Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!

[Clawhound]

I'd like to point out this is how 3e worked. Fighters then had to spend a lot of resources on expensive magic items to bring his AC up to match high level monster offenses.

In 3rd, that was one of the fighters problems. The class had a 100% wealth tax. Where other classes got their abilities by going up level, then added more with wealth, a fighter was forced to constantly rebuy the same exact basic ability (AC) with wealth, let alone add more abilities.

[Flickerdart]

I think you're understating the bonuses you would be able to earn. You can get +4 or +5 simply from ability scores, another +3 from a theme. That's +8 already. Versus, say, someone with -1 in the ability score and none from the theme. A difference of 9 between "pretty good" and "bad" is nothing to sneeze at, and I'm sure you'll be able to increase the +8 with other options.

Why would anyone want to take a theme that gives +3 to knocking down doors? Why would that even be a theme?

[lesser_minion]

Why should a 20th level Fighter who can stand face to face with a tarrasque and a balor not be able to effortlessly kick down a door that people can deal with in real life?

In a sane game, strength isn't everything. It shouldn't even be possible to become strong enough to resolve an arbitrary encounter through strength alone, without having to use at least some tactics.

A tarrasque weighs 130 tonnes, and when sanely-statted, can gallop at hundreds of metres per second. If you try to stop a charging tarrasque by standing in front of it and holding up your hands, you get pasted by sonic and fire damage. To add insult to injury, it jumps straight over you.

A sane fighter -- or even a 'barbarian' -- deals with the tarrasque through skill, tactics, and strategy, and he would have had to apply the same factors to deal with most of his enemies before that. So precisely what do you think it is about his being 20th level that implies that he's any better at kicking down doors?

[Kurald Galain]

Why would anyone want to take a theme that gives +3 to knocking down doors? Why would that even be a theme?

Because "themes" in 5E consist only of a list of three or four skills that you become trained in, and "trained" in 5E means you get +3 to checks on that skill.

[Seerow]

The thing is, it's essentially the same in 4e. If you take every monster in the game of 10th level, and take 5 away from its defences and its attack bonuses. Then you remove the 1/2-level scaling on defences and attack bonuses from PCs. There - you've now got the 5e system. Then the only thing left is to re-work feats so that they don't destroy the intent of the system (many of which were only added in the first place to "fix" the math broken by the constant scaling).

Well see you just hit on a key argument in favor of not trusting Wizards. You're right, if you take away the +1/2 level it's practically the same system. And you know what they still had? +x items, feats that give +1-3 to hit, etc. All of which were considered 100% necessary because the benefit provided was that much better than anything else available.

I don't think that's such an awful thing, necessarily, as long as when he does hit he does lots more damage.

So you see nothing wrong with a Fighter fighting some level 1 dude and missing 3 rounds in a row, accomplishing absolutely nothing, because he still has a ridiculous miss chance from armor? They talk about how the Fighter will still be going through large numbers of low level enemies. I posit this isn't possible if they're stuck missing a significant portion of the time against these enemies.

An iron-bound wooden door, the example in the article, will still be a valid obstacle against a *wizard* or similarly not strong class at level 20. Why would a wizard who has spent no time at all strengthening his muscles be able to knock down a door with his bare hands just because his magical ability got stronger? A 20th level Fighter WILL find that door easier to knock down, and he WILL be able to knock down the adamantium door that the Wizard never has a chance of even touching. Same with the rogue.

The Fighter will have a better chance than the Wizard, assuming the Wizard doesn't have a spell that lets him bypass it instead. When the Fighter gets stuck trying to roll a 10 on his strength check, the Wizard just casts Knock, or Dimension Doors to the other side.

And even if a level 20 character is having an easier time, the fact is he shouldn't be concerned with the door at all. A metal banded door is something that real life people can kick down with a reasonable success rate without superhuman strength and almost no training. Yet under the 5e system, the best Fighter in the world will still actually have a fair chance of failing. This makes no sense at all.

It's all about being better at what you're good at, while not completely invalidating everyone else - which I believe has been a common complaint of the skill system since 3e? If you're not trained in a skill, then at level 20 you might as well not even be able to roll it. This is meant to address that, I guess.

