• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Mike Mearls on how D&D 4E could have looked

OK on this "I would’ve much preferred the ability to adopt any role within the core 4 by giving players a big choice at level 1, an option that placed an overlay on every power you used or that gave you a new way to use them."
Basically have Source Specific Powers and less class powers. But I think combining that with having BIG differing stances to dynamically switch role might be a better idea so that your hero can adjust role to circumstance. I have to defend this NPC right now vs I have to take down the big bad right now vs I have to do minion cleaning right now, I am inspiring allies in my interesting way, who need it right now.

and the obligatory
Argghhhh on this. " I wanted classes to have different power acquisition schedules"

And thematic differences seemed to have been carried fine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Comments

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Aside from the main argument...

Um, not quite.

We learn that Thor is not the God of Hammers in Thor: Ragnarok. It is *AFTER* that, in the next Avengers movie, that he learns that for some things he does still need a weapon, and gets one made.
And definitely helps make it.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Mearles sort of answered the question diverging into something he might have in hindsight brought forward into 5e - I like that conversation direction.

For me
A more extensive and "generous" page 42 like methodology comes to mind.
comes to mind

As does fully fixed and better presented skill challenges.(sounds like he is talking and thinking about this now)

Bloodied as a status with many things triggering off of it

Warlord (Battlemaster can be the root class for it damn Battle Master has the same basic etymology of War Lord) and in 2e the Weapon Mastering Tactical and Strategic Warrior Lord was called fighter at least in the fiction albeit lacking the mechanics to back most of that up.
 

Manbearcat

Adventurer
But why not, though?

Why isn't it "permissible" for a player to declare as an action "I reach right into the forge to continue the crafting of this artifact" (or something to similar intent)? Sure, it might be a stupid thing to do; and the character is extremely likely (if not outright guaranteed) to burn their own hands off...but that's no reason whatsoever to disallow someone from doing it.

Now I'm wondering if you're using the word 'permissible' in a strange way. Permissible doesn't mean "having a chance of success", it means "allowed, as opposed to banned".
Come on Lanefan. Having to clarify a pedantic examination of word usage isn’t anteresting conversation and certainly doesn’t help clarity.

Obviously, in terms of these conversations it’s “not permissible in context of RPGs” in that “you have no hope of accomplishing your sought end because the GM or the system says so.” It doesn’t become permissible because you spend table time on allowing the attempt that has 0 chance of success.”

It’s frustrating that you would have me write all of that out.

Perhaps this is why artificing and item creation isn't generally considered to be something that warrior types do...
Or...

perhaps Fighter types have been smithing items forever...

And dealing with heat that instantly slags certain types of metal in genre fiction yet somehow the conduction of their armor doesn’t roast them because they passed their saving throw?...(except weirdly in specific exceptions where the physics are “turned on” like the Heat Metal spell)

...or dozens of other interactions with fire in D&Dland...

Let’s not pretend that (a) gamers’ application of, or the various rulesets/settings themselves, are remotely consistent with Earth physics or (b) that the genre tropes of D&D are not a collage of enumerable sources. Trope expansion and genre versatility is one of D&D’s primary calling cards (and championed virtues...until it’s a trope or genre a particular person doesn’t like!).
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
I'm puzzled as to which of the following is true:

(1) in 5e there can be stuff that is feasible for high level martial PCs, but gated against low level ones, by maths and/or the logic of the fiction (the latter producing "subjective" DCs)?

(2) in 5re bounded accuracy means that there is nothing gated against low level PCs?
Bounded Accuracy doesn't mean that there is zero gating. Nobody with a 0 ability mod and no proficiency can hit hit any number over 20. However, the Level 1 Fighter with 16 Dexterity and Proficiency in Stealth can hit the Very Hard 25 DC on a good roll. The same Fighter at Level 20 who invests in Dex has a decent shot at hitting a DC 30 "nearly impossible" check. There is definitely gating, but what Abilities got rolled, Background chosen and Class play about equal role with Level, and a low level character can still have some effect on something out of their league. It's a smaller range, very elegant in practice.

All DCs are determined by DM fiat, so if the DM and players are going for a particular style, it is possible to roll for it.

As for anything less than maximum challenge working fine - I would expect that one combat per day, resolved on the standard rest schedule, is going to make a (say) smiting paladin more effective than (say) a champion in the same circumstance.

