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

[Garthanos]

Skills can vary a lot, but what I have found is that the use of the advantage rules for skill challenges found in the RC, plus the use of action points which I think I first encountered in a post by Keith Baker but is then set out in the DMG2, makes a big difference here. In skill challenges I find that players make action declarations for skills their PCs are not good at because that's what the fictional positioning demands, given their goals for their PCs, and this is not hopeless. And the skill challenge framework means that one PC's big bonus can't just swamp the maths and win the challenge.

Yes using HS and Action points allowing one to make strategic success choices about skill use is pretty awesome and another way player agency is emphasized in 4e and to me that has a lot more in common with more free form games than 5e every will have.

 

[pemerton]

Yes using HS and Action points allowing one to make strategic success choices about skill use is pretty awesome and another way player agency is emphasized in 4e and to me that has a lot more in common with more free form games than 5e every will have.

I see this through the lens of freeform as I characterised it not too far upthread: I see it as something on the player side, and in systems that have resource expenditure elements to them (which both 4e and 5e D&D do) this means giving players the resources to engage the system.

4e has a set of all-purpose resources that all PCs have - healling surges and action points - as well as the option (discussed in DMG2) for spending encounter or daily powers to gain advantages in a skill challenge. That's been an important part of the freeform resolution in my 4e RPGing.

 

[Imaro]

Huh, still not seeing anywhere in my replies that it was easy, or that anyone could do it or that it was the same as break dancing.

All of that arose from you not actually reading what you were replying to (Or purposefully mis-representing what I posted, you never did say which it was) and even now you won't just say yep my bad, should've actually read what you wrote before composing a confusing reply that attributed a stance you didn't actually take so I could argue against it... creating more mis-understanding in the exchange and leading us down a rabbit hole of pointless back and forth... But whatever man.

So, anyway, we agree that it's something you need training to do. Actually, funnily enough, we don't even agree on that to be honest, since, according to you:



A first level character can accomplish the objectively hardest tasks in the world. Give me a 20 stat and yup, I can do the hardest tasks in the world. So, running up a wall counts as the most difficult task in your game world? That only a trained person could possibly do? Oh, but, wait, no he can't. Because he needs to be trained in order to do that.

So suddenly your 1st level character cannot actually have a chance of doing anything the DM walls off behind genre.

Which is it? Is it an objective difficulty or not? If it's an objective difficulty, then training doesn't matter. It's the same difficulty if I'm trained or if I'm not trained. That's what an objective difficulty means. Which means that being trained shouldn't matter. So long as I reach that DC, my level of training does not matter in the slightest.

Did I say had a chance at doing anything in the game? Did I say had a chance at doing the impossible in the game?... Come on, here we go again. Can you go back and read what I actually wrote and address it or just quit replying to me because again we're headed towards mis-understandings because somehow from can succeed at some of the hardest tasks in the game... you've interpreted my meaning to be succeeds at all of the hardest tasks in the game even the impossible... or any of the hardest tasks in the game including the impossible... neither of which I actually said.

If a task is impossible for someone without training... then it's not one of the hardest tasks in the game world... it's an impossible task without training... is that really so hard to comprehend it's in a different category? Now what constitutes an impossible task for someone vs a very hard task is a DM call in 5e... but we knew that already.

Just to illustrate further... can you ride a horse without having a horse? Can you pick a lock with no tools? Can you play an instrument without an actual instrument to play... I wouldn't call any of these tasks some of the hardest in the gameworld... but there are still circumstances where they are impossible to succeed at. Determining a particular usage of a skill is trained only is no different.

 

[Hussar]

This is a difference between 4e and 5e D&D, but I don't think it's a relevant one in the context of how DCs are set and how "freeform" that is. In 5e there's a chart. In 4e every time the PCs level up you replace the old chart with a new chart. At the actual moment of adjudication both require choosing a DC from a chart expressed in the language of difficulties.

/snip

Meh. In play, it likely won't matter. After all, we can talk about all the DC's we like, but, at the end of the day, what matters is the chance of success. Which, for fairly typical actions that are expected to be taken by a character of a given level, in 4e and 5e, will remain somewhere in the vicinity of 60%. So, why is it important that the DC is different? Who cares? If the DC is 127 but, I have a +119 to my skill, the chances are STILL 60%.

Pointing at the numbers doesn't actually mean anything. It's no different than using AD&D's lower is better AC system or 3e's higher is better. It's still the same odds, just expressed differently.

