"Stuck" playing 4e (i.e. unwilling converts)

[Ahglock]

Thats because, like with most things in 3e, the skill system was poorly designed and just plain broken. 4e changes the DCs because the 4e designers realized that static skill DCs break beyond a certain level. This argument also destroys the absurd notion that 3e is somehow more "realistic" than 4e. Pretty much anyone at or beyond 9th level is effectively a superhuman in 3e.

I don't see how that destroys any realism arguments from the 3e proponents. Realism is supposed to be realism in a Fantasy world where you somehow can kill a 20 foot animate slab of iron with a sword, or kill giant flying lizards with weapons proportionally smaller than a toothpick to us, or survive falls form orbit. The "realism" isn't real world realism, its realism for a high fantasy game where you do become super human. While the 3e skill system had its flaws(IMO the social skills like diplomacy some of the biggest problems) it did help fit the realism being talked about in a high fantasy game like D&D.

 

[LostSoul]

EDIT: Also in the Acrobatics example...stunts actually get harder as you go up in level, not easier. So the somersault to the top of the pit trick starts out with a DC that's roughly the same as balancing on a ledge...yet as you get better and higher level it becomes harder to pull off, yet balancing on the ledge stays the same...This is where that disconnect takes place for me...NOT because I see the nuts and bolts, but because the nuts and bolts don't make sense.

Yeah. This is where I think the DMG is sloppy and often contradictory. The DC should not change based on the PC's level. What should change is the environment, and those changes should change the DCs.

The DC by level tables should reflect an easy/standard/hard check for gameworld challenges that fit that level. They should not be used for everything just because the PCs have hit that level. What's hard at level 1 should be an auto-success at level 30.

What's more, I think it should have put more emphasis on using Defenses as the DCs. Defenses as DCs works awesome because it's fixed at the monster's level. Tumbling through an orc's space could use the Orc's Ref defense. (Or you could use a level 4 skill DC - level 4 because the Orc is level 4. The Orc Berserker's Ref 13 is only 1 point higher than the Moderate level 4 DC, and if you use his Fort of 17 it's the same as a Hard check.)

Anyways. I agree that the DMG is muddled on this, but I think that the framework is really good for getting the right DC for a challenge of a specific difficulty, so if you want to base the DCs on the gameworld there are a lot of tools in 4E that you can use.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Disclaimer: I am here to discuss ideas, not to "win" anybody over. This post is not in response to any person in particular.

First, it's possible to overstate the mechanical differences between the 3E treatment of skills and the 4E treatment of skills. Suppose I'm a DM, and my story involves a PC running down steep stairs. If I turn to 3.5E DMG page 31, I see that this task is one of the examples for a DC 10 skill check, appropriate for a 1st-level rogue. If I turn to 4E DMG page 42, I see a table listing easy, moderate, and hard DCs by level. If my PCs are 1st level, I might conclude that running down the stairs is a moderate task (DC 10 with errata). If they are 10th level, I might conclude that it is easy (DC 10 with errata). If they are 20th level, I might conclude that it is trivial and not bother checking the table. My advice to unwilling converts stuck playing 4E is to pretend that the table includes two more columns, one for trivial (epic heroes at the tavern's back door) and one for impossible (rookies finding Vecna's lock). Page 42 says to choose the DC depending on the attempted action's difficulty. Nowhere does it say to determine the obstacle depending on a presumed probability of success.

That said, it's possible to understate the philosophical differences between the 3E and 4E treatments. The 3.5E DMG page 31 lists concrete examples, their DC, and for whom the example is an appropriate challenge. The 4E DMG page 42 lists DCs by level for abstract (relativized) difficulties: easy, moderate, and hard. The former is a "world-centric" approach; the latter is a "PC-centric" approach. It's clearly possible to be more comfortable with one over the other.

Personally, I am a big fan of 4E. That said, I do find that it's simplistic to say that 4E is "easier to DM." I would say that it's more freeform. For people who are good at making judgement calls without much guidance, such as so-and-so task would be "easy" or "hard" for a character of X level, perhaps it's liberating. As a new DM who is still learning how to improvise, I sometimes crave more structure. Okay, sure, I should litter my battlefield with terrain that involves level-appropriate skill checks to foster an engaging encounter. So what terrain would that be?

