Another [4e] thread... The topic? Playing *outside* of combat.

[Paragon Badger]

Yes, the skill system has been revamped and diplomacy and such have been changed to work much better than 3e's.

However, I am under the impression that the developers took one step forward and sixty steps sideways (perhaps a few backwards as well).

The reason is, from what I've heard (still haven't gotten the chance to see 4e firsthand, my friends are also hesitant- and I'm not forking over any cash to buy it just to let the books collect dust); pretty much everything you get from leveling helps you in battles.

Now don't get me wrong- I very much enjoy heavily tactical wargames, I've toyed with ideas of using Power Attack to destroy enemy shields and thus permanently lower their AC and other such things, but not all D&D games are constant battling.

I am ignorant of 4e's true nature, but if someone would enlighten me; what is possible outside of combat?

The 4e wizard's spell list is much less versatile than his 3e counterpart I hear, but did they just shave off unbalanced spells.... or did they also shave off the more passive spells? (Unseen Servant, Disguise Self, Nystul's magic aura, Silent Image, Erase, Arcane Lock, Misdirection, ect. ect. ect.)

Sure, you may say "You can roleplay ANY game."

But there are some that are more difficult to roleplay with than others, and I would like to have the power to be as creative as possible in the way I solve challenges. Moreover, I'd like to have creative challenges put forth to me as well. Having sixty different ways to kill a goblin doesn't change the fact that you're killing a goblin. I would not blame, but sympathize with the DM who cannot come up with creative challenges because the player's main way of overcoming challenges more-or-less involves killing it dead or using the handful of skills available to them.

But I did not create this topic to rant. I did so to ask those familiar with 4E; If you were playing or DMing a game, would you find it easier or more difficult to solve/create without resorting to combat?

And not something like a diplomacy check challenge but one that actually requires more than a dice roll; creative thinking.

[HeirToPendragon]

It is EASIER to create in 4e

In 3.5, creating was happered by a crap tone of cinderblock rules. 4e isn't designed like that. The Core books focus mainly on the streamlined versions of combat and left the roleplaying stuff out.

This means that Combat no longer takes forever and we can get it over with and back to focusing on the story interaction. It almost means that all the fluff and other roleplaying stuff has been completely given over to the DM who is free to do whatever he wants with it.

And yet people still seem to think this is restricting. I mean I really just don't get it.

[Skyserpent]

The skill system does involve a bit of levelling up since you add half your levels to skill checks.

A lot of people don't like Rituals which take up the mantle of several utility spells along with the standard Wizard Utilities, but I think they aren't so bad... this is a matter of taste though...

So far though, I've had players perform very creative maneuvres in and out of combat to solve problems. No less than any we did in 3.5... I can't say we solved MORE problems out of Combat than in 3.5 mostly because combat is a lot more fun now and Players seem just a bit more battle-prone in 4e... give it a few months and we'll see how many skills see use... I'll get back to you when I have my data

[Xefas]

The 4e wizard's spell list is much less versatile than his 3e counterpart I hear, but did they just shave off unbalanced spells.... or did they also shave off the more passive spells? (Unseen Servant, Disguise Self, Nystul's magic aura, Silent Image, Erase, Arcane Lock, Misdirection, ect. ect. ect.)

Sure, you may say "You can roleplay ANY game."

But there are some that are more difficult to roleplay with than others, and I would like to have the power to be as creative as possible in the way I solve challenges. Moreover, I'd like to have creative challenges put forth to me as well. Having sixty different ways to kill a goblin doesn't change the fact that you're killing a goblin. I would not blame, but sympathize with the DM who cannot come up with creative challenges because the player's main way of overcoming challenges more-or-less involves killing it dead or using the handful of skills available to them.

The problem with the Wizard having all of those out of combat utility spells was that no non-caster class had any sort of analogue to them.

Sure, if you played a Wizard you could try to solve some problems in wacky ways that the DM probably didn't plan for, and now the NPCs that he spent 8 hours statting up are never going to be used, but no one else could.

I witnessed it a lot. The Cleric and Wizard stick their heads together and spend 2 hours figuring out how to combine their spell lists to circumvent a challenge that would have taken all of 10 minutes to go through otherwise, and everyone else pulls out their Gameboy/DS/rubix cube and sits there bored.

With Rituals, anyone can become trained in their use, so the entire party can participate in the out of combat crazy magical junk that happens if they want to. This will only increase as more supplements comes out and the list of Rituals balloons to gargantuan proportions.

[HeirToPendragon]

The problem with the Wizard having all of those out of combat utility spells was that no non-caster class had any sort of analogue to them.

Sure, if you played a Wizard you could try to solve some problems in wacky ways that the DM probably didn't plan for, and now the NPCs that he spent 8 hours statting up are never going to be used, but no one else could.

I witnessed it a lot. The Cleric and Wizard stick their heads together and spend 2 hours figuring out how to combine their spell lists to circumvent a challenge that would have taken all of 10 minutes to go through otherwise, and everyone else pulls out their Gameboy/DS/rubix cube and sits there bored.

Wow, that sounds EXACTLY like the games I used to run. It got to the point that I stopped planning games anymore and my players knew it. I was intentionally trying to kill them just so it presented them with a challenge.

[Paragon Badger]

It is EASIER to create in 4e

In 3.5, creating was happered by a crap tone of cinderblock rules. 4e isn't designed like that. The Core books focus mainly on the streamlined versions of combat and left the roleplaying stuff out.

This means that Combat no longer takes forever and we can get it over with and back to focusing on the story interaction. It almost means that all the fluff and other roleplaying stuff has been completely given over to the DM who is free to do whatever he wants with it.

And yet people still seem to think this is restricting. I mean I really just don't get it.

I believe it is restricting because it's more vague. In my last game, I had an ally using Summon Rat Swarm to eat a dead body. (Unsuccesfully, since the rats didn't eat bones ) Another used Ray of Frost to put out fires.

Afterall, there are no rules in D&D- only guidelines.

And some of us would like to have guidelines about what we can do outside of combat so we don't get into arguements with one another about proper application of a spell.

One of my favorites roles to play when I am a wizard is that of the trickster. He did not kill many things or contribute heavily to battle, but he had many tools with which to maneuver himself in an advantageous position outside of battle..

With the game's focus on battle, it just seems that they created half a game. There are guidelines for fighting, but no guidelines on what you can do outside. Some call this more freedom to roleplay... I consider it less- since you're given less material to work with.

Edit: To reply to the posters above on the topic of wizards... well, I never said 3.5 was perfect. Fighters can do practically nothing outside of combat. Even Barbarians get an easier time with their slightly more forgiving skill list.

[Goober4473]

I actually really like the lack of powers outside of combat. They're there, but mostly like, rituals.

The reason is, I like to keep characters kind of down-to-earth. Sure, they battle crazy monsters and fight armies and save the world, but in the end, they're people. They can't force everyone to think like them and get the hot princess (or prince) to fall in love with them just by rolling a +900 Diplomacy check or casting one spell. They still have to work at social situations, and still act like people, no matter how many dragons they slay or dark god they prevent from rising.

[Xefas]

Edit: To reply to the posters above on the topic of wizards... well, I never said 3.5 was perfect. Fighters can do practically nothing outside of combat. Even Barbarians get an easier time with their slightly more forgiving skill list.

Well, 4th edition's answer was to take all the out of combat utility spells and give them to everyone in the form of rituals. Now everyone gets to solve their problems creatively.

They don't have *all* the out of combat spells that Wizards did in 3.5, true. They still have stuff like Knock, Silence, Secret Page, Magic Mouth, Discern Lies, Speak with Dead, Sending, Arcane Lock, etc.

It's less robust, with the upside of being easier to homebrew (in my opinion), and that there's less of "If you aren't a Wizard, sit in the corner and be quiet."

Oh, and Disguise Self is a full-blown Wizard Power (I noticed it was on your list).

