Dungeons and Dragons 4E

[Müg]

I'm also sad about the removal of paladin restrictions; One of the best parts of DnD was watching the GM strip paladin rank and abilities from a person who couldn't roleplay right.

 

[Walkin' Dude]

I actually hate the D&D social skills. Mind you, this is a completely personal opinion, but nevertheless I always thought rolling for Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate was kind of ridiculous and lazy. I'd rather rely on good DM judgment than "Could you let us pass? [Aside: I roll for diplomacy.]".

Right. Why should it matter if my character is a suave diplomat. If I am smooth and convincing, my character should be. It should not matter if my character is a brutish, ugly, half-orc. If I can make a convincing argument, then there is no reason he cannot.

By the same token, if I can brilliantly describe my character's attack, it should not matter how strong he is. If I describe it well enough, he should automatically succeed.

 

[1eyedking]

Right. Why should it matter if my character is a suave diplomat. If I am smooth and convincing, my character should be. It should not matter if my character is a brutish, ugly, half-orc. If I can make a convincing argument, then there is no reason he cannot.

But what if your character is a brutish, ugly, half-orc with 20 ranks in Diplomacy?

 

[Jasede]

Then your character is still an uncharismatic brute that has trouble making friends, but who has learned to manipulate people regardless. It's not so hard understand.

Kreia is a good example - she's hardly very charismatic, but she knows which strings to pull. She's have average to low Charisma but good ranks in diplomacy.

Every combination of feats and skills can and should be explained in the character's background and development.

 

[1eyedking]

But that further proves my point. No social skill checks are needed, as long as it's explained in the character's background and development.

 

[Jasede]

Of course skill-checks are needed, else you might as well LARP rule-lessly ala Oblivion players. A character must have choices depending on set, hard-coded skills. That has always been the Codex' credo and I support it both in P&P and in games. Skills are a tool to help you express your character's development in numbers and tie his abilities to them. Those numbers in turn offer choices and those offer consequences. A great system.

 

[dagorkan]

Classes are not just a bunch of feats. Its about roleplaying and concept.

For dumbfucks maybe.

But most people do not need any hack writer's 'flavor text' to guide how they role-play. Class systems are obviously a restriction and only there because WotC designers are too lazy to create a proper character system.

 

[1eyedking]

Of course skill-checks are needed, else you might as well LARP rule-lessly ala Oblivion players. A character must have choices depending on set, hard-coded skills. That has always been the Codex' credo and I support it both in P&P and in games. Skills are a tool to help you express your character's development in numbers and tie his abilities to them. Those numbers in turn offer choices and those offer consequences. A great system.

I meant social skills. Combat and athletic skills are a different beast.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Also,. interestingly wizards has hired a mathamatician for their games (magic, dnd, dreamblade etc). He is an ex-professor, and is probably working on the 4e system. I don't have the link to his blog at the moment, (you can fin dit on the wizards 4e website). In his latest blog entry he remarked about how completely skill based rpg systems are somewhat broken internally, in that there is ALWAYS only one uber build, tat can be attained by the right combination of skills, which players eventually find.

A class based system avoids such pitfalls, if designed well, and thus is balanced.

Interesting. Link? I had a quick glance at some of the weblogs I found, but saw no trace of a mathematician using his vorpal sword to behead the skill based system.

 

[Walkin' Dude]

I meant social skills. Combat and athletic skills are a different beast.

You have not explained how they are different. Why should some things be based on a player's ability to describe, and the other based on the character's skill and dice rolls?

I believe a convincing speech should give circumstance bonuses to rolls, and a botched job should give penalties, but that is similar to using good or bad tactics in combat. Despite the character skills, in either situation, suboptimal use of those skills can result in a worse result. On the other hand, really good use in a situation might be enough to push a character to success.

 

[Texas Red]

Classes are not just a bunch of feats. Its about roleplaying and concept.

For dumbfucks maybe.

