Playtest Packet needs a page 42.

With the focus on narrative adjudication rather than on mechanical blueprinting, a guideline should be provided.  The list of DC ranges is not enough.  What statuses are appropriate for improvised actions.  What levels of damage are.   If you are trying to revert to a system that is based on a DM's call, where are the guidelines to making that call. 

In addition to a page 42 style mechanical starting point for improvisation, I think a discussion is also in order for guidlines for soliciting input and encouraging player engagement through the interpretation of actions and the awarding of advantage and disadvantage.
I couldn't agree more! I am a huge advocate for training DM's as opposed to giving DM's rules. I table of DC's is fine start, about what I could hope for in a a playtest, but I hope for a more indepth look into how to handle improvisation at the table.
I +1 this thread

Dirty Deeds, DONE DIRT CHEAP!

I third this idea. One of the best rules to come out of 4th edition.
With the focus on narrative adjudication rather than on mechanical blueprinting, a guideline should be provided.  The list of DC ranges is not enough.  What statuses are appropriate for improvised actions.  What levels of damage are.   If you are trying to revert to a system that is based on a DM's call, where are the guidelines to making that call. 

In addition to a page 42 style mechanical starting point for improvisation, I think a discussion is also in order for guidlines for soliciting input and encouraging player engagement through the interpretation of actions and the awarding of advantage and disadvantage.



I have said frequently that if they plan on having "improvise" being such a huge part of the game they need to give me examples and guidelines so I know the parameters I'm working within- Can an intimidate check be as powerful as a mass fear spell even for a short time for ecample.

I've also said that if the "improvise" action is meant to be the bread and butter way of making some classes (rogue and fighter) more interesting than "I swing my sword this round" that they darned sure better give those classes advantages to performing those improvised actions over the ones who have more interesting options built into their class.

AMEN!

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

DM Guidelines, pages 3 and 4.

What went missing in D&D, at least for me during the stat-sim style of the last few editions, is the sense that this is my world I share with these players. The last thing I need in a game is a player constantly pointing to tables to tell me how to run the adventure. If you chose me to be a DM or agreed to play in my game, please let me do my job.

Players will always go off the map. You needn't a die roll to bring them back and as long you know the adventure and it's goals, you ought to get by with that.  Otherwise, explain to the player(s) that the next roll does in no way set any precedence for future, similar attempts.  It rewards their creativity without entitling them future concessions. 

I've played in other game systems where every challenged action resolved on the character's stats vs some kind of target number.  None of these provided any exhaustive examples but it didn't derail the game when a player tried something truly bizarre.

Give the Test Rules a chance and maybe goad the players into pushing an envelope or two.  You'll grow stronger as a DM and the results will help shape the Test material.
I have been advocating something similar in several threads over the past few days.

@Robonut: OK, I want to stun a foe while doing damage, or knock him prone, or slide him five feet and move into the area he is occupying? How about hit one foe and deal stat damage to another? Ajudicate fairly for all tables that could ever exist please.
Yeah i agree a table of improvisional Task DC and Damage would make a great guideline.
A good DM can ...



Sorry, there are more types of DMs than good, fair, and clever DMs, who are really just a tiny subset of DMs. We need guidelines at the very least for new DMs, mistake prone DMs, mediocre DMs, DMs that can't make up balanced mechanics on a moments notice, and others.

The default the rules and guidelines should aim for is mediocre DMs...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I have been advocating something similar in several threads over the past few days.

@Robonut: OK, I want to stun a foe while doing damage, or knock him prone, or slide him five feet and move into the area he is occupying? How about hit one foe and deal stat damage to another? Ajudicate fairly for all tables that could ever exist please.




  These rules haven't gotten into complex character abilities or delved that much into mini based combat (which I believe you are using as an example of actions) so who's to say what they will include.  It'd be nice to see some mini rules included in the core rules (a little like 4e) but with the understanding that they needn't be the only way to resolve combat.