[wodan46]

As said before, 4e core books focus on getting combat nice and neatly sorted out without complaints about slowness or balance, so that the DM has more time to manage the roleplaying/noncombat parts instead. If anything, 4e is better for stuff outside combat than 3.5e is where everyone is still trying to sort out thaco or waiting for the wizard to do everything for them and the like (intentional overstatement).

As for what you get rules wise outside of combat, the DMG gives plenty of tips and advice, but as for concrete stuff, there is the following:

1. Skills, main way of doing encounters that don't involve combat.
2. Rituals, this covers all the nifty non-combat tricks wizards get, except that they've had the broken parts nerfed out, and are theoretically available to anyone if they want to junk a feat for ritual casting and another for the skill training to be good at it.
3. Wizard Cantrips and some Utilities for Rogue/Ranger/Wizards are explicitly non-combat or multipurpose.
4. Wizard and Warlock combat powers in particular can be used creatively outside of combat, where you recharge your encounters every 5 minutes. Clerics and Paladins might be able to use defensive stuff to block hazards here and there. The other class's combat powers are limited to hit thing, disable thing, possibly at a distance.

[JMobius]

4E fixed diplomacy? I must have missed that. It was one of the first things that I looked for in the PHB, and IIRC all it said was something to the effect of "the GM assigns the DC". I didn't even see a table or some other indication of what approximate DCs might be.

I'll check the DMG.

[Xefas]

4E fixed diplomacy? I must have missed that. It was one of the first things that I looked for in the PHB, and IIRC all it said was something to the effect of "the GM assigns the DC". I didn't even see a table or some other indication of what approximate DCs might be.

I'll check the DMG.

Should be page 42 of the DMG. Difficulty Class by level.

Those are the numbers you need for a Skill Challenge. As it says at the bottom, you should raise the DCs by 5 if they're attempting a single Skill Check to overcome something.

[ashmanonar]

I believe it is restricting because it's more vague. In my last game, I had an ally using Summon Rat Swarm to eat a dead body. (Unsuccesfully, since the rats didn't eat bones ) Another used Ray of Frost to put out fires.

And yet, you forgot the best, most conventional way to hide a dead body: everybody pick up a shovel. Or, hire a mobster to do it.

[Justin_Bacon]

In 3.5, creating was happered by a crap tone of cinderblock rules. 4e isn't designed like that. The Core books focus mainly on the streamlined versions of combat and left the roleplaying stuff out.

This means that Combat no longer takes forever and we can get it over with and back to focusing on the story interaction.

Except every playtest report I've read (and my own playtest experiences) indicate that combat takes up as much or more table time in 4th Edition.

So far, I've found the dissociated mechanics to be exactly the sort of serious problem. I've been consciously trying to avoid house ruling, but the result is that the system feels like a straitjacket. Because they've abandoned the "cinderblocks", as you call them, there's no support. So I can either throw consistency out the window and just dictate on a whim, or I can start layering on countless house rules.

For example, in my first session the PCs tied up a kobold prisoner. There are no rules for determining how good the knots the PCs tie are. The guidelines for Acrobatics recommends that I make up a target number out of thin air to determine how difficult it is to escape from restraints. This is almost useless to me if the players are the ones trying to escape and completely useless when its the NPC trying to escape.

And I ran into similar problems multiple times. In the first session.

So, compared to 3rd Edition, I have an immediate degradation of basic utility. And it's not only that he target number guidelines are gone, the comprehensive skill system is gone.

And it's easy to say, "Jesus Christ, Justin. It's tying up a friggin' kobold. Make a judgment call and do it."

Which is, of course, what I did. But the problem is that, at some point, they're going to want to tie up another prisoner... and they're going to expect the same mechanics to be used. That makes it a house rule. And tracking that one house rule isn't a big deal... but these problems are scattered all over the new edition. So now I've got dozens or hundreds of these house rules to track.

Should be page 42 of the DMG. Difficulty Class by level.

Those are the numbers you need for a Skill Challenge. As it says at the bottom, you should raise the DCs by 5 if they're attempting a single Skill Check to overcome something.

