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

[KarinsDad]

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?

Fine. A second level Thief who picks the pocket of the 20th level Wizard, taking his epic level wand and walking out the door. The Wizard walks to the bar, orders a drink, and has no concept that he lost his best and most valuable item.

The problem is the same.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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 with this. But bringing it back slightly more sim than the RAW, 4E isn't hard to house rule in this respect--as long as you apply the 80/20 rule and accept that the house rules are going to tweak the results and feel, not turn 4E into a simulation.

For example, something like this would add a bit more sim to 4E, and nullify a huge chunk of the edge cases:

Anti-Training: You have a blindspot, severe lack of interest, little exposure, etc. to this skill. For whatever reason, you have never found it easy to learn. Take a -5 to all skill checks with that skill. In compensation, you may take a free skill training feat in another skill. You may only take this option once.

Hyper Focus: You have a blindspot, severe lack of interest, little exposure, etc. to a particular application of a skill (e.g. swimming part of Athletics). For whatever reason, you have never found it easy to learn. Take a -5 to all skill checks that involve that application. In compensation, you gain a +3 to another application of a different skills (e.g. balance part of Acrobatics, particular history area, etc.) You may take this option multiple times, at DM's discretion.

There are some pitfalls with both, but if you really want a little more sim in 4E, none of the pitfalls are so severe that you can't work around them with a bit of DM oversight. And players in the group that don't want to bother aren't out anything.

 

[Ryujin]

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.)

About 35 years and 4 Editions, here

I thought as you did, before I actually played 4e. It looked, to me, like every character was arranged into a little slot, with no options for creativity. I couldn't have been more wrong, which was proven to me the moment that my group actually started playing. The only limitations were the ones that I placed on myself, by putting blinders on regarding the nature of the game system.

The "box" is just a framework, in 4e. It's what you choose to hang from it, and clothe it in, that really matters. The simplicity is freedom, not constraint.

 

[buddhafrog]

I DM 7 games of 4e a week for ESL students. This month I started playing my first ever Pathfinder game (only played AD&D before).

One aspect I really liked about Pathfinder was skills ranks - being able to chose which areas your character improved in. In 4e, everything jumps 1 pt. every 2 levels. After your initial +5 training, only feats are going to give skill bonuses, but in my experience those feats are rarely chosen.

Has anyone came up with their own version to give more skill improvement options while leveling in 4e?? I'd love to hear your ideas.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Fine. A second level Thief who picks the pocket of the 20th level Wizard, taking his epic level wand and walking out the door. The Wizard walks to the bar, orders a drink, and has no concept that he lost his best and most valuable item.

The problem is the same.

I don't know why a level 2 rogue would be an appropriate challenge though. He's just going to fail miserably and he should. If the wizard is supposed to confront the thief at some point a level 2 thief is hopelessly outclassed. The wizard could pull out his dagger and fight hand-to-hand with the guy and win trivially. He has access to magical resources that will let him track the thief down without any hope of this level 2 antagonist being able to do anything about it. If the story is the guy ultimately fails then maybe he should just fail right away. You can always fluff it as the thief manages to pick the wizard's pocket and as he heads out the door the wizard (having thwarted all sorts of sneaky types in his 30 levels of adventuring) picks up on what's going on. If you are in that 1 in 1000 corner case where you REALLY REALLY need to have it work then DM fiat is the answer. You can raise the thief's skill bonus to some super high level, but what you really are after is a specific sequence of events at that point, so why bother rolling at all?

If you want a challenging scenario with an antagonist stealing from a level 30 wizard, then I'd say you want to use an appropriately leveled antagonist. On the whole the issue seems adequately dealt with in 4e.

I agree with this. But bringing it back slightly more sim than the RAW, 4E isn't hard to house rule in this respect--as long as you apply the 80/20 rule and accept that the house rules are going to tweak the results and feel, not turn 4E into a simulation.

For example, something like this would add a bit more sim to 4E, and nullify a huge chunk of the edge cases:

Anti-Training: You have a blindspot, severe lack of interest, little exposure, etc. to this skill. For whatever reason, you have never found it easy to learn. Take a -5 to all skill checks with that skill. In compensation, you may take a free skill training feat in another skill. You may only take this option once.

Hyper Focus: You have a blindspot, severe lack of interest, little exposure, etc. to a particular application of a skill (e.g. swimming part of Athletics). For whatever reason, you have never found it easy to learn. Take a -5 to all skill checks that involve that application. In compensation, you gain a +3 to another application of a different skills (e.g. balance part of Acrobatics, particular history area, etc.) You may take this option multiple times, at DM's discretion.

There are some pitfalls with both, but if you really want a little more sim in 4E, none of the pitfalls are so severe that you can't work around them with a bit of DM oversight. And players in the group that don't want to bother aren't out anything.