Ultimately, my advice was to just trust in intuition and not rely so heavily on the printed work. What you describe sounds more like a straight AC hit with maybe a -4 for the dual attack. Again, within the limits of these current Test Rules.
Ok, I admit I was a bit snarky calling you out but we really have no basis for communication with each other do we?

Intuition?

I really don't know what to say. 
I think I might be the only one who doesn't agree with this thread at all.

We DON'T need a Page 42, we need GM's who realize that it is ok to make something up.  If it goes to far, then rein in the next ruling.  This is a game guys, use your imagination.  Not everything has to be on the page.  I do not mean to bash an edition, but that was one thing that drove me buts about 3rd and 4th even more.  All of the rules trying to cover EVERYTHING.  Guess what, you have to some times make things up and go along.  If your players don't like it, call a break to discuss or--if it seems like this will be a long discussion--put it on hold until you call a break.
Ok, I admit I was a bit snarky calling you out but we really have no basis for communication with each other do we?

Intuition?

I really don't know what to say. 




Like wyverndrake said.  Don't be afraid to make it up as you go.  And I'd like to add:  Don't be afraid to tell them no.
I agree that with the notion of having a ready place to look at ideal DCs. However, I do not agree with what p.42 represents - a batch of numbers that decide the DCs and damage based on the level of the party instead of the difficulty of the task at hand.

Also, didn't page 42 go through at least two errata? /snark

Say, I have a level 1 hero walking through a tight rope. Okay, so it's a hard DC: target Acrobatics DC = 19.

Then at level 10, a hero decides to walk through a tight rope. I feel like it's a difficult task, so checking the chart, I decide to make it DC 26. Hooray for world consistency.

Granted, it works for 4E in particular, where numbers in general are set with the level of the party in mind. But for what Next is trying to accomplish, I would prefer the approach that they did of having sample tasks and suggested DCs relative to these tasks.
Me Kruzko, me bard... And me sing song for you! Explore Philippine Mythology for your 4E game, and visit us at Nosfecatu Publishing!
I agree that with the notion of having a ready place to look at ideal DCs. However, I do not agree with what p.42 represents - a batch of numbers that decide the DCs and damage based on the level of the party instead of the difficulty of the task at hand.

Also, didn't page 42 go through at least two errata? /snark

Say, I have a level 1 hero walking through a tight rope. Okay, so it's a hard DC: target Acrobatics DC = 19.

Then at level 10, a hero decides to walk through a tight rope. I feel like it's a difficult task, so checking the chart, I decide to make it DC 26. Hooray for world consistency.

Granted, it works for 4E in particular, where numbers in general are set with the level of the party in mind. But for what Next is trying to accomplish, I would prefer the approach that they did of having sample tasks and suggested DCs relative to these tasks.



Yeah, you botched that one pretty bad. Go actually read it. Its talking about an at level challenge, not every challenge is at level. If your 10th level character is walking on the tight rope its still a DC 19 which means they can choose to take a 1 and probably succeed. Now if that character is walking along a tightrope and being shot at with arrows, then maybe its an at level challenge and a DC 29 check...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Yeah, I admit, I botched it pretty bad. I guess a mediocre DM can botch p. 42!
Me Kruzko, me bard... And me sing song for you! Explore Philippine Mythology for your 4E game, and visit us at Nosfecatu Publishing!
It took me a while to figure out that you all were talking about DnD4 DMG pg 42.

Maybe because I never used it.  That whole page makes no sense to me at all. Why would anything be more difficult to achieve becaue my character went up a level? It's just nuts. I like the way that the DnD Next DM Guidelines pages 2-3 lay it out. It's more realistic and easy to remember on the fly.
-------------------- D&D Player/DM since 1975 - Veteran of Chainmail, AD&D, 2e, v3.5, DnD4e and now Next.

I agree that a good list of sample DCs for common improvised actions would be useful. One difference worth noting between DDNext and 4e though is that there is supposedly going to be little to no automatic increase by experience level on bonuses to attack rolls, ability checks and defenses, meaning that a table of sample DCs by experience level will look quite different and probably be much shorter than the p.42 table in 4e. It would still be useful to have something like that in DDN, of course, just don't expect the DCs to change too much over the course of leveling.

