Just out of curiosity, why would this be any different in DL vs DS, (or Eberron, or FR, or Ravenloft for that matter)?
Swashbuckling antics are a little more expected in Eberron than say Ravenloft, but why would the same character (build and stats) find it more challenging to swing from a in one setting and not the other, all other things (such as the circumstances and distance) being equal? Or understand the same book, or open the same lock, etc. . .
Mainly because I want to encourage or discourage such elements. I want lots of swashbuckling antics in my Eberron game, I'm making it easier and giving bigger rewards to players who engage in such behaviors while in Ravenloft I don't want the PCs swinging from every chandalier they see as it takes away from the mood. Its hard to maintain Gothic Horror with your players doing triple backflips and showing off just how awesome they are hence I'm making it harder and giving less rewards.
In Darksun my players are likely to be less literate and writing rare with few that can read or write. I want written material to be harder to comprehend in Darksun. In Dragonlance the desert is something of an obstacle only to very low level characters, by early mid levels they should cross deserts with little trouble unless they are called out specifically for lack of food and water while in Darksun the desert needs to be brutal until much higher levels. Its dangerous even to experienced travelers and lethal to the unprepared. The very idea of being forced out into the desert should be something that causes fear in the players.
In short I'm looking to create a different look and feel for each campaign...a lock is not just a lock in each of the different campaigns. In Darksun a lock is something rare and alien - that is not true in Greyhawk where the rogue has picked thousands of them as part of his background probably.
|
So you change the DCs to encourage certain behaviours. I can understand that but I don't really agree, at least not with things that are doable in real life. There are few things as annoying in a game as when I can do something, or have plenty of experience with, in real life and yet it is unreasonable or impossible or just doesn't match up when attempted in a game.
So you change the DCs to encourage certain behaviours. I can understand that but I don't really agree, at least not with things that are doable in real life. There are few things as annoying in a game as when I can do something, or have plenty of experience with, in real life and yet it is unreasonable or impossible or just doesn't match up when attempted in a game.
I guess we are probably just not really looking for the same thing here.
Truth is my view of realism is that it takes very much a back seat to look and feel in D&D. I mean who really swings from a Chandelier? Has that ever happened in any combat anywhere? I doubt it. Especially important to clamp down on this sort of thing because D&D has no rules for spraining your ankle.
My way around this has always been 'we are playing with movie physics guys'. But movies vary a lot by Genre and its the genre itself that is influencing how I'm setting the DCs. Gothic Horror has few unrealistic antics but LOTR was full of them...and no one sprains their ankle in the movies.
|
|
That's why I usually say plausability rather then realism.
Maybe no one really swings on chandeliers in real life, but we could and most of us can imagine how successful we could, or couldn't, manage it. Particularly with folks like me who are physically capable and experienced with how we move. So, realistic or not, the results need to be consist with how I know it could happen because if isn't, then no amount of look or feel will prevent the immersion from breaking. (I have this problem watching movies where the actors do wire stunts too. Ruins the entire scene for me)
I suspect that this effect probably corrasponds with ones own experience in the matter. Those with less experience have less reference material to claim how incapable people areofjumping 1000' chasms, andcan probably thus imagine more outlandish stuff before cognitive dissonence occurs. Thats my theory anyway.
You're one of those people who complains that Kill Bill isn't realistic, aren't you?
...It's supposed to be a crazy stupid gag film. ;)
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran 4e for a couple of years before switching to Pathfinder. It is not a bad system. Because I don't have time to design adventures these days, I use modules, adventures and settings created by others . The pre-made settings and modules I ran for 4e were simply not as exciting to run as the Pathfinder APs. Story telling is everything. Paizo has some excellent story tellers.
|
|
You're one of those people who complains that Kill Bill isn't realistic, aren't you?
...It's supposed to be a crazy stupid gag film. ;)
I only saw part 2, but it wasn't that far from feasable (except the death touch attack at the end). Most of the things done are extremely difficult but plausable for extremely skilled individuals.
Is it unlikely to ever occur? Yep. Is it likely that someone will train up to that lvl of skill? Not to be used in combat anyway. Therefore it can be called unrealistic, but it is mostly plausable. I don't call it awesome, but I didn't hate either.
What I really think that 4E got wrong (and not just 4E for that matter). Is fixed rise of numbers with level. Getting +1 to everything at every two levels makes goblins fade to irrelevancy, makes your fighters able to give spellcraft lessons to low level magicians and generates WTF moments ocassionally if PCs face anything below their level.
If only damage and abilities rose and you could get attack bonuses for feat investment you could get better consistency IMO. Rising hp could mean that you can take on higher level target or a group of low level ones without making them completely irrelevant (they would simply move to minion category without any extra alternation after becoming one-shot kills). DCs could remain fixed with reality and wouldn't have to be skyhigh to challenge PCs. Skill training and focus would mean that you can achieve amazing results, truly rewarding training.
Another thing that I didn't like was powers. Their at-will/encounter/daily forced on all classes fealt artifical and didn't always fit. It's one of the fixes that Essentials got right IMO.
|
What I really think that 4E got wrong (and not just 4E for that matter). Is fixed rise of numbers with level.
I can see where you're coming from but I am not sure I agree.
Getting +1 to everything at every two levels makes goblins fade to irrelevancy,
Isn't that also true of 3.5 and PF though (and perhaps earlier editions)? This is something WotC are trying to fix with D&D Next and the bounded accuracy design. Still in 4e it is very easy to level up a monster compared to 3.5 or PF where class levels have to be added; in 4e its pretty simple. Just a matter of increase attack rolls, defenses, and AC by 1 for every level you add. For every two levels, increase the damage it deals with its attacks by 1. The monster also gains extra hit points at each level, based on its role.
So to level up the Goblin Skullcleaver, a Level 3 Brute, to level 7 add +4 to attacks, defenses and AC, add +2 to damage and give it an extra 40 HP, done. (Note that this is original DMG rules).
makes your fighters able to give spellcraft lessons to low level magicians
If the wizard and fighter have the same intelligence (unlikley) then the fighter would need to be level 10 to the wizard's level 1 to have the +1 per two levels offset the +5 bonus the wizard will have to Arcana for Skill Training, so yes, in such a case an experienced hero (verging on paragon) could potentially tell a starting wizard a thing or two about magic - but then the fighter has probably experienced such magic first hand!
If only damage and abilities rose and you could get attack bonuses for feat investment you could get better consistency IMO. Rising hp could mean that you can take on higher level target or a group of low level ones without making them completely irrelevant (they would simply move to minion category without any extra alternation after becoming one-shot kills). DCs could remain fixed with reality and wouldn't have to be skyhigh to challenge PCs. Skill training and focus would mean that you can achieve amazing results, truly rewarding training.
It sounds like you might want to check out D&D Next and the bounded accuracy design which is pretty much what you described.
Another thing that I didn't like was powers. Their at-will/encounter/daily forced on all classes fealt artifical and didn't always fit. It's one of the fixes that Essentials got right IMO.
I liked the AED design as it made playing a wizard no more difficult than playing a fighter. I haven't tried the Essentials classes but am unlikely too because of the mess that Essentials is :(
I agree that the problem is the same with Pathfinder and earlier D&D. 4E however rised the DCs along with this increase which creates a problem when the need to visually upgrade what the DC represents. Higher DCs should mean that the task is more difficult not that you are just rolling at higher level.
Without visually upgrading it leads to PCs learning nothing at all, as the task is the same, only DC got higher along with their numbers. With upgrading (or having DCs to particular task fixed) however the character is getting better at things that you as a player perhaps don't want to. If not for fighter, you can get quite arcanely skilled warlord for example. He doesn't give a damn about magic theory, but he learns it anyway and becomes able to solve problems he previously couldn't. The same could go to opening locks and so on. Even a Champion tier barbarian that suddenly teleports to civilisation is skilled with mechanics and arcane there if DM fiat doesn't intervene.
With skill points the system worked without these hiccups, as you only invested where you wanted. This generated it's own set of problems with PCs getting irrelevant at higher level tasks and having to rely on expert. It worked without WTF moments, but wasn't fun because of that. That brought me to what was wrong - the constant increase of numbers for what sake? Increase of numbers... Yes, you can see you are improving on character sheet except that rising DCs keep you where you were before. What really matters are feats, ability increases and magic items. Level number inflation doesn't help anything.
And toward levelling up goblins and stuff - you get another WTF in there. You either make the PCs and goblins equal again, negating PCs achievement (why increase the numbers in first place?) and you have to answer where were the high level monsters till now (a common problem with fantasy anyway, as there are suddelny high level cults etc. to challenege higher level PCs that were either not there or carefully tiptoed around). Or you can have the monsters become irrelevant. Again adding the level screws the game here.
Toward powers - they didn't feel right with certain classes and many of them were alike. What essentials did is they didn't force the same structure on all classes. Fighter had most of his milleage out of at-will powers, or more accurately stances that added something to your basic attack doing things like trip, focus on higher atack or AC. Then they get encounter powers that make you move faster, hit harder or recover. The same goes for for rogue mostly, although more roguish of course. Daily powers are mostly reserved for spells like fireballs that don't rely only on skill alone. I prefer this to having unified structure.
And yes, i liked the non-increase notion in Next, but i stoped following the after about third update, as they follow too fast for me.
|
|
Getting +1 to everything at every two levels makes goblins fade to irrelevancy,Isn't that also true of 3.5 and PF though (and perhaps earlier editions)? This is something WotC are trying to fix with D&D Next and the bounded accuracy design. Still in 4e it is very easy to level up a monster compared to 3.5 or PF where class levels have to be added; in 4e its pretty simple. Just a matter of increase attack rolls, defenses, and AC by 1 for every level you add. For every two levels, increase the damage it deals with its attacks by 1. The monster also gains extra hit points at each level, based on its role.
So to level up the Goblin Skullcleaver, a Level 3 Brute, to level 7 add +4 to attacks, defenses and AC, add +2 to damage and give it an extra 40 HP, done. (Note that this is original DMG ...
Actually this is not true of 3.x/pf. In pf/3.x the only numbers that went up with level were completely dependent on class (aka different classes went up at different rates) and only applied to a select few things. What zmar seems to be refering to however is skills, and skills do not get lvl based increases in 3. X/pf.
Also 3.x/pf monsters don't need class lvls, you can just add hitdice (described in the back of the monster manual, at least in 3.x) now some people like having universal rules the are the same for all characters, npcs, monsters, and pcs alike, however not everyone does and I won't debate which is better, just need to recognize that either side will have it's fans so it can't really be called better or an improvement to go one way or the other.
And I do not agree with all skills lvling and a high lvl fighter teaching spellcraft to wizards, heres why, metaphorically speaking, a computer user can have experience using every computer os in existance, but will never be able to teach a programmer how to program, because useing a computer doesn't show or display anything about the underlying programming to be seen or learned by the user.
It's most obvious with skills, but AC/attack rising rapidly also doesn't add anything good when they rise together as you need to roll roughly the same number. Yes, you can leave the creature as it is, but it will become irrelevant once. Some don't mind it, some do.
I think that the difference of damage and hp is all that's needed. It allows you to keep goblin army or a wolf pack a relevant adversary even if the PCs rise in levels. Single monster would simply scratch the hp bar and go down. Multiple guys could be as chellenging as single higher level one, instantly making them to minions without changing stats.
Sure you can increase attacks and AC, but why based on level? We have Dodge, we have Weapon Focus, we have class based weapon proficiency bonus, the abilities still increase. If the ACs don't rise constantly, then these things stay as relevant as they were at the start, making them useful, but not required. The same goes for magic weapons. A +1 sword doesn't loose sheen that much anymore. Perhaps we could add +1 per tier, but I think that's enough.
|
|
I agree that the problem is the same with Pathfinder and earlier D&D. 4E however rised the DCs along with this increase which creates a problem when the need to visually upgrade what the DC represents. Higher DCs should mean that the task is more difficult not that you are just rolling at higher level.
I am not quite sure what you mean by this. To keep challenging your PCs as they level up you can indeed confront them with obstacles that have higher DCs, but those obstacles represent materially different things (e.g. climbing a 90% cliff with plenty of handholds versus climbing a completely vertical ice sheet in a howling gale) - is that what you mean by "visually upgrade what the DCs represent"?
If so, you aren't actually obliged to do that, the DMG page 42 is simply a guide of DCs to guide you in doing that, however if you are happy to have your PCs climb the same cliff again, keep the low DC and description.
A good GM will mix and match a bit, when I played the City of Heroes MMO whilst I enjoyed taking on increasingly more difficult missions I also enjoyed taking on the mooks in Atlas City I did at the start, just to see how powerful I had become (even though it gave no XP).
Having said that Essentials is really bad (and its the main reason I hate it) is that the rules imply that the exact same task gets harder as characters level up. This is not something that existed in pre-Essentials 4e though.
Without visually upgrading it leads to PCs learning nothing at all, as the task is the same, only DC got higher along with their numbers.
Or as stated you keep the same visual image and also the same DCs, so players will be succeeding more easily - just like in PF.
With skill points the system worked without these hiccups, as you only invested where you wanted. This generated it's own set of problems with PCs getting irrelevant at higher level tasks and having to rely on expert.
Yep and I guess those who prefer 4e's method feel the odd WTF moment is worth it to avoid the issues you just described with skill points system. Its down to preference really.
And toward levelling up goblins and stuff - you get another WTF in there. You either make the PCs and goblins equal again, negating PCs achievement (why increase the numbers in first place?) and you have to answer where were the high level monsters till now (a common problem with fantasy anyway, as there are suddelny high level cults etc. to challenege higher level PCs that were either not there or carefully tiptoed around). Or you can have the monsters become irrelevant. Again adding the level screws the game here.
Yes, I agree but this is exactly the same issue with 3.5 or PF. In fact its a problem of many level based RPGs where you get significantly more powerful. As I said, this is one area that D&D Next might be able to work well.
And like you, I too haven't followed all of the Next playtest as I play other games and don't have the time to keep re-reading rules never mind play testing.
|
|
Actually this is not true of 3.x/pf. In pf/3.x the only numbers that went up with level were completely dependent on class (aka different classes went up at different rates) and only applied to a select few things.
In regards to low level monsters becoming irrelevant at higher levels its true. Is the big bad villain in a level 16 adventure a Kobold? Most likely not!
What zmar seems to be refering to however is skills, and skills do not get lvl based increases in 3. X/pf.
