Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Mike Mearls on how D&D 4E could have looked
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7763855" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>To wit . . .</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>EDIT to add:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>does</em> offer is a systematic framework for implementing whatever decision is made, via a DC-by-level chart and skill challenge system.</p><p></p><p>FURTHER EDIT:</p><p></p><p>As [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] have pointed out, 5e is <em>not</em> "modular" when it comes to spellcasters - they have a range of quite significant and fairly well-detailed abilities which establish their capabilities pretty straightforwardly.</p><p></p><p>And another point: in my 4e game, an epic-tier chaos sorcerer <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?440504-The-Abyss-sealed-the-drow-freed-the-campaign-reaches-its-climax" target="_blank">sealed the Abyss</a> 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.</p><p></p><p>In gameplay terms, <em>undertaking research</em> 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 <em>adjudicating action resolutions</em> to <em>unfolding the GM's conception of the fiction</em>. 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.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7763855, member: 42582"] 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. 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). 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. 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 [I]does[/I] 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 [I]not[/I] "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 [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?440504-The-Abyss-sealed-the-drow-freed-the-campaign-reaches-its-climax]sealed the Abyss[/url] 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, [I]undertaking research[/I] 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 [I]adjudicating action resolutions[/I] to [I]unfolding the GM's conception of the fiction[/I]. 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.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Mike Mearls on how D&D 4E could have looked
Top