D&D: general talk, rules questions and advice thread (d20 roll dice everyday)

[Meister]

I would say it probably doesn't handle them in as much detail as it does combat events but yeah I've found you can do noncombat scenes and adventures just fine. Which itself is a statement that really shouldn't need to be made explicitly. I mean why wouldn't you?

Throwing another example in the mix I made something tailored towards my group's bard the other day - another bard challenged her to an entertainment contest, each group of tavern guests would contribute a challenge, and they'd do opposing skill rolls, with the one who did better over the course of the evening being declared winner. Gave the enemy bard a spread of skills equivalent to a PC's, allowed the other party members to come up with ways to help out and make aid another rolls, and came up with a challenge for almost every skill on the list, from a group of Orc warriors challenging them to dodge thrown knives (Acrobatics) to an angel of death (it was that kind of tavern) asking for a spiritual song (Religion). It was a lot of fun.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by Meister

I would say it probably doesn't handle them in as much detail as it does combat events but yeah I've found you can do noncombat scenes and adventures just fine. Which itself is a statement that really shouldn't need to be made explicitly. I mean why wouldn't you?

I've found that most "4th Ed sux" arguments, at some point, bring up that there are far less skills in 4th compared to 3rd and so it sucks because their characters can't dooooo things.

I mean the guy I was arguing with spend over two hours trying to explain why 4th ed was crap because it didn't have a fishing skill.

Anyway, I finished up a decent Divine character only pilgrimage style campaign a while back, sadly with a "bad ending." But everyone had a good time and are looking forward to playing another campaign in the hellscape of their failure that became of my world a few years after they fell.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Tev

I've found that most "4th Ed sux" arguments, at some point, bring up that there are far less skills in 4th compared to 3rd and so it sucks because their characters can't dooooo things.

I mean the guy I was arguing with spend over two hours trying to explain why 4th ed was crap because it didn't have a fishing skill.

Anyway, I finished up a decent Divine character only pilgrimage style campaign a while back, sadly with a "bad ending." But everyone had a good time and are looking forward to playing another campaign in the hellscape of their failure that became of my world a few years after they fell.

First, that's a fantastically cool way to build a campaign world.

Second, let me say that you're smart, Tev. Very smart, from what I've seen online. But you're letting that ability ignore potentially valid points.

Third, I actually play 4th and enjoy it, but I still prefer third; yes, partially (though not exclusively) for the skills, and the cooking challenge you listed above is a great example of why. First, it's fun, humorous, and works as a great example of how 4th Ed handles things well - basically so long as a skill can be said to apply to a general category it can be used to simulate the effect. I like it!

The problem comes, to me, at least, at a) how specific it is. You've set up a fantastic series of things your players must do in order to succeed at the challenge. If they don't think of it, you've either got to count that as a failure, or tell them... either way, it feels kinda like railroading. Sure, you can make it so that if they come up with a creative use you can apply it, but you're still heavily limiting their options. Note: this isn't a bad skill-challenge you've built here. It's actually really good, has a lot of nice options to it, and it creates a fun place. But the players are still doing what you want, not what they want to accomplish the goal. Second - admittedly far less important for 'fun', but still there for me - is how broadly a given skill applies. A guy who's good at hunting and fishing, even one great with knives, wouldn't necessarily be the guy you want artfully arranging your potatoes. It's clever the way you link it, but it's feels somewhat stretched. This is kind of the opposite of the 'too specific' problem I present above - that it's 'too general' - but I think that the two complaints are about different enough aspects that they still hold water. The thing with Skill Challenges is that it's one of the best and worst concepts in 4E, simultaneously. Best in theory, worst in practice (to my experience).

All that said, I understand that 4E can handle things. Heck, it can handle anything. As in, at all. It just doesn't have the rules to cover it - the GM has to make those up. And that's where things start to lose me a bit, compared to other editions. Not everything runs the same way in a 4E world, something that, for me, is important to feel fully immersed. I never quite engage in the 4E world in the same way as 3.X, 'cause it always feels just a bit gamey, and less "real" somehow - like how NPCs and 'monsters' don't function like PCs.

I could go on, but I'm not going to convince you, and that's fine. I just wanted to show that there's valid points on both sides. That fishing skill can be important to immerse some people in reality, just as it's not important to you. I'm down with people that prefer 4E and 3.X - even those that are exclusive. I can swing both ways (on editions of DnD, only!). I just like 3.X better. Others don't. We coo'.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by tacticslion

The problem comes, to me, at least, at a) how specific it is. You've set up a fantastic series of things your players must do in order to succeed at the challenge. If they don't think of it, you've either got to count that as a failure, or tell them... either way, it feels kinda like railroading. Sure, you can make it so that if they come up with a creative use you can apply it, but you're still heavily limiting their options. Note: this isn't a bad skill-challenge you've built here. It's actually really good, has a lot of nice options to it, and it creates a fun place. But the players are still doing what you want, not what they want to accomplish the goal.

No see, you're missing something here. The skill challenge is as simple as "Get 6 successes before 3 failures." I only gave relevant skills as a guide (and if you check you'll see that they are most of the skills minus...like three) and while I could offer the list of helpful skills, there's nothing saying I wouldn't accept the unlisted ones if someone could offer up a decently entertaining reason for it. The example of the cooking contest was me as a player choosing skills that I thought would be good to use and entertaining as well as me as a GM taking what was happening and adding onto it for the next round.

Long story short, the goal is to hit 6 successes before 3 failures. How we get there is a free flowing adventure.

Second - admittedly far less important for 'fun', but still there for me - is how broadly a given skill applies. A guy who's good at hunting and fishing, even one great with knives, wouldn't necessarily be the guy you want artfully arranging your potatoes. It's clever the way you link it, but it's feels somewhat stretched. This is kind of the opposite of the 'too specific' problem I present above - that it's 'too general' - but I think that the two complaints are about different enough aspects that they still hold water. The thing with Skill Challenges is that it's one of the best and worst concepts in 4E, simultaneously. Best in theory, worst in practice (to my experience).

See and this is basically the crux of my responses to that argument: If your backstory says you do one thing, and you try to do another "just because your skills, as written, are so generalized" then it is you who are being disingenuous to the spirit of the game. I don't feel you need a fishing skill to fish or a cooking skill to cook in a game about killing dragons and saving sacrificial virgins for money. Two people with a high Nature score don't have to know the same things. One can be a military tracker and the other can be an old herbalist granny. Their application of the skill is what defines the character.

I could go on, but I'm not going to convince you, and that's fine. I just wanted to show that there's valid points on both sides. That fishing skill can be important to immerse some people in reality, just as it's not important to you. I'm down with people that prefer 4E and 3.X - even those that are exclusive. I can swing both ways (on editions of DnD, only!). I just like 3.X better. Others don't. We coo'.

I honestly feel if you want to fish, then you just can. If you want to be a pro, even better. If you want to apply your awesome fishing into an adventure then you shouldn't need skill ranks in fishing to make you feel better about your character. Your character can fish, now show me how you incorporate your fishing knowledge with your other skills to reach your goal.

But yeah, we're cool.