Which, of course, leads to the absurdity of DC 29 Perception checks to spot fist-sized gems lying on pedestals in the middle of the room. (An example right out of the DMG.) Why is it so difficult to spot that fist-sized gem? Because it's supposed to be a challenge for Tier 2 characters.

IOW, the gem isn't hard to spot and therefore it's a challenge for Tier 2 characters. It's a Tier 2 challenge and therefore the gem (no matter it's size or shape or location) is hard to spot.

Dissociated mechanics pretty much shatter my willing suspension of disbelief. The inconsistencies and absurdities make me disconnect from the game world -- and once that happens, roleplaying is impossible.

[Levyathyn]

I used to play the wizard often, and I never found a problem. Before you say that that was because I was the wizard, other people played wiz too. I didn't, you could say, get uppity. I've DM'd plenty, and I understand that things that go smooth go easier and faster, so I never made trouble as a wizard. I mean, sure it can be fun to spend hours, as you say, ruining a good planned encounter, but I always enjoyed playing what the DM layed out. Now, however, without Crafting, without Summoning, without free teleporting...I feel less like a wizard and more like a sorceror. I don't want all the power in the world, I just liked being able to cast magic; Not use the same class features that everyone gets.

Admittedly, I like the new system. I can't bend the world to my will, but I can do it more than 12 times a day. My only complaint is the limited nature of rituals. I would prefer more rituals, in line with the old spells of 3.5 Some to summon creatures would be nice, and could round out a group of three PC's into a fighting force worthy of a solo creature. Being able to raise undead falls into the same category. Overall, a smallish book of rituals, including some unique rituals for the skills (arcana, nature, religion, etc.) would be perfect.

For future reference, a few pigs'll clear up a dead body in an hour or so, bones and all.

EDIT: Although, /\ That guy's right. I forgot about the rope thing. =)

[Chronos]

In 3.5, creating was happered by a crap tone of cinderblock rules. 4e isn't designed like that. The Core books focus mainly on the streamlined versions of combat and left the roleplaying stuff out.

In that case, you'll love my new RPG that I just invented. You're not hampered by rules in or out of combat! You can make up any rules you want!

The problem with the Wizard having all of those out of combat utility spells was that no non-caster class had any sort of analogue to them.

Has nobody else ever played a rogue? They're all about the out-of-combat utility.

One thing I wonder about 4e... I hear this talk about how there are combat challenges, and skill challenges. How supportive is the system of challenges where the players decide what kind it is? Suppose there's a bugbear guard with a key to a locked door. I could kill him and take the key, or I could sneak up to him and pick his pocket, or I could create a distraction to lure him away and then bash down the door. If I choose option 2 or 3, and the DM or module expected me to choose option 1, does the DM then have to set up a set of numbers for a skill challenge on the fly?

[Rockphed]

One thing I wonder about 4e... I hear this talk about how there are combat challenges, and skill challenges. How supportive is the system of challenges where the players decide what kind it is? Suppose there's a bugbear guard with a key to a locked door. I could kill him and take the key, or I could sneak up to him and pick his pocket, or I could create a distraction to lure him away and then bash down the door. If I choose option 2 or 3, and the DM or module expected me to choose option 1, does the DM then have to set up a set of numbers for a skill challenge on the fly?

I think the answer is yes. However, there is hope. Look what I found 5 posts up!

Should be page 42 of the DMG. Difficulty Class by level.

Those are the numbers you need for a Skill Challenge. As it says at the bottom, you should raise the DCs by 5 if they're attempting a single Skill Check to overcome something.

Does that answer your question, or should I shut up until my books arrive on Friday? (Why does the mail have to be so slow? They are in my state already! I think they started in my state! Woe is me.)

edit: Out of curiosity, how would you go about making a distraction? Would you try to purposefully roll low on a move silently check? Or would it be some sort of bluff check? How about a fireball? Is that a good distraction?

[THAC0]

And it's easy to say, "Jesus Christ, Justin. It's tying up a friggin' kobold. Make a judgment call and do it."

Which is, of course, what I did. But the problem is that, at some point, they're going to want to tie up another prisoner... and they're going to expect the same mechanics to be used. That makes it a house rule. And tracking that one house rule isn't a big deal... but these problems are scattered all over the new edition. So now I've got dozens or hundreds of these house rules to track.

