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

[Gothmog]

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.

You know, this is a GREAT point, and something I hadn't considered before. While the table seems to be written in reference to character level, it makes more sense to read it from the perspective of the hazard or obstacle, since traps, diseases, curses, etc all are given levels in 4e.

So, for example, trying to climb up a crumbling brick wall with some handholds, but covered in slime and moss might be a moderate level 7 hazard. Add 5 to the DC for a skill check from page 42, and you have a final DC of 19. While a 1st level character might have some trouble with this (say a trained Athletics of +7), a 7th level character would find it MUCH easier (Athletics +10), and a 15th level character would find it trivial (Athletics +14). If the character has optimal climbing conditions (rested, good lighting, climbing gear, etc) it could be an easy challenge (DC 13). If the character were climbing in rain, was bloodied, or while dodging arrows while climbing, make it a hard challenge (DC 24). Wow, thats cool!

Hmm, something to consider. I really like this- it gets around the cumbersome aspect of reading the table from the PC's point of view, and instead from the level of the challenge. Plus, it also is a little easier to extrapolate challenges above and below the level of the PCs, and makes the simulationist side of me happy!

 

[Jack99]

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 might have been a little harsh with my initial comments. Sorry.

There does seem to be more inconsistencies than I had noticed before. This might have something to do with the fact that I pretty much prefer static DC's for such things, meaning that if jumping up a chandelier is DC 15 at level 1, it's still DC 15 at level 10. The only time that I use the 4e scaling is when the player's character directly interacts with a sentient being, as mentioned above. Maybe I just convinced myself that because it is how I (would) do things, that this is what they meant and ignored the parts that didn't fit my playstyle/thinking. I do use page 42 for guideline for damage for such attacks, scaling or not.

So far, it works great I think. But I can easily see now that if you are not already partial to 4e, such inconsistencies would be viewed very disfavorably.

Cheers

 

[I'm A Banana]

how broken

Man, it's wierd.

One man's broken is another mans (my) "Frickin' awesome hard-wired adventure and challenge hooks."

Gimble attracted the attention of a genie? Awesome. Maybe it's an efreet from the City of Brass who won't take "no" for an answer. How will Gimble and his friends get out of this one?!

A rogue who can walk across a one-inch-wide beam? Sign me up for an impossible cat burglary high on the webs that crisscross a city that was once home to mortals, and now is only home to crafty giant spiders!

A barbarian who climbs 40 feet every 6 seconds? Sounds like a pretext for a race to the top of the Highest Mountain in the World, where the Gods are supposed to live...and the gods don't take too kindly to this mortal sport of climbing their mountain! Dodging lightning bolts while climbing in a rainstorm against others who are doing it? Awesome.

A swashbuckler who can leap 35 feet? Sounds like an amazing idea for an expansive combat where you are leaping between fragile stone pillars, duelling flying enemies that swoop by you!

A beguiler disguising himself as a woman's husband? Sounds like an AWESOME kind of villain, not to mention a pretty hilarious homecoming scene!

A monk who can tell if someone's been charmed just at a glance? Perfect. Saves me the hassle of dropping more subtle hints. Go now, fight the person with the town in their sway!

A bard who is a master of languages? Sounds awesome. What kind of obscure species will he have to translate and diplomacize next?

A ranger who can track a suspicious toad over bare rock in the rain? Awesome. I wonder how long I can have them on the trail of the prisoner who escaped to complete the blood ritual?

All of that sounds AWESOME, and doesn't break verisimilitude at all.

It's not the "real world," but it shouldn't be. It is "internally consistent," which is something 4e has some problems with.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

There does seem to be more inconsistencies than I had noticed before. This might have something to do with the fact that I pretty much prefer static DC's for such things, meaning that if jumping up a chandelier is DC 15 at level 1, it's still DC 15 at level 10. The only time that I use the 4e scaling is when the player's character directly interacts with a sentient being, as mentioned above. Maybe I just convinced myself that because it is how I (would) do things, that this is what they meant and ignored the parts that didn't fit my playstyle/thinking.

I believe the problem with page 42 really is its ambiguity. Clearly, different readers have taken wildly different interpretations of its contents.

Literally, it says to first decide whether the given task is easy, medium, or hard for a character of a given level. Then it gives you the DC to use. It explains how to create DCs from the narrative, but it doesn't explain how the narrative depends on the DC.

For example, you say that you prefer a particular stunt involving a chandelier to have the same DC regardless of the PC's level. Is this preference the same as preferring the act of breaking down a door to have the same DC, regardless of PC level? Of course, DMs are accustomed to thinking that they can adjust the DC of the door by changing its construction (wood versus iron, etc.). Isn't the same true of chandeliers? One chandelier may be higher than another, or more slippery than another, or less prone to swinging than another.

So if a room contains a chandelier, the DM is free to make it non-interactive: a DC too high for the PCs to use. Or he can make it over-the-top hollywood magic: the PCs can use it to perform arbitrary stunts and achieve arbitrary effects. I believe the implicit advice of page 42 is to assume that the chandelier happens to be of just the right placement, construction, etc. such that the player's idea to use it in a stunt is reasonable: neither foolish nor automatic.

I think the attitude of 4E, for better or for worse, is that why not put the chandelier in play? You may have intended it as static decoration, with an acrobatics DC too high to be useful, but why not say that okay, the chandelier is within reach or comes loose from its chain in just the right way so that you can swing down from it to knock over the brazier at the bottom of the staircase onto the adjacent ogre? Why not say, "yes, roll for it," and actually give the player a reasonable chance of success? (Clearly, if the lock is the lock of Vecna and meant to be a major plot point, you can just say sorry, you weren't even close. If it's just the back door of the tavern, you can look at your player funny and just say that his level 25 fighter brushes the door aside without effort.)

Note that I'm not saying that this attitude is the only way to play D&D. It's just the one that I perceive in reading the 4E DMG. I don't think it's inconsistent with other aspects of 4E, but it may not be for everyone.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

All of that sounds AWESOME, and doesn't break verisimilitude at all.

It's not the "real world," but it shouldn't be. It is "internally consistent," which is something 4e has some problems with.

I'm a proponent of 4E, and I agree that those "broken" examples are just demonstrations of how awesome 9th-level characters are. At this level, 3E wizards are teleporting around the world and clerics are raising the dead. The barbarian can climb 40 feet in six seconds? Oh nos!

Also, I think it's true that 4E gives DMs less help with being internally consistent, but it's part and parcel of its more freeform attitude. If you have a story in mind, 4E lets you tell it without worrying about being consistent with a bunch of "official" DCs. But if you need to describe what a DC 25 obstacle looks like in-game, it doesn't remind you what one looked like last time.

 

[Gothmog]

Man, it's wierd.

One man's broken is another mans (my) "Frickin' awesome hard-wired adventure and challenge hooks."

All of that sounds AWESOME, and doesn't break verisimilitude at all.

It's not the "real world," but it shouldn't be. It is "internally consistent," which is something 4e has some problems with.

I agree, the examples you gave sound like interesting plot hooks.

Here is where the stumbling block (and its a huge one) is for me.... those characters are 9th level! Characters not even halfway through their careers are performing deeds worthy of Hercules, Gilgamesh, and mythical beings at the pinnacle of their abilities!

That's where the problem lies- not that PCs can do those things, but that they do those things at such a low level and with relative ease. Hell, in those examples they are even taking 10!!! These same things wouldn't be a problem if done by 15th+ level characters for me. I wouldn't even have a problem with 9th level characters doing those things on a roll of 20, or some other way to score a critical on a skill check. And let's not forget that many 3e adventures were populated with DOZENS of beings who had similar capabilities. All of a sudden it gets a bit more ludicrous and out of proportion. Thats where the internal consistency and simuationism of 3e failed for me- if static DCs exist for performing those tasks and skill modifiers are that high, then logically (and per the DMG)there will be thousands of such individuals in the world who will be doing those things.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here is where the stumbling block (and its a huge one) is for me.... those characters are 9th level! Characters not even halfway through their careers are performing deeds worthy of Hercules, Gilgamesh, and mythical beings at the pinnacle of their abilities!

That's a pretty big exaggeration.

I'd be genuinely surprised to see a 9th level warrior type single-handedly redirecting a river to clean out the Augean stables without using serious magic...something Herc wouldn't need.

And for many powerful magical effects that you see in literature, nothing less than a 7th level spell would do, and an 8th or 9th would probably be more likely to do the deed successfully.

I'd be surprised if a 15th level ranger could duplicate the shot Odysseus made to announce his return to his home, and I'd be surprised if a non-epic PC could do some of the archery described in the Vedas.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here is where the stumbling block (and its a huge one) is for me.... those characters are 9th level! Characters not even halfway through their careers are performing deeds worthy of Hercules, Gilgamesh, and mythical beings at the pinnacle of their abilities!