Likewise, if there is only one wall per day to be climbed over, then the ability of the fighter or thief to "jump all day long" isn't really going to come into play, is it? Won't the caster with fly, jump, spider climb etc be more effective under those conditions?
Well, sure it will favor the long rest Classes. But any group that lays like that (Critical Role might have a >1 combat encounter a day average, for instance, and they have fun) doesn't care. If they care, the DM's jobs to season to taste, and the DMG has guidelines to help.

The two different issues I've raised in this post - balance of build effectivenes around a 6-to-8 encounters per adventuring day; and the lack of a systematic process for implementing "subjective" DCs - are two of the ways in which 5e differs from 4e that are especially salient for me.
Maybe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Imaro

Adventurer
This...
... and a low level character can still have some effect on something out of their league. It's a smaller range, very elegant in practice.
and this...
All DCs are determined by DM fit, so if the DM and players are going for a particular style, it is possible to roll for it.
Pretty much sum up the stance of most if not all proponents of 5e in the thread.

Bounded Accuracy allows one to "influence the fiction" over a greater range of mechanical difficulty. Whether that's a low level fighter who can on a very lucky roll hit some pretty high (though maybe not the highest DC's possible) or a high level fighter who can on a very bad roll still have rock crumble and break under his grasp on a regular cliff face and fall. Furthermore this range is expanded or decreased by the specific build choices made by the player. I think this view has been pretty consistent with most if not all of the 5e fans in this thread...and I'm not sure why [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] you are trying to continually push it as having been stated as an all or nothing type thing... i.e. All low level characters can influence all high level tasks and all high level characters can be affected by all low level tasks.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
I've just been reading through my copy of Dungeon of the Mad Mage, the new high level Megadungeon. No spoilers, but the Tier IV Level 23 where the Mad Mage lives has Skill DCs of 15 or 20, still. No treadmill.

5E is balanced around a maximum challenge: anything less will work fine.
Is there an example of an official D&D adventure where the escalating DC treadmill is taking place... I don't use pre-made adventures often so I'm genuinely curious which ones do this...
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Is there an example of an official D&D adventure where the escalating DC treadmill is taking place... I don't use pre-made adventures often so I'm genuinely curious which ones do this...
No, not really. I will admit DMs are pretty likely to do that, to keep things interesting, but the scale is very manageable and flexible.

Thinking about this, I also just noticed that it is literally impossible for any PC to hit a DC 30, until Level 5...that is, until Tier II. So a certain gating is definitely built into the system.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
No, not really. I will admit DMs are pretty likely to do that, to keep things interesting, but the scale is very manageable and flexible.

Thinking about this, I also just noticed that it is literally impossible for any PC to hit a DC 30, until Level 5...that is, until Tier II. So a certain gating is definitely built into the system.
Lol... I made this point earlier to @pemerton. That there are in fact things that can be accomplished by higher level PC's that can't be by lower level PC's (from a mechanical standpoint). The difference I think in the approaches, and maybe where @pemerton ' s contention is, is that 4e tells you these things are part of the epic tier and they involve this specific fiction... while 5e says these are beyond the ken of certain men and you the DM decide what that is in your particular campaign. I think pemerton wants the game to define these things for him while I (and I think others) rea happy to decide what these things are for ourselves in any particular camapign.

The fact that official adventures seem to rarely if ever use these DC's (thus also not attaching a specific fiction to them) would seem to reinforce this notion of the DM defining what falls into those extreme DC's.

EDIT: I want a more mythical campaign... Fighters sticking their hands into forges of creation to hold an artifact while it is created become doable at high levels. More sword and sorcery... perhaps gigantic leaps and feats of extreme strength beyond those of most men become feasible at the higher end of the DC's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Parmandur

Adventurer
Lol... I made this point earlier to @pemerton. That there are in fact things that can be accomplished by higher level PC's that can't be by lower level PC's (from a mechanical standpoint). The difference I think in the approaches, and maybe where @pemerton ' s contention is, is that 4e tells you these things are part of the epic tier and they involve this specific fiction... while 5e says these are beyond the ken of certain men and you the DM decide what that is in your particular campaign. I think pemerton wants the game to define these things for him while I (and I think others) rea happy to decide what these things are for ourselves in any particular camapign.

The fact that official adventures seem to rarely if ever use these DC's (thus also not attaching a specific fiction to them) would seem to reinforce this notion of the DM defining what falls into those extreme DC's.

