log in or register to remove this ad

 

4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Personally I think with appropriate training parkour might be the primary ability of an adventurer acrobat (the reducing falling damage has more D&D heritage though)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Imaro

Adventurer
Okay @Hussar let's review exactly where our conversation goes off track shall we??

You posted...
The problem lies in the reliance on what is "wuxia". Even something as simple as that can cause all sorts of problems. Can I parcour up a wall Jackie Chan style? Is that Wuxia or gritty GoT style? After all, real people actually do this, so, my character should be able to too, right? But, then we slam into the "wall of DM" where the DM, in thinking that he wants a certain type of game, then sets the DC based on his or her "feelings". And those feelings are almost always wrong. That's the problem.

Where you ask if parcour in general is wuxia or gritty GoT style, I'm assuming this is a general what genre is this going to be a major part of question... We also get your already formed conclusion about what the GM will do...

To which I reply...

Are you kidding? Only one person (ok 2 if you count kid Bran climbing along the castle walls...but we know that doesn't last long) in GoT with very specialized training does anything approaching parcour and that's Arya. So pretty easy here without some kind of training that justifies it like Acrobatics or being a Rogue... you can't even try it. Furthermore, even with her training, Arya is rarely seen doing things I would considered parcour (thus a hard difficulty for it's baseline) and certainly nowhere near the level of feats seen in Wuxia...this is pretty simple IMO.

Now the fact that you as a player may be thinking because you have acrobatics or are a rogue you should be swinging from chandeliers with ease and somersaulting from building rooftops without breaking a sweat doesn't make my feelings or DC's wrong it means your expectations and mine aren't aligning and we should probably discuss why a game whose tropes and themes are pulled from GoT (as opposed to Ninja Scroll) invokes those expectations for you?

Emphasis mine... I clearly state that it is impossible without the proper training (Acrobatics as an example) or character archetype (rogue as an example). I also clearly state what DC I would choose as a baseline as well as my reasoning. You know the stuff you're asking me now. To which you replied...

missing my point. My point is that parcour isn't supernatural at all.It is very much within the realm of the possible. So, in a "realistic" GoT style game, why can't I do it? Your default answer is no. Why? it's not like I'm doing anything magical.

See this? This right here? this is the Wall of DM that we slam into when we have to deal with the "DM's Gut Feeling".

Now either you were addressing the fact that I said no without training or the proper archetype... you didn't take the time to read or understand what I posted... purposefully chose to misrepresent what I posted or decided to argue against a self constructed strawman to promote your "Wall of DM" claims.

I assumed the most charitable reading was that for some reason you objected to my restrictions (since that's the only time my answer is no). I guess I was wrong so you tell me... did you even read what I posted and if so where @Hussar were you going with your chosen replies?
 

Personally I think with appropriate training parkour might be the primary ability of an adventurer acrobat (the reducing falling damage has more D&D heritage though)
I was watching a random video of parkour, today, and it reminded me of fairly obvious things high STR/Athletics characters would do, like jumping to avoid difficult terrain, which could cover a lot of it.

Of course in skills as in weapons D&D is guilty of segregating STR & DEX too much.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
Kinda sorta. After all, the PC's also scaled their skills by level as well. So, your chances of success remain relatively static. Which is to say that the 5e flat math and the 4e scaling treadmill are essentially the same. You wind up with about a 60% success rate for baseline difficulties. And, to maintain that baseline, we allow higher level characters to attempt more difficult things, thus raising the DC (in 5e I'm talking about) commensurate with the skill level of the character. Thus, retaining that 60% baseline.

There really is no difference.

I disagree... the difference is In the extremes not the baseline... In 5e a 1st level character can have a chance, however small to accomplish some of the objectively hardest tasks in the game world DC 25. In 4e however a 1st level character can't even come close to succeeding at the objectively hardest tasks in the game world... DC 32-42.

EDIT: That's the difference between bounded accuracy and the treadmill.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I was watching a random video of parkour, today, and it reminded me of fairly obvious things high STR/Athletics characters would do, like jumping to avoid difficult terrain, which could cover a lot of it.

