Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[Zurai]

You can't say 4e is "scaling up" from 3e and then ignore over twenty points of reduction from the core rules of 3e.

Show me how you get 20 extra points on oh, let's say Decipher Script checks, using only the core rules.

No synergy bonuses. No magic items that give bonuses to Decipher Script. At most you're going to have +8 on top of the check - and that's under extremely rare circumstances (bard + luckstone + two feats devoted to one skill).

The vast majority of your "over NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!" bonus points come from magic items, and in core, only a very few skills have magic items devoted to them. On top of that, very, very few people take Skill Focus and even fewer take the +2/+2 feats. Thus, for the majority of skills, you're looking at a top end of maybe 26 + stat mod.

But even without those twenty points, there is a reduction in maximum capability.

That was never in contention. I don't know why you keep saying it. Although, note that 4E core rules go to level 30, which means that in actuality, the base maximum goes to 25 + stat mod, not 20 + stat mod.

It's my belief that the maximum will be reduced, and the minimum will be increased.

OK.

The gap between PC capability will be reduced.

OK. What's that got to do with whether the average skill check DC will go up?

How is this "scaling up"?

Because a DC of 15 is still a challenge for a lot of characters at level 20 in 3.5, and thus still a valid DC to use at that point in time. A DC of 15 is no challenge at all to any level 20 character in 4E, let alone a level 30 one, and thus really is not a valid DC to use at that point in time.

 

[FireLance]

I think I've finally realized what is the fundamental disagreement here (or at least, one of them).

It's whether you believe (or at least, can accept) that a high-level character should be superior in practically every way compared to a low-level character, or whether you think that even high-level characters should have some areas in which they are no better than a normal man.

In game terms, scaling the DCs is trivially easy. Whether in 3e or 4e, it is always possible to set the DCs so that it is easy, difficult, or impossible for any particular PC to accomplish the task.

I think what troubles some posters is the idea that high-level characters can no longer be challenged like ordinary men. In 3e, climbing a DC 20 wall remains a challenge to an untrained climber regardless of level. In 4e (presumably), a normal wall ceases to remain a challenge for any high-level character, and it needs to be weathered smooth, covered in ice, and placed in an area with gale-force winds that threaten to blow the climber off.

I will admit that as a matter of preference, I prefer the latter to the former, as it feels more heroic.

 

[Remathilis]

I think I've finally realized what is the fundamental disagreement here (or at least, one of them).

It's whether you believe (or at least, can accept) that a high-level character should be superior in practically every way compared to a low-level character, or whether you think that even high-level characters should have some areas in which they are no better than a normal man.

In game terms, scaling the DCs is trivially easy. Whether in 3e or 4e, it is always possible to set the DCs so that it is easy, difficult, or impossible for any particular PC to accomplish the task.

I think what troubles some posters is the idea that high-level characters can no longer be challenged like ordinary men. In 3e, climbing a DC 20 wall remains a challenge to an untrained climber regardless of level. In 4e (presumably), a normal wall ceases to remain a challenge for any high-level character, and it needs to be weathered smooth, covered in ice, and placed in an area with gale-force winds that threaten to blow the climber off.

I will admit that as a matter of preference, I prefer the latter to the former, as it feels more heroic.

Pretty much. The argument is whether or not a man who has delved into the night below of the underdark, fought fire-breathing dragons, commanded primal forces of magic, and journeyed to mystical planes beyond understanding can still drown in the ocean if knocked overboard.

 

[Stalker0]

To summarize the argument even more succintly: Do you believe Aragorn is 5th level or 15th?

In other words, how high is high level. There are many arguments that Aragorn in dnd is pretty weak, only a 5th-7th level character. And in 4e terms, a +3 to swim isn't going to beat the raging river. People are arguing that high level characters shouldn't do everything, but how high are we talking. Nearly all fantasy heroes are not that high a level, as such the universal bonus for them isn't that large. 20th level characters in dnd aren't heroes, they are truly superheroes.

 

[Zurai]

20th level characters in dnd aren't heroes, they are truly superheroes.

And? Your point is? The Thing isn't going to decipher the Rosetta Stone. Wolverine won't win over hearts and minds with diplomacy. Professor X isn't going to swim in the middle of the ocean during a hurricane. Batman isn't going to win any academy awards for his acting ability.

Even superheroes can't do everything well (except Superman, who I hate for exactly that reason).

 

[AllisterH]

And? Your point is? The Thing isn't going to decipher the Rosetta Stone. Wolverine won't win over hearts and minds with diplomacy. Professor X isn't going to swim in the middle of the ocean during a hurricane. Batman isn't going to win any academy awards for his acting ability.

Even superheroes can't do everything well (except Superman, who I hate for exactly that reason).

As a comicbook geek, you do realize those are horrendously bad examples.

Batman, can do anything and everything and pretty much, the fact that nobody envisions Bruce Wayne as Batman kind of proves his acting ability.

Here's the thing though...Compared to WHO?

I do think the Thing would have a better chance of deciphering the Rosetta Stone given his past experiences. Really, how many weird alien creatures/languages/environments has the Thing been in? Sure, he's not going to be better than Reed (Mr. Fantastic) but he sure as hell is going to be better than Joe Average.

Same thing with Wolverine. You don't think a guy who has liver for over a century and a half hasn't picked up a few tips on being a diplomat. Hell, the time he spent in Japan pretty much ensured that he had proper manners.

Prof X is crippled so even at 20th level, he has a horrendous penalty to his swim check.

 

[Zurai]

Batman, can do anything and everything and pretty much, the fact that nobody envisions Bruce Wayne as Batman kind of proves his acting ability.