In terms of skills and not attack bonus, defences etc, then yes, 3.5 7 PF don't have that problem. But as stated that can lead to other issues like the party not bothering to all sneak into a castle because one member never put a single point into Stealth. 4e assumes a general level of competency in all adventuring skills as PCs level up (so even a non-trained Paragon level character should be as stealthy a trained 1st level rogue).
Also 3.x/pf monsters don't need class lvls, you can just add hitdice (described in the back of the monster manual, at least in 3.x)
Even stuff like Goblins? Doesn't the Monster Manual say stuff like "Advancement: By character class" for such monsters? or from the PF SRD "Goblins are defined by their class levels—they do not possess racial Hit Dice."
just need to recognize that either side will have it's fans so it can't really be called better or an improvement to go one way or the other.
I agree, which is why I am giving the other side of the argument, the view which favours 4e (as we are afterall in a thread that is meant to be positive about 4e).
Yes, your example with cliff is exactly what I meant with visual upgrade. DMG suggested doing that if I remember it correctly. Not doing it would result in epic rogues failing to open locked wooden door with normal lock. Even at easy difficulty that's level appropriate the DC is ridiculously high for he task and doesn't make much sense, does it? Of course, you can say it's no-roll, but why does DM fiat have to solve this? Leave the DCs fixed I say and bring in Margin of Sucess. Pass the original DC by 10? Let's say it makes it a swif action instead of move... that way it would remain interesting to increase skill even if I can pass mundane tasks.
And toward skill points and 1/2 level rise of skills and matters of preference - I say let's ditch both and leave the increase on limited resources like feats and trained/untrained system. There will be a gap between skilled and unskilled, mastering won't be without investment of resources, plus it won't widen beyond that (advantage of 4E system) and won't force you to improve where you shouldn't really (advantage of 3E). Creatures that are especially alert/skilled/whatever will stay so thanks to feats or racial bonuses and PCs can close on their advantage thanks to investments, but there will be no surpassing of perceptive abilities of a common dog simply by levelling up long enough regardless of class.
I agree that the problem is the same with Pathfinder and earlier D&D. 4E however rised the DCs along with this increase which creates a problem when the need to visually upgrade what the DC represents. Higher DCs should mean that the task is more difficult not that you are just rolling at higher level.
Without visually upgrading it leads to PCs learning nothing at all, as the task is the same, only DC got higher along with their numbers. With upgrading (or having DCs to particular task fixed) however the character is getting better at things that you as a player perhaps don't want to. If not for fighter, you can get quite arcanely skilled warlord for example. He doesn't give a damn about magic theory, but he learns it anyway and becomes able to solve problems he previously couldn't. The same could go to opening locks and so on. Even a Champion tier barbarian that suddenly teleports to civilisation is skilled with mechanics and arcane there if DM fiat doesn't intervene.
With skill points the system worked without these hiccups, as you only invested where you wanted. This generated it's own set of problems with PCs getting irrelevant at higher level tasks and having to rely on expert. It worked without WTF moments, but wasn't fun because of that. That brought me to what was wrong - the constant increase of numbers for what sake? Increase of numbers... Yes, you can see you are improving on character sheet except that rising DCs keep you where you were before. What really matters are feats, ability increases and magic items. Level number inflation doesn't help anything.
And toward levelling up goblins and stuff - you get another WTF in there. You either make the PCs and goblins equal again, negating PCs achievement (why increase the numbers in first place?) and you have to answer where were the high level monsters till now (a common problem with fantasy anyway, as there are suddelny high level cults etc. to challenege higher level PCs that were either not there or carefully tiptoed around). Or you can...
As I comment above - these DCs are under the DMs control. What they mean is up to the DM. Its possible to use the system as if its flat in which case only the PCs stat boosts are are really changing things. Of course you then get 'they learned nothing at all' but you as the DM can decide on what ever progression you desire. So if you want them to have advanced a little you start give older tasks DCs that represent some improvement but by how much is up to the DM.
In reality the spread between the Warlord and the Wizard has not changed much from 1st level and its the DM that decides what it is the party is capable of dealing with at any given levels.
Now I note you have kind of hit the issues with a skill system, any skill system that I am aware of. You have a problem on one hand that if the numbers don't get extreme then how do you show that character A can do things that character B cannot no matter what character A rolls. On the other hand if you let the skill system get that extreme it can become irrelevant as skill based tasks become trivial and or impossible depending on the PC in question and neither answer adds to the fun.
What your pointing out here is that both systems have issues and they are impossible to resolve because one set of issues comes from there being a high spread of numbers and the other from a low spread and we can't simultaneously have a system that does both.
Couple of points though - there is precedent in 4E for using skills for things other players can't, in fact there is an example in arcane (detecting magic in the environment I think). If you think something could only be known through specific learning and not from exposure then you specify 'Trained Only'. That is what the wet behind the ears programmer has that the 20 year veteran computer use does not...training. So if what is being faced could only be known by someone with actual knowledge of Magic Theory you use this designation and the Warlord need not apply...unless he took training in arcane.
I don't seem to face most of the WTF moments you mention very often but I think I'm approaching things differently then you. The 1st level wizard issue is one that almost can't happen in my game. A 1st level wizard is a PC, never an NPC. An NPC might be an apprentice learning magic but there is never a time when the NPC is a 1st level wizard. The attributes of an NPC who is an apprentice learning magic are mine to control and he knows or does not know things at my discretion - my NPC. One pretty much never, in the modern editions, has a 1st level player controlled PC adventuring with a 10th level party.
As to the Barbarian knowing how to use flush toilets even though he spent no skill points in the area...umm...neither did 3/4s of the PCs since their skill points are better spent in other categories. The Barbarian is on even keel with most party members in this case.
As for the 4Es rising skills, well again in reality the spread remains the same and its the DM that decides what that spread represents. Still it does come up. Again if the PCs know how to use flush toilets nothing says the Barbarian does not. I actually have a Barbarian PC and a lot of 'lost' technology in my campaign world (it was once Ebberonesque but has entered a 'dark ages'). When it comes up I usually just decide that a surprising number of technological problems can be resolved by smacking things.
A for goblins. Well yes 4E has the same issue as 3.5 here but there is a difference in PC power. Power curves up much more slowly in 4E and it never gets close to the heights of 3.5. Eventually the goblins are irrelevant but they are actually dangerous in large numbers for a lot longer. My 10th level PCs are still facing 4th level Baaz Draconians (though there are now the more powerful Sivaks and such in the encounters) and they are not immune - though I need to get a pretty high roll and the PCs hit with almost anything. Its actually the damage that keeps things closer because PCs don't get that many more hps per level (average of 5 more hps per level and nothing modifies that) so the 10th level PCs are another 30 hps stronger but those 15 point damage crossbow bolts still hurt. Its just that it know takes 5 hits to kill a PC instead of the 2 or 3 that worked at 4th level.
Now its getting increasingly dicey - by 12th those Baaz are going to be every more irrelevant...if I use dozens I'll use a 4E narrative element and make them 8th level minions which will push their capability to be a threat in very large numbers out some more but eventually there are such serious discrepancies that I'll actually avoid having the PCs face Draconians except to slaughter them. Still I don't, as early, face the real extremes.
In my 3.5 campaign my 10th level PCs destroyed a 1000 goblin army. The army was flavour text - they where flying over it on the way to deal with the people that where responsible for 1000 goblin armies being around but they heard this and said - wait what...goblin army? We destroy it. They then proceeded to show me how the did it (turn invisible, use flight and rain fiery death down while invisible from the heavens). We actually played about 3 round of this - yep they can easily destroy a 1000 goblin army with no danger at 10th.
Can't so easily do that in 4E. Can't fly for long periods unless I gave them something to let them do it - can't remain invisible while attacking for long periods. They could kill many but 1000 goblin minions would surely drag down my 10th level players and will still work when they are 15th though I suspect that by Epic they'll be able to do it.
And toward skill points and 1/2 level rise of skills and matters of preference - I say let's ditch both and leave the increase on limited resources like feats and trained/untrained system. There will be a gap between skilled and unskilled, mastering won't be without investment of resources, plus it won't widen beyond that (advantage of 4E system) and won't force you to improve where you shouldn't really (advantage of 3E). Creatures that are especially alert/skilled/whatever will stay so thanks to feats or racial bonuses and PCs can close on their advantage thanks to investments, but there will be no surpassing of perceptive abilities of a common dog simply by levelling up long enough regardless of class.
Thing is 4E does this easily if you want it to. The spread remains the same and the only things that are actually expanding the spread are things like feats and the addition of attribute bonuses, some magic items and some powers. If you want the improvements can be very marginal...but of course your locked wooden door remains a challenge unless the PCs put resources into handling it. You can instead go for the high fantasy version and say its a sheer cliff in a gale...if you want. DM chooses what the flavour in this regard is going to be. If you want locked wooden doors to be easy you can assign the doors a level so the DC remains low.
In my case I take an approach that does involve harder tasks but not to the degree of climbing cliffs in a gale. That wooden door has whatever DC I said it has and nothing forces me to keep that DC static. I can say that such a door is DC 12 when the PCs are 1st and DC 17 when they are 10th. I control the DCs and I use them to craft the look and feel I desire.
As I commented above for me personally the look and feel is that the PCs remain very much human, though they are progressing toward being quite talented humans in the area of adventuring. I set DCs to reflect this sort of thing - no climbing cliffs in a gale before epic but I'll slowly lower the relative difficulty of that locked wooden door. Note that I don't even have to change the DCs at a set rate. Maybe handling doors is getting easier - practice really tells in this sort of thing but researching arcane improves far more slowly because practice does not help as much here. The environment and the tasks faced in that environment are something I control and it has the look and feel that I want it to have.
I only saw part 2, but it wasn't that far from feasable (except the death touch attack at the end). Most of the things done are extremely difficult but plausable for extremely skilled individuals.
Is it unlikely to ever occur? Yep. Is it likely that someone will train up to that lvl of skill? Not to be used in combat anyway. Therefore it can be called unrealistic, but it is mostly plausable. I don't call it awesome, but I didn't hate either.
The problem comes up when trying to decide which movie is correct in terms of your home game. Is Kill Bill the correct way to interpret D&D or is Reservoir Dogs? The characters in Reservoir Dogs, no matter how long they have been gangsters or cops or whatever are never going to be able to do half the crap that the characters do in Kill Bill.
For ones home game the DM needs to choose (or in the case of say 3.5 the designers have chosen).
See? You controll the numbers, so for the same task you have different DCs at different levels. So the PC at level 1 has to roll 10 to suceed and at level ten he has to roll 9 because of ability increase, but the level was irrelevant in the equation. Why bother with adding the number then? Did I learn nothing over those ten levels?
Plus if we rely on DM fiat, then you could have just rolled the dice and said on 9+ you suceed and ditch the skill space on char sheet. Just list in which skills you are trained in and otherwise act like it was a save.
4E also seems to have chosen the high fantasy way. You can disarm sphere of annihilation at certain levels. The fact that you don't give DCs much value in terms of what PCs can achieve doesn't mean that they don't do wild things outside of skill area. All DM fiat can shatter world consistency somewhat, but here we are in imagination territory where you can't really measure things and don't need system in first place.
One of the good DM aids of the 3E DM Guide had was the table listing task, difficulty and who is expected to reliably do the thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the problem is the same with Pathfinder and earlier D&D. 4E however rised the DCs along with this increase which creates a problem when the need to visually upgrade what the DC represents. Higher DCs should mean that the task is more difficult not that you are just rolling at higher level.
Not so, at all; higher DCs do represent more difficult tasks. Don't feel bad though; you're not the first gamer to miss that important tidbit. :)
What I really think that 4E got wrong (and not just 4E for that matter). Is fixed rise of numbers with level. Getting +1 to everything at every two levels makes goblins fade to irrelevancy, makes your fighters able to give spellcraft lessons to low level magicians and generates WTF moments ocassionally if PCs face anything below their level.
Not so from my PoV. Monster castes (minion, elite, etc.) mean that goblins are still threats against 11th level PCs; you just need a horde of them rather than the handful you needed at 1st level. This is one of 4e's greatest innovations.
It's most obvious with skills, but AC/attack rising rapidly also doesn't add anything good when they rise together as you need to roll roughly the same number. Yes, you can leave the creature as it is, but it will become irrelevant once. Some don't mind it, some do.
I understand why you and many others would rather that only damage and HPs scaled with level, and I don't begrudge you 5e which seems to be catering to your preferences, but I myself prefer 4e's way. Attacks and/or defenses not scaling with level is a big immersion-breaker for me.
I think that the difference of damage and hp is all that's needed. It allows you to keep goblin army or a wolf pack a relevant adversary even if the PCs rise in levels. Single monster would simply scratch the hp bar and go down. Multiple guys could be as chellenging as single higher level one, instantly making them to minions without changing stats.
You also need to account for save-or-lose effects that tend to turn BBEGs into helpless bags of HPs. Every WotC edition (and arguably the earlier ones), and PF, has had issues with this. Foes meant to challenge entire parties all by themselves need ways to shake off debilitating effects, especially if their saves/defenses don't increase with level.
Sure you can increase attacks and AC, but why based on level? We have Dodge, we have Weapon Focus, we have class based weapon proficiency bonus, the abilities still increase. If the ACs don't rise constantly, then these things stay as relevant as they were at the start, making them useful, but not required. The same goes for magic weapons. A +1 sword doesn't loose sheen that much anymore. Perhaps we could add +1 per tier, but I think that's enough.
I don't think it'd work out as well as you imagine. Those +1s to attacks and defenses make a big difference; they're just as valuable as they are in 4e and more so than they are in 3.x. The end result will be players obsessing over and doing whatever they can to get their hands on another +1 to attack or defenses. Ahoy, feat taxes, item taxes, and others!
Those +1s are either an assumed part of the PCs' success, or they're an unaccounted-for advantage that force DMs into an arms race with their players. In a game where only damage and HPs scale with level, there's no happy middle ground where a +1 to attack or defenses is just a nice little bonus. Not to say that a good designer couldn't make it work; I just don't think it'd be as easy as you're imagining.
