What are the practical limits of d20+mod vs DC?

[prosfilaes]

3E tends to present it as a mechanical benefit, with the story elements being stripped out (as I understand the game), but with its CR rules in fact makes it a game of "running to stand still".

That's always going to happen for combat, but in a lot of other ways the PCs become more powerful versus the world around them. Some of the infamous mage spells are about things not standing still, like Teleport.

I think Epic Skills :: d20srd.org is a good example of how DCs in D&D 3 could go wrong. Almost all the DCs are set up so if you can make one level, the last level is automatic and the next is impossible. But what keeps me coming back to this table is where it's not just running in place; where a high enough climb check can have you crawling across the smooth ceiling.

 

[pemerton]

That's always going to happen for combat, but in a lot of other ways the PCs become more powerful versus the world around them. Some of the infamous mage spells are about things not standing still, like Teleport.

Yes. 4e has similar elements on the non-dice resolution side - scrying, teleports etc.

But I don't agree that that is always going to happen for combat. In Rolemaster, for example, higher level combat is not just about bigger number, but often about having a better chance of taking on mulitple foes, or otherwise doing different rather than just bigger combats.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Yes. 4e has similar elements on the non-dice resolution side - scrying, teleports etc.

But I don't agree that that is always going to happen for combat. In Rolemaster, for example, higher level combat is not just about bigger number, but often about having a better chance of taking on mulitple foes, or otherwise doing different rather than just bigger combats.

I think verisimilitude might be damaged a bit in D&D by slightly too much focus on raw, specialized power versus mastery of a given field. At least I think it is for me, and always has been, though 3E and 4E may have turned it up another notch.

That is, when I look at what mastery means in real life or in fiction, it is often the broad competence and synergy that comes from knowing every relevant "skill" well. The blacksmith master doesn't really make horseshoes better than the pool of journeyman, or manage the forge better, or any number of such things. But everything a journeyman can do, he can do as well--and the subtle nuances between things is what really matters for superior work. A talented and reasonably trained swordsman might have overall decent skill and a few tricks that he has honed to expert perfection. The master swordsman has flawless basics (e.g. footwork, placement), knows nearly all the tricks and how to stop them--and what he doesn't know yet, he can understand quickly when he sees it.

Now, as a game model, the master having +15 or so compared to the merely talented, trained guy having +9, isn't inherently a bad thing. But when the master gets that bonus via leveling, and pretty much the same way he got the +9, the scaling starts to pale. This is further reinforced by what a level means. In 1E, you could see that getting those later levels was tough (though the system was inconsistent here). So at least abstractly, the model said each successive plus was not the same. By 3E, however, this effect is mostly gone. 4E made it even worse in some ways, though the broadening of powers by paragon path counters that a bit.

So how this relates to your comment is that I would really like to see power scale more or less linearly through the heroic tier (roughly). Then beyond that, make straight bonuses scarce (and expensive), with more options to handle a wider array of challenges. Or perhaps the next "+1" is picked up as a side effect of broading, and the broading has the most effect on the gameplay.

 

[pemerton]

I would really like to see power scale more or less linearly through the heroic tier (roughly). Then beyond that, make straight bonuses scarce (and expensive), with more options to handle a wider array of challenges.

I think that 4e tries to reconcile scaling and broadening in this way: game elements (PC powers, monsters, etc) are designed in such a way that only when your PC's bonuses have scaled to a certain level to you get the capacity to handle the situations that will arise when a certain sort of opponent is put into play by the GM. A simple example is flight - only monsters of a certain level or higher have flight, and PC abilities to deal with flight come into play once PCs reach that level.

I quite like this approach because of its simplicity for the user (not the designer, for whom I assume it is hard work!). But it does mean that you can muck it up as soon as you start levelling monster, traps etc up and down. And it may have implications for replay value, also, if it results in their being only one fixed path of broadening available.