|
Off the top of my head, probably the complete lack of pretty much anything outside of tactical miniature combat in the core rulebooks. I say this as someone who happily purchased all three of the books, and played with them for a while, before shelving them and returning to 3.x and then Pathfinder, because I wanted to play an RPG.
Thanks for your response, but I think you may have broadened my original question :) I was curious how a Twitter book tie in competition and some NPC stats and a sample encounter for Elminster made 4e more of a board game.
But to address your views on 4e - I strongly disagree. Whilst I myself have been frustrated in some of the powers' focus on use in combat (notably short durations e.g. Sleep spell) there is plenty in the core books to help players and GMs create stories that involve not only combat but exploration, social scheming and investigation.
Indeed I have even quoted the 4e DMG in a discussion about Call of Cthulhu versus Trail of Cthulhu (basically saying that CoC could do with having some of the advice that the 4e DMG had in it).
I would be particularly interested to know what stuff you think PF has that makes it a roleplaying game that you feel 4e lacks - but this is likely not the place for such a debate. If you do want to pursue this please feel free to create a new thread.
|
Ever tried to use the p. 42 table based upon the level of the task? Thus pushing a great dragon being lvl 30 task and so on? The same could be for the 'level' of the terrain feature. Thus torch being something like levl 1-5 would cause that measly low fire damage and a reasonably sized bonfire would be tad more effective...
EDIT: I think the basic misconception about 4E rules is that the challenge/task/whatever level is based upon the party (not that the books really help in this matter). That thing is set separately in the challenge design process and the rules just suggest the difficulty (easy 1 level below party, normal equal to the party, 1-3 difficult, more = either impassable or deadly). Lava still does horrendous damage, but it should be appropriately high level. The table on p. 42 just shows what are roughly reasonable numbers for characters on level X, but that doesn't mean that the characters can't encounter something that is widely off. That table helps to set difficulties, but by no means it should be used ALWAYS.
Ok, so if I'm running a game, I should not use lava as a consideration until higher levels when the damage fits with the effects? What if I wanted to run a game where the party is fighting orcs during a point where a nearby volcano has erupted, and lava is sliding down through the battlefield? I've ran a game much like this (it was, however, gnolls instead of orcs).
Also, dungeons with lava or molten metal in giant forges and such. How about these? How much damage should these do if someone lands in them at 3rd level? How much at 30th? What if they have a ring of fire resistance? How hot is this compared to a dragon's breath or a torch, or a wizard's fireball?
The 4e mechanics for stuff like this are really quite different to previous editions. If I was doing your scenario as noted above, one approach would be to make the lava a hazard (a bit like a trap, with attack rolls, per the 4e rules) or maybe a bit of terrain (as also set out in the rules). As for the damage, I'd look on the chart for damage (as set out in the 4e rules) and take it from there. Maybe I'd combine the approaches. As an encounter, it would work quite well with all the push, pull and slide powers. The rules for this stuff, as pointed out above, are level-dependent rather than being set in stone. Is that good or bad? Depends on your approach, but at least you are less likely to off the party accidentally by giving them something entirely out of their league. Unless you want to.
|
|
But I still don't like the direction WotC is going...even more so than back when 4th ed was annouced...it just seems to me with anything going on they are catering more and more to gamers notr like me
I can sympathise with this, TBH the way WotC are taking D&D now doesn't gel with me either, but then there are plenty of other games out there where I don't fit the target market (games like Hot War, Beat to Quarters and Eclipse Phase to name a few) - but that is cool, there are plenty of other games out there to enjoy.
...which I see as a graster threat to that community of all RPGers than people venting on the boards. I think WotC created alot of this...dissention by the way they market...how they word things and silly ideas like the Tweeter contest and thos non-canon encounters. So I will continue to critize them on that front as it is something I would like to change.
And while I can see that it may be frustrating realising that the new edition of a game you once enjoyed is no longer being designed and marketed to appeal to you, I think you may be over egging it to think that this is a great threat to the community of all RPGers.
Do you see the "indie" movement also being a threat to the RPG community because it does not necessarily appeal to some people? Do you see those who enjoy such indie games feeling that WotC's actions are a threat to the RPG community?
Maybe what WotC is doing does not appeal to you, but in the long run may actually get more players into the hobby? I honestly don't know, but the game still seems to be popular, as does PF.
Playing devil's advocate again, more than a few people think Paizo's "marketing" of PF was a little disingenuous too - it has been suggested that the whole open play test was really just a marketing ploy to get people to feel they have had some input when in reality no real input was paid attention to. I don't necessarily think that, and I doubt that the playtests are run so cynically.
I personally take issue with Paizo and the direction they went with Pathfinder, to the point that I have engaged in a bit of nerdrage too (I actually swore in a post on RPG.net because of it). However, I try to remain objective about the PF RPG and its contents even though I am not its biggest fan. I also can admit to the good things Paizo have done with the RPG. I always feel balanced criticism is more likely to be read, digested and considered than something that comes across as a rant.
I think if you feel such Twitter competitions etc are a threat to your enjoyment of the RPGs you like (presumably including PF) I suggest that you may want to articulate with a bit more clarity exactly why you believe so. Saying such things make 4e more and more of a board game just doesn't seem to do your opinions justice.
Ok, so if I'm running a game, I should not use lava as a consideration until higher levels when the damage fits with the effects?
Generally yes - you should avoid lava if at all possible until significantly higher levels as its too dangerous to be in the environment with all the push type effects in the game.
What if I wanted to run a game where the party is fighting orcs during a point where a nearby volcano has erupted, and lava is sliding down through the battlefield? I've ran a game much like this (it was, however, gnolls instead of orcs).Also, dungeons with lava or molten metal in giant forges and such. How about these? How much damage should these do if someone lands in them at 3rd level? How much at 30th? What if they have a ring of fire resistance? How hot is this compared to a dragon's breath or a torch, or a wizard's fireball?
Your the DM - you get to decide.
That said if you really must have a rules designer decide for you then, according to the Compendium there is an example of a Lava Pool and, in the adventure it was in, it was a 19th level Hazard (to low in my personal estimation).
