D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't have a problem with having to dedicate resources toward skills to keep the ones my character is awesome at in the 'high' range, the part that bothers me is the Xmas Tree Effect of assuming skill bonuses from your items as part of that advancement.

Extending the Inherent bonus system to skill checks seems like the next logical step in eliminating that feeling that your character is little more than a walking collection of items.

I'm not even suggesting that this is a flaw in the system per se, only that it is a way in which the design goals of the game conflict with my preferences (and this has been pretty much always true of D&D - it has always been 'the clothes make the PC').

Well, yeah, OTOH you can do some pretty good skill optimization without needing to use items. For instance at level 30 my Eladrin Wizard/Academy Master/Sage of Ages could have 20 INT = +5, trained = +5, racial bonus = +2, PP = +2, ED = +6, level = +15 for a base Arcana check bonus of +35. Add Skill Focus for +38. I'm sure there are at least one or two other easy static bonuses. This gives him a hard level 30 Arcana check success of IIRC a 5+. He can trivially achieve a reroll without using an item somewhere in there, giving him basically about a 90% success rate on the hardest possible Arcana check. Obviously another small item bonus would ramp him up pretty close to 95%, but it isn't really NEEDED. Admittedly this is expending some resources and making his choices to focus on this aspect of the character, but it leaves him loads of feat slots and being bare-assed naked won't reduce his check at all. So I think 4e handles it OK. You can do similar things with most other skills. In fact there are some skills you can do considerably better. A Deva would actually be able to do better right off on critical checks with his racial feature but not on every check.

 

[Barastrondo]

Actually combat and out-of-combat situations in 4e are quite consistent. If you spend none of your feats on increasing damage output and accuracy, adding additional effects onto your attacks, stacking stuff ala frostcheese etc then the character will be at best mediocre in combat at high levels. This is very similar to the guy that starts with a +15 Arcana and never dedicates anything more to it. He'll be pretty good even at level 30, but not the ultimate crackerjack arcanist.

If you've been playing for a while, though, your character will have shifted from "Let me handle the hard check on this skill challenge, I'm trained" to "Ugh, I'm going to need to roll 13 or better; odds are we'd just get another failure and we can't afford one." You can actually track your devolution in ability if you don't take what can be the least interesting (by player) choices, just to keep up. It's sort of the feat tax problem again, only in this case you have two areas of feat taxes to consider before you can go for something that adds a new and interesting capability.

The reason it works this way is that it gives the players some control over the development of the character over its lifetime and gives a feeling of evolving and learning new tricks and actually working at being the ultimate guy for that skill. Again this is like combat where as you level you pick feats, powers, and items which work together to make you really effective.

In my experience it doesn't work quite like that. If I take, say, Paragon Defenses instead of Secret Stride once I hit paragon, I don't feel that my character has evolved and learned new tricks. What I do feel is the opportunity cost: I could have had a new trick (being able to be stealthy while moving quickly, which is very visual), but instead I paid a feat tax for a passive math modifier. I feel the same way about Skill Focus: I'd rather take Secret Stride than Skill Focus, because the first actually does feel like I'm learning a new trick while the second feels more like I'm accounting for a hike in math taxes.

I don't think this is vastly difficult in either case. Skills have simple ways like taking Skill Focus and maybe getting a bonus from a power. With combat there are fairly straightforward obvious feats that you take, Superior Weapon Proficiency, Expertise, Weapon Focus, and some of the more situational feats.

The problem I (and several of my players) have is that so many of these feats are boring. They can be exciting if you're wired for them, but if you're not? It's more fun to take Skill Training in a new skill than it is to get a +2 to a skill you already have, because then you have a whole new set of rolls open to you. Similarly, it's more fun to take Clever Tail (that tiefling feat that lets you use your tail for Thievery checks) than it is to take Expertise or Weapon Focus.

Sure, mediocrity is the price to pay for wanting to play with more skills than the (sometimes stingy) class list allows for, or picking feats and paragon paths that offer new options instead of upgrading your current ones. I understand why that may be a necessary choice when we're talking D&D as a whole, with players that range from CharOp veterans to bright-eyed newbies. But it has its side effects, including (something I find problematic) a penchant for making players react more negatively to skill challenges. Making things more hard on groups who don't take skill-boost feats or focus only on the skills tied to their racial synergies results in those players trying fewer daring things. It's not my preferred play style.

 

[eriktheguy]

Hey guys, what are you referring to when you say that Hard Skill DCs accelerate too much?

At level 1: training +5 , ability mod +4 = +9, Hard DC is 15, success on 6+
At level 28: training +5, level +14, ability mod +8 = +27. Hard DC is 33, success on 6+.

I'm reading from DMG 2 here. Why do you need magic items or feats to catch up?

Backgrounds add +2, feats +3, items +2-6. Using two of these three modifiers can give you success on a 1+ at all levels.

Are you maybe using Stalker0's alternate core challenge DCs?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'm reading from DMG 2 here. Why do you need magic items or feats to catch up?