Of course in skills as in weapons D&D is guilty of segregating STR & DEX too much.
Tying too much into die rolls makes a not great mechanic...

What you really want is to allow movement through N squares as though unimpaired by climbing or by bad terrain.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
That's the difference between bounded accuracy and the treadmill.
Nope its a shorter treadmill X/2 and it means your hero is also massively likely even when approaching demigod calibur in most ways of being backed down by that level 1 town mayor because you didnt specialise invest in cha skills... you are much less awesome as level is less meaningful

Yup they made level less meaningful in D&D and people cheer
 

Parmandur

Legend
Kinda sorta. After all, the PC's also scaled their skills by level as well. So, your chances of success remain relatively static. Which is to say that the 5e flat math and the 4e scaling treadmill are essentially the same. You wind up with about a 60% success rate for baseline difficulties. And, to maintain that baseline, we allow higher level characters to attempt more difficult things, thus raising the DC (in 5e I'm talking about) commensurate with the skill level of the character. Thus, retaining that 60% baseline.

There really is no difference.

Easier to calculate when drunk.
Nope its a shorter treadmill X/2 and it means your hero is also massively likely even when approaching demigod calibur in most ways of being backed down by that level 1 town mayor because you didnt specialise invest in cha skills... you are much less awesome as level is less meaningful

Yup they made level less meaningful in D&D and people cheer

Yeah, the curve is pretty much all sweet spot now.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I disagree... the difference is In the extremes not the baseline... In 5e a 1st level character can have a chance, however small to accomplish some of the objectively hardest tasks in the game world DC 25.
Try away at 5 percentiles or even 25 it is a joke ... honestly not such a huge value unless you are shooting for comedy
 




Campbell

Legend
Generally if I am going to be playing Dungeons and Dragons I am not very interested in a fiction where 20th level fighter is just a little bit better than a 1st level fighter at things like evading attacks, running and jumping and the like. I need a fighter who faces down pit fiends to feel like someone who would face down pit fiends.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
Generally if I am going to be playing Dungeons and Dragons I am not very interested in a fiction where 20th level fighter is just a little bit better than a 1st level fighter at things like evading attacks, running and jumping and the like. I need a fighter who faces down pit fiends to feel like someone who would face down pit fiends.

Good because I dont know of an edition where that's the case... rest assured in 5e a single 20th level fighter is more than a "little better" than a single 1st level fighter... especially in the case of facing down a pit fiend.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Generally if I am going to be playing Dungeons and Dragons I am not very interested in a fiction where 20th level fighter is just a little bit better than a 1st level fighter at things like evading attacks, running and jumping and the like. I need a fighter who faces down pit fiends to feel like someone who would face down pit fiends.

The Level 20 PC can still face down Pit Fiends, while the Level 1 cannot. The Level 20 PC will be capable of plenty the Level 1 is not, but the power curve is manageable now.
 


Imaro

Adventurer
Nope its a shorter treadmill X/2 and it means your hero is also massively likely even when approaching demigod calibur in most ways of being backed down by that level 1 town mayor because you didnt specialise invest in cha skills... you are much less awesome as level is less meaningful

Yup they made level less meaningful in D&D and people cheer

I dont think it's a treadmill at all since the numbers don't grow or change and the frequency of any particular difficulty class is determined by the DM, the players or both...

Oh and there are plenty stories of full fledged gods being tricked, outwitted or just plain beaten by a mortal... not sure why a mortal approaching demi-god status should be any different...
 


Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Oh and there are plenty stories of full fledged gods being tricked, outwitted or just plain beaten by a mortal... not sure why a mortal approaching demi-god status should be any different...
The vast majority of ancient heros were young or undiscovered demigods themselves and it was demonstrating their awesome that was happening.
 


Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
News at 11 the DMG recommends you not provide advancingly tough adversaries and more difficult situations to overcome .... it recommends the town mayor keep bullying the non charisma pc.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top