|
Sometimes it seems like 4e is trying too hard to be the game where everyone feels special all of the time.
Maybe its just a difference in philosophy. If everyone is special all of the time, then... well, you know the rest. *shrug*
I don't see it as being "special" all the time. I see it as widening the range for each character's effectiveness and allowing to contribute more often.
It's a lot less of 'Conan stood silently in the back while someone else did all the talking and figured everything else' and more
Conan staggered into the room, reeking of alchohol with hickeys on his neck. He let loose a thunderous belch and grinned, "Prieshts of Shet went west."'
Silk blinked 'Well, that makes sense with the information I found. They've obtained the Eye of Kalis... if they're heading west, they must be making for the Temple of Jemdar that Athas read about in the library... but, how did you find that out?'
Conan wiped his forehead. "Tough job. Lot of ale. Lot of whores. But... nough people, found someone." He collapsed into a seat, tired from his all day and night exertions.
...
And yes, I'm specifically using _Endurance_ as a social skill to make one of the most outlandish points I can think of ;) It might have been a 'Hard' task, but it contributed to the overall challenge of 'Find the cultists before it's too late'
Does anyone know if 'circumstance' modifiers will apply to these predetermined skill challenges, or are circumstance modifiers too simulationist?
For example, in the case of PCs trying to avoid being arrested by guards do they get a circumstance bonus if they decide simply to walk past them in the head-to foot 'disguise' of bedouin robes with which they equipped themselves and dressed themselves in five minutes earlier? (Change of clothes from what the guards are looking for, faces partially hidden, etc.)
Yep, the DM can (and should) give circumstance bonuses and also you can effectively set the task easier if it makes sense. Disguising in full bedouin robes is an 'Easy' Bluff, for instance.
As a harem girl? Maybe Hard... but you'll distract the rest of the guards so that the rest of your group has a better chance to get out, perhaps.
4e provides a way of thinking about, and setting up, a series of free-form skill checks for overcoming challenges. 3.5 does not.
Perhaps, in the interest of the discussion, you could try to provide an example of what you think 4e is going to provide? Do you think it will be a set of "rule of thumbs" like
Easy check = DC (12 + level)
Medium check = DC (17 + level)
Hard check = DC (22 + level)
For each challenge, choose a difficulty between "Really easy = 1" and "Next to Impossible = 15" (based on a party of 5 characters).
Let each player/character choose a skill and a difficulty then roll a skill check. For each check, add up the values given below and compare the result to the difficulty of the challenge. If you get a higher value, the challenge is overcome; otherwise, it is a failure.
Easy check: success = +1 point; failure = -2 points
Medium check: success = +2 points; failure = -1 point
Hard check: success = +4 points; failure = -1 point
Is this anywhere close to what you think this "skill challenge" is going to be?
In the module I mentioned earlier, I wanted to have the roof of a castle only accessible by climbing the tapestries lining the walls of a banquet hall, then shimmying along a rotted beam. All while a banquet was in full...
Erm... right, so that would be a mix between Hide, Climb, and Balance most likely (with a possible bonus to Hide or even an automatic success if some PCs create a diversion for the climbing characters)?
I am not sure in what way the 4E "skill challenge" will help you with that. Then again, perhaps your answer to the question above (what do you expect this 4E skill challenge to be) will help me better understand your point of view.
Depends on the DM and player - some players will say 'I want to make this easy, so <bla>' while another won't say anything and the DM has to set it.
In Escape from Sembia, a moderate Insight check was made to look for a group of greedy people in the market place to throw some gold coins on the ground nearby, to sorta incite a fight / scramble to pause the guards.
Since apparently Sembia is famous for its greedy bazaar folk, the DM gave a +2 circumstance bonus.
|
I'm very curious to see regulated games like at a convention or from the RPGA change from:
Convince the King: Either Diplomacy 20 or Bluff 25
Escape from the Guards: One of Hide 15, Climb 18, or Speed>30
Search for Clues: Gather Information 25 or Search <In a very specific spot> 18to
Skill Challenge
Success: 7
Failure: 4
Easy: 11
Normal: 15
Hard: 19or, shorthanded probably more like
SkC 7/4; 11/15/19and note that could work for all of those tasks, and switches it from a static gameplay element to 'Let us cooperatively make a story'.
I kinda like how as a DM that little line can easily prompt the entire group being involved in making a story and heavy roleplay, rather than the default one person has the skill and makes a check while the rest cheerlead them on (or not)
How does it make that change?
