D&D 4.5E (Not Essentials)

[Manbearcat]

Just want to throw my hat in with the group that observes that 4e's engine is built off of subjective, scaling environmental DCs that are predicated upon genre/trope challenges for level/tier equivalent characters. I've been running 4e since its inception with merely a flashcard with the current level's DCs, damage expressions, minion damage, average and + HPs, average ACs and NADs, + vs AC and + vs NAD, and Skill Challenge info. I've got a few flashcards for monster themes (for all of the roles) to add to a basic chassis. Of course I have the laptop with the Compendium up when I need it.

Both the DMG1 and DMG 2 work off of this premise. There are a few sections with a tacit nod to a few objective metrics (Jump DCs for combat and manipulating doors specifically) for folks who want them. But just like 13th Age, Heinsoo's D&D was definitely predicated upon environmental DCs that scale with PCs through the levels/tiers and require the GM to scale the fiction of the adversity with the PCs. Conflict Resolution systems go all pear-shaped without predictable, bounded math.

 

[Lokiare]

Just want to throw my hat in with the group that observes that 4e's engine is built off of subjective, scaling environmental DCs that are predicated upon genre/trope challenges for level/tier equivalent characters. I've been running 4e since its inception with merely a flashcard with the current level's DCs, damage expressions, minion damage, average and + HPs, average ACs and NADs, + vs AC and + vs NAD, and Skill Challenge info. I've got a few flashcards for monster themes (for all of the roles) to add to a basic chassis. Of course I have the laptop with the Compendium up when I need it.

Both the DMG1 and DMG 2 work off of this premise. There are a few sections with a tacit nod to a few objective metrics (Jump DCs for combat and manipulating doors specifically) for folks who want them. But just like 13th Age, Heinsoo's D&D was definitely predicated upon environmental DCs that scale with PCs through the levels/tiers and require the GM to scale the fiction of the adversity with the PCs. Conflict Resolution systems go all pear-shaped without predictable, bounded math.

At this time I'm going to pull out some quotes so we can get off this subject and back onto the original subject of the thread (all used under fair use laws):

DMG1 page 42:
"Cast the Action as a Check: If a character tries an action that might fail, use a check to resolve it. To do that, you need to know what kind of check it is and what the DC is.
Attacks: If the action is essentially an attack, use an attack roll. It might involve a weapon and target AC, or it might just be a Strength or Dexterity check against any defense. For an attack, use the appropriate defense of the target. Use an opposed check for anything that involves a contest between two creatures."

Note that you use the AC or defense of the target creature as the DC.

"Other Checks: If the action is related to a skill (Acrobatics and Athletics cover a lot of the stunts characters try in combat), use that check. If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere in between. A quick rule of thumb is to start with a DC of 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character’s level."

Here we see that they say use an easy, hard, or somewhere in between check based on the characters level. So if they are high level and improvising with a low level obstacle, then they would obviously cast it as an easy check that would be really unlucky to fail. So again it is based on the tasks difficulty compared to the character, not the characters level compared to a chart.

On page 61 of the DMG1 it talks about terrain and uses the phrase "the DC of the terrain" over and over. So the level of the terrain determines the DC, not the characters level.

This here is the clincher on page 64 of the DMG1:
"Terrain and Skill Checks or Ability Checks: When terrain requires a skill check or ability check, use the Difficulty Class by Level table (page 42) to set a DC that’s appropriate to the characters’ level. Some of the examples below show DCs for breaking down doors or opening locks, and also show the level at which a character should be able to break down the door with a Strength check of moderate difficulty. Thus, that level is a good rule of thumb for dungeon design. Don’t put an iron door in a dungeon designed for 10th-level characters unless you intend it to be difficult for them to break through."

Which shows that the DC is a property of the level of the object and not a product of the level of the characters.

They wanted you to use the proper level of objects and challenges so that the players don't think you are being sadistic and to that end they gave you a chart with a range of DC's to tell you what a certain level of characters should find easy, normal, or difficult. Not the other way around.

Essentials took all of that explanation out and instead just said look on the chart and choose a DC by the characters level that is easy, normal, or difficult...

