Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[maddman75]

The best fix I've seen is Rel's house rule, which I'm eagerly stealing.

At chargen, you answer two questions. What did you do before becoming an adventurer? and What do you do in your free time? Whatever the player answers, the GM will assign an ability score and treat that as a trained skill. There you go - your poet, brewmaster, herbalist, whatever.

I played with the skill system as well in 3e, granting an extra 2 points per level for everyone. Still rarely had anyone split up skill points. Even with cases like tumble, where once you got +14 you could do 95% of what you wanted tumble for, I've seen people keep on moving up tumble, because having half points in something felt like a waste. So for me, 4e's trained/untrained is functionally very similar.

I would agree that 4e is not the best system to use for a mystery game. That's because its a fantasy adventure game. They chose to focus on making 4e the best fantasy adventure game they could, for good or ill. I'd suggest either sticking with what you got or look into one of the excellent mystery games on the market.

 

[Spatula]

Sigh.

I think the disconnect here is that ProfessorPain is after character variation as an end unto itself, whereas you and the others who have tried to reason with him see the goal as character effectiveness instead.

As an example from our current game, my ranger/psion has 4 or 5 ranks in Hide & Move Silently. They're effectively wasted points - even with magic stealth items, I can't even come close to Leopold's abilities in that regard. So when it comes time for scouting, I mindlink the group and sit back while Leopold heads out to get the lay of the land. But I still value those points for what they say about my character - he's a hunter, a silent killer, a vengeful ghost in the rugged border regions of Riedra. Of course the mechanics don't really back this up (a handful of ranks doesn't make one very stealthy except perhaps against peons, who aren't worthy of screen time with us at this point), but they make me feel better.

Incidentally, I would have increased those skills, but: not enough skill points. A persistant problem in 3e, unfortunately.

Of course, in an ideal game, my character concept would be fully realized and I would actually be able to hang with the party rogue on scouting expeditions. By say... using the 4e skill system and taking Skill Training: Stealth. That way I get to play the character I want and be good at it (even if I'm slightly worse at it, since I don't have Leopold's insane DEX). Best of both worlds, IMO, but some people value the process over the result. Showing them that your results are better isn't going to have much impact because that's not what they're after.

 

[Spatula]

But the reason we have rules AT ALL is because of that factor.

I thought it was because we were playing a game.

If one player picks "master brewer" as his character's background, and another player hears this and then says, "I'm a master brewer too!" in order to step on the first player's toes, you have bigger problems than a lack of brewing rules.

 

[malraux]

One of the 4e precepts, at least in my opinion, is that PCs are first and foremost adventurers. So if you want to be a master zymurgist, that kinda precludes also being an adventurer, so having a skill system around being a master craftsman doesn't exactly make sense.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I think the disconnect here is that ProfessorPain is after character variation as an end unto itself, whereas you and the others who have tried to reason with him see the goal as character effectiveness instead.
.

A good game should balance both. Where we may split is they are much more interested in the effectiveness of the party as a group (which does make sense in things like dungeon delves), and I am giving more weight to effectiveness of individual PCs (which makes sense in city adventures). Also, you can't always rely on other party members succeeding to help you make a skill check. There are skill checks that you have to make on your own. It isn't always a bad thing, to be adequate at a large number of skills, when those situations arise.

But here I am arguing it isn't less effective to diversify. Of course it does depend on how your GM handles things like skill checks, but in every game I have played, being diversified has helped.

 

[malraux]

The best fix I've seen is Rel's house rule, which I'm eagerly stealing.

At chargen, you answer two questions. What did you do before becoming an adventurer? and What do you do in your free time? Whatever the player answers, the GM will assign an ability score and treat that as a trained skill. There you go - your poet, brewmaster, herbalist, whatever.

I'd probably change it up slightly. Previous profession = you count as trained when you are using a skill that's arguably part of that previous profession. For example, you picked sailor as your previous profession. So you might count as trained when using nature to navigate at night, identify fish, forage for food along a seacoast, sense weather changes, etc. It obviously wouldn't help you identify land animals, hunt for wild game, etc. For hobbies, I'd do the same thing, but with skill focus instead of trained.

 

[ProfessorPain]

As an example from our current game, my ranger/psion has 4 or 5 ranks in Hide & Move Silently. They're effectively wasted points - even with magic stealth items, I can't even come close to Leopold's abilities in that regard. So when it comes time for scouting, I mindlink the group and sit back while Leopold heads out to get the lay of the land. But I still value those points for what they say about my character - he's a hunter, a silent killer, a vengeful ghost in the rugged border regions of Riedra. Of course the mechanics don't really back this up (a handful of ranks doesn't make one very stealthy except perhaps against peons, who aren't worthy of screen time with us at this point), but they make me feel better.