Actually this is not true of 3.x/pf. In pf/3.x the only numbers that went up with level were completely dependent on class (aka different classes went up at different rates) and only applied to a select few things. What zmar seems to be refering to however is skills, and skills do not get lvl based increases in 3. X/pf.Getting +1 to everything at every two levels makes goblins fade to irrelevancy,Isn't that also true of 3.5 and PF though (and perhaps earlier editions)? This is something WotC are trying to fix with D&D Next and the bounded accuracy design. Still in 4e it is very easy to level up a monster compared to 3.5 or PF where class levels have to be added; in 4e its pretty simple. Just a matter of increase attack rolls, defenses, and AC by 1 for every level you add. For every two levels, increase the damage it deals with its attacks by 1. The monster also gains extra hit points at each level, based on its role.
So to level up the Goblin Skullcleaver, a Level 3 Brute, to level 7 add +4 to attacks, defenses and AC, add +2 to damage and give it an extra 40 HP, done. (Note that this is original DMG ...
All that stuff goes up with level in 3.x, even if the rate of advancement is different depending on class. For example, everyone gets skill points per level and a conveniently-set rank cap increase that allows you to jack your ranks up in a few skills by 1 per level.
The notable difference between 4e and other editions is AC. Because it doesn't scale with level outside of 4e, it means that low-level foes remain threats if you have a hard@ss DM who won't let you have nice things. Even then, though, spells create a variety of ways of rendering low-level foes irrelevant.
Whereas in 4e, the DM might have to turn a standard into a minion, but PCs don't have to be dirt-poor to be threatened by lower-level foes. I won't say either is better, but they're two very different dynamics.
Also 3.x/pf monsters don't need class lvls, you can just add hitdice...
As Jeremy mentioned, most humanoid monsters have the "advance by class" guideline. Also, HD are essentially monster levels. They're vaguely tied to size, but they grant all kinds of bonuses that have nothing to do with size and everything to do with the level-based number inflation that Zmar doesn't like.
I agree that the problem is the same with Pathfinder and earlier D&D. 4E however rised the DCs along with this increase which creates a problem when the need to visually upgrade what the DC represents. Higher DCs should mean that the task is more difficult not that you are just rolling at higher level.Not so, at all; higher DCs do represent more difficult tasks. Don't feel bad though; you're not the first gamer to miss that important tidbit. :)
They *should* represent more difficult task. How is scaling a steep hill on lvl 3 and lvl 13 different? If the DCs don't match, then it is probably more difficult, but how? As you could see with Jeremy's posts many people don't do this and the rules don't say what the DC should represent. Some people do think that lvl 1 door, lvl 14 door and lvl 25 door should look a bit different, as the monsters do, some don't. It doesn't explain how a fighter got to become good at opening them over time if they improve.
There is an in-built mechanic that either says that you learn nothing if you don't improve the tasks, or that everyone learns everything (although some have a head start) if you improve the task with the number and forces DM fiat solutions to say who can do what if there is to be a difference. That's what rubs me the wrong way.
What I really think that 4E got wrong (and not just 4E for that matter). Is fixed rise of numbers with level. Getting +1 to everything at every two levels makes goblins fade to irrelevancy, makes your fighters able to give spellcraft lessons to low level magicians and generates WTF moments ocassionally if PCs face anything below their level.Not so from my PoV. Monster castes (minion, elite, etc.) mean that goblins are still threats against 11th level PCs; you just need a horde of them rather than the handful you needed at 1st level. This is one of 4e's greatest innovations.
It's most obvious with skills, but AC/attack rising rapidly also doesn't add anything good when they rise together as you need to roll roughly the same number. Yes, you can leave the creature as it is, but it will become irrelevant once. Some don't mind it, some do.I understand why you and many others would rather that only damage and HPs scaled with level, and I don't begrudge you 5e which seems to be catering to your preferences, but I myself prefer 4e's way. Attacks and/or defenses not scaling with level is a big immersion-breaker for me.
I can see that you want your level increase to show somewhere, but when the monster numbers do scale with you to keep them relevant, it gets to the point where you have your AC increased from 17 to 22, but the same monster keeps hitting at 11+ on dice. So your AC numerically increased, but in game reality you still hit just as often. That kinda steals the bang from the increase and makes it to math burden rather than in to something useful. For me it's like getting the same candy in fancier package that takes longer to unwrap, but doesn't improve the taste. Visually it may make you feel happier at first, but the effect wears off and added unpacking difficulty is all that remains.
Don't get me wrong, I like increase of numbers on my sheet, like everyone probably does, but only if it means something, not when it just burdens me with math without allowing me to suceed at tasks more often.
I think that the difference of damage and hp is all that's needed. It allows you to keep goblin army or a wolf pack a relevant adversary even if the PCs rise in levels. Single monster would simply scratch the hp bar and go down. Multiple guys could be as chellenging as single higher level one, instantly making them to minions without changing stats.You also need to account for save-or-lose effects that tend to turn BBEGs into helpless bags of HPs. Every WotC edition (and arguably the earlier ones), and PF, has had issues with this. Foes meant to challenge entire parties all by themselves need ways to shake off debilitating effects, especially if their saves/defenses don't increase with level.
Bosses can get tougher by becoming bosses. You give them bonuses to attack and defense by assigning elite status or solo status and that's where you get the difference protecting them from save or suck along with monster abilities like epic recovery. Those are the ones making the difference. Aside from that they are advancing along with you, unless you keep them fixed (and we are back at the problem similar to what what was written above).
As for the meaning of +1 bonus. Well it would really depend on pacing of the bonuses. If the monsters are not becoming progresively harder to hit at every opportunity and the amount of feats or other increase shengians is limited, then you won't be racing anywhere. If you are hitting a well armoured boss foe, be it a knight or a dragon on 17+ assuming just +3 ability and proficiency with attack then you can get +1 for magic weapon and +1 for something like weapon focus and oerhaps another +1 for ability increase. If it's all you get at adventurer tier, then there's plenty of room for other things and you can still remain relevant without the feat/item/ability thanks to flanking, aid, buffs, etc.
They *should* represent more difficult task. How is scaling a steep hill on lvl 3 and lvl 13 different? If the DCs don’t match, then it is probably more difficult, but how?
The hill encountered at 13th level is a different hill; it’s steeper, more slippery and has fewer handholds. Really, this isn’t a new concept in gaming; take Paizo adventures, for example. Often you’ll crack open a high level adventure with high skill DCs, explained by a bit of flavor text. “An onyx statuette sits at the bottom of this deeply-recessed and shady pirhana-infested pond (Perception DC 40 to notice).” That DC didn’t come from the PHB or the DMG; it came from the adventure writer. He thought something like this: Gee this looks like a good place to slip in some greedy PC-bait and some resource-drain. The adventure is for 15-18th level PCs, so DC 40 sounds about right. Now to add a bit of description...
The difference between 4e and other editions is that 4e gives you numeric guidelines for DCs, rather than assuming that the DM has the experience necessary to eyeball them.
As you could see with Jeremy’s posts many people don’t do this and the rules don’t say what the DC should represent. Some people do think that lvl 1 door, lvl 14 door and lvl 25 door should look a bit different, as the monsters do, some don’t. It doesn’t explain how a fighter got to become good at opening them over time if they improve.
The same way he got good at stabbing bigger and bigger monsters over time, despite the fact he shouldn’t be able scratch some of them.
There is an in-built mechanic that either says that you learn nothing if you don’t improve the tasks, or that everyone learns everything (although some have a head start) if you improve the task with the number and forces DM fiat solutions to say who can do what if there is to be a difference. That’s what rubs me the wrong way.
