Legends & Lore 16 Jan 2012

[BryonD]

I don't know where Byron gets that 4e PC's have equitable skills. Thanks to characters being based around 1 high ability score, the problem is as bad as its ever been.

Shrug.

You need to argue with 4E fans who PRAISE that "feature" rather than me.

I agree that there is still going to be a gap between the rogue and the wizard. But both guys getting +1/2 level instead of whatever ranks they invest brings that gap much tighter than it is in 3E and, imo, much tighter than it "should be".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The issue with basic character compentency is all about mods and the range of the d20. I disagree that it is "as bad as it has ever been", though it has never been perfect by any means. There is a push by some 4E fans to turn "able to contribute in every situation" into a bit too much of "able to shine in every way in each situation"--not completely but a bit of that tendency. That some people have gone too far does not negate the original problem.

The whole idea behind 4E 1/2 level skill adjustment (and 3E BAB for that matter, in another context) is not that the wizard be able to climb the cliffs of insanity, but rather that if the 10th level party has to make a few short climbs up a cliff in the middle of an action scene, the wizard (and everyone else) that aren't particularly athletic can at least try it (and be tempted to try it, but that's another issue), if they don't have some magic handy. They'll probably still need some help to have a good shot, but they aren't totally helpless alone. It's the exact same difference between a "bad" saving throw that leaves you dominated on, say, an 14- instead of the 8- of the guy with the good throw, versus having extremes of 18 and 2.

Of course, trying to keep up the whole pretense that any system handles this organically, is part of what leads to the problem in the first place. Better to just ask the group what kind of range they want, and then let you set it there. Then have a baseline, single scale for all adventurers. You class/skill adjustments can come as a modifier to that baseline instead of a set number.

For example, maybe default untrained skill is -4 from the level-based adventurer baseline. Trained is +4, for an explicit range of 8. If someone wants it closer for a more 4E style, they just change either or both mods be less. If someone wants it closer to 3E, they change either or both mods to be more. If someone wants upper end scaling to remain the default, but wants "untrained" to hurt, they increase just that mod. But putting all this stuff into a chart with other considerations, or embedding it into the 3E monster guidelines, as if it was anything but scaling numbers, is just misdirection.

Of course, given the above, you can get both the 3E and 4E stuff back explicitly in supplements. For example, 3E style monster guidelines, where you replace those canned mods with set mods to the level-based scale based on equipment, monster features, etc.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Shrug.

You need to argue with 4E fans who PRAISE that "feature" rather than me.

I agree that there is still going to be a gap between the rogue and the wizard. But both guys getting +1/2 level instead of whatever ranks they invest brings that gap much tighter than it is in 3E and, imo, much tighter than it "should be".

There is a +5 bonus for being trained in a skill. The half level bonus just represents that you pick up skills as you go along. I think it's kinda important to keep in mind that 4E did reduce the skill list and basically put it down to "adventuring relevant" skills. (Not just combat, adventuring). And it makes sense to me that player characters will pick up something on these skills.

I think ther eis room for "non-adventuring" skills - Crafting, Perform, Profession (if we take 3E classifications) and Languages come to mind primarily - that level differently. But I don't think that should be represented by class levels at all. This should be a matter of investing into "down-time" skills. stuff you pick up not because you adventure, but because you didn't adventure and instead studied or trained in that regard.

Maybe there is a cross-section where you can train also adventuring skills in your "down-time". But I think that my come at a cost - atrophying skills you don't use. So, it would basically be like retraining. The Fighter spends 4 months in the city to help train the militia for a possible orc attack. So he retrains his Athletics - he's still strong, but he's out of training - for diplomacy. Or maybe there is a cross-section where you can actually gain skills via down-time, even adventuring skills. I think it wouldn't be that unbalanced in either 3E or 4E to give all classes "free skill points" or "free skill training" for that. As long as you can't go over the "level-proscribed bonuses", the balance overall is maintained. And especially when it comes to downtime - the entire group will have the same, so there's no risk of one player now suddenly overshadowing the others. It is a little "side-ways" advancement instead.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not aware how these Power books do it

Here is the text from Martial Power:

It happens. You’ve played your martial character a while, and suddenly Martial Power shows up, offering many new possibilities - options you might have picked if you had known about them earlier.