EDIT: I want a more mythical campaign... Fighters sticking their hands into forges of creation to hold an artifact while it is created become doable at high levels. More sword and sorcery... perhaps gigantic leaps and feats of extreme strength beyond those of most men become feasible at the higher end of the DC's.
True, the Dungeon Master's Guide does offer pretty specific suggestions for adapting a campaign to different genre modes, like Wuxia or mythological deeds.
 

Lanefan

Hero
Come on Lanefan. Having to clarify a pedantic examination of word usage isn’t anteresting conversation and certainly doesn’t help clarity.

Obviously, in terms of these conversations it’s “not permissible in context of RPGs” in that “you have no hope of accomplishing your sought end because the GM or the system says so.” It doesn’t become permissible because you spend table time on allowing the attempt that has 0 chance of success.”

It’s frustrating that you would have me write all of that out.
Yet you still don't answer my point; and continue making the same mistake. "No hope of success" does not make an action declaraction non-permissible. It makes it pointless, perhaps, but that's way different from permissible.

Let's try an example:

Situation: party of low-level PCs outside on a clear and peaceful night. Nobody has powers of flight or anything else that can unduly get and keep them off the ground.
Me-as-player: "Hmmm...I wonder what's on the moon. I'm going to jump up there and find out."
DM, smiling: "Yeah, not a chance. Your jump puts you back on the ground about where you started."

Is that allowed as an (attempted) action declaration even though it has no hope of success? Or am I-as-player outright banned from even saying it? Because that's what 'permissible' means: if an action declaration isn't permissible (i.e. allowed, i.e. permitted) then it's banned.

And banning outlandish or even ridiculous action declarations is the fast track to stifling all creativity out of your players.

And dealing with heat that instantly slags certain types of metal in genre fiction yet somehow the conduction of their armor doesn’t roast them because they passed their saving throw?...(except weirdly in specific exceptions where the physics are “turned on” like the Heat Metal spell)
If the heat slags your metal armour that means you've failed your save, not passed it; and you're already getting good and toasted. :)

Let’s not pretend that (a) gamers’ application of, or the various rulesets/settings themselves, are remotely consistent with Earth physics
Why not make them consistent in all the many ways where we can, though, and then overlay magic effects on top somehow? It's not that hard.

or (b) that the genre tropes of D&D are not a collage of enumerable sources. Trope expansion and genre versatility is one of D&D’s primary calling cards (and championed virtues...until it’s a trope or genre a particular person doesn’t like!).
True, though it's still going to take some magic for that Fighter not to burn her hands off when she sticks 'em in the forge: a fine example of how overlaying magic onto Earth-like physics gives a believable and consistent result.
 

Hussar

Legend
This...


and this...


Pretty much sum up the stance of most if not all proponents of 5e in the thread.

Bounded Accuracy allows one to "influence the fiction" over a greater range of mechanical difficulty. Whether that's a low level fighter who can on a very lucky roll hit some pretty high (though maybe not the highest DC's possible) or a high level fighter who can on a very bad roll still have rock crumble and break under his grasp on a regular cliff face and fall. Furthermore this range is expanded or decreased by the specific build choices made by the player. I think this view has been pretty consistent with most if not all of the 5e fans in this thread...and I'm not sure why [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] you are trying to continually push it as having been stated as an all or nothing type thing... i.e. All low level characters can influence all high level tasks and all high level characters can be affected by all low level tasks.
Really? Because that's not the conversation I was having.

My point is, of the four PC's at the table, two are bounded by bounded accuracy to either potentially succeed or fail depending on DM fiat while the other two (i.e. magic using classed PC's) get to ignore the DM and declare success whenever they feel like it.

And somehow that's not a problem. I'm not sure how it isn't a problem. Tradition maybe? But, that's the fundamental issue right there and it's wound in with the bounded accuracy rules. Why should a high level character be challenged by a low level skill check? The magic using characters aren't and never have been.

I mean, a 20th level champion fighter can NEVER push a giant. Ever. Not without some sort of size increasing magic anyway. On his own? Not a chance. But, a 3rd level Way of the Open Hand monk spends a ki point and poof, that same giant flies back 15 feet. There's a save, sure, but, that 3rd level monk can do it. Why do fighters never get anything like that?

Or, a 17th level Open Hand monk hits a dragon and kills it in one strike with Quivering Palm. He can potentially do this. But that 17th level fighter can NEVER do it.

On and on and on. It's frankly baffling to me why this isn't a bigger issue for people. People just shrug and go, "Well, it's magic, so it's okay." Buh? It's okay that half the players get to play a different game than the other half? Seriously?
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Really? Because that's not the conversation I was having.