Because those numbers have been errata'd. Your level 1 Hard DC is now 19 (success on 10+ using your numbers), and your level 28 Hard DC is now 40 (you'd need a 13 or better with your skill bonus).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If you've been playing for a while, though, your character will have shifted from "Let me handle the hard check on this skill challenge, I'm trained" to "Ugh, I'm going to need to roll 13 or better; odds are we'd just get another failure and we can't afford one." You can actually track your devolution in ability if you don't take what can be the least interesting (by player) choices, just to keep up. It's sort of the feat tax problem again, only in this case you have two areas of feat taxes to consider before you can go for something that adds a new and interesting capability.



In my experience it doesn't work quite like that. If I take, say, Paragon Defenses instead of Secret Stride once I hit paragon, I don't feel that my character has evolved and learned new tricks. What I do feel is the opportunity cost: I could have had a new trick (being able to be stealthy while moving quickly, which is very visual), but instead I paid a feat tax for a passive math modifier. I feel the same way about Skill Focus: I'd rather take Secret Stride than Skill Focus, because the first actually does feel like I'm learning a new trick while the second feels more like I'm accounting for a hike in math taxes.



The problem I (and several of my players) have is that so many of these feats are boring. They can be exciting if you're wired for them, but if you're not? It's more fun to take Skill Training in a new skill than it is to get a +2 to a skill you already have, because then you have a whole new set of rolls open to you. Similarly, it's more fun to take Clever Tail (that tiefling feat that lets you use your tail for Thievery checks) than it is to take Expertise or Weapon Focus.

Sure, mediocrity is the price to pay for wanting to play with more skills than the (sometimes stingy) class list allows for, or picking feats and paragon paths that offer new options instead of upgrading your current ones. I understand why that may be a necessary choice when we're talking D&D as a whole, with players that range from CharOp veterans to bright-eyed newbies. But it has its side effects, including (something I find problematic) a penchant for making players react more negatively to skill challenges. Making things more hard on groups who don't take skill-boost feats or focus only on the skills tied to their racial synergies results in those players trying fewer daring things. It's not my preferred play style.

It really IS necessary to make the game make sense. You can either pick tons of options that give you some new capabilities and have loads of different things you can do moderately well, or you can zero in on a few things you do extraordinarily well and continue to excel at. That's where the interest comes in. YOU the player constantly have those choices to make, so that you are really actively shaping your character. If you just flick switches to be good at X, Y, or Z and that's it you can forget about it and go on to the next thing then it is nothing but a checklist and inevitably there will always be a list of the best options to check off.

Personally I don't agree that the feats which allow you to move on to being 'best the world has ever seen' at something are boring. Yes, they are static bonuses, but they feed into and reinforce what you want to do. In any case PCs get plenty of new toys regardless of what you do with feats. You get powers and then PP features etc at virtually every level. Especially once you hit paragon there's really not that much need to add a new gewgaw to your character with every feat. In fact honestly IME it isn't necessarily desired. As one of my players expressed the other day, her character has enough fiddly bits and it is welcomed to have an option to just say beef up some defenses and not have to worry about them anymore and not have some new thing to have to remember. PCs are going to have what, 17 feats overall? Plenty of room for some interesting choices even if a few MAY be more mundane.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

How about the opposite though?

I am a 20th level Wizard (in 3E).

I have traveled continents, been on other planes of existence, battled creatures the likes of which would drive most sane men mad.

But if I walk into a Tavern, my Spot skill is so bad that a 2nd level Assassin can attack me with surprise with ease without me ever seeing him.

You and AbdulAlhazred make some excellent points towards this discussion - particularly in relation to "Exploration Mode" skills. In regards to "Combat" skills however, with the 20th level Wizard, he or she is going to have a lot of hit points and so what can the 2nd level assassin achieve? Particularly with a book interpretation of what hit points represent. The 20th level wizard within 6 seconds is still going to be standing while the assassin's a puddle on the floor. Can the spot check truly be considered a "fail" or just an obscure blip on the encounter radar?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Barastrondo]

It really IS necessary to make the game make sense. You can either pick tons of options that give you some new capabilities and have loads of different things you can do moderately well, or you can zero in on a few things you do extraordinarily well and continue to excel at. That's where the interest comes in. YOU the player constantly have those choices to make, so that you are really actively shaping your character. If you just flick switches to be good at X, Y, or Z and that's it you can forget about it and go on to the next thing then it is nothing but a checklist and inevitably there will always be a list of the best options to check off.

I basically disagree, mostly because the definition of "good" has changed. The difference is between "you can achieve a hard DC about 50% of the time if you're trained and have a good stat" to "you can achieve a hard DC about 50% of the time if you're trained, have a good stat, spent a feat on Skill Focus and/or took a race that complements the skill in question and/or have an appropriate paragon path and/or have a magic item that will make up the difference." So if you're trained in a skill you have a strong stat for, you've moved from being defined as "good" to "better off than you would be if you were untrained." Or at least that's how it feels to me.

