Rules, Rules, Rules (Legends & Lore)

[keterys]

I'd like something between 1 and 2 - I don't want a climb check to be required ("must make") for normal play, only in exceptional circumstances (which the terrain can specify, and use a unified mechanic for all skills based on level - light years simpler than option 3, similar to the Easy/Medium/Hard DCs we have now).

No check for climbing a ladder, rope, big pile of rocks, etc.
Encourage heroic movement.
Discourage wasting time on frivolous rolls.

Much like how we handle sprinting in game, crossing difficult terrain (hey, walking quickly through rocks or forest is _tough_ in real life, but meh we're heroes), riding, flying for things that have that ability, etc.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I don't want free form rules because I want to feel like I am actually paying Wizards for something instead of paying them for the work that I have to do.

 

[keterys]

Does that stance only apply to something like climbing, or also apply to something like Diplomacy?

And note that a simplified resolution mechanic is _less_ work than calculating DCs. In designing a recent adventure, I basically just used Easy/Medium/Hard DCs for everything - climbing that wall is Easy DC 20, Swinging from that web is DC 27, slipping through that gate is Hard DC 37. _So_ much faster than looking up charts.

 

[delericho]

However, because (in 4E for example) the numbers to PCs skills creep so high that as Ryujin said... by mid-Paragon a good PC no longer needs to roll to succeed. Thus we've lost a possible avenue for dramatic tension.

Of course, there's a question that hasn't been asked: if we're at a level when most PCs can fly, should climbing remain a valid challenge at all? Or should it instead be assumed that a skilled PC can just succeed at anything but the toughest climbs?

The only other option therefore is to make the DCs for climbing fluid... so that as a PC becomes more skilled, they still are required to make Climb checks. But at that point we get the situation where a wall that was a certain DC at 1st level has now morphed into a wall that is this new higher DC... not necessarily because the wall is more difficult, but merely because the DM wanted to present a challenge to the PC.

If it really is the same wall, then that is indeed stupid. And probably bad DMing/bad adventure design.

However, if the wall that the PCs have to contend with is, indeed tougher, that's a rather different matter. Which brings us to...

(unless the DM tries to get around it by taking standard DC walls and then modifying the DCs by throwing all kinds of oils, wind, darkness etc. etc. in attempts to raise the DCs so they present a challenge... but at some point when every wall is like that, it becomes kinda stupid).

Indeed. The key here is that most walls shouldn't be like that, and the PCs should be able to succeed even without a roll. By and large, climbing should just cease to be a problem at those higher levels. It's only when faced with a climb that is somehow tough (no equipment, a strange construction, extreme time pressures...) that they should have to roll.

But that's a feature, not a bug.

It's a catch-22. How do you create DCs for non-supernatural events that don't become obsolete at some point because a PC advances past it?

You don't. You recognise that PCs, once they reach Paragon levels, are superhuman. They're the guys who can climb anything but the toughest walls, who can swim a moat in full armour, who can arm-wrestle an ogre and win.

So, if the challenge is "climb this mountain", the PCs do it. Don't even bother to roll. They just do it.

But when the challenge is "climb this mountain in the next three hours, while being buffeted by heavy winds, while carrying the unconscious princess on your shoulders, and while the mountain actively tries to throw you off..." Yeah, you have to roll for that!

And what kind of challenges can you throw up instead that don't involve either heaping all manner of ridiculous modifiers to try and make the action more difficult. Or how do you explain away the changes in DC that come not from an action actually being more narratively difficult, but rather just from a fluid DC table put into place to keep the "dice rolling game" an active part of D&D throughout all levels?

The more I think on it, the more concerned I am that the concept behind the escalating math just doesn't work. Mathematically, it's fine - the PCs roll d20 + mods versus a DC. And the mods go up with level (of course - the PCs are better), and the DC goes up with level (because they're facing what is genuinely a tougher challenge).

But it too easily boils down to this: "At 1st level, I roll d20+5 vs DC 15. I need a 10+. At 11th level, I roll d20+15 vs DC 25. I need 10+. At 21st level, I roll d20+25 vs DC 35. I need 10+." That has the potential to become tiresome very quickly.

I find myself wondering if maybe it's not enough for the math to simply escalate. Perhaps, as the game moves into a new tier, we actually need an entirely different set of resolution mechanics, to freshen things up? (Of course, I have no idea how that would be done, or what it would look like!)

 

[Gryph]

I think this is a good example of the inherent problems with so much number scaling in 3 & 4E as you advance in levels. You want a standardized DC chart to reflect the difficulties of climbing any particular surface. However, because (in 4E for example) the numbers to PCs skills creep so high that as Ryujin said... by mid-Paragon a good PC no longer needs to roll to succeed. Thus we've lost a possible avenue for dramatic tension.

The only other option therefore is to make the DCs for climbing fluid... so that as a PC becomes more skilled, they still are required to make Climb checks. But at that point we get the situation where a wall that was a certain DC at 1st level has now morphed into a wall that is this new higher DC... not necessarily because the wall is more difficult, but merely because the DM wanted to present a challenge to the PC. It breaks a lot of reality in that way (unless the DM tries to get around it by taking standard DC walls and then modifying the DCs by throwing all kinds of oils, wind, darkness etc. etc. in attempts to raise the DCs so they present a challenge... but at some point when every wall is like that, it becomes kinda stupid).

