D&D 4E What Doesn't 4E Do Well?

Turtlejay

First Post
Basically it is not a *fact* because it is not always so. The sun shines. 1+1=2. These are facts because they are (aside from fringe criticisms) always true. Your two points, and many others raised, are only true in your experience. Many others have played the game and not had that same experience. It is not a fact that:
1. Resource Management is not done well
2. Lack of Advance Preparation is not done well

Because there is no universal concensus that it is so.

Of course. . .'well' is a tough word to use in this situation, but I was mostly just frustrated that this thread was going to start bombing like so many other promising threads. It has, and I'll back out. You all just keep edition warring, since it seems to make you happy. . .

Jay
 

log in or register to remove this ad

KarinsDad

Adventurer
Basically it is not a *fact* because it is not always so. The sun shines. 1+1=2. These are facts because they are (aside from fringe criticisms) always true. Your two points, and many others raised, are only true in your experience. Many others have played the game and not had that same experience. It is not a fact that:
1. Resource Management is not done well
2. Lack of Advance Preparation is not done well

Because there is no universal concensus that it is so.

Of course. . .'well' is a tough word to use in this situation, but I was mostly just frustrated that this thread was going to start bombing like so many other promising threads. It has, and I'll back out. You all just keep edition warring, since it seems to make you happy. . .

His humor, which you missed, is that everything you have been posting is also opinion. You are expressing your opinion that opinion doesn't matter. HA

In a "what does 4E not do well" thread, there are very few facts. It's nearly all opinion.

And, most of this has not been edition wars, contary to some claims.
 

Needless to say, I agree here. If by "skill challenge" you mean in an abstract sense "roll dice to deal with problems according to what players tell the DM", it seems fine. If you mean the specific skill challenge rules in the DMG/updated by errata, it's not good.

For example, participating in a skill challenge is optional and the DMG says the goal of a skill challenge is not simply using Aid Another on one character with a really good bonus. However, “one expert, aided as much as possible; everyone else does nothing” is the strategy that gives the highest chance to succeed at a skill challenge!

To quote specific portions of the rules:

Actually I don't see anything that indicates participating in a skill challenge is optional at all. "When a player participates in a skill challenge" in no way implies that has to be a choice the player makes. There are some types of SCs that logically you can't really FORCE every character to participate in, but if they are reasonably well designed then even in those cases lack of participation has implications.

Aid Another is ONLY referred to as an option in the Group Skill Checks section. Nothing in the SC rules even suggests that it is an option available in all cases. Group checks are a specific sub-system the DM can employ for certain types of challenges where all the PCs are engaged in the same activity and one PC will be designated as the "point man" for that activity with the others allowed to use skill checks (it actually doesn't even state this is an instance of Aid Another) to assist.

The "Cooperation" section of the Skills chapter (PHB p179) discusses this as well and it is quite clearly stated that this works "In some situations" and doesn't specifically say anything about skill challenges.

This is a set of widely held misconceptions about the SC system. Actual study of the rules however indicates that these issues don't specifically exist in general and would only be issues due to the design of a specific SC (and presumably in those cases the designer intended the challenge to work in this fashion and planned for it).

It IS tricky to run good SCs and its fair to say that the SC section of the DMG was not 100% entirely baked out of the box. At least they did make some pretty significant errata. I'd also totally agree that the authors of the DMG (and to some extend DMG2 as well) seem to have issues coming to grips with certain key factors that make or break SCs. Perhaps they need to run more of them... Its hard to really consider that a "design flaw" in 4e as SCs are pretty generalized in format and good ones don't particularly have to step outside of the framework to be good. I think the fairest thing to say overall would be that 4e so far has not been all that adept at communicating the best way to run an SC. From the comments I've seen people make about them pretty consistently its readily apparent good SC execution techniques aren't widely known by DMs and a lot of what they do know seems to be wrong.
 

