I don't mean to keep interjecting on this, but which edition is this theoretically for: 5E Core, 5E Narrativist, 5E Simulationist? If there is no "Lore"/Simulationist edition, that's fine, never mind me, please carry on. If there is, and this is going into the Core or Simulationist ruleset, I feel it's worthing noting: the above implementation is very elegant, but in the game setting, what is the difference between an Easy Epic task and a Hard Paragon task (other than being a metagame abstraction)? What is there physically about the door and its relationship to the PC that puts the DC on a different track depending on the tier? Isn't it possible that a low Str wizard has trouble bashing open a sturdy wooden door at Heroic and still has equal difficulty bashing open the same sturdy wooden door when he returns to the same dungeon at Epic level (and so needs to use magic instead)? I don't think I'm asking anything revelatory, but as per previous discussion with CrazyJerome, the Core rules (if they are going to be sandboxy) are going to be very short indeed if different playstyles aren't at least somewhat factored into the initial design assumptions.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules
- Thread starter Mark CMG
- Start date
Eh... well I GM 4e, not 5e.
As to *how* I GM 4e, I'd say it was towards the simulationist end. IMCs a hard paragon task and an easy epic task are both DC 30; they're (eg) the kind of obstacle a 20th level (hard paragon) and 21st level (easy epic) NPC respectively might typically place in way of the adventurers & other threats.
I'd set 'typical locked door' at DC 15 (moderate heroic task to break open), an unusually sturdy but unreinforced door would be DC 17 (moderate, +2 mod), whereas breaking a typical reinforced locked door would be DC 20 (hard heroic, or easy paragon).
IMCs a 21st level Epic wizard with STR 8 who tries to break that door open is still facing a DC 17, so he certainly does not have equal difficulty breaking that door down as when he was 1st level. He has a +9 mod on strength checks, so he's fairly likely to succeed on the first blow - even at 1st level his -1 STR check mod had given him a chance; I use a '3 strokes and you're out rule' though - after failing 3 times he cannot break that door down physically.
As a 30th level demigod wizard he would have +14 on the STR check, very likely to succeed, but still a chance to fail - which would be embarrassing.
Or believableAs a 30th level demigod wizard he would have +14 on the STR check, very likely to succeed, but still a chance to fail - which would be embarrassing.
For me, by default or status quo, a wizard doesn't do anything to earn being better at bashing doors at demigod level. Unless he boosted his Str, he didn't get physically stronger (think Epic Raistlin) and so the door doesn't get any easier to open physically. He DID get better at magic, and he DID get more experienced and better at combat because of all the fighting and combat magic, but he didn't get any practice (in the foreground story or behind the scenes) at building his strength, or least not significant enough to get a +14 to mundanely bash open doors.
In that simulationist sense, the rule as an abstraction is not more real to the player than the fiction it was originally abstracted to model. Anyway, I know you're talking about your 4E DMing experience, but in this 5E thread about Monte's temperature of the rules, I feel so inclined to tie it back to possible implementations of 5E Core or 5E Simulationist edition, but please feel free to ignore me rambling from my ivory tower
Last edited:
Or believable
For me, the wizard didn't do anything to earn being better at bashing doors at demigod level. Unless he boosted his Str, he didn't get physically stronger (think Epic Raistlin) and so the door doesn't get any easier to open physically. He DID get better at magic, and he DID get more experienced and better at combat because of all the fighting and combat magic, but he didn't get any practice (in the foreground story or behind the scenes) at building his strength, or least not significant enough to get a +14 to mundanely bash open doors.
In that simulationist sense, the rule as an abstraction is not more real to the player than the fiction it was originally abstracted to model. Anyway, I know you're talking about your 4E DMing experience, but in this 5E thread about Monte's temperature of the rules, I feel so inclined to tie it back to possible implementations of 5E Core or 5E Simulationist edition, but please feel free to ignore me rambling from my ivory tower
It sounds like you prefer the 3e approach then: in 3e D&D wizards don't automatically get better at door-bashing as they level up. They only get better in areas they put skill points & stat points in.
