Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Panzeh]

I think of all the criticisms of 4e, this is probably the most cogent, that it's simply not that ambitious and the skill system doesn't seem to be all that well thought out, like a half-hearted nod toward 3e players. It's not so much that there were complex non-combat systems in 3e, because most of the non-combat models were spell vs save and basic skill check to get x result, or basically come up with a combo of spells to solve x. 4e's skill list is not nearly as thorough as 3e's, though it is much appreciated that complementary skills like hide/ms and spot/listen/search were combined. I don't think characters need skills in pure labor operations like farming, but in skilled professions like drafting or accounting or something it would be nice to have that as a skill, and it's difficult to graft on extra skills without changing the other skill rules. Then, probably some profession DCs would have to be added.

Also, the level bonus to skills has to go, because it just seems to add numbers just to make them go higher, the difference in skills is more important than the number itself with respect to how the players regard proficiency.

Simply adding in more uses of skills and DCs(for plain skill checks) for them would probably bring it up near 3e's level, though certainly concessions had to be made because of caster dominance in non-combat tasks.

 

[malraux]

Three physical skills (Acrobatics, Athletics, Endurance)
Six knowledge skills (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Nature, Religion, Streetwise)
Four interaction skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate)
Two sneaky skills (Stealth, Thievery)

I count 15 skills which are useful out of combat which is all of them. Acrobatics and Athletics get used for stunts so they've got importance, Intimidate can be used so it's got that. I don't think the actual skill support your assertion.

You're short 2: perception and heal. Personally, I'd regard heal as the one with the most combat only focus, as its the one to use to give a saving throw, second wind, or stabilize a character. The only listed out of combat usage is to treat disease. But all the rest are as usable out of combat as within combat.

 

[Psion]

I think it is. But then, many games I like A LOT have limited campaign scopes. Because, well, those games are good at what they do do, and I am interested in doing things those games do well.

I don't think that's necessarily an indictment of 4e. Though for my taste, I do feel like the game traded off some things I like to do in D&D for some things I could have done without tuning.

 

[Celebrim]

That's a fancy argument, Kamikaze, but I have to say, I got awfully sick of trying to run investigative scenarios in 3e and having to deal with Detect Evil, Speak with Dead, Locate Object and the like. I know that a character who solves a murder mystery by just asking the victim what happened is still engaged in investigation, so its not like the story didn't happen. But the ability to bypass interviewing witnesses and scrounging for clues by the use of magic circumscribed my ability to tell an investigative story more than it helped.

I also know that you can get around those spells with carefully crafted scenarios (the bad guy is true neutral, not evil, the victim's corpse was mangled to prevent it from speaking, the murder weapon is too unknown or too far away for you to locate it with magic, etc). But that just meant that investigative scenarios fell into two categories: 1. the very short, and 2. ones that began with me nerfing all of the I WIN buttons the PCs possessed.

Yeah, but isn't that basically true of any detective story? I mean, suppose that I was running a modern CSI campaign and the killer's fingerprints were on every murder weapon, and the victims blood could be found on the suspects clothes? If in the next session the killer carefully wiped away finger prints, incinerated or threw away clothes, and even left false clues, you wouldn't say, "Hey, that's no fair. You nerfed all of my I WIN buttons!". No, you'd say, "This is a typical episode of CSI." Naturally, if you expect the investigation to be difficult, then its going to involve a mystery where the killer has been careful to destroy evidence, leave false clues, or frame up a likely suspect who happens to be innocent. That's just the standard trope in one of the genera.

I would consider 'Speak with the Dead' to be interviewing witnesses. Like any witness, the dead guy doesn't necessarily need to be trustworthy. The dead guy might not have seen anything (it was dark, he was struck from behind, the killer was invisible, the killer used a ranged weapon or spell). The dead guy might not have seen what he thought he saw (the killer was wearing a disguise). What the dead guy saw might not be immediately useful (he was killed by someone he didn't know). The dead guy might be lying (the real killer is someone the murder victim wants to protect). The dead guy might be insane or traumatized and any clue he provides is cryptic. The dead guy might hate the PC's guts and simply be difficult. The dead guy might now be a spectre, and more interested in eating the PC's soul than cooperating with a murder investigation. I could probably go through a whole lot of different scenarios before I tried, "The dead guy's jaw is missing and his throat is slashed."