Hey I get it, and I’m not saying you’re wrong to feel that way. Personally I don’t mind high-level fighters giving magic lessons to low-level wizards; that fighter’s been adventuring with his wizard buddy and traveling through a world that oozes magic for a long, long time. I like high-level characters being well-rounded.
I can see that you want your level increase to show somewhere, but when the monster numbers do scale with you to keep them relevant, it gets to the point where you have your AC increased from 17 to 22, but the same monster keeps hitting at 11+ on dice.
That’s the way of the world. Do boxers not train in defense, as well as offense? When two champs go at it, do they just stand there like they did when they threw their first punches as children? If the champs don't feel a sense of advancement, it's because they're fighting opponents of similar skill -- each other. But when some wanna-be fan picks a fight with one after the match, you'd better believe even the losing champ will feel like he's come a long way when he knocks the fan out in the blink of an eye!
Like I said, I get where you’re coming from; I’ve heard all the arguments. And there’s nothing wrong with wanting less math to do. But from my PoV consistently hitting about half the time, no matter the levels involved, is satisfying in more than one way.
Bosses can get tougher by becoming bosses. You give them bonuses to attack and defense by assigning elite status or solo status and that’s where you get the difference protecting them from save or suck along with monster abilities like epic recovery. Those are the ones making the difference. Aside from that they are advancing along with you, unless you keep them fixed (and we are back at the problem similar to what what was written above).
As for the meaning of +1 bonus. Well it would really depend on pacing of the bonuses. If the monsters are not becoming progresively harder to hit at every opportunity and the amount of feats or other increase shengians is limited, then you won’t be racing anywhere. If you are hitting a well armoured boss foe, be it a knight or a dragon on 17+ assuming just +3 ability and proficiency with attack then you can get +1 for magic weapon and +1 for something like weapon focus and oerhaps another +1 for ability increase. If it’s all you get at adventurer tier, then there’s plenty of room for other things and you can still remain relevant without the feat/item/ability thanks to flanking, aid, buffs, etc.
Hey, if you think it’ll work, I say live your dream! I’m serious -- you clearly have a strong vision for the game, so why not make it happen? D&D: Edition Z, or just house rule what you play!
I’d love to hear how it works out for you. :)
See? You controll the numbers, so for the same task you have different DCs at different levels. So the PC at level 1 has to roll 10 to suceed and at level ten he has to roll 9 because of ability increase, but the level was irrelevant in the equation. Why bother with adding the number then? Did I learn nothing over those ten levels?
You learned as much or as little as the DM has decided adventurers learn. That is a DM controlled scale that goes from nothing at all up to the ability to scale sheer glass cliffs covered in vegetable oil in the middle of a Tornado at 11th level. The DM chooses what this advancement means based on his own preference for the look and feel of the campaign.
Plus if we rely on DM fiat, then you could have just rolled the dice and said on 9+ you suceed and ditch the skill space on char sheet. Just list in which skills you are trained in and otherwise act like it was a save.
You could have that but then your not taking into account the spread among the players in terms of skills. Nor the fact that there might well be skills no one is good with. In my campaign until the Barbarian joined it turned out everyone used strength as a dump stat and no one had a good athletics. The result was a number of humorous scenes where the PCs are being foiled by a locked door. No one was strong enough to kick the thing in. Needless to say those on the other side of the door had time to take advantage of the delay.
So if you just decide everything is 9+ you'll loose out on consistency and variation among the players, its not a good solution. But consistency is not something that the designers need to have decided for the DM ala Pathfinder. In 4E the DM chooses instead of the designers. The key is to make a conscious choice and then stick with it. Failure to do that is what tends to trip up a newbie DM. On the other hand once the DM has decided what is and is not appropreate for a given level its easy to get good DCs for that level using the numeric guidelines for DCs.
4E also seems to have chosen the high fantasy way. You can disarm sphere of annihilation at certain levels. The fact that you don't give DCs much value in terms of what PCs can achieve doesn't mean that they don't do wild things outside of skill area. All DM fiat can shatter world consistency somewhat, but here we are in imagination territory where you can't really measure things and don't need system in first place.
Well the examples from the Compendium, and there are four of them, vary slightly in their numbers. None of them mention disarming the Sphere but if you have the Tailsman then a high level character can control it. Nonetheless you've decided that this is 'very wild'. I'm not so sure since its pretty ephemeral what difficulty controlling a sphere is when compared to using arcane (or another skill) for other purposes is. All we really know is that this is something that is done only by Epic level characters but, once again, what being epic entails remains the purview of the DM.
One of the good DM aids of the 3E DM Guide had was the table listing task, difficulty and who is expected to reliably do the thing.
This simply means that the designers have chosen for you what skills represent. Something I would say is a very good thing for a newbie DM but not required for an expert one.
That is not to say that a lot of expert DMs might very much agree with the choices the designers made. For me however I was never completely happy. The idea that as one got past 5th level you went beyond what the greatest Olympic athletes can accomplish never really appealed to me personally. I don't like my PCs, too quickly, becoming more human then human. In my 4E campaign they don't get to be more human then human (i.e. capable of accomplishing super human feats) until they get into epic.
That is a personal preference however. Other 4E DMs are capable of making their own choices about what is and what is not appropriate at any given level. Note that any given 4E DM could even sit down and try and codify such things by creating a similar table. Ultimately, I in fact, have done so - though not explicitly. I do so by sticking tasks with reasonable DCs into my adventures. By the nature of the game I am saying that these sorts of tasks are appropriate for my players level...with the caveat that I might also have tasks impossible for their level in the adventure as well - they of course are not meant to actually accomplish said tasks and the DC...if I even bother assigning one...reflects that.
|
|
There is an in-built mechanic that either says that you learn nothing if you don't improve the tasks, or that everyone learns everything (although some have a head start) if you improve the task with the number and forces DM fiat solutions to say who can do what if there is to be a difference. That's what rubs me the wrong way.
I believe 4e is basically saying the latter, i.e. that "everyone learns everything (although some have a head start)" and that a higher DC indicates a more difficult task.
I can see how that can be a problem, but it is by design and avoids other problems that systems like 3.5 and PF have where the disparity between PCs' skills can be so great that players either always leave those tasks to one PC, or if that PC is not there or all PCs need to perform the task (e.g. Stealth) then players simply do not choose that route.
I feel that 4e strikes a good balance between the assumption that all PCs having an improving level of basic competency (the Half Level bonus) but that those who focus on a skill can still become significantly better.
E.g. a 14th level fighter with Dex of 10 will have a +7 Stealth modifier, which is enough to rival a 1st level Rogue with Skill Training in Stealth and a Dex of 15.
This means that 14th level fighter has the same 65% chance to sneak past the city guards with a Passive Perception of 15 as that 1st level Rogue; challenging the fighter has learned much about sneaking in his time adventuring.
However, the 14th level rogue who adventures with the fighter, who has a Dex of 20, has skill training and skill focus in Stealth, and who has undertaken the Master Infiltrator Paragon path (which gives a +2 to Stealth) will have a Stealth modifier of +22 (7 + 5 + 5 + 3 +2).
