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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
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: 6655661" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>To whom? Why? how was the bonus to hit acquired? If the bonus to hit is acquired by clever spell casting or ability stacking, and as a result a PC can hit not just the king's bodyguard but the king himself, I don't think it's irrelevant at all. Not in the fiction, and not mechanically - the increased bonus is a result of clever play.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As others have just said, this is bizarre.</p><p></p><p>If, in 5e, the GM describes a rusty lock and says "Hard, DC 20" and then describes a gnomish lock with adamantium tumblers and says "Simple, DC 5" that won't make sense either.</p><p></p><p>Why would a GM give one lock the same DCs as another lock when, in the fiction, they are not of the same difficulty? Why would anyone assume that the 5e GM, who can keep the relationship between fiction and DCs straight, would be unable to do so in 5e?</p><p></p><p>This doesn't make sense either. In 5e, as in 4e, a DC that a 5th level has trouble overcoming won't be hard for a 15th level PC to overcome. Both games have PCs whose bonuses get bigger with levels.</p><p></p><p>Nor is it in 5e. In 5e an 11th level character has a better proficiency bonus, better access to buff spells, probably better magic items, better stats, better feats. Things get easier.</p><p></p><p>No numbers have any inherent fictional qualities.</p><p></p><p>In 5e, the association between DCs and fiction is set, at least notionally, by the game designers. In 4e it's expected to emerge via play - that's the "rulings not rules" element of 4e. Both games take for granted the GM's ability to maintain a coherent fictional world. That's the role of the 4e GM in <em>adjudicating the narrative</em>, which I quoted upthread from the 4e PHB.</p><p></p><p>If this is how you played 4e, no wonder you don't like it!</p><p></p><p>There's no reason <em>inherent to the system, as published</em>, to associate any particular DC with any particular lock. That's why the system can be used default, or to run Neverwinter, or to run Gamma World. That's why the same stats can represent steel weapons by default but bone weapons in Dark Sun.</p><p></p><p>But once the game is actually underway, the GM is absolutely expected to maintain fictional coherence. Thus, in Dark Sun, steel weapons have bonuses that they wouldn't have in default; in Neverwinter, upper heroic PCs are (in the fiction) more capable than default PCs of that tier, because Neverwinter uses monsters (and associated fiction) that compress the default 20-level experience into 10 levels.</p><p></p><p>Huh? Neverwinter is a 10-level campaign. That's the whole point (see the introduction to the book). If you want to run a default, 30-level campaign then you don't use the Neverwinter monster statblocks and associated fiction.</p><p></p><p>Is there some law of nature that prevents a 5e GM from starting his/her players at 20th level? Or that stops her from statting up a demon king as a CR 1 creature?</p><p></p><p>Which is to say I don't see the issue. If a 4e group wants to run 1st level PCs (they're mechanically pretty simple) but set the fiction as epic heroes vs demon kings, then go for it! I don't see that this is any sort of crime against nature or good taste.</p><p></p><p>But it doesn't say that Vecna's lock is easy for 5th level PCs but super-hard for 20th level ones! Which is what you are positing.</p><p></p><p>And this isn't even true of 5e. For condition-infliction, for instance, it uses scaling DCs (either opposed checks, for shoving, or proficiency bonuses to saves, for spells). And that is for the same reasons as 4e - namely, that making condition infliction mechanically easier as the game develops tends to make for bad gameplay.</p><p></p><p>None of this makes any sense.</p><p></p><p>Some of it is just playing with numbers: I could double the range of 5e's levels - say at odd-numbered levels you get only HD, at even-numbered ones class features - and now I would have doubled the range of play at which that dragon is relevant - you can confront it at level 21 all the way to level 40! But that means nothing.</p><p></p><p>Some of it rests on bizarre assumptions that I would present <em>the very same entity</em> with arbitrarily changing stat blocks, without regard to the fiction of the game.</p><p></p><p>Some of it seems to rest on an unfamiliarity with encounter building in 4e. In 4e, a monster as statted is generally relevant for a range of around 6 to 8 levels. (For my 30th level PCs I wouldn't use a monster below about 27th level, nor above about 35th).</p><p></p><p>There's no doubt that numerical scaling in 5e is less steep than 4e, but that doesn't bare any connection to "objective" vs "subjective" DCs - as other posters have argued upthread, you could adapt 5e to "subjective" DCs but leave everything else intact; and plenty of 4e players run 4e using "objective" DCs (eg I believe [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] is closer to this than I am, from other conversations we've had about GMing techniques).</p><p></p><p>The two paraphrases are yours. They're not what the book says, nor does it imply it. But I am getting a better sense of why you were puzzled a few years ago when I posted about the sorts of encounter sequences my group can get through without a long rest! In our last session they defeated, at level 29, a level 38 encounter (and that is a a game without Expertise feats, with MM3 damage, and with defences and hit points read out of the book). For reasons I don't understand you seem to think this is contrary to the rules and spirit of 4e.