Elder-Basilisk

First Post
It IS tricky to run good SCs and its fair to say that the SC section of the DMG was not 100% entirely baked out of the box. At least they did make some pretty significant errata. I'd also totally agree that the authors of the DMG (and to some extend DMG2 as well) seem to have issues coming to grips with certain key factors that make or break SCs. Perhaps they need to run more of them... Its hard to really consider that a "design flaw" in 4e as SCs are pretty generalized in format and good ones don't particularly have to step outside of the framework to be good. I think the fairest thing to say overall would be that 4e so far has not been all that adept at communicating the best way to run an SC. From the comments I've seen people make about them pretty consistently its readily apparent good SC execution techniques aren't widely known by DMs and a lot of what they do know seems to be wrong.

How long do you plan to make the "your DM sucks and can't do skill challenges right" excuse. It's been about two years now and the mechanical framework listed in the DMG and errata still does not work. The flaws are fundamental to the system and cannot be fixed. Here are the basic problems as I see them:

A. Skill challenges were billed as bringing the strategy of combat to non-combat situations. They don't. The mechanical strategies that skill challenges reward do not involve meaningfully working together or taking advantage of the situation described. All skill challenges reward the exact same strategy: Find the best guy to roll the required skills. Aid him if permitted to (and Mike Mearls podcast on skill challenges indicates that he at least thinks that you are permitted to aid other in skill challenges by the rules--so if those of us who think that is the case are deluded we're in good company). If you have to do something, try to talk your way into using your best skill. Never ever ever roll a skill that you are not good at.

That's it.

The analogous combat would be one where monsters had 17 different defenses and your job as a party was to guess a defense and attack it. Eventually you will win as long as you don't miss three times. It would be a lame system for combat. It is a lame system for non-combat challenges too.

B. Skill Challenges remove the players from the in-game situation.
Each character participating in a skill challenge participates individually. Consequently, the relevant question for a player in a skill challenge is not, "how do we work together overcome a concrete obstacle in the game world?" but rather, "how can I individually find a way to use a skill that I'm good at?"

There is no reward for coming up with a comprehensive plan that addresses the particular situation. (Ok, we'll go into a nearby shop and scout out the section of wall that we'll be climbing over--those of us who are good at it will haggle with the merchant over small items to give the rest of you an excuse to stand around and observe. Then, when we've figured out the guard schedule, you distract the guard a block down the street and we'll climb over the wall while they are busy. Then you wait five minutes and teleport to the top when the guards have gone past. We'll catch you when you jump. That way, we won't have to worry about how Sir Stoneshoes will sneak past anyone in his armor). Instead, the rogue who is good at stealth says, "OK, I'm super stealthy so I sneak up to the wall." He rolls a stealth check. One success. If he's clever, Sir Stoneshoes may pretend to be in on the story and say, "I'll climb over the wall" and roll an athletics check quickly before anyone asks him how he sneaked up to it. The wizard isn't any good at sneaking or climbing but he's an illusionist and has good bluff thanks to multiclassing, so he says, "I'll distract the guards" and rolls a bluff check. Only one more success needed, thinks the cleric: "I'll roll a perception check to figure out the patrol schedule." Oops. He rolls a 1 and fails. Apparently he miscalculates the schedule so someone is caught climbing over the wall (it must be Sir Stoneshoes because he's the only one who actually tried climbing). But it's only one failure so the challenge isn't over yet. Ever resourceful, the rogue thinks, "I'll light the inn across the street on fire so the guards have to run to put it out and let us go." So, he makes a thievery check and the party beats the skill challenge. But the only reason that it works at all is because the scenario was not really imagined, but rather was glossed over. If the scenario had been fully imagined, all failures would not be equal (failing to climb the wall might result in falling, but getting caught while sneaking up to the wall would require some quick thinking if it wasn't going to result in the failure of the entire enterprise). Likewise, if the scenario had been fully imagined, some of the rolls would have been unnecessary (the rogue wouldn't need to sneak if there was no-one there to see him and the wizard wouldn't need to distract the guards if they weren't there either). Finally, if the scenario had been fully imagined, the players would have not been able to avoid rolling some skills they would rather not make. The wizard either needs to teleport, fly, or climb up the wall--he wouldn't get over it just because the fighter rolled an athletics check.