This means that whilst the 14th level fighter is as good as a first level rogue, he still has a 35% chance of being spotted by city guards, whereas his companion the 14th level rogue does not even have to bother rolling, he has no chance of being spotted he is that good even if he takes the -5 penalty for moving more than 10 feet a round.
If a GM wants to challenge that 14th level Rogue he needs to look at DCs in the range of 25 to 35, and must come up with some ideas as to what that would represent (perhaps moving having to run across a nightingale floor whilst carrying lots of clanking treasure whilst 10 guards stand on watch just feet away).
|
|
The other thing I find interesting is that although 4e provides guidelines of DC by level, it does actually also give many static DCs too - and also for the things we have been talking about in this thread like climbing and breaking down doors.
PHB p182
Athletics Check to climb...
Ladder DC 0
Rope DC 10
Uneven surface (cave wall) DC 15
Rough surface (brick wall) DC 20
Slippery surface DC +5
Unusually smooth surface DC +5
DMG p64:
Strength Check to...
Break down wooden door DC 16
Break down barred door DC 20
Break down stone or iron door DC 25
Break down adamantine door DC 29
Break through force portal DC 38
So in these cases at least it is quite explicit that the higher DCs represent different, more difficult, tasks.
DigitalMage: Actually it never stated it in DMG, which I believe it's by mistake. Essentials books do say that for higher DCs you should get flashier results. The DC tables you mention are, however said to be orientational purely. Its sad that after devoting the effort to create a truly unified and interconnected system (one of the best thing on 4E really) the autors didn't communicate their intent more clearly.
Jeremy Mac Donald: Actually the choice has been made in other areas. You get to battle demon lords and gods, you get to encounter epic environs. Original DMG never stated it, but Essentials already do say that you should face the heroes with progressively more difficult tasks, not just throw higher DCs on them. They don't say how much more difficult the tasks should look mostly.
Tequila Sunrise: Well, not everyone agrees with that unfortunately. You wouldn't believe how many times did I have to argue with people that the DCs should represent something more than that they have come to door at different level.
The solos and elites don't get their increased protection from save or suck from their level. See the process of elite creation in DMG. It among other things states that you should increase defenses by 2. That's where you get the added protection along with things like epic recovery that automatically removes conditions on monster's turn. The system actually mostly tries to make you use monsters within 1-3 levels from PCs, which equals about to +1 bonus. As the defenses and attacks otherwise rise along with PCs I deem this difference mostly cosmetic - the true difference comes from things that let you deviate from the table. Minions are indeed a way to use lesser creatures at higher levels, but how is that achieved? The system tells you to scratch off creatures hp and bring it's attack and defenses in par with the table and thus the PCs. Again it turns level based bonus to exercise in math, rather than real achievement and it's damage that would matter in determination of awesomeness of PCs.
The same would go for your boxers. Of course they got better, but how much? They learned to cover them selves and dodge blows? Well Combat Expertise and Dodge feats do represent that. They are more capable to hit? Well Weapon Focus and Proficiency bonus could do that. If faced with commoners vastly under their levels the system would recommend using minions and you are back where you were with them unless you want the boxer to enjoy invulnerability and throw him low level foes.
Jeremy Mac Donald: Actually the choice has been made in other areas. You get to battle demon lords and gods, you get to encounter epic environs. Original DMG never stated it, but Essentials already do say that you should face the heroes with progressively more difficult tasks, not just throw higher DCs on them. They don't say how much more difficult the tasks should look mostly.
Yes I pointed out that there where a few areas where the system does make DCs explicit. My post near the bottom of page 4.
However, as DarkLightHitomi commented, much of the time one should be looking at what the system actually does as opposed to what it says it does. In this case it gives out a small handful of DCs but very few and almost always for either things that are either mundane or are 'magical' in nature and therefore provide no real grounding for how fantastic a human you must be to do that.
The implication is the PCs are getting more powerful however its an extraordinary easy house rule to decide that they are in fact not. You don't use the listed DCs for walls and doors and that pretty much takes care of it.
More then likely however one does not house rule - instead one says the PCs are getting more powerful...but by how much? Just when is the point when they can do things that no normal human no matter how well trained and how dedicated could do?
I'd say that you'll be back to doing house ruling if you want the period of their being purely human in capabilities to extend beyond Epic level but any point before that is the DMs Purview. You can go with 3.5s system of it being around 6th and beyond or decide that 11th level is when they should be swimming in boiling water or even decide instead that its 21st level when they have gone beyond the realm of truly talented and into something that is actually more human then human. That last is my personal preference.
Nonetheless the 4E DM still must choose and can choose whatever is desired with the extremes involving some slight house ruling. Ignore two or three examples of DCs in the books and decide that Demons and Gods either won't be featured or that they can be killed by talented mortals should about cover it.
Tequila Sunrise: Well, not everyone agrees with that unfortunately. You wouldn't believe how many times did I have to argue with people that the DCs should represent something more than that they have come to door at different level.
My feeling is if they know what they are doing then they are doing it correctly as running the game the way they want to run it is fine.
On the other hand you have a point if they are under the impression that all DCs are 'by level' and that bursting a wooden door and 'watersking' on lava are the same DC at the same level. That would be where continuity issues come up. One of those things is not like the other and the DM needed to choose which was appropriate for PCs of the current level.
Tequila Sunrise: Well, not everyone agrees with that unfortunately. You wouldn’t believe how many times did I have to argue with people that the DCs should represent something more than that they have come to door at different level.
That makes me a sad panda. :(
The solos and elites don’t get their increased protection from save or suck from their level. See the process of elite creation in DMG. It among other things states that you should increase defenses by 2.
This guideline was retracted after many fans and the dev team realized that 1) it contributed to grindy combat, and 2) it didn’t work all that well. Starting with the MM3, elites and solos didn’t get defense boosts, they got less hit points, and instead got traits that allowed them to simply shrug off various save or lose conditions. (Usually there’s a consolation condition left over, so that poor controllers don’t feel useless against boss monsters.)
That’s where you get the added protection along with things like epic recovery that automatically removes conditions on monster’s turn. The system actually mostly tries to make you use monsters within 1-3 levels from PCs, which equals about to +1 bonus. As the defenses and attacks otherwise rise along with PCs I deem this difference mostly cosmetic - the true difference comes from things that let you deviate from the table. Minions are indeed a way to use lesser creatures at higher levels, but how is that achieved? The system tells you to scratch off creatures hp and bring it’s attack and defenses in par with the table and thus the PCs. Again it turns level based bonus to exercise in math, rather than real achievement and it’s damage that would matter in determination of awesomeness of PCs.
I agree, the difference between static attacks/defenses, and 4e’s combination of level-based attacks/defenses and monster caste is essentially cosmetic. An 11th level PC fighting a 1st level foe in your ideal game would play out much like a 4e 11th level PC fighting a 11th level minion -- so again I ask, why don’t you make your ideal a reality?
Well, mostly I do intend to do this as soon as I find someone willing to play 4e here. My group hated the thing with passion. I intend to try the same tweak with 13th age however.
Still the fact that you can tweak the game on this level with foreseeanle results shows that at it's core there is a small wonder on it's own right.
|
|
DigitalMage: Actually it never stated it in DMG, which I believe it's by mistake. Essentials books do say that for higher DCs you should get flashier results. The DC tables you mention are, however said to be orientational purely. Its sad that after devoting the effort to create a truly unified and interconnected system (one of the best thing on 4E really) the autors didn't communicate their intent more clearly.
