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

[Zustiur]

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.

Touche! I retract my complaint. The issue is still there, but I've just had my eyes opened to the fact it always was. Thank you.

 

[katahn]

You should look up the facts of that case. It's not as trivial as you and the rest of the internet make it out to be. I'm not trying to start an argument with you, I used to think the same thing. I just dislike misinformation.

Anyway, many of you have mentioned that ability checks should be ruled out when there's a "impossible" task, and then that will get rid of this problem. Well, that kind of thing is easy to adjudicate in the 8000lbs scenario you are offering because there are direct rules in the book when it comes to strength and what a person can lift. It's easy to tell a PC no when you can flat out point to a black and white answer. But what about things tied to other ability scores? Then it becomes a judgment call. I have no problem with making judgment calls as a DM, but if a player happens to disagree with you, that can upset them and ruin some of their fun.

It appears that the people in this thread are firmly set in their camps anyway. I'm not sure that anyone is going to sway anyone else. To some people the fact that PCs can get better at EVERYTHING no matter what they spend their time doing is irksome. Others are perfectly fine with that. I'm not sure there is a quick fix for the first group other than DM fiat, and then, as I said, that can run into disagreements with players.

The entire point is to apply the "common sense test" to see whether or not a particular rule should be used or if the DM should handle the situation differently. Determining the appropriate times to do that is part of the "job responsibilities" of a DM. Remember, what makes a rule a bad rule in a video game (ie. "corner cases") does not apply in tabletop gaming because it is expected a DM is there to handle said case intelligently.

Also, adventurers don't get better at everything as they level. Skills have applications that can only be used by those who are trained in said skill. A modern example would be a character without medical training would get their half-level bonus applying first aid, but not for open-heart surgery or diagnosing a rare disease as those would be, by the "common sense" rule, something only someone actively trained in medicine could attempt.

 

[tomBitonti]

I think some people (like yourself) have a problem with one of the key conceits of Fourth Edition, and that's this:

"Adventurers gain experience at all adventuring skills by virture of adventuring."

(Text omitted.)

My two cents.

Which I don't buy. I'm OK with PC's getting a little better at everything, but not a lot better at everything.

Also, there seem to be more categories of checks than are built into the rules: Skill checks (where trainng matters most) and ability checks (where ability matters most). Lifting a portcullis seems to be an ability check, while attacking with a sword seems to be a skill check.

Also, there seem to be a category of skills (using the 3.5E model) where being untrained pretty much means you can't do it, that is now gone.

 

[Nebulous]

The pace at which characters "level up" (in game world terms) may break the system's "realism," but that's a fault of fast levelling, and the supremely unrealistic concept of constantly adventuring, rather than the conceits of the system.

My two cents.

I agree with what you said in that whole post. Wanted to focus here, and maybe it needs another thread: I prefer SLOWER leveling in my own games, to mirror what life might be like, not a videogame. And really, 4e is like playing a videogame, i've accepted that, cool, i love Icewind Dale and the like.

Anyway, are there any rules in the DMG for slowing down advancement, or is this left to DM fiat?

 

[Nebulous]

Which I don't buy. I'm OK with PC's getting a little better at everything, but not a lot better at everything.

Also, there seem to be more categories of checks than are built into the rules: Skill checks (where trainng matters most) and ability checks (where ability matters most). Lifting a portcullis seems to be an ability check, while attacking with a sword seems to be a skill check.

Also, there seem to be a category of skills (using the 3.5E model) where being untrained pretty much means you can't do it, that is now gone.

I would arguably add the required skill training back; if you aren't TRAINED to pick a lock (maybe over a certain DC anyway) you can't do it, not matter what level you are.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

I would arguably add the required skill training back; if you aren't TRAINED to pick a lock (maybe over a certain DC anyway) you can't do it, not matter what level you are.

One of the basic design philosophies is that you won't need specific classes. Part of that goal is realized by everyone having some level of ability in every skill. If you negate that, you are moving back towards a required class in a party.

 

[neoweasel]

One of the basic design philosophies is that you won't need specific classes. Part of that goal is realized by everyone having some level of ability in every skill. If you negate that, you are moving back towards a required class in a party.

On the other hand (and I tend to think that requiring training in a skill for most purposes is a bad one) ANYONE can be trained in ANY skill for the cost of a feat. Now that feats aren't precious and rare, I don't think that's much of a cost (although getting the dex to use it really well might be).

 

[IanArgent]

Also, adventurers don't get better at everything as they level. Skills have applications that can only be used by those who are trained in said skill. A modern example would be a character without medical training would get their half-level bonus applying first aid, but not for open-heart surgery or diagnosing a rare disease as those would be, by the "common sense" rule, something only someone actively trained in medicine could attempt.

He wouldn't be able to make a check at all - there are two examples in the PHB of uses for skills that untrained people can't attempt (reducing fallign damage via acrobatics, and detecting magic). The rest of tke skills have, by and large, been selected such that a non-trained person could attempt them.