My point is, of the four PC's at the table, two are bounded by bounded accuracy to either potentially succeed or fail depending on DM fiat while the other two (i.e. magic using classed PC's) get to ignore the DM and declare success whenever they feel like it.

And somehow that's not a problem. I'm not sure how it isn't a problem. Tradition maybe? But, that's the fundamental issue right there and it's wound in with the bounded accuracy rules. Why should a high level character be challenged by a low level skill check? The magic using characters aren't and never have been.
Because handwave handwave... it's his game world the dm can set trivial difficulties for high level martial types to do awesome stuff or just let them do it by asking see see see. If he wants to and will magically balance the classes with the awesome advice in the DMG he needs no other tools but that and the reason it's not implemented except as vaguery is to allow the DM to decide without pesky players getting in the way with their systematized well defined ability to accomplish badass things and because chin ups are hard ... and these new DMs will do it exactly the way they have never done AND completely get it right because balance should allow the DM to always say NO except if the player is a caster cause you can never say no to a caster unless you make sure they buy into a game where they arent superior well in advance. Because DMs can always override the rules and remove spell castings superiority they so can just see there is a paragraph in the DMG saying they can so make them completely inferior. /sarcasm /sarcasm /sarcasm....
 

Shasarak

Villager
Nope, not all day long. That 5e fighter with a 15 strength (that was the example) cannot jump 20 feet EVER. Not unless the DM says so. And, what is the DC in 5e? How, as a player, do I judge the difficulty of that jump without consulting the DM? Answer is, I can't. The DC is entirely in the hands of the DM. And as ten different DM's and you'll get eleven different DC's because it's all about DM empowerment.

And, AGAIN, totally missing the point. If the caster can do something without needing to ask the DM, why can't the non-caster EVER do the same thing? My 20th level Champion fighter regenerates, but has no idea whether or not he can clear a Strength+1 distance by jumping until I get the approval of the DM.
I am not unsympathetic to your complaint. It would be good to have good clear rules that gave every DM (and Player) the same idea of what was possible and on the other hand it just does not seem possible to get everyone to agree.

In the Conan story 'The Tower of the Elephant' he does not rely on a spell to get into the Tower he uses a grappling hook and rope to climb up. Imagining that was a party of DnD characters, you could have the Magic-User fly the rope to the top of the Tower (using one of her spells to do so) or you could have the Fighter throw the rope up achieving the same result with no loss of resources.

Now I understand that resource management is not a popular style but I am still not sure why you would argue for the Fighter to have to memorise the Rope Throwing spell as an advantage over the more usual ability check to throw a rope, even if the ability check has a chance of failure.
 

Shasarak

Villager
On and on and on. It's frankly baffling to me why this isn't a bigger issue for people. People just shrug and go, "Well, it's magic, so it's okay." Buh? It's okay that half the players get to play a different game than the other half? Seriously?
I always thought that the Player gets to choose what she wants to play when she chooses her character class. If you think that your Fighter should be Ki punching Giants off cliffs then yes I can see that there is a problem between character concept and execution at the table.
 
Bounded Accuracy allows one to "influence the fiction" over a greater range of mechanical difficulty.
If it's true that all DCs are set by GM fiat (as [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION] said and you seemed to agree with) then what does it mean to say that bounded accuracy allows one to "influence the fiction".

Eg if the GM decides that the DC for the holding the hammer in the forge is 15 for the 15th level fighter, but the 1st level fighter doesn't get to roll for it and automatically burns his/her hands off, what work was bounded accuracy doing?

I'm not sure why [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] you are trying to continually push it as having been stated as an all or nothing type thing
I'm just trying to understand what is being said. Some posts say that bounded accuracy means that the DC is the same for the 1st and the 15th level PC. And other posts say that the GM can decide that the 1st level PC automatically fails while setting a DC for the 15th level PC which the player of the 1st level PC might succeed at if allowed to roll against it. That second approach does not seem to involve bounded accuracy; in fact it seems directly at odds with it!
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Really? Because that's not the conversation I was having.

My point is, of the four PC's at the table, two are bounded by bounded accuracy to either potentially succeed or fail depending on DM fiat while the other two (i.e. magic using classed PC's) get to ignore the DM and declare success whenever they feel like it.

And somehow that's not a problem. I'm not sure how it isn't a problem. Tradition maybe? But, that's the fundamental issue right there and it's wound in with the bounded accuracy rules. Why should a high level character be challenged by a low level skill check? The magic using characters aren't and never have been.

