D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
So I am not generally looking for parity in the sense of equality of outcomes between martial characters and spell casters. What I want is for everyone to have the opportunity to play skillfully and have a dramatic impact on the game state with meaningful risks and rewards. I want those impacts to be different with different risks and rewards for each class. I am unsure how you get there without providing some definition to skills.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Great rough equity with specialization differences within that.... I am generally not interested in playing side kicks when its not hitting something with my sword.
See those specializations that was how 4e used roles to create specialization differences in the combat arena... details of how the skill powers and class utilities worked did something similar though a lot of it was combat arena as well.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
Neither am I. I think that's why it is critical to have clear conceptual space defined between what magic is good at and what a particular skill is good at so you can create a rich play environment where both are meaningfully valuable in different ways allowing players to play the game with skill. I generally like there to be some risks to either approach so nothing is automatic.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
itty bitty spell patches do not do enough. Nor is keeping skill effects vaguely defined on the fly.
Especially when everyone has skills... make the caster use up skill proficiencies to do his magic.
Last edited:
MoutonRustique
Explorer
I'm not sure you're correctly applying the Captain American reference here. As you've stated, there is no power progression to what Captain American can do - as with most super heroes, he has the powers he has. He's just informing us as to what could be generally assumed possibilities (as he's a "martial"/"non-magic" based super) outside combat.
This is what makes him useful - he's the yardstick you measure others against.
So, if you say that wyrmlings are below Cap' level, then when your fighter's power is "wyrmling-equivalent", your out-of-combat athletics should be inferior to Caps'. If you say that fighting great wyrms is at, or above, Cap' level, and your fighter is, then you should be able to do Cap' level, and above, athletics.
With overall progress of +5-6, if you look at the odds, that doesn't seem to pan out that much. However, if you feel 5e does that well - awesome, and keep on playing that way! The point isn't to get you to change how you're having fun. Or lessen that fun.
Bold by me for emphasis.
Just to make sure I parse this correctly : it is within the engine to auto-deny a significant chance of success, whilst simultaneously not doing so for other tasks set to the same probability. Yes?
I'm not saying changing the meaning of a DC depending on the character's level is bad in any way, shape or form, I'm just asking if this is what you're advocating for here. Because the first half says "no", and then the second says "yes".
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Sounds inadequate... and a partial patch for not making the higher tiers more numerically awesome (and not making their challenges more numerically awesome) instead of using the d20 and your characters level advancements -- see that is a complaint yes i do not think those few percentiles represent enough advancement to me Level became very inadequate. It doesn't really match its own fluff in over all advancement and even specific advancement for things which are actually advancing.
Do we need fighters to also get expertise...
I mean I am a big fan of reflavoring but I also like the flavor to have some meat on its bones.
How are you going to make mages more Mythic? They are massively system bound in specific spell effects (guess whatever your answer - or whatever is intimated currently - you could use a similar technique to enhance skills powers and well defined skill effects too - if we had any)
Last edited:
Manbearcat
Legend
Awesome, I'm glad we're on the same page.
So here are two thoughts on the offered response:
1) Due to the lack of significant numerical disparity between low level and high level Fighters in noncombat action resolution, how does a table deal with genre creep not trickling downward from Epic to Heroic Tier play?
The low level Wizard cannot learn Wish/Shapechange et al. The Epic Spellcasting trope is closed off because of systemitized, codified, player-facing rules about spellcasting.
But what is to stop the "Wyrmling-Equivalent-Fighter" (WEF tm) from engaging in the kind of Epic Noncombat Genre Tropes that the "Ancient Wyrm-Equivalent-Fighter" (AWEF tm) should exclusively be engaging in? "Natural Language" is one of the fundamental tenants of the game's design. The designers told us they start with 5e's world and story and then build the mechanics off of that. Consequently, the DCs should be objective things, their natural language classifications scrutable by worldly observers and players alike;
"Despite the torrential downpour and raging winds, Nissa's ears perked at the subtle exhale of her foe some hundred yards away. Her arrow pierced the storm. The breath was his last." "No way, that's impossible." "Nearly so..."
