My first 4E game...

[Imaro]

A wizard with Thievery will not pick pockets as a minor action (Quick Fingers). A wizard with Stealth will not be able to move full speed without penalty, while sneaking (Fleeting Ghost). A wizard with Stealth will not be able to lose concealment or cover, but remain hidden from an enemy (Chameleon). A wizard with Thievery will not be able to pick pockets without a -10 penalty in combat (Dangerous Theft).

So, no, getting Skill Training and Skill Focus does not make you as good as the Rogue in everything related to Thievery... or Stealth... or any other skill, for that matter.

Those would matter in an extraordinary situation, or to differentiate one subset of the thievery skill ... yet we are talking about niche protection, and it is still possible for a thief to be overshadowed by a different class in one or more of the areas which Thievery covers, since he only gets a finite number of these differentiating powers you're basing your argument on. Put him up against a Dex based archery Ranger or Warlock and the difference becomes even less defined.

 

[catsclaw227]

For two feats (skill training and skill focus) my Wizard can now pick locks, pick pockets, disable traps and use sleight of hand as well as a thief, in fact this problem is amplified by the fact that skills are so broad now... the wizard is now as good as the rogue in everything related to thievery.

Yes, I suppose you can. At the cost of two feats better spent elsewhere. Like Astral Fire, Defensive Mobility, Improved Initiative, Burning Blizzard, a racial feat, or Skill Focus in something more relevant to being a Wizard. And that's just for Heroic feats.

I admit that feats aren't as mechanically effective as before, and you get more of them, but throwing them at a few feats to prove a point isn't going to further the party.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, I suppose you can. At the cost of two feats better spent elsewhere. Like Astral Fire, Defensive Mobility, Improved Initiative, Burning Blizzard, a racial feat, or Skill Focus in something more relevant to being a Wizard. And that's just for Heroic feats.

I admit that feats aren't as mechanically effective as before, and you get more of them, but throwing them at a few feats to prove a point isn't going to further the party.

I think "better spent elsewhere" is totally subjective, and again based around combat as a defining factor.

Astral Fire: +1 damage to only spells with the fire or radiiant keyword...
Defensive Mobility: +2 vs. opportunity attacks
Improved Initiative: +4 feat bonus to initiative
Burning Blizzard: +1 to damage with powers with acid or cold keyword.

Skill Training: Thievery;+5 to open locks, pick pockets, disable traps, and sleight of hand

I'm sorry but the +1 damage with only specific powers doesn't seem to add up with the versatility of a +5 on 4 different types of actions.

The +2 vs. opportunity... eh, with a defender or two in the party this one again doesn't measure up... about the only one that seems even close in comparison is the Improved Initiative, since it helps you to hit a bunch of mooks before they can act.

But like I said, it's totally subjective.

The thing is with 4e's more evening out of the combat playing field, it's even easier for another class to usurp another classes role outside of combat, because the combat feats aren't potent enough to offset this, and you get enough where it's a minimum sacrifice and not very detrimental.

 

[Treebore]

I am sorry to say after 3 sessions I am not feeling any love or excitement for 4E. We are still having fun, but that has more to do with it being a good group of people and sharing lots of laughs.

I even got excited about 3E when it first came out. I did play 3E for almost 5 years and bought almost everything for it too. Then it crashed and burned for me.

4E doesn't even excite or interest me as much as GURPS does.

So I'll be finishing out this 4E module, the group is fun after all, but 4E is very much a "ho hum" RPG experience for me.

I find this very depressing. I have loved D&D for many generations now. There was a time I could not have imagined not loving an edition/generation of D&D. First I burned out on 3E. Then I hoped 4E would bring back that love and excitement for the game. Its failed.

Oh well. At least it doesn't mean I am done playing RPG's. I still have C&C, True 20, M&M, L5R, Traveller, Shadowrun, and others with which to keep my RPG fun going. I just wish 4E was part of the list.

 

[Treebore]

double post

 

[catsclaw227]

What would you have done if the PCs had failed that skill challenge?

Interestingly, they failed the Skill Challenge to find the lair by searching through the Greyhawk sewer system. So they surfaced wherever they could. But.... they had a bunch of successes so that I made them aware of some clues they already had (but didn't recognize as such) and acted on them and eventually found the lair.

It's possible that I wasn't using the errata'd Skill Challenge DCs though, but either way, it was a very interesting exercise in players thinking of innovative way to use skills that didn't have a binary result. They knew it wasn't do-or-die for the skill rolls, so they were more creative.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

A wizard with Thievery will not pick pockets as a minor action (Quick Fingers). A wizard with Stealth will not be able to move full speed without penalty, while sneaking (Fleeting Ghost). A wizard with Stealth will not be able to lose concealment or cover, but remain hidden from an enemy (Chameleon). A wizard with Thievery will not be able to pick pockets without a -10 penalty in combat (Dangerous Theft).

So, no, getting Skill Training and Skill Focus does not make you as good as the Rogue in everything related to Thievery... or Stealth... or any other skill, for that matter.

Yes, a wizard with thievery will not be able to... pickpocket... in the middle... of combat? Against the enemies you are actively trying to kill?

Such a loss...?

If anything, this is why people who dislike 4e do so much - even the freaking skills are only related to combat.

 

[pemerton]

I guess I just find it hard to believe that a character based around limited resources (mainly casters, and especially the wizard since he pre-selects spells) can "dominate" anothers area.

The standard reply to this is Scrolls (and also Wands). Which in 3E are easy and affordable to make.

It's funny you use this argument, as I've seen the exact opposite argued by proponents of 4e... that any skill is available to any character through use of a feat, and that you get so many feats it's not even a big deal to spend one or two on this anyway... so how does this protect or enforce niches outside of combat? For two feats (skill training and skill focus) my Wizard can now pick locks, pick pockets, disable traps and use sleight of hand as well as a thief, in fact this problem is amplified by the fact that skills are so broad now... the wizard is now as good as the rogue in everything related to thievery.

It is still highly likely that each PC will have a niche. What does it matter if it is the Wizard who is a thief, as long as the Rogue PC is the specialist igymnast?

 

[pemerton]

ANd how do you use background without skills? Just say "I was an X so I can do it?" (Ok, thats generally how it was done in 2E).

Well, in my case I used my background to shape the plot of the game and much of the flavour of the party's activities. This is a frequent and important (IME) function of background in an RPG. It helps shape the story.

Skill points for background skills are mostly tangential to this. For example, in my current RM game (a system in which there are ample points available to develop "secondary" as well as "primary" skills) I have two PC crafters, one a smith, the other a cook and brewer. The smith's abilities come into play quite often, because the player works at it. The cook's don't, because the player makes no effort to bring those abilities into play.

And even in that game, the more interesting uses of background are not mechanical but rather to shape the plot (eg as players call in favours from patrons, build alliances for their clans, etc).

So whether or not background skills are present, in my experience it is player energy and engagement in the story that matters more.

Now, if you play a game in which the players sit back and expect the GM deliver the story to them, and occasionally use their background to try and tweak an extra bonus against the GM-stipulated challenges, I can see why you might think that background skills are essential if background is to matter. But in my experience that's not the sort of play in which player background matters all that much anyway.

The problem is that 4E still is a rules heavy system so heavy rules light background skills don't fit as they are not equal to the rest of the system.

Is this meant to be a criticism of Skeptic's suggested mechanic? If so, I don't follow it.

I also have to say I don't really get what you are looking for from a system for PC backgrounds. Do you want backgrounds to matter to the story? As I've explained, that doesn't necessarily require skills. Do you want backgrounds to matter mechanically to action resolution? Then Skeptic's sytem does that. Do you want a game in which there is a mechanical substystem for determining how many horses each PC can shoe per day? Then I don't know why you're playing D&D - even ultra-simulationist and gritty games like RM and RQ don't try and answer that question.

 

[Imaro]

...

It is still highly likely that each PC will have a niche. What does it matter if it is the Wizard who is a thief, as long as the Rogue PC is the specialist igymnast?

This makes no sense. So it's ok too make sure my Rogue will never be usurped in his archetype as a "striker" in combat by the wizard, but outside of combat he can trounce all over my sneaky, thievery archetype if he wants to. This is why 4e isn't retro...archetypes in previous editions of D&D were prevalent outside of combat as well as within it.

Oh, and for the record "acrobatics" isn't a niche because a Ranger is going to have it as well. Thievery (if you couldn't just buy it with a feat) is a niche skill...no other class starts with it and it defines a big part of the archetypical role of a rogue...outside of combat that is.