Welcome back to the good ol' ways of AD&D.

Honestly, it's just a shift in perception. It might bug your players now because they're used to having all rules spelled out, but it wouldn't bug our groups, because we're used to the DM making rulings on the fly from years of 1e, and we trust them to have a vague (who needs perfect?) consistency.

It ain't the end of the world if you work tying people up differently every time.

[Oracle_Hunter]

For example, in my first session the PCs tied up a kobold prisoner. There are no rules for determining how good the knots the PCs tie are. The guidelines for Acrobatics recommends that I make up a target number out of thin air to determine how difficult it is to escape from restraints. This is almost useless to me if the players are the ones trying to escape and completely useless when its the NPC trying to escape.

Acrobatics says specifically "Escape from Restraints: 5 minutes. Base DC 20. The DC is determined by the type of restraint and its quality, assessed by the DM"

So... I would have said DC 20, if I didn't want to crack open the DMG. If the restraints were particularly secure (like chains and manacles) I'd make that a DC 24, if it was knotted bedsheets, I'd make it DC 16.

I got those numbers from the DMG, page 42 (it's under the section entitled "Actions the Rules Don't Cover"). For every random challenge past level 3, the "hard" and the "easy" numbers are exactly 8 apart. It's a nice easy table to memorize - easier than THAC0, that's for sure!

By the way, this is unlike all previous editions in that there aren't a billion arcane tables to memorize. Furthermore, since they actually included an easy way to figure out DCs for random actions, I would argue it is even easier to use than 3rd, where you had no such system and actually did have to make everything up.

Moving on...

Which, of course, leads to the absurdity of DC 29 Perception checks to spot fist-sized gems lying on pedestals in the middle of the room. (An example right out of the DMG.) Why is it so difficult to spot that fist-sized gem? Because it's supposed to be a challenge for Tier 2 characters.

IOW, the gem isn't hard to spot and therefore it's a challenge for Tier 2 characters. It's a Tier 2 challenge and therefore the gem (no matter it's size or shape or location) is hard to spot.

DMG page 93: the Soul Gem Trap, a level 26 Solo Blaster.

DC 29: "The character spots the gem"
This is a passive perception test, meaning "did the PC notice the trap before they walked into the room." If we assume Level 24 PCs, they have a base +13 bonus to spot this sucker - so untrained and with WIS +0, they're not seeing it. Train it (+5) and they will see the Gem is they have WIS +1. Random schmoes who wander into this room won't notice the gem until it zaps them dead, but your Rogue or Ranger who trained Spot? Probably going to notice it.

Now, if you're a smart DM, you didn't put this trap in the middle of an empty 10 x 10 room. Perhaps there are columns, or it's in the middle of a treasure vault, or maybe it's sitting in the middle of the wizard's study.

Or, you know what, you can say "well, the rules say this gem is (kind of) hard to see. Perhaps when I describe what the trap looks like, I'll describe it so that it is hard to see." The rules describe what goes on in the game, and if you are designing a game based on those rules, perhaps you should follow them?

This is the third strawman I've seen you set up. Why?

EDIT: Ah, a real question

One thing I wonder about 4e... I hear this talk about how there are combat challenges, and skill challenges. How supportive is the system of challenges where the players decide what kind it is? Suppose there's a bugbear guard with a key to a locked door. I could kill him and take the key, or I could sneak up to him and pick his pocket, or I could create a distraction to lure him away and then bash down the door. If I choose option 2 or 3, and the DM or module expected me to choose option 1, does the DM then have to set up a set of numbers for a skill challenge on the fly?

Well, I've read a module that has a skill challenge. It was really poorly written, but it basically covered all the bases. You were supposed to run when the police are trying to catch you and lock you in jail. If you decided to stand and fight... then I would have you stand and fight the entire city police force until you decided to flee.

