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

[ripster0]

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).

The DM should not increase the DC for the same gate, they should put in a stronger gate for higher levels. At heroic tier, the gate the band of kobolds have built on their little fort is not going to be the same as the gate the fomorian king has had built for his castle that the epic tier characters will be trying to bypass.

This does have a sense of running to stand still, but most players don't mind. For those who want to have more of a sandbox feeling, you can put in challenges they can't beat yet to set the stage for later, such as a DC 30 gate, but when they get higher they decide to come back and see what is behind it. Or do the opposite, allow them to come back to a lower tier area and walk through the challenges showing off their gained might.

 

[glass]

Imagine this.

At first level a really strong dragonborn fighter with strength of 18 has difficulty lifting a portcullis (DC20).

Does the book list a DC for lifting a portcullis? Because if it does, then that is the silliness, not adding half-level to ability check. IMG, if you can lift it, then you can lift it. If not, not. No check required.


glass.

 

[ripster0]

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).

This is if you look at the rules as a reality simulator. They are guidelines for a DM to provide challenges. It is repeatedly written that the DM can deem some actions as impossible for characters. In this case, it would be reasonable to say an 8 strength cannot lift the portcullis because it is too heavy, even at higher levels. It says in the carrying section that a strength check would be required in the case of being in a stressful situation. Otherwise a fighter should be able to lift it without a check. This seems to be the reason for the absence of the Take 20 rule, checks should only be needed if there is a chance of failure, or time is crucial (such as in a fight).

 

[phloog]

This is if you look at the rules as a reality simulator. They are guidelines for a DM to provide challenges. It is repeatedly written that the DM can deem some actions as impossible for characters. In this case, it would be reasonable to say an 8 strength cannot lift the portcullis because it is too heavy, even at higher levels. (SNIP)).

This makes absolute sense to me - the whole 'must have strength X or higher' part of it. It falls into the category of good things to do, it just seems like more complexity for a new DM/player, and relies on the DM knowing that they can do this (and that it's a good idea to do).

 

[Dausuul]

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.

I can't speak to Pwent or Pikel since I haven't read those books. As for Raistlin, in most respects Raistlin seems perfectly viable in 4E. The opening doors/lifting portcullises thing is the only place where I see a problem; and that's not something that would normally come up in actual play. If high-level Raistlin wanted a door bashed down, he'd either blast it apart with a spell or tell Caramon to do it.

I think a major part of the 4E design philosophy is, "Build the rules for the situations that are likely to crop up in play, and don't sweat the corner cases--that's what DMs are for."

If the situation ever did somehow come up that Raistlin wanted to bash down a door himself, without using magic, my solution as DM would be the same one that I intend to use any time a PC wants to do something like use Leaf on the Wind to swap places with a gelatinous cube:

"Before you roll, please explain how exactly your character is going to make this work."

The player might respond with something like, "Well, I'm going to use my intelligence and knowledge to notice a weak spot where one of the hinges can be broken. Then I'll jam the Staff of Magius into that weak spot and use it as a lever to snap the hinge." And that would be fine.

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.

If I were statting out Raistlin with 4E point buy, he would probably look something like this (first-level stats; level-based increases would probably go to Int and Cha):

Str 8
Con 10
Dex 14
Int 17
Wis 13
Cha 13

This is not far off his stats in the original 1E version. I don't remember exactly what they were, but I do recall being startled to notice that he had 10s in both Strength and Constitution, and only a 17 in Intelligence. (Also, his Charisma is 10 in the modules, but in the later Dragonlance sourcebook it shoots up to 15.)

 

[JPL]

I have no problem accepting the idea that a battle-tested hero has all sorts of inner reserves and intangible qualities and general mojo that let him pull off incredible feats when the pressure is on.

I also like the idea that anyone who is roleplaying a "sickly wizard" is probably not going to try to deadlift a portcullis in the first place . . . but if he does it and succeeds, a good roleplayer will find a justification consistent with his character, whether that means a lever or that the puny wizard hasn't realized that after years of the adventurer's life and dozens of battles, he's actually toughened up quite a bit. Channeling all that arcane energy takes enormous will and concentration, and someone with those abilities can occasionally overcome the limitations of the body, even though his back will be sore as hell the next morning.

And I like the idea that a brawny fighter at paragon level is going to outsmart NPC sages --- he wins chess by analogizing to real combat, he deciphers script because he saw something similar in a dungeon, etc.

In fact, I like this sort of feat. Heroism is not just being good at your job --- it's finding a way to overcome whatever obstacles come your way. It's not just building upon your strengths, it's also confronting and overcoming your weaknesses.

Reminds me of that episode of ST:TNG where everyone got thrust into an unfamiliar situation --- Picard was stuck with kids, Troi was in command, Geordi and Crusher were cut off from their departments, and Worf had to deliver the baby.

 

[MarkChevallier]

For those who want to have more of a sandbox feeling, you can put in challenges they can't beat yet to set the stage for later, such as a DC 30 gate, but when they get higher they decide to come back and see what is behind it. Or do the opposite, allow them to come back to a lower tier area and walk through the challenges showing off their gained might.

You see, this kind of idea is certainly how I would like to run things. At the very least it gives a sensation of an increase in power, in ability, which is one of the main motivators behind D&D.

 

[silentounce]

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

Weren't all those characters created for the Modules that Weis and Hickman were writing? Yeah, their home group played through the mods and that inspired the novels, but I'm pretty sure that they created the characters as a DM would, usually without rolling. I'm sure someone with the annotated chronicles can enlighten us if they have them. This is from wiki, so take it with a grain of salt:
"Raistlin Majere was created by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman as one of several characters to be involved in an epic Advanced Dungeons & Dragons campaign which they had written and designed. This was the beginning of the Dragonlance saga. Raistlin was given to one of the players, Terry Phillips, to play."

