Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Rel]

AD&D had non-weapon proficiencies (at least second edition did--don't remember what they had in 1st).

I believe that these started to be introduced in some of the later AD&D books (Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide). That notwithstanding, is the suggestion that this is equal to or better than the sort of skill system supported by 3e or 4e in terms of handling non-combat challenges?

 

[radferth]

I think 4e would do just as well as older editions at non-combat situations (maybe a tiny bit better, but comparable). That being said, I can't imagine choosing it to run a campaign that wasn't combat heavy. The system wants you to fight. Its piles and piles of (mostly) gorgeous, skirmish-miniature-flavored combat rules. These rules don't really inhibit the game outside of combat, but why play the system if you aren't going to make much use of the combat rules? Sure, if your groups all knows and loves 4E, and wants to run a non-combat game, stick with the system everyone is comfortable with. But under normal circumstances, you want the rules for a non-combat (or not-much-combat) game to either be rules-lite, or have a detailed skill system. 4E is neither.

 

[Stoat]

I am admittedly startled that D&D (whatever edition) is being pitched as the "go-to" game for non-combat mechanics.

Yeah, me too. I've been playing D&D since 1989, and as far as I can tell the rules have always been very heavily combat focused.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I believe that these started to be introduced in some of the later AD&D books (Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide). That notwithstanding, is the suggestion that this is equal to or better than the sort of skill system supported by 3e or 4e in terms of handling non-combat challenges?

I don't remember how well the actual mechanics worked, though I don't recall them being awful. But by AD&D 2nd edition, there were more non weapon proficiencies than there are skills in 4E. So I can see the argument. Actually I do kind of remember them working pretty well in the game.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Yeah, me too. I've been playing D&D since 1989, and as far as I can tell the rules have always been very heavily combat focused.

3E had pretty extensive rules in the skill chapter. Giving lots of specifics on the different skills. Even 4E has a farily beefy section on skills as well. I think most people who are critical of it, dislike the trained/untrained approach and the consolidation.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Once I started thinking along that line, I thought of a few other things that 4e doesn't cover very well, in comparison to earlier editions: .....survival horror (anything pre 4e can do this pretty well, as resource management used to be all the rage in D&D)...

I will disagree regarding survival horror; I think 4th Edition can manage this reasonably well. There are two resources that need to be managed on a per day basis in 4th edition. Daily powers are one, though admittedly not having them is hardly crippling. But Healing surges are limited, and they govern when the party will need to stop and take an extended rest. Unlike spells, healing surges are a resource that the entire party will often run low on at about the same time. On top of that, the skill system in 4th edition is much better suited to using non combat challenges in such an adventure.

Lovecraftian horror is something I think that all versions of D&D are ill suited to in general though. The focus of D&D is about killing creatures and taking their stuff. The focus of Lovecraftian horror is trying not to be killed by the monster while also retaining your sense of sanity. Attempts to run that kind of horror based game within D&D usually have one of two results. Either they come across as ineffective if the players can reasonably expect to win combat encounters against the various monsters they encounter, or it feels like a DM screw job when the players are constantly over matched. While being forced to retreat in D&D is not unreasonable, one of the over-riding expectations of the system is that you can win fights.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Again it is so there can be degrees. I may have over made the point. 2 points isn't useless. But in relation to the guy with 10 ranks, it kind of is. Still two points gives you a +2 modifier, on top of your relevant attribute. But I being able to make different guys with varying skill levels. The current system is too binary. Even when it was in star wars I wasn't a fan of the you are either trained or not trained in something. I like be able to spread my skill points out the way I want, so in some instance I am a little good at one thing, competent in another, and a god in others.

Most of that is an illusion, as I mentioned. If you have 2 ranks in something, you are incapable of doing it. Not even a little bit. It sounds like you can in your head because you can look at your character sheet and say "I have 2 ranks, that's more than the fighter has, at least I have SOME idea what I'm doing" but you might as well have put no ranks into it, since it has no effect mechanically.

The reason for this is the math. When you are using a d20 to roll your skill checks, any difference of more than(approximately) 75% of the number of sides on the die means that the lower number is no longer statistically relevant. This means that if there is more than a 15 point difference in the total bonus between the best person in the group and the lowest, then the lower person might as well not bother. And, realistically, the odds are pretty much stacked against you even at 50% of the die.

Unfortunately, this difference is easy to get as early as 1st level. A character with an 8 stat and no ranks vs a character with a 20 stat, max ranks and skill focus, and a +2 bonus from race means a 14 point difference between highest and lowest in the party. In 3.5e, the gap grows every level. My best estimate is that is can grow about 37 more points by level 20. Making it a maximum difference of 51 points.

As I explained before, if the DC is below 51, there's no point in picking up a die, the expert succeeds automatically. If it is above, there is no point in the low person picking up a die, he fails automatically. Even if he then puts 23 ranks into the skill, he still only has +22. He still fails automatically. Those ranks are useless other than to make the player feel like he took something worthwhile.