I understand you basic point about 3e RAW, especially with things like 'Detect Evil' being potentially disruptive but I don't it is that different from setting up any mystery. If the detectives have forensic tools, then you are going to have to take that into account when planning out the mystery whether CSI: New York or CSI: Greyhawk.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I think strictly for mystery adventures, 3E skills work much better than 4E skills. If the group doesn't believe in resolving those sort of things through skill rolls anyways, I suppose the point is mute.

 

[Gimby]

I think strictly for mystery adventures, 3E skills work much better than 4E skills. If the group doesn't believe in resolving those sort of things through skill rolls anyways, I suppose the point is mute.

Can you explain how?

 

[DandD]

How would 3rd edition skills work better for mystery adventures than their 4th edition equivalent?

Also, who besides the characters with many skillpoints could participate well?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know what kind of gets me about this whole "3e's spells solved everything" line of thinking? Well for starters I'm going to assume you're PC's are getting involved in murders with at least a medium level of importance to the campaign world... that said why aren't the murderers using magic as well? I mean I could easily imagine a erudite wizard, genius type serial killer in Eberron (think Hannibal Lecter with magic), who uses spells like disguise self, polymorph, etc. to cleverly impede spell solutions.

The spells are entirely made up. They do not relate to real world experience. It is just "spell vs counterspell". People worry about the game all being about pushing minis around? How about people canceling each other spell cards?

I can relate to finding clues, talking with other people, and trying to make sense of the information I got.

And yes, I often have mysteries like murder mysteries in my homebrew games. I like the PCs doing legwork between killing people and taking their stuff, and I also like to play this kind of legwork between killing people and taking their stuff. Anything that reduces it to "cast the right spells" removes from the game.
Speak with Dead or other Divinations are just as terrible to me as Save or Die spells. They don't involve thinking or smartly using your abilities (without just abusing them). They are just pick the ability that is designed to solve the problem and go on.

And that's also what makes Magic Missile different from something like Speak with the Dead. Magic Missile is just a tiny thing I can do in combat, it is like rolling a Gather Information or Streetwise check during an investigation. It is not a "Win"-Button. It is something that can lead you to succeed. There is more to do then merely use Magic Missile once.

But Finger of Death is a "Win"-Button. But with one provision - there is a larger context in which this might work, e.g. if you have to decide whether you use Finger of Death now or later.
Unless you have only one Speak with Dead in your entire investigations available and half a dozen of bodies to speak with, this is not the same. You could run every of your mystery scenarios like that, but it would provide a limitations to how these scenarioes can look like. And if you run a scenario in this way, you are actually running an investigation of "Who is the victim that will tell me what I need to know?", and Speak with Dead is just a kind of plot device. If you now add Augury or Divination to the mix, you have once again a way to cut all this short...

 

[Geoff Watson]

How incompatible are the add on d20 rules from 3e? For example, adding sanity in by copying the UA sanity rules. To me, they would fit just as well as they did in 3e. Or just a minor revamp of the taint rules in Heroes of Horror? Obviously, they'll take a bit of tweaking to get right, but my impression is that it should work pretty smoothly.

edit: oh, and my take on Cthulhu-esque adventures is that 4e would probably do a delta green style pretty well.

Since the 3e Sanity rules are a direct lift from CoC, without any D&D specifics (like mental ability damage) you could use them in 4e just as easily.

Geoff.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Can you explain how?

WARNING-WARNING-PERSONAL OPINION BEING STATED HERE
Because 4E has a smaller and highly consolidated skill list. 3E has an extensive skill list, and the ability to take ranks in individual skills. If you are running a mystery adventure, there are simply more skills that are appropriate. And because it is not consolidated, there is a little more texture at work.