Skill vs NADs (fort,ref,will)

[AbdulAlhazred]

Haven't read the rest so if I'm repeating - sorry.


The difference between attacks and skills is +5.
With skills if you are trained you get +5 to that skill.
Your attacks/defences do not get +5 for being trained.
All you need to do is add +5 to the defences when opposing a skill.


If you are rolling Acrobatics Vs Reflex just add +5 to Reflex.


Really if you were to create the system from scratch you would have

Defences +10 (take 10) +5 (training) +(1/2 level) +abil
Attack +D20 +5 (training) + (1/2 level) +abil


((SkillCheck +D20 +5 (training) + (1/2 level) +abil))


(You could even have PCs roll attacks for things they are not trained in such as other classes powers but without the +5)

As for DCs part of that, don't ask me, I imagine DCs should be comparable to enemy Defences.

Oh, there are various ways to make a d20 skill system that would work out better than the 4e one does in terms of consistency. The problem is attacks have to factor in enhancement bonus and skills have to factor in ability score increases that only some get. Then add in items that improve skills and other factors and it gets a bit trickier.

The upshot is if you started over clean slate and wrote a game very similar to 4e you could make skills work better. There's just no way to retro-fit it into the existing system without changing the numbers for practically everything.

I think the fundamental issue is they designed the combat system first, made level scaling work with that, and then did the skill system. That was backwards. As you are essentially noting, combat is a skill and thus the skill system should be the more general case and combat the more specific sub-case. If games were designed in a linear ground-up fashion from scratch that probably would have happened, but 4e evolved in stages from 3.5/d20. It works pretty well nevertheless.

 

[RHGreen]

Oh, there are various ways to make a d20 skill system that would work out better than the 4e one does in terms of consistency. The problem is attacks have to factor in enhancement bonus and skills have to factor in ability score increases that only some get. Then add in items that improve skills and other factors and it gets a bit trickier.

The upshot is if you started over clean slate and wrote a game very similar to 4e you could make skills work better. There's just no way to retro-fit it into the existing system without changing the numbers for practically everything.

I think the fundamental issue is they designed the combat system first, made level scaling work with that, and then did the skill system. That was backwards. As you are essentially noting, combat is a skill and thus the skill system should be the more general case and combat the more specific sub-case. If games were designed in a linear ground-up fashion from scratch that probably would have happened, but 4e evolved in stages from 3.5/d20. It works pretty well nevertheless.

OGL where are you now. Essentials - I doubt they've altered it that much.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OGL where are you now. Essentials - I doubt they've altered it that much.

Nope, that would indeed be a whole new edition. It would mean a total reissue of every book and wouldn't be compatible with 4e.

You would have to eliminate enhancement bonus from weapons and implements, remove ability score increases, remove or edit a large number of items, change many powers, and change the stat blocks for all monsters. Lots of other little stuff would be tweaked as well. This is getting pretty far OT though. There might be a 5e along those lines some day, but it sure isn't the purpose of Essentials.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I usually don't concern myself with the 4E math, so I have no idea if what I'm about to propose would actually do anything... but it appeared to me that one of the issues was that it was easier for trained PCs of a skill to succeed in heroic tier versus a NAD than a paragon or epic tier character. Did I grasp that correctly?

If this is in fact correct... then I wonder if perhaps Skill Training should be errata'd at some point to follow most other feat bonuses? So rather than getting a flat +5 to a skill which applies across all tiers... that the bonus increases per tier? So Skill Training would grant you a +2 at heroic, a +4 at paragon, and a +6 at epic? (Or +3 / +6 / +9 if that helps better?)

WotC seems to have learned their lesson that a flat bonus does not work as well and is more unbalanced than an increasing bonus (hence the change to Cloak of Distortion for example), so perhaps Skill Training could do with a similar change? Because I for one would also like to use skills to attack defenses on occasion (especially with the social skills).

 

[Vaeron]

3)Is my hesitation to type NADs a sign of immaturity?

Probably not, since it isn't an actual term used in the PHB, which explains the defenses. I would never use it, and actually just about 2 weeks ago saw it used for the first time. Someone had to explain to me what it meant, and I've been playing 4e since the beginning.

Where did it come from? I'm guessing it's introduction is a sign of immaturity more than your hesitancy to use it.

 

[RHGreen]

I'm sure I remember the thread that started the NADs thing, more than a year ago. Everyone was laughing saying he was stupid and immature for trying to introduce a term like NADs and that it would never stick anyway.

Who's laughing now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm sure I remember the thread that started the NADs thing, more than a year ago. Everyone was laughing saying he was stupid and immature for trying to introduce a term like NADs and that it would never stick anyway.

Who's laughing now.

The term was already in use very early in 4e, Its just too handy a term and nobody has really come up with an equally succinct one. You could say 'FRW' and people will know what you mean though if you really dislike 'NAD'. Personally I've seen it so many 1000's of times at this point that its just another acronym.

 

[surfarcher]

It's funny, the cultural thing.

For example, most Australian's don't even think about the connection. And when it's point out we are like "Oh, yeah I see what you mean... So what?"

Then again many nations consider us uncouth and foul mouthed. Many terms others find offensive and consider swearing are just common words over here.

 

[RHGreen]

The term was already in use very early in 4e, Its just too handy a term and nobody has really come up with an equally succinct one. You could say 'FRW' and people will know what you mean though if you really dislike 'NAD'. Personally I've seen it so many 1000's of times at this point that its just another acronym.

I think I remember it from just after it was released. The second thread that used the expression just had loads of posts all just complaining that it had stuck. To be honest I didn't think it would stick myself.

 

[knightofround]

The difference between attacks and skills is +5.
With skills if you are trained you get +5 to that skill.
Your attacks/defenses do not get +5 for being trained.
All you need to do is add +5 to the defenses when opposing a skill.

This is an elegant solution for the heroic tier, and I really like it. Its an easy way to model a skill check vs NAD that has a 50/50 chance of succeeding if the characters are equally matched.

The only problem is that it tends to fall apart at upper tiers because NADs grow faster than skills. Mostly due to enhancement bonuses, but also because there's much more stuff out there that increases NADs compared to skills.

So I would just modify the modifier (hyuck, hyuck) appropriately. +5 to the NAD at heroic tier, +3 to the NAD at paragon tier, and +1 to the NAD at epic tier.

Then, the only problem you'll need to worry about is situational modifiers. An dragon may have reflex +8, but if it is covered in grease it should be *much* more difficult to mount it -- like a +5 to +10 circumstantial bonus. I think for this reason people like to set a specific number DC to do an action instead of an opposed check, because you end up leaning so heavily on the circumstance that you might as well make a set DC.

Still, its a really good idea and I'm definitely going to try it =)