Indeed. If it was realistic the bottom guy would get better faster than the top guy. Meanwhile in 5e (and in 3.X for that matter) the bottom guy simply doesn't get any better at all. It's still the same pasty wizard without a tan who doesn't know the tarpaulin of a tent from the groundsheet.
There's an assumption at play here that it's the number beside the skill that makes the difference. Most of the examples given (mine included) just look like no check needed to me. When we look at things that actually have stakes in the games, the maths plays out the same as far as chance of success goes. Both cases are going to be pitching a campsite in a dangerous place, because that's the backdrop for high level stuff! So, making camp in hell, 20th level, not a lot of pressure but it's a dangerous place. Easy task. Both my 5e character and your 4e character have the same chance of success as they did at 1st pitching camp in Placid Clearing.
4e isn't The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. You don't miraculously see all the bandits walking around in glass armour because you've levelled up too much. Instead what you have is DCs increasing by what the characters are generally trying to do - the level in the DC is the adventure level.
So, your argument is that 20th level characters in 4e are doing 1st level adventures, or... what? Over the course of a 4e adventure, you'll level, what, once maybe twice. So your check goes up by at most 1 during that adventure. I'm not following this argument. The idea in both 4e and 5e is that you go up against tougher and tougher guys, not that you're often circling back to the low level guys for some easy kicks.
And if Queen of the Demonweb Pits is a level 10-14 adventure then a level 10 wizard has as much or more trouble foraging for food in the Demonweb Pits as a level 1 wizard does in the area around the Keep on the Borderlands because the area is a higher level in the Demonweb Pits.
On the other hand which are you saying is the case in 5e because, it being more of a half-assed game, doesn't actually have a defined answer:
- The Demonweb Pits are exactly as hard to forage food in as the area round the Keep on the Borderlands.
- The Demonweb Pits are actually harder to forage food in than the area round the Keep on the Borderlands so the actual chance of success for the 5e character is lower. And you, as a DM, have to do more work because 5e isn't actually empowering.
So which is it? Does the 5e character get actively worse at things that are relevant because they don't level up, or is there no more difficulty in the Demonweb Pits than round the Keep o the Borderlands.
You seem to have made the assumption that the foraging DC for Demonweb pits is objectively locked in the same place for 4e but is variable depending on what the GM thinks the difficulty is in 5e. But, it's the same for 4e -- the difficulty for foraging around the Demonweb pits is up to the GM -- it's either easy, medium, or hard. For 5e, it's either easy, medium, or hard (according to the recommended guidance). And we're back at my argument.
But what is that DC 8 and DC 18?
If we look at the Athletics rules it's DC 5 to climb a ladder and DC 10 to climb a rope. So DC 8 is probably a knotted rope. Meanwhile it's DC 15 to climb a cave wall and DC 20 to climb a brick wall DC 18 is possibly a wall with a lightning rod for a +2. So the level 20 wizard can climb a brick wall with a lightning conductor as easily as the level 1 wizard can climb a rope. I guess they improved!
Why are walls with lightning rods harder to climb? I mean, total aside, not the point, but... huh?
Or let's say jumping. With a running start you can jump a number of squares equal to your athletics check/5 (unrounded). So a DC8 jump check clears an 8 foot pit. A DC 18 athletics check clears more than twice as far. I guess they improved!
Do either of these make any sense, though? I mean, I can hang out with wall climbers, and I can go on climbs where I get help, but unless I actually put on muscle and practice, I will not get better at these things. And no amount of casual watching of track and field is going to improve your jumping distance. I mean, the 4e character can never, ever have jumped a single thing in any adventure, but they can jump further? You're arguing a nonsensical point to justify increasing numbers beside the skill on the character sheet.
But, yes, you have a point. On the physical skills where 4e locked in a DC like 3e did, the treadmill makes you "improve."
Or let's say swimming. DC 10 is needed to swim in calm water. With a +2 circumstance bonus that's DC 8. So DC8 is swimming in calm water with water wings. Meanwhile DC 20 is the difficulty to swim in a storm. +2 circumstance in this case is a plank of wreckage to help them float.
So either (a) there is no improvement between someone who can swim in a calm pond with water wings and someone who can swim in a storm with the wreckage of a ship or (b) there is actual meaningful improvement and it's just expected the PCs will do harder things.
Do you really think that it's easy to swim in a flat calm with water wings as it is a storm with a piece of wooden wreckage to support you? Because that is literally what you are claiming when you say there isn't improvement.
This is only true on the same scale where most 5e characters get steadily more incompetent until they reach Keystone Cops levels outside their areas of expertise. A Gelatinous Cube is CR2 and DC 12 save to avoid its engulf. A Shambling Mound is CR 5 and DC 14 to avoid its engulf. A Purple Worm is CR 15 and DC 19 to avoid being swallowed. (These were just the first three swallowing/engulfing monsters I could think of). But not only do most characters' non-proficient saves not fully scale with level, they don't scale at all. The difficulties characters are expected to face level up as they do. The difference is 4e characters' basic competence almost matches this. 5e doesn't and they are stuck not scaling other than in their areas of expertise and in hp.
And this goes directly to my earlier point. That 4e character has no practice avoiding being swallowed, but they get better at avoiding it. This is because 4e models competence one way -- the amorphous, no explanation, you just get better because the math needs you to way. This is because of the idea you need to get better but the math of the system needs your actual ability to succeed to remain largely static. 5e models competence a different way -- things still largely the same as far as challenge goes, but you can get better at them. You point out swallowing whole monsters in 5e. In 4e, these also exist, but they're tied to level, so their threat is largely the same no matter when you encounter one. A swallowing monster at level 3 is about as dangerous to you as a swallowing monster at level 23. 5e, though, takes a different approach. Monsters are dangerous based on the monster, not your level. A purple worm is very dangerous -- it's hard to avoid being swallowed by one because it's huge and swallows things all the time. It's practiced at swallowing thing. So, you have a hard task to avoid it. This isn't tied to level, it's tied to the worm -- the worm is hard no matter when you encounter it. So, a character that puts build choices into improving that save still faces a hard task to avoid being swallowed -- it's still hard! -- but they're skilled enough to deal with it. Much like a 4e character with lots of build choices in a skill finds hard tasks not as hard as others. But, if you haven't put skill into it, it's still the same hard task as it is for the other character, you just haven't put anything towards mitigating that. Maybe you should stay away.
These are different models of competence. And that's a very valid point -- you can prefer one to the other. However, the impact of these systems is that they largely end up in the same place -- 4e actually punishes you more than 5e does.
By the by, I noticed the goalpost shift from skills to saves, which these two systems use entirely differently.