Finally, I can certainly sympathize with a fan of 3E who worries that their DM is taking an extreme approach to page 42 and is making every skill check they encounter a 50-50 shot, instead of devising their own story and using to the rules to run it. I would agree that page 42 could be more clear. I suspect it fails to communicate the designers' intent, in much the same way that we know that the original presentation of skill challenges deviates from the designers' intent.

 

[AllisterH]

Interesting discussion.

If youre playing in the City of Brass, how do you know what the DC for a lock is? I always found the "fixed DCs" somewhat not correspondent with what the PCs were capable of....


What exactly makes a lock "hard"?

re: Given that the PHB has "fixed" DCs and the DMG flexible DCs, isnt this because the DM and the players need to know two different things?

The players see a crevasse and ask the DM, "how wide is it, can I jump it?", the DM can answer "It's 10 metres wide"

But doesn't the DM need to know, "ok, do I want a crevasse? If so, do I want the PCs to auto-pass it, auto-fail it or have some sort of chance"

Given the above, the DM needs to know the DC BEFORE he knows the width since the DM already knows there's going to be a crevasse....It's the same reason why monsters have a CR rating, to help a DM choose an appropriate monster

 

[Jack99]

First it's a hefty amount detailing the whole process, examples, etc....pg. 42... second it has, surprise, surprise, become the defacto answer for most 4e fans when a question arises...in fact I would argue in the reality of the game, pg. 42 has garnered much more weight than the other "20 pages of rules". But the most important thing to my mind is... the question: why is making a choice necessary?

Unless you can dig out a quote where I say that page 42 is Alpha and Omega in 4e, I suggest that you do not expect to argue for that. Regarding the choice, you are right. There should be none, the paragraph on page 23 should never have been in there.

Ok, let's assume this is correct... then we run into other problems...

No need to assume. The first few lines clearly state that page 42 is for rules not covered in the DMG.

A few combat situations come up rarely enough that the rules for them intentionally aren’t covered in the Player’s Handbook—in particular, mounted combat and combat underwater.
Actions the Rules Don’t Cover
Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them. *Snip*

And yet there is no way to cover all actions (even just with non-sentient things) in the PHB, thus the chart will be used for those types of actions...as an example, let's say my Rogue wants to run up a wall and somersault over and to the top of a pit, using Acrobatics...the chart will be used at this point. Now again we run into contradictory info, the Acrobatics skill says start with a base of 15 and modify for difficulty...yet on page 42 there is an actual example of an Acrobatic stunt (The rogue and the chandelier) that instead uses the chart?? Again this is sloppy and confusing.

See below

Yes, and yet what you are claiming is contradicted by the example given on page 42...read the description for the Rogue grabbing the Chandelier... this isn't against a sentient opponent and yet here we see the chart used, not a set DC.

Not really. The example has an Ogre in it. Last I checked, an Ogre is pretty sentient.

Example: Shiera the 8th-level rogue wants to try the classic swashbuckling move of swinging on a chandelier and kicking an ogre in the chest on her
way down to the ground, hoping to push the ogre into the brazier of burning coals behind it. An Acrobatics check seems reasonable.
This sort of action is exactly the kind of thinking you want to encourage, so you pick an easy DC: The table says DC 15, but it’s a skill check, so make it DC 20. If she makes that check, she gets a hold on the chandelier and swings to the ogre.
Then comes the kicking. She’s more interested in the push than in dealing any damage with the kick itself, so have her make a Strength attack against the ogre’s Fortitude. If she pulls it off, let her push the ogre 1 square and into the brazier, and find an appropriate damage number.

I would argue furthermore that the type of action you speak of should be covered by a check against a defense...or an opposing skill (as suggested by most of the skills descriptions in the PHB)... so I think there's a pretty big fallacy in your assumptions being the correct way to interpret how the rules should be used, and in fact still assert that they are confusing and sloppily written/explained.

You mean a skill check vs a defense?

Side Note: Something I've noticed with 4e is that it's fans are often quick to interpret many of it's ambiguous and/or unclear rules and then act as if that is the only way they could possibly be understood or interpreted... when the answer is more likely the rules really weren't explained or written well. And even further this is often held up as a strength of 4e. Now I agree freedom to make rulings is a benefit, but not when the basis to make those rulings on is poorly written and/or explained.

I think this is just human nature. If you like something, you will have a tendency to look at it more favorably and in a better light than something you do not like. Again, I never claimed 4e to be perfect. I merely find it (flaws and all) vastly better for me than any of the previous editions.