Very seriously, what element will make players actually tell a story instead of just making die rolls?And what will happen if the players do not have, or are not willing to engage, in such storytelling?
This is the issue that is constantly handwaved away in every discussion of how "new" (or in this case rather old but rephrased) mechanics will usher in a grand new age of player involvement and immersive roleplaying.
In the end, you still have just a bunch of numbers that must be rolled on a die with some modifiers. Those players already inclined to roleplay will happily provide the flavor text to go along with their die roll. Those players not so inclined will still hesitate, no matter how "easy" anyone assures them it is to join in the "fun". And of course those who just want to kill stuff will tell the DM to quit the yakkin and get to the hackin!
It also blithely ignores that while it can be tedious when only one person has a skill that must be used over and over, it is equally distressing when anybody can use any skill to resolve every task, and nobody ever sees any reason their particular skill is special.
What happens to the fun of "I saved us with my extensive knowledge of Late Migration Transcultural Translations!" when anyone else can reply with "I could have done the same by showing off my totally combat oriented tumbling skill." and "Big deal, I could have just made up something about my background and rolled some random skill and done it." When everything has the same effect, it takes all of the value out of creating a truly unique background.
Perhaps, in the interest of the discussion, you could try to provide an example of what you think 4e is going to provide?
Sure.
I'd like to be able to say "This is the situation, the party is level 5, and I want this to be worth 1,000 exp." Then the system tells me how many skill checks I should expect, how many successes are needed before how many failures, and what kind of penalties or bonuses are appropriate at that level. Finally some suggestions of level-appropriate penalties for failure (imprisonment? death? fines? How are you supposed to punish people for failing a skill challenge?)
Beyond that, the system should provide a balanced but flexible way of letting successes build on each other, rewarding players who do daring and risky things, while not overly punishing people who are careful and cautious.
I'm not sure 4e is going to provide that, but I'm pretty sure that's what they want the skill challenge system to do.
Erm... right, so that would be a mix between Hide, Climb, and Balance most likely (with a possible bonus to Hide or even an automatic success if some PCs create a diversion for the climbing characters)?
I am not sure in what way the 4E "skill challenge" will help you with that. Then again, perhaps your answer to the question above (what do you expect this 4E skill challenge to be) will help me better understand your point of view.
In 3.5 I can easily figure out the appropriate skill checks for all those pieces. What 3.5 doesn't do is give me a way to tie all those together seamlessly. It kind of sounds like 4e will.
I really, really liked Pedr's comments that the 4e skill challenge system is a conflict resolution versus task resolution system, it really crystallizes some thoughts that I've had regarding the system.
One thing that struck me about the system when I first heard about it during DDXP was that it was another reflection of 4e's apparent design goal that you should try to actively involve as many of the players as you possibly can during the action by utilizing their individual abilities. Not only does it allow all of the PCs to be actively engaged (and IMO, think outside the box), but it also allows optimized PCs to really shine. For example, a face PC optimized to have an extremely high Diplomacy check could try to make the harder DC check and really help out the rest of the party. Personally, I find this more satisfying than PCs either sitting out the situation because they lack the necessary ranks in a skill or using the Aid Another Action.
Personally, I find this more satisfying than PCs either sitting out the situation because they lack the necessary ranks in a skill or using the Aid Another Action.
One of my least favorite Living Greyhawk memories is the sheer number of modules that required you to hit some arbitrary diplomacy check to advance the plot. These would inevitably devolve to having to drag a diplo-cannon* on every mod, and everyone stoically rolling their aid another while the designated face rolled their +35 diplomacy against whatever arbitrary DC was in the module.
* Favorite diplo-cannon build? Half-elf cleric/marshall with Motivate Charisma and the Community and Mind domains. +26 on diplomacy checks at 2nd level, and that's with just a 16 Charisma! Throw an Eagle's Splendor on them and by the rules they've got a 30% chance of turning any hostile enemies friendly with a rushed diplomacy check**.
** This is why 3.5 diplomacy sucks.
|
|
One of the things that floored me after I got back from D&D Experience was that it was widely called less RPy and more wargame/boardgame/ccg-y, when my own interpretation was that it was much less wargamey and much more story based. I talked about this a little in the thread about if another publisher had put out 4E as something else.
