Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6655169" data-attributes="member: 2067">That's all great, but it's your DMing skills coming into play, not how the game is written. In 4e, if I was designing a 5th-level adventure that included Vecna's Very Secret Diary in it (maybe it's in the same room as the MacGuffin) and I want the PC's to have a chance to open it, maybe I'll give picking the lock a hard DC...for 5th level characters. In 5e, that same diary would be a hard DC period. They've got a chance to open it, just as in 4e, but now that DC is a property of the item. If later on in 4e, I've got a dungeon crawl and I want to have hard locks for the 10th-level party, I'll again use a hard DC. That'll make it harder than opening Vecna's Very Secret Diary. In 5e, that same dungeon crawl might just have locks that have a hard DC in them. Now they're as hard as opening Vecna's Very Secret Diary. Even a DC that is high for a 5th level character will be really low for a character of 15th level in 4e. In 5e, these DC's are the same - hard is hard. In 4e, these DC's vary with the level of the character - hard for a 1st level character isn't hard for an 11th level character. The "tradmill" problem that can wreck the feeling of achievement. The issue isn't one lock, it's the comparison between the two challenges (and how similar they are in 4e despite the intervening levels). Maybe you would, but there's a lot of folks who would see that and say "Hah, well, I guess these other 23 levels are completely unnecessary. Why did I even need 7? If it's just going to be the same thing with bigger numbers, this number doesn't represent me achieving anything."I mean, to illustrate with extremity, the DM could just declare that your characters are like unto gods and can kill demon kings on a roll of 4, and you aren't going to feel that accomplished killing demon kings because your ability to do so had nothing to do with anything you did as a player. Mechanically, you haven't moved the needle. It's crystal clear that the DM just gives you a DC that bears no real relation to the game-world, that is calibrated exactly for your level, and that isn't related to the things you do as a player. The fact that Level 7 is meaningless. The fact that you can do that at level 7 supports that point. The maths are intolerant. You try hitting the AC of a level 13 monster at level 1 in 4e and tell me how it turns out.Because they don't need to. They can just let the chips fall as they may. The DM doesn't need to know the outcome going into it - maybe folks die, maybe they get clever, maybe they run away.The adventure that 5e uses to teach new DMs how to play - Lost Mine of Phandelver - has a CR 8 dragon in an adventure designed for characters of level 1-3 or so. It's better because of that beyond-deadly threat. In 5e, you don't have to make the decision to adjust the difficulty of an encounter. You can just let the players handle the fallout. Maybe they'll handle it quite well! Maybe not. Either way, it'll be interesting! The fiction isn't relevant - what's relevant is that the difficulty you're trying to hit hasn't changed. It's the same number, you're just better at it now. You know your 4th time through a boss fight in Dark Souls? The boss hasn't become any easier, but you're dodging and hitting and getting its rhythm down and you used less estus to get there and you're doing better and maybe you've got it this time okay! You've become better at the game - you're a better legendary undead whatits, a better protagonist, a better hero, a better player. In 5e, that feeling comes from whiffing on svirfneblin at level 1 and solidly hitting giants at level 13. They haven't gotten any harder - your character has just gotten better at hitting. If your game wants to preserve careful balance, sure. If your game's got no real problem dropping a CR 8 dragon into a level 3 party, the advice should rather be, "This thing will probably kill people. Have fun."</blockquote>

Verification