Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6649998" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod.&nbsp; Slower advancement does that.&nbsp; D&amp;D has always had trouble with that Conan-standing-on-a-pile-of-bodies trope.&nbsp; In classic and 3e, by the time you could mow through goblins or orcs or whatever, they couldn't touch you.&nbsp; 4e neatly solved that with minions, 5e addressed it with Bounded Accuracy.&nbsp; (Swarms/mobs were another mechanic that could address the issue, and were first introduced in 3.x, sometime.)Bounded Accuracy meant slowing progressions of attacks, AC, saves and DCs - and incidentally, other checks.&nbsp; So PCs don't get much better over 20 levels.&nbsp; Something they could fail at 1st level by rolling a 9, they can still fail 19 levels later, by rolling a 4.&nbsp; You might hit a Kobold on a natural 8 at 1st level, and a Demon Lord on a natural 8 at level 19.&nbsp;&nbsp; You're still on a treadmill, it's just a slower one.&nbsp; The numbers are different in 4e &amp; 5e, but the system is similar, that way.&nbsp; By the same token, 1e attack matrices, 2e THAC0, and 3.x BAB were cosmetically different, but shaped the systems in similar ways. &nbsp;Avatars - outside the Immortals Set, I don't think you could ever challenge actual gods - and, of course, Demon Princes and Lords of Hell and the like.&nbsp; DMs had been doing that since Gods, Demi-Gods, &amp; Heroes (1976).&nbsp; 5e's hasn't published any stats for avatars, yet.&nbsp; But, if Bounded Accuracy holds true, not only could high level characters challenge a hypothetical 5e Avatar, a large enough mob of mid-level ones could probably annihilate it.&nbsp;You can avoid it with very un-even progressions.&nbsp; Though that's not really 'avoiding the treadmill' so much as 'failing to have level mean anything' or 'sucking at encounter balance.'&nbsp; <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=";)" />For instance, in 3e, a character with maxxed ranks in a trained, in-class skill would be on a sort of treadmill vs the sorts of DCs he'd face in critical rolls, like finding &amp; disarming traps or spotting same-level hidden monsters.&nbsp; But, everyone else - everyone not putting ranks in the skill or having it cross-classed - would be falling behind, rapidly.&nbsp; Conversely, also in 3e, Diplomacy had fixed DCs based on the attitude of the subjects, not their level or relative level, so as you put ranks in it, you could make friends &amp; influence people, and, well, anything else you could communicate with.&nbsp; Definitely not a treadmill.&nbsp; Similar examples, where either the PCs don't get better at things even as they face harder challenges, or advance in near-lock step, or outpace challenges, can be found in classic D&amp;D, as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6649998, member: 996"] Nod. Slower advancement does that. D&D has always had trouble with that Conan-standing-on-a-pile-of-bodies trope. In classic and 3e, by the time you could mow through goblins or orcs or whatever, they couldn't touch you. 4e neatly solved that with minions, 5e addressed it with Bounded Accuracy. (Swarms/mobs were another mechanic that could address the issue, and were first introduced in 3.x, sometime.) Bounded Accuracy meant slowing progressions of attacks, AC, saves and DCs - and incidentally, other checks. So PCs don't get much better over 20 levels. Something they could fail at 1st level by rolling a 9, they can still fail 19 levels later, by rolling a 4. You might hit a Kobold on a natural 8 at 1st level, and a Demon Lord on a natural 8 at level 19. You're still on a treadmill, it's just a slower one. The numbers are different in 4e & 5e, but the system is similar, that way. By the same token, 1e attack matrices, 2e THAC0, and 3.x BAB were cosmetically different, but shaped the systems in similar ways. Avatars - outside the Immortals Set, I don't think you could ever challenge actual gods - and, of course, Demon Princes and Lords of Hell and the like. DMs had been doing that since Gods, Demi-Gods, & Heroes (1976). 5e's hasn't published any stats for avatars, yet. But, if Bounded Accuracy holds true, not only could high level characters challenge a hypothetical 5e Avatar, a large enough mob of mid-level ones could probably annihilate it. You can avoid it with very un-even progressions. Though that's not really 'avoiding the treadmill' so much as 'failing to have level mean anything' or 'sucking at encounter balance.' ;) For instance, in 3e, a character with maxxed ranks in a trained, in-class skill would be on a sort of treadmill vs the sorts of DCs he'd face in critical rolls, like finding & disarming traps or spotting same-level hidden monsters. But, everyone else - everyone not putting ranks in the skill or having it cross-classed - would be falling behind, rapidly. Conversely, also in 3e, Diplomacy had fixed DCs based on the attitude of the subjects, not their level or relative level, so as you put ranks in it, you could make friends & influence people, and, well, anything else you could communicate with. Definitely not a treadmill. Similar examples, where either the PCs don't get better at things even as they face harder challenges, or advance in near-lock step, or outpace challenges, can be found in classic D&D, as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification