Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[AbdulAlhazred]

The explanation for the difference is simple: different games, different DMs, different idea of what an iron shod door or frost giant is/means. The DC of 20 for that iron-shod door (what kinda door wears iron shoes, anyway, that is not exactly stylish, even by door standards?) is only 'subjective' in the negative sense h4ters used if it changes, at your table, for that same door. Otherwise, it's a non-issue.

Well, the 'issue' such as it was, was the (often IMHO deliberate) misconstruction of DCs as simply divorced from the fiction entirely such that the same basic wooden door would have a different DC if it was placed in a different level adventure context. Nevermind that DMG1 instantly disabuses this notion! In fact even Pemerton's statements about varying DC by table are only true if you take a certain amount of license with 4e (not a lot, and I totally think its appropriate, but still). If you play by RAW then an a wooden door is DC16 to force, if its barred its DC20, and if its an iron door its DC25. A frost giant is a level 17 Brute with an AC of 29 (MV p124).

These are every bit as objectively specified values as they are in any edition of D&D, period. Just as in any other edition, you'd have level 1 PCs find wooden doors in the dungeon level 1, and iron doors in the dungeon level 18. This is all quite clearly spelled out on DMG1 p64, along with a number of other environmental DCs. Further, perusal of the PHB or RC will show you that the skill descriptions spell out exact DCs for a wide range of general situations.

Later on it became fashionable, and its good solid application of RPG theory and GMing technique, to consider DCs to be a way to input variation in theme into a game, more on that below.

Again, nothing to do with DC's being subjective or objective, but with Mearls being unable to grok the very game he was responsible for. Paragon themes at heroic tier? Sloppy. Sabotages the Paragon experience.

I mean, in a way it's one of the things that points at Essentials as designed to have a short run.

This is where 'variation on theme' comes into play. NW compresses themes that normally fall into paragon tier into the heroic tier in order to achieve a certain style of play and perhaps for other reasons as well. This is NOT SLOPPINESS!!!! This was a deliberate calculated use of the technique [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] discussed! They wanted a more rapid advancement and to avoid additional options and complexities of Paragon tier rules, but they also wanted to address themes that rightly belong in paragon tier under the expected 4e tier structure. So they simply 'compressed' those elements, making them lower in level. This is like taking the iron door and deciding you want it to appear, thematically on level 3 of the dungon, so you give it a DC of 19 instead of 25. Now you can run a 10 level dungeon that has trappings that run the gamut from simple flimsy wooden doors to magically reinforced adamantium portals without needing to engage any of the paragon or epic rules (maybe you don't like those rules, or its just more convenient not to use them in an abbreviated game). Likewise you could level-scale a powerful demon down to being a level 10 solo and make it the ultimate boss monster in this little exercise. You could go further and rescale skill check DCs so that level 10 PCs can make mighty leaps across 200' wide chasms too if you want that element to appear.

This is a FEATURE of 4e. Its not one that was, I suspect, really considered when the game was first written, but it clearly occurred to many people, myself, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], whomever designed Neverwinter, etc.

 

[Manbearcat]

Minimal time to post. Just figured I'd use this thread to solicit if a new thread analyzing the value of varying Skill-driven Utility Powers would be (a) useful and (b) something folks want to participate in. "Skill-driven" meaning not just Skill Powers, but also Class, Race, Theme, etc (so you're talking from Fighter's Strong Focus, to Goblin's Little Green Lies, to Athletics Mighty Sprint, to Heir of Delzoun's Scholar of Ancient Ways). It would serve as a repository for both PC building and insight (GM and player-side) how the power would manifest in play.

I'm thinking of an evaluation in the vein of what I did upthread with Strong Focus. So you're talking about a look into the effectiveness and application in the following:

1) Skill Challenges
2) Combat Stunting
3) Combat Application

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Interesting that your thoughts on HPL and REH fiction do, somewhat, match the Dungeon Crawl Classics approaches on those topics (magic use is extremely risky to mind and body, Luck mechanics), which was "back to square Appendix N" for genre emulation as a mission statement.

The rest of that is very interesting in terms of what you see in 4E, thank you.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] in College Professor Mode is pretty good

I don't think you CAN construct a game that can do justice to all of Appendix N. It was inspiration, not emulation. Middle Earth's magic for instance simply doesn't work in a way that would be very amenable to use by PCs at all. Magic in that world is a skill which taps into primal forces of creation, or else has extreme spiritual consequences and is effectively divine (or diabolic) in nature. Charming someone for instance in JRRT's world view would be a heinous crime. Only servants of higher powers can access magic, or else you have to reach levels of craftsmanship and erudition that require 1000's of years of practice.

HPL's cosmic horror simply isn't compatible with any sort of 'adventuring' paradigm. The investigators of CoC are pretty good RPG characters, you can play out that genre, but you do have to expect it to play out along certain fairly fixed lines. Something as open-ended as D&D could never fully embrace that sort of game.

I think D&D isn't too far off with REH, but certainly the playing of spell casters is right out. Once you eliminate them from being PCs then you just run into the problems that were touched on above, D&D is all about careful crawling and exploration while cutting risks. Conan is all about grappling with tests of character in heroic fashion, which usually means taking crazy risks. If you tried to play a D&D character as Conan, you'd be ganked in no time. This is one reason why the Paladin is a problematic character archetype in D&D.

Truthfully, D&D stole some superficial elements from the Appendix N works, maybe most from Vance as has been oft noted, and grafted them into its procedural challenge paradigm. D&D is much too thoroughly gamist to really faithfully emulate any genre.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The idea that it's 'subjective' and the DC slides with the PC's level is false & pernicious. Sure, as in 5e (and, really, any edition to use DCs) the DM is free to set DCs as he likes, just as he's free to place any monster he likes. Guideline.

This is not really opposed to what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is saying. We all agree, the notion that the GM would set the DC for a wooden door at 25 just because a level 18 PC happened to try to open it is ridiculous. If such a door was already established in the fiction, and for whatever reason a level 18 character engaged with that fiction, the door would simply not be an element of challenge at all. It would be incumbent on the GM to frame the action in such a way that it engaged with the player's interests and goals at a challenge level that was entertaining. Thus perhaps the level 18 character would just barge through the door and whatever he found on the other side would be a challenge, perhaps his girlfriend and his best buddy sidekick are dallying on the other side!!! Now we have an engaging problem (perhaps, if you're into that sort of RP).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK, again I'm pretty sure the 4E skill system worked fine as is, bit reading y'all talking about the leveling DCs...good Lord, that sounds like a lot of work, particularly if beer is involved...?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

Not really. Its the same as any classic adventure design. When you design the adventure you say "OK, this is a level 10 adventure, so the DCs are 13, 18, 26. Now you simply apply them to the various situations within the adventure. Something easy is DC13, something hard is DC26. Obviously you don't have to stick to those 3 numbers exclusively. If you want something to be REALLY challenging, then maybe its DC30 (the hard DC for level 15, which is a level+5 challenge for level 10 PCs).

Mostly you don't even really need to go look these things up, you will have a good idea of the skill bonuses of your PCs and just set the DCs to what will work for them (unless you're a commercial developer or LFR developer).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Minimal time to post. Just figured I'd use this thread to solicit if a new thread analyzing the value of varying Skill-driven Utility Powers would be (a) useful and (b) something folks want to participate in. "Skill-driven" meaning not just Skill Powers, but also Class, Race, Theme, etc (so you're talking from Fighter's Strong Focus, to Goblin's Little Green Lies, to Athletics Mighty Sprint, to Heir of Delzoun's Scholar of Ancient Ways). It would serve as a repository for both PC building and insight (GM and player-side) how the power would manifest in play.

I'm thinking of an evaluation in the vein of what I did upthread with Strong Focus. So you're talking about a look into the effectiveness and application in the following:

1) Skill Challenges
2) Combat Stunting
3) Combat Application

yes please.

 

[Parmandur]

Not really. Its the same as any classic adventure design. When you design the adventure you say "OK, this is a level 10 adventure, so the DCs are 13, 18, 26. Now you simply apply them to the various situations within the adventure. Something easy is DC13, something hard is DC26. Obviously you don't have to stick to those 3 numbers exclusively. If you want something to be REALLY challenging, then maybe its DC30 (the hard DC for level 15, which is a level+5 challenge for level 10 PCs).

Mostly you don't even really need to go look these things up, you will have a good idea of the skill bonuses of your PCs and just set the DCs to what will work for them (unless you're a commercial developer or LFR developer).

Oh, man; I have a fairly decent head for numbers, generally speaking, enough that D&D is usually fine for me: but I am when push comes to shove, not that mathematically inclined, and what you just posted, no joke, totally honest, kinda intimidates me. Makes my head swim a bit, though if I had to, in a particular case, could probably work it out: but man, I wouldn't want to DM with that level of overhead, though y'all make a pretty good case for playing the game if you were behind the screen.

And here I think another interesting aspect of the "feelz" may play out: D&D as a game requires math, and not always the most basic math; but, skill and comfort with that will vary considerably from person to person. The 4E math is obviously very well thought out: but is it going to work better for the mathematically inclined than the uninclined? My college group was half English majors, half Engineers, but we were all able to keep up with the 3.x math when it came up; and I am able to keep up with the 4E math I am seeing...but while I am enjoying hearing about the game from y'all, the math parts make my eyes glaze over a bit?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, man; I have a fairly decent head for numbers, generally speaking, enough that D&D is usually fine for me: but I am when push comes to shove, not that mathematically inclined, and what you just posted, no joke, totally honest, kinda intimidates me. Makes my head swim a bit, though if I had to, in a particular case, could probably work it out: but man, I wouldn't want to DM with that level of overhead, though y'all make a pretty good case for playing the game if you were behind the screen.