</p><p></p><p>As for the RC advice itself: where does the 5e DMG or PDF advise GMs to pick a DC that is <em>inappropriate </em>?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6655661, member: 42582"] To whom? Why? how was the bonus to hit acquired? If the bonus to hit is acquired by clever spell casting or ability stacking, and as a result a PC can hit not just the king's bodyguard but the king himself, I don't think it's irrelevant at all. Not in the fiction, and not mechanically - the increased bonus is a result of clever play. As others have just said, this is bizarre. If, in 5e, the GM describes a rusty lock and says "Hard, DC 20" and then describes a gnomish lock with adamantium tumblers and says "Simple, DC 5" that won't make sense either. Why would a GM give one lock the same DCs as another lock when, in the fiction, they are not of the same difficulty? Why would anyone assume that the 5e GM, who can keep the relationship between fiction and DCs straight, would be unable to do so in 5e? This doesn't make sense either. In 5e, as in 4e, a DC that a 5th level has trouble overcoming won't be hard for a 15th level PC to overcome. Both games have PCs whose bonuses get bigger with levels. Nor is it in 5e. In 5e an 11th level character has a better proficiency bonus, better access to buff spells, probably better magic items, better stats, better feats. Things get easier. No numbers have any inherent fictional qualities. In 5e, the association between DCs and fiction is set, at least notionally, by the game designers. In 4e it's expected to emerge via play - that's the "rulings not rules" element of 4e. Both games take for granted the GM's ability to maintain a coherent fictional world. That's the role of the 4e GM in [I]adjudicating the narrative[/I], which I quoted upthread from the 4e PHB. If this is how you played 4e, no wonder you don't like it! There's no reason [I]inherent to the system, as published[/I], to associate any particular DC with any particular lock. That's why the system can be used default, or to run Neverwinter, or to run Gamma World. That's why the same stats can represent steel weapons by default but bone weapons in Dark Sun. But once the game is actually underway, the GM is absolutely expected to maintain fictional coherence. Thus, in Dark Sun, steel weapons have bonuses that they wouldn't have in default; in Neverwinter, upper heroic PCs are (in the fiction) more capable than default PCs of that tier, because Neverwinter uses monsters (and associated fiction) that compress the default 20-level experience into 10 levels. Huh? Neverwinter is a 10-level campaign. That's the whole point (see the introduction to the book). If you want to run a default, 30-level campaign then you don't use the Neverwinter monster statblocks and associated fiction. Is there some law of nature that prevents a 5e GM from starting his/her players at 20th level? Or that stops her from statting up a demon king as a CR 1 creature? Which is to say I don't see the issue. If a 4e group wants to run 1st level PCs (they're mechanically pretty simple) but set the fiction as epic heroes vs demon kings, then go for it! I don't see that this is any sort of crime against nature or good taste. But it doesn't say that Vecna's lock is easy for 5th level PCs but super-hard for 20th level ones! Which is what you are positing. And this isn't even true of 5e. For condition-infliction, for instance, it uses scaling DCs (either opposed checks, for shoving, or proficiency bonuses to saves, for spells). And that is for the same reasons as 4e - namely, that making condition infliction mechanically easier as the game develops tends to make for bad gameplay. None of this makes any sense. Some of it is just playing with numbers: I could double the range of 5e's levels - say at odd-numbered levels you get only HD, at even-numbered ones class features - and now I would have doubled the range of play at which that dragon is relevant - you can confront it at level 21 all the way to level 40! But that means nothing. Some of it rests on bizarre assumptions that I would present [I]the very same entity[/I] with arbitrarily changing stat blocks, without regard to the fiction of the game. Some of it seems to rest on an unfamiliarity with encounter building in 4e. In 4e, a monster as statted is generally relevant for a range of around 6 to 8 levels. (For my 30th level PCs I wouldn't use a monster below about 27th level, nor above about 35th). There's no doubt that numerical scaling in 5e is less steep than 4e, but that doesn't bare any connection to "objective" vs "subjective" DCs - as other posters have argued upthread, you could adapt 5e to "subjective" DCs but leave everything else intact; and plenty of 4e players run 4e using "objective" DCs (eg I believe [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] is closer to this than I am, from other conversations we've had about GMing techniques). The two paraphrases are yours. They're not what the book says, nor does it imply it. But I am getting a better sense of why you were puzzled a few years ago when I posted about the sorts of encounter sequences my group can get through without a long rest! In our last session they defeated, at level 29, a level 38 encounter (and that is a a game without Expertise feats, with MM3 damage, and with defences and hit points read out of the book). For reasons I don't understand you seem to think this is contrary to the rules and spirit of 4e. As for the RC advice itself: where does the 5e DMG or PDF advise GMs to pick a DC that is [I]inappropriate [/I]? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
Top