Well, for the first "only 9th level" seems a bit of a strange phrase to me. In 3e, it was said that most human beings are generally covered in the 1-3 level range, even if they've had some combat experience. That's why E6 ends at level six, to a certain degree: by that point, you're clearly above the mortals, but you're still in the ballpark of the "real world."

By 9th level (what 4e would dub about 14th level), I should be head and shoulders beyond what most humans can do, entering the realms of myth and legend.

I'm OK with 4e raising the bar a bit, but given the 4e skill system's own quirks (every character by level 14 has a +7 bonus in every skill, giving them a Take 10 result of 17, so even our sickly wizard can climb every cave wall he comes across, jump 15 feet, swim in rough water, and not eat for 3 days), being up in arms about how well 3e's system reflects the Real World seems a bit odd.

Thats where the internal consistency and simuationism of 3e failed for me- if static DCs exist for performing those tasks and skill modifiers are that high, then logically (and per the DMG)there will be thousands of such individuals in the world who will be doing those things.

"Thousands" is a pretty big exaggeration, too. There were other adventurers, but given the demographic info the 3e DMG gave us, the would still be pretty rare. It's kind of like the division of billionaires vs. "regular people" in the real world. There are billionaires out there, and they do things that you hear about sometimes, and you're sure there's more than two of them, and you might even meet one if you go to a big enough city, but they're still pretty legendary.

The people that post mentions are heroes -- they have high stats, they have lots of feats, they have nine frickin' levels which isn't low-level at all.

Most people, at best, would have a skill modifier of +4 for something that they've trained for. Everyone else would have a +0 (because 10 was the default stat, and it's not exactly like commoners, 90% of the world's population according to 3e, got the Climb skill).

The internal logic held for me, because 9th level was reinforced, every step of the way, to be ALREADY well above the capacity for most human beings. By 6th level, you're mighty. By 16th level, you're fighting demon-kings. By 20th, gods. (in 4e, by 24th level, you are indeed fighting demon lords; by 30th, gods).

 

[M.L. Martin]

• 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.

• 
  
  FWIW, the STAR WARS equivalent of "Page 42" (Scum and Villainy, page 78) includes DCs cross-indexed by difficulties (Easy, Medium, Moderate, Hard, Heroic) and Adventure Challenge Level.

 

[Zustiur]

I agree with that. But how is that different from any other version of D&D?

Purely in emphasis. I am convinced that 4E emphasizes this 'balance' too much.

Anything is possible. In a prior edition, you could slam a DC50 lock on a toilet door if you wanted.

Indeed, and it would be just as bad for suspension of disbelief as some of the things that I have encountered. For sake of example: the cost of a raise dead ritual knocks me straight out of role play into game play mode. [In my opinion] when 1st level parties can afford to raise their dead companions there is something highly wrong with the system! Death needs to hold a greater significance than that else there's little reason to take precautions in game. You end up with events as per Baldur's Gate (1 or 2, or possibly Neverwinter nights.. I'm fairly certain it was BG2) where a child's pet dies, and the child says "Oh well, I'll just get daddy to raise it again".
When things like that happen ... it's just not my DnD anymore.

While KotS should have been made great, since it's the introduction-adventure, it is sadly the worst published for 4e by WotC. I can only say that judging 4e by that is a mistake. I am not saying you would like it if you were playing another module (or some homebrew for that matter) but that KotS is far from the best 4e has to offer.

I'm aware of that from having read complaint after complaint about it in threads such as this. Sadly it seems I have no control over our use of modules (other than quitting the group) because the pro-4E DM has bought the entire series and intends to run every single bit of it, as written, regardless of how badly it plays.

Yes and I totally agree with you in that challenges should vary much more. But again, when has modules not been like that?

I do not have the experience to answer that question. However, from hearsay, I'd point at any module written for early DnD or AD&D. Keep on the Borderlands perhaps? I keep hearing tales of people running into extremely varied encounters in those days.

Parts of them (powers especially), read like a text manual, so I can understand why you feel that way.

Only parts? There's so little flavour in the books that they all read like that. The DMG is the saving grace of the collection, but it's still tainted by edition it belongs to.

4e doesn't tell you that you can't use non-level-appropriate encounters or challenges, but instead focuses on the level-appropriate stuff. Which is fair, since one could easily argue that most challenges used in various campaigns are probably more or less level appropriate.

And:

But just like 3E CR rules didn't demand of you to only ever use equal level enemies (quite the contrary), the 4E rules don't demand you to only ever use equal level challenges for your PCs.

Agreed. It does not say, "you can only use balanced encounters". I still say that 4E emphasizes balance too much.