Yeah, it was a pretty crappy skill challenge. This is why I hate modules

Now, it turns out it's pretty easy to set up skill challenges on the fly:

Spoiler

Show

1) Determine how complex the action is
- that is, how many successes before how many failures. Don't worry, there's a table with complexities ranging from 1 (4 up before 2 down) to 5 (12 up before 6 down).
2) Look at the DC table on DMG page 42 and note the "Easy," "Medium," and "Hard" DCs for your party level.
3) Figure out what the PCs are trying to do (the success condition) and what is likely to happen if they fail (the failure condition). If I'm feeling witty, I'll alter the failure condition depending on what the last failure rolled was.
4) Ask the PC who started this what they want to do.
- If it seems reasonable, have them roll a "Medium" DC.
- If it is unlikely to work, but you want them to have a shot at it, choose the "Hard" DC.
- If their action wouldn't necessarily move them towards their objective, but might open another avenue of attack (like using Insight in a social situation) give them a "Moderate" DC (if they put some effort into it) or a "Hard" DC if they shrug and say "I dunno, I'll roll Insight." If they pass that check, reveal to them either an avenue that doesn't work (don't intimidate the Duke) or a new avenue that may work (the Duke is a blowhard who is really proud of his military campaigns 50 years ago. Roll History to see if you can remember enough to make him think you're his #1 fan).
- If they win the encounter, give them their prize and calculate XP. XP is equal to N times an Encounter equal to their current level, where N is the complexity value of the challenge. So if they were 5th level and they solved a complexity 3 challenge, they would get 3 x 800 = 2400 XP.

Honestly, Building your own adventurers is cake in 4e, mechanically. And adjusting on the fly is even easier! No more asspulls that force you to invent 5 different DCs and adjudicate crazy actions - there's a Catch-All section right in the book.

[Chronos]

edit: Out of curiosity, how would you go about making a distraction? Would you try to purposefully roll low on a move silently check? Or would it be some sort of bluff check? How about a fireball? Is that a good distraction?

Yes.

In situations like that, it would usually end up being a particular friend of mine who was tasked with the "create a distraction" part of the plan. You could never tell just what he was going to do, but it did always end up being distracting.

As to turning that into a skill challenge, I would presume that it would depend in some way on the Perception skill of the guard? How is the skill challenge different from two separate checks, Stealth vs. Perception to see if you can sneak up to the guard, and then Thievery vs. Perception to see if you can get the key away from him? Would I use the same check for the Stealth part of the challenge if my objective were just to sneak past him without stealing the key?


By the way, I like to think that if there were a fist-sized gem in a room, I'd have at least a chance to notice it before I walked in. And if I were an avaricious thief, I like to think that I'd definitely notice something like that.

[Oracle_Hunter]

In situations like that, it would usually end up being a particular friend of mine who was tasked with the "create a distraction" part of the plan. You could never tell just what he was going to do, but it did always end up being distracting.

It so happens that you can create your own diversions by using the Bluff skill according to RAW. Alternatively, you can just say "yes, that was sufficiently distracting" if someone else is doing the distraction rather than you pulling the ol' "throw a rock" trick.

As to turning that into a skill challenge, I would presume that it would depend in some way on the Perception skill of the guard? How is the skill challenge different from two separate checks, Stealth vs. Perception to see if you can sneak up to the guard, and then Thievery vs. Perception to see if you can get the key away from him? Would I use the same check for the Stealth part of the challenge if my objective were just to sneak past him without stealing the key?

I wouldn't have done that as a skill challenge, unless the guard was asleep. With an awake guard, just make each check in succession - skill challenges are for time-consuming tasks in which a variety of skills can be used to overcome the challenge. Convincing the Duke to lend you his army, evading pursuing guards, seducing the baron's daughter...

By the way, I like to think that if there were a fist-sized gem in a room, I'd have at least a chance to notice it before I walked in. And if I were an avaricious thief, I like to think that I'd definitely notice something like that.

Not to beat a dead horse, but at Level 24 (which is pretty low for a LV 26 Solo encounter) your Rogue would need to be trained in Perception and have a WIS of +1 at least. If your Rogue is sharp eyed and has practiced his alertness, then yes, he can notice the gem. That's the beauty of the +1/2LV bonus.