PDK, as a lover of the Realms I simply refuse to acknowledge what WoTC did to them. They have this desire to destroy other peoples work for some reason, did the same thing to Krynn. >:/
Although I detest Elminster, this is just stupid. But I expect their handling of FR to be nothing but. Besides I have enough Realms material going all the way back to box set to keep me and MY Realms going for a loooooooooong time. :D
+1
I'm just voting with my dollars; WotC will never see another penny of my money.
|
|
I pretty much disagree on the statement that the 4E DMG is the bag of chips Aubrey describes.
Thanks for a well written post! And whilst I still tend to disagree with you, I can see that what you would like out of 4e isn't necessarily what it delivers.
I personally enjoyed reading the 4e DMG much more than the 3.5 DMG - I just remember the 3.5 DMG going into escruitating detail about the types of terrain and its mechanical effects, but the thing I remember most about the 4e DMG is the great advice on conveying information to your players and its concise explanation of the different types of campaigns.
Obviously my memories of both books are skewed to what had most impact on me, but hopefully it can show that different people can get different things out of the same books. I feel it does a good basic job as a GM guide, and the DMG2 for 4e contains even more great stuff including collaborative campaign creation (not surprising as one of its authors is Robin D Laws).
As for the door thing though - yep I can 100% agree with you on there now that I have looked it up. Some Resistance rating for certain materials may have been better than a HP multiplier - good point :)
Actually, no. Yes, that's a very bad layout and no real description (really, I was very disappointed with the 4E DMG and reading it) but I was actually speaking in terms of the very similar rules for unusual actions found on page 42; which essentially say to use a DC and damaging effect based on the level of the character.So if I want to swing on a rope an push a kobold into a fire at 1st level, the DC might be 15 and deal 2d6+3 fire damage, but if I'm level 8 it'll be DC 20 and 2d8+5 fire damage, and if I'm pushing Orcus into the fire at 30th level, it's DC 30 for 4d8+10 fire damage.
It lacks anything resembling internal consistency. It doesn't have to be a fire either. I could be kicking them into spikes, or dropping a chandalier on their heads, or any number of things; but it gets progressively harder as you gain levels, where it should get progressively easier. If I throw a molotov cocktail on you at 1st level in D&D/PF it might deal 1d6 damage and set you on fire for 1d6 damage per round until you douse yourself, but it's not going to suddenly deal lava damage. Why is swinging from a Chandalier DC 15 at 1st level, but DC 20 at 8th?
You have two options here and as a DM you can lean toward one or the other although most people use a mix.
In one case everything is in fact scaling. Look at the DC table again and you'll note that your characters are gaining skill points about as quickly as the DCs on the table is rising. Thats true for a character that does not have these specific ability's as their focus - if they do, that is if they are sinking points into the abilities upon which the skills are based off then the DCs are in fact getting easier as the character is picking up skills faster then the DC is rising.
End result is that swinging from a chandelier can be done by a 1st level character or a 10th level one...but its never trivial, swinging from chandeliers are never something that a character just automatically does perfectly. If your character is the wizard you had some shot at swinging from the Chandelier at 1st and you've pretty much got the same chance to do so at 10th. The Rogue, on the other hand sinks points into the relevant ability scores, so for him it is getting progressively easier - but again only by a fairly small margin - its not an automatic thing, it remains a kind of heroic stunt at every level.
Same deal with becoming a human torch - getting higher levels gives one all sorts of abilities, maybe even resistance to fire or some such if your a mage or have the right magic item but, presuming you don't then being a human torch is bad, there is never a point where being on fire is a trivial matter easily ignored as pretty much inconsequential. Essentially your hps are not meant to be a reflection of near invulnerability - they are a reflection of increased ability versus certain kinds of foes and not an invitation to take a short cut through the middle of the bonfire.
What you seem to see as internal inconsistency I see as something that adds certain level of consistency to an important element in the game. This is especially true in 4E since flying powers and such are few and far between and characters generally spend most of their time glued to the ground. The result is that even 15th level characters are going to seriously consider using that chandelier as a means to get across the ball room to the archers on the other side. Its, thus, very important that such stunts remain an exciting and compelling part of the game, if there is no risk of failure then there is, likewise, no real element of excitement when the players pull it off.
In the case of something like fire I'm looking for the opposite effect. I don't usually want them thinking 'I'll stand in the fire, the benefits I get from flanking easily outweighs the trivial amount of damage I'm taking'. It may be worth it to stand in fire...but the price of burning remains very high whatever the characters level so the game really needs to be worth the candle.
...
Ok, so if I'm running a game, I should not use lava as a consideration until higher levels when the damage fits with the effects? What if I wanted to run a game where the party is fighting orcs during a point where a nearby volcano has erupted, and lava is sliding down through the battlefield? I've ran a game much like this (it was, however, gnolls instead of orcs).
Also, dungeons with lava or molten metal in giant forges and such. How about these? How much damage should these do if someone lands in them at 3rd level? How much at 30th? What if they have a ring of fire resistance? How hot is this compared to a dragon's breath or a torch, or a wizard's fireball?
No, of course not :D That would be rather silly not to use higher level things. The rules don't say that you shouldn't use such things. They just show what's a light sting / solid blow at level X and that if you go waaay over that, the PCs will die rather quicklly or won't pass the test. In the other way saying that you should, as a GM, allow some way around or compensate for the adverse conditions. If they have a ring of fire resistance, they may just pass knee deep lava badly burned. Hovever taking a swim is, of course, certain death. It would be somewhat unfair thing if you for example forced PCs on a 10 ft wide dedge above lava that would kill them in one or two rounds and placed there a trap that would shove them in or enemies that can slide/push/something them over the edge with ease UNLESS you counted on having a lot of dead PCs there. The rules really just reccomend what to use to prevent accidental TPKs and other such negative experience, because they are made for use by beginners and people who want a challenge, not a meatgrinder. People who know whta they are doing are not limited to those at all. Just offered suggestions on what the inner mechanics were made to count upon as the game progresses. A lot of things are left upon DM's discretion with suggestions to keep DC for the same thing the same.