C. The presumed scaling for DCs either leads to ridiculous results (the super-athletic high level fighter still fails to climb a simple brick wall 30-50% of the time) or prevents the use of certain types of role-playing scenes (it would be an interesting role-playing challenge to see how the high level fighter with minimal social skills tries to talk his way past some indifferent guards, but that does not fit in the concept of a skill challenge). The former situation occurs if you try to use scaling DCs for things that the designers would probably argue no longer constitute a proper challenge for high level characters. The latter situation occurs when you have decided that things that should be simple for competent high level characters are no longer appropriate material for skill challenges. Outside of the skill challenge format, the fighter would pit his low numbers against the low fixed DCs in order to resolve the latter situation, but once you have established the ground rules that say certain challenges are not worthy of a skill challenge, that situation doesn't qualify. Skill challenges have to be keyed to characters who are good at the relevant skills in order to work. So you they don't work to describe situations that are only challenging because they address a character's weaknesses.

D. The default model of the skill challenge is "Failure does not get the PCs off the railroad." In other words, players should not fail to move to the next scene of the adventure for failing a skill challenge. Rather, they should suffer some kind of penalty (surprise round for the enemies, lost healing surges, etc) and move on. This aspect of core rules skill challenges minimizes the significance of the non-combat aspects of the story. The players can't ignore all the clues and never find the malefactors of the story. All they need to do is fail enough times and they'll get where they wanted to go.

E. Therefore, the primary effect of skill challenges as described in the DMG is to gloss over the non-combat exploits of the PCs. While they were sold and advertised as a means of mechanically handling non-combat situations, what they actually accomplish is to provide a way to quickly get non-combat situations out of the way by rolling a few dice and glossing over all the messy details.

If skill challenges were to be successful, they would need to abandon the one-size fits all situations mechanics found in the DMG and errata and create a custom mechanic to model each non-combat situation as it arose. They would need to ask the PCs to work together to overcome concrete obstacles where different tasks required different resolutions and entail different consequences for failure. The successful mechanical resolution of non-combat situations that I have observed in 4e has done that. But despite usually being called a skill challenge, they have (correctly) discarded nearly every part of the DMG skill challenge mechanic--most especially the "name any skill you want", the "three strikes and you're out" aspect, the "all DCs scale to player level on a 5/10/15 scale" aspect, the "all skill checks entail similar consequences for failure" aspect, and the "failure still moves you to the next scene in the story" aspect.

Skill challenges were an admirable attempt to come up with a unified and interesting system for resolving non-combat encounters. It failed completely and utterly and on every level.
 

DracoSuave

First Post
This is a pretty funny argument.

Because the rules say that it costs 5 times as much, obviously, then it's because it costs 5 times as much "magic stuff". :lol:

Actually, the logic is 'It costs 5 times as much material components to use the ritual, so it's five times as costly to produce, and therefore 5 times as much to buy.'

In a "where are the rules weak" discussion, pulling out "because the rules say so" seems to be a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.

Just because a designer said that 5^bonus * 72 GP equation is a good equation makes it no better than 3.5's equation of bonus^2 * 2000 GP.

I admit that. But you can make up fluff for anything involving anything. That's not a flaw with the crunch.

These are just equations that some designer pulled out of his butt which do not seem to even come close to how real world, current or historic, supply and demand economics has ever worked for goods.

I cannot argue that, after all, Dungeons and Dragons is a pretty weak economic simulator.

Always has been.

Mind you, it's also a pretty bad dating simulator, a terrible cooking simulator, and an absolutely attrocious simulator of pyschohistory as described in the Foundation series.

Fortunately, it's not trying to do any of these things, as it is a high fantasy adventure simulator.

Ironicly enough, economics simulators also make bad high fantasy simulators.
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
I cannot argue that, after all, Dungeons and Dragons is a pretty weak economic simulator.

Precisely. That's my only point with regards to economics here.