When you diversify you are not going to be better than Leopold at stealth. If you want to be the best at stealth, that will have to be something your character focuses on and maximized. You are creating a broad range of competencies that will allow you to shine in a number of circumstance. You still have 5 ranks, which isn't too bad. So you probably are not terrible at being stealthy on your own. And you probably have more skills than Leopold (Unless he is a thief, in which case, I sympathize and think this part of the system needs reworking-- the other classes just don't get enough skill points). Also, if you want your skills to be relevant in encounters with bigger and badder foes, you will want to keep upgrading them, even if they are not maximized. You don't want to take 2 points in something early on, and then neglect to take more ranks as you advance, unless it is part of the character concept. And this can still work. Having 2-5 ranks in something, still works against many people in the city. My advice to people who are not satisfied with their skills: work them during down time. You can still get good use out of them when you have time on your own in the city.

What level are you?

 

[Thasmodious]

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?)

I agree completely. Also with the comments by Remathalis and mallus above scribbles.

I've mentioned in another thread before that I had a player whose elf was a musician who found his way to adventuring (his concept was basically what if Led Zeppelin really got to go to Middle-earth). He played often, and this was RP, he expressed his character through these actions and others and there was never a need for a roll. In a new town, one day, he decided to play for his supper at a local tavern. As he played, word spread through the small town that a new musician was entertaining over at the Grumpy Kruthik. Well, at the rival inn nearby, the local minstrel was playing and was very put off when his crowd began to wander off to the other location. He interrupted, words were exchanged and a bard off ensued. I ran it as a skill challenge, fun was had by everyone, some of the other party members even found ways to contribute. The wizard used cantrips every time the local was playing to distract him, make off key sounds, and generally mess him up. The barbarian spent an entire song sharpening his dagger and staring intently at the rival bard (intimidate). The cleric used some religion to recall some popular songs involving the locally favored deity. And the musician himself used insight and diplomacy for his checks, plus a memorably described acrobatics check to throw some advanced rock star moves on the unsuspecting crowd. He blew the local out of the water and it was fun, dramatic, and led to positive benefits for the group (free room and board, +2 to positive social checks throughout their stay).

 

[Pbartender]

The best fix I've seen is Rel's house rule, which I'm eagerly stealing.

At chargen, you answer two questions. What did you do before becoming an adventurer? and What do you do in your free time? Whatever the player answers, the GM will assign an ability score and treat that as a trained skill. There you go - your poet, brewmaster, herbalist, whatever.

Another option I saw somewhere (maybe in Dragon or Dungeon recently?), was rules for "backgrounds"... There was a whole list of backgrounds, and each gave a few assorted bonuses based on that background. The bonuses might be making a skill a class skill for your character, giving a small bonus to a couple skills, giving a large bonus to a single skill, granting weapon proficiency or two, and so on. You can find the list in the DDI Character Builder.

I kind of liked the idea, and will likely use it for my next campaign.

 

[Spatula]

When you diversify you are not going to be better than Leopold at stealth.

Not my intent, as I alluded to in my previous post. Even if I had max ranks in Hide & Move Silently, the rogue would still be better because of ability scores.

So you probably are not terrible at being stealthy on your own.

Against peons, maybe. But we're 15th level (and started at 8th level) so that doesn't really come up. And the thing is, if I accompanied the rogue on scouting missions, I would just bring him down - his super-high rolls don't matter much when he's walking next to my +8 or whatever. So I don't get to use that part of my character. There's no situation that calls for stealth that we wouldn't simply say, "let the rogue do it." He's great at it, my character is better than the rest of the group but is terrible in comparison to his scores.

As I said in my post, I can't keep upgrading those skills because I don't get enough skill points. 6 per level, with priority going to Concentration, various Knowledge skills that no one else in the party has, Psicraft, and Survival. Hide & Move Silently are cross-class. Now, as a 14th level psion, I have a lot of other power to make up for the lack of skills, and that's the trade-off, and I'm ok with that. I could have taken more ranger levels, but didn't because 3e's multiclassing screws over casters. In the end, the character concept wasn't possible to bring to life in 3e without sacrificing some major effectiveness somewhere. But that's true of any caster/X hybrid that doesn't have a PrC tailored for it, and is getting off-topic.

My point was simply that those skill points are wasted, and I spent them anyway knowing that, because they were appropriate for the character. And I know the rules well enough to be able to sacrifice some points here and there without losing a lot of overall effectiveness at my specialties. I'd prefer to be able to make some use of that part of my character though, and I would have been able to if the character was built in 4e (given rules for a kalashtar race and a psionic teleporter class).