Brock Landers's page

Locks were merely an example.

I am learning, never make an example, everyone and their mother will jump onto you in a frenzied pedantic fury, that is outstanding.

Also, for those saying that I’m accusing them of being wrong about 4e because they didn’t understand the rules (or, I guess, because 4e fans have morphed the intent in the rules over time),

Combination of both.

Brock Landers wrote:

Insight wrote:

Brock Landers wrote:

Insight wrote:

However, as I know how to read the rules and have always used 4e's skill system properly, it is not a concern for me one way or the other.

Ha, so only those who don't know how to read the rules and always use the skill system improperly (whatever that means) have a problem with it?

No not at all. But I do believe that most people did not read and absorb the rules and their intent properly, either through a cursory read or overall disinterest in 4e. I'd argue that if more people had read and absorbed the rules, the 4e skill system would have been far better received.

Yeah, see, I don't like that attitude, classic edition warring rhetoric from 2008+.

Basically, it's saying anyone that has a problem with 4th Ed, simply did not understand it, read it, play it properly, and it only failed because of some ridiculous monetary goal Hasbro set...all so tired, old, and not true.

Either way, if the same is true of PF2, it's something to keep an eye out for.

Oh, absolutely, I will definitely be keeping an eye out, for everything.

Brock Landers wrote:

Insight wrote:

However, as I know how to read the rules and have always used 4e's skill system properly, it is not a concern for me one way or the other.

Ha, so only those who don't know how to read the rules and always use the skill system improperly (whatever that means) have a problem with it?

No not at all. But I do believe that most people did not read and absorb the rules and their intent properly, either through a cursory read or overall disinterest in 4e. I'd argue that if more people had read and absorbed the rules, the 4e skill system would have been far better received.

Yeah, see, I don't like that attitude, classic edition warring rhetoric from 2008+.

Basically, it's saying anyone that has a problem with 4th Ed, simply did not understand it, read it, play it properly, and it only failed because of some ridiculous monetary goal Hasbro set...all so tired, old, and not true.

However, as I know how to read the rules and have always used 4e's skill system properly, it is not a concern for me one way or the other.

Ha, so only those who don't know how to read the rules and always use the skill system improperly (whatever that means) have a problem with it?

Nightwhisper wrote:

I just can't get over this. I don't know anyone IRL who could pick any of the locks in their house, much less all of them.

I suspect you know people but they don't talk about it much.

I even have earrings that are lock picks. To most people, they're just shiny dangle earrings.

"...I have acute 'earing..."

"I don't care about your jewellery!"

Brock Landers wrote:

Yes, it often gives the feeling of the world conveniently levelling with you, the justification seems to be that things like doors are suddenly all made of adamantine or what-have-you once you encounter them past a certain level. Removing the +1/2 level from everything vastly improved my 4th Ed experience.

My group would probably be stealing these adamantine doors. "Woo, bulk adamantine!"

Ha, I got a visual of a party opening their portable hole to pull out all the adamantine doors they have collected along the way.

Brock Landers wrote:

Insight wrote:

Brock Landers wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Yeah if every lock is like that. If your PCs never seek out greater challenges though (like breaking into ancient vaults made by the fabled Undermountain Twins, finest dwarven craftsman of the second age) then I'm curious why you'd play to the level where those sorts of challenges are appropriate. There is nothing wrong in saying "this is a grounded campaign so we are playing at slow progression speed and expect to cap out at level 5."

Malk's got it; I am not saying higher level characters should not encounter higher level threats/DCs, or be in locales/situations that they couldn't handle at lower levels. 4th Ed does not present it that way, it makes the contrived assumption that at X level you will be on the outer planes or something, fighting gods and trying to bash down adamantine doors at all times.

Just to verify that your criticism could also be leveled against PF1,

Absolutely, it is an aspect I do not like in 3rd/PF1 (AD&D was better about this sort of thing), but 4th Ed cranks it up an uncomfortable notch. I went with +1/2 level in 3rd/PF1, to replace BAB, Save bonuses, and spell DCs, which helps.

But in the case of City of Locusts (as an example), your house rule wouldn't really change anything (assuming you also base the challenges on +1/2 level as well). All those DC 40 checks would now be smaller, but the party would still need the same number on the d20. All your change does is allow the inclusion of lower level challenges (which only helps in City of Locusts if you go out of your way to include lower level stuff, since the AP obviously doesn't assume it by default).

So the house rule you are proposing would make it more like the 5e adventures,

Exactly, it makes it less bounded than 5th Ed, but not as scaling/treadmill as standard 3rd Ed/PF2. I house-rule 3rd Ed/PF1 in a slightly 5th Ed direction, and I house-rule 5th Ed in a slightly 3rd Ed/PF1 direction (the secret sauce for 5th Ed is 3rd Ed/PF1), ha.

Brock Landers wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Yeah if every lock is like that. If your PCs never seek out greater challenges though (like breaking into ancient vaults made by the fabled Undermountain Twins, finest dwarven craftsman of the second age) then I'm curious why you'd play to the level where those sorts of challenges are appropriate. There is nothing wrong in saying "this is a grounded campaign so we are playing at slow progression speed and expect to cap out at level 5."

Malk's got it; I am not saying higher level characters should not encounter higher level threats/DCs, or be in locales/situations that they couldn't handle at lower levels. 4th Ed does not present it that way, it makes the contrived assumption that at X level you will be on the outer planes or something, fighting gods and trying to bash down adamantine doors at all times.

Just to verify that your criticism could also be leveled against PF1,

Absolutely, it is an aspect I do not like in 3rd/PF1 (AD&D was better about this sort of thing), but 4th Ed cranks it up an uncomfortable notch. I went with +1/2 level in 3rd/PF1, to replace BAB, Save bonuses, and spell DCs, which helps.

Perfect. Page 42: The Revenge. I understand that in trying to fix the problems of Pathfinder they're going to tread much the same ground as 4e but this one needs to die. At the very least they shouldn't be advertising it.

The system is literally 4e's. Static DCs for specific things and a series of DCs for ad-hoc GM calls. It's a great system for streamlining (the damage tables even let you use it in combat). Except, as someone has already accused other posters of, people look at the tables and don't notice there are static DCs (though they were refering to reading the post). Or (leveled at 4e) developers use the table as rules for adventure design. Both are the treadmill, where you gain a level, grow in power, and still need the exact same roll on the dice to succeed.

Bingo! Especially that last sentence.

My world has the world of warcraft thing kind of going on but not as generalized. (for the non wow players some area are naturally higher level areas. Usually this is cause by sentient races creating artificial and natural barriers. to separate more dangerous area's from the general populace ) Some continents are just harder to survive then others.

Which is perfectly suited to 4th Ed, as it was designed at the height of WoW's success, and it was originally designed to be played on a VTT, but some unfortunate accident befell the designer of the VTT.

Another problem with the 4th Ed treadmill effect, is that whether you have +3 or +37 to a check, what you actually need to roll on the d20 is the same in level appropriate encounters.

Yeah if every lock is like that. If your PCs never seek out greater challenges though (like breaking into ancient vaults made by the fabled Undermountain Twins, finest dwarven craftsman of the second age) then I'm curious why you'd play to the level where those sorts of challenges are appropriate. There is nothing wrong in saying "this is a grounded campaign so we are playing at slow progression speed and expect to cap out at level 5."

Malk's got it; I am not saying higher level characters should not encounter higher level threats/DCs, or be in locales/situations that they couldn't handle at lower levels. 4th Ed does not present it that way, it makes the contrived assumption that at X level you will be on the outer planes or something, fighting gods and trying to bash down adamantine doors at all times.

Brock Landers wrote:

Yes, it often gives the feeling of the world conveniently levelling with you, the justification seems to be that things like doors are suddenly all made of adamantine or what-have-you once you encounter them past a certain level. Removing the +1/2 level from everything vastly improved my 4th Ed experience.

I don't see how door quality improving is any worse than enemies conveniently leveling with you, the pit traps getting deeper, chasms getting wider, or a whole number of other things that have always happened in DnD and derivatives.

That's not really been a thing, IME, still fight lower level enemies, pits do not all suddenly get deeper around the world, not everything is conveniently within a few levels of the party.

Brock Landers wrote:

Mats Öhrman wrote:

IconicCatparent wrote:

I am asking you! It seems like your proposed solution and the actual 4e rules aren't too far apart, and I'm genuinely curious about what went so wrong in 4e's skill DC system.

The argument that absolutely everything in 4e was bad just isn't enough for me. I need to know what about it was bad.

Skill Challenges.

Once your skill roll was part of a skill challenge, the DC always ended up being the ”level appropriate” one no matter what you tried to do narratically.

We never got the narration to fit the mechanic either. Either we got trapped in a Schrödinger’s Cat situation: ”Ok, I rolled 39 on my stealth. Do I manage to sneak up on him?” - ”I’ll tell you after we’ve all rolled 13 more rolls.” or out-of-sync between mechanic and narration: ”What to you mean ’we’ failed to cross the gorge? Two of us managed all our climb rolls, and you said we succeeded in our climbs. Do we have a split party now?” - ”Um....” (Examples intended as quick few-sentence illustrations only)

Finally the GM wrote his own skill challenge system to fix mechanical issues, but we never got rid of the threadmill level appropriate skill DCs or the Schrödinger’s Cat problem.

(Played a full campaign in 4E, level 1-26, using a conversion of Rise of the Runelords)

Yes, it often gives the feeling of the world conveniently levelling with you, the justification seems to be that things like doors are suddenly all made of adamantine or what-have-you once you encounter them past a certain level. Removing the +1/2 level from everything vastly improved my 4th Ed experience.

This one I'm not worried about, as it actually has an in-universe justification saying material A is stronger than B wise.

The only problem is that seems so contrived, oh, suddenly every lock your Rogue needs to pick is made by the God of Locks, because you are epic level. The Page 42 improv DC/damage table is also really atrocious.