When you say "never stated it in DMG", by "it" do you mean the fact that higher DCs equate to more difficult tasks? I admit the text on page 42 could have been better worded* but elsewhere it is clear that a higher DC means a more challenging task (e.g. the examples of breaking down a door etc) and also that setting a higher DC based on party level is to make that difficulty relevant to the party (as opposed to irrelevant because it is way too low or too high) "Use the Skill Check Difficulty Class table below to select a relevant DC for the party’s level." DMG p61.
To be honest Essentials does actually go ahead and specify that the DC changes for the exact same task based upon character level and that is way I really hate Essentials (amongst other reasons).
* Just changing...
"set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere in between."
..to...
"set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere in between for a character of that level (i.e. someone with that level of experience and training)."
...would have been enough.
Well, at least the DM's book on p. 105 says
However don't throw all sense of realism out of the window. If simple wooden door in dungeon, stuck from years of disuse, requires DC 10 Strength check for a 4th-level character to break down there's no logical reason the same door should require a DC 21 Strength check for a 24th-level character to break through...
At least something, DMG seems to lack even that :-)
Actually the p. 42 table, the true heart of the system, seems to lack any real mention in the text and that is a great shame. DMs and players should have been pointed to this table in multiple places and instructed to improvise actions a lot. The powers have actually often created the notion that all your character can do is based on them, which made the players feel limited, while the system has in-built tools to do wild things. The powers have IMO hoged too much spotlight in the end. Of course that this was later proven untrue, but often only after careful reading of rules.
The Essentials suffer a lot from not being a complete game. They attemped to pack everything you need to play the game on largely basic level with at the time latest updates and attempted correction at places, but many parts that made the game whole are missing, just like many things there are repeated. It didn't went the way of 3.0 and 3.5 where the books got cleared and released as complete and full replacement. Instead of an attempt to create a pocket variant that the Essentials seemed to be.
Yep, in the Essentials the book is actually called just "Dungeon Master's Book"
Well, mostly I do intend to do this as soon as I find someone willing to play 4e here. My group hated the thing with passion. I intend to try the same tweak with 13th age however.
That's a shame. You don't live in the NYC metro area, do you? ;)
Still the fact that you can tweak the game on this level with foreseeanle results shows that at it's core there is a small wonder on it's own right.
Agreed; 4e is a dream come true for house ruling DMs.
Well truth to be told till the Essentials came I did kinda follow 4E, but considered it a botch when it came to implementing of otherwise some great ideas to gaming reality. 13th finaly brought powers in a way that I found more desireable, but it was Essentials that started to bring me back in spite of all it's shortcommings.
I'm from Czech Republic. There are groups that like 4E here, but I'm not part of them.
I love 13th Age, best d20 game IMO.
Well they took many good things from both 4E and 3E. The core of 4E that was essentially robust and elegant is clear to see.
Yeah, I consider the Essentials stuff a botch too -- at least the player stuff. I lost a lot of interest in new 4e stuff after PHB3.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I consider the Essentials stuff a botch too -- at least the player stuff. I lost a lot of interest in new 4e stuff after PHB3.
My real problem with Essentials and points forward was that they started to try and make 4E as much like older editions as possible. By this point Mike Mearls was lead design and 4E had never really been his vision of D&D. So from this point forward we essentially have 4E material that seems to focus on elements where 4E is weakest in some vain attempt to make it better while at the same time the areas where 4E is strongest are being completely ignored.
That is not to say that every rule change is bad or anything but the focus is simply off. I use much of the Essentials rules but I have a critical eye when using it in order to make sure that the system is actually doing what I want it to do and I play my campaigns in a manner that focuses much more on what 4E is good at...something WotC appears to have never discovered. Instead we get endless dungeons with endless smaller encounters. This element is not 4Es strength but we get little that would seem to pay attention to the elements that are 4Es strengths such as a focus on the skills and adventure design around such elements as well as fewer more epic feeling combats interspersed with role playing. Mike Mearls wants lots of dungeon delving but 4E will never be a very strong system for delving into huge dungeons. Huge dungeons feature to many small combats and don't usually suggest really interesting terrain elements. 4E works better out of the dungeon or with small dungeons that show off interesting elements like Goblins on a Ferris Wheel and the like.
Interestingly I allow my players to use the essentials classes if they want. Don't have any takers at my table - after a brief experimentation they where pronounced to be boring in comparison to the AEDU style classes where you can get a lot of excitement from the interaction of all sorts of cool moves. It can be slow to see this stuff play out but if your paying attention combat does tend to look like something out of a modern fantasy blockbuster with people flying all over the place and being knocked down or back or...etc. Essentials characters don't really have that instead trending toward much more generic damage or builds that always do the exact same rider every round - knocking the bad guy down is much less interesting when its what you do every round of every combat.
Interestingly enough my main power gaming player considers the Essentials classes to be more powerful. Or at least if you make the right builds they are. In his view consistency is king in Optimization and you want a character that can consistently totally screw with the bad guys in predictable ways every round. However he eventually abandoned even his super powerful character with a comment along the lines of 'I love powerful characters - what I discovered was I love having fun even more'.
Actually I like Essential Classes structure better, but I never liked original classes in the first place...
Just a question to throw out for those that like 4E and are aware of PF (as it is a PF board) - has any third party PF publisher set up a product that is basically 4E rituals for PF.
I love the one that did Implements. And I could do a quick and dirty one for Residuum. But Rituals is the only element that I love about 4E that I haven't seen ported over.
I liked a lot of the elements of 4E, just not the core design choices.
I'm not aware of any, but it wouldn't be hard to house rule a simple set of guidelines for converting spells to rituals:
Give it a 5 minute casting time, and a monetary cost based on level if it doesn't already have one.
You could let any class use scrolls so long as they took X minutes to use. A character would have to spend money buying the scroll and the long casting time would mean they wouldn't be viable during combat.
Basic, simple, and easy.
I can't believe I didn't even think of that.
*sigh*
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm sure I can do something with that as a base. Thanks.
I'm not aware of any, but it wouldn't be hard to house rule a simple set of guidelines for converting spells to rituals:
Give it a 5 minute casting time, and a monetary cost based on level if it doesn't already have one.
Between this and the scroll idea I have something simple I can do.
I was just looking at what spells should be rituals, and the idea of making the lists and such made me just think "too difficult" Just throwing the extra time on it disallows all the stuff that should be moved out of rituals.
Thanks.
|
|
What I did for rituals was say that most spells had a ritual version different from the spell. Any character with spellcraft or K Arcana skill ranks could use a ritual from a ritual book taking ten times the normal casting time and a magical material componant.
The magical componant could be anything of the appropriate spell level or higher, either a potion or similar. The componant could be unspecified but costs the same as a potion of that level (SL x CL[ranks in the skill used] x 25 = base cost) except can be any level.
This allowed a noncaster to just have a book of rituals known and would have to spend money or sacrifice items found/bought. It also enforces the concept that casting rituals still required some knowledge of magic and didn't require emulating class features or changing the existing rules.
....
I liked the ritual concept in 4e, except it seemed to be much too limited a selection and many spells were relegated to being rituals only even some I would have liked to have in combat.