Yeah, I wasn't personally saying I think skills are too broad and diffuse. I was more talking about what happens when a character has reached say mid-paragon and has 10 feats. Characters that add sort of random 'interesting' feats tend to get a bid muddied in theme.

As for the other idea. I think it is fine as a house rule if someone wants it. As a core rule I'd be against it. Too many players would just automatically take some skill attached to their dump stat and use it to get training in something valuable. They'd never use the dump skill anyway. Now, as a background option it might not be so bad, take a -5 in one skill and get another skill added to your list you can train or take a +2 background bonus in it. Still going to be gamed, but if that's your background benefit you haven't actually gained anything, you've just made the character more quirky.

The hyperfocus thing is similar, some players could game it, but the situations where you can do it and be sure you're not hurting yourself are narrower. Restrict it to trained skills. OK, normally I'd be a good swimmer but I'd rather not be able to swim well and be able to pick locks better. Still possible to min/max but if both are trained skills at least you're giving up as good as you're getting.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

I don't think it does. Most characters who are the best around in their level range (which is what hard challenges are meant to be for; easy is for e.g. the wizard trying to lift the gate or the barbarian discussing theology, medium is what you'd expect and hard is for the best of the best) have invested power bonusses somewhere along the way. And Utility powers are often +5 to their chosen skill. Items help a bit.

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."

Hard is meant to be for more than just training. You're meant to have sunk resources beyond that into it - you simply don't need to at first because you don't have them to sink so it's flatter.

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.

As a DM, if you can bring your special trick into play I'm going to drop the DC you need by an entire level. Convince me that fast stealth is how to do things and you're going to need a medium rather than a hard check because it isn't hard for you. But if stealth alone is all you need and the problem is lack of cover it's still hard (but would be medium for the Warlock with Shadow Walk).

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?

Depends how smart the assassin is. Picking his pocket (as mentioned earlier) or poisoning his drink work. And garotting might be a nice approach so he can't cast.

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.

You mean you haven't played 4e? You're just pontificating without experience?

When I read the 4e players handbook

As almost any fan of 4e will tell you, the 4e PHB is about as inspiring as a computer instruction manual and the game plays much better than it reads.

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.

That's what you get when you read them? Play trumps reading every time. And what I get from playing 4e is "Here's some scaffolding. You can either treat it as a really cool if slightly dangerous climbing frame or use it as scaffolding to build something. Or treat it as the braces for a box if you want something." Whereas what I get from playing 2e is "Here's a box we thought was cool. With some extensions we thought were cool. You're going to have to throw half of it away anyway because it's badly thought through."

So if thinking outside the box isn't encouraged anywhere in the rules

Oh, but it is. The skill challenge rules and the famous p42 of the DMG do a much better job of encouraging outside the box play than having to cut the game to fit. Saying it isn't encouraged anywhere in the rules is your perception based one one book - and not the book that the person who needs to evaluate PC ideas needs to use. And the single biggest aid and hinderance to out of the box thinking is the DM. If the DM is going to go with out of the box ideas then out of the box thinking works - and if the DM is going to gibber or say no then it doesn't. 4e is a positive joy to DM with smooth support inside the box and excellent tools to handle play outside the box.

 

[Barastrondo]

I don't think it does. Most characters who are the best around in their leHard is meant to be for more than just training. You're meant to have sunk resources beyond that into it - you simply don't need to at first because you don't have them to sink so it's flatter.

Oh, I know what it's meant to be at present. I simply disagree with the decision, particularly in conjunction with presenting things like skill challenges which have, say, two or three "medium" difficulty chances at success and two to four "hard" difficulty chances at success. A player group who doesn't find Skill Focus or skill-boosting items interesting enough to be a priority has two or three choices at decent odds for success, rather than the four to seven they'd have if the DCs simply accounted for a good stat + skill training. So the skill challenge is more repetitive unless someone says "Hey, 13+ is good enough odds for me!"

And if you're not trained in any of the three medium-difficulty skills, and you haven't sunk resources into any of the skills you're trained at, you have no real incentive to roll dice in that skill challenge at all. You're potentially obliged to take part, but more likely to contribute a failure than anything. That's not a lot of fun for a player. Of course, that's an even different tangent, as it gets into how to design skill challenges so that everyone around the table is interested and just how to implement difficulties in an enticing fashion.

As a DM, if you can bring your special trick into play I'm going to drop the DC you need by an entire level. Convince me that fast stealth is how to do things and you're going to need a medium rather than a hard check because it isn't hard for you. But if stealth alone is all you need and the problem is lack of cover it's still hard (but would be medium for the Warlock with Shadow Walk).