I think that was more a function of how the scenarios were written, than a function of the rules. I played Escape from Sembia and aside from the skill challenge (which is somewhat roleplay), there was no opportunities written into the scenario for interaction - it was pretty much five different encounters written back to back. Scalegloom Hall was the same way, although it was simply five combat encounters.
In a tournament / demo setting, its easy to demonstrate new rules. Its harder to get strangers playing unfamiliar characters to roleplay. Thus the focus on the combat mechanics.
The point of the whole journal post wasn't that skill challenges were something new or something you couldn't do before. In fact, I explicitly say that. Rather, the point is that I like that the non-combat encounter section of the game not only becomes more about resolving a scene using skills and roleplaying rather than individual tasks, and also makes it a core assumption and expected part of the game.
Nowhere did I claim it was that revolutionary, but I do think it's clearer and easier to use, and opens up a lot of possibilities for interesting scenes involving every character.
To draw a parallel to 3E, the DMG's section on skills mentions some stuff about using multiple skill checks. I just read over the example of the night's watch, which requires you to make 3 Listen checks, one for each segment of the watch. OK, that's functional. What 4E does is provides a simple and accessible framework for making that night's watch into a non-combat encounter that involves multiple characters rather than just 3 straight-up Listen checks. Like I say, it's an evolution of the concept, not something radically new. My personal opinion is that the non-combat encounter system takes some great ideas and makes them easier to adjudicate, and helps involve multiple characters in creative ways.
Thanks Rodney. :-) It's always nice to have you come in and clarify. What you said makes a lot of sense.
Thanks Rodney. :-) It's always nice to have you come in and clarify. What you said makes a lot of sense.
I have to echo this.
I've been pretty Pro 4th Edition this weekend, but I'm still neutral.
(Buying 4th edition in fact, but not cancelling Pathfinder if it remains 3.5)
Nevertheless, everything that came out of Rodney's post and this thread, basically ended up as a positive in 4th Edition's favor.
You know... I think it's an insidious plot, but I have a lot of trouble not instinctively liking anything that Elan says.
Subtle avatar tricks, indeed.
Maybe I shouldn't be a gruesome aberration covered in eyeballs that destroys and enslaves characters. Hmm.
You know... I think it's an insidious plot, but I have a lot of trouble not instinctively liking anything that Elan says.
Subtle avatar tricks, indeed.
Maybe I shouldn't be a gruesome aberration covered in eyeballs that destroys and enslaves characters. Hmm.
Everyone thinks I'm yelling all the time ...
Everyone thinks I'm yelling all the time ...You know... I think it's an insidious plot, but I have a lot of trouble not instinctively liking anything that Elan says.
Subtle avatar tricks, indeed.
Maybe I shouldn't be a gruesome aberration covered in eyeballs that destroys and enslaves characters. Hmm.
I'm just surprised no one has picked up on the fact that I'm a fantasy version of the Hooters logo.
Go Seoni. :)
You know... I think it's an insidious plot, but I have a lot of trouble not instinctively liking anything that Elan says.
Subtle avatar tricks, indeed.
Maybe I shouldn't be a gruesome aberration covered in eyeballs that destroys and enslaves characters. Hmm.
One day, all will heed the call of Banjulhu.
|
|
The point of the whole journal post wasn't that skill challenges were something new or something you couldn't do before. In fact, I explicitly say that. Rather, the point is that I like that the non-combat encounter section of the game not only becomes more about resolving a scene using skills and roleplaying rather than individual tasks, and also makes it a core assumption and expected part of the game.
Nowhere did I claim it was that revolutionary, but I do think it's clearer and easier to use, and opens up a lot of possibilities for interesting scenes involving every character.
That is true, you did not claim it was anything new.
It is only some 4E supporters that continue to make that claim, and thus invite rebuttal on the point.However, you did say certain other things that I would be interested in hearing the answer to.
You wrote:
"However, unless a skill check was specifically called out in the adventure, most adventures leaned back on the hard-coded skill DCs and results in the skills chapter. The difference isn't that you can do these things in 4th Edition, but that the default assumption in 4th Edition is that players should and will find creative solutions to problems, and the rules are designed not only to allow the DM to fairly adjudicate those assumptions but also to reward players for doing so."
I ask again, how?
In what way will a rephrasing of the rules actually achieve making players do and DMs allow such things?
This is very much a player preference and not a rules issue.
4E does not just make it a rules issue though:
"Building in the possibility of success when roleplaying puts the potential of reward out there for the players, but giving the Dungeon Master the tools to determine the outcome of playing one's role is just as important. In my mind, if a game is to encourage roleplaying, it should do so by rewarding the players, making it easy for the Dungeon Master to adjudicate (and, by extension, plan for and design adventures around), and not punish the players too much (some is fine) when they make a roleplaying choice instead of a victory choice. I think 4E does this well, though you won't be able to believe me until you play the game."
In this case it is not that I do not believe you about how the 4E system works, but that I know it is an exceptionally bad idea to set up a system where the DM can punish players for not roleplaying the way he wants them to. Hardwired carrot-and-stick rules to "encourage" roleplaying will inevitably devolve into carrot-and-stick rules for the DM to order players to play the way he wants.
My personal opinion is that I will absolutely hate the first time a DM decides he does not like my explanation for how I use a skill and decides to "punish" me for making a roleplaying choice.
Also, that rather contradicts:
"Unless you believe Andrew Finch's assertion that roleplaying is just making sub-optimal choices (which I don't), victory and roleplaying should not be mutually exclusive."
I do not believe that. I believe every roleplaying choice should always be a victory choice. But if the rules actually punish the players "some" for making a roleplaying choice instead of a victory choice, that is precisely the view they are promoting, and not merely through a suggested course of action, but through actual hardwired mechanics that DM can use against the players.
It is only some 4E supporters that continue to make that claim, and thus invite rebuttal on the point.
For what it's worth, I totally agree that you _could_ adopt this rule to 3.x, and I think it would be a good idea.
It is a new rule for 3.x, however.
Just like action points were a new rule for Eberron, and hero points for Arcana Unearthed, or the druid shapeshift variant from PHB2. You can do _anything_ with the system, and lord knows people _do_, but that doesn't make it the core rules for the game.
I'm a little unclear on why it matters what skills a character has, if any character can use any skill in any situation (given a good enough explanation). They seem to lose their usefulness in distinguishing one character from another.
One of my favorite social skill systems was in Shadowrun 1st Edition. Instead of breaking social skills down by what you were trying to do, it broke them down by subculture: so you would have gang etiquette or corporate etiquette or Native etiquette.
Sometimes this meant that all of the characters *did* get to participate, though they'd have to try different approaches: one character pumping her corporate contacts for information, another putting out feelers among the motorcycle gangs.
Sometimes it meant that one PC got a chance to shine, as when the PCs trespassed on the turf of a biker gang. I liked it that the character with gang etiquette was a lot better in that situation than anyone else. It gave him flavor. I don't mind having my PC be less than totally useful sometimes, if it means he gets to be in the spotlight at other times. The whole "you have to be useful *always*" idea isn't really right for me.
Of course, it may be that not all skills are really usable in all situations: you have to convince the GM. This is like the card game "Apples to Apples." I don't like it much as a roleplaying game: it puts too much emphasis on the player's ability to fast-talk the GM. Players who are not articulate are likely to be frustrated.
Mary
|
|
I don't like it much as a roleplaying game: it puts too much emphasis on the player's ability to fast-talk the GM. Players who are not articulate are likely to be frustrated.
It is that very type of exchange that have been a great seed for some of the most engaging role playing I have been a part of.
When the GM asks why, the player then needs to explain why his or her character should be able to pull it off. That can lead to some fantastic character development.
I guess, for me, the more flexible and less defined the rules the more opportunity there is to role play.
The real difference in 3.5 and 4E skills is the scope of each skill. 4E skills seem to represent broad competencies rather than narrowly defined skills. In 3.5 a character with a high hide skill but a low move silently skill cannot be said to be really stealthy just really good at hiding. In 4E a good stealth roll can cover both and then some.
In 4E it will be easier to improvise skill use because the definition of each skill is broad.
This can go too far, and is entirely a personal preference. Some groups like having a three-page skill list; others say the fewer skills, the better.
I was having a conversation about skills with a friend of mine just the other day. He likes the use of skills in roleplaying situations, and wishes there were more of them; so many situations in D&D are glossed over with a skill roll (especially diplomacy). He mentioned that it would be probably be heresy in the D&D game to just resolve all combats with a "Fightin'" skill.
DM: Ten zombie minions and a vampire approach you. Roll Fightin'
Player 1: Hey, Jim's character has the best Fightin' skill. We all aid him.
Jim: I get a 23. With assists, that's 27.
DM: Okay, the vampire only gets a Fightin' of 24, even with assists from his minions. You win, but it's within 5, so everyone takes 15 points of damage. Does that kill anyone? No? Okay, moving on...
|
DM: Ten zombie minions and a vampire approach you. Roll Fightin'
Player 1: Hey, Jim's character has the best Fightin' skill. We all aid him.
Jim: I get a 23. With assists, that's 27.
DM: Okay, the vampire only gets a Fightin' of 24, even with assists from his minions. You win, but it's within 5, so everyone takes 15 points of damage. Does that kill anyone? No? Okay, moving on...
So how come it can't be 10 vampire minions and a zombie master, eh? We don't get no respect!
So how come it can't be 10 vampire minions and a zombie master, eh? We don't get no respect!DM: Ten zombie minions and a vampire approach you. Roll Fightin'
Player 1: Hey, Jim's character has the best Fightin' skill. We all aid him.
Jim: I get a 23. With assists, that's 27.
DM: Okay, the vampire only gets a Fightin' of 24, even with assists from his minions. You win, but it's within 5, so everyone takes 15 points of damage. Does that kill anyone? No? Okay, moving on...
Because Vampires have a better base Fightin' skill, and zombies give a better Fightin' bonus when minions. Sorry to go all min-max on you, Aberzombie!
|
Before the player says, "Haley stows her short bow, looks for a nearby cloak to steal, moves to hide among the crowd and makes for the roof line when out of sight of the guards" and now the DM calls for a knowledge (local), spot, slight of hand, disguise (opposed by guard's spot), and a jump or climb check and sets all the DC based on what he knows about the market (or what he has described up to this point or is in the pre-written mod, hopefully). Hopefully Haley's player has ranks in all of these skills or there is going to be a high chance that one or more of these will fail killing the mood (yes, you can provide modifiers and such but its very mechanical and some judges on autopilot would actually go into combat rounds to adjudicated each action instead of have the player take 10 or roll each one)
As DM I would only let Haley make important Skill checks. knowlege (local) is not important. Stealing a cloak I let her take 10. Disguise, well that is important. The Climb check might use a take 10.
Now the player knows his PC's motivations and abilities and thinks, well I was a street urchin and I have skills in athletics and thievery and thus, I know the best way to avoid the town guard is to quickly change my appearance and try to slip unnoticed to the roof to rapidly move towards the town walls. She now says, "Haley recalls her hardscrabble life on the streets as an urchin, and looks for a nearby shawl or cloak to make a quick change in appearance so has to blend with the crowd and when out of sight in an alleyway will make for the roof and freedom." The player declares what level of success she wants to attain (setting the DC for her level) trading chance of success for a lesser or greater result and which relevant skills she has to do them with (it could be multiple skills but based upon the PC's abilities) and rolls. The judge merely makes sure that the narrative does not conflict with something established by him or a previous PC and confirms that the stakes are appropriate to the result.
Exept that nothing prevents good ole Haley to roll a 1 on the Skill chalange in 4th edition.
I can see why the new skill system sits well with a lot of groups. I will try it out as a player, but I think that I am too much simulist to like it very much.
|
|
I'm a little unclear on why it matters what skills a character has, if any character can use any skill in any situation (given a good enough explanation). They seem to lose their usefulness in distinguishing one character from another.
...
Of course, it may be that not all skills are really usable in all situations: you have to convince the GM. This is like the card game "Apples to Apples." I don't like it much as a roleplaying game: it puts too much emphasis on the player's ability to fast-talk the GM. Players who are not articulate are likely to be frustrated.
I don't think that all skills are supposed to be all things, I think the skill challenge is just supposed to be an opportunity for characters to be able to try different things without being tied down to one approach. There will still be situations where your ability to use a single skill will determine success or failure, but those will be specific circumstances (i.e. sometimes, you just have to climb the wall and no amount of smooth talking the bricks is going to help).
Skill challenges aren't 'Remember to use Listen', they're 'Improvise cool uses for your skills that aren't necessarily covered by the rules or listed in the adventure'. You could adopt the skill challenge rules to 3e right now, but they're _definitely_ new rules.
Yeah, basically you just want to take one skill and stack up all your points on that. Because you can always come up with a creative solution using that skill. Even at DDXP you were allowed any skill to avoid the guards.
...so why even have skills at that point?|
|
This can go too far, and is entirely a personal preference. Some groups like having a three-page skill list; others say the fewer skills, the better.
