ProsSteve's page

I'm looking at running a brief dark sun campaign and would like to hear opinions on what level you would think "works best".

It seemed to me initially to be a gritty, struggle-for-survival type setting and "hence" would work best at low levels. I've just picked up eight or so of the original adventures and I was surprised to see them generally favor the higher level ranges so it's made me rethink that initial position. I'm now leaning towards mid paragon, the arc ending in the early epic levels.

Any thoughts from those who know more about dark sun and/or 4th edition would be appreciated.

One of the Dark Sun factors is that when in the wilds (outside of a city state) the characters should always be travelling carefully, activily on the lookout for the natural hazards (sandstorm, blazing heat, difficult terrain) and dangerous creatures (either very tough or in their hundreds, including roving elven bands who will happily strip a group of equipment and leave them to die).

I'd run a combat encounter in the desert that re-inforces the dangers, the PC's barely survive. Even hammer them with something really nasty then have a group of elves 'rescue them', bind them up and strip them of their gear and leave them in a cave to die...yes in the old Dark Sun elves were that cruel to even save people only to leave them to die).

I'd start the game at 1st level personally, it gives the PC's the chance to develope with the character.

The use of Inherant bonus is an excellent idea and I also agree that the Dark Sun defiling rules are not great. Generally you were either trained the techniques of preserving or you weren't. I'd still use the Defiling rule from the book as an option.
I was going to use the rule that any preserver would need to use a minor action when spellcasting to draw power slower but they could take a feat 'Superior Preservation' which removes the need for the minor action.
The being the case, any Defiler (non-preserver) that casts a spell causes pain for 'all' living creatures around him\her, no actual damage but it draws a lot of unwanted attention. Make the range of the area of pain maybe 1 burst square per power level.

Just suggestions, obviously to do the changes to the Arcane Defiler\ preserver thing may be too much messing around if your a bit new to running 4E so you may want to hold off that and use Arcane casting as per the book.

I think the main thing that's i've come to feel is that Skills need to be looked as very broad knowledges, techniques.

Streetwise- You can use this to blend in with low end of town and 'talk the talk' with the locals. Searching the backstreets for someone (tracking).

Insight- to sense a crowd of people for people who fit in and ones that don't(maybe disguised killers or people on the run).

Thievery- Can be used for things like gambling (cheating), in conjunction with Insight to read other players.

Dungeoneering- spot a better rock face for climbing, is used in conjunction with Athletics. Spot and Search for pit traps in solid floors.

Acrobatics- Dancing skills for social encounters or using an agile twist and spin before a bow to help with social encounters.

History- to recognise where you are in a town by known buildings(crosses with Streetwise to navigate a town). Tell the characters story/ relate events.

Heal- explain to a noble lord you can help his people by teaching them his chirurgury skills( explain his techniques).

Basically try to find where the skill can be used, even crossing some skill uses.

From what he said, the DDI version was more magical in nature, using Shadow and Necrotic powers. Being able to blend into the darkness and attack people through their own shadows.

One of my players plays one in my game and it seems interesting, agile but like mentioned comes off as more a shadowdancer rather than assassin. I'd like to play one some time but will probably refluff it to a shadowdancer.

Definitly do able. But you might need to adjust the encounters a little. If you have no striker, the enemy critters may not be going down quick enough so lower their HP's a little. Likewise in a party without a Defender, with no tough meatshield for the group, the squishier party members might start taking some serious damage.

It's totally possible, and not nearly as hard as the books make it sound, just not nearly as easy as it is otherwise--considering how incredibly easy that is, it's not much of a step up. Since you've done DM prep work for other games, even with the added work of preparing for a larger/smaller group than "recommended," I think you're still in for a treat.

The biggest things to watch out for are:
-Party design: Strictly speaking you don't always need all the roles covered, but it does make it a lot easier for you and the players if you do. Just as in 2nd edition you wouldn't wander into a tomb with a full group of level 1 wizards, it's a good idea to have a decent mix. A defender, a leader and a striker is probably going to be the "easiest" mix (like the Fighter, Cleric, and Magic User of old, as rogues weren't really great at damage dealing back then) for everyone, and with the broad range of choices available from classes, that still leaves a huge variety of choices for your players. It also helps if you have them build their characters together and try to create some synergy, as opposed to building separately and creating three "lone wolf" type characters that happen to all be going the same place alone at the same time. ;)

-Encounter design: Also not too tough. The standard encounter model is based off of having 5 players, and it's generally n-1 standard monsters of same level, where n=number of PCs. There's plenty of room for fiddling, and the inclusion of Elites and Minions (be careful with solos, they're a bit more fiddly than they seem at a glance) and being able to bring monster levels up or down a few and still have a relatively exciting encounter. With 3 players, I'd probably look for an XP budget somewhere around 2.5-3 standard critters per level, with adjustments here and there as needed. 'Standard' monsters (solos are equivalent of 4 supposedly, elites are equivalent of 2, and 4 minions make up one standard.)

-Economy design: The treasure parcel system is good,...

Faster because everyone just rolled dice and declared if they passed/failed without any RP to go alongside it? YMMV but in my experience 4E skill challenges take just as long if not longer than equivalent activities in 3.5/PF. That said, they do let everyone have a chance to shine so Kudos there.

I gotto say if you've got no RP in your skill challenges then you may need to re-read the DMG on Skill challenges.

E.g:-
PLayer 1: 'I'm going to try and talk the guy round by using Streetwise for banter "Look fella, I know Urgen head of the guild if you understand me and not helping will make him upset". The player rolls his skill check to see how well him banter goes down.

The DM then react's to the skill check result and RP's the NPC's reply.

This is obviously a short term RP encounter so a long term encounter would be much more narrative, e'g:-

The group is trying to sneak through a hobgoblin infested area without drawing attention, intent on getting to the leader's caves.

Player 1: 'Moving through the area we need to navigate our way so Nature check to pick the right path.

DM: 'Yeah roll a nature to navigate but because your avoiding the goblin patrols you find your selves needing to climb up steep hills, jump gullys and the like so you'll need an athletics check to keep your speed up.' Player 1 rolls Nature, player 2 rolls Athletics with help from player 3 & 4.

Player 2:'We need to keep are heads down so we'll need to keep our eyes open for goblins and sneak past them' the players decide that player 4 is best at spotting goblins(Perception) and player 3 is pretty good at Stealth.

DM asks for the Perception and Stealth rolls.

Failing 3 skill checks(and the skill challenge) can result in a really tough fight at the goblins cave as the goblins get the word back to their boss.
Failing 1 skill check could mean a loss of a healing surge from injuries from goblin javlins or sling stones.

Well this is my wife who is going to run the game, she wants to try her hand at it and wants a premade to get kind of walked through her first campaign. She can learn and start doing her own stuff and changing things as she goes and picks up the skills to do so. Having said that I understand your thoughts on the dungeon stuff as I am a man of paper myself... Currently based on price alone it's looking like the H1-E3 series is winning

Personally, you can run Keep Of the Shadowfell, and or the adventure in the back of DMG to get started. Neither are great but they will give the DM the chance to get into the general mechanics of the system along with the players.

You can include a more roleplay and skill challenges into the DMG starting adventure or KOTS but to get started it's not necessary.

It's up to the party, usually it is assumed that most of his things are sent to his next of kin. If the party wants to keep his gear then the DM might have to limit the amount of gold the replacement character will have or just sent a nasty spellcaster at the group armed with disjunction (at high levels) or sundering fighters to bring the wealth level down a bit. I prefer sending his gear to his wife/kids sort of thing because how many stories start that way, warrior dies and years later his children take up his arms and fight in his memory.

I'd be on this line in all situations....after all if a friend of yours dies would you really start rifling through his wallet, steal his laptop, knick his car?

The answer would be a resounding NO from everyone other than the most callouse of person.
From a game point of view the rest of the party getting his stuff may be unbalanced by them getting his stuff.
Overall if he or she should have a family then his best stuff should be passed to them or perhaps the party should give over monies to the value of the items.

4e's premade stuff tend to railroad you, and limit things you can do. asnd they do it so often it seems intentional. this actually caused a fight. in the first one, there was a point where you encounter some guards. it actually says its impossible to bluff your way in if you don't have the right password that cant be found out. the rogue came up with a completly believable story and a VERY high bluff check. and we were told it didnt work. we argued for about a half hour.

This is unfortunately true but for an experienced DM this shouldn't be a problem because even if the adventure says a bluff can't get you through, it's the DM's call.

I do like much of the pathfinder material, it's very high quality and converting it is a worthy goal.

joela wrote:

This guy apparently got his hands on the upcoming book at the DDXP and answered a few questions on it.

Looks like some interesting stuff.

On another note, what do DM's do about players wanting to change class/build every time a new players/powers book come out? Been a little bit of a bone of contention in our group shall we say.

Cheers,
S.

I say let them change at the end of a session, simulate the change with them practicing the new technique over a session and getting it at the end. Had similar issues in 3rd edition where a player would take a feat then as the campaign continued it'd never get used and then ask could I retrain this feat for another and the DM's(myself first off) would allow it. After all if the player took something for his character that he finds useless or just didn't have the flavour he hoped for then take something that will.

Also, looking at it numerically - losing out on weapons means losing out on a +2 or +3 enhancement bonus to attack, damage and defenses, and a +2 or +3 proficiency bonus. One way to compensate for this is simply to use enemies that are 4 or so levels lower than you would normally throw in their way. Thus, the PCs can still feel reasonably effective with improvised weapons, while still having the experience of fighting their way free unarmed.

The proficiency issue should pick up quickly with the PC's overpowering a few guards and taking weapons and armour. Weapons could be Longswords, Spears, Daggers, Shortswords, clubs and possibly coming across a low level spellcaster(wizard or warlock) torturer to give the spell caster an impliment albeit a low level one. They could find a new aquisition of a good priest being tortured who if rescued could lend them his symbol as he's unable to use it due to injuries( arms lopped off, no healing surges).

They could even develope new friends, allies if they help some escape the prison that could come into the game in the future but to keep things moving the prisoners could tell them 'we must not linger too long, if they get wind of us they often call the garrison at the bottom of the volcano and lock the whole place down with elite guards, hell hounds and other brutish warriors'.

Of course just before they exit the big bad jailor who knows his prison sets a trap to crush the PC's spirits for trying to escape and a fight ensues where if the PC lose they come round back in the cells (keep some minions handy to bind the PC's wounds as the prisons lord wants the PC kept alive).
If they do lose they come round in another cell and the escape starts anew. They might even put the tougher characters in cells over the top of volcanic pits where due to the heat the hardier types lose a number of healing surges(unless they have Invulnerable vs Fire).

Sent!

I'd like to take a look if you don't mind, my mail is prossersteve( at) hotmail (dawt) com.

I do find at least from my experience, that playing 4E requires more imagination, or improvisation, because it is a basic (abstract) system compared to pathfinder, especially when you consider spells versus powers. When you have only so many powers, you have to justify what they are doing in relation to the character.

Absolutely agree with this statement. This is especially true with Martial Powered characters.

For example the fighter power Cometfall Charge comes with a descriptor of the character leaping toward the target and letting the drop deal extra damage. One of my PC's has put colour into this by one time in a tight space with a creature blocking the path(albeit they were shorter than the other PC's) he asked if he could leap\somersault over the enemy and land behind them with this power. I allowed this because I loved his description but put in the requirement of a jump check. He did the jump check badly wounded the enemy and combat continued.

The Warlords inspirational word grant a 'sort of' healing effect. To me this doesn't mean the character heals as he would if blessed by the priests Healing word but is instead goaded inspired to shrug off his injuries (much like the barbarian in 3rd edition gets extra HP's). this is also true of second wind.
e.g Bruce Willis in Die Hard, he suffered huge periods of injuries whilst fighting thugs, criminals then takes a stock for a minute( using his second wind) then takes a short rest, grits his teeth and moves to attack another group of bad guys seemingly little inhibited by his wounds.

Wizards get it easy, they mumble some words, gesticulate and a blazing gout of flame springs from their fingers which are aiming at enemies.

Priests are a little different, with each priest really needing to colour their prayers effects to match the deity. A lance of faith cast by a priest of Mask may still count as radiant due to the fact it's holy but it'd probably be a dark blue or black beam. So priests need to re-write their descriptors and even prayer names.

I was curious to see - how many out there play both PF and 4E side by side? If so, have you run into any issues? Thanks!

Am playing in a PFRPG and playing plus DMing 4E. Have found the following:-

PFRPG: Roleplay is there,but Combat is limited (Fighters Attacks, Priest Heals,Rogues backstab everything to destruction), skills use's are limited to the characters with lots of them. Underskilled characters usually sit back and eat popcorn when diverse skills are required. Spells become an increasing issue as the game gets into higher levels.

4E: Roleplay is there, Combat involves all characters, Skill challenges involve all characters.

In short, 4E can devolve into nothing but combat encounters because of the amount of options in combat encounters it tempting to do so. However with there are just as much involvement options for roleplay and more so as all characters have broader skills that can be brought into use.
I have found adjusting lesser creature HP's is a must however otherwise combats do take up too much time. Even turning them into two hit minions.
I'm not going to go into much detail on PFRPG in case of being accused at flaming.
Please don't misunderstand I have enjoyed some seriously good games in PFRPG but later levels do seem to become a problem and I'd never play a PF priest now.

So whos gonna run a game? I'd like to see how it plays.

G~@ D!+MIT... I can't find my exalted book...bugger, I can't even get started on the conversion!!!

BLAST!!

I was definitely in the "hoping 4e was more like SWSE" camp. I had heard before 4e came out that Saga was indeed a "test run" for those rules. This had almost won me over, being I was pretty anti-4e in the beginning. I got Saga as soon as it came out, read it over, and was really excited for 4e, for about a day. Got a hold of 4e, and, well, not so excited.