Also, Passive checks work like you're taking 10, and you can always declare an Active Perception before stepping into the room if you're paranoid like that.

[Justin_Bacon]

Acrobatics says specifically "Escape from Restraints: 5 minutes. Base DC 20. The DC is determined by the type of restraint and its quality, assessed by the DM"

Which is what I said: There are no rules for tying ropes. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Or, you know what, you can say "well, the rules say this gem is (kind of) hard to see. Perhaps when I describe what the trap looks like, I'll describe it so that it is hard to see." The rules describe what goes on in the game, and if you are designing a game based on those rules, perhaps you should follow them?

The rulebook says it's a fist-sized gem sitting on a pedestal in the middle of the room. If you want to house rule it, go right ahead. But the Rule 0 Fallacy is a pretty poor defense of any game. And since my complaint is specifically that these types of dissociated mechanics require a plethora of house ruling, you seem to be -- once again -- agreeing with my position while pretending that you don't.

This is the third strawman I've seen you set up. Why?

Yes, of course. That must be it. I carefully set up this "strawman", then hopped into my time machine, infiltrated WotC's offices in Washington, and then rewrote the rulebook before it was sent to the printer.

And why did I do this? So that I could criticize the game's shortcomings -- the very shortcomings I myself wrote and put into the rulebooks! -- on an Internet messageboard!

Mwahahahahahaha!

How did you ever discover my diabolical plan?

[Vikazc]

So what you're telling us, is that the rules don't make it clear to you that the gem is clear, shrouded in shadows, or otherwise difficult to see when it explicitly gave you a high spot DC to detect it? Argue that they don't give you a precise description of how its hidden sure. But they most certainly told you it is in some way difficult to see. I apologize that they set it up in such a way that individual GMs are required to think and apply their own circumstances to it, but some of us like vague traps that can be used multiple times with fluff changes.

As for the rope. Do you know how to tie knots? Beyond basic knots that it. There are a fairly large amount of knots in existence. Most people don't know amny of them, let alone all of them, because they are not commonly used outside of sailing vessels or the boy scouts. I can tell you however, that past a certain point, there is no *skill* to tieing a knot. You know how to tie it properly, or you don't. So a set DC for tieing someone up is a fairly good idea. As he said, adjust it up for manacles, down for shoe laces. Your character is a sailor or professional dominatrix? Have a +4 circumstance bonus.

This is a lot more beleivable then a good roll inexplicably allowing someone to tie a DC 60 knot that double jointed contortionists can't begin to slip out of.

[Moak]

Which is what I said: There are no rules for tying ropes. Thanks for agreeing with me.



The rulebook says it's a fist-sized gem sitting on a pedestal in the middle of the room. If you want to house rule it, go right ahead. But the Rule 0 Fallacy is a pretty poor defense of any game. And since my complaint is specifically that these types of dissociated mechanics require a plethora of house ruling, you seem to be -- once again -- agreeing with my position while pretending that you don't.

I am the only one who think that the Perception roll isn't to see the gem but to identify it like a dangerous one? Not a simple gem,but a ZAPLAZ0RKILLER gem?


Other than that,I like 4e because is nearer to OD&D. Yes,I know,it's strange to say something like this,but create a lot of space for immagination,because if there are bland rules,more space for improvvisation.

[nagora]

For example, in my first session the PCs tied up a kobold prisoner. There are no rules for determining how good the knots the PCs tie are. The guidelines for Acrobatics recommends that I make up a target number out of thin air to determine how difficult it is to escape from restraints. This is almost useless to me if the players are the ones trying to escape and completely useless when its the NPC trying to escape.

{Scrubbed}

"No rules for knot tying" has got to be the least convincing criticism of a role-playing game I've ever heard.

[Xefas]

Has nobody else ever played a rogue? They're all about the out-of-combat utility.

I would not count "I can open locks" as similar to "I can summon eight elementals to tunnel beneath the volcano and divert the flow of the magma into this lake, carve out the cooled rock into blocks, and then shape them all into siege equipment in the span of about 2 minutes (not counting the time it takes for the magma to get here)."

