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

[Thasmodious]

OK, so how does it make sense for someone to gain on ability checks like this as they level? Why is a weak mage more able to lift massive objects as he grows in level, while at the same time the amount of weight he can carry does not change? How does this make sense?

Its a mechanic in a game that represents general experience. Try to corner case it all you want, its still just a mechanic in a game that represents general experience. Experience has value, often a lot.

How does it not? The 1/2 level is not a bonus, its part of the modifier. In other words, in many ways, he is stronger. Its not STR directly, in the sense of muscle mass and rippling abs, but in knowledge and experience. Imagine lifting weights as an example. Take two guys with exactly equal str, one who has never lifted before and the other a trainer with extensive experience. Who is going to max out higher? The experienced guy, of course (excusing raw talent). They are both strong, but the experienced lifter knows how to grip the weight, understands perfect arm and body positioning and all sorts of other things that allow him to come closer to truly maximizing his physical ability.

Or take two geniuses. One has never left the classroom or lab, the other has a wealth of world experience. Who's likely to be better at applying theory to the real world?

In a similar way, our wizard hasn't increased his muscle mass much (some though, at lvls 11 and 21 at least), but he has been through dozens and dozens of intense, physical situations, battles, combats, dangerous exploration, scaling cliffs, swimming depths, etc. That experience counts for a lot and is represented by the 1/2 lvl mechanic.

Applying such simulationist concerns to a game is not necessary, but in this case, it is both a sound mechanic and makes sense when you insist on tacking "real world" nonsense onto it.

 

[The Little Raven]

But he probably wouldn't bash it down with his shoulder.

Why not? He's spent 29 levels with Thog the Destroyer, and he probably learned a little something about how to properly apply force to open a door in that time.

Hell, I'm a computer programmer, but I've learned how to boot open a door properly from friends in the military and police department... and I'm not even a protagonist in a heroic fantasy game.

 

[Nadaka]

If you want to know how 4e Modern is going to be like, watch Die Hard.

"How can he DO that?" "He's f-ing John McClain."

The PCs are the protagonists; they get the benefit of their level to practically everything, because their level is a representation of how powerful they are, period. This is why they have all those Hit Points. This is why they respond Faster (1/2 level to Init).

Even looking at John Mclaine, at the end of the last movie, was he as good at hacking computers as Theo from Die Hard 1? WHat happened to all the XP he got from getting shot, blown up and saying bad one liners? He doesn't add half his level to his int checks or his computer use skill because it just isn't in his character.

 

[Nadaka]

Look at Stargate. In the first season, Daniel Jackson is a bookish nerd who'd have trouble outrunning a goldfish on dry land. By season 10, he's still not the exemplar of muscle that Teal'c is, but he's no slouch either. That's basically because he gets half his level on ability checks now.

That or he realized that being a smart hero sucks when you are getting shot at regularly and decided to add a few levels of fast hero, strong hero or soldier to boost his combat survival.

 

[GeorgeFields]

I'm with the OP on this one. Everyone's rational behind the rule falls short for myself, but to each his own.

This is another reason I'm liking class/level systems less and less.

 

[Anax]

That or he realized that being a smart hero sucks when you are getting shot at regularly and decided to add a few levels of fast hero, strong hero or soldier to boost his combat survival.

And yet, if we were to take a mix-up of 4E's and d20M's class-systems as a base, he is still a smart hero. Anybody in that situation, sure, is going to want to be tougher, faster, etc. The 4E model is that they just do, rather than requiring everybody in the party take a couple of levels of tough to boost their survival rate.

Going back to the D&D scenario: It's true that this rather breaks the verisimilitude of the situation--but that's the DM's fault for deciding that it's purely a strength check, honestly. Make it a skill challenge instead, and let the players decide which skill (or ability, or power) they are going to apply. Now the wizard's player has no need to break character by using a strength check.

If for some reason I was forced into having an ability check used like this as a DM (and I'm not sure that would happen), I would fluff up the strength check to make it clear that it was not raw strength on the wizard's part. If I was forced to do it as a player, I would try to convince the DM to let me use something else instead, and if he would not, I would fluff it up.

From earlier in the thread:

That is a skill, not an ability.

There's no real difference. Consider an ability check to be an untrained skill check on a skill that's not in the book. Nobody trains or specializes in "opening portcullises skill". But that doesn't mean that there's no skill involved. Likewise for arm-wrestling. Sure, this breaks down eventually (weight lifting?) if you push at it. So don't DO that.

Like I said to start: Don't use a single ability-based challenge when a more general challenge will suffice. Let the wizard choose to use something else to open the door, or let the party choose to have the fighter open the door. If you don't constrain your characters in weird ways (the weak wizard, and only the weak wizard, must make a strength check to get through this door), the players will choose to do something that makes sense.


And a final alternative way to look at this: At 30th level, the door that was a challenge to level 1 PCs should no longer be a challenge. If it is, then it has a different DC than it used to have, and the wizard should not be able to easily lift it with a strength check anyway.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Here's a novel idea: If you don't like the idea of your 29th level Wizard bashing doors down with his shoulder .... don't have him do it!

Just because the mechanics say you're good at something doesn't mean that you ever have to use it in play. If you want a wizard that's sort of good at physical stuff, have him bash in doors every once in a while, and it won't seem so wierd. If that's just beneath him, he never does it. He finds another way. Whatever. Who cares? If you don't want him to bash in doors, he won't. Problem solved.

 

[Nadaka]

Here's a novel idea: If you don't like the idea of your 29th level Wizard bashing doors down with his shoulder .... don't have him do it!

Just because the mechanics say you're good at something doesn't mean that you ever have to use it in play. If you want a wizard that's sort of good at physical stuff, have him bash in doors every once in a while, and it won't seem so wierd. If that's just beneath him, he never does it. He finds another way. Whatever. Who cares? If you don't want him to bash in doors, he won't. Problem solved.

How is that a valid response? He is good at knocking down doors with his strength. Sure, he has plenty of other options. But having those options does not negate the fact that he is in fact really good at it. For no particular reason.

I have never suggested that a strength check is the only or even the best option for dealing with an issue like a stuck door or a portcullis, at that level any number of daily or encounter powers could deal enough damage to destroy the obstruction utterly. But none of that changes the fact that for no reason at all, this guy has gotten far better at lifting heavy objects (without getting any better at lifting light objects).

It seems the 4e answer to any question is just this: "Because." No further elaboration is given.

 

[Rechan]

Even looking at John Mclaine, at the end of the last movie, was he as good at hacking computers as Theo from Die Hard 1? WHat happened to all the XP he got from getting shot, blown up and saying bad one liners? He doesn't add half his level to his int checks or his computer use skill because it just isn't in his character.

Or he rolled a 1, or the DC was too high, or whatever the situation, as I haven't seen 4.

Of course Theo was a better programmer; he took it as a trained skill, and he probably had a few levels on him to apply it to his rolls.

 

[Thasmodious]

It seems the 4e answer to any question is just this: "Because." No further elaboration is given.

Considerable elaboration, including examples, has been given throughout this thread, you're just choosing to ignore it.