OK, that all may be true. It reinforces my view that it's not clearly the case that there are level appropriate DCs, or indeed a clear methodology for determining what might be possible for a 15h level fighter along the lines I've described upthread.Character knowledge/training, character history/network, items all play a roll on what may or may not be feasible.pemerton said:DIfferent 5e players in this thread seem to be taking different views about whether or not there are level-appropriate DCs/actions in 5e. I think that at least shows that it's not clearly the case that there are.
As for rolling, unless there is stress put on the character during the action, many checks can be predetermined via the passive score (10 + modifier on the roll) in which case I mark it off as an immediate success whereas a lower level PC might be asked to make a roll.
To wit . . .
Upthread a number of posters - you in an earlier post, [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION], I think others too - have said that 5e uses bounded accuracy, in the sense that the DC for task X doesn't change across levels. (More than one poster has compared this to AC - the AC of a goblin is the same whether the to hit check is made by a 1st level or 15th level PC).I don't think that's true... I think your question was a little unclear. Mechanically there are certain DC's a first level fighter can never attain. However the first step of determining whether there is even the possibility of a check in 5e is in the hands of the DM. I assumed you were familiar with the play procedures of 5e so I didn't think it was relevant to rehash the fact that the DM decides what a 1st level fighter vs. a 15th level fighter is capable of making a check for... I assumed you were asking what DC range was attainable by a fighter at 15th level vs. one at 1st level.
If now you're saying that DCs are in fact "subjective" - for non-combat, at least, if not for combat - then the difference from 4e seems to be more about the absence of a clear framework for bundling a series of level-appropriate DCs into an overall resolution framework (ie the skill challenge).
Anyway I've intended my claim to be clear: that 4e has a system that makes it straightforward for martial prowess to be displayed and resolved in a way that mitigates against tendencies in fantasy RPGing for playes of spellcasters to have a greater range of possibilities open to them, especially once we get into "epic" territory. I posted an actual play illustration.
I think the range of responses that has generated from 5e players - that the actual play event couldn't happen in 5e without using spells or magic (because martial PCs aren't supernatural), or that it would be about epic boons (although the illustration was of a paragon tier PC), or that it would be about setting a DC that a 1st level PC can't succeed at, or that it is about the GM deciding what is or isn't possible for a 15th level PC (which appers to straightforwardly contradict the bounded accuracy analysis) - illusrates that 5e is not clear on this. In practice I haven't seen any posts of 5e actual play that illustrate fighters doing the sort of thing described, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. But presumably not in any of the games whose players are posting in this thread!
EDIT to add:
Of cousre I'm talking about what I want in the game - if you follow the thread, you'll see that this discussion arose from discussing the adjudication of martial prowess, and how 4e supports that in various ways both combat and non-combat.But that's assuming I want that feel in my game. That's what people mean when they say 4e pushed/forced/catered to a particular playstyle. For some sticking their hands in the forge will be epic and mythical for other DM's doing something like that without magical aid is too gonzo and feels silly for their particular campaign. with the 5e approach it's modular depending on how the DM chooses to rule it and, as long as the DM is consistent should be fine.
Of course, 4e is jsut as "modular" as 5e in this respect - nothing stops a GM deciding that the 15th level fighter can't do what I described, and the worst will be a modest bit of friction between the flavour of that decision, and the flavour of some paragon paths etc - but that friction will probably be no greater than in the 5e game where the fighter can survive being enveloped by a fire elemental but has his/her hands burn to a crisp if s/he stick them into a forge. What 4e does offer is a systematic framework for implementing whatever decision is made, via a DC-by-level chart and skill challenge system.
FURTHER EDIT:
As [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] have pointed out, 5e is not "modular" when it comes to spellcasters - they have a range of quite significant and fairly well-detailed abilities which establish their capabilities pretty straightforwardly.
And another point: in my 4e game, an epic-tier chaos sorcerer sealed the Abyss with an appropriate Arcana check, and sacrificing the appropriate resources. I've seen 5e GMs suggest that (i) in 5e Arcana is only about scholarly knowledge, and not manipulating magical phenomena; and (ii) that the appropriate way to handle that would be to undertake research, create a new spell etc.
In gameplay terms, undertaking research means playing the game so as to learn more from the GM about what action declarations are required to produce the desired result. It shifts the focus from adjudicating action resolutions to unfolding the GM's conception of the fiction. A further strength of the 4e system structure, in my view, is that it facilitates the former focus of play. (As [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION] and I discussed upthread, many/most D&D players prefer the second sort of focus. Hence they didn't like 4e. That only reinforces the distinction between 4e and 5e in this particular respect.)
Last edited: