Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8366778" data-attributes="member: 16814">Nah, at best it's (ie^4.5)%.  I mean, if we're to be using imaginary numbers, I find this formulation much more interesting in general.I don't disagree, though, that there's quite a lot of this going on.  The system isn't written that way.  I'll be absolutely glad to accept that we should engage with it this way -- according to those that are not attempting to follow the recommendations of the system but playing it according to what they know -- if we do the same thing for 4e.  Arguing that 5e needs to be defined by those that aren't following it's guidance while advocating 4e run correctly is bad pool.Works just fine at my table.  I suppose I'm not doing it right?  Let's stick with only considering how people not following the system play as definitional of the system.The modules have an interesting problem -- they need to present a complete enough adventure with good enough guidance to sell.  This is hard to do with the guidance that puts everything in the moment.  That said, I do find this frustrating, even if I understand why they have done so -- it's to make money.  I can't really argue with that.  Purity for system is great, but not if you need food.I have no idea what you mean by valance of a check.  The DC spread, according to guidance, will almost always be 10-20.  Going outside of this is like selecting a much higher level monster in 4e, like +8 -- something you do for good reasons.  The result is that a player succeeds or fails, with failure having a consequence.  Yes, 5e is vague on this, but I take success to mean just that -- not a lamed success or one immediately reversed.  It is success.  Does 4e have better guidance on this?  Yep.  Does that mean 5e is non-viable?  Goodness, no.  If you read it straight and don't try to twist it, it works just fine as presented and does a pretty good job. Bolded -- they are not.  If they are, why is there a chart in the rules giving DC?!  DCs are based on the chart.  Good practice is to make sure your fiction aligns with those DCs, but the setting of a DC is not based on the fiction, because the DC range is set before your game even starts.  Instead, your fiction is set up to give those DCs support in play.What requires a check is going to be based on the fiction, which is what I think you're going for, here.  The goal of a skill challenge, the action that triggers a check, yes, but the DC?  You pick it from a chart.  This is the same for 5e.  The difference is in how DCs are set.  And it's really not all that different here -- the GM picks easy, medium, or hard.  The 4e GM also select a level, which is necessary because you need to know where you are on the treadmill.  The 5e treadmill is broken -- it stays in the same place, so this step isn't necessary.I don't think it's a terrible misconception at all.  It's what the rules suggest -- there's a chart!  That you've adopted a good approach that makes sure that you understand the need to up the fiction to match the DC range is cool, but you're still getting the DCs from that range, and have made your choices for the available range prior to crafting the fiction.  You said so yourself, above, that you need to send the PCs to Tartarus when they're of a level that challenge DC need that fiction.  Cool!  I agree.</blockquote>

Verification