I agree. My favorite system is Chaosium's d100 - RunQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, etc.
There skills are very specific but characters are not as limited in their skill choice and there are no levels and skill points to spend. The skills you actually use are the ones that improve over time.
The reason I see broad skills as better for D&D is the whole skill points per level thing. If 4E had stayed with a narrow skill list then they would have needed to provide a better method for skill selection and improvement.
So yes, I agree that specific can be better but my opinion is that 3.5 did not implement it properly and it lost some of its value.
|
|
Skill challenges aren't 'Remember to use Listen', they're 'Improvise cool uses for your skills that aren't necessarily covered by the rules or listed in the adventure'. You could adopt the skill challenge rules to 3e right now, but they're _definitely_ new rules.Yeah, basically you just want to take one skill and stack up all your points on that. Because you can always come up with a creative solution using that skill. Even at DDXP you were allowed any skill to avoid the guards.
...so why even have skills at that point?
It seems to me that the "how" of the skill challenge can have story implications and role playing opportunities. It creates a differentiation engine that can drive all kinds of plot twists and unexpected results.
|
|
So yes, I agree that specific can be better but my opinion is that 3.5 did not implement it properly and it lost some of its value.
Amazing how many things about 3.5 this statement is true for...
Skill Points
Prestige Classes
Multiclassing...:Evilgrin:
I actually like the multiclassing and prestige classes in 3.5. I am worried that 4E will not have as flexible a system.
This is one of the things on my figurative (not literal, Sebastian) 4E watch list.
Yeah, basically you just want to take one skill and stack up all your points on that. Because you can always come up with a creative solution using that skill. Even at DDXP you were allowed any skill to avoid the guards.
...so why even have skills at that point?
Well not even in 3e can you just dump all your points into one skill, unless you only get one skill point a level.
I don't think the skill challenge mechanic in 4e is designed to make all skills essentially the same skill. Even in the preview adventures there were different skills used. Perception to notice a hiding monster, Athletics to jump over a trap. So there are places in the adventure where certain skills are called for.
I think the idea behind the skill challenge system is to encourage the DM to take lengthy sections of an adventure where only characters with a certain skill can contribute and replace them with more freeform sections where everybody is encouraged to do at least something. Depending on what the goal is, characters with certain skills may be more important than others, but others are encouraged to describe how their character is helping the effort by applying their strengths to the task.
Too many times in, for example Living Greyhawk, a skill check would devolve into the character with the best modifier rolling while everybody else just assisted untrained. I'd like to try the new method and see if it helps people get into character and roleplay a little more.
In other words, to make the game more like BECMI/1st Edition? :evilgrin:
Is that a bad thing? I definitely think 4E is keeping a lot of things learned from 3e and returning a lot of cool things lost along the way. I salute cherry picking the best parts of BECMI _and_ 3.x
No, it's not a BAD thing, but they're trying to push it like it's an innovation.
The problem is the INNOVATION was the mistake, not the original idea... :D
So what you are saying is the base mechanics are fine (or they were fine when they were originally made in a previous edition/game) but how they present it completely invalidated the approach? I guess I am confused by your assertion.
Wait, what was the innovation and what was the original idea?
Could you give me a concrete example to illustrate your position?
Thanks,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
In regards to boosting one Skill above all others and then using that Skill alone to solve all Skill Challenges, is this realistically possible now?
Well, I imagine that it's possible, but is can a Skill be boosted to such a degree, now? In 4E Skills are Trained and un-Trained. I'm not aware of too many options, other than the obvious Feat or two, that will allow Skills to be boosted that far beyond a character's OTHER Skills.
I'm really hoping they stick with the goal of not allowing too many things to stack. Stacking is partly what killed the high level game for me before. +1 luck bonus, +2 natural bonus, +1 divine bonus, +5 enhancement bonus, +1 Focus, +2 synergy bonus, etc. It wasn't always that bad, of course, but I had to constantly reference my players' sheets for which bonuses they were stacking and what they weren't. Man, did they get creative with their stacking. And then I'd have to stack my monsters, but that was easier, as I would just add a generic +12 DM-Is-Pissed Bonus to everything.
But that's just a personal pet-peeve.
Too many times in, for example Living Greyhawk, a skill check would devolve into the character with the best modifier rolling while everybody else just assisted untrained. I'd like to try the new method and see if it helps people get into character and roleplay a little more.
