Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[DandD]

Having only the one character with many skillpoints being able to participate well while the other characters with few skillpoints having to stand-bye or their player to doze off/play with a NDS/chat about sports makes 'mystery investigation' pointless, because only few, or even worse, one can participate, until combat commences, where everyone can finally participate, not only the many-skillpoint-character.

 

[Lizard]

Regarding the original question - how is the campaign scope changed between 3E and 4E due to skill points vs skill training?

There is no room for dabblers or hobbyists, which cuts off a lot of character concepts. Since all non-combat skills have been reduced to "Just write it on your character sheet, it doesn't matter", there's no way to focus on improving those aspects of your character, or competing with them, or using them in any kind of challenge or test, since they have no mechanical value. (You're a "master brewer"? Does that mean you can identify any kind of ale by taste? Fix a complex brewing mechanism? Train an apprentice? Out-brew an NPC? No ranks means no rolls, no rolls means it's all handwaving, and any of your fellow PCs can perk up and say "I'm a master brewer, too!" and have the exact same skill as you. (Oh, and they're also a master sailor, a hardened mercenary, a skilled blacksmith, and a tapestry weaver. Hey, it's all "written down", right? What MORE do you need?))

The scope of 4e campaigns, thus, is narrowed to "Those campaigns where skills other than those listed never come into play", unless, of course, you design some house rules to account for them. I feel my old 3.5 Swashbuckler would have been less of a character without his Perform (Oratory) and Profession (Poet) ranks -- just "writing them down" would not have had nearly the same impact; the fact he spent skill points (a precious resource) on those things defined a lot about who he was. "Just write it down" is not, IMO, merely poor game design; it's actively contemptuous towards a style of play. It reduces non-combat abilities to the same status as eye color or hair style, something which should never enter play or be meaningful. This isn't "freedom to roleplay" -- it's stating that any aspects of your character not related to hitting things are irrelevant. I do not know if this was a design intent or just an emergent property of time/space constraints, but I consider it a significant flaw. (Yes, it can be houseruled very easily. This doesn't make it any less of a flaw.)

 

[Pbartender]

It would be as if they had taken the same consolidation-trained/untrained approach to combat. What if everyone was either trained or untrainedtrained in ranged attack, AC, HP, Melee attack?

Actually, they did take that approach to combat...

In 4E, everybody gets a bonus to attacks, AC, Fortitude, Reflex and Will equal to 1/2 their character level (the same as skills). Weapon proficiencies act as "training" for different weapon groups, giving you a flat bonus to hit based on the weapon. Either you are proficient ("Trained") or you aren't ("Untrained"). Either way, anyone can still use a sword, just not everybody gets that extra +3 bonus for being trained to use it.

Likewise, the defenses all get the 1/2 level bonus, but your class determines which ones you are "trained" in... Rogues get a "trained" bonus to Reflex and are "untrained" in Fortitude and Will, Wizards get a "trained" bonus to Will, etc.

 

[Mallus]

Since all non-combat skills have been reduced to "Just write it on your character sheet, it doesn't matter"

Now, now... you know that non-combats skills exist in 4e.

(You're a "master brewer"? Does that mean you can identify any kind of ale by taste? Fix a complex brewing mechanism? Train an apprentice? Out-brew an NPC?

Where are the rules that cover this in 3e? I don't remember seeing any target DC's for ale-tasting in any of the books I own.

No ranks means no rolls, no rolls means it's all handwaving, and any of your fellow PCs can perk up and say "I'm a master brewer, too!" and have the exact same skill as you.

In 4e no ranks means roll primary ability+1/2 level+ any modifiers the DM chooses to assign. Also, the "I'm a master brewer too!" problem can be neatly sidestepped by not gaming with people who act like spoiled children.

(Oh, and they're also a master sailor, a hardened mercenary, a skilled blacksmith, and a tapestry weaver. Hey, it's all "written down", right? What MORE do you need?))

You need to stop thinking everyone games with people who act like spoiled children.

The scope of 4e campaigns, thus, is narrowed to "Those campaigns where skills other than those listed never come into play", unless, of course, you design some house rules to account for them.

Or if you're comfortable accepting ad-hoc DM rulings for things not directly covered by the rules. Given just how often that happens when my friends and I play D&D, I'm pretty comfortable, but YMMV...

I feel my old 3.5 Swashbuckler would have been less of a character without his Perform (Oratory) and Profession (Poet) ranks

My 4e paladin is a poet. When he needs to make a skill check we use Diplomacy --for his performance in slams-- Insight --for composing works that peer into the soul-- and raw CHA checks, to cover anything else.

"Just write it down" is not, IMO, merely poor game design; it's actively contemptuous towards a style of play.

It's not contempt, it's just efficiency. How big would the skill list/system have to be to cover every oddball, outlier concept that a gamer might want to make? --and I say this a gamer with a large number of oddball, outlier characters to his credit.