Also, now that I think about it, when they were creating the module I believe 4d6 drop the lowest was Method I. So, you could end up with his stats, I believe his Str and Con were 10. But that doesn't change the fact that 4e puts a significant burden on ability scores as the key determinate of mechanical success.

Back to the topic at hand.

Ok, everybody is harping on the wizard at the portcullis example. But that's not the issue itself, that's an example. What about other ability based checks? The issue is a character with a low ability being a hell of a lot better at a higher level than a lower one.

Let's take the examples from the 3.5 DMG: "stay[ing] awake through the night, writing down every word someone says without making a mistake, or opening the stuck lid of a container without spilling a single drop of its contents." Now, I'm sure you can come up with work arounds using the inherent magical/divine power of some characters giving them more endurance despite a low Con. Also, they've had a lot of experience staying active for long hours. But how about that second example there? Let's compare a 1st level fighter with 8 Int to a 30th level fighter with a 10 Int. What in the world made him three times as likely to succeed? Or even better, what makes that same fighter at 12th level, with a 9 Int just as good at that task as the 1st level wizard with a 20 Int.

And even if you come up with some kind of decent fluff explanation, that still doesn't solve the problem. Don't attack the specific example, because if you go at it that way, you'll have to fight EVERY specific example.

 

[Thasmodious]

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

Weariness. Definitely. It makes me weary the enormous effort some are putting forward to squash their own common sense and imagination in order to try and find fault with something.

And houserules do not prove fault with the system. Every gaming group in the world create houserules. You find a system you like, that lets you play a game in the genre/subgenre you like, and then you modify what you need to fit your style. No game can encompass every playstyle and every GM or groups "priority of realism" without modification. Different DMs and groups have problems with different things. Some don't like easily damaging objects with swords. Some think there should be some system for dealing with damage to clothing as a result of combat. Some can't stand that accelerating from standstill is not factored into movement. Others think food and water rationing is a strong component of the game. No ruleset can cover everything.

The design philosophy for 4e is simple and straightforward and something the designers made clear from the get go. They understand that they can't cover everything. They also understand that gamers are smart (seems some here are trying to make them regret that assumption). They also understand that every group houserules things as they feel the need to, no matter how "complete" the system is. So, with those things in mind, they set about designing a solid system for "baseline" D&D gameplay. The rules cover in game conflicts - combat and non combat encounters. A considerable amount of fluff and design material is in the DMG to help people along, along with the caveat that things can be tweaked as needed, and sections throughout the DMG deal with how to tweak, how to design workable houserules, how to improvise any situation not covered explicitly by the rules, etc.

The designers learned from 3e that trying to answer every crazy corner case someone comes up with on the internet is like fighting a hydra. For every head you chop off, two more appear, and things quickly spiral out of control if you don't focus on the body.

When someone throws some silly corner case at the system, like the OP, the response "fix it if it bothers you" is entirely appropriate because that is the design intent. Gamers are smart enough to fix things that bother them. The OP asked for rationalization for the mechanic and got it in spades (experience matters). The skill set for 4e is focused solely on skills the PCs use in conflict resolution, whether combat or not. Those are not the only skills that the PCs can have or do have. The others just aren't relevant as mechanical expressions. The skill set that exists are skills that all characters will use over the course of their careers, and see others use very well. An adventurer, even a wizard, is going to pick up some athletic and acrobatic skill out of necessity and experience from scaling cliffs, plumbing dungeon depths and the like. A dumb fighter is going to learn at least a bit about the world, monsters, history, religion, as he spends years traveling the world and beyond with learned wizards and pious clerics. The mechanic aptly represents this, even if you create some corner cases that won't ever come up in actual gameplay that make it seem a bit of a stretch.

So, yeah, I am weary responding to people who think some corner case and an answer of, "so, houserule it to your liking" somehow proves that 4e is a broken system. In every one of these discussions when someone says "you can't expect the rules to cover everything (or everything perfectly", the response by the OP is "of course not, but it SHOULD cover this." Why? Because it fits that persons "priority of realism". It's an arbitrary distinction and people seem unwilling to understand that what is important to them isn't to others. "Of course the game should include hardness/appraise/complex magic item identification/between level training, its necessary!" The threads here along these lines comprise dozens of "but its necessary!" subsystems the posters think are just a travesty that 4e doesn't include and none of them seem willing to just accept a design philosophy that allows for the variance of the game group and their priorities and the intelligence of the average gamer.

 

[ripster0]

And even if you come up with some kind of decent fluff explanation, that still doesn't solve the problem. Don't attack the specific example, because if you go at it that way, you'll have to fight EVERY specific example.

Again, the rules are written to help DMs design adventures and place challenges in the adventure, and for players to overcome them. This is not a World Simulator. Also, again, the DMG suggests that the DM decide when things are a challenge or not, when things are possible or not.

Asking people not to attack a specific is unfair to a discussion, because it leaves no relation between the reply and the statement. In general, as characters level, they become more than the common person. These are stories of heroes, not ordinary people. While they start out close to common people in ability, they start to distinguish themselves by the deeds they do, and what they can accomplish. The characters are the exceptions to the rules.

So, I don't see a problem with a heroic adventurer who has seen and done things that a book worm has only read briefly about, being able to accomplish tasks they would not have been able to when they started out, within reason, and that will always be based on a case to case basis.