Difficulty Numbers: Scaling, or Static?

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


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.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top