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

[Roxolan]

Here's an example of a skill use in combat :
- Bluff vs Insight
- Standard action
- Once per encounter
- Gain combat advantage against the target until the end of your next turn.
Sounds balanced to me, even a bit weak if you haven't a very good use of combat advantage (of course, I haven't tested).

Here's one that's actually against a defence :
- Intimidate vs Will (+10 if hostile, +5 if unfriendly, DC may be modified by DM)
- Standard action
- Once per encounter (more or less)
- May target more than one enemy at once
- Basically, forces a bloodied enemies to run away
Powerful if it works, but the +10 if hostile makes it pretty hard. Besides, if it's a powerful and confident enemy, the DM may increase the DC or make it impossible, so against a competent DM it cannot be used to one-shot a bloodied dragon.
Too bad the rules as written do not seem to make it usable against minions (1 hp = never bloodied), though you could reasonably rule that minions are considered bloodied for the use of this skill.

 

[keterys]

Don't you make athletics and acrobatics checks vs a defense to escape from being grabbed?

Probably means that being grabbed is really, really easy to get out of.

 

[Crosswind]

On Intimidate vs. Monsters:

You don't think this is excellent? You can make it versus a huge group. Even if you give the opposition +10 for being hostile, just over 2 monsters in 5 will run away, if you're good at intimidating. Ridding the map of 43% of bloodied monsters, every combat, is pretty damn nice.

On "Grabbing" people:
Well, let's be serious. You're never going to grapple anybody who doesn't want to be grappled unless you're a monster. Because all they have to do is make an athletics or escape artist, which they've got a 70 or 80% chance of making (depending on skill focus). Certainly not for more than one round.

Surprised that hasn't gotten more discussion.

Now, guys, don't get me wrong - I'm a huge 4E fan. Grappling is incredibly retarded...I'm happy it's gone. However, I can't help but feel there's something I'm missing in regards to skill vs. defense just not being balanced.

Any other examples of Skill vs. Defense out there?

-Cross

 

[Roxolan]

Don't you make athletics and acrobatics checks vs a defense to escape from being grabbed?

Probably means that being grabbed is really, really easy to get out of.

Though I haven't read the rules in full details, that indeed seems true (Acrobatic vs Reflex or Athletic vs Fortitude - very easy to understand and remember, by the way). Worse, it's a move action, so I suppose you could free yourself and immediately counter-attack. I can only hope that the grabby monsters will have all sorts of bonus to grab defence.
However, if you aren't trained in Acrobatic or in Athletic... you are in trouble.

 

[Roxolan]

Any other examples of Skill vs. Defence out there?

You know, I'm looking, but I can't find any other example. The closest I could find to a skill usable in combat is Accrobatic, with a DC set by the DM (base DC 15, no precise rules given).
It seems the solution to your debate is that it just never happens. Intimidate seems to be the only skill that interacts with a defence, and in combat that defence will get a +10.

 

[LostSoul]

I have a feeling good pre-written modules will have things like:

Swing From the Chandelier
If a PC jumps to reach the chandelier, he can swing on it, moving 4 squares.
Target: One creature
Attack: Athletics vs. Fort
Hit: Str mod damage, and target is pushed 1 square or knocked prone, your choice.
Miss: You fall prone.

 

[Roxolan]

LostSoul : Maybe, but the rules do not say anywhere (in the skill description, that is, but they usually mention everything relevant) that it should be used against anything but a flat DC. Are there any examples in KotS ?

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Well, to be fair, Hong was directly replying to your post where you said

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.

So perhaps his reply wasn't as strange as you might have thought?

 

[Crosswind]

Ok! Well, "This never happens!" is certainly a fair way to address my concern!

=)

-Cross

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

So, the strong-willed (high Will defense) have no defense against Intimidate unless they are intimidating (high Intimidate skill)? Doesn't seem right to me.