Technically it can be understood as something as trivial as "Don't advance the DCs for the same things, challenge your PCs with things that have progressively higher DCs."
If I am to return to the lava thing, then as a DM (game designer) you are just advised not to expect the only way to the objective leads through the lava pool unless you provide some way for PCs not to die there or to bypass it. If the PCs are dumb on the other hand, they may die without any problems (although suggestion would probably be to use shallower pool that would do high damage appropriate for party lvl+3, which they should take as a lession and as warning the pool could radiate heat (some lesser damage) to certain distance from it's bank, if they dive into it I would't hesitate to throw heavy lvl 20 damage on lvl 3 PCs - just suggestions that would save time if you didn't really want to look for everything in tables all across the book). If the PCs complained, it would be like they let themselves run over with a truck and later complained at hell's gate that it wasn't level appropriate.
|
|
On a similar note, why should I (level 1 Expert (maybe)) be killed from falling 200', but Chuck Norris (level 20 fighter) fall down, get up, dust himself down and move on? Why is that a good outcome, rules- and verisimilitude-wise? Hit points work (kind of) OK in combat, but not so well in 3.5/PF for stuff like this where it boils down more to physics and biology rather than skill and daring. The 4e rules accept the point that some damage will be relative to total hit points, rather than doing a set amount or damage - chances are that both me and Chuck would be equally badly hurt by falling a long way, or being dunked in acid or lava, or whathaveyou (i.e. up to 100% of hit points, as opposed to 20d6). The fact he has a load more hit points would be largely irrelevant, inasmuch as we accept that hit points are a weird abstraction at best for getting hurt.
What the 4e rules do is provide a framework, much more so than 3e which tended to legislate with a specific rule. Once you get your head around that aspect of 4e, it provides a lot more freedom and clarity than is necessarily the case with 3e, where you need to know what specific page stuff is written on. Whether you like that approach is a matter of taste.
|
|
PDK, as a lover of the Realms I simply refuse to acknowledge what WoTC did to them. They have this desire to destroy other peoples work for some reason, did the same thing to Krynn. >:/
Although I detest Elminster, this is just stupid. But I expect their handling of FR to be nothing but. Besides I have enough Realms material going all the way back to box set to keep me and MY Realms going for a loooooooooong time. :D
+1
I'm just voting with my dollars; WotC will never see another penny of my money.
[hugs] Its OK B.T. We will build a new roleplay setting. A better one. One where every PC and DM is a shareholder in what they contribute to in development...And it will be the greates roleplay setting ever.[/pats BT on back and walks off]
|
On a similar note, why should I (level 1 Expert (maybe)) be killed from falling 200', but Chuck Norris (level 20 fighter) fall down, get up, dust himself down and move on? Why is that a good outcome, rules- and verisimilitude-wise?
If you want to have a world with superhumans, it works fine. If you want a world that mimics the real world, not so much.
I think the best method for simulating highly lethal events (extreme falling, pit of acid, crushed by a boulder) should be the Save or Die. So long as you want PCs to have a serious chance of dying regardless of HP.
|
|
On a similar note, why should I (level 1 Expert (maybe)) be killed from falling 200', but Chuck Norris (level 20 fighter) fall down, get up, dust himself down and move on? Why is that a good outcome, rules- and verisimilitude-wise?If you want to have a world with superhumans, it works fine. If you want a world that mimics the real world, not so much.
I think the best method for simulating highly lethal events (extreme falling, pit of acid, crushed by a boulder) should be the Save or Die. So long as you want PCs to have a serious chance of dying regardless of HP.
Save or Die works in many of these situations.
Also (and this we did steal from MMO's) we started dealing percentage base damage on certain things like falling from heights and other such things where no matter your level ... your life's gonna suck.
I had a thought about changing falling damage to 1d6 percent of HP per ten feet. Didn't get much further than that. Have to fix the problem of falls not being deadly until over 150ft or so. Maybe change the die to d12s or something.
Isn't that what the massive damage rule is for? Seems like the fort save to avoid death from that could get pretty nasty after 50 feet.
|
|
By the time you are not very endagered by a fall, you are probably not very endangered by a massive damage save either. Save or die has always felt a tad binary, and only really applies on fatal falls. What about falls where you get damaged but don't die? Also, for reference, 4e uses d10s for falling damage, which is commensurately more dangerous as PC hit points don't go up so fast even if they start a bit higher.
And I think you are missing the more general point that damage in 4e scales by level rather than being set in stone. That has nothing to do with the binary outcomes of a save or die. The relative falling damage house-rule is more in keeping with 4e (dare I say it).
Off the top of my head, probably the complete lack of pretty much anything outside of tactical miniature combat in the core rulebooks.
...multiclassing pretty much doesn't exist in 4E...
Thank you for saving me the time I would have wasted reading anything else you have to say.
And one might wonder why this "s*%%" is still being said years after 4E was released.
Indeed.
You have two options here and as a DM you can lean toward one or the other although most people use a mix.
In one case everything is in fact scaling. Look at the DC table again and you'll note that your characters are gaining skill points about as quickly as the DCs on the table is rising. Thats true for a character that does not have these specific ability's as their focus - if they do, that is if they are sinking points into the abilities upon which the skills are based off then the DCs are in fact getting easier as the character is picking up skills faster then the DC is rising.
End result is that swinging from a chandelier can be done by a 1st level character or a 10th level one...but its never trivial, swinging from chandeliers are never something that a character just automatically does perfectly. If your character is the...
This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on this board - outstanding explanation.
This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on this board - outstanding explanation.
Agreed completely. That post put 4E into a whole new light for me. I'll have to go take a look at the core books again now :)
The problem with this is that the PCs don't visibly advance much in their ability to succeed (having to roll 10 on lvl 1 and 8 on lvl 15 is hardly that exciting, especially if it was to swim in still water). The DCs are sure good to advance, but the same chandelier should stay the same once the DC is set. The tasks should advance as well.
