Forked: GTS - A need for "A robust system that handles things outside of combat"?

[Plane Sailing]

I'm not sure what you mean here. What kind of modifications do you find difficult in this version that were easier in past versions? I haven't found that to be the case so far, but I can't really offer a good counter-argument or suggestions on how to make modifications easier unless I understand what you are finding difficult to modify.

How so, if you don't mind me asking.

My group's found that it's been extremely easy to make 4e work for our gaming style/take on fantasy, which is idiosyncratic, to say the least, and not at all like the style implied by any of the 4e published modules.

Or any published modules, for that matter.

As KC has mentioned, creating of new classes stands out.

However, for me the main thing is that for all previous editions of D&D I've dramatically houseruled things to give certain unique campaign flavours - sometimes in terms of magic systems, sometimes in terms of additional combat options. Plus I'm a very simulationist sort of guy. Take what was done with Conan OGL, Black Company, Wheel of Time and Midnight, for instance. I typically do that kind of stuff myself.

3e was harder to houserule effectively because of the interlocking relationships between all kinds of stuff. 4e makes that interlocking relationships thing go even further - plus it takes a big step away from simulationist rules.

In many ways my favourite RPG systems are like well designed applications - high cohesion and low coupling. 4e seems to me to have taken the coupling of things to a new high.

So, while in 4e it is possible to add a new power here or there (but even that is difficult as the strategy for creation of powers is particularly opaque - I don't know whether WotC has a plan, or whether they just eyeball everything), and it is possible to go wild with 'reflavouring' stuff, adding new subsystems or changing existing subsystems is much harder for me.

Please note - I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to do things, and it isn't because I'm stumped and need help in working out how to do specific things with 4e. I'm just running a pretty vanilla 4e game at the moment, after all - although that is because it would be too much work for me to change stuff to make it work in my old campaign setting (for instance).

Cheers

 

[Primal]

The players can't call for a skill challenge. The DM can call for a skill challenge to complete a complex task. The players state that they want to talk the king into into handing over his kingdom. The DM can respond by:

1) Saying No. This is still allowed when players try to do the impossible despite the "Say Yes" attitude.
2) Say Yes if he thinks they have earned that right through their actions.
3) Roleplay the situation and take action appropriately.
4) Call for a single skill check. Set the DC as the DM wishes.
5) Make it a Skill Challenge. Set the DCs as the DM wishes.

It doesn't matter how much you've pumped into your Diplomacy (or whatever skills). The DM still determines what the target difficulty is. I do not consider setting the DCs as any number between 0 and infinity DM fiat, because ONLY the DM knows how difficult it would be to talk this particular ruler into handing over hs kingdom. There is no set DC in the books for "hand over your kingdom."

Spells like Charm Person (arguably) or Dominate Person (much more likely in this scenario) circumvent that DM choice if they succeed. DM fiat would be necessary to block the Dominate Person from functioning. Of course this is an extreme example and there are too many factors and outs to consider in a single thread much less a single post.

I thought it was perfectly viable as per RAW for the players to suggest they're using a skill? Or even that they're using multiple skills in the situation, in which it would turn pretty much automatically into a skill challenge? Of course, the DM can always say "No", but this seems to be heavily discouraged in the rules. In any case, the whole skill challenge system is quite vaguely written and open to interpretation.

Wasn't the DC supposed to rely on the level of the PCs, i.e. as per page 42 in DMG?

And, like you noted, the DM could just as easily say "No" in the previous editions -- for example, he might decide that the king is always protected against such spells.

 

[Scribble]

Wasn't the DC supposed to rely on the level of the PCs, i.e. as per page 42 in DMG?

Level is level of the challenge not the PCs. (Although they do tend to be close a lot of the time.)

 

[LostSoul]

I read about a group that used PTA for a D&D-esque game, but that was solely using PTA. Has anyone tried to combine two such rulesets to see if they work together?

That might have been me. It was a fun game.

I wouldn't try to mix the two - that would be crazy.

Someone would have to educate me in pre-Supplement I gaming about how characters handled traps or if they even existed in-game during that era of the game.

The player would describe his character's action and the DM would determine if it worked or not.

 

[Ariosto]

Also note that the Thief originally had no special ability to find traps. A Thief had a chance (10% at 1st level for a Human or Elf, 15% for a Hobbit, 25% for a Dwarf) to "remove small trap devices (such as poisoned needles)".

That did not make it incumbent on the DM arbitrarily to rule that other sensible measures were ineffective. Considering that even a 5th-level Dwarf Thief was as likely to fail as to succeed at trap removal, some other way to disarm, neutralize or avoid the effects of such devices (typically associated with treasure chests) might well be preferable.

A Dwarf character had a special ability to note traps and other underground construction. That was not quantified, as I recall, until AD&D. Again, it hardly negated the effectiveness of ordinary methods of investigation.

As far as I recall, in no official D&D rules set prior to 3E (if even therein) was it stipulated that only types with some special ability to do so could find or counteract traps. Such a limitation was not a rule of the game as designed, but a "house rule" in some groups. (I will gladly stand corrected by a proper citation of such a rule, knowing that my memory is not perfect.)

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I disagree. What I would like is mechanical support for the fluff of the classes.

As I wrote in the other thread, if I choose to be a pathfinder or a master spy, I expect something that makes me better than other characters at leading the party through an uncharted wilderness or at being a spy. Instead, all I get are combat moves.

