I’m Thinking of Giving 4e Another Shot

[Mistwell]

There's a difference in perspective. Such post hoc narration is not what "role playing" formerly meant!

It isn't? What makes you say that?

 

[Scribble]

Skill Challenges

Ok, those changes make the skill challenges much easier. Maybe too easy. The math for working out the probabilities is easy, but more than just a little tedious. If I were to make much use of this system I'd write a small program to work out the numbers for me.

Skill challenges are presented as being optional. I've done fine up till now just playing through these kind of things and winging it, but I'm glad the option is there if I need them. I don't see that they're a hindrance to my play style at all so I don’t really think they’re an issue.

I like skill challenges a lot. Even so it DID take a little bit for me to get used to throwing them into my game sessions.

Did you read the stuff Mike Mearls wrote in dungeon about them? The first one he designs is somewhat complicated, but even so reading them kind of gave me a better mindset about how o think about them, and made running ad-hoc ones much easier for me, which benefited the game a lot.

I find it helpful to think of them as not really a new system ENTIRELY, just a new way of processing elements that used to be separate as a whole. (Allowing you to more effectively determine a reward if any)

For instance camping and wandering monsters.

I've found using the SC system allows me to have the PCs essentially determine (by success or failure) if the wandering monster shows up, or finds them, and if so- how tough the fight will be.

Success in the SC nets them XP, so they can still gain XP without expending resources by encountering/fighting the monster.

Same with overland travel.

Treasure Parcels II

I've reread the treasure information in the DMG and it's just as prescriptive and depressing as I remember it being. I can't use that.

I suspect that the 4e treasure system was designed around the thought of just getting the task done and going on with the rest of the game. Well, that’s understandable, but I want a bit more verisimilitude. I’ve found over the past thirty years that players generally appreciate it.

To me this info is nothing more then the game showing the referee its math so to speak. IE these are the assumptions the game makes in its "balance."

Like when you do a math problem with a variable A + 6 = 9 then you know A = 3, and if you change A then you change the answer to the problem.

Treasure Parcels are really just telling you what the game assumed A was.

X amount of treasure + PC level = balanced. If you change X amount of treasure you change balance. Either over or under balanced.

In my own games I rarely stay at perfect balance treasure wise. But I like that the parcel system lets me know where the PCs lie on the spectrum pretty quickly.

Selling Treasure

Selling your treasure, including your magic items, defaults to netting you one fifth its market value? Yikes! Maybe if you dump your loot with the first person willing to take it. I understand that the rules are trying to give players an incentive to keep the magic they find, but that’s not my goal. My goal is to encourage players to explore the world through their characters and then react to whatever situations they find themselves in as their characters would be inclined.

If a character is willing to take the time to find a broker for magic items I’d let that character sell the item for around half price. If the character is willing to take the time to go a few steps further and actually look for a final buyer that actually needs the item they should be able to net somewhere around full market price. Now if the character would go so far as to research the history of the item and look for a buyer that would want it for its sentimental or historical reasons I’d even go so far as to let him get 125% or even 150% for it.

I’m never really worried too much about characters getting too much money. In addition to keeping up their magical bling they’ve got general expenses, property upkeep, hireling costs & even taxes to worry about.

I look at the 1/5th value as what a shopkeep will pay an average sucker. It's like the Kelly bluebook value of the car. It's not a mandate, just what is expected.

I generally start at the value and adjust based on NPC outlook on PCs, NPC personality etc... PCs can also influence it with diplomacy checks and such (Skill Challenges!)

it all balances out in the end. Sometimes they do well sometimes they don't. 1/5th is again just giving me the math the game assumes. A good starting point I can adjust as needed.

Astral Diamonds

I’d forgotten all about these things. Other than planar currency what are they used for? Who’s backing these things up? A money god? Will this money god give you god bonds if you bring in these astral diamonds?

Yes, I know, once again the idea is to just get on with it, but usually financial transactions at that level would be handled using financial instruments issued by banks or governments rather then glowing million dollar bills. I’ll let the concept percolate in the back of my mind for awhile. Maybe I’ll come up with something cool involving them, or one of you guys will.

Yeah... Astral diamonds are a funny concept... but no more so to me then the entire D&D monetary system has ever been.

I once tried to implement a way to track different exchange rates, and things like shaved coins and what not... but the amount of extra die rolling/bookeeping I had to do did not get made up for in fun. So I just take the D&D money system with a grain of salt.

 

[Ariosto]

It isn't? What makes you say that?

30+ years in the hobby.

 

[Obryn]

30+ years in the hobby.

I somehow find your explanation lacking.