Personally, for an heroic fantasy game I prefer the 4e approach. I am very happy with 30th level Merlin being better at door-bashing than 1st level Rincewind. I also find that the +15 mod over 30 levels really hits the sweet spot between zero-advancement and excessive advancement, whereas systems that give +1 per level make high level PCs automatically too good at everything. +15 is quite similar to the difference in athletics* ability between 1st level Rincewind (-1 STR, no skill training = -1) and 1st level young Conan (+ 5 STR, + 5 skill training, say +2 background benefit = +12). I like it that the 30th level demigod of wizardry is only slightly better at breaking open doors than is a novice adventurer with an athletics focus.
*I use skills for pretty well any ability test. In 4e I don't think I've ever said "roll a STR check" as opposed to "roll an Athletics check".
I think the 3E approach has its flaws, at least one being that NPCs use the same skill points and level track, but yes, I don't think that PCs get better at everything in a more simulationist game. I don't think that wizards get better at bashing doors and I don't Hercules gets better at basketweaving after fighting through his 12 labors.
If the numbers work out in your game otherwise, that's great; I don't know how that would play out in practice for an average simulationist game.
For me, if the rules set the stereotype that all heroes are standardized to get better at everything, and one buys into that stereotype, then one is less likely to imagine a world where heroes don't get better at some or many things, and this informs the reality of the fiction itself, such that the abstraction can become more real to the player than what might otherwise be (depending on the group's preferences). So the rule informs the fiction from the top down, rather than allow the group to use the rules to build the fiction from the bottom up.
In contrast, I do see a direct correlation between between level and combat prowess, since D&D heroes get so much practice at combat, so it's a generalization that works for me. It may be a stereotype that heroes are great in combat, but it's not an unfair one.
Hercules doesn't noticeably get better at *anything* from adulthood on - in 4e-PC game terms he starts and ends as a 30th level demigod. Weaving is not covered in the 4e rules system, so the GM is free to rule whether Hercules can even weave at all. The most 4e-RAW approach would probably be to treat it as a 'martial practice', so the player would need to invest resources if he wants to challenge Arachne in a weaving contest.
Whether or not wizards get better at door-bashing is determined by the rules. You should use rules that suit the result you want. In 4e the rules (mostly) say wizards get better at bashing open doors, climbing walls, and any other fixed-DC tasks listed in the PHB. You can change that by removing all the fixed DCs and make all DCs key off character level, adding 1/2 character level to all skill checks, say, so that there is no real automatic advancement. In that case the exact same door would be DC 15 to a Wiz-1 and DC 30 to a Wiz-30.
Edit:
" I don't think that PCs get better at everything in a more simulationist game" - depends on what you're simulating. Me, I simulate a world where heroes get better at doing stuff.
Which leads nicely back the the OP -- in 5E, do the rules set the default with built-in dials on how to adjust it (ie., not asking S'mon on Enworld about houseruling) or do the rules provide the options and have you set the default? In this case, do PCs get better at everything by default (4E)? Or do you provide a skill point system by default (3E) and say Optional Simple Rule: Just add 1/2 PC level? I know my prefererence (skill points by default, or better yet, dual "Legends" and "Lore" edition). I think I know your preference. So now what?
As I said way upthread, I definitely prefer a game that sets a default, then gives options to adjust, over generic games with no default.
As to what the default should be in 5e, that is a very different question. I certainly prefer 4e's "You get better at everything" to 3e's "You suck. You'll always suck. In fact, you'll get worse as you level up, because DCs will go up while your untrained skills stay static. We hate you, Regdar".
But: I was perfectly happy with rolling a d20 under ability score to attribute checks in pre-3e D&D. In this system the target number never changed or advanced. The assumption was that the PC didn't get better at most stuff as he levelled up, so it suits a grittier style. OTOH, unlike 3e it didn't mean Regdar sucked - if he had CHA 12 he always had a 60% chance to succeed on CHA checks.
I'm fine with 4e. I'm fine with pre-3e 'roll under attribute'. I am not fine with 3e's task resolution system, IMO it needs a lot of work to be playable, and it tends to break completely after even a few levels as the spread of PC abilities becomes wider. YMMV, and probably does.
Dalamar
Adventurer
See, the moment that I noticed that high-level wizards will be pretty good at bashing down doors, I thought that was most likely because they were using some simple magics to do it, not because they got physically stronger.
In my eyes, you always can (and probably should) flavour the half-level bonus to fit your character.
We know they're not stronger - their STR attribute has not changed. But they are a lot more skilled. And bashing down doors is definitely a skill.
