Powers and Skills

[hong]

The problem with using skills as attacks is that trained skills are at a +5 advantage over other things.

And a rapier has a +3 advantage over other things. More if Weapon Focus still exists.

 

[FadedC]

I actually think feint would be better as a per encounter ability that requires only a minor action. Spending a standard action to feint was so situational that people rarely did it in 3.x and it's unlikely somebody would give up tumble or another utility power for this ability.

 

[Falling Icicle]

And a rapier has a +3 advantage over other things. More if Weapon Focus still exists.

A rapier has to hit AC, which includes armor. AC is almost always going to be higher than the other defenses.

 

[Campbell]

A rapier has to hit AC, which includes armor. AC is almost always going to be higher than the other defenses.

That isn't always true. We've already seen plenty of weapon-based Powers that target other defenses. Rogues even have a weapon-based At-Will Power that targets Reflex.

 

[FireLance]

That isn't always true. We've already seen plenty of weapon-based Powers that target other defenses. Rogues even have a weapon-based At-Will Power that targets Reflex.

Specifically:

1. Piercing Strike (Rogue Attack 1, At-Will) targets Reflex.
2. Positioning Strike (Rogue Attack 1, Encounter) targets Will.
3. Crimson Edge (Rogue Attack 9, Daily) targets Fortitude.
4. Binding Smite (Paladin Attack 27, Encounter) targets Will.

 

[Falling Icicle]

That isn't always true. We've already seen plenty of weapon-based Powers that target other defenses. Rogues even have a weapon-based At-Will Power that targets Reflex.

I was referring to normal circumstances.

Also, if they do skills like they did in SW Saga, I believe you can get an addition +5 to a skill by taking a feat. This would certainly put it way out of the realm of balance of being rolled against a defense.

 

[hong]

I was referring to normal circumstances.

Under "normal circumstances", you can't attack with a skill at all.

 

[HeinorNY]

Sure they can. The highest skill bonus is +10 (the wizard with his silly 20 Int) so the BEST skill is only the same as the best attack. As long as the results of a skill vs defense action is LESS POWERFUL than an attack (as I expect the results of most utility powers will be, at least when it comes to the ultimate defeat of the opponent) then I don't see a problem.

Corrin:
Best attack roll +6
Best Skill check +8

Erais:
Best attack roll + 5 with dagger +4 with all his powers.
Best skill check +9

Kathra:
Best attack roll +6
Best skills check +9

Riardon:
Best attack roll +10 (Careful attack) all others are +6
Best skill check +9

Skamos:
Best attack roll +5
Best skills check +10

Tira:
Best attack roll +4
Best skill check +9

Yes, the best attack is +10 and the best skill check is +10, but the +10 attack is a big exception, and a skill check in the +8/+10 range is the norm for trained skills.

Defenses can't compete with skills in the first levels because, as mentioned, skills can easily be bumped by +5 with skill training. It's the same effect as starting the character with a +5 weapon. The key here are magic items.
Attacks/weapons, defenses/neck and AC/armor are bumped at the same rate and they are the primary magic items slots. This rate must exist and be constant so the system's math can work in every level. If you put another number working with them or against them, such as skill check, thet probably scale up in a completelly different rate, things can become very unbalanced.

And a rapier has a +3 advantage over other things. More if Weapon Focus still exists.

But characters don't start the game with +3 weapons. I agree, maybe at some levels skill checks and attack rolls are in the same bonus range, but they would probably stay that way on those middle levels only. In later levels attacks and defenses will be in a higher bonus range, since they will gain +5 from items and other bonuses from feats, classes and maybe even from "prestige classes" . Also magic items providing +skill are secondary magic items, they are not required for the math to work. This would change if we start creating skill-based powers.

It's too soon to speculate about that really, and I'm very very curious to see how 4E math works. I believe it will be a piece of art.

That isn't always true. We've already seen plenty of weapon-based Powers that target other defenses. Rogues even have a weapon-based At-Will Power that targets Reflex.

But that's ok. Defenses and attacks are pretty much the same thing, regarding their math. They scale somehow equally through out the levels.
Powers that attack Reflex/Fortitude/Will are a little better against some characters and worse against others (some characters will have Fortitude/Will Defenses as good as their AC's), the same way Powers that attack AC are good against low-armored character but not much against heavy-armored ones.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Under "normal circumstances", you can't attack with a skill at all.

I think that's the important point. Using a skill for something "attack-like" is not a normal circumstance. As such, it can only be compared to other attack powers of equal "difficulty".

Missing yes is that whether there are actually effects that are directly attacks, e.g. deal damage or otherwise take opponents out of the fight.
One of the strongest non-damaging effects we've seen so far might have been Sleep (at least for 1st level characters). Deals no damage, always slows, also makes targets helpless.
If a utility power does something like slow/ blind/ grant combat advantage on a successful check, it doesn't become automatically broken, even if the success rate is higher.

But it is very different from many similar aspects in 3E. We're accustomed to special abilities that are hard to pull off and involve risks (Attack of Opportunities, counter-Trips, penalties). But 4E is "simulating" difficult maneuvers differently - not by difficulty class or check modifier, but by the frequency you can use the ability at all - once per day, once per encounter, at-will.