It took me a while to figure out that you all were talking about DnD4 DMG pg 42.

Maybe because I never used it.  That whole page makes no sense to me at all. Why would anything be more difficult to achieve becaue my character went up a level? It's just nuts. I like the way that the DnD Next DM Guidelines pages 2-3 lay it out. It's more realistic and easy to remember on the fly.



Just to clarify it's not that a specific event becomes more difficult as you level up in 4e, it's that the things characters attempt to do at higher level are different than the things they attempt to do at lower level. For example, 4e assumes that higher level monsters are rarer and more dangerous than lower level monsters, so knowing specific lore about higher level monsters is likewise more difficult than knowing about lower level ones. That's why the DCs to make lore checks about monsters increases with the level of the monster and generally keeps pace with the base skill bonus characters get as they level up.  Another example might be something like designing and placing traps as a DM, where you want traps in higher level encounters to do more damage than lower level so they can remain a threat to higher level characters.

So it's not that, say, the DC for jumping across a 15 foot pit changes with character level, it's that at low levels characters might be jumping across 10 foot pits while at high levels they might be trying to leap over 25 foot chasms. The tasks high level characters try to complete and improvise are more difficult.
I think I might be the only one who doesn't agree with this thread at all.

We DON'T need a Page 42, we need GM's who realize that it is ok to make something up.  If it goes to far, then rein in the next ruling.  This is a game guys, use your imagination.  Not everything has to be on the page.  I do not mean to bash an edition, but that was one thing that drove me buts about 3rd and 4th even more.  All of the rules trying to cover EVERYTHING.  Guess what, you have to some times make things up and go along.  If your players don't like it, call a break to discuss or--if it seems like this will be a long discussion--put it on hold until you call a break.



It's not so much a lack of imagination, it's that it's useful to have a general guide that says "if you want something to be this difficult, here's the number you should use given the experience level of the encounter." As a DM I find a table like p.42 useful in part, for instance, when designing an encounter and wanting to include something unusual where I need to set DCs or roll modifiers or improvised damages.

It's not that the table is a huge list of rules "covering everything", it's a guide to help set appropriate DCs and damages, etc, for different levels of play. 
Here's a draft:  (it needs fine tune up but let me know what you think)

  DIFFICULTY CLASS AND DAMAGE BY LEVEL
            Difficulty Class Values    Damage Expressions    
  
Level   Mod Adv Ext Mas Imm    Low      Medium  High 
01-03   11    15    19   23    27       1d4+1    2d4+2     3d4+3 
04-06   11    15    19   23    28       1d4+4    2d4+5     3d4+6
07-09   12    16    20   24    29       1d6+5    2d6+6     3d6+7
10-12   13    17    21   25    30       1d6+6    2d6+7     3d6+8
13-15   13    17    21   25    31       1d8+6    2d8+7     3d8+8
16-18   14    18    22   26    32       1d10+7  2d10+8   3d10+9  
19-20   14    18    22   26    33       1d12+7  2d12+8   3d12+9 
I think the DM should read the material and have a good understanding of what is there in the adventure and how things there interact or react to what might change with the Players clearing out sections.  That in itself should give the DM options.  If this will be too much the DM can simply decide not to stir the hive or come up with a situation with the ecology and environment provided to clue in the players they are getting in over their heads.  The players will control the flow of the game.  The DM should react to the players choices and give the players a since of being in that situation and judging what might be too much or not enough.  Feels right to me so far with my 30 years of DMing...   

As far as constrainsts on Level, Encounters, and DC's, I remember some earlier editions where something as a DM, I thought would be more Challenging by the numbers for the characters wasn't a challenge at all and things that were not suppose to be were.  I knew what I as the DM was bringing to the table but the characters seemed like they brought more than I was able to challenge them with unless The CR or EL went deadly high which never feels right or justified.

