D&D 4E Breaking the 4E Math - Major Design Flaw?

[hong]

Hong - Obviously. I am not claiming that it is, necessarily broken. However, 4E claims to fix the math. 4E makes it gloriously simple to make rules for opposed checks. It seems strange that something like this would be overlooked.

Why do you think it was overlooked?

 

[Szatany]

Don't forget that magical defenses (a cloak of protection, say) add to your defense numbers.

but a +5 defense item is available at what, 20th level? Meanwhile, a +5 bonus to skill is a common thing since the start.

 

[hong]

Heck, it's quite possible that they WANT people to mix it up with their skills in combat. Didn't someone say that there's a section in the DMG about precisely this?

As long as you don't get broken powers that let you do 10000 points of damage on a successful Use Rope check, it's all good.

 

[Rafe]

I agree with that to some extent. At lower levels, someone trained in Intimidate with a high Charisma could have a +9 vs a likely 12-15 Will defense - not tough to beat. By paragon (or mid-paragon) levels, it will have balanced out.

An idea would be for DMs to allow PCs to roll Will defense instead of having the passive number. Subtract the base 10 from it and simply roll using the class and attribute modifier.

 

[Crosswind]

Hong - I don't necessarily think it was overlooked. I haven't said that, anywhere. You'll notice that even my posting title has a question mark in it.

However, we know a -lot- about the system from blurbs, etc. Almost everything. This is a really fundamental part, and it seems strange to me that we haven't heard anything about it.

Ginnel - Comparing it to melee isn't accurate. Melee goes against AC, except with powers (which are supposed to be better). AC gets armor to balance out where melee gets bonuses.

Basically, you've got a +8 differential. That means a skill check works 80% of the time. If you get significant gains from making those checks, that's pretty amazing.

-Cross

 

[Crosswind]

Rafe - Wasn't "Hugely effective at low levels, ok at medium, not effective at high levels" something that the game was trying to get away from?

Checks should be balanced at all levels. That was the glory of 4E math.

-Cross

 

[Cadfan]

You are also forgetting racial bonuses and class based bonuses, and the availability of feats that improve defenses.

In any case, the math stays the same regardless of level. Maybe the game designers just decided that skills should be successful more often than not.

 

[Ingolf]

Why do you think it was overlooked?

Because otherwise he wouldn't have started the thread?

I agree that, at first glance, it looks like a potential issue. But we don't know the full details yet, and once we do I expect the "problem" will evaporate, because like Hong I do not think it was overlooked.

For one thing, there are more modifiers to attack rolls than just stat bonus and half level. Weapons give proficiency bonuses, Dwarves can take "Dwarven Weapon Training" (and I am sure we will see other, comparable feats as well) Wizards can use +2 wands, etc.

But suppose that a skill vs defense roll is still much more likely to succeed than an attack. It may well be the case that the game is designed such that you are expected to succeed in such a contest more often that not.

Take the 4 success/2 failure skill challenge as an example - if your chance of success is 50% on any given skill roll, you are going to almost certainly fail that skill challenge every time. In fact you will fail it a quarter of the time in the first two rolls. Of course, the possibility of failure has to be present or the challenge is meaningless, but I would expect that, more often than not, you'd want to design it in such a way that the PCs would anticipate success rather than failure.

 

[Crosswind]

If the claim is: "80% success rate with a skill check is slightly worse than a 55-60% success rate with an at-will power", then OK. However, I'm not confident that this will be true, given the wide variety of ways people can use skills.

-Cross

 

[Novem5er]

Don't forget that Defenses are +10 to start with, where as trained skills are basically +5.

Yes, at some point a trained skill is going to catch up and surpass a Defense, but a couple of things to consider:

1 - Not all skills "attack" defenses, but rather are contested against another skill. Stealth vs Perception, Bluff vs. Insight, etc.

2 - Skills that do attack a defense, I think are spelled out specifically in the Skills chapter of the PHB, and there are limitations. Regarding Intimidate vs Will, if I remember correctly, hostile targets get an automatic +10 to their Will defense. Also, Bluff vs. Will (I think) to get Combat Advantage for 1 round . . is only usable once per encounter.

So I think things are still balanced. Every other use of a skill versus a defense is not likely to do damage to an opponent and a wise DM will not let people use the same trick again and again. Simple rule: any skill trick can only be used once / encounter.