Yes, I realize what forum this is in. I am not bashing. Just expressing my sentiment of Saga as a fore-runner to 4e.

I was origionally hoping for 4E to be more like SWSE but since getting into 4E(playing and DMing) I am happy with the way they went with it. I can't see a problem personally with your opinion, it's honest and not inflamatory.

Found something

Looks good but the PDF on the site is missing by the looks of things :(.

Looks pretty good though.

As per another thread, I am interested to hear what(if any) work has been done to create an Exalted setting (originally from White Wolf) using the 4th edition D&D as the system.

Origional Exalted had excellent possibilities but the System sadly proved very poor( as experienced by most White Wolf players ang Storytellers I think).

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

David Fryer wrote:

Not trying to start anything, but has anyone noticed similarities between 4E and Exalted? I mean for starters, the default party for both is 5 members and they both have fabulous powers that allow the PCs to do more than average Joe.

My most recent game was an Exalted campaign using D&D 4e rules, because the two seemed to fit so well together. Best campaign I've run yet.

I'd like to here more about this as I love the Exalted setting, but hate the rule set. Like I said earlier, I hate the bucket of dice mechanic that comes with most White Wolf games. In particular I would like to know how you handled the Exalts.

Absolutely agree, I loved the idea but when we actually ran the game the so called exalted characters with their 20 dice to perform these miracles still on average struggled to even injure a basic mortal guard. We had the same issues with Vampire, Mage and Werewolf campaigns.

I had hoped with the release of the new Vampire and WOD they would bring out a new improved Exalted but it seemed that they produced the new version with the same mechanic as the previous duff version!!!

I've Started a new Thread 4th Ed Exalted.

ProsSteve wrote:

But I'd figure Venger an Epic level Wizard with a few styled spells.

In 4E monster terms, Venger should probably be a controller with a very "artillery" at-will. I'll have to take a look at the monster builder when I get home. I'm sure any appropriate level soldier could be re-skinned as Warduke.

Yeah totally, but I suppose if you wanted to throw early level Venger at the group you could just build a lower level, maybe early Paragon Controller with a Contingency Ritual Cast on him so he can escape but he is still feared and respected because of the number of orcs and other powerful beings he commands. Then the group hears rumor of Venger gaining some magical power or other that has increased his abilities( made him higher level).

That way he could occur about four times in a campaign as both he and the group develope. He could also have some neat tricks up his sleeve.
After all the group in the cartoon always defeats him despite his apparent power.

He always comes back, at least until the last level.

I'd say where Venger fits into the campaign is more important than the actual stats etc. He's got to have a Fly Utility and a nightmare.

ProsSteve wrote:

Blazej wrote:

I agree. I think that a short campaign would be the best option.

Longer I reckon, up to 5th level at least but i'd speed up 1st and 2nd level advancement.

I doubt that if a group doesn't want to continue with a system after a month of playing and that the two or three months that I think would be necessary to get to 5th level would no produce any different results.

I believe it would just make it harder for the game to get started because of the amount of time it would require.

One of my mates, who initially was pretty dubious about 4th ed told me as follows:-

"When the campaign first started, the limited AT-WILLs, Encounter and Daily options plus he was finding the class too limited( believe me I was hearing these statements). By 3rd level he was seeing the changes and by play experience seeing the plus's of 4th ed.
He said by 5th level, he was so happy with it he prefered 4th edition to it's predecessor."
Id take the players quickly up through 1st, 2nd levels( a level per game) then slow down at 3rd, 4th and onto 5th. It'll give the DM a chance to get to grips with the system as well as give the players a good play test.

Ok here is my question, given the theory of design that 4e follows being heavy on actions as a resource, would giving an animal companion the ability to "act on its own" when not directly used by its master and allowing it an attack doing like d6 or so considered unbalancing? especially if not usable in the same round as any power that involves the companion? just curious.

Not sure, it doesn't sound too bad. I'd personally give it a try and if still not sure then make it an At-Will Minor or Move Action. Overall the games about the PC's not their animals but if your DM has no problem with it then do it.

I agree. I think that a short campaign would be the best option.

Longer I reckon, up to 5th level at least but i'd speed up 1st and 2nd level advancement.

Okay, I know that he was stated up for 3.5, but has anyone seen stats for Venger for 4E? He and Warduke are two of my favorite villians and I would lov to use them in my campaign, I just don't have a lot of time to do the work.

To be honest it's not tough to make up a particular character as long as you have a lot of the concepts already done up. I'm using Warduke in my campaign but i've not yet done him up as I've set him as 20th level.

As the DM in question, I am also eager to see what you guys comeup with, as I have invested a lot of money in 4E products. I have found ways to incorporate a lot of it into my PFRPG game, but the more I read over 4E the more I find myself likeing the system. I do hve a DDI subscription, but that doesn't help the players.

One thing that has been caused divided opinion is the HP's of the creatures being too high. Personally I vary the HP's depending on how long the encounter should be but up the opponents damage dealing a bit( as advised by other DM's).

Tiny Tina wrote:

I have tried to point out that there are still a lot less options then a 3.5 spellcaster, but they don't like having to turn to the book every round to look up what their power dies.

Our group discovered that printing out "Power Sheets" for each character took a lot of the pain out of this process. Everyone had a cheat sheet that listed their character's powers and full descriptions along with their character sheet. I believe these are built-in to the WotC DDI character sheet generator program that they have on their website. Of course, you have to have a DDI subscription to use it. You could also just photocopy the relevant pages out of the book.

Same here, Pre producing the powers sheets are the way that seemed to be the best for me and my group. The fact is the powers are either a group of specialist warrior techniques for martial characters( fighters\rogues\warlords etc), spells for wizards or godly blessings for clerics.

I was the first DM to run the first 3rd edition campaign which converted to 3.5 and I thoroughly loved it( epic was an bit of an issue but nevermind) so I would rather not see arguements over 'my systems better than yours' and another flame war. Better to enjoy both but at least to give new systems a thorough test with a short (10th level minimum)campaign then decide what system to run campaigns in depending on the flavour of the campaign.
Even in 3rd edition we were constantly finding different rules that applied to situations when the PC's were 10th level. It doesn't matter as long as the games fun.

With the suggestions people have made I am happy to convert the Ptolus guns over. I have also found some excellent tech stuff in the Scarrport setting along with some magical gun enhancements.

Many thanks for peoples input it has been really helpfull.

ProsSteve wrote:

Loading times are an issue I'd say because I really can't see a blinding barrage from a rogue being done with a flintlock pistol

Why not dude? that sounds bloody awesome to me! If he can do it with hand crossbow, why not a flintlock pistol?

I always (personally) found making your players look badass is much more fun than fiddling around with the nitty gritty of whether or not its "realistic".

Magical Auto reloading gun I may do because the imagery is cool but not a standard flintlock. I'm not keen on a crossbow being used for a blinding barrage though, shurikens or daggers only, the imagery for shurikens being whipped out in a fan like spray and cutting opponents across the eyes is excellent.

There was a 4E supplement called scarport (deviant press?) that was available which tackled the concept of guns and had a gunslinger class, but I believe they no longer exist.

Many thanks, Scarrport is still available so I got the PDF and it looks pretty good so far. It is a bit more advanced weapon wise than I was thinking being that they appear to have more like 1860 pistols(six shooters) and Rifles but would only take a small tweak to do what I want.

Im currently playing a lvl8 paladin|cleric. He start out life as a balanced cleric, but i felt he was lacking something. So i rebuilt him as a paladin|cleric. My cleric powers are all of my ranged powers, and my paladin powers are all my melee attacks. Enjoying it loads more than the original at the mo.

Sorry but do you mean he was a Paladin\Cleric Hybrid origionally but you changed him to a Paladin multiclassing to cleric now?

The only real tip I have for you is to simply not tell them that they are in a skill challenge to begin with. Let them decide how to solve the problems and don't worry if dice are rolled or not.

I think the other thing with skill challenges is to get the players to think about the challenge in a longer term view.

Climbing a cliff would be a single check of one party member rather than each party member rolling which represents the skill of the more skilled climber leading the climb, directing other players to climbable surfaces even pulling them up parts of the cliff.
Nature check to know the type of creature that could be dangerous int this environment would once again be a Nature skilled character advising of probable dangers then pointing them out for the climbers to avoid.
Dungeoneering would make the climb easier if incorporated as the dungeoneer advises which sections of rock would be best for pitons, loads etc.
It becomes more about the group working together, combining their skills to overcome the obstacle instead of rolling 5 Climb rolls each player, running a combat encounter against a couple of birds\spiders or other dangers and getting to next encounter.

I think I can fairly confidently say there will never be a 4E Ptolus. Monte Cook seems not to be writing for 4E and the scale of Ptolus is so enormous as a project.

I sorted of figured it wouldn't be converted over being 700 plus pages worth of quality detail of the city.

Or you could just be a ranger and call your longbow a gun. Same mechanical effect in the end. Plenty of powers let you do all that.

Everyone and every power just does some damage and then pushes/slides things around. You the player are what add any of the flavor to those powers, it's your imagination which fuels the game.

Totally agree with the fact that it's imagination that fuels the game but I was hoping I'd missed an article or something giving the stats for old school flintlock pistols, muskets, rifles from Napolionic era for the Forgotten Realms and Ptolus.

