Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8365080" data-attributes="member: 6790260">While I would not use actually level 1 goblins, your level range is far too restrictive for what I would do, were I currently DMing 4e. For a level 20 party, I could easily see fielding combats from -4 to +4 level. Sometimes even further down the scale, if it were truly fitting. I would likewise try to include, occasionally, skill and ability things that show that even the weenie Wizard has bulked up a little over the adventure, that even the clomping-stomping Paladin can sneak past some things now. Further, I would do so with a range of things much, MUCH broader than I would with combats, mostly because while a level-10 combat might theoretically be fine once in a blue moon, in general a combat that is too far below the party's level will just be boring, so I'll be more likely to gloss over something that might cash out that way and replace it with something else (a montage scene, a skill challenge, just narration, it depends). Purely skill-based stuff, though? That can be quite fun even if it's a level 20 Wizard picking a lock that would be a reasonable challenge for a 1st-level character.And that's sort of where this argument runs aground. I absolutely would use fights in a broader range than you're allowing for, and I would even moreso use skill DCs across an even broader range than you're allowing for. I would never do those things in 5e, because it would produce bad results. (I would know; I'd say that defines about 2/3 of my personal, lived experience with 5e play.)Edit: Plus what AbdulAlhazred just said. There's plenty of places where 5e is, if anything, anti-transparent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8365080, member: 6790260"] While I would not use [I]actually level 1[/I] goblins, your level range is far too restrictive for what I would do, were I currently DMing 4e. For a level 20 party, I could easily see fielding combats from -4 to +4 level. Sometimes even further down the scale, if it were truly fitting. I would likewise try to include, occasionally, skill and ability things that show that even the weenie Wizard has bulked up a little over the adventure, that even the clomping-stomping Paladin can sneak past some things now. Further, I would do so with a range of things [I]much, MUCH[/I] broader than I would with combats, mostly because while a level-10 combat might theoretically be fine once in a blue moon, in general a combat that is too far below the party's level will just be boring, so I'll be more likely to gloss over something that might cash out that way and replace it with something else (a montage scene, a skill challenge, just narration, it depends). Purely skill-based stuff, though? That can be quite fun even if it's a level 20 Wizard picking a lock that would be a reasonable challenge for a 1st-level character. And that's sort of where this argument runs aground. I [I]absolutely would[/I] use fights in a broader range than you're allowing for, and I would even moreso use skill DCs across an even broader range than you're allowing for. I would never do those things in 5e, because it would produce bad results. (I would know; I'd say that defines about 2/3 of my personal, lived experience with 5e play.) Edit: Plus what AbdulAlhazred just said. There's plenty of places where 5e is, if anything, [I]anti[/I]-transparent. [/QUOTE]

Verification