And here I think another interesting aspect of the "feelz" may play out: D&D as a game requires math, and not always the most basic math; but, skill and comfort with that will vary considerably from person to person. The 4E math is obviously very well thought out: but is it going to work better for the mathematically inclined than the uninclined? My college group was half English majors, half Engineers, but we were all able to keep up with the 3.x math when it came up; and I am able to keep up with the 4E math I am seeing...but while I am enjoying hearing about the game from y'all, the math parts make my eyes glaze over a bit?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

4e has the simplest of math. The very most complex thing you ever have to do is divide by 2 and round down. 99% of the time in 4e you never have to do any math at the table, or maybe one addition to an attack roll, and then add up your damage. There's no wondering if a bonus should really be a penalty or anything like that which happened in AD&D a LOT. Nor are their the massive recalculations that constantly happened in 3.x when someone got level drained or CON damaged or something horrible.

Likewise when running a game, I never did any math besides some addition now and then. I would have set all DCs before play, and that involved ONE lookup ONE time on the DC chart in RC. It just isn't that mathematically intensive a game, and 4e is carefully designed so that most of what you need to do is done before play. So, at the table, its a very simple and quick running game.

This is why I don't like the 'use any stat with any skill' thing that came up in the 5e playtest (and was often suggested by people in 4e threads). It would require you to figure out a much more complex combination of stat and skill, add up bonuses and penalties, etc DURING PLAY, whereas the normal way is you just pick a skill and you know the bonus because it never changes (until you level etc). Then you just roll vs the predetermined DC, and you're good.

As a note on this, I even made things simpler in HoML. Instead of any situational bonuses/penalties (which certainly will come up in 4e, like CA etc) there is just advantage/disadvantage and nothing else. Like 4e your static bonuses are all pre-calculated. I also added a few other conventions. DCs are replaced with 'difficulty value' which is stated in terms of a level, not a bonus, so you can eliminate the easy/medium/hard check thing, just use a DV that's 5 levels higher for hard, and 3 or 5 levels lower for easy. Combine this with a level of success metric (you can have critical success, success, or failure) and play is sped up a good bit.

 

[Parmandur]

4e has the simplest of math. The very most complex thing you ever have to do is divide by 2 and round down. 99% of the time in 4e you never have to do any math at the table, or maybe one addition to an attack roll, and then add up your damage. There's no wondering if a bonus should really be a penalty or anything like that which happened in AD&D a LOT. Nor are their the massive recalculations that constantly happened in 3.x when someone got level drained or CON damaged or something horrible.

Likewise when running a game, I never did any math besides some addition now and then. I would have set all DCs before play, and that involved ONE lookup ONE time on the DC chart in RC. It just isn't that mathematically intensive a game, and 4e is carefully designed so that most of what you need to do is done before play. So, at the table, its a very simple and quick running game.

This is why I don't like the 'use any stat with any skill' thing that came up in the 5e playtest (and was often suggested by people in 4e threads). It would require you to figure out a much more complex combination of stat and skill, add up bonuses and penalties, etc DURING PLAY, whereas the normal way is you just pick a skill and you know the bonus because it never changes (until you level etc). Then you just roll vs the predetermined DC, and you're good.

As a note on this, I even made things simpler in HoML. Instead of any situational bonuses/penalties (which certainly will come up in 4e, like CA etc) there is just advantage/disadvantage and nothing else. Like 4e your static bonuses are all pre-calculated. I also added a few other conventions. DCs are replaced with 'difficulty value' which is stated in terms of a level, not a bonus, so you can eliminate the easy/medium/hard check thing, just use a DV that's 5 levels higher for hard, and 3 or 5 levels lower for easy. Combine this with a level of success metric (you can have critical success, success, or failure) and play is sped up a good bit.

Well...as I said, the math does seem rigorously well thought out, which is good: and I never did DM in 3.x, or 4E, so I can only speak to winging it in 5E: partly because earlier editions I think made me feel the barrier to DMing was higher, thinking on it.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[darkbard]

Minimal time to post. Just figured I'd use this thread to solicit if a new thread analyzing the value of varying Skill-driven Utility Powers would be (a) useful and (b) something folks want to participate in. "Skill-driven" meaning not just Skill Powers, but also Class, Race, Theme, etc (so you're talking from Fighter's Strong Focus, to Goblin's Little Green Lies, to Athletics Mighty Sprint, to Heir of Delzoun's Scholar of Ancient Ways). It would serve as a repository for both PC building and insight (GM and player-side) how the power would manifest in play.

I'm thinking of an evaluation in the vein of what I did upthread with Strong Focus. So you're talking about a look into the effectiveness and application in the following:

1) Skill Challenges
2) Combat Stunting
3) Combat Application

This; this; a thousand times, this! As has been coming up in this thread and others among the 4E players across the forums here, this is one woefully undersupported aspect of the system that 4E's designers really should have engaged.