I am the only one who think that the Perception roll isn't to see the gem but to identify it like a dangerous one? Not a simple gem,but a ZAPLAZ0RKILLER gem?

While I wasn't awake for the above discussion, I agree with this opinion. Anyone can *see* the gem, but it takes a little perception to know that an otherwise harmless object is about to bring down Ancient Egyptian Laserbeams on your ass, before it actually does so, and respond to it in time.

[Kurald Galain]

I am the only one who think that the Perception roll isn't to see the gem but to identify it like a dangerous one? Not a simple gem,but a ZAPLAZ0RKILLER gem?

Yes, that would be reasonable.

The problem is that WOTC explicitly spelled out that it required this perception roll to see the gem. But then, perhaps the gem has enough class levels for the Hide In Plain Sight ability

Then again, every edition has its silly quirks that are ignored in actual gameplay. 3E had its healing-by-drowning-yourself, and 4E has the ninja gem.

[Antacid]

This thread = the madness.

Yes, that would be reasonable.

The problem is that WOTC explicitly spelled out that it required this perception roll to see the gem. But then, perhaps the gem has enough class levels for the Hide In Plain Sight ability

The DMG actually says "spot" the gem, as in "DC 29: The character spots the strange gem." DC 29 in epic tier = DC~17 at first level. Spot means, "note as a special feature distinct from whatever other weird stuff there is in the room", not see. Which when you consider that epic-tier adventures take place in extradimenional realms crafted out of human souls, palaces of pure gold and cities made from diamonds, actually makes sense.

The description also says "This fist-sized cut crystal is often embedded in a statue or placed on a pedestal in the center of a room." It's not always the centrepiece of the room and the first thing you see when you walk through the door, that's an option.

I've found the dissociated mechanics to be exactly the sort of serious problem. I've been consciously trying to avoid house ruling, but the result is that the system feels like a straitjacket. Because they've abandoned the "cinderblocks", as you call them, there's no support. So I can either throw consistency out the window and just dictate on a whim, or I can start layering on countless house rules.

For example, in my first session the PCs tied up a kobold prisoner. There are no rules for determining how good the knots the PCs tie are. The guidelines for Acrobatics recommends that I make up a target number out of thin air to determine how difficult it is to escape from restraints.

Everyone get that? The option to make up a DC on the spot = straitjacketing. Precisely laid-out, exploitable rules for every conceivable scenario = freedom.

BTW, what's with this concept of telling the players what mechanic you're using? Have you ever heard of rolling dice behind a screen and saying "the kobold escapes"? What does the M in "DM" stand for?

IOW, the gem isn't hard to spot and therefore it's a challenge for Tier 2 characters. It's a Tier 2 challenge and therefore the gem (no matter it's size or shape or location) is hard to spot.

It's almost as if players of higher level got some kind of 1/2-level-based bonus that happens to exactly cancel out the difference between Tier 1 DCs and Tier 3 DCs.

Dissociated mechanics pretty much shatter my willing suspension of disbelief. The inconsistencies and absurdities make me disconnect from the game world -- and once that happens, roleplaying is impossible.

Because fixed DCs that result in challenges being solved with absurd ease by players with maxed skill ranks is realistic.

Players always meet monsters of a level-appropriate-encounter level, and that's accepted without question. But graded DCs which ensure meaningful skill challenges at high levels is assumed to break suspension of disbelief. WTF??

[Xefas]

This thread = the madness.

Nooooo, wait! The thread was staying relatively civil!

Your sarcasm has doomed us all.

Yes, that would be reasonable.

Look, this guy even said "reasonable". Someone, on the internet, was agreeing with someone with an opposing view, on the internet. Do you have any idea how often that happens? I also happen to agree. Some of WotC flavor text is plain dumb.

But now...

[Solo]

This thread = the madness.

Madness?

THIS IS INTERNETS!

[nagora]

Players always meet monsters of a level-appropriate-encounter level, and that's accepted without question.

I question it; it's moronic as an ideal and impossible as a matter of fact.