There is that. But unless you are putting the PCs through the same challenges at different levels, it shouldn't be that big a deal. And you can alter the DC anyway - you can make it hard, medium or easy - so the rules account for that. Hard at lower level, easy at higher.
One of the things the rules advise you not to do is to throw ever different DCs for similar things. Swimming on still watter should have the same difficulty on level 1 as on level 20, but level 20 character should show some difference from his lvl 1 self, shouldn't it? Wooden door are the same g@!$~&ned wooden door. On level 20 the thief IS a master of his trade and should be able to deal with those with ease (if they are to have high DC, they should have a good reason to be so, devious inner clockwork or something), not to have roughly the same chance and when he was wet behingd the ears, otherwise it's stealing the glory of leveling up in skills area or did you advance just in combat capability? Level 20 thief should be encountering arcane locked iron lockbox at that time as a challenge, things he wouldn't even consider while he was beginning. Lower tasks are there occasionally, but are just not trouble anymore.
The problem with this is that the PCs don't visibly advance much in their ability to succeed (having to roll 10 on lvl 1 and 8 on lvl 15 is hardly that exciting, especially if it was to swim in still water). The DCs are sure good to advance, but the same chandelier should stay the same once the DC is set. The tasks should advance as well.
Swimming in still water should be trivially easy at every level. Maybe some issue with being loaded down but that is about it.
The problem with leaving the Chandelier the same is that introduces some strange oddities...why is this Chandelier so much easier to use then the next? Baring some specific answer from the DM one Chandelier is pretty much the same as the next. There are none with training wheels but comparatively few with built in mouths and teeth as well.
In effect having the difficulty go from 10 to 8 really is that exciting since this is, in truth, all about the scene itself. This is part and parcel of our fantasy action movie simulator and its only fun if there is risk involved, especially in a scene where a chandelier as a method of transportation has come into play?
We load our 4E action scenes down with moving parts in order to have the characters (and sometimes the monsters) jumping and leaping around on them - its the jumping and leaping around on all the moving parts that is the fun bit. At its heart the fun is not found in the numbers (10+ to succeed versus 8+ to succeed), its found in the action scene itself. That is why we build such scenes and it'd be a crying shame if there came a PC level where the DM stopped putting this sort of thing into the adventure because it was so trivial that it no longer added to the fun and excitement at the table.
My point is every time your players sit down at the table they should have the potential to do 'the awesome' but, as a DM, you need to make sure that there is never a point where you are just giving 'the awesome' away - because the moment that happens it won't be awesome any more - it'll just be mundane.
The problem with this is that the PCs don't visibly advance much in their ability to succeed (having to roll 10 on lvl 1 and 8 on lvl 15 is hardly that exciting, especially if it was to swim in still water). The DCs are sure good to advance, but the same chandelier should stay the same once the DC is set. The tasks should advance as well.
That's one of the things that is misunderstood about 4E. The chart on DCs is abstract. If the DC for swimming in still water is 10, then that is a fine challenge for a low level adventurer. If you are designing a higher level challenge that involves swimming as a factor to the encounter, the DC should be higher, but the challenge should be swimming in a whirlpool or something equally dangerous.
The chart is to tell you what DC's are appropriate challenges for a group. If you are level 15, treading water in a calm pool is a non-roll.
When they made the switch to 4E and nuked the Realms in a giant magical storm-apocalypse, and then fast forwarded the Realms one hundred year in the future, this is when I switched to Golarion/Paizo.
Now, out of curiosity, I followed one of our fellow Paizo board members' link to the dreaded WotC website, where things come and go daily, and saw this:
WANTED: Elminster Must DieWinner: Congrats to Robert Jazo, the winner of our Elminster Must Die contest! The winning tweet that earned he and a guest a trip to Gen Con Indy 2011:
@WotC_Novels #elminster must die! At 1267 winters old he is personally responsible for bankrupting Social Security in the Realms.
Way to go, Robert! And thanks to all who participated in the contest. The judges had a lot of fun poring through all the tweets that came in to make the case on whether Ed Greenwood's famed Elminster should live or die. If you missed them, search for #elminster.
Yes folks, they held an "Elminster must die" tweet contest. I don't know about Mr. Greenwood, but if this was me, I'd be royally pissed and flip that company the bird whenever I could. What an utter lack of respect for an iconic character that has sustained TSR, WotC, Hasbro, etc. in a number of ways over the last 20 years.
I know some of you don't share my previous love for the Realms so I'll leave it at that... but regardless of the character itself and what happens to it in canon, I find WotC's attitude, promotions and general attitude towards this long-standing hobby AND towards one of their long-standing author a bit appalling, as everyone knows that Ed had a lot of fun with El over the years. Shame on them.
I too had a pretty deep love affair with the realms. Well, the 2nd edition Forgotten Realms anywyay, anything after that I could care less about.... but yeah what they did to the fluff was brutal.
Swinging from the chandelier sounds like a heroic tier stunt to me. By the time characters reach paragon tier, I would expect it to be an automatic pass.
One of the things the rules advise you not to do is to throw ever different DCs for similar things. Swimming on still watter should have the same difficulty on level 1 as on level 20, but level 20 character should show some difference from his lvl 1 self, shouldn't it? Wooden door are the same g!&*!#ned wooden door. On level 20 the thief IS a master of his trade and should be able to deal with those with ease (if they are to have high DC, they should have a good reason to be so, devious inner clockwork or something), not to have roughly the same chance and when he was wet behingd the ears, otherwise it's stealing the glory of leveling up in skills area or did you advance just in combat capability? Level 20 thief should be encountering arcane locked iron lockbox at that time as a challenge, things he wouldn't even consider while he was beginning. Lower tasks are there occasionally, but are just not trouble anymore.
But a level 20 rogue has picked up a bunch of bonus to these abilities.
First off he has sunk 6 points into the relevant ability, that is +3 right there, along the way he probably found a magic item that helps, call that another +2, so without really doing anything to emphasize his abilities in this area he's picked up +5, making the mundane locks a lot easier.