But most people do not need any hack writer's 'flavor text' to guide how they role-play. Class systems are obviously a restriction and only there because WotC designers are too lazy to create a proper character system.

Yeah sure, thats why everyone ignores all of the lore all the time and mash up some setting for themselves.

 

[Gambler]

In his latest blog entry he remarked about how completely skill based rpg systems are somewhat broken internally, in that there is ALWAYS only one uber build

Sounds like this guy treats RPGs as competitive games. In fact, it sounds like WotC do the same thing.

D&D: The Gathering?

 

[Shannow]

Since I've never played p&p I should probably just keep quiet,...but:
If I were the DM I'd only give my players a chance to even roll the dice for a diplomacy check if the player made some reasonable arguments. No matter how skillfull he himself was in presenting those arguments. Then I'd set the difficulty of the roll and let him cast the dice.
The player decides what his character does but stats and dice decide how well he does it, in social situations as well as in combat.

 

[1eyedking]

I meant social skills. Combat and athletic skills are a different beast.

You have not explained how they are different. Why should some things be based on a player's ability to describe, and the other based on the character's skill and dice rolls?

I believe a convincing speech should give circumstance bonuses to rolls, and a botched job should give penalties, but that is similar to using good or bad tactics in combat. Despite the character skills, in either situation, suboptimal use of those skills can result in a worse result. On the other hand, really good use in a situation might be enough to push a character to success.

Using good or bad tactics is a bad analogy, mainly because in a battle there are tons of variables running around.

Social 'skills' are something else. Entirely. Let me give you an example:

with D&D Skills
A player attempts to bluff an ogre guarding a bridge in order to avoid a fight and cross to the other side.
[P]: "Let me pass. I am an incredibly powerful sorcerer from the north, a single spell of mine would reduce you to ashes."
Rolls for Bluff. Blatant success. (high charisma+magic ornaments+bluff ranks)
[O]: Rolls for Sense Motive. Blatant failure. (low wisdom+no sense motive ranks)
"Uhh...OK, go ahead."

A rather bland and lazy bluff. The player has to make zero effort, lest come up with a generic bluff card.

without D&D Skills
The previous attempt would've failed miserably, the ogre too eager to pick a fight would have attacked at once. Now the player elaborates some more, and has collected some knowledge before attempting to bluff the creature, apart from getting a captain's sigil.
[P]: "Ogre, I come in behalf of your master's dictum. My...collaborators were rather condescending with his choice of acquaintances, but nonetheless have issued me a letter with their answer. Where can I find his quarters?"
[O]: "Uhrr...you Cap'n Ke-leet? Who are the otherz?"
[P]: "Yes, I'm Captain Celit, and these men are my guard."
[O]: "Muster told me to lets you in. He'z down the corridor."

This is a much more realistic approach. Whereas swinging swords better require you tons of feat decisions, multiclassing, magic items, etc., making a bluff check is just a simple roll of dice.

 

[Jasede]

That's the whole point. Even if you as a player suck at bluffing, your character does not. This would be impossible without skill checks.

I find it sufficient if the DM occasionally gives a circumstance bonus on a bluff if you, the player, make it especially flowery or entertaining, but he should give no, or just a tiny penalty if you yourself suck at it horribly while your character does not.

 

[1eyedking]

That's the whole point. Even if you as a player suck at bluffing, your character does not. This would be impossible without skill checks.

It's not a player being sucky, it's a player being lazy. I make the roll and let the numbers take care of the problem, no 'tactics' involved.

 

[Jasede]

But he said "I am an incredibly powerful sorcerer". That's not lazy. That's a fine, normal D&D bluff. I would subtract -1 because you can tell not much effort was involved, but I'd make the DC low since a creature like that might fear magic a lot.

I could understand you if this happaned:

DM: You see a big troll. You have no weapons and he seems very hungry.
Player: I roll bluff to make up a lie to keep him from attacking me.

