Difficulty Numbers: Scaling, or Static?

[pemerton]

The game world in 4E having a meta explanation doesn’t really work for me. I’ll take BA of 5E to avoid it.

I don't know what you mean by "meta-explanation".

I mean, all RPG gameworlds are authored, and so all have a "meta-explanation" in that sense.

But the reason that Paragon and Epic Tier PCs find the things they're trying to do hard is because they're trying to do hard things - things that 1st level PCs couldn't even attempt (like, eg thrusting their hands into the Dwarven forge to stabilise an artefact that is being reforged; or trying to cow the Djinni in the court of their master Yan-C-Bin).

 

[payn]

I don't know what you mean by "meta-explanation".

I mean, all RPG gameworlds are authored, and so all have a "meta-explanation" in that sense.

But the reason that Paragon and Epic Tier PCs find the things they're trying to do hard is because they're trying to do hard things - things that 1st level PCs couldn't even attempt (like, eg thrusting their hands into the Dwarven forge to stabilise an artefact that is being reforged; or trying to cow the Djinni in the court of their master Yan-C-Bin).

Right, every time you say tier and why its gated just loses me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What made 4e scaling hella weird was the half level bonus that was applied to basically everything, whether that was something your character was proficient in or not, so high level (or actually just 10+ level) characters became bizarrely good at everything. Past the tenth level the half level bonus contributed more to the skills than the proficiency bonus.

 

[pemerton]

Right, every time you say tier and why its gated just loses me.

I don't understand.

A 1st level Wizard can't memorise and cast a Wish spell. But an Archmage can.

A 1st level fighter can't hope to thrust his hands and arms into the forge without being horribly burned and maimed. But a paragon tier fighter can.

I'm lost as to why you are lost.

 

[Scott Christian]

What do you think? How do you liked games to handle difficulties?

I prefer static for skill challenges.

Assigning the difficulty for skill challenges should not focus on the adventurer’s level of ability. It should focus on the context or environment. For example, if you have a player who has tailored their adventurer to be a great swimmer, do not simply make the swim challenge more difficulty because they are so good. The river is – the river. It should only change based on where the adventurers are crossing, i.e. context.

Another example is a rogue who has devoted skill points to becoming a master lockpick. He finds an old door with a rusty lock. The lock should not increase because the rogue is skilled. It should be contextual. If the rogue is entering an ancient armory, the lock might be hard or epic. If it is a rusty door that leads to a pantry, it is simple.

But...

As for combat, I prefer a more scaled encounter. This does not discount adventurers having lower-level encounters, nor does it negate adventurers meeting something that exceeds their capability. But what it does mean is: the majority of encounters are purposefully levelled to challenge the adventurers. This is especially true for my game where only one or two (maybe three?) encounters exist per long rest.

 

[Maxperson]

Nothing else mentioned, I’d say DC 15 is a good number for “Difficult.”

In 5e DC 15 is by RAW only a moderate/medium difficulty. Difficult would be DC 20(hard) or DC 25(very hard) since it's not one of the set adjectives and we have to interpret it. I'd put it at 20 myself.

 

[Basic Expert]

What made 4e scaling hella weird was the half level bonus that was applied to basically everything, whether that was something your character was proficient in or not, so high level (or actually just 10+ level) characters became bizarrely good at everything. Past the tenth level the half level bonus contributed more to the skills than the proficiency bonus.

True, but then the alternative is usually that the disparity between skill levels become so great at high levels that the less skilled have no hope to hit the DCs while the highly-skilled almost can't fail. Thus, gameplay contracts as everyone is increasingly siloed into their specialties. That appears to be the case for 5E's saving throw system with many high-level characters and CR monsters having a couple of abysmal saves that are basically auto-fails.

4E is only weird if you look at its 30 levels and Paragon/Epic tiers as mere extensions of the Heroic tier rather than the profound power-ups they actually are. Paragon characters aren't meant to be Heroic-characters "only better", they are essentially superhuman. In Epic tier they are demigods. Power and experience infuses everything they do and mortal concerns barely register.

 

[500 Toads]

True, but then the alternative is usually that the disparity between skill levels become so great at high levels that the less skilled have no hope to hit the DCs while the highly-skilled almost can't fail. Thus, gameplay contracts as everyone is increasingly siloed into their specialties. That appears to be the case for 5E's saving throw system with many high-level characters and CR monsters having a couple of abysmal saves that are basically auto-fails.

Is that actually necessarily a large problem?

PF2e, for instance, takes this path for some checks. At high levels, there's a potentially tremendous gap between somebody with no proficiency at all ( just the relevant attribute modifier ) and the basic 'Trained' proficiency ( granting an additional 2 plus level, where PF2e also has a level cap of 20), larger for expert/master/legendary proficiency (+2 per tier). However, everybody gets at least 'Trained' proficiency in all three saving throw categories, unarmed combat, and unarmored defense; and even characters who aren't in "skill monkey" classes get a pretty generous number of skill increases ( one every odd-numbered level ) which they could use to get 'Trained' in quite a few (particularly given that one cannot use the skill increases to reach master or legendary proficiency before levels 7 or 15 respectively). For perspective, there are sixteen 'normal' skills in PF2e, plus the 'Lore' category; outside of specialized knowledge represented by Lore, it's not a super-granular system and one could indeed be pretty versatile.

In that system -- ordinary, "normal" challenges like scaling a wall, trying to stabilize a downed creature, or repairing a damaged shield don't have scaling DC; one doesn't need to be an expert in them, while experts basically auto-succeed (and in some cases, can find it worth it to try higher-difficulty variations, such as a higher-challenge + more-rewarding version of Treat Wounds).

And then there are extraordinary tasks for experts. Trying to "Earn an Income" by acting as a defense attorney for clients in Hell is explicitly a Legendary difficulty task, as is running an international brewing franchise. Armor and weapon proficiency is also included in the level-based scaling, so an oblivious brigand trying to attack an unassuming middle-aged man who happens to be a retired high-level monk is also going to have an extremely bad time of it. High-level challenges of such nature require at least some training to have a meaningful chance of success, but that strikes me as reasonable.