Now if he really does want to show that he is a master in this field then he needs to put his feats where his mouth is....drop a feat into Skill Focus - that says your a master and gives a nice +3 bringing our high level rogue up to a +8, still possible to fail but not likely.
That said we have not touched on one final element that high level parties have - rerolls. If its really that important to get through the door and your so unlucky as to roll a 1 well then you or some one in the party will have to use a reroll power so that you can do it again.
|
|
On a similar note, why should I (level 1 Expert (maybe)) be killed from falling 200', but Chuck Norris (level 20 fighter) fall down, get up, dust himself down and move on? Why is that a good outcome, rules- and verisimilitude-wise?If you want to have a world with superhumans, it works fine. If you want a world that mimics the real world, not so much.
I think the best method for simulating highly lethal events (extreme falling, pit of acid, crushed by a boulder) should be the Save or Die. So long as you want PCs to have a serious chance of dying regardless of HP.
A World of Minions...
Swinging from the chandelier sounds like a heroic tier stunt to me. By the time characters reach paragon tier, I would expect it to be an automatic pass.
I disagree but this is a matter of opinion and the system technically supports both styles of play. What we are really asking is 'what does going up in level represent'?
Are our characters striving and eventually becoming hero's along the lines of Zorro or James Bond? Or are they transforming into super hero's and demi-gods more akin to Hercules?
The DM and the players views in this regard fundamentally effect how you use the DC table. The original design would seem to have been one that leaned toward 'characters are hero's like Zorro'. Essentials does, however make explicit (it was always an option however), the possibility of assigning DCs levels and leaving them there - this is akin to the characters are blossoming Demi-Gods.
Oddly enough whats really being argued here is how one interacts with the more mundane elements of the world. James Bond or Hercules both have a shot at opening the Ice Locks of Hades, because that is a hard DC of 20th level and both the 20th level James Bond and the 20th level Hercules have skills that can pull this off - the same ones actually.
Its that chandelier that is where the real difference lies. If things are scaling then, as we established, hero style characters are either staying the same in relation to it (the wizard) or getting substantially better at it (the rogue - especially with magic and access to party reorlls).
The real difference here is in the demi-god style. If chandelier swinging is a static or set DC, especially a lower tier one then pretty soon its automatic for the rogue and a little bit later its automatic for the wizard as well.
Now personally I'm very much in favour of the scaling or heroic style of play as opposed to the demi-god style. For one thing its just a much more entertaining way to play the game, leaping around the battlefield is fun stuff and its fun stuff whether your fighting that Demon in an infernal factory in the Abyss or if its been summoned to a more mundane factory in the middle of the big city your here to defend.
I'd also note that the system already includes, so far as I can tell. what amounts to a demi-god stage as players move into epic level. By this point there are so many bonuses from magic and powers and so many things like rerolls or built in high rolls that the DM, if he wants to make the Ice Locks of Hades actually challenging is not using standard scaling hard DC anyway - he already has to add another +6 to the hard DC just to have some chance of stopping the players. In other words even the heroic style with scaling DCs, eventually, moves into things like chandelier swinging becoming trivial, its more of an argument about when this happens - is it trivial at 14th? Or more like 24th?
Swinging from the chandelier sounds like a heroic tier stunt to me. By the time characters reach paragon tier, I would expect it to be an automatic pass.
I pretty much agree with this.
If a particular terrain feature was used ten levels prior, I don't like the idea of just reusing it with a higher DC.
At 1st level, a leap over a ten foot wide, ten foot deep chasm is fine, but I would rather have a thirty foot wide, fifty foot deep chasm with a rushing river of lava waiting at the bottom at 30th level. I feel that beatable obstacles should become more impressive as you level. If I am facing the same obstacles at high levels as I was at low levels, that isn't exciting to me and it turns the awesome into mundane.
Swinging from the chandelier sounds like a heroic tier stunt to me. By the time characters reach paragon tier, I would expect it to be an automatic pass.I disagree but this is a matter of opinion and the system technically supports both styles of play. What we are really asking is 'what does going up in level represent?
Which is why the chart is abstract. Maybe you decide that swinging from a chandelier is an "easy" DC for paragon tier instead of a "medium" in heroic. 4E gives the GM a lot of leeway and tools to build what works for their game.
I think one of the biggest problems with 4E is that they had some good design ideas, but some of them are harder to master. They didn't do as good a job of showcasing them, particularly in early modules. I think the principals of designing interesting dynamic encounters are a good lesson that any GM should try to incorporate into any adventure game they play.
The problem with this is that the PCs don't visibly advance much in their ability to succeed (having to roll 10 on lvl 1 and 8 on lvl 15 is hardly that exciting, especially if it was to swim in still water). The DCs are sure good to advance, but the same chandelier should stay the same once the DC is set. The tasks should advance as well.That's one of the things that is misunderstood about 4E. The chart on DCs is abstract. If the DC for swimming in still water is 10, then that is a fine challenge for a low level adventurer. If you are designing a higher level challenge that involves swimming as a factor to the encounter, the DC should be higher, but the challenge should be swimming in a whirlpool or something equally dangerous.
The chart is to tell you what DC's are appropriate challenges for a group. If you are level 15, treading water in a calm pool is a non-roll.
This is what I was saying the whole time. The challenges must grow as well.
One of the things the rules advise you not to do is to throw ever different DCs for similar things. Swimming on still watter should have the same difficulty on level 1 as on level 20, but level 20 character should show some difference from his lvl 1 self, shouldn't it? Wooden door are the same g~&*&*ned wooden door. On level 20 the thief IS a master of his trade and should be able to deal with those with ease (if they are to have high DC, they should have a good reason to be so, devious inner clockwork or something), not to have roughly the same chance and when he was wet behingd the ears, otherwise it's stealing the glory of leveling up in skills area or did you advance just in combat capability? Level 20 thief should be encountering arcane locked iron lockbox at that time as a challenge, things he wouldn't even consider while he was beginning. Lower tasks are there occasionally, but are just not trouble anymore.But a level 20 rogue has picked up a bunch of bonus to these abilities.
First off he has sunk 6 points into the relevant ability, that is +3 right there, along the way he probably found a magic item that helps, call that another +2, so without really doing anything to emphasize his abilities in this area he's picked up +5, making the mundane locks a lot easier.
Now if he really does want to show that he is a master in this field then he needs to put his feats where his mouth is....drop a feat into Skill Focus - that says your a master and gives a nice +3 bringing our high level rogue up to a +8, still possible to fail but not likely.
That said we have not touched on one final element that high level parties have - rerolls. If its really that important to get through the door and your so unlucky as to roll a 1 well then you or some one in the party will have to use a reroll power so that you can do it again.
This is the matter of easy/normal/hard difficulty on certain level.
Essentials DM book specifically says that these difficulties are meant to challenge an untrained character/trained character/trained character with additional support, but that doesn't mean that the DC for one thing should be 10 on one level and 25 on another without a reason.
For example swinging on the chandelier, you've worked with won't be easy, but would be rather silly if the DC was derived from PC's level and thus the same chandelier to hit a kobold at level 1 and level 20 was just as hard. On level 20 I'd expect the kobold to be splated royally. The DC should be derived from the target's level IMO. Swinging on a chandelier to jump on a dragons should be harder than just swinging to hit measly gnoll. This way the DC scales, but reasonably with the task ahead, not with the PC and thus creating weird situations. This way a low level PC will swing the chandelier to land upon the dragon and the dragon will just ping it off while an epic hero might just succeed. DC for hitting an average kobold would thus be set (it's level), just like that calm water.
To elaborate a bit more on setting the DCs based upon level of the target. It's a bit of a WoW mindset. You know when there are zones in the game and the PCs can freely interact with them, but if they run into high level one the'll likely fail.
I suppose that the DC/damage/CR/whatever setting mechanism works in a similar way. First the level of the task ahead is set, which doesn't necessarily equal to the level of the party, but rather as a combination of challenge levels and sample skill tables. Then the DCs are roughly set from that (this helps DM to determine how wide the chasm would have to be, whether the pool of water would endanger the PCs or not if there was a posibility of falling in). A climb to Wyvern's lair for example could be safely set from monster's level or a bit higher (using difficult DC) working with an assumption that the monster would lair where it assumes it won't be disturbed from the ground (and probably finding whether the monster would lair on a sheer cliff or a massive tree). Thus lower level PCs could see the lair, but probably not reach it easily, while high level ones could easily make a living as wyvern exterminators/nest pickers, because they have already advanced enough to make the job safe enough. This way a measure of internal consistency could be maintained.
This is the matter of easy/normal/hard difficulty on certain level.
Essentials DM book specifically says that these difficulties are meant to challenge an untrained character/trained character/trained character with additional support, but that doesn't mean that the DC for one thing should be 10 on one level and 25 on another without a reason.
For example swinging on the chandelier, you've worked with won't be easy, but would be rather silly if the DC was derived from PC's level and thus the same chandelier to hit a kobold at level 1 and level 20 was just as hard. On level 20 I'd expect the kobold to be splated royally. The DC should be derived from the target's level IMO. Swinging on a chandelier to jump on a dragons should be harder than just swinging to hit measly gnoll. This way the DC scales, but reasonably with the task ahead, not with the PC and thus creating weird situations. This way a low level PC will swing the chandelier to land upon the dragon and the dragon will just ping it off while an epic hero might just succeed. DC for hitting an average kobold would thus be set (it's level), just like that calm water.
Hitting a creature is an attack roll, its a separate component from actually swinging on the chandelier. Swinging on the Chandelier is an acrobatic stunt, failure likely means falling. Success means you get to do whatever was at the end of the chandelier. Mechanically speaking you just did a charge - the DM looked at the map and then looked back up at you and said "how the heck are you getting to the Kobold/Dragon from the balcony"? The answer is "I'm using the Chandelier". Actual movement using the chandelier was part of your move action - hitting the bad guy at the end was part of the charge and is an attack action.
The attack to hit the kobold is far easier then what it takes to hit a dragon - we both agree on that. Where there is some disagreement is in whether or not chandelier swinging is trivial...more accurately we are arguing 'when' chandelier swinging becomes trivial. In my view characters start out as minor heros - they can swing from chandeliers - but there is a reasonable chance of falling.
By paragon characters have actually attained the status of Zorro and the like. They can do this sort of thing and have many pluses in the relevant ability (in the average campaign around +5 is pretty normal at this point), they are very likely to pull it off but failure is still a possibility - they are hero's but fundamentally mortal ones. By epic the number of benefits in the system actually start to break the standard assumptions of the skill system. Benefits are in the +8 or +9 area and the party as a whole has many rerolls or free actions that add +2 through powers and magic items. The chance of failure fades until its nearly guaranteed and such actions have become close to trivial, now they really are Demi-Gods.
In my view if it really is a different chandelier and its on fire or some such then I'd change its DC, either by adding a bad circumstance bonus of +2 to the DC or by knocking its difficulty up a notch to hard (which a paragon tier character can pull off but its much like back when they where 1st and facing a medium DC - around a 60% chance of success), in effect by making it a burning chandelier I'm reintroducing a a fairly significant chance of failure.
I think the problem with the chandelier is that it works best as a static DC, since there really isn't anything abstract about it. There are only so many ways you can make a chandelier more dangerous; a pit or a chasm is easy enough to widen, add nasty things at the bottom of, or otherwise substantially change, and from what I am reading, works just fine with the abstract scaling DCs, but a chandelier is a chandelier, and short of setting it on fire, or something like that, is generally going to do about the same amount of damage at level 20 as it would at level 1, and be the same basic difficulty at level 20 as it would at level 1. This is not to say the sliding scale is bad, but it demonstrates its limits. Discrete objects, like chandeliers, barrels, and other physical objects, work better with the set DC at all levels. You just can't change them enough as the PCs level for the sliding scale to really work well. More morpheous objects, like pits, chasms, rivers are where the sliding scale works bests, as it allows you to size the obstruction to fit the level and the scene. Basically, they seem to have inverted the the problem cases and the functional cases from what you would have seen in 3.x.
|
|
WoTC, or any company, should never be immune to criticism, even if it is heated. You are welcome to your opinion, however, consider that it may be a more than a standard deviation or two away from the mean.