First, I will point out it was addressed in 4e. A untrained person would be 4 behind a trained person. More with an attribute difference. But a High level Fighter would never be bothered by a DC17 door, because he had scaled enough that a DC that low was ignore-able.

Why don't you just say yes in the case of the door. Don't let the Fighter roll when he has a unreasonable chance to fail.

Because by the rules, you only auto-pass a check when your attribute is 10 higher than the DC of the check. So to auto-pass a DC17 check, you need 27 in the attribute. Sure I could ignore the rules and say the Fighter succeeds, but I could also rewrite 5e's skill system. The point is I shouldn't have to do that.

I think you're understating the bonuses you would be able to earn. You can get +4 or +5 simply from ability scores, another +3 from a theme. That's +8 already. Versus, say, someone with -1 in the ability score and none from the theme. A difference of 9 between "pretty good" and "bad" is nothing to sneeze at, and I'm sure you'll be able to increase the +8 with other options.

Okay, so you have a difference of 9 between Good and Bad at level 1. Now please note how minimal the scaling is beyond that. As far as we know it's completely nonexistant. There's been some speculation based on an article from months ago that the +3 bonus will scale to a +5/+8 bonus. Which still leaves a skilled character at level cap with a fair chance of failing moderate DC tasks they were attempting with regularity at level 1. Or even more embarrassing, failing at checks that a level 1 commoner with no training and an ability penalty has a chance at succeeding at.

Just as a quick example: Larry the Commoner locks his keys inside of his house. Deeply embarrassed, he calls over his friend Jimmy the Hand, the best Rogue in all the land. Jimmy has 20 dex (the highest attribute PCs can hope to attain per the Playtest docs), and a +8 skill bonus. He's pretty awesome with his lock picking skills at a +13, so he agrees to help. Larry has a decent lock, but nothing special, at a DC17. Jimmy goes to roll his check.... and gets a 3. Sorry Larry, Jimmy can't figure it out.

Larry says no problem, and decides to fiddle with it himself. He's a pretty clumsy fellow with a -1 dex, and has never picked a lock in his life. But he shoves one of Jimmy's picks in there and suddenly the door springs open as he rolls an 18 on his check! Guess he didn't need to bring in anybody after all.




This is a real situation that can really happen even when giving WotC benefit of the doubt in including skill scaling. This ignores the whole part where nobody seems to have more than 6 skills available, while the set skill list seems to have all but vanished, so skills will be fragmented into an infinite number of niche speciality skills rather than a handful of broad useful skills.

That's not quite what it's about. The problem with scenarios where people are adding 20 to their rolls is that the DM keeps having to come up with increasingly ridiculous scenarios to keep the trained PC challenged, which at the same time completely invalidates the untrained PCs.

Why should someone who is not trained be equivalent to somebody who is? Why is it that a high level character shouldn't be able to effortlessly do what is impossible to a typical commoner, or even a PC with no expertise in that skill? Yes, a PC without any sneak skill, **** dex, and heavy armor, is going to suck at sneaking. Why does this mean that the high level rogue needs to be held back so that the other guy has a chance of doing what he does?

If you were playing AGAINST Federer, of course you'd have an incredibly hard time beating him - but that's not a skill check anymore, that's a contest. And of course in a contest the person with the much higher modifier should have every chance of winning.

Yet that's not what happens. People with high modifiers still lose to people with low modifiers regularly in this skill system. A 8 str commoner arm wrestling a troll will win his contest 22.75% of the time. I mean really?

Hell, 8 Strength Commoner arm wrestling a god is still -1 vs +10, he wins about 7% of the time. Why should he even have a chance at succeeding here?

But given a world where the hardest tasks imaginable have DCs of 30 instead of 50, it makes total sense. And I'd be very surprised if 9 is the best you can get in the final rules. Magic items and feats will surely still be available to boost skills.

Oh great, we'll still have the privilege of being able to spending resources to become marginally better at a skill rather than being better at fighting things. And we're bringing back the magic item treadmill too? Yay!

[Clawhound]

Partially - though lower (but not extremely lower) enemies could still be a challenge in moderate groups, where minions usually needed to swarm.

I am sad about the loss of minions - I thought they were one of the better 4e ideas.

Minions are easy to reimplement. We can even have fun doing it.