 

[pemerton]

On page 61 of the DMG1 it talks about terrain and uses the phrase "the DC of the terrain" over and over

I don't think that phrase appears a single time on that page!

It does say, in relation to Challenging Terrain, "Use the Skill Check Difficulty Class table below to select a relevant DC for the party’s level," and also "If the terrain has a high DC . . ." The usage of "high" could be intended as a synonym for "hard", or instead to allow for a GM disregarding the advice earlier in the entry and setting a DC that is not level-scaled. The context doesn't make either interpretation obvious.

If the action is related to a skill (Acrobatics and Athletics cover a lot of the stunts characters try in combat), use that check. If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere in between. A quick rule of thumb is to start with a DC of 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character’s level."

<snip>

When terrain requires a skill check or ability check, use the Difficulty Class by Level table (page 42) to set a DC that’s appropriate to the characters’ level.

<snip>

Which shows that the DC is a property of the level of the object and not a product of the level of the characters.

I'm seeing two passages here about setting the DC based on level. I don't see any reference in either passage to "the level of objects", only to "the character's level".

I think everyone here knows that there is a list of door types by DC, in both the DMG and Essentials. But there is no similar listing for cave slime, nor for pulses of necrotic energy. The GM is expected to pick up the slack, and to narrate the fiction in such a way as it matches the DC - which the GM is advised to set by reference to the level of the PC.

It's not exactly rocket science - exactly this approach is adopted in several other RPGs, including ones that predate, and influenced, 4e.

Seriously, this is the biggest non-issue of all time. I mean, for anyone who read Essentials and narrated the narrow ledge the same for both 1st level and 15th level PCs: did you do the same for cave slime as mentioned in the DMG? Or conversely, if you worked out that Epic cave slime is more slippery than Heroic cave slime, and narrated appropriately, how did Essentials rob you of your ability to do that, or in any way imply anything different?

 

[Jhaelen]

It's been a while, but is there any answer to what besides some class differences that essentials destroyed from classic 4e?

Sure. The presentation.
First the change from letter-sized hardcovers to flimsy, smallish paperback core books was a really bad move. The duplication of content in the player handbooks was also something I hated.
Finally, compare the Heroes of Shadow/Feywild/Elemental Chaos supplements with the Martial/Divine/Arcane/Primal/Psionic Power books. The post-Essentials books waste a ton of pages on needlessly duplicated fluff and information common to every class. This results in getting you only about a quarter of new powers in those books compared to the old format.

About the only Essentials books that I would consider an improvement in terms of content (if not in presentation) was the Monster Vault books. They actually had the right amount of fluff to go along with the crunch.

 

[Rechan]

Too much to get to - fine little tweaks and such, like beating the math/bonuses/feat taxes/ability scores/magic items, etc into a seamless, streamlined path, along with the usual 'speed up combat' etc.

So instead I'll list my three pet wishes.

1) Restructure classes to allow players to build their own classes, using several blocks. Those blocks are: Combat Role + Non-Combat Role + Class Feature.

You know what Combat Role is. A Non-combat role is a skill package + non-combat utility powers. Let's say you have the skill package Tough Guy: Intimidate, Endurance and (either Athletics or Streetwise). Sneak: Stealth, Thievery and Streetwise. Scholar: Arcana, (Pick two knowledge skills), and so on.

So you could have a Defender + a Scholar, making an educated martial character, or you could have a Controller + Tough Guy and your wizard isn't knowledgeable, he's just a scary bully with magic, or your Leader + Sneak is a priest of the God of Thieves, and so on. The point is that what you do in combat doesn't relate to what you do out of combat, allowing you to make your character what you want, and get non-combat related utilities (rather than have to decide between combat and non-combat utilities).

Finally class features. So here you'd have the various things that distinguish one class in the same role from the next - so you pick like, between a rogue's sneak attack or a ranger's quarry or whathaveyou. It would have to be ironed out for balance, but it's about distinguishing one controller from the next, let's say. Perhaps it differs by power source. For instance, the Martial Striker has x, whereas the Divine Striker has y, the Arcane striker has Z, and so on. This is the part I haven't fully developed.