EDIT: Also in the Acrobatics example...stunts actually get harder as you go up in level, not easier. So the somersault to the top of the pit trick starts out with a DC that's roughly the same as balancing on a ledge...yet as you get better and higher level it becomes harder to pull off, yet balancing on the ledge stays the same...This is where that disconnect takes place for me...NOT because I see the nuts and bolts, but because the nuts and bolts don't make sense.

I am sorry. Where in the PHB does it say that under Acrobatic Stunts? I can't seem to find the paragraph in question.

Cheers

 

[Truename]

I'm going to succumb to my snarkiness and point that while page 23 says: "Sometimes realism is a matter of very small details. If two wooden doors appear to be exactly the same, but one requires a DC 16 Strength check to break through and the other one requires a DC 20 check, the world feels arbitrary and inconsistent."

Page 42 tells the DM to do exactly the opposite.

Hmm. I read it differently. I think of page 42 as being about the level of the challenge, not the level of the party. So your inn door might be level 3 (and thus have a DC of 5, 10, or 15 depending on its quality). The door guarding Vecna's treasure room will probably be level 30, though.

It took me a while to wrap my head around this, because I'm used to only PCs having levels. But this idea that everything has levels is prevalent throughout 4e. Diseases have levels, poisons have levels, monsters have levels, skill challenges have levels... and I quite like it, because it makes it easy for me to compare the PCs level to the difficulty of the challenge.

Now, that said, I don't think p.42 actually says that it's about the level of the challenge. But I've chosen to interpret it that way so my need for verisimilitude is satisfied. I also wish there were more examples of how skill levels & DCs map to real-world objects.

ninja'd by LostSoul...

Yeah. This is where I think the DMG is sloppy and often contradictory. The DC should not change based on the PC's level. What should change is the environment, and those changes should change the DCs.

This.

 

[Imaro]

Thats because, like with most things in 3e, the skill system was poorly designed and just plain broken. 4e changes the DCs because the 4e designers realized that static skill DCs break beyond a certain level. This argument also destroys the absurd notion that 3e is somehow more "realistic" than 4e. Pretty much anyone at or beyond 9th level is effectively a superhuman in 3e.

I took this from the WotC boards a long time ago. I'm not sure who wrote it, and I'd love to give credit to the original author but it does a good job of illustrating the ridiculousness of the 3e skill system:

Was the 3e skill system broke? Because nothing you posted proves that. It's world assumptions aren't the same as ours, and I don't think anyone is arguing that they are (though I can in no way speak for everyone). I know personally I'm arguing for a "realistic" skill system, in the sense that it is a logical one (there's a big difference here.) based upon the assumptions of the world.

You know NOT one where I try an acrobatic trick at first level, and 15 levels and tons of experience later, it's actually become harder for me to pull off in comparison to the other things I was capable of at first level. IMHO that's definitely a type of realism that 3e had and 4e doesn't (or is so muddled in it's presentation of ... that it's become confusing and irritating to many.), perhaps you aren't grasping what people mean when they use the word realism. Hopefully that helps.

 

[Imaro]

Unless you can dig out a quote where I say that page 42 is Alpha and Omega in 4e, I suggest that you do not expect to argue for that. Regarding the choice, you are right. There should be none, the paragraph on page 23 should never have been in there.

Fair enough, though I never said you personally and there are numerous threads here where it's quite apparent.

No need to assume. The first few lines clearly state that page 42 is for rules not covered in the DMG.

I'm talking about assuming it's only to be used vs. sentient creatures...is there a line that states that or is that Jack99's interpretation/houserule ...and has nothing to do with what's actually written in the rules?

EDIT: This was my fault for responding to the wrong part of the quote...however your assumption is contradicted earlier on with the "Search the Rooms" DC's on page 41.

See below


Not really. The example has an Ogre in it. Last I checked, an Ogre is pretty sentient.

And so grabbing a chandelier (not actually swinging into the Ogre or pushing him, or etc.) becomes harder and uses the chart because the Ogre is present in the room...huh? The Ogre has no effect on if you grab a chandelier or not. Now later when the Ogre is actually acted upon, we see his defenses used as the DC's or to hit numbers...but what does he have to do with how hard it is for a rogue to actually grab a chandelier?