Yeah, that's a fine way of dealing with things. Mostly my point is that there are groups out there who have no players who do what's "intended" of them: at best you may see someone train in the skills they're good at racially, but they're still as likely to make a goliath bard as a half-elf bard because they think the former idea is more interesting. High numbers are seen as desirable enough, but not sexy in the way that other tricks are sexy. The DMG2 DC chart works great for groups like this; the Essentials chart less so. There's less reason to keep up with the Joneses (the Joneses being people who like things like Skill Focus) if there aren't really any Joneses at the table.

 

[KarinsDad]

In 4e, everything jumps 1 pt. every 2 levels. After your initial +5 training, only feats are going to give skill bonuses, but in my experience those feats are rarely chosen.

Players should be able to boost their skills without taking the feat to do so? Huh?

There are items that the PCs could probably craft in most games, there are skill focus feats, there are two skill boost feats, there are skill training feats, and there are multi-classing feats. There are even really potent skill boost feats like Illusionary Stealth.

There are also skill powers.

So, there are a lot of options.

As time went by and more splat books came out, I saw quite a bit more of the "I must take combat feats" mentality. In the first 6 months of playing, I had players of some PCs who actually didn't see any good feats who were willing to take more skill or skill boost feats. Now with many thousands of feats available, that seems to rarely be the case.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As for the other idea. I think it is fine as a house rule if someone wants it. As a core rule I'd be against it. Too many players would just automatically take some skill attached to their dump stat and use it to get training in something valuable...

I agree something like that should not be a core rule. Among other things, it complicates the base design in ways that might need different house rules at different tables. One of the things that makes 4E skills easy to house rules is that they didn't try to guess what corner cases would exist at each table. They give you a simple framework, and you can either run with it, use some fiat as necessary, or house rule the things that bug you enough. About the only way that the 4E design really screws up that part of the design is making some classes with only 3 trained skills.

By definition, all "simulation" rules can be gamed, absent DM oversight. If you put in a rule to simulated the game worlds' reality, then you put in a lever with which the players can move things. Accordingly, when a table decides to use a particular house rule to make 4E more sim, they are taking on the obligation to police the effects.

My point was really only that for people who could accept the spirit of 4E, it is not difficult to identify niche areas that rub you wrong and tweak to fix them. 4E makes this really easy. Contrawise, people who like sim for sim's sake, and try to change it/bend it to fit that spirit, are doomed to be frustrated.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, I know what it's meant to be at present. I simply disagree with the decision, particularly in conjunction with presenting things like skill challenges which have, say, two or three "medium" difficulty chances at success and two to four "hard" difficulty chances at success. A player group who doesn't find Skill Focus or skill-boosting items interesting enough to be a priority has two or three choices at decent odds for success, rather than the four to seven they'd have if the DCs simply accounted for a good stat + skill training. So the skill challenge is more repetitive unless someone says "Hey, 13+ is good enough odds for me!"

And if you're not trained in any of the three medium-difficulty skills, and you haven't sunk resources into any of the skills you're trained at, you have no real incentive to roll dice in that skill challenge at all. You're potentially obliged to take part, but more likely to contribute a failure than anything. That's not a lot of fun for a player. Of course, that's an even different tangent, as it gets into how to design skill challenges so that everyone around the table is interested and just how to implement difficulties in an enticing fashion.



Yeah, that's a fine way of dealing with things. Mostly my point is that there are groups out there who have no players who do what's "intended" of them: at best you may see someone train in the skills they're good at racially, but they're still as likely to make a goliath bard as a half-elf bard because they think the former idea is more interesting. High numbers are seen as desirable enough, but not sexy in the way that other tricks are sexy. The DMG2 DC chart works great for groups like this; the Essentials chart less so. There's less reason to keep up with the Joneses (the Joneses being people who like things like Skill Focus) if there aren't really any Joneses at the table.

Honestly I think the ultimate answer to that is if you don't dedicate SOME resources to any particular area of character development then your character IS MEANT to not be the most adept in that area. It is a set of trade-offs, pure and simple. The character that has no skill feat investment probably WON'T be too good at difficult skill checks at higher levels. This is the price the player pays for concentrating on other things.

Honestly, it seems to me that the proper skill system for a play style where there is a desire for everyone to be able to attempt everything and always be able to contribute in any given way is no skill system at all. Just abolish it. The thing is getting in the way. Make everyone pretty much equal, get rid of skill training, etc, and rewrite the DC table to reflect that.

I like the concept of trade-offs personally. I also would NOT give someone a medium check just because they're trying something they have some investment in. The heck with that. The warlock with shadow walk WILL be better at stealth than the character without it, or at least advantaged in certain situations. The rules already seem to cover that. If the warlock character wants to be super sneaky, he can train stealth instead of Dual Pact or whatever.