With these basic rules that we are testing now, I can just allow the players to do some mundane things without a roll or set a DC they need to roll so they feel somewhat Challeged.  

Maybe they need to roll above a 13 or 16 to complete the task.  Here again there can be a competition where the players are using there skill against NPC's or a monsters roll.  Feels right so far, nothing is overwelming difficult yet at the same time the player is able to pull off some fantastic ideas without crunching numbers or needless rolls in order to keep the game moving or stopping trying to decide if that actually was enough or not enough.  There are enough creatures there that the players will be challenged, it becomes a matter of how far they can push onward before having to pull back regroup and remembering to play clever.  

Make sure you are having fun and if the DM is killing everyone off all the time or allowing the party to plow through adventures without the threat of failure then someone else needs to try DMing some. 
Agreed with the OP, and this is something I pointed out in my survey feedback. While I can see the advantages of leaving certain areas, such as improvisational actions, ambiguous in order to encourage creative approaches, I do think some guidelines or examples should be included so that both the players and the DM have a general idea of what reasonable outcomes are. I don't need to pay money for a rules set that simply tells me to "make it up as you go along."
Yeah, I admit, I botched it pretty bad. I guess a mediocre DM can botch p. 42!



Nah, that's a "bothering to read it" problem. A mediocre DM reads stuff, they just can't come up with things on the fly and make them balanced. They are best at running a pre-made module.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I think the DM should read the material and have a good understanding of what is there in the adventure and how things there interact or react to what might change with the Players clearing out sections.  That in itself should give the DM options.  If this will be too much the DM can simply decide not to stir the hive or come up with a situation with the ecology and environment provided to clue in the players they are getting in over their heads.  The players will control the flow of the game.  The DM should react to the players choices and give the players a since of being in that situation and judging what might be too much or not enough.  Feels right to me so far with my 30 years of DMing...   

As far as constrainsts on Level, Encounters, and DC's, I remember some earlier editions where something as a DM, I thought would be more Challenging by the numbers for the characters wasn't a challenge at all and things that were not suppose to be were.  I knew what I as the DM was bringing to the table but the characters seemed like they brought more than I was able to challenge them with unless The CR or EL went deadly high which never feels right or justified.

With these basic rules that we are testing now, I can just allow the players to do some mundane things without a roll or set a DC they need to roll so they feel somewhat Challeged.  

Maybe they need to roll above a 13 or 16 to complete the task.  Here again there can be a competition where the players are using there skill against NPC's or a monsters roll.  Feels right so far, nothing is overwelming difficult yet at the same time the player is able to pull off some fantastic ideas without crunching numbers or needless rolls in order to keep the game moving or stopping trying to decide if that actually was enough or not enough.  There are enough creatures there that the players will be challenged, it becomes a matter of how far they can push onward before having to pull back regroup and remembering to play clever.  

Make sure you are having fun and if the DM is killing everyone off all the time or allowing the party to plow through adventures without the threat of failure then someone else needs to try DMing some. 



I think you missed the point. The page 42 reference is purely for skill checks and have nothing to do with monster difficulty. Opposed checks are easy as they just add the skills and ability modifiers and roll. There is very little DM fiat. You can put advantage or disadvantage on either roll, but generally there's not much to adjudicate mechanics wise.

The main problem I have is how do you know what to set a DC at for any given level of character. I mean a level 1 character might find something difficult, but a level 10 character might find it easy. Mainly I can judge what would be difficult or easy for a normal human, but these are heroes we are talking about, not commoners...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
 
We DON'T need a Page 42, we need GM's who realize that it is ok to make something up.  



So how much damage should your make something up action do? say I make a landslide ... hey a dagger blow is only d4 but its completely deadly in real life so when I just make something up does every deadly attack do d4?

The idea is to have guidelines to support decisions. Does the dm hunt through spells and figure out a similar one... or do you put a "by level"recommendation in one place. That d4 landslides is going to look pretty meaningless to high level characters. Do you want to discourage them?

More so the newbie DM what are you saying he has to absorb the over all vibe and underlying numbers of the game so he can just wing it? 

