Return of the DonkeyHorse!

[Rechan]

So, then, if the character is deprived of his assumed stealth boots and black face paint, he'd suffer a -5 penalty to Stealth checks?

The point is that the "how" he got the stealth is flavor.

The notion of training comes with knowledge, and that knowledge can be translated as having the right tools and equipment.

I.e. a rogue who rolls his thievery to disable a trap could be described as either have stick a twig in the gear, a precise tool he carries with him, or his dagger, it's irrelevant. If he'st he type to have a 'tool for every job', then he's got them, you just handwave it as part of the skill.

To put it another way:

I've never heard of a DM penalizing a fighter for not specifying that he was sharpening his sword, or repairing/oiling his armor in between fights, or doing anything to address this. That is just handwaved as "What a fighter does to maintain his gear" without making the player account for it by allocating time or funds to whetstones/armor repair kits. So, to me that is no different than "what a thief does to be stealthy".

 

[Mark Chance]

I get that. Change the flavor, then it only makes sense that penalties apply. It adds another level of winging it, all in the effort to avoid the "game breaking" effects of boots that add a +1 bonus to being sneaky.

 

[Ourph]

So, then, if the character is deprived of his assumed stealth boots and black face paint, he'd suffer a -5 penalty to Stealth checks?

I think you're completely misunderstanding the meanings of the words "assumed" and "abstract".

 

[Mark Chance]

I think you're completely misunderstanding the meaning the words "assumed" and "abstract".

That must be it. Otherwise, I'd agree with the general premise. Whew! What a relief to know I was wrong because of a misunderstanding rather than a moral failing.



Or, maybe there's a point where abstraction falls apart, such as abstracing a +5 bonus to unnamed equipment items carried by a character. The problem with abstractions is they're abstract. When the situation suddenly becomes concrete, then the hands have to start waving and folks have to wing it.

Which is all fine and good. I do that a lot myself.

But the entire argument that a WotC Book of Mundane Stuff including nonmagical soft boots (+1 Stealth) would automatically be "core" and thus would lead to the destruction of 4E's delicate balance surely leans heavily toward the absurd.

 

[darjr]

I'm not sure where right now, but there is a statement in the DMG or PHB that a player specifically deprived of proper tools and preparedness should suffer a penalty. The norm is that +5 or no penalty, the special circumstance is them deprived of their tools.

Which seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

 

[Nifft]

So, then, if the character is deprived of his assumed stealth boots and black face paint, he'd suffer a -5 penalty to Stealth checks?

In a relative sense, yes -- but not using the blunt mechanics you're trying to force into the existing system.

If the situation is one in which the character doesn't have access to his usual stealthy gear, he's still better trained, and thus better able to use whatever he does have access to (leaves & mud, ink & rags, blood & feathers, whatever). He's still +5 better than someone untrained would be in that same situation, but now he's facing a higher DC.

To put it another way, the character who doesn't even try to intelligently use all the stealth enhancers he can is already covered by a 4e mechanic. That mechanic is called "not making a Stealth check".

- - -

Why would a "situation suddenly become concrete"? The only scenario I can imagine is the DM trying to flavor a skill check failure, and the player going "NUH-UH! I'm wearing Boots, Low, Soft so they totally didn't hear me!" -- and that's the kind of behavior I don't want to encourage in my games, as a DM or as a player.

That may seem rather uncharitable of me, but I really can't see any use other than "NUH-UH!"... and that's coming from a Shadowrun player who always pays for the skinlink upgrade on my dude's gear specifically so I can say "NUH-UH!" when the GM tries to run a spoof on my Predator IV.

- - -

Also, you should know that most CharOp work involves taking a pile of small, unrelated bonuses and making them work together in ways Nature did not intend. New sources of bonus -- which stack with everything -- are a fine way to go about breaking any game.

No individual bonus is ever the culpable straw, but the camel is in physical rehab anyway.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Reynard]

It's easier to ignore things you don't wan than it is to invent things you do want. Some people like having fiddly bits. they like keeping track of encumbrance and outfitting their characters and performing "mundane" tasks. Even WoW has crafting and auction houses, and there's a reason for this: not everyone's fantasy fun is derived from killing stuff.

So a book like this could only be a good thing: it would benefit many people and cause absolutely zero harm to the rest.

 

[Ourph]

Or, maybe there's a point where abstraction falls apart, such as abstracing a +5 bonus to unnamed equipment items carried by a character.

As soon as you equate the +5 bonus solely to items specifically carried or not carried by the character, the bonus is no longer abstract. So, yes, abstraction falls apart as soon as you stop thinking in the abstract. Vyvyan's point wasn't that the +5 bonus = an equipment bonus. It was that equipment is assumed in the abstraction of the training bonus. Note the importance of "assume". Equipment that is "assumed" by definition cannot be lost, taken away, destroyed, etc.

The problem with abstractions is they're abstract. When the situation suddenly becomes concrete, then the hands have to start waving and folks have to wing it.

I think a more accurate assertion is that "the problem with abstractions is that people who don't like abstractions tend to turn them into concrete situations at every opportunity". Abstraction works just fine if 1) you like abstractions; and 2) you're content to leave the abstract, abstract.

But the entire argument that a WotC Book of Mundane Stuff including nonmagical soft boots (+1 Stealth) would automatically be "core" and thus would lead to the destruction of 4E's delicate balance surely leans heavily toward the absurd.

Did I argue that? I think perhaps you're intending to respond to someone else and accidentally hit the wrong quote button.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Shouldn't this topic be more or less over now that we know Markets & Merchandise exists? Those who want that info can just buy it and be happy while those who don't want it can just ignore it.

 

[Imaro]

4e PHB1 (pg.221)...

Thieves' Tools: To use the thievery skill properly you need the right picks and pries, skeleton keys, clamps, and so on. Thieves' tools grant a +2 bonus to Thievery checks to open a lock or to disarm a trap.

Uhm... isn't this exactly what most of the naysayers are arguing against? It's not a penalty to your skill without tools... it's a small bonus that stacks on to your skill in a particular circumstance. O

... 4e is broken now.

Seriously though, isn't this most peoples point of why this wouldn't be a good idea?

Edit: In other words, it's already part of the core rules... just not expanded upon.