I was just wondering in the first instance if there are any signs of a 4E Ptolus coming up or some decent conversions around the web.

And the second query was over firearms and 4E. I may have missed it but has anyone come up with Firearms for the system?

Obviously the firearms are part of the Ptolus setting but the Forgotten Realms brought in firearms in the second edition and by DR1370 or so it was supposed to be available in reasonable quantities across the realms (according to Forgotten Realms Adventures-2nd Ed suppliment book).

There's a section in the DMG2 that suggests that skill challenges should be proactive. That is, the players shouldn't be just reacting to the challenge as it's presented to them or flatly rolling skills, but rather engaging in the skill challenge and trying to think up creative uses for their skills to attack the situation. I think the example that's given is a chase scene where the party is trying to escape some guards. The players can be proactive by knocking over barrels or causing disturbances that trip up the guards, rather than just repeatedly rolling Athletics checks to try to outrun them.

I've been thinking about this a lot, because it sounds like this might be the key to engaging players and creating really fun challenges. My question is: how do you do it? I'll give an example: I'm writing a skill challenge right now that involves climbing up a cliff to reach the back entrance to the lair of some bandits. Now, it seems to me that a cliff is something that the party will have to react to, no matter what. It's big, it's in their way, and the only way around it is to climb up (or use Nature checks to find safe paths.) So, how do you go about making a challenge like this one something that the players can attack?

Obvious skill would be Athletics for Climb.

But other options could be:

Nature: to spot local predatorial birds that will attack climbers if they don't bypass them\plecate them( ranger shouting instructions like 'don't move or it'll peck your eyes out'.

Dungeoneering: To help spot good places to put in pitons. Eg Dwarf saying 'that section can take a piton but that bit to the rights too hard and you'll just bend it'.

Stealth: to bypass caves containing other local predators like large spiders who are feeding on local birds.

Since making the original post our DM has admitted he never expected it to turn out the way it did. I suggested that the 'dead when healing surges are zero' should have been 'unconscious when healing surges are zero'. He has adopted this. It hasn't changed the end result any (the remaining two players managed to win the final skill challenge and thereby the siege), but it does mean we didn't die.

I know, I know, it's terrible to have to change things after the event but if it was an error what can you do? No-one should die just because they have a string of bad die rolls.

In our favour it was the last thing to happen in the session and nothing has happened since, so the effect of changing it so we didn't actually die isn't as drastic as it might first appear.

Thanks for the comments.

Unfortunate to change the end result but I gotta say normally skill challenges arn't fatal, generally interesting, some debilitation(surge loss) or indeed some long term effect (family or close friends killed) but not usually cause for a PC to die purely on a failed skill challenge.

Captured and maybe some kit lost but not killed.

First up, I'm only a player in 4e but I am a long time DM in other RPGs (D&D amongst them).

We finished up Siege of Bordrin's Watch last night. We did three skill challenges to simulate the actual siege - a tactical one, one in artillery and one in defence of the gates. We had to decide where to place ourselves and some troops. If we failed, we would lose a healing surge and if we ran out of healing surges we were considered 'killed in action'.

A few bad die rolls later (in fact I managed to make only 5 in the entire session: 1 x 5 and 2 x 1s) and three out of the 5 party members were dead (including my own).

Is this what skill challenges are for? It seems highly arbitrary to me.

Comments, anyone?

Were you besieging or under siege?

Interesting but i'd say no that's not what they are there for. Its a potential for the skill challenge to be failed and in the example of the seige for the siege to be failed due to the failure of skill checks and indeed for players to be 'Out of action' but note skill challenges are not really supposed to be a kill option. The DM would normally put in a contingency if the skill challenge failed.
Once again in the example of the seige and the seige failing for the PC's they may wake up in cells with a number of their troops, stripped of hard earned equipment, injured but alive.
Depending on the enemy the next event would either be them being sold into slavery (orcs, goblins and some unscrupulous humans would do this) or randsomed to a local lord (if the PC's were recognised and of some value to the local people).
Of course some enemies would kill the PC's outright but probably keep the PC around to find out important information by torture (this of course would also give rise to an escape attempt).
Ultimately any game is dangerous but I'd have said a death scenario is only applicable in an Combat encounter where the PC's can( and probably will) keep an eye out for downed friends and bind them up). Likewise loyal troops would be likely to come to the PC's aid. I'm not trying to remove the death option but I personally would never see my players killed in the way you described.

My arguments only have merit when the GM doesn't chuck the rules out the door and try to fix all the issues on the fly, or completely conceal the system so that the inherent issues don't show. Oberoni, etc., whatever.

