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

[Crosswind]

Bah, Plane Sailing, bah. I meant: "It would be strange if something like this were overlooked", implying that it probably wasn't, and I was just unaware!

-Cross

 

[Blackeagle]

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.?

Escaping from a grab is either athletics versus the grabber's fort defense or acrobatics versus reflex.

 

[AFCErik]

I agree with Ingolf and loseth. I think WotC wants swashbuckling maneuvers like kicking tables and swinging from chandeliers to be successful more often then not. Think about. It's freaking cool to kick the table and knock two goblins on their little green bottoms.

As a DM I certainly want my players to do more than swing a sword and cast a spell. I want them to be ingenious and innovative. And, they won't keep trying to kick tables unless they succeed most of the time.

 

[AFCErik]

Oops. Double post. Sorry.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Escaping a grab is indeed Acrobatics or Athletics vs. a defense... but to be fair, the only classes with Acrobatics as a class skill are rogues and rangers, while only those two and the fighter and warlord have Athletics. So half the classes in the game can be grabbed and only have maybe a 50% chance of escaping.

And remember, this is only an "untrained" grab. The martial splatbook or whatever book has monks is sure to have plenty of more advanced feats and/or powers for grappling, pinning, etc.

 

[Roxolan]

Blackeagle : yeah, that was discussed above, with the conclusion that it would make grabbing pretty lame unless other bonuses applied.
EDIT : ninjaed by a ninja... a robot zombie ninja. But one who makes a good remark indeed.

AFCErik : indeed, that is probably what they are aiming for. People moving all over the place in combat aim for the same feeling. Though I'm a bit confused that there's so little information about the DCs of such manoeuvres. They keep repeating that "the DM sets the DC", and that "the DM always may set a high DC for more difficult stuff"... But I am the DM, and I don't know what to do !
Oh well, I suppose it must be buried somewhere else, though that is surprising for such a well-organised book.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Actually, shy of other rules like a 1 always misses and/or a 20 always succeeds, that's an 83.5% chance of success. Better than 5 successes out of 6 tries. Even rolling a 1 on the die results in success nearly half of the time.

WAY outside the ballpark of balanced frequency-wise unless the effort expended is always moderate to high and the gain acquired is low.

When 4E was announced, I suggested that this should be +3/+2 (66% trained, 73.75% trained plus skilll focus) instead of +5/+5 (of SAGA). If it is +5/+3, that's probably my first houserule going into the game system. Math is fundamental and such an egregious error is inexcusable after the plethora of "we fixed the math" statements.

+8 is just too large of a chunk of the entire D20 scale, especially when you consider that it's easy to min/max that even more with high ability score modifiers against "standard enemies".

 

[Cadfan]

Actually, shy of other rules like a 1 always misses and/or a 20 always succeeds, that's an 83.5% chance of success. Better than 5 successes out of 6 tries. Even rolling a 1 on the die results in success nearly half of the time.

WAY outside the ballpark of balanced frequency-wise unless the effort expended is always moderate to high and the gain acquired is low.

The "difference of 8" comparison is based on the following assumptions:

1. The skill user is trained.
2. The skill user has the feat Skill Focus in the relevant skill.
3. The defender has no racial bonuses to his defense.
4. The defender has no class bonuses to his defense.
5. The defender has no equipment bonuses to his defense (like a shield).
6. All magical boosts are identical between skills and defenses.
7. Ability scores are equally prioritized between the skill ability score and the defense ability score (this could favor either character).

 

[KarinsDad]

The "difference of 8" comparison is based on the following assumptions:

1. The skill user is trained.
2. The skill user has the feat Skill Focus in the relevant skill.
3. The defender has no racial bonuses to his defense.
4. The defender has no class bonuses to his defense.
5. The defender has no equipment bonuses to his defense (like a shield).
6. All magical boosts are identical between skills and defenses.
7. Ability scores are equally prioritized between the skill ability score and the defense ability score (this could favor either character).

Of course.

With all of the things you list, this is discussing a normal encounter creature with same modifiers as the attacker except for the fact that the attacker is Trained and has Skill Focus. It means that the standard defense against that sucks. It sucks more if the attacker is min/maxed. We are not talking a PC against an NPC peasant, we are talking a PC againt an NPC foe.

That is not balanced math.

A base +8 to a roll (more with min/maxing), one portion from an auto-acquired "trained" ability and the other from one feat (out of the 10 or so acquirable) is TOO high of a percentage of the entire D20. Math 101. In fact, simple Math 101 which Mearles and Co should easily understand.

We have to see exactly what this affects in the game and when it can be used, but quite frankly, it's math that should have never seen daylight in the game. IMO. It's just too heavily weighed in one direction.

 

[Sashi]

The only time I can find a use where you oppose a skill with a defense (as opposed to another skill or a DC) is "Escape from a grab". Every other case, skills are not used to attack players directly.

A +5 bonus is enough that the player is automatically and noticeably better at the skill than someone who is not trained. A lower bonus would not be as noticeable. And since Skills work on their own math, they don't influence the attack/defense world (except in that one case, and I get the idea that they specifically wanted to make escape easy for someone trained in the proper skills).

The extra +3 might be a bit much, but if you think so make Skill Focus a Paragon level feat.