One thing that 4E does not do well is to be even close to a decent economic simulator. Not that it has to be great at it, but it would be preferable if at least a little thought was put into this for a future (5E) release since little in this area was done for releases 1E through 4E.

I think that it would not be too difficult to come up with a magic item cost scale that both allows for reasonable costs for items (so that PCs cannot buy hundreds or thousands of low cost magic items for the price of one high cost magic item), and still allows for the wonder of finding a dragon hoard.

For example: Artificer's Handbook where even the most expensive of (3E) magical items tended to fall well below 100,000 GP.


People talk a good game about roleplaying all of the time and then turn around and ignore a very important roleplaying motivator: money.

Money motivation is typically only roleplayed via greed, or via munificence. Mostly, it is ignored completely.

But we have these PCs that are filthy wealthy at somewhat moderate levels and none of them retire or take up a less hazardous profession. This is due to the fact that a player is playing the PC, so the player is motivated to continue the PC. Fair enough. But this entire aspect of being rich and never retiring is a bit jarring from a roleplaying perspective. Take away some of the "rich" aspect of the game system and it becomes less jarring. IMO, obviously YMMV.

That and the implausibility aspect of a points of light setting where PCs can eventually find tens of millions of GP (over a billion dollars depending on what scale one picks) of loot floating around.

Although 4E has combined the powers of some multiple magical items into single items, those items really don't have the umph that many 3E items had, especially the powerful ones (a good thing IMO). For example, a Holy Avenger. It hardly does anything beyond being a +5 or +6 sword in 4E, but it is one of the most expensive items in the game system. 2E and 3E Holy Avengers had real umph. They should have cost a lot. But they cost a lot less than 4E Holy Avengers. Those hardly do anything and are priced at (on a 1 GP to $100 scale) of $62.5 million for the +5 version and $312.5 million for the +6 version.

NPC Paladin King: "Holy Avenger? It does what? And you want me to pay what for it? Are you out of your mind?"

When it comes to reasonable magic item prices, 4E (like all of its predecessors) falls short.

Note: I think the reason 4E's item costs are so steep is that it tried to somewhat match the 3E magic item prices for PC levels 3 to 20 or so, but then they thought that they had 10 more levels and had to keep upping it. But, they tended to ignore the fact that level 17 through 20 3.5 PCs fought the same types of monsters (e.g. Ancient through Great Wyrm Dragons, Tarrasque, etc.) that level 25 through 30 4E PCs now fight. 4E level 1 through 30 is more like 3E level 3 through 20, but the magic items got even more expensive than 3E.

The items got weaker, but the items got even more expensive.
 

Actually I think the steepness of the prices might have more been based on certain "balance" assumption. Basically, with selling "old" equipment you should almost never be able to get better items than you can found in a treasure parcel. The excitement should be in finding what you need or want, not going to shop. That's certainly what the 4E economic does well. There are some items, classes and feats that would theoretically allow characters (artificers) to enchant magical items several levels above their level - but that's an entirely theoretical concept, since they will never have the money for that.
It doesn't result in anything "believable", as these goals kinda collide.

But I think continuing that point is pretty much a topic of another thread.
 


magic items and wizards beeing more important than personal skill (useless fighters (if unequipped) at high levels)

PCs stomping every monster into the ground

Abusive tactics like scry buff teleport

not patching constantly to achieve a little bit balance
 

Alex319

First Post
I'm confused:

magic items and wizards beeing more important than personal skill (useless fighters (if unequipped) at high levels)

Well, magic items (especially the big three) are vital for all classes, not just fighters. But if you want, you can use the DMG2 inherent bonus rules, and then magic items won't be so vital.

PCs stomping every monster into the ground

If your PCs are killing monsters too easily, why not just use higher level monsters?

Abusive tactics like scry buff teleport

Huh? I've never heard of "scry buff teleport" in 4e.

not patching constantly to achieve a little bit balance

They do "patch constantly." That's why there's 73 pages of errata. Are you saying you would prefer if they didn't patch, and just let the problems persist?
 

Remove ads

Top