Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6649228" data-attributes="member: 996">Different 'thing,' really, but that's OK: it's not like 4e is relevant to the discussion.&nbsp;What you just said, there, is that &quot;5e rules don't cover anything.&quot;&nbsp; You're technically wrong, there are a few rules for certain sorts of checks later on, but that's a quibble.&nbsp;DCs certainly do scale with level:&nbsp; a higher level PC with Expertise is going to take on tasks that a 1st level untrained PC couldn't hope to do and would never seek out.&nbsp; There's just no particular guideline for what's 'appropriate' at a given level.&nbsp; You don't get that much better over the usual range of play, so there's little need for one.&nbsp; &nbsp;Actually, 5e definitely scales damage.&nbsp; Look at how much damage spells do with higher slots, how much DPR fighters churn out as they gain more attacks from leveling, how much damage higher CR monsters do (and how many more hps they have).&nbsp; Most of the combat scaling muted or removed by Bounded Accuracy got shifted into damage/hps.&nbsp; Really, it's the main way 5e scales combat, and quite critical to the sense that PCs advance, at all.&nbsp;Robust enough to handle any arbitrary pass/fail check is not saying a lot.&nbsp; Really, though, picking a DC between 5 and 30 is only a fraction of the actual system:&nbsp; the bulk of it is the DM just arbitrarily decides what happens and describes it.&nbsp; That's actually great for a DM with a clear idea what he's trying to do. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; But, 'robust' is not the word.&nbsp;Sure, it's not the 1e attack matrices, but THAC0 was fairly compact in presentation, too.&nbsp;Or a feature, depending on how you looked at it, since it meant characters could vastly improve over their careers.&nbsp; Most 3e DCs weren't fixed in the rules, the few that were opened the door to abuses like the diplomancer.&nbsp; Rather 3e DCs ranged widely with the challenge.&nbsp; It was just inconceivably harder to deceive Asmodeus than to trick a Kobold, for instance.&nbsp; Of course, the DM can say &quot;Tricking a Kobold is Easy, DC 10, tricking Asmodeus is virtually Impossible, DC 30.&quot;&nbsp; But guess what you just did, there:&nbsp; you scaled DC with level.&nbsp;True. That's why combats tend to be so much more interesting, yet so much less swingy than single-point-of-failure skill checks.&nbsp; A DM can, with some confidence, put a few combats between the PCs and some major objective.&nbsp; But, if he puts /one/ critical check in the way, he runs a real chance of derailing his whole plot.&nbsp; Thus 'fail forward' philosophies, group checks, skill challenges, and the like, to get the other two pillars into the same, more desirable, mathematical league as combat.&nbsp;Bounded Accuracy creates the same issue.&nbsp; Each +1 is pure gold, so you have to keep a lid on them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6649228, member: 996"] Different 'thing,' really, but that's OK: it's not like 4e is relevant to the discussion. What you just said, there, is that "5e rules don't cover anything." You're technically wrong, there are a few rules for certain sorts of checks later on, but that's a quibble. DCs certainly do scale with level: a higher level PC with Expertise is going to take on tasks that a 1st level untrained PC couldn't hope to do and would never seek out. There's just no particular guideline for what's 'appropriate' at a given level. You don't get that much better over the usual range of play, so there's little need for one. Actually, 5e definitely scales damage. Look at how much damage spells do with higher slots, how much DPR fighters churn out as they gain more attacks from leveling, how much damage higher CR monsters do (and how many more hps they have). Most of the combat scaling muted or removed by Bounded Accuracy got shifted into damage/hps. Really, it's the main way 5e scales combat, and quite critical to the sense that PCs advance, at all. Robust enough to handle any arbitrary pass/fail check is not saying a lot. Really, though, picking a DC between 5 and 30 is only a fraction of the actual system: the bulk of it is the DM just arbitrarily decides what happens and describes it. That's actually great for a DM with a clear idea what he's trying to do. ;) But, 'robust' is not the word. Sure, it's not the 1e attack matrices, but THAC0 was fairly compact in presentation, too. Or a feature, depending on how you looked at it, since it meant characters could vastly improve over their careers. Most 3e DCs weren't fixed in the rules, the few that were opened the door to abuses like the diplomancer. Rather 3e DCs ranged widely with the challenge. It was just inconceivably harder to deceive Asmodeus than to trick a Kobold, for instance. Of course, the DM can say "Tricking a Kobold is Easy, DC 10, tricking Asmodeus is virtually Impossible, DC 30." But guess what you just did, there: you scaled DC with level. True. That's why combats tend to be so much more interesting, yet so much less swingy than single-point-of-failure skill checks. A DM can, with some confidence, put a few combats between the PCs and some major objective. But, if he puts /one/ critical check in the way, he runs a real chance of derailing his whole plot. Thus 'fail forward' philosophies, group checks, skill challenges, and the like, to get the other two pillars into the same, more desirable, mathematical league as combat. Bounded Accuracy creates the same issue. Each +1 is pure gold, so you have to keep a lid on them. [/QUOTE]

Verification