The only time they become useful is in the (rather rare) circumstance where the success and failure of each character matters individually. So far, my experience has been that it might happen a couple of times in an entire campaign. Most of the time, the success of one member of your party covers for everyone who fails(the one with the +50 jump check jumps over the pit with a rope and the rest use the rope to cross, the one with the good diplomacy check covers for the blunders of others, the one with the good sense motive lets everyone else know that someone is lying, and so on).

The couple of times that individual success matters, it normally means the party won't attempt it if anyone in the party can fail. If there is a good chance the wizard is going to let go of the rope and drop to his death, then it doesn't matter if the fighter and paladin can both climb well. If the whole party can't get across that way, then no one will.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Most of that is an illusion, as I mentioned. If you have 2 ranks in something, you are incapable of doing it. Not even a little bit. It sounds like you can in your head because you can look at your character sheet and say "I have 2 ranks, that's more than the fighter has, at least I have SOME idea what I'm doing" but you might as well have put no ranks into it, since it has no effect mechanically.

The reason for this is the math. When you are using a d20 to roll your skill checks, any difference of more than(approximately) 75% of the number of sides on the die means that the lower number is no longer statistically relevant. This means that if there is more than a 15 point difference in the total bonus between the best person in the group and the lowest, then the lower person might as well not bother. And, realistically, the odds are pretty much stacked against you even at 50% of the die.

Unfortunately, this difference is easy to get as early as 1st level. A character with an 8 stat and no ranks vs a character with a 20 stat, max ranks and skill focus, and a +2 bonus from race means a 14 point difference between highest and lowest in the party. In 3.5e, the gap grows every level. My best estimate is that is can grow about 37 more points by level 20. Making it a maximum difference of 51 points.

As I explained before, if the DC is below 51, there's no point in picking up a die, the expert succeeds automatically. If it is above, there is no point in the low person picking up a die, he fails automatically. Even if he then puts 23 ranks into the skill, he still only has +22. He still fails automatically. Those ranks are useless other than to make the player feel like he took something worthwhile.

The only time they become useful is in the (rather rare) circumstance where the success and failure of each character matters individually. So far, my experience has been that it might happen a couple of times in an entire campaign. Most of the time, the success of one member of your party covers for everyone who fails(the one with the +50 jump check jumps over the pit with a rope and the rest use the rope to cross, the one with the good diplomacy check covers for the blunders of others, the one with the good sense motive lets everyone else know that someone is lying, and so on).

The couple of times that individual success matters, it normally means the party won't attempt it if anyone in the party can fail. If there is a good chance the wizard is going to let go of the rope and drop to his death, then it doesn't matter if the fighter and paladin can both climb well. If the whole party can't get across that way, then no one will.

+2 comes to about a 10% increase in your ability. I don't think that is as insignificant as you think.

 

[Stoat]

3E had pretty extensive rules in the skill chapter. Giving lots of specifics on the different skills. Even 4E has a farily beefy section on skills as well. I think most people who are critical of it, dislike the trained/untrained approach and the consolidation.

I'll agree that 3.X and 4E have MORE rules for out-of-combat activities than 2E, and DIFFERENT rules for out-of-combat activities than 1E. (I don't have a lot of experience playing 1E, but I note it has a lot of OoC rules related to, frex castle construction).

But. I stand by the assertion that all editions of the game devote the bulk of their mechanics to combat. 3.X does have a robust skill system, but the vast majority of the PHB is combat-related. This is even more the case in 4E.

On topic: I think a true "Horror" game is tough to pull off in any edition of D&D. IME, hitting the PC's with a monster far above their ability to fight is frightening, but not horrifying. I think the game (in all editions) is too focused on the idea that problems can be overcome with violence to really support a brooding atmosphere of horror. I suggest that successful horror in D&D is accomplished by (a) skillful DM'ing; (b) players who are willing to buy into the concept; and (c) variant rules, often quite different from the "core" rules that change the mechanical focus of the game.

 

[LostSoul]

4e overwhelmingly supports beatin' the fudge out of things as the most ideal method of conflict resolution.

One person's "bypassed [combat] encounter" is another person's clever strategy or interesting role-playing choice (why SHOULDN'T an enchantress PC be able to avoid combat using other skills? Why SHOULDN'T a clever sneaky rogue PC avoid combat by not being noticed? Why does combat HAVE to happen?).

Every edition before it was largely OK with that.

I, as an improv-heavy DM, was totally OK with that.

4e is NOT OK with that.

How many XPs does my PC get for bypassing the combat in 3E? (Answer: Not much.)

How many for fighting? (Answer: A lot. 95% of my XP is going to come from combat XP.)

How many XPs does my PC get for bypassing the combat in 4E? (Answer: Some, if it's an encounter and we run a skill challenge, or there's a Quest involved.)

How many for fighting? (Answer: A lot. Most of my XP, probably 75%, is going to come from combat.)


I don't understand how you can claim that 4E is "NOT" okay with bypassing the combat. There are more rewards for the PC if you avoid the combat in 4E than there were in 3E. In playing 3E, I knew that if I decided not to fight I was missing out on valuable XPs. In 4E, at least I'm going to get something for my troubles.