Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6662987" data-attributes="member: 42582">I have no idea why you think this is not a feature of 4e. At 10th level skill bonus gaps will typically be more than +/-10 (+5 for training, +4 for stat differences, +2 for items). At 30th they are more than +/-20 (+5 for training, +3 for feat, +8 for stat, +6 for items).Given that 5e has a hard stat cap and low-bonus items, I don't think the gaps in that system are going to be any bigger than 4e.What result? How many levels are you envisaging the PCs gaining while they hang out on the one mountainside within the same blizzard that, in the fiction, is not changing?If you want to play a very static game, in which the fictional context of the PCs adventures does not change much, then I would think it's obvious that 4e is not suitable, given that it has a clear statement to the contrary in the "tiers of play" sections of both the PHB and DMG that I quoted upthread.There is some uncertainty over the reference of "it" here.If you are saying, there is an implication that future challenges will likewise be authored (both fictionally and mechanically) so that they serve pacing and challenge goals, which include PC level as a consideration, then yes. But I don't see the big deal about that.If you are saying, when the higher level PCs return to the very same blizzard, it will have a higher DC, then I am puzzled. Time travel is not a default part of 4e, so this is not going to come up. (Which also relates to my point above: I don't see that a blizzard is a "static challenge".)If you are saying that, when higher level PCs meet a typical goblin or orc, it will have been levelled up (but not suitably minionised) then I deny that there is any such implication. Where is it stated in the 4e rulebooks? Which 4e player is affirming it? How do the Monster Manuals possibly suggest this?In general, 4e assumes that the GM (i) will frame DCs to suit the pacing/challenge demands of his/her group, which includes PC level as part of that context, and (ii)will frame the fiction in accordance with the guidelines I quoted upthread, such that Heroic PCs are facing heroic challenges, Paragon PCs paragon ones, and Epic PCs epic ones.It's not really rocket science.You could do that. Or you could do what I do - if there is nothing very dramatic happening, you just say yes. (EG when the epic PCs in my game briefly returned to the town where they'd made a big splash in the first half of the paragon tier, no dice were rolled.) Whereas when something dramatic is happening, you narrate the fiction in a fashion that fits with the relevant tier of play.You replied to my post in which I explain the intricacies of a particular technique, and why I use it, by saying "I still maintain that knowing the level of the characters is completely unneeded." I assumed that you mean "unneeded by anyone" - that would seem to be what completely unneeded means - and hence, as a special case of that, "unneeded by pemerton". If in fact you agree that it is need by me, then why do you keep posting that it is completely unneeded?</blockquote>

Verification