You mean a skill check vs a defense?

could be an attack vs. defense...or a skill check vs. a defense or skill check vs. opposing skill (you know like stealth and perception) or even an ability check vs. defense. You know like the Strength attack vs. the Ogre's Fort defense in the example. In fact with the new easier errata I'm not really seeing how skills vs. defenses are unbalancing in use. Especially if the DM applies the +2 modifier.

I think this is just human nature. If you like something, you will have a tendency to look at it more favorably and in a better light than something you do not like. Again, I never claimed 4e to be perfect. I merely find it (flaws and all) vastly better for me than any of the previous editions.

Yes, but I think it becomes a blinder when you begin to think that when people don't view it the same way as you those people are suddenly not comprehending things as opposed to not interpreting them the way you choose to. especially with again the way and manner inwhich the books have been written is not clear or concise on the matter.

I am sorry. Where in the PHB does it say that under Acrobatic Stunts? I can't seem to find the paragraph in question.

wasn't talking about the PHB I was comparing the ad hoc Acrobatics rules in the PHB which always start with a base DC of 15 and the way it is resolved in the example on page 42...which chooses to use the chart, sorry if I was unclear. But it was again an example of ambiguous application of rules...unless of course everyone chooses to interpret that skill DC's should change dependent upon the type/level/whatever of sentient creatures and their proximity to you while attempting something, even if they should have no direct interaction with your chances to succeed at something.

Cheers[/quote]

 

[LostSoul]

Hey Imaro;

How would you re-write page 42?

I know what I would do.

• Base the DC on the level of the challenge, not the PC. This includes monsters and environment. Crossing ice without slipping might be a Moderate Level 1-3 check; crossing ice in the Feywild under an echantement of a powerful Eladrin witch might be a Moderate check of the Eladrin's level.
• As often as possible, use a stat vs. a Defense. Apply the +2 modifier to the roll unless the task seems difficult; only apply the -2 modifier if it's extremely difficult.
• Don't worry about using Limited damage expressions. PCs have a lot of firepower at their discretion; damage on par with an encounter power is fine.
• That said, try to base the damage on the gameworld. Normal fire should deal Level 1 damage. Fire from the elemental chaos should deal paragon level damage. If the PC is using his own abilities (a Wizard using Mage Hand to manipulate the fire or a Fighter shoving an Ogre's face in the fire), use the PC's level.
• If the PC wants to inflict a Condition, let him, though keep in mind some Conditions are more "powerful" than others. Don't worry about Prone, Daze, Slow, or Immobilized. Watch out for Restrained. Stun and Blind should be handled with care. The others shouldn't be used.
• If the PC wants to inflict a Condition with an attack, it's okay to deal low damage. 1[W] is fine, so is the low normal damage for the PC's level.
• When designing adventures/encounters, try to make the gameworld environment match the PC's level. The game works best when the PCs are in an environment appropirate to their level; the DCs and damage are balanced, so make good use of it! It will help to highlight the PC's growth.

 

[Imaro]

Hey Imaro;

How would you re-write page 42?

I know what I would do.

• Base the DC on the level of the challenge, not the PC. This includes monsters and environment. Crossing ice without slipping might be a Moderate Level 1-3 check; crossing ice in the Feywild under an echantement of a powerful Eladrin witch might be a Moderate check of the Eladrin's level.
• As often as possible, use a stat vs. a Defense. Apply the +2 modifier to the roll unless the task seems difficult; only apply the -2 modifier if it's extremely difficult.
• Don't worry about using Limited damage expressions. PCs have a lot of firepower at their discretion; damage on par with an encounter power is fine.
• That said, try to base the damage on the gameworld. Normal fire should deal Level 1 damage. Fire from the elemental chaos should deal paragon level damage. If the PC is using his own abilities (a Wizard using Mage Hand to manipulate the fire or a Fighter shoving an Ogre's face in the fire), use the PC's level.
• If the PC wants to inflict a Condition, let him, though keep in mind some Conditions are more "powerful" than others. Don't worry about Prone, Daze, Slow, or Immobilized. Watch out for Restrained. Stun and Blind should be handled with care. The others shouldn't be used.
• If the PC wants to inflict a Condition with an attack, it's okay to deal low damage. 1[W] is fine, so is the low normal damage for the PC's level.
• When designing adventures/encounters, try to make the gameworld environment match the PC's level. The game works best when the PCs are in an environment appropirate to their level; the DCs and damage are balanced, so make good use of it! It will help to highlight the PC's growth.

Good question, I don't profess to be a game designer...but give me a little bit to think about it and I'll get back to you.