It's a catch-22. How do you create DCs for non-supernatural events that don't become obsolete at some point because a PC advances past it? And what kind of challenges can you throw up instead that don't involve either heaping all manner of ridiculous modifiers to try and make the action more difficult. Or how do you explain away the changes in DC that come not from an action actually being more narratively difficult, but rather just from a fluid DC table put into place to keep the "dice rolling game" an active part of D&D throughout all levels?

This is why I don't rate walls and other physical objects with a 3e style static DC. I rate them by the DC chart categories; easy, medium, hard and very hard (hard + 5). For the most part I don't accept the notion that simply levelling makes you able to overcome such obstacles easier so I prefer them to always be relatively rated.

I find the jumping rules particularly silly as by Paragon they make world record setting long jumps trivially easy for a trained character in full armor.

If the players want to make such tasks increasingly easy as they level I expect them to spend some resources on it, skill focus, appropriate magic items, etc.

 

[Minigiant]

I would prefer something between 2 & 3. Closer to 2.
like 2.25. Option 2 with the chart.

The way I like my rules on actions is simple but describtive.

Like for the skill example, I want to see three things. The most common effect of success or failure when using the skill (climb half speed and grant CA)

Second would be how success or failure is found (make a Climb Check vs a Difficulty Class)

Finally, provide common examples seen in play (the chart)
Things like accelerated climbing, falling with bad rolls, and hand holes are the stuff that causes problems between DMs and players. All those exceptions can be handles with powers or class features.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think a PC's skill max should be given at first level and nothing ever change that except for a feat. I would leave all simple things at a certain DC, all medium etc.. That way even climbing at 20th level never changes and if you want it to seem harder then you just give the PC the hard DC.

Edit: I think an ability score increase should up the skill but not half your level. I would make certain skills scale while others do not.

Skills such as Climbing and Swimming should not scale. A skill feat should represent that someone has specialized in Climbing or Swimming.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The poll's better this time. My preference is for something between Options 2 and 3 - provide a common framework for tasks, without micro-managing the details. Actually, 4e does pretty well with this, in the whole "page 42" thing.

- It occurs to me that this is an ideal place for modularity - the Core Rulebook should present the base system without much detail, and they could then publish a book giving far more detailed systems for those who want it (like the 1st Ed "Survival Guides").

Agree with all of that, except limiting Core Rulebook to the base system. The Core Rulebook should include some options, clearly defined as such. That said, I do agree that to reinforce this aspect, the base system should be detail at the front of the book, by sub system--and only then touch the options--maybe even putting them in appendices. (That is, talk base system for character, race, class, skills, etc. before any options are broached.)


Reasons for including options:

• Some people will want them right away. If they aren't in the book on launch, a lot of people won't hang around long enough to get them.
• Including them forces the developer and testers to consider how the game works with and without the options. If not built this way, there will be gaps, which will involve nasty kludges to make something work.
• Done well, a moderate selection of options become explanatory and inspiring even for people who choose not to use them.

That last point is because you might decide to just wing, say, "Nature" skill to cover managing an animal in certain situations. Those of us who play 4E that way have a certain insight into what a limited skill list means, and how to think around it. However, for newer players or those not used to that style, poking around through the options conveys that information. "Oh, if I'm riding a horse, then nature, athletics, endurance, or acrobatics could all matter." Plus, even people that are used to this wouldn't mind some hints about what the designers were thinking.

Instead of writing a ton of advice with numerous examples on how to use the base system, they can write some advice with a few examples, and then direct to the more detailed approach as an option or as the more comprehensive set of examples. The page count won't be much greater my way, and it will serve two audiences instead of one.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The more I think on it, the more concerned I am that the concept behind the escalating math just doesn't work. Mathematically, it's fine - the PCs roll d20 + mods versus a DC. And the mods go up with level (of course - the PCs are better), and the DC goes up with level (because they're facing what is genuinely a tougher challenge).

But it too easily boils down to this: "At 1st level, I roll d20+5 vs DC 15. I need a 10+. At 11th level, I roll d20+15 vs DC 25. I need 10+. At 21st level, I roll d20+25 vs DC 35. I need 10+." That has the potential to become tiresome very quickly.

I find myself wondering if maybe it's not enough for the math to simply escalate. Perhaps, as the game moves into a new tier, we actually need an entirely different set of resolution mechanics, to freshen things up? (Of course, I have no idea how that would be done, or what it would look like!)

Escalating isn't the problem here, since you'd have the same problem with static DCs and the characters getting gradually better only as they dedicated character resources to it. It's merely that the escalation makes it harder to pretend that the problem doesn't exist--not least because a lot of people have years of experience with make believe around those numbers. "I need a 12 or better on a d20 to succeed" is the same thing, no matter what modifiers and resources went into getting to that point.

But I do agree that something more should be there. I'm just not sure character tier is the place to put that something. Perhaps a more mechanical acknowledgement of what "easy, medium, hard" imply would help? That is, there is an implicit scale of "automatic, easy, medium, hard, impossible" here. It's merely that rules systems often choose to handle the automatic and impossible ends with text instead of charting. And that makes sense from a space and clarity perspective. But that is also because automatic and impossible have special rules. Perhaps, there should be a change in rules between easy, medium, and hard, too?

Of course, when Mike and Monte were talking about those labeled stages of skills ("novice", "expert", etc.) in the earlier L&L, that is one of the implications.

 

[keterys]

Yep, what if the DCs never change - you always want to roll a 20+, and you're rolling 1d20+Ability Score, but you're using their skill system.

So, you set the difficulty of the climb and your party splits along autopass and autofail lines and some have to roll, with a fair chance of success and a very rapid resolution. No fuss, no muss.