The fans of 1e want charts to describe what a stick costs..err ten foot pole and  you really dont want guidelines about what potency of effects might be improvised, because the DM should just wing  it, ok. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Just thought I'd say, not everyone is a fan of p42, and what it implies.

For me, 4th edition aribitrarily increases the ability to pass checks when you gain levels, and then, to compensate, it has to arbitrarily increase the DCs of those checks. You end up in a pointless cycle which ends up with having doors which are more stuck at high levels just to make them a challenge.

The much flatter progression which we're seeing in D&D Next is to my mind a more sensible approach. 
Just thought I'd say, not everyone is a fan of p42, and what it implies.

For me, 4th edition aribitrarily increases the ability to pass checks when you gain levels, and then, to compensate, it has to arbitrarily increase the DCs of those checks. You end up in a pointless cycle which ends up with having doors which are more stuck at high levels just to make them a challenge.

The much flatter progression which we're seeing in D&D Next is to my mind a more sensible approach. 



You missed the point of page 42. Its a level appropriate challenge, not every challenge is level appropriate. Those stuck doors the party finds the fighter takes a 1 and bashes them in. You only roll when there's a chance of failure like a magically locked and reinforced stuck iron door, or a giant stone blocking a doorway...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
and they should make sure that info of improvised action is on page 42 becouse :


Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (42)


 
Here's a draft:  (it needs fine tune up but let me know what you think)

  DIFFICULTY CLASS AND DAMAGE BY LEVEL
            Difficulty Class Values    Damage Expressions    
  
Level   Mod Adv Ext Mas Imm    Low      Medium  High 
01-03   11    15    19   23    27       1d4+1    2d4+2     3d4+3 
04-06   11    15    19   23    28       1d4+4    2d4+5     3d4+6
07-09   12    16    20   24    29       1d6+5    2d6+6     3d6+7
10-12   13    17    21   25    30       1d6+6    2d6+7     3d6+8
13-15   13    17    21   25    31       1d8+6    2d8+7     3d8+8
16-18   14    18    22   26    32       1d10+7  2d10+8   3d10+9  
19-20   14    18    22   26    33       1d12+7  2d12+8   3d12+9 



That format works for me. I have no idea if the numbers are accurate obviously but this is the sort of table I'd find useful personally when coming up with custom challenges.
and they should make sure that info of improvised action is on page 42 becouse : Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (42) 



You sir just got sigged...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Here's a draft:  (it needs fine tune up but let me know what you think)

  DIFFICULTY CLASS AND DAMAGE BY LEVEL
            Difficulty Class Values    Damage Expressions    
  
Level   Mod Adv Ext Mas Imm    Low      Medium  High 
01-03   11    15    19   23    27       1d4+1    2d4+2     3d4+3 
04-06   11    15    19   23    28       1d4+4    2d4+5     3d4+6
07-09   12    16    20   24    29       1d6+5    2d6+6     3d6+7
10-12   13    17    21   25    30       1d6+6    2d6+7     3d6+8
13-15   13    17    21   25    31       1d8+6    2d8+7     3d8+8
16-18   14    18    22   26    32       1d10+7  2d10+8   3d10+9  
19-20   14    18    22   26    33       1d12+7  2d12+8   3d12+9 



That format works for me. I have no idea if the numbers are accurate obviously but this is the sort of table I'd find useful personally when coming up with custom challenges.




I agree that this type of table is needed, but instead of levels or Mod/Adv/etc. put examples.

Opening doors:
Locked (simple) 13
Break down (wood) 15
Locked (Drwaven) 20
Break down (Mystical door to heaven, made of adamantium and locked with a millinium old spell, oh and it's stuck) 50
etc. etc. etc.

Yes this would take up a bit more than a single page, but once a DM had read through it a few times s/he would get the gist of how hard something should be. Doors shouldn't get harder with level, but the party should be encountering bigger and badder doors. Once a character is a high enough level to push open a "normal" door, s/he shouldn't have to roll for it, s/he just kicks in the door.