Don’t despair; you have a few choices. Retraining rules (see page 28 of the Player’s Handbook) make tapping into Martial Power easy. If retraining won’t do the trick quickly enough, talk to your DM and your fellow players about reworking your character along the lines Martial Power provides. Chances are you can overhaul your PC to match your desires without doing any harm to the campaign. Your DM might even have a way to make the change a part of the story. If doing that ultimately proves too difficult, a dramatic exit for the older character could make way for a new one.​

The other Power books have pretty similar text.

This approach works fine for me. In my game, I let three players adjust their PCs' ability scores once they had played for a bit and got a better handle on the direction in which they wanted to take their PCs, and one player rebuilt his ranger as a hybrid ranger-cleric once PHB3 came out. (As he named it, "Operation: have my PC do something other than Twin Strike.)

I think this approach is probably going to be less acceptable for those who either (i) see playing the PC you build as part of the challenge of the game, and/or (ii) don't like to see any change on the PC sheet that does not emerge organically out of the fiction. But those layers might also have trouble with your option (c) above (ie that the two fighters who are mechanically different are roughly the same in the fiction).

 

[BryonD]

The half level bonus just represents that you pick up skills as you go along. I think it's kinda important to keep in mind that 4E did reduce the skill list and basically put it down to "adventuring relevant" skills. (Not just combat, adventuring). And it makes sense to me that player characters will pick up something on these skills.

Get ready to be shocked....

I don't like the short skill list. (I consider that a step backward in PF as well)

But why is it that anyone playing 4E is required to agree with you that EVERY character will ALWAYS gain something in EVERY skill?

I think ther eis room for "non-adventuring" skills

But we were talking about CLIMB as the example.....

 

[Droogie]

I don't see the problem here. We played with Companions as PC's alongside normal Characters, and except for making the base-Role-Power stronger (they are meant for NPC's) they hold quite well versus their more complex Comrades even without Feats, magical Bonuses and fewer Powers.

It certainly was a lot of fun for those players who didn't want the full complexity.

Indeed. The "rogue" NPC in our game fits on a single sheet of paper, yet he holds his own without outshining the PCs. Companion characters are a good example of how you can have various levels of complexity and still have the math add up. And Essentials isn't the only place WotC has experimented with these concepts; I'm sure they've learned a few things from their Gamma World line as well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Get ready to be shocked....

I don't like the short skill list. (I consider that a step backward in PF as well)

I am not shocked, it was what I expected. But liking that or not, you can still see the context from which I am arguing.

But why is it that anyone playing 4E is required to agree with you that EVERY character will ALWAYS gain something in EVERY skill?

Did you like or dislike saves and BAB increasing with level in 3E? Or similar things happening in earlier editions with THAC0 and saves?

I think it's just an extension of that. Maybe you would prefer if Reflex Saves were also a skill. I believe you could only create a reasonable system for having "skill points and skills for everything" if you also have a mechanic that defines how you gain skills by using them, or explicitely training them.

If you don't have all that...

1) For "believable" advancement, they need to track skills used on their own to argue that certain skills should be improved. (And if they didn't want "believable" advancement, why not go with the +1/2 levels anyway).

2) Players have to manage a lot more minitua as they have to remember all skills they may find important. I often find this problematic in games with extensive skill lists, as you have to check manually whether there is a skill you may need to actually describe your character's vision and advancement correctly. "OMG, my Secret Agent didn't take Perception! Why did no one tell me I would need that!" Or "Oh damn, Will Saves! I forgot putting any ranks in that since 3rd level! Oh noes!"
And of course, the opposite will also happen - min/maxers will carefuly select which stuff to take. "Okay, I never ever will use weapons, so no reason to raise my staff skills and I'll put those point into arcana".
The freer the advancement of the character, t he more chances for imbalance - characters with glaring weaknesses or characters with optimized min/maxed builds.