For example, a creature has hitpoints, but it is insta-killed by a particular thing. For example, a sword swing. Some classes could be more effective against some minions than others. So a blunt weapon might turn a skeleton into a minion, where everyone else would have to hack through its hitpoints. Likewise, a lance might treat any creature under 4HD as a minion.

Spells could be fun, too. A sunburst spell could turn all undead in an area into minions, including vampires.

The downside of such rules is that clever DMs who think that opponents should be "optimized" will use such rules against characters, resulting in very un-fun games. So minionization should only happen in ways that help the story.

For example, a hypothetical ranger makes a knowledge check, and using his find vulnerability ability, realizes that Dark Riders should be vulnerable to fire as they are so far from their master, thus turning them into minions. So he attacks with a torch, defeating an otherwise undefeatable enemy. Later on, knowing that the Witch Kings would have taken a new form, Gandalf successfully realizes that they should now be immune to fire, so therefore must be vulnerable to water, and he minionizes them at the ford. Later on the the campaign, the heroes continually miss their DCs, and so don't discover which vulnerability works against the Witch Kings until Eowyn accidentally discovers their vulnerability.

Cheezy, yeah, but crazily enough, actually works with the story.

[Seerow]

In a sane game, strength isn't everything. It shouldn't even be possible to become strong enough to resolve an arbitrary encounter through strength alone, without having to use at least some tactics.

A tarrasque weighs 130 tonnes, and when sanely-statted, can gallop at hundreds of metres per second. If you try to stop a charging tarrasque by standing in front of it and holding up your hands, you get pasted by sonic and fire damage. To add insult to injury, it jumps straight over you.

Thank you for proving my point. The Tarrasque is big, scary, and deadly. A normal person who stands toe to toe with it will be pasted. However in D&D, high level Fighters are supposed to stand toe to toe with it. You say that's not a 'sane' fighter or barbarian. I say **** you. The game says I'm supposed to be the tough melee guy, that means that against equal level challenges yes I will be standing in melee with them trading blow for blow, and at the very least holding my own.

So yes, you have a Fighter who steps in front of the Tarrasque, and not only manages to not die instantly, but somehow stops him from running right past him. This is a part of the game. If I can do that, why the hell is a simple door blocking my way?

[lesser_minion]

The game says I'm supposed to be the tough melee guy, that means that against equal level challenges yes I will be standing in melee with them trading blow for blow, and at the very least holding my own.

No.

The game says that you're better in melee than anyone else in your party. That does not mean that you can safely assume for any given threat that you can go toe to toe with it in any situation. Even if it's a "level-appropriate" threat.

It is still a matter of skill. Even when you do go toe-to-toe with a monster, it's skill that stops the tarrasque from biting you in half, it's skill that lets you strike at parts of its body that aren't protected by its carapace, and it's lack of skill that would get your allies killed if they tried to do what you are doing.

I agree that the guy who can stop 65 million Newton-seconds of angry tarrasque shouldn't have to worry about a wooden door. However, that guy is not 20th level, he is certainly not the level-appropriate opponent of the tarrasque, he is not what the fighter is somehow 'supposed to be', and you don't need to ever be permitted to play him.

If a monster is level-appropriate, then it is reasonable that you should expect to die horribly if you engage it at the moment it's at its strongest. And when the tarrasque is charging at your city at nearly twice the speed of sound, it is very much at its strongest.

[Seerow]

No.

The game says that you're better in melee than anyone else in your party. That does not mean that you can safely assume for any given threat that you can go toe to toe with it in any situation. Even if it's a "level-appropriate" threat.

It is still a matter of skill. Even when you do go toe-to-toe with a monster, it's skill that stops the tarrasque from biting you in half, it's skill that lets you strike at parts of its body that aren't protected by its carapace, and it's lack of skill that would get your allies killed if they tried to do what you are doing.

I agree that the guy who can stop 65 million Newton-seconds of angry tarrasque shouldn't have to worry about a wooden door. However, that guy is not 20th level, he is certainly not the level-appropriate opponent of the tarrasque, he is not what the fighter is somehow 'supposed to be', and you don't need to ever be permitted to play him.