You missed the point of page 42. Its a level appropriate challenge, not every challenge is level appropriate. Those stuck doors the party finds the fighter takes a 1 and bashes them in. You only roll when there's a chance of failure like a magically locked and reinforced stuck iron door, or a giant stone blocking a doorway...



No, I'm afraid it's you that has missed the point.

www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

D&D Next has done away with the artificial scaling of challenges. There's no need for a p42. Hurrah, I say. 
You missed the point of page 42. Its a level appropriate challenge, not every challenge is level appropriate. Those stuck doors the party finds the fighter takes a 1 and bashes them in. You only roll when there's a chance of failure like a magically locked and reinforced stuck iron door, or a giant stone blocking a doorway...



No, I'm afraid it's you that has missed the point.

www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

D&D Next has done away with the artificial scaling of challenges. There's no need for a p42. Hurrah, I say. 



There's still a need, it just doesn't scale with level...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
You missed the point of page 42. Its a level appropriate challenge, not every challenge is level appropriate. Those stuck doors the party finds the fighter takes a 1 and bashes them in. You only roll when there's a chance of failure like a magically locked and reinforced stuck iron door, or a giant stone blocking a doorway...



No, I'm afraid it's you that has missed the point.

www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

D&D Next has done away with the artificial scaling of challenges. There's no need for a p42. Hurrah, I say. 



If anything it changed from having a p42 to having a entire chapter on setting DCs. Mix this in with a chapter for setting encounters, setting monster stats, some adventure building advice, and the base rules and you have a DMG. 

While I understand that some (maybe a lot) of DMs do not want 40 tables clutering up their DM screen, there really only is one needed (the scale of DCs provided in the DMGuidelines). The other 39 tables providing examples can be found in the DMG. A DM can read through them a few times and get the gist of how high a DC should be for a perticular scenario, and work off that.

Yes I know that this may lead to tables running different DCs, but with the presented DCs the majority of DMs are likely to remain within one or two points of the published DC. Example:

DM: You encounter a wooden door that has been covered in a sheet of ice.
Fighter: I lower my shoulder and bust it in!
DM: *OK, so I remember that a wooden door has a DC of 15 to bust in, but this is frozen solid. I'll make it a DC 17*

At another table...

DM: You encounter a wooden door that has been covered in a sheet of ice.
Fighter: I lower my shoulder and bust it in!
DM: *OK, so I remember that a wooden door has a DC of 15 to bust in, but this is frozen solid. Aww screw it, DC 15 it is!*

Yes this leads to a 10% difference between the tables, but I would personally take that discrepancy in order to keep the game moving forward without too many table lookups.
I think that the best way to resolve this issue is DnD Next.

Rule #1 - The DM is always right
Rule #2 - See rule #1

As a DM, I want to free myself from the book-waving rules-lawyers that stop the game at every turn saying "No way. See what is says on page ...."

DnD Next, if delivered as promised, will have a module for rule-hungry players and DMs who want a page 42.  Me, I want to get rid of it and I'm pretty sure that I'll come up with whatever I need on the fly. That's how I handled things for the first 10 or so years of DMing (up through most of the 80's). 

You're a 15th level rogue and you want to climb that wall? Sure, don't even roll for it. You succeed.

You have a strength of 8 and you're trying to roll that boulder up the hill ? Don't even roll for it. There's no way you can do that alone.
-------------------- D&D Player/DM since 1975 - Veteran of Chainmail, AD&D, 2e, v3.5, DnD4e and now Next.
Here's a draft:  (it needs fine tune up but let me know what you think)

  DIFFICULTY CLASS AND DAMAGE BY LEVEL
            Difficulty Class Values    Damage Expressions    
  