How do we stop the martial genre creep downward?...
2) Rulings-not-rules, GM-facing gating. I hope everyone in the thread can agree that the table experience of systemitized, codified, player-facing, action resolution mechanics are a different experience than GM-facing gating? Can we agree upon that?
No one believes that If you literally turned the tables and all spellcasting and martial noncombat action resolution was handled in the diametrically opposite fashion expressed here, the cognitive and emotional experience of playing a spellcaster vs being a martial character would be unchanged? Correct?
@Kai Lord
See @MoutonRustique 's reply (for where I think you misinterpreted what I was saying) and see my comment about "genre creep downward" above.
5e has plenty of this sort of thing too. The Basic PDF - mostly in the equipment list, which is clearly "player facing" - has DCs for extinguishing the flames from Alchemist's Fire; for moving over scattered ball bearings without following over; for moving safely through a field of caltrop; for breaking chain, a snare, rope, a net, or manacles; for avoiding a snare; for escaping from manacles; for picking various locks; for making a forced march; for surviving without water; for clearing a low obstacle with a jump; for landing on one's feet when jumping into difficult terrain; to avoid being dismounted; for stabilising a dying creature and recovering from injury and disease; for maintaing concentration on a spell; for escaping from rubble following an earthquake.
If it's a DC 10 DEX check to move at full speed through an area with scattered ball bearings, that seems to generate an expecgtation as to what (say) the DC to walk across a log without falling off (presumably no higher). If it's a DC 20 STR check to break a metal chain (!), then we know that there aren't very many doors about with a higher DC required to break them down. Etc.
This is why I don't see either 4e or 5e as a principally freeform system. But it's also why I don't see this asserted difference between them in this particular respect.
I'm reasonably familiar with 4e's matial utility powers. Rogues, for instance, get a number which allow them to hide without adequate cover or (at epic tier) with no cover required and no check required.
I'm not sure how this would be done in 5e - presumably by piling on DC numbers and/or imposing disadvantage on the check.
But I'm missing how this has any bearing on the issue of which is more freeform. Both systems have significant numbers of non-check-based, non-GM-mediated- "goal and approach", resolution sub-systems: powers in 4e; various class abilities including spells in 5e. These sub-systems set parameters for what is possible in the fiction. Eg the 3rd level 5e thief gets "Second story work", which is anaolgous to a 4e at-will utility power like Great Leap (2nd lvel) or Nimble Climb (6th level); the 2nd level 5e fighter can use Action Surge to boost his/her movement, which is somewhat analogous to the 4e 6th level skill power Mighty Sprint.
What's the DC, in 5e, for climbing at full speed when not a 3rd level thief? What's the DC, in 4e, for climbing at full speed when not using Nimble Climb? The approach to answering these questions is, as far as I can tell, fundamentally the same in both systems. It's not affected by the slightly different resource schema in the two systems (except to the extent that what the GM has to keep in mind is resource scheme X in 4e and resource scheme Y in 5e) and it's not affected by the different player-side resource pools, which (in 4e) don't factor into the setting of the DC but rather allow the player to affect the output of the roll (ie after the DC is set), or perhaps to reframe the fiction before declaring the action (ie beofre the GM needs to consider setting the DC).
If we are talking about actions that are declared outside the context of a formal rules sub-system like a spell or class ability then, again, I don't see the contrast with 4e. 4e I think encourages a different ethos when it comes to deciding what is possible, and in my view provids better support for translating fiction through action into consequences (via the skill challenge structure), but the actual procedure of adjudiction for these action declarations I think is the same.
Now if the claim is that 5e is more freeform than 4e because it allows the GM to override (say) a class ability like Second Story Work or Action Surge, well that's a very different claim from what I've seen so far in this thread. Personally I don't think that freeform, in the context of RPGing, is a synonym for GM decides.
Last edited:
