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

[silentounce]

Not to me. I feel your pain, Nadaka. Really powerful characters should still be really bad at doing certain things. That's what made characters like Raistlin so appealing. It also makes the game more fun if everyone has certain roles and characters have to step up to perform certain actions for the party.

No Raistlins in this point buy system. And unfortunately, the system is balanced against characters with less than heroic ability scores even more so than 3e. It used to be that having high attributes was something that gave you a bonus. Now it's integral to your success as an adventurer. It's too bad that a 3d6 character would suffer horribly in this incarnation of D&D. Granted, I'm pretty sure they just decided on his stats and didn't roll them, but you never know.

 

[small pumpkin man]

No Raistlins in this point buy system. And unfortunately, the system is balanced against characters with less than heroic ability scores even more so than 3e. It used to be that having high attributes was something that gave you a bonus. Now it's integral to your success as an adventurer. It's too bad that a 3d6 character would suffer horribly in this incarnation of D&D. Granted, I'm pretty sure they just decided on his stats and didn't roll them, but you never know.

Since he was originally a character in an actual (1e?) game, it's likely his stats were rolled, yes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Are you sure about the latter? Maybe the heroic fantasy will happen very soon, and your boot-door trick will come in handy then.

Just saying, be ready.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

However, I still don't understand one thing - why did the designers bother with a skill system at ALL? What's the difference between making an untrained insight check and making a wisdom check plus half your level? What difference does a +5 trained bonus from the Paragon tier onward? Why should there be one?

In short: Because the math "works". If you "fight" equal level challenges, the +5 of being trained increases your success chance by 25 %.

That was not guaranteed in 3E, thanks to the tons of skill modifiers you could get (spells, magical items, synergy bonus, invocations). A Tumble check had a fixed DC. At high levels, a Rogue would never fail any Tumble check given in the PHB (assuming he put max ranks in the skill. In fact, he could probably stop that around level 10?). It looks a bit different if you consider Traps - those DCs scale typically, since you encounter higher CR traps. But skills typically advance faster than trap DCs, especially if you use bonus items (say, Thief Tools +5 (+5 to Open Lock) 5,000 gp as unslotted magical item)

There are still static DCs in 4E. They can serve as a reminder to "how awesome am I compared to normal people". But most of the time, the question is "how awesome am I compared to my enemies and the dangers of heroes of my level". And in there, the +5 of being trained, or the +3 of being focussed, will always matter.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I'm pretty sure that the chance of lifting the gate won't actually increase at all, thanks to another 4E device (one I have a bit of a problem with myself, actually).

The DC for the skill check is partly controlled by your level, the level of the character attempting the feat. In theory (although doubtfully in practice), a level 1 mage could attempt to lift the gate with a DC of 20, and his identical twin (who has been adventuring a little longer than he has) could attempt to lift the same gate with a DC of 35.

The DMG gives guidance to increase the DC of skill and ability checks based on the level of the character attempting the task. This is presumably to retain suspense and a dramatic risk of failure, but I feel it is a bad way to do that: better to come up with in-game challenges that *by their nature* will be more difficult at higher levels (hopefully most reasonable GMs will do this anyway).

Some of 4E does give this "running-to-stand-still" impression that I don't like.

 

[alanpossible]

I would have said that the much smarter wizard determines the optimum place to grip the portcullis, the best grip to use, the angle to pull at, and so on. Maybe he's able to find some kind of makeshift crowbar. Certainly he might realise he can push the bottom of the portcullis up with his foot, while yanking it up with his hands.

Secondly, I would claim that with adventuring involving a great deal of marching, running, jogging, dodging blows and perhaps parrying (if you want to allow your imagination to stretch that far) he's physically more fit, strong, healthy and so on.

Besides. All characters get bonuses to "all stats" as they increase in level, so his strength does go up.

 

[phloog]

I am a bit concerned about some of the responses here.

There are first off all, a HUGE number of valid, well-thought-out arguments in support of 4e's changes. But the rest seem to be:

1) Flippant responses - I think the first two responses to this post were 'Yes', with a third upset that he got beat to the punch. Maybe this is weariness, or defensiveness...not sure.

2) Dismissal via house ruling: "If you don't like it, don't use it in your game" - - to me this is absolutely NOT an argument in support of the 4E design changes - - it's a sign that the rule IS problematic, and that the solution is to ignore it. This is fine with me, but if the stated goal is for new players to play D&D, are we expecting that these new player groups will know enough to ignore the bad rules? It sure seems like a LOT of responses from fans of 4E involve ignoring the section of the rules being discussed - this to me doesn't build confidence in the system.

3) Dismissal completely: "If you don't like it, go play something else" - I'm assuming people who use this type of line also believe that people who don't like what the government does should leave the country rather than express that view or attempt to make changes.

I have been trying to convince myself that I SHOULD buy 4E...had the books in my hand on Saturday, but just couldn't do it yet. I look to the
forum for information, and I make comments about things I don't think I like, but I'm hoping someone will eventually give strong arguments that remove all my concerns. These three types of response just push me back to other systems (and that's probably what the #3 crowd wants).

To get back on topic - I think that it is completely feasible that a wizard could get better at opening doors at higher level, but:

A) He would have to spend time doing just that - there's only so much you can get from just watching others do things...if I could get better at things by watching, I'd be the strongest man alive, an incredible guitarist and singer, and John Holmes.

B) the DEGREE to which the 4E rules seem to ramp up these checks seems way out of line.

I'm left with a feeling I've had a hard time expressing properly, right now the best way I can put it is that 4E has absolutely brought balance, but through homogeneity - everyone does everything about the same (just with different 'flavor' perhaps).

I've run D&D games where a character knew the date of his death - and therefore COULD NOT DIE until that date. It was one of the best campaigns I've ever run. I'm beginning to believe that we do story a disservice in our quest for 100% balance....I get that it makes a better tabletop game, though.

 

[docwatson]

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).

A character with flaws - real flaws - is *MUCH* more challenging to play than the homogeneous chars that seem to be created in 4e; it's the same thing that frankly makes WoW suck so badly, no one is truly unique except in name. The 'trees' lead to discussion of 'min/max' and what's the best points for xxxx build.

How would Pwent or Pikel Bouldershoulder come about in 4e? Pwent, while heroic in an odd sense, is an example of the toughness feat in action while having the common sense of a frenzied badger and Pikel is an example of a character with a wisdom of about 22 and the intelligence of a dire gerbil. Pikel, in particular, is gimped and gifted in some extraordinary ways.

Raistlin would never have been who he was without being weak and sickly because that drove his own quest for the power of the Gods. I don't see a 4e Raistlin, Pwent, or Pikel anywhere and I don't think they put much thought into how it could come about.

 

[Eldorian]

A level 30 wizard wills the damn thing up without a second's thought. The dragonborn tears it down with one hand. These guys are minor deities at that level.

 

[phloog]

A level 30 wizard wills the damn thing up without a second's thought. The dragonborn tears it down with one hand. These guys are minor deities at that level.

I liked this post - - if you're 30th level, and you need to make a STR check to get through a portcullis, something is horribly wrong. I think the argument is around those levels that come earlier, but you're definitely right about that.

But I guess while it would be ridiculous for the wizard to dirty his hands with the manual method, the problem is that it seems like he could do it just as well as the heavy warrior (assuming the 'old' portcullis, and not the magical 4E portcullis, made of steel that somehow becomes stronger the higher level the party).