My take.

[hong]

In 4E, nothing requires more than 6 hours to heal.

The PCs require no more than 6 hours to heal. Since this is going to be equivalent to what happened in 3E in the vast majority of cases, I see no problem.

 

[Baron Opal]

You have laws?

 

[VannATLC]

. Here we just have a difference of opinions. As just one example, I would consider the 'Indiana Jones' tales to have been less interesting adventures if it had fewer snakes, bugs, spiders, rats and the like. You obviously disagree.

Swarms have more than 1HD. >.>

Any tiny vermin category creature in 3.5 should, IMO, be used as a trap or trap-like encounter. The combat rules are not, and should not, be required to deal with them.

Lastly, can it with the yes/no.

Neither of you have laid out anything remotely rational to explain your positions. Its pointless posturing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The idea that mechanics aren't role-playing (and vice-versa) is a wildly inaccurate and false idea. In a role-playing game, mechanics are the only way you truly play your role in both senses of the word (that you are playing a game and playing a role at the same time).

In that case, there is a third part for me - let's call it acting/thespian or something like that. Which I always believed what people are talking about when they speak about "true role-playing". Rolling the dice according to the game mechanics is not what this is about. It's the stuff when you're talking in character, when you make decisions based on your characters motiviation and experience. Not when you use the mechanics to implement any of your characters decision within the game.

I agree that it's possible to make a system where you might have "social powers" and "performance powers" or "craft powers". But personally, I would want to limit the mechanical subsystems of this non-combat stuff - with the primary reason that playing some of these things out purely mechanically over a long term just doesn't feel that entertaining to me. Especially if too many of these non-combat parts are not about the whole group interacting with each other and the world. The spot-light stays too long on a specific character, and that makes an unsatisfying game.
(Contrived Example: Imagine you played Monopoly, and to get out of the prison, you'd have to beat "the bank" at a game of chess!)

All types of encounters are most fun if all players are involved. If you use mechanics to resolve any kind of encounter, you need to be sure that every player has a mechanical ability to contribute meaningful to that encounter. Because using the dice to resolve the encounter will take most of the time then. If you have a complex social encounter system for a game like D&D, every class should have an ability that allows the character to contribute to it. That's something 3.x could easily fail at.
For social encounters i can see a good chance that 4E could have that (if their is indeed a good social encounter system in the DMG). But it might get more difficult outside this area - Craft, Perform, Profession are normally limited to a single person completing the task, and a system for that should be simple and quick to adjudicate then.

 

[Hussar]

You make a point that a lot of skills never get used, like Swim or Climb. I can't speak for everyone, but as a DM I don't use challenges against those skills because I know the vast majority of the party would have no chance at completeting them (or else, everyone would have a chance, with maybe one person succeeding automatically!) If everyone had at least some ability, I'd feel more free to put some water obstacles, or climb-y obstacles, or rope tying obstacles (or what have you).

This needs to be repeated.

3e skill mechanics mean that you have one or two guys who automatically succeed and the rest automatically fail. Full stop. Put the party on a rolling ship in a storm? Need balance checks? Well, might as well just declare everyone except maybe the rogue to be prone and get it over with. No one else is going to succeed, or at least succeed more than a few times.

No one EVER took Use Rope because it was a total waste of skill points. So, it might as well not have even been in the books. The same goes for the vast majority of skills.

Why not give everyone a basic proficiency with most of the reasonable skills and be done with it? Honestly, when you think about it, this is simply quantifying the way it was done in earlier editions where you justified your ability to do something based on your background.

 

[AllisterH]

re: Venomous creatures

Isn't the reason why venomous creatures so deadly mainly because we don't notice them until they actually infect us with their venom. I don't consider myself anywhere near an adventurer and I've had no problem killing scorpions as long as I see them.

re: Skills not auto-levelling
Hussar et al point out WHY I tend to prefer auto-levelling. If say for example, I can give a DC that everyone has a chance at, yet isn't automatic for everyone, I'm much more likely to actually use that skill.

I so do not want the Shadowrun effect that happens with Deckers ("ok, I need to break into this computer system, everyone else go get a slice of pizza")

 

[Hussar]

And, really, AllisterH, that's what happened.

Oh, there's a chest in the corner, rogue go check it out. Roll roll roll. Ok, trap done, what's in the chest?

I have no problem imagining that someone who travels around with Aragorn for a couple of years might pick up a smattering of tracking and wilderness survival. Conversely, Aragorn might pick up a few things from Merlin and Friar Tuck over there.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In that case, there is a third part for me - let's call it acting/thespian or something like that. Which I always believed what people are talking about when they speak about "true role-playing". Rolling the dice according to the game mechanics is not what this is about. It's the stuff when you're talking in character, when you make decisions based on your characters motiviation and experience. Not when you use the mechanics to implement any of your characters decision within the game.

For me, an ideal role-playing game would have the motivation and experience and character acting still being represented mechanically.