 

[1eyedking]

DM: You see a big troll. You have no weapons and he seems very hungry.
Player: I roll bluff to make up a lie to keep him from attacking me.

I've had worse: "I roll bluff". Period. As if it were some kind of spell or special ability.

In the end we could go on and on, but in the end it's a matter of personal opinion. They're too different approaches, like mana & memorization systems.

PS: Why does the player know the troll is hungry, though?

 

[thesheeep]

Trolls are almost always hungry, eh?

 

[Walkin' Dude]

I've had worse: "I roll bluff". Period. As if it were some kind of spell or special ability.

How is this any different than "I attack, using power attack"? It is lazy. The player could say "I swing my sword in a wide, reckless arc, attempting to strike a mighty blow against the troll."

Should the second automatically hit since he described it better?

 

[Lurkar]

By the same token, if I can brilliantly describe my character's attack, it should not matter how strong he is. If I describe it well enough, he should automatically succeed.

Someone mention Exalted?


On the note of social skills in d20, quite a few DMs never plan for people to take them seriously. Then when you make your gentlemen thief rogue with sky high conversation skills, alongside with disguise and forgery (easily my favorite skill), you find new and exciting ways to leave the railroad tracks.

Forgery is the greatest skill there is. Nobody cares about forgery. Nobody takes forgery. And do you know what skill you need to oppose a forgery check? That's right - forgery. And few people - if any - seem to notice you riffling through seemingly random papers and taking some for their handwriting.

 

[Ismaul]

That's the whole point. Even if you as a player suck at bluffing, your character does not. This would be impossible without skill checks.

It's not a player being sucky, it's a player being lazy. I make the roll and let the numbers take care of the problem, no 'tactics' involved.

The new social encounter system is trying to acheive both interaction and skill check (in theory). If this works as intended, we'll have the best social encounter system from any D&D edition. Also, think of the impact on cRPGs, since the framework for interactions in already done. Quotes from the devs/Abstract:

"Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. I make a skill check, but I also tell the DM what/how I'm doing. The opponent responds with behavior (and a check) of his own. I counter with a new check, and new words. And so forth."

"Multiple checks between multiple characters (including back and forth) for a single social interaction, instead of a single roll as now."

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

The new social encounter system is trying to acheive both interaction and skill check (in theory). If this works as intended, we'll have the best social encounter system from any D&D edition. Also, think of the impact on cRPGs, since the framework for interactions in already done. Quotes from the devs/Abstract:

"Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. I make a skill check, but I also tell the DM what/how I'm doing. The opponent responds with behavior (and a check) of his own. I counter with a new check, and new words. And so forth."

"Multiple checks between multiple characters (including back and forth) for a single social interaction, instead of a single roll as now."

What is stopping you from doing that right now in 3.5E? I think that is how it we did it when Nicolai, ixg, myself, Jasede and Surgey tried our online D&Ding campaign.

 

[obediah]

Social 'skills' are something else. Entirely. Let me give you an example:

Don't waste your time. These kids don't have any idea what role playing is. They spend 75% of their rp time alone min/maxing splat books to build an ueber character, 20% of their time arguing abut their ueber character on web forums, and in rare cases 5% of their time sitting with other players at a table to implement their build. All roleplaying should be handled just like combat, with a few quick rolls and get the story going. If you actually want to speak for your character or think about what your character would say/do then you are just a larp fag.

At the beginning of 3E, I was optimistic about the social skills, because it finally provided a bit of a backbone for DM's to use to determine success in RP challenges. But rather than using player RP as a modifier for skill checks, it became "I try to convince the Sheriff to release the other pcs, and roll ... 19 biotch!".

 

[Jasede]

You're being unfair, obediah. It was clearly said that "I roll bluff" or "I lie to X" is despicable, but no, why read when you can piss over other forum-goers instead? Why try to be a gentle, well-mannered person when you can froth from your mouth? Why indeed?