Level   Mod Adv Ext Mas Imm    Low      Medium  High 
01-03   11    15    19   23    27       1d4+1    2d4+2     3d4+3 
04-06   11    15    19   23    28       1d4+4    2d4+5     3d4+6
07-09   12    16    20   24    29       1d6+5    2d6+6     3d6+7
10-12   13    17    21   25    30       1d6+6    2d6+7     3d6+8
13-15   13    17    21   25    31       1d8+6    2d8+7     3d8+8
16-18   14    18    22   26    32       1d10+7  2d10+8   3d10+9  
19-20   14    18    22   26    33       1d12+7  2d12+8   3d12+9 


Good start. I think I've improved it, though:

  DIFFICULTY CLASS AND DAMAGE BY LEVEL
            Difficulty Class Values    Damage Expressions    
  
Level   Mod Adv Ext Mas Imm    Low      Medium  High 
01-03   11    15    19   23    27       1d4+1    2d4+2     3d4+3 
04-06   11    15    19   23    27       1d4+1    2d4+2     3d4+3 
07-09   11    15    19   23    27       1d4+1    2d4+2     3d4+3 
10-12   11    15    19   23    27       1d4+1    2d4+2     3d4+3 
13-15   11    15    19   23    27       1d4+1    2d4+2     3d4+3 
16-18   11    15    19   23    27       1d4+1    2d4+2     3d4+3 
19-20   11    15    19   23    27       1d4+1    2d4+2     3d4+3
and they should make sure that info of improvised action is on page 42 becouse : Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (42) 



You sir just got sigged...


Drat, someone beat me to it.


Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

You missed the point of page 42. Its a level appropriate challenge, not every challenge is level appropriate. Those stuck doors the party finds the fighter takes a 1 and bashes them in. You only roll when there's a chance of failure like a magically locked and reinforced stuck iron door, or a giant stone blocking a doorway...



No, I'm afraid it's you that has missed the point.

www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

D&D Next has done away with the artificial scaling of challenges. There's no need for a p42. Hurrah, I say. 



If anything it changed from having a p42 to having a entire chapter on setting DCs. Mix this in with a chapter for setting encounters, setting monster stats, some adventure building advice, and the base rules and you have a DMG. 

While I understand that some (maybe a lot) of DMs do not want 40 tables clutering up their DM screen, there really only is one needed (the scale of DCs provided in the DMGuidelines). The other 39 tables providing examples can be found in the DMG. A DM can read through them a few times and get the gist of how high a DC should be for a perticular scenario, and work off that.

Yes I know that this may lead to tables running different DCs, but with the presented DCs the majority of DMs are likely to remain within one or two points of the published DC. Example:

DM: You encounter a wooden door that has been covered in a sheet of ice.
Fighter: I lower my shoulder and bust it in!
DM: *OK, so I remember that a wooden door has a DC of 15 to bust in, but this is frozen solid. I'll make it a DC 17*

At another table...

DM: You encounter a wooden door that has been covered in a sheet of ice.
Fighter: I lower my shoulder and bust it in!
DM: *OK, so I remember that a wooden door has a DC of 15 to bust in, but this is frozen solid. Aww screw it, DC 15 it is!*

Yes this leads to a 10% difference between the tables, but I would personally take that discrepancy in order to keep the game moving forward without too many table lookups.


Exactly.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

The biggest problem with pg 42 and these proposed tables is that it completely ignores rational thought and good roleplaying.  How many times have you run a game and had a player come up with a completely ridiculous plan of action.  Now, lets put rules for it in the DMG, so the player with a plan so dumb can complain that pg 42 says at his level he should be able to do 2d10+7 damage trying to stuff a herring up a dragon's behind as an improvised action.  Now compare this with players who actually come up with a good idea, "I'll ready my cold spell and cast it at the red dragon's mouth when he opens it to breath hoping to get extra damage."

Leave improvisation up to the DM.  Its not that hard to adjudicate good ideas from bad and apply a reasonable ruling.  What I don't want to see is some lame page in the DMG getting cited as the reason someone's lame-brained idea has to be given a set DC or be allowed to do X amount of damage. 

If you are trying to hit someone with a wet noodle, its not going to do level appropriate damage because of page 42 just because you know someone dislikes spaghetti...
Sign In to post comments