3e did this, to a small extent, with circumstance bonuses and skill checks. Your character's role as, say, a wonderful smooth-talker was determined by your Diplomacy skill. Your character's role as a brilliant performer was determined by your Perform skill.

It's a slightly flawed system, but it was there. Like Hussar's sig, the dice provided the direction, you provided the performance.

Pure roleplaying in the thespian sense of the word is all well and good, but it's not much of a game, it's more a test of the player's own ability to convince the DM of something, and that's really super-lame in a game.

It's like determining combat by the player's actual skill with a longsword.

I agree that it's possible to make a system where you might have "social powers" and "performance powers" or "craft powers". But personally, I would want to limit the mechanical subsystems of this non-combat stuff - with the primary reason that playing some of these things out purely mechanically over a long term just doesn't feel that entertaining to me. Especially if too many of these non-combat parts are not about the whole group interacting with each other and the world. The spot-light stays too long on a specific character, and that makes an unsatisfying game.
(Contrived Example: Imagine you played Monopoly, and to get out of the prison, you'd have to beat "the bank" at a game of chess!)

The ways to solve this are, largely speaking, the same way they've 'solved' most of the combat problems. Give people interesting things to do, make a risk and a reward, make it streamlined, but give it interesting effects, and allow for results other than "fail" or "win." This doesn't just apply to situations where you're killing goblins, it also applies to situations where you're trying to win the king's support or convince the sphinxes to let you pass.

All types of encounters are most fun if all players are involved. If you use mechanics to resolve any kind of encounter, you need to be sure that every player has a mechanical ability to contribute meaningful to that encounter. Because using the dice to resolve the encounter will take most of the time then. If you have a complex social encounter system for a game like D&D, every class should have an ability that allows the character to contribute to it. That's something 3.x could easily fail at.

Indeed, 3.x's noncombat resolution system wasn't the best. It was leaps and bounds beyond 2e's, though. 4e could easily improve on it, though I have no idea if they have.

For social encounters i can see a good chance that 4E could have that (if their is indeed a good social encounter system in the DMG). But it might get more difficult outside this area - Craft, Perform, Profession are normally limited to a single person completing the task, and a system for that should be simple and quick to adjudicate then.

Really, how simple and quick you want the rule to be depends upon what kind of game you want.

If you don't want a game that focuses on combat, there should be a simple and quick adjudication system: roll 1d20, add the levels, bigger one wins. This is like 3e's skill resolution system.

If you want a game that focuses on how the characters manage to build the Nightmare Engine, having Craft rules that are fairly complex and rewarding is a good thing.

Most of the time, D&D characters are concerned about (a) combat and (b) emulating their archetype outside of combat. Sherlock Holmes wants to be able to kill goblins, and to be able to solve crimes. Jack Sparrow wants to be able to slay giants, and to be able to get himself into trouble in the nearest port city. Conan wants to be able to cleave through lizardmen, and be able to bed serving girls and hate on wizards. Leonidas wants to be able to beat up some Persians, and to rule a city-state. Merlin wants to be able to fry up some kobolds with a fireball, and to predict the future and turn into animals.

For that to be really rewarding, we need a strong system for what your role does when you're not slaying dragons, nuking kobolds, killing goblins, or cleaving lizardmen.

We haven't really seen anything that promises that 4e will be able to deliver that.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

This needs to be repeated.


No one EVER took Use Rope because it was a total waste of skill points. So, it might as well not have even been in the books. The same goes for the vast majority of skills.

.

then u my friend missed alot of fun and tricks with said skill. just becasue u dont use a skill very often doesnt mean its useless. as for balance and people falling on a ship yeah thats classic story/book/movie sence right there not everyone should be good at every thing i even recall a few time a player craft-basket wever came in handy the dm's job is to make sure the player have fun. throw in an odd skill now and then if they take a so called wasted skill make it come in handy now and then how often in a book /movie has some ones odd hobby or skill came up and saved there ass more then a few i'll tell you so dont write a skill off just becase its not a combat or often used skill.

 

[DwarvenDog]

Why not give everyone a basic proficiency with most of the reasonable skills and be done with it? Honestly, when you think about it, this is simply quantifying the way it was done in earlier editions where you justified your ability to do something based on your background.

Isn't this more or less modeled by the ability to use a large chunk of 3E skills untrained? Aren't the DC's of most common tasks within an acceptable random chance for people doing them without training? The whole point of a specialist "skill-monkey" is to shine in these situations.

Take your rolling ship example... If the balance DC's to remain standing are within reason, then you are going to have a couple characters who will remain standing because they invested in the balance skill, and the rest are going to be standing or prone on any given round through random chance.

This gives your monk or rogue the chance to get that return-on-investment for developing the balance skill. Not using encounters like these because a chunk of the group has a chance for failure, robs the skilled characters of opportunities to take the spotlight.