The two items are separate. You can assist untrained, and still roleplay your action. It depends on how much roleplaying you want to do. Even a casual statement like "Hey, I'll search over between the bed and the desk and let you know if I find anything strange." with a side note to the DM "I'm assisting his Search check" adds a little bit of roleplaying to an assist. I have a bravo character with few skills, but insists he's good at *everything* in-character (look around? Sure, I'm good at searching. Pilot the ship? Yeah, I can do that.). Getting his assist is a roleplaying challenge!
Living Greyhawk's problem is the formulaic three-fights-and-a-bag-of-gold mentality, which encouraged players to get on to the fights so they could get through the fights and get their AR. This is why the simple mechanic of "I'll just aid him" is so commonplace there, I think. And I don't expect this to get any better in LFR.
Finally, there's something to be said for the "I'll just aid him" mechanic. At least it keeps all the players paying attention and contributing even in some minor way. Without that, some players wouldn't find any reason at all to even pay attention while the rogue searches for secret doors.
The two items are separate. You can assist untrained, and still roleplay your action. It depends on how much roleplaying you want to do. Even a casual statement like "Hey, I'll search over between the bed and the desk and let you know if I find anything strange." with a side note to the DM "I'm assisting his Search check" adds a little bit of roleplaying to an assist. I have a bravo character with few skills, but insists he's good at *everything* in-character (look around? Sure, I'm good at searching. Pilot the ship? Yeah, I can do that.). Getting his assist is a roleplaying challenge!Living Greyhawk's problem is the formulaic three-fights-and-a-bag-of-gold mentality, which encouraged players to get on to the fights so they could get through the fights and get their AR. This is why the simple mechanic of "I'll just aid him" is so commonplace there, I think. And I don't expect this to get any better in LFR.
Finally, there's something to be said for the "I'll just aid him" mechanic. At least it keeps all the players paying attention and contributing even in some minor way. Without that, some players wouldn't find any reason at all to even pay attention while the rogue searches for secret doors.
I don't know, I find the "aid another" mechanic kind of boring. Now, I'm all for assisting others and teamwork benefits, but the "aid another" mechanic basically boils down to a 50-50 (probably better) chance of granting someone else a +2 circumstance bonus to their check. Since there is no disincentive to doing it (at least according to the RAW), no matter how badly you bungle the check, I think it becomes kind of rote. I would hope that if 4e introduces a similar system, there is at least some "risk" being made to the decision.
The two items are separate. You can assist untrained, and still roleplay your action. It depends on how much roleplaying you want to do. Even a casual statement like "Hey, I'll search over between the bed and the desk and let you know if I find anything strange." with a side note to the DM "I'm assisting his Search check" adds a little bit of roleplaying to an assist. I have a bravo character with few skills, but insists he's good at *everything* in-character (look around? Sure, I'm good at searching. Pilot the ship? Yeah, I can do that.). Getting his assist is a roleplaying challenge!
I completely agree that you can roleplay an assist. And I agree with the fact that aiding is better than nothing.
I just think that structuring these kinds of skill checks differently so that you can use different skills as long as they're applicable, and so that there's more than one check necessary to succeed helps people roleplay things out more and adds some incentive to roleplaying. That is, being able to use skills that your character is good at to assist in a combined check helps keep you in the mindset of a character who is good at something, not just a player at the table who can roll a die, like untrained assistance checks can be.
And while I'm not totally sold on it yet, I think the multiple successes needed to succeed may be more dramatic and interesting than just rolling one die and adding up all the assists and the main character's skill bonus. But, this is something I'd like to play more of to form a better opinion on.
That said, I do have some concerns. If you can just use any skill in any situation, the fighter saying "I use my Endurance skill" may become the new "I assist." I hope this won't be the case. From looking at the DDXP fastplay characters, it looks like every character has at least 4 trained skills, so hopefully people will at least pick the most applicable of those 4. And the way skills automatically advance in 4th edition should mean that mathematically, even if you have to use a skill you're untrained in, you're better off using that skill to try to get a "success" in the encounter than just using it to assist a trained character.
I also share Mary's concern earlier in the thread that the system will just reward those most capable of fast-talking the GM into allowing their skill use. Still, thinking of how your character would deal with a situation they're not perfectly trained in should, in some way or another, fall under the definition of "roleplaying", so it might not be a bad idea to reward that in a roleplaying game.