-O

 

[Scribble]

eh... I think it just lacks the qualifier "to him" at the end.

That's not what roleplaying has meant "to him" in the 30+ years he's been gaming.

Shrug. To each his own.

 

[Pbartender]

30+ years in the hobby.

25+ years in the hobby have taught me that everyone has varying levels of interest in role playing, varying levels of comfort with it, and varying levels of talent in its different aspects. Hence, I have developed a rather inclusive definition of "role playing" and do my best to encourage my players' forays into creative narration no matter what form it may take.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

One of the biggest problems I've had with 4E is that, while there are some good tools, like stunts, for allowing players to think outside the box, my players seem to have gotten into a persistent bad habit of not looking past the rules or the powers on their sheet. There seems to be an underlying mentality of "if the rules don't say I can do it, then I can't". So despite the availability and opportunity to use stunts, for example, it simply never occurs to them to try it, because their character sheet doesn't say, "Skill Stunt: At-will, etc, etc..." My players never seem to look past their powers and feats.

I don't think it's a new development. I know I've seen similar behavior previously in 3rd Edition.

But it's one problem I'm still struggling with to some degree.

 

[Rechan]

So are Sneak attacks and Hunter's Quarry also ki-magic too? And critical hits? Because those are gamist notions where extra damage comes in.

If you can accept a rogue getting extra damage when a target grants combat advantage, then I don't see why you can't accept a fighter's Crack the Shell going off without bending over backwards to explain it.

If you can accept "Well he rolled a 20, therefore he gets to do buckets of damage" with no other need of explanation except "It was a real good/lucky hit", then why with the rest? I've never seen someone have to justify why a fighter isn't critting with every attack - just those he rolled a 20 on.

So couldn't a fighter's daily just be "the crit of the day"?

 

[ExploderWizard]

When you have good people and good adventures, the edition becomes slightly less important. We recently gave 4E a 2nd shot and tossed the the published adventures. Our homebrew game is awesome, set in a city, filled with a lot of non-combat encounters. Much of the combat we do have is with monsters made up by the DM that are created similar to PC's and without the mountains of hit points. It's been a lot of fun.

Technically, the ruleset is 4E. We have learned to kind of forget about what we are playing, and concentrate on what we are doing. It's working out so far.

 

[Primal]

So are Sneak attacks and Hunter's Quarry also ki-magic too? And critical hits? Because those are gamist notions where extra damage comes in.

If you can accept a rogue getting extra damage when a target grants combat advantage, then I don't see why you can't accept a fighter's Crack the Shell going off without bending over backwards to explain it.

If you can accept "Well he rolled a 20, therefore he gets to do buckets of damage" with no other need of explanation except "It was a real good/lucky hit", then why with the rest? I've never seen someone have to justify why a fighter isn't critting with every attack - just those he rolled a 20 on.

So couldn't a fighter's daily just be "the crit of the day"?

I can personally justify how Hunter's Quarry, Sneak Attacks and Crits work -- after all, what they all stand for are hitting "where it hurts" when someone's guard is down. When we cross over to the world of 4E powers, it becomes different; some of them are just mind-bogglingly hard to justify (by my standards, at least) as nothing else as "cinematic" or "magic" or "Chi/Ki-like", just as a rogue armed with a single dagger using 'Blinding Barrage' against, say, six ghosts or constructs. Or a ranger using 'Hammer Shot' against something that weighs so much that no matter how "powerful" his shot is, it is virtually impossible to move (slide) the target 15 feet.

 

[Scribble]

I can personally justify how Hunter's Quarry, Sneak Attacks and Crits work -- after all, what they all stand for are hitting "where it hurts" when someone's guard is down. When we cross over to the world of 4E powers, it becomes different; some of them are just mind-bogglingly hard to justify (by my standards, at least) as nothing else as "cinematic" or "magic" or "Chi/Ki-like", just as a rogue armed with a single dagger using 'Blinding Barrage' against, say, six ghosts or constructs. Or a ranger using 'Hammer Shot' against something that weighs so much that no matter how "powerful" his shot is, it is virtually impossible to move (slide) the target 15 feet.

From my standpoint you can either:

Just say the power doesn't work against el big guy- (which seems to unfairly punish the ranger)

or don't get hung up by the fact that the power's default description mentions strength and explain it in another fashion.

IE: El Biggie tries to dodge the attack, but in doing so throws himself off balance and stumbles back two squares.

Or it slams into him and he runs back in a rage...

Or just use some other elements in the area to the same effect, like the ranger shoots a beam, which falls and slams into the big guy causing him to stumble backwards.

I like to watch fight scenes in movies and decide which D&D power best fits what I'm seeing sometimes.