Never said Wotc or any company should be immune to criticism. As long as its constructive critiicsm and not the same tired BS. Sure one can post non-constructive crticism just prepare to be called out about it and to be ignored. I rather listen to someone who says the miss craft skills from 3.5 in 4E than another "OMG it like WOW" comment.
Swinging on the chandelier alone should be static DC, unless the chandelier is somehow higher or makes it harder to swing upon (simple wheel at tavern stairs vs. magnificent glass chandelier hanging on bad angle not too close to the upper balcony of a Chelish opera). When you are swingign against someone, you can either ask for two rolls, where one would be swing and another the actual attack, or you can really slam this all into one, making it an impromptu attack against that creature (4E leaves DM a free hand to pick what vs. what, it just gives him the p. 42 table to keep the mechanic consistency).
I think swingign on a chandelier CAN get trivial. Just see what the kids can do is you put a tyre on a rope at a river bank where they can bath. Sure, when you go first on such thing you'll be likely careful or flying when you don't want to, but soon enough you'll start to perform various stunts. High level PCs get adept at quite a few things and simple chandelier swing should be well within heir capabilities, at least of those acrobatics orented (which is my personal peeve agains 4E skill system. My high level INT dump stat fighter has arcane ranks to lecture low lvels wizards on spellcraft and the frail wizard can attend to athletics contest with low level barbarians for example, which is kinda funny).
LOl..just find it kinda funny how a thread on what WOTC doing with FR currently evolved into a discussion on te DC of swinging on a chandelier..
no judgement on the debate..just find it amusing
I personally find Zorro swinging on the chandelier far more tame than the changes we discussed before ;)
Needless to say that lower DCs for trivial things (where heroic tier players need to show some effort, but for paragon levels it's practically no roll at all) have their place even on high levels. It allows the players to show some "heroics" on their own. Swimming armoured through running water while dragging an unconscious cleric (armour and stuff - weight penalty and perhaps -2 for adverse condition. Thanks to high swim you can still pass while on lower levels you'd be hard pressed to stay afloat), swinging a rope with a kidnapped princess in your arms while escaping the guards. When the DCs are stable, the PCs can guess what's within their abilities and whether they can attempt some more difficult stunts in similar situations like these. Otherwise they'd simply rely on the tables and assume everything will be 'level appropriate' which breaks the immersion for me.
|
|
At high levels in 3e they would Fly, not swing on chandeliers. But you also misunderstand the nature of the skill system in 4e. You haven't invested ranks, level after level, so you get to be really good. You pick a few skills and you are relatively better than other people who haven't chosen those skills for your level. So the DCs moving on you isn't much of a mechanical hindrance - it boils down to being better at Hard rolls for your levels.
As for the DCs - I'm not too sure many players would really notice. I get what you are saying - why does it get harder as I get better? - and there is a slight conundrum there. But the philosophy of 4e is to encourage PCs to do stuff like swing on chandeliers, not to have them calculating whether they have the right skill ranks to do something, and then calculate that maybe they don't have it and so not do it. Which is arguably more immersion-breaking.
At high levels in 3e they would Fly, not swing on chandeliers. But you also misunderstand the nature of the skill system in 4e. You haven't invested ranks, level after level, so you get to be really good. You pick a few skills and you are relatively better than other people who haven't chosen those skills for your level. So the DCs moving on you isn't much of a mechanical hindrance - it boils down to being better at Hard rolls for your levels.
As for the DCs - I'm not too sure many players would really notice. I get what you are saying - why does it get harder as I get better? - and there is a slight conundrum there. But the philosophy of 4e is to encourage PCs to do stuff like swing on chandeliers, not to have them calculating whether they have the right skill ranks to do something, and then calculate that maybe they don't have it and so not do it. Which is arguably more immersion-breaking.
In this canse when they happen to get them a lvl 3 guide while on lower levels then the guide can jump almost as far as them swing almost as good as they do (+/- skill focus), just does lesser damage, because the DCs are determined relatively to his level. Scaling of DC doesn't particularly ecourage anything as the numners you need to roll remain relatively static, while with fixed DCs the PCs can handle progresively difficult tasks and see that their characters have improved. Things that were once difficult are easy now. Freely scaling DCs without tasks getting visibly more difficult fail to show that.
I find it much more immersion breaking that a PC finds it equally difficult to climb a rope and a glass wall, becuse the DC is set relative to his level. While it should be fairly okay if a player just peeks into the rules on climbing to guess the DC of a stone wall and asses his climbing abilities. When you come to the tree you can guess whether you're able to climb it or not after all. IT's the same level of knowledge and confidence in one's ability to do the task, just mathematically expressed. The player can roughly guess whether he's up to the task or not.
|
|
Well, isn't it immersion-breaking to say "Here's Joe, your guide - he's 3rd level"?
And character skills, as well as DCs, improve with level. Effectively, a character's skill level is 1/2 his level plus the relevant stat modifier. If the skill is trained, he adds a flat +5 to that number. There are no skill ranks as such. A character will get better anyway at stuff. So if he's low level, no, he won't be able to climb a glass wall. If he's high level, maybe he can. If he has trained the skill, he has a better chance, but most players can have a go if they are the relevant level. And you are right to suggest that some tasks should have specific DCs as such - I don't think climbing the same wall would get more difficult just because the player has gone up a level. But since everyone has a skill level that is not wildly dissimilar (it will vary, maybe by +/- 10 or so, depending on relative stats and training) a DM can simply handwave a simple manouevre, since everyone can do it, and concentrate on the interesting stuff. It's not very exciting to have a DC 10 wall for a lvl 20 party, but have it become an obstacle because (in 3e) the cleric hasn't invested any skill points in Climb (a slightly silly example which would be solved with magic, no doubt, but you catch my drift). In 4e, the cleric would have an OK-ish Climb skill anyway.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but for me I'm not really bothered by the scaling, and it works well in the context of 4e because of the way the skill system works.
