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

[Hussar]

Of course, that's ignoring all the Warlord, Rogue, and Ranger classes and subclasses that were magic free, to just quibble on the four fighter subclasses brought up so far. But, hey, feel free to continue this discussion

 

[Hussar]

The problem with this is how are you going to decide what is appropriate here for my particular campaign? If I'm running a campaign with Wuxia tropes or in that genre... running up a sheer wall could be an easy check at any level... but in a GoT-esque campaign an auto-failure so how do you write this section without further narrowing and dictating the type of fantasy I am running with it?

And, yet, you have zero problems with the developers telling you that your campaign WILL be Harry Potteresque high magic with spells being the go to default solution to nearly every problem?

Methinks you might be internalizing things just a tad.

 

[Parmandur]

And, yet, you have zero problems with the developers telling you that your campaign WILL be Harry Potteresque high magic with spells being the go to default solution to nearly every problem?

Methinks you might be internalizing things just a tad.

Well, yeah, I do want high magic: that's part of the genre I want to play at: frankly, EotC hit all of my buttons with the default settings as is. But it is not unavoidable, the rules are easily malleable.

 

[Hussar]

Again, I think people are just talking past each other.

If the table wants (say) a wuxia-type game, there is a section in the DMG about running it.

If they don't, they can tailor it to a more gritty, GoT-type game.

There is a lot of play in the joints and the base system, and I think people bend it to the what they want. Also? Why doesn't anyone ever refer to the DMG?

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.

"Make a judgement call, and here is a mathematical framework to carry that call out."

The math is the hard part. The DMG even suggests only ever using 10, 15 and 20 as DC in actual play. Slotting actions into "Yes it works with no roll/on a 10/15/20, or NO" is pretty easy for the average DM to do on the fly, and in practice (again, not theory) has not proven a problem.

Again, maybe some suggestions, and scalability suggestions for genre, would be a nice to have for a supplement down the line. But hardly necessary.

Yet, the only example of a DC I've seen in this thread is a DC 25. Which should be superhuman. This should be something outside the range of what is possible in the real world. The DMG (pages 238 and 239) give vanishly little actual advice on what is hard or very hard. I mean, they suggest that a DC 25 is reasonable for a 10th level character. That's not true. It's reasonable for a 10th level character with proficiency and a very high stat, and, even then, it's still about a 25% (assuming +10 to the check) chance of success, which the DMG defines as between Very Hard and Nearly Impossible. So, it's not like the DMG is actually all that helpful here.

 

[Parmandur]

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.



Yet, the only example of a DC I've seen in this thread is a DC 25. Which should be superhuman. This should be something outside the range of what is possible in the real world. The DMG (pages 238 and 239) give vanishly little actual advice on what is hard or very hard. I mean, they suggest that a DC 25 is reasonable for a 10th level character. That's not true. It's reasonable for a 10th level character with proficiency and a very high stat, and, even then, it's still about a 25% (assuming +10 to the check) chance of success, which the DMG defines as between Very Hard and Nearly Impossible. So, it's not like the DMG is actually all that helpful here.

The DMG also suggests just using 10, 15, & 20 in actual play is a good idea.

The subjective judgement of the DM is a good thing, a feature rather than big.

 

[Hussar]

Again, being able to replicate a Spell effect with no resource usage or consequences hundreds of times a day...yeah, that's big.

Who is claiming this? Who is actually arguing for this?

We're arguing that it should be possible if you make a high enough skill check, to replicate something that happens with a 1st level spell with 100% certainty.

So, you're telling me that having a 1 in 4 chance of success with a highly skilled, high level character, isn't good enough to replicate the effects of a 1st level spell? Note, the cost of failure is going splat at the bottom of the fall, or not jumping high/long enough and failing.

This is the problem, right there in a nutshell. You've set the odds of success to the point where it's a complete suckers bet. Hey, I'm going to fail 3 in 4 times, but, man, that one time I succeed, I'm going to be less effective than a 1st level wizard. WAHOO! Yeah, that's encouraging outside the box thinking.

 

[Hussar]

Well, yeah, I do want high magic: that's part of the genre I want to play at: frankly, EotC hit all of my buttons with the default settings as is. But it is not unavoidable, the rules are easily malleable.

And that's PERFECTLY fair. But, don't then pretend that it's an inclusive tent. It's an exclusive club for those who want very high magic games. Don't argue that it emulates all fantasy when it's not. It's catering to your tastes, and that's fantastic. But, howzabout throwing us sword and sorcery fans a bone or three?

I mean, good grief, I ran a Primeval Thule campaign. I outright BANNED all full casters. I wanted a low magic game. Of the five PC's, four could still cast magic and the fifth one was a monk who could self heal. That's not a low magic game.

 

[Hussar]

The DMG also suggests just using 10, 15, & 20 in actual play is a good idea.

The subjective judgement of the DM is a good thing, a feature rather than big.

No, it isn't. Because, again, most DM's are EXTREMELY poor at calculating this stuff. If my chances of failure are twice as great if I think outside the box, then my reward has to be at least 75% better than whatever I could do inside the box. Otherwise, there's no point. The greater the risk, the greater the reward HAS to be. But, it's never calculated that way.

 

[Ratskinner]

An acrobat can reduce the damage of his fall in 4e using an acrobatics check (is it aiming at a softer spot? is it bouncing off the walls to slow your descent? is landing on your feet like a cat? ) is it catching the ally and both going down with them taking no damage because you are carrying them and landing in a comfortable way... the idea is to aid your ally in similar manner to what you are doing with acrobatics (OR perhaps it was a fighter who does climbing using athletics he might last second lasso them with his climbing gear ) so they go down slower. Regardless of what it is we get a just say no masked as that is too epic It will step on the toes of a casters - and its coincidentally similar in effect to a feather fall.

erm...I didn't see any place in the 5e rules that said "Don't let your players do epic things." Sounds more like a disjoint between player and DM expectations of genre conventions, etc.

In 4e I might create a level 2 skill power and call it Flying Rescue and allow the acrobat to as a reaction shift next to and use his standard trained skill to reduce the damage of a falling ally (could even be seen as diving downwards and catching them) entirely within paradigm and in no bloody way too powerful.,

Yes, 4e baked in that kind of theatrics. I'm not sure how that (writing your own power...can you do that as a player? Without GM consent? This seems like a terribly specific power.) is somehow superior to talking with your table ahead of game to figure out what kind of game you're looking for. (Although I simultaneously agree that D&D magic is baked in.)

Neat part in 4e I am free to describe how things work the way I want to. Or make it different depending on "where" we are falling and what the environment is like

I don't see how you are less free to describe and athletics or acrobatics check however you want in 5e. Maybe I'm too used to running Fate or other systems.

 

[Garthanos]

Who is claiming this? Who is actually arguing for this?

I even brought out a house rule Heroic Exertion that creates a resource for doing maneuvers... but yeh they ignore it because magic is the only thing that gets a resource ... nobody else