*coming in late to the thread*

To me, this issue is broader than a lack of mechanical support for the fluff of the classes. It's true that there is no such support, and that is a problem.

But the broader issue, to me, is that too often in 4e, words don't mean what they normally mean. "Pathfinder" doesn't mean you can find paths. "Trip" doesn't mean trip. "Fear" doesn't mean fear. Instead, words are associated with game mechanics -at most - and that's it. This comes up again and again and again through all three core books.

4e can be a lot of fun to play. I have had a lot of good games with it. It's not fun, for me, to read 4e. In fact, it is quite frustrating to me to read.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I think a big part of it is the minimal flavor text associated with the powers. However, the way powers are presented in 4E saves space and allows room for all the content needed.

3E spells could easily be written in a similar way:

Enlarge Person - Sor/Wiz 1, Strength 1
"A pinch of powdered iron is a small thing to sacrifice to make your companion ogre-sized."
School: Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: 5 squares + 1 square/2 levels
Target: 1 humanoid creature
Duration: 10 rounds/level
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
SR: Yes
Effect: The target's size category increases to the next larger one. The target gains +2 Strength, -2 Dexterity (minimum 1), -1 AC, and -1 to attack rolls. The weapon dice of melee weapons is increased to the next largest size category.

Mind Fog - Brd 5, Sor/Wiz 5
"A thin mist gnaws at the minds of your enemies."
School: Compulsion (Mind-Affecting)
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: 20 squares + 2 squares/level
Area: 4 square radius from origin square
Duration: 300 rounds
Saving Throw: Will negates
SR: Yes
Effect: A creature within the area of mind fog takes a -10 penalty to Wisdom checks and Will saves (Will save negates). The penalty lasts 2d6 rounds after the creature leaves the area of the fog.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I must admit I'm gradually being persuaded by threads like this that a selection of well-designed non-combat 'Trait' or 'Passive Powers' or something would do no harm to the game.

Well, I think that class-specific feats (or paragon-path specific feats) are appropriate to fill that niche. Woodland Stride sounds like a perfectly reasonable feat for a ranger or druid.

A spymaster should have access to feats that allow them to be sneaky in most situations. Of course, there's already a whole skill that provides for 90% of all your sneaking needs. But a feat like this would be appropriate:

You Never Saw Me

Prerequisite: Spymaster paragon path
Benefit: If you make a Stealth check within one round of being seen, make an attack: Dex vs. Will (range: sight). A creature that is hit by this attack assumes that they had just seen a shadow or a trick of the light and forgets that you were ever there. Furthermore, you may spend an action point while hiding to exit the vicinity without being detected.

So this feat would be perfect for a mission of sneaking into the king's bedroom to steal the secret plans. Guard walks in on you? Suddenly, you're behind the dresser and the guard shrugs his shoulders and keeps going. If the king walks in and looks like he'll be there for a while, you spend an action point that allows you to climb across the ceiling while he's trimming his toenails and exit through a window.

I like the idea that feats should allow you to not only improve your combat abilities, but also to do cool stuff that fits a character archetype.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I wouldn't try to mix the two - that would be crazy.

Why? I haven't played PTA, but if I understand the premise of the game it's like group collaboration in writing a TV show. I assume that since a D&D TV show would have combat action scenes that a game of D&D PTA would still lead to combat. Once the group has decided that combat is joined switch systems to D&D combat and when the combat is complete pick up the collaborative story-telling. Like I said though, I haven't played PTA to know if this would make sense or be a crazy endeavor like you said.

The player would describe his character's action and the DM would determine if it worked or not.

Also note that the Thief originally had no special ability to find traps. A Thief had a chance (10% at 1st level for a Human or Elf, 15% for a Hobbit, 25% for a Dwarf) to "remove small trap devices (such as poisoned needles)".

Well, in absence of rules on finding traps it would come down to DM adjucation.

As far as I recall, in no official D&D rules set prior to 3E (if even therein) was it stipulated that only types with some special ability to do so could find or counteract traps. Such a limitation was not a rule of the game as designed, but a "house rule" in some groups. (I will gladly stand corrected by a proper citation of such a rule, knowing that my memory is not perfect.)

I think it was assumed (and maybe this is because I started with Basic and moved into 1E D&D) that because the Thief had a class ability to find traps and other classes did not, that only the Thief could locate a trap. In 3E it specified that anyone could find a trap if the Search DC was 20 or less and the trap was non-magical. Otherwise, you had to have the class ability to locate more difficult traps. 4E opens up locating and disarming traps to anyone through use of Perception and Thievery.

 

[LostSoul]

Why? I haven't played PTA, but if I understand the premise of the game it's like group collaboration in writing a TV show. I assume that since a D&D TV show would have combat action scenes that a game of D&D PTA would still lead to combat. Once the group has decided that combat is joined switch systems to D&D combat and when the combat is complete pick up the collaborative story-telling. Like I said though, I haven't played PTA to know if this would make sense or be a crazy endeavor like you said.

PTA flies by pretty fast and it focuses on a character's issues and their abilities in the context of those issues. Stopping the issue-focused play to whip out a battlemap for a half-hour would be a strange thing.

It would probably be easier to add some rules from PTA to D&D than the other way around: you'd get the players framing the scenes, one conflict per scene, conflict resolution, fan mail, a budget, "high card gets narration", and combats that resolve issues focused on the characters. (Combat would have to resolve the conflict in the scene like a normal roll.)