The 4e designers chose to focus on common, adventuring skills. Seems reasonable to me, given the alternative... trying to cover, in some meaningful way, everything else.

 

[Remathilis]

There is no room for dabblers or hobbyists, which cuts off a lot of character concepts. Since all non-combat skills have been reduced to "Just write it on your character sheet, it doesn't matter", there's no way to focus on improving those aspects of your character, or competing with them, or using them in any kind of challenge or test, since they have no mechanical value. (You're a "master brewer"? Does that mean you can identify any kind of ale by taste? Fix a complex brewing mechanism? Train an apprentice? Out-brew an NPC? No ranks means no rolls, no rolls means it's all handwaving, and any of your fellow PCs can perk up and say "I'm a master brewer, too!" and have the exact same skill as you. (Oh, and they're also a master sailor, a hardened mercenary, a skilled blacksmith, and a tapestry weaver. Hey, it's all "written down", right? What MORE do you need?))

First off, there IS room for hobbyists or dabblers; its called the 1/2 your level skill rise. Sure, a 5th level wizard is in no regards the talented liar a rogue trained in bluff is, but he sure picked up a few simple con's listening to his friend, which accounts for that +2 bonus from level.

Secondly, the obvious answer is that a DM should account for these background elements as he see's fit. Does your DM make you role a profession:brewer check to tell the difference between a goblin tahl and a dwarven stout? Is he really concerned if you'll make the DC 10 to fix a brewing machine? Roll check after check to train an apprentice? Perhaps I can see a check for a dual of beers, but even then I could make it a wisdom check with a +2 circumstance bonus for "being a master". Otherwise, I'd hand-wave those things in 3.5, I don't care HOW many ranks you put in that skill. They are rarely worth my time to take to dice. I got monsters to fight, worlds to save and damsels to woo!

Lastly, isn't the obvious answer that "a character's background determines his aptitude in these things?" Do we really need to bust out the secondary skills rules from 1e again?

 

[Scribble]

There is no room for dabblers or hobbyists, which cuts off a lot of character concepts. Since all non-combat skills have been reduced to "Just write it on your character sheet, it doesn't matter", there's no way to focus on improving those aspects of your character, or competing with them, or using them in any kind of challenge or test, since they have no mechanical value.

I get what you're trying to say, but I dissagree.

I think that designing along those ideas is what made 3e so bulky (in my opinion) and strict in the first place. If it's something we can do we need a rule for it stat! In my opinion that fostered the rules lawyer mentality of "this is the way x is accomplished. If this is not met, then x cannot be done."

I prefer looking at the intent behind the skill check in the first place. IE say a poetry contest between two Bards 8 Mile style- Is there really an official measure of how "good" a poem is? (Or any art for that matter?) It's entirely subjective. So I think to "win" the contest the bard has to do one (or both) of two options. Win over the crowd with his mad rhymin skillz (Diplomacy.) Or cower his foe with his comebacks and jabs (Intimidate.)

If you really wanted to you could design a skill challenge... Maybe knowledge nature gives you a bonus because you know exactly what type of animal his mother would best resemble... Or knowledge history lets you know just what events or people resonate with the crowd. (I gots more props then Slick Willy in a cigar factory?)

 

[Greg K]

IWin over the crowd with his mad rhymin skillz (Diplomacy.) Or cower his foe with his comebacks and jabs (Intimidate.)

Ugh! Glad it works for you, but no thank you!

 

[Mallus]

Ugh! Glad it works for you, but no thank you!

What's the benefit of having a multitude of separate Perform/Create Art skills?

 

[drothgery]

Drothgery, I am happy to have this discussion with you. But when I make valid points (and I know my points are valid rebuttals here) then please don't respond with snarky remarks about this not being "vector calculus here", or my assumptions being "totally screwed up". I have already established, that individual characters are important in my games, that I try to avoid the one guy succeeds so everyone else does (and I have provided good reasons for why I do it, why it makes sense, and why it leads to more suspense and fun).

I give up. Given the play style of ever game I've ever played in, every published adventure I've ever read, and what seems to be the experience of the vast majority of players, it clearly makes much more sense to maximize skills. You may be playing in a game where that's not the case, but the existence of cross-class skills and the low number of skill points that most classes have make it pretty clear that's certainly not the expectation of the designers.

Sigh.

 

[Greg K]

I give up. Given the play style of ever game I've ever played in,

Fine

every published adventure I've ever read,

Fine, but, maybe, that only applies to those you read

and what seems to be the experience of the vast majority of players, it clearly makes much more sense to maximize skills.

Your data?

You may be playing in a game where that's not the case, but the existence of cross-class skills and the low number of skill points that most classes have make it pretty clear that's certainly not the expectation of the designers.

Reading minds, now? Maybe they expected characters to take some cross class skills, but wanted certain classes to shine in certain skills.