If a monster is level-appropriate, then it is reasonable that you should expect to die horribly if you engage it at the moment it's at its strongest. And when the tarrasque is charging at your city at nearly twice the speed of sound, it is very much at its strongest.

So wait you're saying that a Fighter SHOULDN'T be able to engage melee threats in melee? A Fighter shouldn't be able to intercept an on level opponent, stop their charge, or otherwise redirect them?

Tell me what the hell do you expect a high level fighter to do? To hop on the Tarrasque's back and stab him while he demolishes the town? Oh wait, sorry the Fighter doesn't have Balance, Jump, Ride, or really anything athletic trained, he can't make those checks and stay on the Tarrasque. Next round the Tarrasque is miles away because he's moving at Mach 2 and the Fighter is still running 25 feet per round.

Now if you want to argue the Tarrasque isn't level 20, so a level 20 Fighter shouldn't be able to stop him, I can get behind that. Sure make the Tarrasque equivalent to a God. But you're still looking at ancient Dragons, Titans, and Balors as your level appropriate enemies, and yes I expect the Fighter to be able to hold his own in melee with any of them.

[Kerrin]

First, I will point out it was addressed in 4e. A untrained person would be 4 behind a trained person. More with an attribute difference. But a High level Fighter would never be bothered by a DC17 door, because he had scaled enough that a DC that low was ignore-able.

This is something I really like about 4th edition. The system blatantly stated that there are challenges that are trivial for a character over a particular level.

Making up numbers and examples: at level 1 knocking in a solid oak door that is barred might be a worthy challenge, at level 10 knockin in a metal reinforced barred door might be a worthy challenge, at level 20 knocking in a magically barred door might be a worthy challenge.

At any given level the things that were wothy challenges before become easier to do (e.g. combating a goblin) because the character has moved on to bigger challenges (e.g. combating a demon). That's what makes them better at doing things.

I've liked this idea very much.

[Menteith]

snip

A level 20 character should be a demigod. A level 20 Barbarian should be able to fall from orbit and climb out of the crater because he's angry. A level 20 Monk should be able to walk on the clouds. A level 20 Rogue should be able to walk down a street in full daylight without anyone able to see him. A level 20 Fighter should be able to wrestle a tornado into submission.

Clearly, we have different design philosophies here, but I feel like a level capped character should be, well, awesome. Especially if Wizards is trying to boost a mundane class's power and utility. A high level Fighter shouldn't be stopped by doors. Or, for that matter, walls. They should also be able to face down a CR appropriate challenge in melee range, seeing as how that's literally the only thing the class can do right now.

[Kurald Galain]

Making up numbers and examples: at level 1 knocking in a solid oak door that is barred might be a worthy challenge, at level 10 knockin in a metal reinforced barred door might be a worthy challenge, at level 20 knocking in a magically barred door might be a worthy challenge.

Of course, in practice the result is that every single door you encounter at level 10 is metal, reinforced, and barred...

In fact WOTC just wrote a column about how they consider this a design flaw and will not be doing it any more in 5E.

[Seerow]

Of course, in practice the result is that every single door you encounter at level 10 is metal, reinforced, and barred...

In fact WOTC just wrote a column about how they consider this a design flaw and will not be doing it any more in 5E.

Which is an example of bad adventure design than bad game design. The feel of high level play comes at least as much from seeing all those old lower level challenges again and breezing past them as it is as important as seeing the new higher level challenges you can take down.

So yes, when you are a level 30 Fighter, if there is going to be a door challenge, then that door should probably be an Enchanted Adamantine door. This does not mean every door in the world instantly becomes made of Enchanted Adamantine. Most of the doors are still going to be made out of normal wood, maybe banded with metal. These doors aren't going to even give you pause, and that's okay. However when you get to the Demon King's treasure room, that door might be made out of enchanted adamantine, with a similarly impressive lock.

I think a lot of the problems come in when people make the assumption that high level play is supposed to just be reskinned low level play. At low levels, you run into locked doors all the time, and need to find ways around them to progress in the dungeon. At high levels, the vast majority of locked doors mean nothing to you. Dungeon Crawling is not the same at high levels as low levels, and that is okay. As soon as you accept that, increased scaling to high levels makes far more sense.

[Kurald Galain]

Which is an example of bad adventure design than bad game design.