It is absolutely possible to design a poor skill challenge encounter. You simply use the skill challenge rules. If you change all the math, and change the goal, and split the challenge, and don't tell the players that it's a skill challenge, then you've changed every single one of the rules.

You have a strong OPINION about the mechanic and the system that as far as your concerned is backed up with maths workings. Unfortunately it is clear that their are limited others who agree with your opinion and also clear that likewise you do not agree with their OPINION.

For me this is a waste of time continuing re-argueing the same topic. As I stated before I play and run my games as a hobby and have no intention on producing a 500 page thesis on a game about Wizards, Dragons, Demons and supernatural creatures to back up my opinion as to why the game works for me.
IN SHORT IF IT WORKS FOR YOU EXCELLENT, IF NOT FIND SOMETHING THAT DOES....WHATEVER MAKES YOU HAPPY :)

That just turns it into a slightly more complex mathematical calculation or a guessing game, depending on whether DCs are public or not. That's not tactical.

For my mind the game is a hobby and I have no intention of mathematically working out whether the system works or not but from my experience the system has brought the use of skills back into game, encouraged my players to think about their progression and background. The skills are for me, are now back in the game for ALL characters( regardless of class) and you don't get the mage or sorcerer saying " I can't swim, climb or hear anything, not skilled in it" or the fighter saying "Of course I don't know anything about the creature i'm fighting, never learned in my years of adventuring"

4th Edition Skill challenges have also inspired me to seek other ways of bringing Skill challenges into the game using other system(like Conflex but even conflex says their system isn't a replacement for the standard 4th ed system).

I now encourage my players to roleplay harder with their skills to get bonus's to their roll or even give them a passive 10 result if their description\roleplay is good enough.

It's about the game, not the maths.

ProsSteve wrote:

amethal wrote:

SirUrza wrote:

I'd totally buy Saga edition fantasy rules. :P

Well, there are a few systems out there. I own this one, for instance.

Fantasy Concepts

Obviously, they can't come straight out and say that they have taken the Saga Rules for Star Wars and given them a fantasy makeover.

I'm curious, have you run a campaign using this system and did you find the Mages Magical Attacks an issue?

Did you re-write all the creatures from Monstrous Manual to fit the setting or could you run them straight from the book without conversion?

Never had a chance to try it out, unfortunately.

Shame, me neither. I was hoping for a bit of a review because most of it was very, very good and more in line with SWSE than 4th Ed which could have been good but I looked at a couple of the mechanics and saw some issues. Just wondered how it played.

Scott Betts wrote:

I'm pretty sure Monte Cook was not involved in the 4th Edition design process. I'm not positive, but I know he's not on the PHB credits. Do you have a source for this?

Prolly thinking of Mike Mearls who worked on Iron Heroes. 4E has a lot of Iron Heroes and Experimental Might DNA at any rate.

Sorry yeah it was Mike Mearls and if you get a chance take a look, IT's definitely been used to influenced the final edition of 4th Ed.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

While SWSE does have it's problems, quite frankly, one of my issues with 4e is that it wasn't ENOUGH like Saga, and - for me at least - SWSE IS Star Wars: the Tabletop Game

Have you ever tried West End Games D6 Star Wars game from the 90's?

I ran the old West End Star Wars over two or could have been three editions quite a few years back and the game started out well but eventually Jedi became IMPOSSIBLE to challenge and bulldosed the game every time.

Like I said further up the thread I had been given the impression that 4Ed would be like SWSE mechanically. I read some very good reviews of SWSE and bought the the main book to see whether I was going to get 4th edition books.
Whilst I was a little disappointed that 4th Ed wasn't as much like SWSE as I had been expecting, I've been running and playing 4th ed for about 6 months or more and do enjoy it as is.

The general mechanic is the same as D20 Modern but using defences for all things rather than saving throws. Limited Force Power usage (which is much better) and better multiclassing than previous editions.

Has anyone tried to create a 4e version of the classes from the Book of the Righteous?

It'd need to be a brave soul to try that!!

SirUrza wrote:

I'd totally buy Saga edition fantasy rules. :P

Well, there are a few systems out there. I own this one, for instance.

Fantasy Concepts

Obviously, they can't come straight out and say that they have taken the Saga Rules for Star Wars and given them a fantasy makeover.

I'm curious, have you run a campaign using this system and did you find the Mages Magical Attacks an issue?

You could design a 17th level 3.5 wizard with a couple of high level spells that he can effectively cast "at will", a couple of defensive spells that he can cast once per encounter if needed, a lot of personal buffs that he has already cast and are included in the stat block, and assume that the rest of his spells are "utility" spells that never come into play.

Monte Cook about how to make up saving throw bonuses and the like when creating NPCs quickly.

Your right, you could take those short cuts but effectively you have 4th Edition and Monte Cook was one of the main designers behind the system.

wizards had a magazine for d20, Star Wars Insider.

it was pretty good, although i never purchased many of them, i wasnt playing star wars at the time.

i like powers better than talents. i would like to see a gi joe game with powers instead of talents.

It's funny really but I like Powers system in 4E but I prefer the Talents and feats in SWSE for that setting. I suppose however if SWSE was changed to be more in line with 4E with the Powers I'd probably get to like it, not sure though.

I definitely agree that a DM can do this no matter what game they are playing - at the same time, I do find that 4E is encouraging of such experimentation and alteration in a way that not every game is. For a good DM, this doesn't really matter - but it helps make newer DMs aware that monster design can be an art as much as a science, and not to feel restricted to formula alone when developing or altering monsters.

Totally agree with this statement, I've adjusted encounters in previous editions to improve the 'feel' of the encounter but 4th edition does scream that this is an option and easily accomplished.

So far I've not had any ill effects in my encounters from doing so and it is sooo easy to do I've found.

I've always seen skill challenges as a mechanic to turn ROLEplay into ROLLplay.

See I see it as more of an opportunity for roleplay but out of combat, the players are telling me what they are trying to do to achieve the goal (talking to locals(streetwise), finding out from the local hunters about the change in local predator activity(nature), researching local ruins that a creature may be using(history).

Instead of most of the game taken up 'were going to the red dragon and ask about him' I'll let the players say 'were going to ask around the local inn's for info' let them roll Streetwise and if it matches a base DC then move on to 'at the red dragon the innkeep does know..' and let roll play commence that could give bonus's to the existing roll.
I also see it as a montage for a journey that is more interesting than the old style of 'you travel west across the grassland but there are no encounters' instead turn the journey into a skill challenge journey more like Lord of the rings' journey across middle earth but focussing at interesting parts.

I'd totally buy Saga edition fantasy rules. :P

As for that post, I've read stuff like that posted before regarding Saga development. More so about Saga stuff being looked at while they were making 4e. But then again, it came out of Bill Slavicsek's mouth, who I have no tolerance for anymore and don't pay any attention to.

I read some reviews that got me interested and that was before I started into 4th edition and was very impressed. The Force Powers are more akin to 4th edition encounter powers which stops Jedi from doing everything.

Laddie wrote:

Could we get some more examples of 'putting power back in the hands of the GM' from anybody? I'm interested in what exactly this means to different people whether it's adjudicating mechanics, narrative freedom, or defining game flavour.

- Monsters often have aspects determined by DM fiat.

- NPCs exist to forward the DMs agenda and have whatever the DM wants them to have to do that.

Once a DM has the base mechanics in his head he can customise existing monsters to the way he see's them in an encounter. For example I always thought that large or huge creatures when hitting something smaller should knock the thing backwards as part of the hit, now most of my large creature can do that at least once in a combat.

I use an STR VS FORT and if it hits does damage AND pushes the target a number of squares. You can make the encounter more interesting by including inclines and ditches that the character can be pushed into causing more damage(if your feeling cruel) or just inconvenience as they clamber out.
I figure Drow are agile so I often give them the ability to duck out of combat (slide 2 squares).
Previously all these options would require justification with feats and in combat rolls, now if the ability suites the style of encounter I just add it and so far it's not made the game worse but better.

Skill challenges can only give you a success or fail result. Why do you need between a half-dozen or a dozen rolls to get that? Even if the math worked, even if the system was impossible to be gamed, it's a really inefficient way to accomplish something we have a simple and easy mechanic to resolve.

In previous skill usage you just sat down and rolled how ever many times to get the task done, this would normally limit the characters who could take part and took loads of rolls anyhow.

For example climbing a rockface up a mountain, the skill used would be Climb which would progress you 1/3 your speed (usually 10ft per move action), keep doing this until your done or fall off the obstacle. Due to limited skill only the Rogue or possibly the fighter would be able to do this easily.

The skill challenge to me seems to encourage more than just a single skill set. It's now a case of the trained Athelete (probably the fighter or rogue) take the lead with an obstacle, due to climbing in underground environments the Dwarf could help the group progress by using his Dungeoneering or likewise with the ranger using Nature. The other characters can assist using similar skills(pointing out easier routes or nooks that can be utilied.
The DM can choose to spice it up with creatures living on the rock face requiring stealth to avoid them( they are just a protective kind of bird but could cause someone to fall if they attacked). Of course all this climbing is tiring so you'd probably require at least one endurance roll.

The example is a simple skill challenge but to me shows how the characters skills are now brought into the adventure instead of being ignored or brought down to single rolls.