Of course, this complaint's pretty minor; I can just go ahead and use the DMG2 DCs instead of the Essentials-era DCs. If a skill optimizer player were to emerge, I'd probably just start introducing "excruciating" difficulty tasks that get even better results than "hard" in order to challenge them instead of shifting the goalposts for the entire group. Might work, might not: but my most regular closest-to-optimization guy at the moment plays a goliath bard, and I'd rather not adapt the campaign so that he should reroll as an eladrin if he wants to keep making hard Arcana checks on a regular basis.

Personally I don't agree that the feats which allow you to move on to being 'best the world has ever seen' at something are boring.

I freely admit this disagreement is likely at the heart of the matter.

Yes, they are static bonuses, but they feed into and reinforce what you want to do. In any case PCs get plenty of new toys regardless of what you do with feats. You get powers and then PP features etc at virtually every level. Especially once you hit paragon there's really not that much need to add a new gewgaw to your character with every feat.

Well, we're just getting to mid-paragon right now, but I can tell you right now that the three choices that are appealing most to me (and I can think of about six others on top of that) are

(a) Clever Tail [adds a new trick]
(b) Agile Athlete [makes attempting combat stunts more feasible and appealing]
(c) a math feat like Paragon Defenses or an Expertise feat.

The only thing that makes me consider (c) is the gnawing sense of obligation to the math. I'm just not fond of that as a motivation to pick something for my character; it doesn't reflect any of the choices the character would make, it just reflects a metagame necessity. And when I tell myself "(a) or (b) would accurately reflect the character's actions and interests, but I should pick (c) to account for monster scaling," it feels kind of like something's gone wrong.

In fact honestly IME it isn't necessarily desired. As one of my players expressed the other day, her character has enough fiddly bits and it is welcomed to have an option to just say beef up some defenses and not have to worry about them anymore and not have some new thing to have to remember. PCs are going to have what, 17 feats overall? Plenty of room for some interesting choices even if a few MAY be more mundane.

It isn't necessarily desired, but yeah, that depends on the player. Locally, it's pretty desired. My wife's more prone to say "there are just too many cool feats and not enough slots." And even if you might have 17 feats at 30th level, the ones you take latest are the ones you'll use the least. It's one more incentive (for our group's playstyle, of course) to focus first on the ones that add interesting capabilities and reflect the character's personality.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah. I kind of feel like there are rather an excess of options personally. Characters start to feel rather diffused in theme IMHO unless players stick to a fairly narrow theme in feat selection. Is the character a great athlete or an expert at sneaking around? Anyway, it seems to me that the whole question of thematics in character development and other related issues with feats is a whole different discussion than the original topic of the thread. It is an interesting one, but ultimately I just feel like there's nothing wrong with 'be really tough to hit' as a concept for a feat.

 

[Barastrondo]

Yeah. I kind of feel like there are rather an excess of options personally. Characters start to feel rather diffused in theme IMHO unless players stick to a fairly narrow theme in feat selection. Is the character a great athlete or an expert at sneaking around?

I agree that this is probably a very different discussion, so I'll just keep things simple and note that I think it depends on the specific theme; adding athletics to sneaking might not suit a character modeled on Bilbo Baggins, but a character modeled on Ezio Auditore needs both to even come close.

Anyway, it seems to me that the whole question of thematics in character development and other related issues with feats is a whole different discussion than the original topic of the thread. It is an interesting one, but ultimately I just feel like there's nothing wrong with 'be really tough to hit' as a concept for a feat.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it either; really my complaint was about the combination of lacking the same kind of easily visualized, in-character punch and also being kind of necessary for math parity. So I figure I'm better served by correcting the necessity (like by handing out Paragon Defenses and an Expertise feat for free at level X, or by adjusting the DC chart) if I want to encourage more thematic feats.

 

[invokethehojo]

What took away the simulation aspect? Largely, it was people thinking that they couldn't do the sort of things that you described, because they weren't specifically stated somewhere. What to be able to tell a joke and drop the punchline? Rolling a '1' on Diplomacy will handle that. You want to be able to make dragon fat soap? Maybe use a skill challenge related to Arcana and Nature, to create an alchemical formula for it.

The only thing stopping you from being able to do virtually anything in any edition of D&D, from Basic through 4e, is not letting yourself believe the words, "It can be done."

What your saying is entirely true, but as a person who has played D&D for 20 years and 3 editions I have to say that over time the game has moved more in a direction where it doesn't promote that kind of thinking.

When I read the 4e players handbook what I hear about the rules is, "here is a box", when I read the 2e players handbook I heard about the rules, "start with this box and think outside of it". The only thing really different is the way they present the message.

It seems like no big deal to many players who think creatively no matter what, but the power of suggestion can be very important to most people. I think when learning a new RPG people tend to absorb it the way it is presented. So if thinking outside the box isn't encouraged anywhere in the rules then for that first month you are playing a new RPG, mostly trying to get a grip on the rules, it isn't popping into your head to try it. By the time you know how to play there are new options to pick each level and new books and before you know it thinking outside the box becomes like that rarely used utensil in the back of your silverware drawer: still useful, but you don't use it mostly because you have to look for it. Out of sight, out of mind.

(I was trying hard to think of a clever way of including a "there is no spoon" reference in that post, but I didn't roll well enough on my Intelligence check.)