Does the expression actually matter?

 

[Imaro]

Whereas on the DC 25 skill check, the chance of success, if greater than zero, can't be less than 1 in 20.

Isn't this the case for any game using a d20 for action or task resolution? I don't think I'm actually understanding the point...

 

[pemerton]

Meh. In play, it likely won't matter. After all, we can talk about all the DC's we like, but, at the end of the day, what matters is the chance of success. Which, for fairly typical actions that are expected to be taken by a character of a given level, in 4e and 5e, will remain somewhere in the vicinity of 60%. So, why is it important that the DC is different? Who cares? If the DC is 127 but, I have a +119 to my skill, the chances are STILL 60%.

Pointing at the numbers doesn't actually mean anything. It's no different than using AD&D's lower is better AC system or 3e's higher is better. It's still the same odds, just expressed differently.

Does the expression actually matter?

I think that you're largely agreeing with me here.

 

[Garthanos]

But I don't agree that 4e "locks in" the system via powers and expectations in a way that differs from 5e. Those powers, for martial PCs, may create an opportunity to bypass the GM's interpretive and difficulty-setting function - just as spells frequently do in 5e. But I don't think this changes the approach to DC setting. After all, 5e has spells which produce the same "locking in" - which is something that has come out in this thread.

It is different in that it leaves the player of a non-casters with less agency

 

[pemerton]

Isn't this the case for any game using a d20 for action or task resolution?

No. A 1st level 5e fighter has a chance of defeating a pit fiend, but much less than 1 in 20. Because multiple roles are required. In practical terms the chance is zero, although mathematically this is not the case.

I don't think I'm actually understanding the point...

The point is that 5e, despite bounded accuracy, in practical terms gates some combat outcomes behind levels. 4e does this both for combat and for non-combat.

Some posters seem to think it's a valuable feature of 5e that it doesn't do this for non-combat, but I don't see why non-combat should be different from combat in this respect.

 

[Imaro]

This is a difference between 4e and 5e D&D, but I don't think it's a relevant one in the context of how DCs are set and how "freeform" that is. In 5e there's a chart. In 4e every time the PCs level up you replace the old chart with a new chart. At the actual moment of adjudication both require choosing a DC from a chart expressed in the language of difficulties.

I think it's relevant and creates a difference in play and how adjudication of DC's is approached.

In 5e I am setting an actual objective difficulty for the hardest tasks in the game world... they will be that difficulty for a 1st level character and they will be that difficulty for a 20th level character and some of the higher ones are attainable by low level characters with the right attributes, skill bonuses and possibly magic.

In 4e I am setting a relative difficulty to the players power so I am not in fact setting an objective Very Hard DC, I am setting a DC for what I believe is hard relative to a X level character. What is moderately hard for a 1st level character is childs play for a 20th level character and what is moderately hard for a 20th level character is impossible for a 1st level character.

IMO this not only creates a difference in how play takes place in the world... Players in 5e know that unless a DM calls out a task as impossible or nearly impossible... even at low levels they have a chance to accomplish tasks that would be Very Difficult even for 20th level characters. It also means the DM when adjudicating a task has to think in terms of the game world as a whole.

In 4e a player knows there are tasks that while easy for a 30th level character are beyond any attempt they could make (thought honestly most DM's aren't going to ever even consider them since the DC's they would use are relative). Also a DM in 4e is adjudicating not what is easy/moderate/hard in terms of the gameworld but in terms of a level X character in the gameworld.


EDIT: Personally I find 4e's system less intuitive... I have 30 levels over which I have to not only think in terms of what is easy/moderate/hard for an X level character (where level isn't even a real in game world attribute) but also if I want consistency in my 4e gameworld as a whole... I have to keep at least a broad idea of what my previous rulings have been across levels so I'm not screwing up the overall world difficulty as well.

 

[Imaro]

Some posters seem to think it's a valuable feature of 5e that it doesn't do this for non-combat, but I don't see why non-combat should be different from combat in this respect.

because they are two different systems. I guess my rebuttal is I don't see why it should be the same...

EDIT: To further expound... One is performing a mundane action with which (I am assuming) one is competent and has pretty good natural ability in under normal circumstances...

The other is an untested warrior singlehandedly fighting for his life against a fearless, hulking armored lord & general of hell that radiates fear...

Yeah not seeing why these would be the same