3) Also, another risk is that with a too detailed skill list, you can't even create characters with "reasonable competence" in skills that you expect them to have. If your resources for improving skills are limited, you will at some point need to make choices were to invest.
In 4E, you can fare reasonable on an untrained skill since you have ability score mod + 1/2 levels. In 3E, you can have a 5 point difference by 2nd level, and it only grows from there. (And mind you, this is not about making the character that can do everything - but just a character that has a reasonable chance to do some of the stuff you associate with the concept, without being a master at it.)

But we were talking about CLIMB as the example.....

Climb is a perfect example for an adventuring skill. Of course you get better at that from adventuring, because you travel through the wilderness and through dungeons a lot and have to climb stuff occassionally!

 

[Hassassin]

In 4E, you can fare reasonable on an untrained skill since you have ability score mod + 1/2 levels. In 3E, you can have a 5 point difference by 2nd level, and it only grows from there. (And mind you, this is not about making the character that can do everything - but just a character that has a reasonable chance to do some of the stuff you associate with the concept, without being a master at it.)

Climb is a perfect example for an adventuring skill. Of course you get better at that from adventuring, because you travel through the wilderness and through dungeons a lot and have to climb stuff occassionally!

I think the 4e system has some good qualities, but it needs some tweaking.

Should all 10th level characters be as good at any skill as a trained 1st level one? I don't like it. At epic levels I'm ok with the characters being skilled at everything, but at 10th it's a bit early.

Should skill and ability have exactly the same magnitude of effect? (Considering the range of +0 to +5 in ability modifiers.) I'd like the advantage of training to increase, while in 4e it's the ability scores that increase.

Maybe trained skills should be 1/level + 4 and untrained 1/N* levels? That's sort of a hybrid of 4e and PF skill systems. (The 4 could be a class skill bonus, if there are class skills as an option. Or 4 for class skills, 2 for non-class skills.)

* I'd prefer 1/3 or 1/4, but 1/2 is an option.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the 4e system has some good qualities, but it needs some tweaking.

Should all 10th level characters be as good at any skill as a trained 1st level one? I don't like it. At epic levels I'm ok with the characters being skilled at everything, but at 10th it's a bit early.

Should skill and ability have exactly the same magnitude of effect? (Considering the range of +0 to +5 in ability modifiers.) I'd like the advantage of training to increase, while in 4e it's the ability scores that increase.

Maybe trained skills should be 1/level + 4 and untrained 1/N* levels? That's sort of a hybrid of 4e and PF skill systems. (The 4 could be a class skill bonus, if there are class skills as an option. Or 4 for class skills, 2 for non-class skills.)

* I'd prefer 1/3 or 1/4, but 1/2 is an option.

I think any difference that escalates over levels are bad. That'sthe 3E problem with skills, BAB and Saves all over again. We want to use the d20, we have to take into account how well modifiers and DCs scale with them.

Especially since we're soon talking about "Paragon" and "Epic" characters - these characters are not "realistic" anymore, they are beyond anything human mortals could conceivable achieve anyway.

What I could see is having more than 3 states of skill traing (Untrained, Trained, Focused) and not having them all be expressed via pure skill modifiers.
Maybe something like 5 states:
Untrained (+), Class Training (+2), Advanced Training (+5), Focused Training (+5 and roll 2d20 and take highest), Exceptional Training (+5 and roll 3d20 and take highest).
Class Training you get automatically with all class skills, and you can then pick additional class skills for advanced training and non-class skills for class training.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

But why is it that anyone playing 4E is required to agree with you that EVERY character will ALWAYS gain something in EVERY skill?

Mind the concept of level-dependent DCs in 4e. You probably don't like it because of its gameist nature, but it's there.

Your critic about the characters getting better and better would be true with increasing skill bonuses and static DCs. Which, in a way, was the case with 3e, where static DCs were tackled by specialist characters with an increasing number of skill points.

So we're either missing the possibility to create real world-class specialists who can try things their group mates couldn't even dream of (4e) or we're missing situations where only one or two characters in the have a chance to get things done, while the others are sentenced to wait (3e).

I'm in the former camp, but I see problems other gamers may have with this solution.