2) Overhaul of the magic item system. IMO, PCs should have only 3 magical items AT MOST. So magical items need to 1) do multiple things, and also 2) be very thematic. My ideal would be a magical item like so:

Sword of the Unending Glacier: Level 6 weapon
Property: Gain icewalk.
Property: Damage is considered both normal and cold damage.
At-Will: Close burst 1. All non-animate liquid in burst is frozen, and wielder may walk across it.
Encounter: Close burst 1, all creatures. 1[w] cold damage and target is pushed back 1.
Daily: Create a wall of ice 4 squares long. The wielder can move through the wall as though it were an empty square.
Crit: Bla bla.

The weapon's theme is 'creating ice' and using it offensively/defensively. Magical items in this system would have utility to them, allowing them to have multiple functions to be, in a way, "swiss army magic items".

3) More classes and/or alt classes. Man, I wanted a ranged divine striker, and a ranged defender (yes, I've thought about this a lot) and a few other things.

 

[pemerton]

Sure. The presentation.

<snip>

The duplication of content in the player handbooks was also something I hated.

<snip>

The post-Essentials books waste a ton of pages on needlessly duplicated fluff and information common to every class. This results in getting you only about a quarter of new powers in those books compared to the old format.

I agree tha the presentation of Essentials is terrible. But it isn't game wrecking, at least for the individual player. (At the level of commercial publishing it may have helped wreck things for WotC, but that's a different matter.)

 

[herrozerro]

I agree tha the presentation of Essentials is terrible. But it isn't game wrecking, at least for the individual player. (At the level of commercial publishing it may have helped wreck things for WotC, but that's a different matter.)

I liked the paperbacks. While I didn't like the duplication of rules in the two heroes book though. I like the size of the smaller rulebooks. They fit nicely with my savage world's books.

 

[Rechan]

I really liked Essentials. I didn't mind the duplication of material because I knew it was for newbies. Yes, the rules were new(ish) but the goal was to make it easier/more accessible for new players, so that was OKAY. It was intended as a re-printing of the rules.

Also the classes really grew on me. They're a little limited for my tastes, but I have had players who would have really enjoyed these, because they struggled/were frustrated with the first PHB classes/presentation/etc. But I'd sit down and play a cavalier, thief or scout. IMO had these been what initially came out, reception would have been better.

The lack of PPs is a bother, but again I saw these as beginner classes (and, I've never had a game go past level 10 anyhow, so it was a non-issue).

Not to mention I felt Heroes of the Feywild was the bees knees.

Ahem, anyways.

 

[herrozerro]

I really liked Essentials. I didn't mind the duplication of material because I knew it was for newbies. Yes, the rules were new(ish) but the goal was to make it easier/more accessible for new players, so that was OKAY. It was intended as a re-printing of the rules.

Also the classes really grew on me. They're a little limited for my tastes, but I have had players who would have really enjoyed these, because they struggled/were frustrated with the first PHB classes/presentation/etc. But I'd sit down and play a cavalier, thief or scout. IMO had these been what initially came out, reception would have been better.

The lack of PPs is a bother, but again I saw these as beginner classes (and, I've never had a game go past level 10 anyhow, so it was a non-issue).

Not to mention I felt Heroes of the Feywild was the bees knees.

Ahem, anyways.

I love most of the E Classes as well, the new assassin is actually my favorite class in 4e overall. I don't find the lack of PPs in the book as a bother, there are plenty of them in other materials and there seems to be no issue with choosing one of those instead of whats presented in the books.

 

[pemerton]

I liked the paperbacks.

Yeah, I don't mind the size, just the format/needless verbiage.

I didn't mind the duplication of material because I knew it was for newbies. Yes, the rules were new(ish) but the goal was to make it easier/more accessible for new players, so that was OKAY. It was intended as a re-printing of the rules.

I like the Rules Compendium. What I don't like is all the padding/verbiage around class and power descriptions, and also the duplication of rules material across the RC, the two HotF*, and the DM book.