level to ALL ability checks is not a corner case, it's an entire class of checks.

Sure. It's also simple and elegant.

Just because you can rationalize an explanation for most of them doesn't make it a good or consistent system.

Conversely, just because you choose to spend your energy problematizing things instead of buying into any one of several perfectly sensible rationalizations doesn't make it a bad or inconsistent system.

But that doesn't mean that everybody should like it or that they'll think about it the way you do.

What people might consider is some of the reasoning behind this change, such as: the game benefits from all PC's having baseline competencies in adventure-y skills

This helps in terms of both genre emulation --protagonists are usually good at anything the plot needs them to be--, player participation --non-specialists are sidelined less often (but specialists are sill clearly better)--, and providing multiple solutions to obstacles --as the more generally competent the group is, the wider the array of viable strategies.

And frankly, a stuck door or heavy-yet-mundane portcullis shouldn't be a challenge for a 30th level wizard. A system that models this with the minimum of fuss gets my vote of approval.

 

[katahn]

I waded through 5 or so pages of this before I got fed up and had to reply.

Regardless of feats, skills, abilities, or levels, a character cannot do something that is impossible for them to do.

In other words, if opening a portcullus requires deadlifting 8,000lbs, then NO player character with a strength that isn't well into the super-human range is going to succeed.

In other words, not even John McClaine is going to throw a Cadellac through a store window. Not even Chuck Norris is going to deadlift and then drop-kick a APC.

This is up there in silliness with someone asking how many hit points a mountain has and how long it would take him to kill it with his +200 dagger of awesomeness.

This is up there in silliness with any sort of rules that say a person could survive a fall from orbit (Spelljammer, I'm looking at you here, prior editions of D&D in general too!)

There's just some occasions where common sense has to be a reality check against rules applied in ridiculous circumstances. This is what makes D&D and other PnP games inherently superior to online games: the presence of a DM who can thwap the player at the table who seriously suggests that their halfling wizard with an 8 strength at level 1, 10 strength at level 30, is going to deadlift an 8,000lb object without using any powers or spells purely based on their +15 modifier due to level.

 

[mlund]

Please stop with the "if you don't like it then play another system" comments you keep posting in every thread. They're as inane and useless as saying "if you don't like the government move to Canada."

At first I was going to just accept this and move on, but I stopped and reflected just a little, and realized that the parallel being drawn by this argument was absurd.

Having citizenship in a nation is not comparable to choosing your role-playing game system. Deciding what books to buy with your entertainment budget on an open market has nowhere near the life-impact, overhead, and obstructions involved with changing your citizenship.

The consent of the governed is important for government derives legitimacy. A game system is someone else's Private Property and can be produced without my consent or even my purchasing dollars. Petitioning the government for the redress of grievances isn't comparable to complaining about how a private product isn't to your taste.

Buying or playing another system actually is a correct response if you want to force the issue. Competition drives progress. If use-based skill development is that important to you then you vote with your dollars / feet and reward other companies and products for using it.

I didn't like how business was done in Massachusetts so I moved to Arizona. Even that isn't fairly comparable to trying to move to Canada and re-establish citizenship to enjoy full rights and privileges. Just switching game systems by buying a different product is right out.

Voting with your dollars and your feet is very important - far more important that venting with your spleen on the Internet.

- Marty Lund

 

[Mallus]

...who can thwap the player at the table who seriously suggests that their halfling wizard with an 8 strength at level 1, 10 strength at level 30, is going to deadlift an 8,000lb object without using any powers or spells purely based on their +15 modifier due to level.

Why do you assume that the halfling wizard's +15 level-based modifier doesn't reflect some form of magic power?

 

[katahn]

Why do you assume that the halfling wizard's +15 level-based modifier doesn't reflect some form of magic power?

I don't assume it isn't. In fact, I have no issues with the core mechanic for 4e at all. I am simply saying that if a rules implementation would result in a character doing something that is impossible even for heroic fantasy protagonists, they still can't do it.

Specifically I said if opening a portcullus requires deadlifting 8,000lbs then unless the character has a power or ability (or sufficiently superhuman strength) to do so then they are not going to open it. If the halfling wizard uses a spell to do it then they can do it, but by the same count unless the dragonborn paladin has some spell/power/ability that lets them ignore their deadlifting limit based on strength they aren't opening it either.

However if we're talking about a prison door that would be very challenging for a level 1 thief to open (DC25 with thievery skill to open it) then I have no problem with the level 30 wizard rolling 1d20+15+(whatever ability mod) to do so and being virtually assured a success. The reason is that no obstacle designed to be very challenging for a level 1 character should be anything other than a laughable joke for a character who routinely is capable of telling death to "come back later".