Difficulty Numbers: Scaling, or Static?

[CreamCloud0]

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.

i won't deny what you're saying, but i will say i wish 5e had something equivalent to the half level bonus as a base mechanic (i know jack of all trades exists but it's only on bard), the lack of such just means the disparity between those who have a chance and should bother attempting a check and those who shouldn't only increases as you get higher in level, and i think higher level adventurers should have diversity in their capabilities beyond their sole specialty, i'm not saying at high levels a cleric should be as good as the rogue at picking locks but they should be capable of picking a regular locked door in the castle if they find one in their way.

 

[Reynard]

They seem pretty fine to me. Like the hard DC of 20 still means that a completely untrained person with no natural aptitude for the thing still has a chance to make it.

Serious question: why would you want that?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Serious question: why would you want that?

Well, there are still "very hard" and "nearly impossible" that are unreachable by unskilled. But one certainly can argue that a thing that an untrained person has even a small chance to succeed as is not actually that hard. But the criticism I was responding to was that the DCs were too high, not that they were too low.

But basically in the context of the game DC 20 is something that starting characters, even skilled ones, are more likely to fail at than succeed at, but every character still has a small chance to making. (Unless it is an unskilled roll with your dump stat of 8, in which case, it seems perfectly fair that you cannot make it.) So DC 20 seems pretty reasonable "hard" task to me.

 

[Scott Christian]

If a player is playing a character who is a superheroic swimmer, I as GM am going to present them with dramatic swimming challenges. If a player is playing a character who is a master thief, then pantry doors, and old doors with rusty locks, aren't going to figure prominently in play.

And that's ok. You do you. But how I view it as a DM, the PC nonchalantly swimming against a riptide or upstream in rapids because they trained swimming to an epic level is highlighting them. Just as, them swimming across a wide mid-current strength stream highlights them. Both have good chances for success for the adventurer but might have mid to low chances of success for the other group members.

Paragon and Epic tier characters "navigate uncharted regions and explore long-forgotten dungeons" and "navigate otherworldly realms and explore never-before-seen caverns of wonder". If they're faffing about with pantry doors, and average highwaymen, something has gone wrong.

Just the same as, in classic D&D play, if the players are playing name level PCs then they won't be spending time trying to beat the Caves of Chaos.

I agree. Yet, in my opinion, context should still always rule a skill challenge. Are those epic tier characters less likely to be in a roadside tavern in between two farming villages than in a tavern in the heart of Sigil? Yes. So they'll probably never have to persuade the patrons or pick the cellar lock of the roadside tavern. But if they are there for some reason, then yes, the lock should still be a DC 10 or 15, even if the rogue already has +10.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

What makes 5e scaling hella weird is that this isn't the case. The level 20 barbarian might have been at the Conclave of Treachery, waded through the Demonweb Pits to headbut Lolth in the face, and saved Mystra's divinity - but does not mechanically know a single thing more about religion or history than they did at first level. Likewise the level 20 wizard was there all the same time with the thief so good they stole Orcus' sceptre out from his hand and been on numerous break-ins with them long before that but hasn't learned a single thing from spending every night at the campfire with them.

Past the tenth level yes practical experience while under fire did contribute more to the skills than the basic background. Because ten levels is a lot of practical experience. I think there is an argument that 4e scales this way too fast (although skill scaling is a lot slower than hp scaling) but scaling everything a bit is far far better than not scaling.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To make that more concrete, for a higher-level D&D 5E / PF2e party that might once upon a time have had to deal with the odd low-level bandits when traveling a major road between towns, they aren't automatically going to run into ambushes of wildly powerful bandits waylaying travelers on the very same roads. I view that sort of thing (Elder Scrolls-style "world levels with you" concept) as anathema to having the world make any sense at all. However, I wouldn't bother wasting the players' time with the same low-level bandit encounters, either -- we can hand-wave this vaguely as the party perhaps having established some reputation, or somehow looking like the powerful adventurers that they've become; and your average highwayman wouldn't suddenly commit suicide by attacking them when so severely outmatched.

One of my stock "once per campaign" encounters is mid-high level PCs running into a group of bandits. If they're trying they see the bandits before they are spotted - and once the bandits spot them the bandits all decide "Nope. Not messing with that". It's a five or ten minute aside and just feels good for the players and reflects how far they have come. (Especially if they had problems with bandits earlier).

But, generally, those higher-tier threats were always there, and at a power level appropriate for their own nature. If, say, I were running a low-level PF2e campaign in the Gravelands region of Golarion and for some reason the party absolutely insisted on trying to storm the infamous many-millennia-old lich Tar-Baphon's stronghold on the Isle of Terror -- well, I'm not going to pull any punches and they're going to face (very briefly!) the extremely lethal threats that would logically be there, not that Tar-Baphon himself even has an official statblock in PF2e.

This. The big threats are either there or building. The PCs power might be scaling with the threats (sometimes diagetically as they absorb power from the threat).

 

[djotaku]

That seems like it should be some sort of "luck roll", or maybe a flashback mechanic.

Or are you saying that that's actually what Arcana skill is - that rather than a representation/model of your character's knowledge, it's a tool for working out what they had the opportunity to learn in the past?

I don't remember exactly what D&D or Tales of the Valiant says about these, but I've seen/heard many games where that's how the GM uses arcana, history, etc. I think, anyway. As I keep re-reading your sentence I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but I'll give an example:

"GM, would I know this person?"
"Roll history"
(on a good roll) "Yes, you remember talking them at a party the Earl of Bladyblah threw"
(on a bad roll) either: a) "No, you never saw them." or b) "You should have known this person, but you were always black-out drunk at the Earl of Bladyblah's parties"

 

[aramis erak]

I don't remember exactly what D&D or Tales of the Valiant says about these, but I've seen/heard many games where that's how the GM uses arcana, history, etc. I think, anyway. As I keep re-reading your sentence I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but I'll give an example:

"GM, would I know this person?"
"Roll history"
(on a good roll) "Yes, you remember talking them at a party the Earl of Bladyblah threw"
(on a bad roll) either: a) "No, you never saw them." or b) "You should have known this person, but you were always black-out drunk at the Earl of Bladyblah's parties"

I'm one who has allowed such use in D&D and DH. (Haven't got ToV, A5E, et cetera.) It's perfectly on brand for both Wises & Circles in BW/BE/MG. Circles if you need to use them in some way, wises if just knowing them.
And in 2d20, where knowing them can be generating a trait on yourself, them knowing you is a trait on them.