Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8366923" data-attributes="member: 87792">As I have said repeatedly no this is not what happens in a game of 4e that is either being run by the book or being run well.What actually happens in 4e is that enemies remain relevant for about half a dozen levels and you steadily surpass them. So for that matter do the DCs within an adventure because you go off the adventure level.What happens in reality is that you feel a ratchet; as you are on an adventure or a quest things steadily get comparatively easier or you fave more things - and when you start a new quest things get harder as the enemies are all new and higher level and in a more dangerous environment. This doesn't mysteriously take away progression. And yes going into a new area does and should feel harder.Now will you please stop with this Point Refuted A Thousand Times?Please stop ignoring the skill rules that are in the PHB. This is entirely irrelevant to whether characters actually get better at things. Which they do.In 5e a hard difficulty is DC 20. Which means that characters who don't focus on those skills were never priced in to hard checks in the first place. For that matter a medium difficulty is DC 15. Unless you're a specialist you're priced out of that.On the contrary, I'm making an argument looking at the whole of 4e and the whole of 5e. You are pretending that:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">4e skill rules do not exist</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">4e monster rules do not exist</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">5e monster rules do not exist</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">5e trap rules do not exist</li> </ul>And possibly more.You are pretending that the entire skill system can be boiled down to a single table in each game. Which they can't.Nope.If you neglect a skill in 4e you will still get better at it. Which has a meaningful in game effect. If you've entirely neglected both skill and stat and are trying to attempt something hard you have screwed up badly.Meanwhile the 5e skill system was slapped together to the point they couldn't be bothered to work out how the DCs related to what the PCs were trying to do. That said it's not the worst part of the 5e DM tools; the DMG monster design tools not only don't work but they couldn't even be bothered to make them match the Monster Manual. 5e does a lot right from the players' side of the screen but for DMs "broken treadmills" is a good metaphor.So let's look at the actual math of 5e.An easy task is DC 10. Which means someone with no skill and no training has about a 50% chance of completing it (yes, I'm rounding down and it's actually 55%). This leads to the following effects in play:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If you have only a 50% chance of doing something and failure has consequences it's a bad roll and you should only do it in an emergency.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If you have a 50% chance of doing something and failure has no consequences it's bad to roll and you should just take 10 or 20.</li> </ul>The results of this are that in 5e if you have entirely neglected a skill you should never be doing it unless you have somehow got advantage. In 4e you use easy skill checks to pitch in and help even if you're no good at the thing being done; you've spotted a great opportunity because (at least the version I use and I fully accept there were several iterations) it needs a 7 not a 10 as the default and you've a 2/3 chance of making things better.An average task is DC 15. If you're the smartest person ever or the strongest person ever you're still capped at 20 or +5. You can't rely on talent for this - you need proficiency. And if you're both pretty adept in your secondary stat (14) and proficient you'll only surpass that +5 at level 9. If you roll a moderate check in 5e without advantage and you're not pretty focused you've messed up or things have gone pear shaped.This broken treadmill encourages people not to roll easy checks outside their area and not to roll moderate checks unless they've got advantage, guidance, inspiration, or other stuff.Indeed. 4e paid attention to what it was doing rather than slapped down some round numbers and called it a day on the DM side. The 5e classes and player side are pretty good - but the DM side is half-assed.Which would be fine and dandy if it was the case. But 5e has both fixed and escalating difficulties.And the spread being the same does not mean there is no improvement. You can e.g. look at jump distances. Or look at how easy you find it to deal with the enemies and what you're currently facing.4e's "treadmill" is that your foes get tougher and as you're higher level people want you for the challenges only you can do. Either 5e has this treadmill or it's just same stuff, different day.By stripping rather than reducing the level scaling 5e turned well rounded characters who learn a lot into incurious dolts. And it wouldn't be hard to have fixed that. Make proficiency a +3 and then give the rest of the proficiency bonus to just about everything including the skills and saves you aren't proficient in.Do you own a 4e PHB? Because skill descriptions in 4e that have at least some static DCs include:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Acrobatics (balance)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Arcana (Identify conjuration or zone, identify ritual, identify magical effect, sense the presence of magic)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Athletics</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Dungeoneering (Foraging)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Endurance</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Heal</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Insight (recognise effect as illusionary)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Nature (Forage)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Perception (Listen difficulties, Spot or search, Find tracks)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Streetwise</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Thievery (Disable trap, open lock)</li> </ul>Oh, and knowledge checks for quite a few things. Admittedly Essentials has slightly less (I can't find my Rules Cyclopaedia to check)4e was not 3.5 and it was not 5e. It was in many ways a transitional form. And in many ways this gave it strengths that neither individually has; it's a much looser skill system than 3.5 without being the entire loosy-goosey "we couldn't be bothered with any sort of benchmark; ask your DM" of 5e. And I think it was right to have fewer fixed checks - but that it has some should kill any idea that there's no progression and you're just on a treadmill stone cold dead. The only treadmill you are on in 4e is that as you level up you take on harder challenges - the way it has always been. You're physically and mentally more capable because you've learned things, unlike in 5e.What failed was giving progression to the characters outside their areas of expertise.Nope. It's simply that a high bonus is meaningful.It would be nice if there was some sort of idea presented in 5e about how characters actually grow this way. But there isn't.If Bob the Great, renowned Paladin has a +0 on intimidate he's a weird build. If on the other hand Frank the Mongoose approaches a guard who challenges him and he tries to identify himself he may well get "Piss off you bloody chancer until you can come up with a believable story". The guard isn't telepathic; why is he going to believe Frank is who he says he is when he looks like any other ranger?</blockquote>

Verification