No, it proves his Disguise ability, not acting. I could just have well picked Singing, or Banjo Playing.

I do think the Thing would have a better chance of deciphering the Rosetta Stone given his past experiences. Really, how many weird alien creatures/languages/environments has the Thing been in? Sure, he's not going to be better than Reed (Mr. Fantastic) but he sure as hell is going to be better than Joe Average.

How does being in alien environments help you learn to translate ancient egyptian?

Same thing with Wolverine. You don't think a guy who has liver for over a century and a half hasn't picked up a few tips on being a diplomat. Hell, the time he spent in Japan pretty much ensured that he had proper manners.

Since I'm unaware of what "the time he spent in Japan" refers to, I'll accede this one to you.

Prof X is crippled so even at 20th level, he has a horrendous penalty to his swim check.

Ah, but has been pointed out in this thread before, there are no mechanical effects to being crippled in D&D.

 

[Nifft]

Show me how you get 20 extra points on oh, let's say Decipher Script checks, using only the core rules.

No, that's just silly. I've only seen Decipher Script used twice since 2001.

No synergy bonuses. No magic items that give bonuses to Decipher Script. At most you're going to have +8 on top of the check - and that's under extremely rare circumstances (bard + luckstone + two feats devoted to one skill).

Depends on whether you define "core" to include the guidelines for making new items. They're in both the SRD and the DMG.

But those are just permanent items. The SRD also has single-use items to boost any skill.

So, now you know.

That was never in contention. I don't know why you keep saying it. Although, note that 4E core rules go to level 30, which means that in actuality, the base maximum goes to 25 + stat mod, not 20 + stat mod.

I'm saying that because it contradicts the most fundamental part of your claim (which is that under a Saga style skill system, DCs must increase).

Pointing out a terribly common case where the DC must decrease is a counter-example.

OK. What's that got to do with whether the average skill check DC will go up?

Sorry, what's the "average skill check"? I thought you were claiming that all skill DCs must go up, now there's a bell curve?

Please provide your sample data.

Because a DC of 15 is still a challenge for a lot of characters at level 20 in 3.5, and thus still a valid DC to use at that point in time. A DC of 15 is no challenge at all to any level 20 character in 4E, let alone a level 30 one, and thus really is not a valid DC to use at that point in time.

20% chance of failure is no challenge?

And that's before we factor in ability penalties and armor check penalties.

- - -

I guess I just don't see why it's a problem for a 20th level dude to succeed on tasks which are tough (not challenging, that's DC 20) 80% of the time.

Heroic (DC 30) is still damn hard, and Near Impossible (DC 40) is just plain impossible for almost everyone.

Cheers, -- N

 

[The_Fan]

And? Your point is? The Thing isn't going to decipher the Rosetta Stone. Wolverine won't win over hearts and minds with diplomacy. Professor X isn't going to swim in the middle of the ocean during a hurricane. Batman isn't going to win any academy awards for his acting ability.

Even superheroes can't do everything well (except Superman, who I hate for exactly that reason).

MAJOR GEEKOUT

Dude, the guy manages to every day convince people that he is a foppish, airheaded playboy who couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag when he's really the opposite. Batman is one of the best actors in the world, he just puts it to different use than winning an acadamy award.

Superman's better though.

 

[Zurai]

No, that's just silly. I've only seen Decipher Script used twice since 2001.

And I've used it three times in the last three sessions of one of my campaigns. DMs around here are pretty good about making use of all of the skills available to us.

Depends on whether you define "core" to include the guidelines for making new items. They're in both the SRD and the DMG.

Yes - they're in the DMG. Those guidelines are for DMs to make new items to allow their players to craft/find, not for players to willfully pump their skill levels to obscene heights.

But those are just permanent items. The SRD also has single-use items to boost any skill.

I have never once run into a psionic item as a player or given out a psionic item as a DM. Psionics are rarely used around here.

I'm saying that because it contradicts the most fundamental part of your claim (which is that under a Saga style skill system, DCs must increase).

How does the fact that maximum DCs can be lower contradict the fact that minimum DCs must be higher to challenge a higher-level party?

Pointing out a terribly common case where the DC must decrease is a counter-example.

Not really. My position is that, past the early levels, DCs will need to be higher in 4th edition than in 3.5. Parties in 3.5 generally do not spread their skill points out, choosing instead to concentrate on comparatively fewer areas. This means that the average party skill level in most skills (except skills such as Spot and Listen that every character that has a chance to maxes out) will be higher in 4E than 3E. Higher average party skill levels require higher average DCs to provide the same average challenge.

Sorry, what's the "average skill check"? I thought you were claiming that all skill DCs must go up, now there's a bell curve?

Please quote where I said "all skill DCs will go up". I never once made such a claim.

20% chance of failure is no challenge?

No, not really. I wouldn't say a skill check is challenging if taking 10 handily passes the check. This is personal preference, but the minimum failure chance for a "challenging" (note: not the DC definition of "challenging" but rather the dictionary one) skill check is 35-40%.

I guess I just don't see why it's a problem for a 20th level dude to succeed on tasks which are tough (not challenging, that's DC 20) 80% of the time.

For individual tasks? It isn't. For every single such task in existance? That's a big problem to me. It strains credibility and, IMO, robs the player of personal choice in how to develop his character. There is literally no way in SAGA to play a level 10+ character who cannot swim, for example - and I have, in the past, played characters who never learned to swim.

Heroic (DC 30) is still damn hard

Then why can every max level character do it for all of his skills related to his primary attribute (and quite possibly his secondary one, too) simply by taking 10?