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

[Kaffis]

I'm gonna go with level of awesomeness. It's also dramatic weight. When a level 30 wants to get something done, the story says "yes." When the level 1 nobody wants to get something done, the story says "hrm. Can you?"

 

[Dausuul]

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.

To me, the critical question is, "Is this something one could reasonably expect to come up in play, reasonably often, among people not specifically trying to find fault with the system?"

If the answer is yes, then it needs a rule. If the answer is no, it can be safely left up to the DM to house-rule on the fly. So far, all examples I've seen in this thread fall into the latter category.

 

[SSquirrel]

The Wizard uses his better than average intellect to know the angles of leverage and how best to approach that gate to get it lifted.

 

[baberg]

Just for the record, there are Strength DC checks in the DMG, page 65, for opening portcullises.

Wooden (level 15): DC 23
Iron (level 26): DC 28
Adamantine (level 30+): 33

As for the rest of the arguments? I don't care. If a level 30 wizard in my campaign wants to lift a wooden portcullis, I'd let him. Then I'd let the Fighter rip the next portcullis from its hinges and toss it at whatever Minions were closeby.

It's kinda like Non from Superman II. He struggles with all his might to make the eye laser work to ignite a small 2x4, while everybody else can melt cars with their laser beams.

 

[Zustiur]

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.

I'm on the side of the OP here.
I WANT to like 4E, but there are some issues that just feel wrong. This is one of them.
There are a number of things that irk me, but I intend to overlook them until I've got at least a few games in. There are some changes that I really love, but they don't shine out as much as the changes that made me love 3E. 3E had positive AC as a key example. 4E just doesn't jump out at me like that.

As for the moral ground you're trying to stand on, I'd suggest you take a look at your own words there. People are raising valid concerns, and seeking assistance in understanding the new mechanics, and your response is less than endearing. Unlike the way you just described the situation, I am NOT trying to find fault in the system. The fault just leaps out and hits me in the face every time I open the books.

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

 

[phloog]

(SNIP)

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

Again, I'm naive and not a current owner of 4e...this applies to pick locks as well?

Here's where I guess I'm getting confused. A fighter/mage/non-thief becomes better and better at Opening Locks...but others are saying that you've got this 'moving target' system where DC get progressively higher.

So is it expected that this is not silly because when the DCs go up at a certain rate, the party won't find a lock that the fighter can somehow mystically pick because he's adventured a lot? That only the thief will 'keep pace' with the locks they encounter?

But if this is true, and the silliness is in part negated by the rapidly escalating DCs, why bother having a mechanic that gives these non-thieves free rising ranks in Open Locks?

Again, it's probably just not something I'm understanding - wouldn't be the 1100th time.

 

[IanArgent]

Again, I'm naive and not a current owner of 4e...this applies to pick locks as well?

Here's where I guess I'm getting confused. A fighter/mage/non-thief becomes better and better at Opening Locks...but others are saying that you've got this 'moving target' system where DC get progressively higher.

So is it expected that this is not silly because when the DCs go up at a certain rate, the party won't find a lock that the fighter can somehow mystically pick because he's adventured a lot? That only the thief will 'keep pace' with the locks they encounter?

But if this is true, and the silliness is in part negated by the rapidly escalating DCs, why bother having a mechanic that gives these non-thieves free rising ranks in Open Locks?

Again, it's probably just not something I'm understanding - wouldn't be the 1100th time.

Here's the secret sauce recipe. You can have a perfectly effective party in 4e that consists of: a warlord, a fighter, a warlock, and a wizard... Look, ma, no cleric, no rogue. Right now there is only one class that is "indispensable", and that's only because we were given one controller (the wizard).

The character with training in Thievery will ALWAYS be better than the character without (except in the corner case where the untrained character has a Dex 10 points or more higher than the trained character). However, I draw your attention to p42 of the DMG - Difficulty Class and Damage By Level; which can be summarized as "an easy skill check is 15+1/2 level, a moderate check is +5, and a difficult check is +10" for a level appropriate challenge (the DM is encouraged to vary from +2 to -2 as necessary for the needs of the plot). So if you have a rogue trained in Thievery, he handles the locks - a hyperfocused thief has a +14 skill check (20 dex, training, and skill focus) and can Take 10 on the level-appropriate hard locks. Even if he can't Take 10 for whatever reason, he still needs a 6+ on his skill check to open the lock.

But if the characters are facing a level-appropriate challenge without a trained character, the untrained character will succeed a little less than half the time against an easy check, but can still attempt a difficult check with a roughly 10% chance of success (assuming a stat bonus of +2 - a not unreasonable assumption, someone in the party's gotta have a dex of 14 or better; if you brought a ranger as your striker he's likely to have a dex of 18 or even 20).

That's a Good Thing right there - the trained thief makes it look easy, but the party doesn't fail without recourse if the trained thief isn't available (dead, fled, or couldn't hire a babysitter that night).

I alluded to it earlier, but I'll come out and say it now - there is no required class. Even given that we only have one controller, there's a couple of classes that minor in battlefield control (warlock and cleric can both give it a go, and even fighter has a little bit of control in his knapsack). 3 Ed required someone with 1 level of rogue, and either a druid who prepped a LOT of Cure spells, or a cleric. There was NO other way to get trapfinding, and I'm reasonably sure you had to have 1 level of rogue to tackle locks with a DC higher than 20 as well. Splats gave you a couple of other classes to cover these two "required" bases - but it was still tied to classes. 4E ties healing to the role of Leader now, but spreads around quite a bit of self-healing - and anyone can pick up the thief skills with one feat (or none if they pick the right class).

 

[hong]

Here's the secret sauce recipe. You can have a perfectly effective party in 4e that consists of: a warlord, a fighter, a warlock, and a wizard... Look, ma, no cleric, no rogue. Right now there is only one class that is "indispensable", and that's only because we were given one controller (the wizard).

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.

 

[IanArgent]

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.

I wasn't claiming there was an indispensible role - far from it. But you don't need any one class. And you could probably get away with a party that consisted of a fighter, a paladin, a warlock, and a rogue if you were careful - two defenders and two strikers. A wizard would be a better choice than the rogue, admittedly.

 

[Vaeron]

Edit: never mind