Needless to say that lower DCs for trivial things (where heroic tier players need to show some effort, but for paragon levels it's practically no roll at all) have their place even on high levels. It allows the players to show some "heroics" on their own. Swimming armoured through running water while dragging an unconscious cleric (armour and stuff - weight penalty and perhaps -2 for adverse condition. Thanks to high swim you can still pass while on lower levels you'd be hard pressed to stay afloat), swinging a rope with a kidnapped princess in your arms while escaping the guards. When the DCs are stable, the PCs can guess what's within their abilities and whether they can attempt some more difficult stunts in similar situations like these. Otherwise they'd simply rely on the tables and assume everything will be 'level appropriate' which breaks the immersion for me.
I'm unclear how your players are guessing this - do you provide a list that tells them what level all acrobatic stunts are?
We both agree that swinging with princesses is possible, the difference is in what we call that as a DC. I'd say swinging without one is a medium level stunt and adding one is a hard level stunt, if the rope is also burning add another 2 to the DC. You presumably tell your players in advance that what level swinging with a Princess is so they know whether its impossible, possible or trivial depending on their level (so what level is swinging with a princess in your opinion?)
Nor is there a difference of opinion between us on characters getting better - the reality on the ground is that they do - they get magic items, powers, rerolls and ability score improvements so that make them better at doing this sort of thing - the system has a built in 'your a better hero' component. Instead we seem to disagree regarding how much better they are getting...in essence are 15th level characters Herucles or Zorro.
For me I'm not interested in defining the game to the point where every action has a set DC and therefore is impossible at certain levels and eventually becomes an automatic thing, I see the 4E system as essentially a summer blockbuster simulator, in essence swinging with a princess is a tricky but likely possible endeavor and it is that when the scene itself comes up - whether or not it happens to come up when the players are really just saving the street urchin at low levels or if, instead, she is the daughter of a Genie Emperor at the very high levels. When the plot requires saving some one by swinging with her to safety that is when the rolls will be made. Setting specific DCs that remain static for all time may make for a better simulation but my real goal is not simulationistic - instead I want to use the system to create compelling narratives and exciting scenes. The scaling DCs mean that the system conveys the excitement whenever it happens to naturally fit into the plot.
This element is important to me because I spend a lot of time creating such scenes. I build customized battle maps and include all the options I can think of and their current DCs on the maps so the players can read them. Doing handsprings over counters and all the rest of it is a big part of my 4E game and it needs to be a compelling part of it whenever the exciting scene happens to occur in the plot line.
Well, isn't it immersion-breaking to say "Here's Joe, your guide - he's 3rd level"?
And character skills, as well as DCs, improve with level. Effectively, a character's skill level is 1/2 his level plus the relevant stat modifier. If the skill is trained, he adds a flat +5 to that number. There are no skill ranks as such. A character will get better anyway at stuff. So if he's low level, no, he won't be able to climb a glass wall. If he's high level, maybe he can. If he has trained the skill, he has a better chance, but most players can have a go if they are the relevant level. And you are right to suggest that some tasks should have specific DCs as such - I don't think climbing the same wall would get more difficult just because the player has gone up a level. But since everyone has a skill level that is not wildly dissimilar (it will vary, maybe by +/- 10 or so, depending on relative stats and training) a DM can simply handwave a simple manouevre, since everyone can do it, and concentrate on the interesting stuff. It's not very exciting to have a DC 10 wall for a lvl 20 party, but have it become an obstacle because (in 3e) the cleric hasn't invested any skill points in Climb (a slightly silly example which would be solved with magic, no doubt, but you catch my drift). In 4e, the cleric would have an OK-ish Climb skill anyway.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but for me I'm not really bothered by the scaling, and it works well in the context of 4e because of the way the skill system works.
The immersion breaks if you give the guide for players to handle for example, or they have a common dog as group's mascot or whatever. They roll against a DC for something, see the value against which he succeeded and then possibly fail against the same nr. Lvl 3 guide points at tracks the master lvl 25 Ranger failed to notice after his player rolled something above the real possibilities of the guide. If the DCs are on the other hand tied to PCs alone, then the guide becomes useless. In an evironment where the DCs are set for where they belong the guide can pull his weight where the PCs breeze through and when there are DCs the players can guess the heroes can actually take the guide. Just imagine a situation hwn PCs see that a huge monster sets up a lair where the guide has passed before and they ask him whether there is a way around. The guide starts babbling about a nigh impossible climb and pointing at nearby cliff. The player just quickly asesses his climb, grabs the guide and scales the (for him) easy hike with the guide over the shoulder. It feels more consistent with the world at large and partially avoids questions like when characters com to an obstacle and try to guess their chances. Like when they come to a brick wall and you give them an easy DC and next time they come to a brick wall that has a hard DC and you start to be questioned why. Have you ever had a detail oriented player that transforms into a Sherlock Holmes when something suddenly changes without any apparent reason?
|
|
Yeah, but if it's the same brick wall, it will have the same DC irrespective of the level of the individual climbing it. The point it, you put level-appropriate challenges in front of your party and anything which isn't they can try and likely fail at, or just do automatically because it is easy. So master ranger would be rolling the tracking rolls, not the guide - why would said guide be hanging with master ranger anyway, since master ranger can do it so much better? If it was something guide could do with a dice roll, then master ranger could do it automatically.
You do not assume that the same task is more difficult for someone of a higher level. The table is for level-appropriate challenges, not easy stuff a high level character could pull off with ease, or indeed maybe couldn't pull off except with a fluke. So tracks that guide might be looking for (and find) might be a group of hobgoblin raiders. Stuff master ranger might be looking for is evidence of the red dragon when it flew overhead judging by the way the leaves in the forest are ruffled. This is not immersion-breaking, or even inconsistent. But what you don't have is rules telling exactly what the DC for doing this or that is. You have a framework for estimating what the DC is for a given situation where it matters that the PCs make skill checks, depending on their level and the sort of situations they would find challenging at that level.