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

[Ginnel]

First double post as Joe Cool

 

[Storminator]

I'm pretty sure you can find a skill that maps pretty closely to whichever defense you are attacking.

Instead of making it Intimdate vs Will, make it Intimidate vs Intimidate (or Bluff, depending on how you defend). Instead of attacking Reflex, attack Acrobatics.

It might take another moment of thinking, but it might even be easier in some cases.

Should tighten up the math considerably (and where it doesn't, you want the attacker to win.

PS

 

[loseth]

I'm probably in the minority here, but if WotC has made a game where kicking over tables, doing Kirk-style dropkicks and swinging from chandeliers is often a better idea than making a straight-up attack...

...that's awesome!

 

[Ginnel]

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

In all honesty the kicking the table out of someones feet would be Str versus reflex, and I would reccomend this for any attack type thing, you could if you so wished give +1 for a relevent skill trained and +2 for a relevent skill with skill focus.

I would leave skills for out of combat stuff and use stat checks for in combat possibly with the aforementioned synergy esque modifiers

 

[DandD]

Which skill is the problematic one that can, and what effect are we talking about? Intimidate? Where, as I read it by hong's post, you simply get a +1 bonus to attack afterwards? And, according to Novem5er, hostile enemies get an additional +10 bonus to resist against intimidate attempts in battle?

What's the problem? I don't see anything unbalanced with it.

Please explain it to me.

 

[Obryn]

Which skill is the problematic one that can, and what effect are we talking about? Intimidate? Where, as I read it by hong's post, you simply get a +1 bonus to attack afterwards? And, according to Novem5er, hostile enemies get an additional +10 bonus to resist against intimidate attempts in battle?

What's the problem? I don't see anything unbalanced with it.

Please explain it to me.

Well, because the math is unbalanced.

Seriously, if this were a major issue, it would have come up in playtesting. I doubt that Mearls & co. are blind to the problems with Force powers in SWSE.

-O

 

[hong]

Which skill is the problematic one that can, and what effect are we talking about? Intimidate? Where, as I read it by hong's post, you simply get a +1 bonus to attack afterwards? And, according to Novem5er, hostile enemies get an additional +10 bonus to resist against intimidate attempts in battle?

What's the problem? I don't see anything unbalanced with it.

Please explain it to me.

I didn't mean to say that Intimidate vs Will gives +1 to one attack. I was saying, hypothetically, IF Intimidate vs Will had a sucky payoff, it wouldn't matter if you always succeeded.

 

[LostSoul]

What does it take - in actions - to make a "skill attack," and what happens when you are successful with that "skill attack"?

Is that better or worse than using a power?

If you can make a Str attack vs. Reflex to knock someone prone (or push someone 1 square), is that better than dealing damage + any rider effects? Maybe, in some circumstances - another PC is waiting to get combat advantage, or there's a pit full of lava - but not in all circumstances, I'd guess.

It doesn't sound unbalanced at first glance, but I'd have to see the actual rules around this (and they play it out) to be sure.

 

[Morrus]

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.

Bear in mind skills have plenty of situational modifiers which tend to be much larger than combat modifiers. Combat penalties etc. tend to be applied in units of 1 or 2; skill check penalties tend to be in units of 5 or 10. For example, Intimidate versus a hostile target gets a -10 penalty. You're only getting that straight skill - defence opposition against friendly villagers.

 

[LowSpine]

KOTS shows Intimidate vs Will but I would have said it was an opposed check against the target's Intimidate skill which would balance out.