I mean, a 20th level champion fighter can NEVER push a giant. Ever. Not without some sort of size increasing magic anyway. On his own? Not a chance. But, a 3rd level Way of the Open Hand monk spends a ki point and poof, that same giant flies back 15 feet. There's a save, sure, but, that 3rd level monk can do it. Why do fighters never get anything like that?

Or, a 17th level Open Hand monk hits a dragon and kills it in one strike with Quivering Palm. He can potentially do this. But that 17th level fighter can NEVER do it.

On and on and on. It's frankly baffling to me why this isn't a bigger issue for people. People just shrug and go, "Well, it's magic, so it's okay." Buh? It's okay that half the players get to play a different game than the other half? Seriously?
For spells, many tend to be "save or suck" options: and guess what, even mooks are often capable of saving, as the casters Spell DC is not astronomical. My experience playing a caster in 5E is that ofaking constant woobies; cast spell, mooks succeed, Fighters save the day.

If the Fighter is a Goliath or Orc, they can wrassle a Giant, and there seems room for a subclass to allow for that sort of story even for a Halfling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Parmandur

Adventurer
I am not unsympathetic to your complaint. It would be good to have good clear rules that gave every DM (and Player) the same idea of what was possible and on the other hand it just does not seem possible to get everyone to agree.

In the Conan story 'The Tower of the Elephant' he does not rely on a spell to get into the Tower he uses a grappling hook and rope to climb up. Imagining that was a party of DnD characters, you could have the Magic-User fly the rope to the top of the Tower (using one of her spells to do so) or you could have the Fighter throw the rope up achieving the same result with no loss of resources.

Now I understand that resource management is not a popular style but I am still not sure why you would argue for the Fighter to have to memorise the Rope Throwing spell as an advantage over the more usual ability check to throw a rope, even if the ability check has a chance of failure.
Yeah, if we approach this seriously as a problem, the DCC solution of making spells dangerous and unpredictable seems more genre appropriate anyways.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Parmandur

Adventurer
If it's true that all DCs are set by GM fiat (as [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION] said and you seemed to agree with) then what does it mean to say that bounded accuracy allows one to "influence the fiction".

Eg if the GM decides that the DC for the holding the hammer in the forge is 15 for the 15th level fighter, but the 1st level fighter doesn't get to roll for it and automatically burns his/her hands off, what work was bounded accuracy doing?

I'm just trying to understand what is being said. Some posts say that bounded accuracy means that the DC is the same for the 1st and the 15th level PC. And other posts say that the GM can decide that the 1st level PC automatically fails while setting a DC for the 15th level PC which the player of the 1st level PC might succeed at if allowed to roll against it. That second approach does not seem to involve bounded accuracy; in fact it seems directly at odds with it!
All DCs are by DM fiat, because there are no DCs set in the rules, just difficulty bands for the DM to use.

I'm not saying that there should be a different DC for a low level and a high level PC: but a Level 1 Fighter with 20 Strength and Proficiency in Athletics can only roll a 27, maximum. A DC 30 is literally impossible, though that is true of any PC at Levels 1-4 for any DC 30, irregardless of build choices or luck. That Fighter at Level 9 will be incapable of rolling lower than a 10, so DC 10 will be effectively autosuccess. Doesn't mean the task is different.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I also just noticed that it is literally impossible for any PC to hit a DC 30, until Level 5...that is, until Tier II. So a certain gating is definitely built into the system.
Couldn't a 1st level PC roll with +2 for proficiency, +4 for Guidance, +4 for 18 stat? Which would be a 1 in 80 chance to hit DC 30.

Lol... I made this point earlier to @pemerton. That there are in fact things that can be accomplished by higher level PC's that can't be by lower level PC's (from a mechanical standpoint).
My question is fairly simple - what is there (given bounded accuracy) that is feasible for a 15th level fighter but impossible for a 1st level fighter.

DC 25 or 30 doesn't fit that description: a 15th level fighter has +4 or +5 to CON, and even with +2 from Remarkable Athlete has almost no chance of succeeding at that attempt. (Literally no chance against DC 30 without further buffing, and even then the chance is very small.)

As I posted upthread, DC Heroes tries to deal with this issue via unbounded accuracy, that is, allowing very significant variation in both numbers on the PC sheet, and system-supported DCs.

4e tackles it completely differently, by looking first to the fiction to establish feasibility, and then having a chart to read off the DC given the level. MHRP and HeroQuest revised are both fundamentally the same in this respect. (Although obviously different in the technical devices they use to achieve this result.)

Imaro said:
The difference I think in the approaches, and maybe where @pemerton ' s contention is, is that 4e tells you these things are part of the epic tier and they involve this specific fiction... while 5e says these are beyond the ken of certain men and you the DM decide what that is in your particular campaign. I think pemerton wants the game to define these things for him while I (and I think others) rea happy to decide what these things are for ourselves in any particular camapign.

The fact that official adventures seem to rarely if ever use these DC's (thus also not attaching a specific fiction to them) would seem to reinforce this notion of the DM defining what falls into those extreme DC's.

EDIT: I want a more mythical campaign... Fighters sticking their hands into forges of creation to hold an artifact while it is created become doable at high levels. More sword and sorcery... perhaps gigantic leaps and feats of extreme strength beyond those of most men become feasible at the higher end of the DC's.
This is a red herring. I've already posted upthread that it's easy to change the fiction of 4e while preserving the mechanical framework, and WotC published two examples: the Neverwinter Campaign Setting compresses the fiction of Heroic and Paragon into the mechanical framework of Heroic (mostly by offering versions of beholders, mind flayers and the like statted at heroic tier); while Dark Sun extends the fiction of Heroic and Paragon tier over the three tiers of paly (by statting up the sorcerer kings, who in default 4e terms would be Paragon tier opponents, as epic).

The best description ever offered on these boards of the relationship between bonuses and fiction in 4e is the following:

How the imagined content in the game changes in 4E as the characters gain levels isn't quite the same as it is in 3E. I am not going to pretend to have a good grasp of how this works in either system, but my gut says: in 4E the group defines the colour of their campaign as they play it; in 3E it's established when the campaign begins.

That's kind of confusing... let me see if I can clarify as I work this idea out for myself.

In 3E, climbing a hewn rock wall is DC 25. That doesn't change as the game is played (that is, as fiction is created, the game world is explored, and characters grow). Just because it's DC 120 to balance on a cloud doesn't mean that characters can't attempt it at 1st level; they'll just always fail. The relationship between colour and the reward system doesn't change over time: you know that, if you can score a DC 120 balance check, you can balance on clouds; a +1 to your Balance check brings you that much closer to success.

In 4E, I think the relationship between colour and the reward system changes: you don't know what it will mean, when you first start playing, to make a Hard Level 30 Acrobatics check. Which means that gaining levels doesn't have a defined relationship with what your PC can do in the fiction - just because your Acrobatics check has increased by 1, it doesn't mean you're that much closer to balancing on a cloud. I think the group needs to define that for themselves; as far as I can tell, this is supposed to arise organically through play, and go through major shifts as Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies enter the game.

The contrast I am drawing between 4e and 5e is fairly straightforward: in 4e the feasibility of an action can be settled upon independently of mechanical minutiae - by reference to the ideas expressed in the tiers of play, to the prior established colour, to the flavour of the paragon paths at use in the game, etc. Once that has been done, the system has a simple way for setting a DC which will mechanically satisfy the desiderata for feasibility, namely, the DC-by-level-chart; and also a framework for integrating individual checks into the resolution of a scene, namely, skill challenges.

5e doesn't have a skill challenge system, and at least as bounded accuracy is presented appears to set a DC that is prior to the question of feasibility, and settles the question of feasibility rather than being an afterthought to the question of feasibility.

Some posts in this thread seem to say the opposite, and that in fact DCs can be set just as they are in 4e. But then (i) what is the point of keeping on reiterating bounded accuracy? And (ii) what is the objection to a DC-by-level chart to facilitate this?

EDIT:
I'm not saying that there should be a different DC for a low level and a high level PC: but a Level 1 Fighter with 20 Strength and Proficiency in Athletics can only roll a 27, maximum. A DC 30 is literally impossible, though that is true of any PC at Levels 1-4 for any DC 30, irregardless of build choices or luck. That Fighter at Level 9 will be incapable of rolling lower than a 10, so DC 10 will be effectively autosuccess. Doesn't mean the task is different.
OK, so if the only "gating" is via setting high DCs, then we have the fact that a 15th level fighter succeeds against a DC 27 on a roll of 20 (+5 for stat, +2 for remarkable athlete). Suppose that the GM allows Athletics to apply (although to me the relevant stat seems to be CON rather than STR) then the roll required is 17+. I don't characterise that as "feasible". As opposed to very likely to fail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top