Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6654566" data-attributes="member: 996">Not so much, no.  What you're asking for is an absolute 1:1 correspondence.  As long as you stick to a list, you might be OK, but the moment you set foot on ground not completely, precisely covered by the rules, you're in trouble.  5e starts out on that ground, because the alternative is just too limiting and rules-heavy. It would be impractical to try to reconcile rules for jet aircraft and pasta makers, too.  There's nothing to reconcile, they're different, they have entirely different functions in the context of the game.  5e, fortunately also recognizes that difference. Yet, he somehow says "wow, that was hard?"  No, it was easy for him, routine.  'Easy' for a 10th level character, means easy /for a 10th level character/.   Hard for a level 1 character means only that, in the context of the typical skill levels at 1st level.  DC 20 is DC 20, regardless.  It might represent any of a variety of equally-difficult locks, of course, but that's because d20 (3e, 4e, 5e, whatever) simply doesn't have the granularity to give every possible lock in the universe a unique DC. Very likely.  Well, probably not adamantine, that material shows itself at higher levels.  It might be the same lock.  Two identical locks.  Or two comparable locks of identical (to the level of granularity allowed in d20) difficulty.Here's another example.It is /easy/ to see that a DC 20 lock may be hard for a low-level character to open, easy for a high  level one, and difficult for untrained persons in general to open.  Yet, to the willfully ignorant, it may be /hard/ to admit that.  The difficulty varies with the context of the person attempting the task.  Person with an ounce of common sense trying to understand this concept: easy.Person with no sense of proportion desperately trying to find fault where none exists: hard. The is, in fact, no difference.  Both systems are d20 vs a target number.  Both depend on the DM to choose that target number.   And vice-versa, because they're both just d20.   You find what you go looking for.  If you look long enough, hard enough, and ignore all contrary evidence.Nonsense.  There are going to be roughly equivalent relative challenges in any system.  A 1st level 5e fighter and a 10th level one will hit different ACs with the same natural roll.  That doesn't make those different ACs 'the same.'  That holds true whether you're on the Bounded Accuracy reservation, or running on the treadmill, or using THAC0 or BAB.  Balor and ordinary orc are not among them in any edition of D&D, regardless of the the relative power of the PCs, or the natural die roll they hit them on.  Orcs just effing hit things.  They're like 5e fighters, that way.  Balors have a laundry list of special abilities - they have more laundry (90% of which don't matter when it's banished or annihilated in one round) in some eds than others, but there's always a lot more to it than an orc. Yes.  There is much more room for meaningful advancement in 4e.  It's a downside of bounded accuracy.  30 levels vs 20 will do that, too.  It's unfortunate that you can't have a Balor in 5e that lives up to it's fearsome rep, but can be ganked by a large enough number of lower-level attackers fairly efficiently.  It's up to the DM to cover that particular system weakness.Oh, or 5e gives so much more advancement because characters gain twice as many hps over 2/3rds as many levels and their damage balloons similarly. Take your pick.   Again, you're spouting nonsense.  For one thing, 5e 'RAW' is just a starting point, you're expected to deviate from it all the time, so 'true change according to the RAW' is pretty thoroughly meaningless.  For another, pretending that gaining a +20 over 20 level is less of a change than gaining +4 over 20 levels, because the DM in the former case has better tools to design challenges, is just pretending. It's nonsense because it makes no sense.  It's not a matter of ignorance on anyone's part - the d20 rules are simply not that obscure.  You can pretend that a game where the fighter hits an orc on a natural 8 and, many levels latter a balor on a natural 8, is totally different from a game in which a fighter hits an orc an a natural 9, and, many levels later, hits a balor on a natural 9, and that one is therefor 'better' than the other, but that's all you're doing:  pretending.The reality is that 5e and 4e do basically the same thing:  they advance all characters trained  skills, and proficient attacks at the same steady rate, regardless of class.   That's different from 3.x, and earlier eds, where your class made a big difference to the rate at which your attacks and skills (if you had any) advanced.   4e has more rapid numerical advancement over a wider level range, 5e's is much slower over somewhat fewer levels.  That's little more than cosmetic, though it does have some consequences when it comes to designing encounters.</blockquote>

Verification