Not really. The game design says that doors, city guards, cliffs, etc are always a level-appropriate challenge when you encounter them, and depends on the DM to fluff this appropriately. This is part of the SC rules and Page 42. Printed adventures will have widely differing DCs for wooden doors, sometimes stating outright that the DC is "average party level + 10". The result is that if you encounter a wooden door you will have no idea what DC it is to open (unless your DM has made his own material/DC table, but that's an Oberoni fallacy).

Conversely, 1E, 2E, 3E and 5E each give explicit DCs for wooden doors, iron doors, and so forth. This is consistent: whenever you encounter a wooden door (or a pool of lava, or a goblin, or whatever) you know what it does. In 4E you cannot assume that. So yes, all editions of D&D except 4E ensure that there are challenges that are trivial for a character of a certain level.

Thankfully WOTC has realized that this is bad design and is going back to the 2E/3E method for 5E.

[obryn]

In fact WOTC just wrote a column about how they consider this a design flaw and will not be doing it any more in 5E.

Well, if you don't have any scaling built into your system, then an "appropriate DC by level" table is pretty meaningless.

And honestly, even if you view the 4e scaling as "everything is on the same treadmill" (which, note, is different from my own experience), I'm not sure removing that treadmill entirely is beneficial.

Scenario 1 (4e): Most challenges you face as an adventurer doing adventure-y stuff are going to be "level-appropriate" and a handy table with appropriate DCs has been provided to your DM. But, you can still encounter lesser challenges - like a typical wood door or a cheap lock. Individual kobolds by 10th level are a joke.

Scenario 2 (Next, maybe): Most challenges you face are static, but you don't actually get much better at facing them. The same cheap lock is about as tough at level 10 as it was at level 1. Individual kobolds remain hard to hit.

With all that said, I have some trust in the WotC designers that this won't turn out to be utterly ridiculous. I'm actually glad to see that there's something in the design blueprint that's unique to Next, and would give me some reason to look at it instead of another edition.

-O

[lesser_minion]

-- snip --

Again, no. What we're talking about here is things that are level-appropriate, but become far more powerful under a particular set of circumstances.

Basically, if you're 20th level, you might be able to kill the hypothetical mach 2 tarrasque by hacking away at it while your wizard keeps it contained. If you want to kill a tarrasque that's charging at full speed, you need to be much stronger.

What we're imagining here is a tarrasque that can perform a special "unstoppable rampage" where it spends some time accelerating until it's moving as fast as it can. While it's doing this, it's incredibly hard to hurt -- anything that gets near it from the front is going to be destroyed, including spell effects and projectiles, and it's faster than virtually everything else that exists in the game.

If you can beat it like this, you're stronger than the opponents the tarrasque was meant to face -- the 20th level party where the wizard runs BC to keep the monster from charging off into the sunset while the fighter kills it, relying on skill to keep himself from being overwhelmed by the monster's strength advantage.

[Menteith]

I'll caveat my post by saying that I have very limited experience with 4E, and am a 3.P player. With that said, I don't see how a scaling DC for the exact same challenge could be a good idea or fun. It seems like it would cheapen your advancement (instead of investing points into becoming better at something, you have to invest points just to maintain your current skill level), prevent you from getting into the really interesting epic uses of skills, and breaks suspension of disbelief pretty hard. I'm glad that they're decided against putting a system like that into 5E.

If I'm a higher level adventurer, then it makes sense that I'm significantly better at doing adventure-y stuff than lower level characters. There is literally no reason why a door should change how strong it is based on who's kicking it. That does mean core gameplay changes at higher levels, but is that a bad thing? A crypt at level 1 should be significantly different than a lich's necropolis at level 10, and in more ways than just the DCs.

EDIT

What we're imagining here is a tarrasque that can perform a special "unstoppable rampage" where it spends some time accelerating until it's moving as fast as it can. While it's doing this, it's incredibly hard to hurt -- anything that gets near it from the front is going to be destroyed, including spell effects and projectiles, and it's faster than virtually everything else that exists in the game.

That's not what I was imagining. I'm actually restatting the Tarraque right now for a 3.P game, and I don't think I could find a way to give it those abilities without serious, serious alteration of it. We were discussing different things then; my point is that a Fighter should be able to get into melee and compete against CR appropriate challenges since that is the only thing the 5E Fighter seems to be capable of. If he is unable to perform this role, then he cannot make a serious contribution to an encounter. This is a fundamental flaw of the Fighter currently, and one they specifically said they would like to fix.

[Kurald Galain]

And honestly, even if you view the 4e scaling as "everything is on the same treadmill" (which, note, is different from my own experience), I'm not sure removing that treadmill entirely is beneficial.

The elegant approach is saying "a portcullis is DC 20, and this is an appropriate obstacle for a level-1 party". Note that this is precisely what 3E does, and 5E has been promised to do. There is still scaling, but there is also internal consistency.

One thing that I recently realized about 4E is that when a combat starts, the DM first has to spend several minutes explaining how this particular combat works. For instance, if there's lava or spiderwebs on the map, then he has to tell the players how this particular lava or these particular webs work on this map. It increases immersion and make gameplay faster to have a central rule for what lava or webs do, and to apply that consistently.

The same applies to monster abilities. An early criticism of 4E was that numerous cyclops-related monsters all have an ability called "evil eye" and that these abilities are all completely different other than the name. So if you tell your players "the cyclops uses his evil eye!" they have no idea what's going on. On the other hand, every 2E player knows precisely what's going on if you say that the evil demon casts fireball.

[Reverent-One]

Conversely, 1E, 2E, 3E and 5E each give explicit DCs for wooden doors, iron doors, and so forth. This is consistent: whenever you encounter a wooden door (or a pool of lava, or a goblin, or whatever) you know what it does. In 4E you cannot assume that. So yes, all editions of D&D except 4E ensure that there are challenges that are trivial for a character of a certain level.

Thankfully WOTC has realized that this is bad design and is going back to the 2E/3E method for 5E.

Honestly, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. All they would have to do in 4e is include a table that says a wooden door is an appropriate challenge for X level and uses those DCs, a iron door is an appropriate challenge for Y level and uses those DCs, ect, ect. The PCs still scale in level and get better and the doors are defined to make it clear how tough they are.

[Kurald Galain]

I'll caveat my post by saying that I have very limited experience with 4E, and am a 3.P player. With that said, I don't see how a scaling DC for the exact same challenge could be a good idea or fun. It seems like it would cheapen your advancement

That's basically the point. Numerous players have figured out that in 4E, your attacks grow at the same rate as the monster's defenses, and that your skills grow at the same rate as the target numbers. So that means that a rogue can open every lock he finds on a roll of 7+, regardless of what level he is or what the lock is described as.

And yes, there are entire printed adventures with long tables like "if your PCs are level 2, then this demon has AC 18. If your PCs are level 4, then it has AC 20. Level 6? AC 22. And so forth."

[Seerow]

Not really. The game design says that doors, city guards, cliffs, etc are always a level-appropriate challenge when you encounter them, and depends on the DM to fluff this appropriately. This is part of the SC rules and Page 42. Printed adventures will have widely differing DCs for wooden doors, sometimes stating outright that the DC is "average party level + 10". The result is that if you encounter a wooden door you will have no idea what DC it is to open (unless your DM has made his own material/DC table, but that's an Oberoni fallacy).

Conversely, 1E, 2E, 3E and 5E each give explicit DCs for wooden doors, iron doors, and so forth. This is consistent: whenever you encounter a wooden door (or a pool of lava, or a goblin, or whatever) you know what it does. In 4E you cannot assume that. So yes, all editions of D&D except 4E ensure that there are challenges that are trivial for a character of a certain level.

Thankfully WOTC has realized that this is bad design and is going back to the 2E/3E method for 5E.

Here's the problem: 5e isn't going back to the 3e method. They're actually giving us the worst of both worlds. In 3e you had a set DC for a task, and it got easier as you got to higher levels. That doesn't happen in 5e, because of the utter dearth of scaling.

As for what you're saying about 4e, I'm once again going to say "bad adventure design". Yes page 42 tells the DM to fluff the challenge as appropriate to the level, so a bad DM can describe a level 20 task as a wooden door, or insist on putting doors everywhere that are challenges to the PCs. In actuality at high levels, a door should very rarely be a challenge to you. I stand by the statement that all doors do not magically scale with level except with bad DMs.

Again, no. What we're talking about here is things that are level-appropriate, but become far more powerful under a particular set of circumstances.

Basically, if you're 20th level, you might be able to kill the hypothetical mach 2 tarrasque by hacking away at it while your wizard keeps it contained. If you want to kill a tarrasque that's charging at full speed, you need to be much stronger.

What we're imagining here is a tarrasque that can perform a special "unstoppable rampage" where it spends some time accelerating until it's moving as fast as it can. While it's doing this, it's incredibly hard to hurt -- anything that gets near it from the front is going to be destroyed, including spell effects and projectiles, and it's faster than virtually everything else that exists in the game.

If you can beat it like this, you're stronger than the opponents the tarrasque was meant to face -- the 20th level party where the wizard runs BC to keep the monster from charging off into the sunset while the fighter kills it, relying on skill to keep himself from being overwhelmed by the monster's strength advantage.

Your imaginary super tarrasque is so far removed from any incarnation of the tarrasque in D&D I'm not even going to comment on it any more. I will reitterate the point that if that is what you want to be a level 20 challenge, the Fighter should be able to handle it at level 20. Not rely on the Wizard to do the heavy lifting while he whittles away at hit points. But trying to argue what a Fighter should be able to do against a hypothetical monster who has unknown powers.

[lesser_minion]

A level 20 character should be a demigod. A level 20 Barbarian should be able to fall from orbit and climb out of the crater because he's angry. A level 20 Monk should be able to walk on the clouds. A level 20 Rogue should be able to walk down a street in full daylight without anyone able to see him. A level 20 Fighter should be able to wrestle a tornado into submission.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs? The question is what it is that makes a 20th level character better, not whether or not they should be better or how much better they should be.

The point I am making is that a 20th level fighter doesn't beat the tarrasque by being as strong as it is. He beats it by being so skilled that strength doesn't matter.

High level fighters don't smash mountains, they dodge raindrops.

I will reitterate the point that if that is what you want to be a level 20 challenge, the Fighter should be able to handle it at level 20.

This is completely irrelevant. See above.

[Clawhound]

In addition to success, we have time.

What's the difference between a 1st level character bashing in a door and a 10th level? TIME.

In 3E, this was simulated by giving objects hit points. Once you inflicted enough hit points, the object was broken. Even first level characters, given enough time, will get through the solid steel vault door. They might have to drill for three months, but they could do it. At 10th level, a character with an adamintine drill might do the same job in 2 hours. At 20th level, the same character might do the same in 2 minutes with is bare hands.

Now, whether they find a way to add in time is a good question, but it should certainly be there. Any veteran of the game should know just how powerful time can be in players' hands. That's part of what makes D&D so unique.

[Reverent-One]

I'll caveat my post by saying that I have very limited experience with 4E, and am a 3.P player. With that said, I don't see how a scaling DC for the exact same challenge could be a good idea or fun. It seems like it would cheapen your advancement (instead of investing points into becoming better at something, you have to invest points just to maintain your current skill level), prevent you from getting into the really interesting epic uses of skills, and breaks suspension of disbelief pretty hard. I'm glad that they're decided against putting a system like that into 5E.

If I'm a higher level adventurer, then it makes sense that I'm significantly better at doing adventure-y stuff than lower level characters. There is literally no reason why a door should change how strong it is based on who's kicking it. That does mean core gameplay changes at higher levels, but is that a bad thing? A crypt at level 1 should be significantly different than a lich's necropolis at level 10, and in more ways than just the DCs.

That's just what the system we're talking about is intended to do, at higher levels you're not just going up against the same challenge with higher DCs, but a different challange, with what used to be a challenge now something you can breeze through.

[Menteith]

That's just what the system we're talking about is intended to do, at higher levels you're not just going up against the same challenge with higher DCs, but a different challange, with what used to be a challenge now something you can breeze through.

Reskinning something to make it harder isn't a perfect solution, either. I agree with you that it's functional, but it of leads to the exact same outcome. Still, it's better than just nonfuctional scaling (which is what 5E has right now) or variable challenges (which is what 4E has).

What does this have to do with the price of eggs? The question is what it is that makes a 20th level character better, not whether or not they should be better or how much better they should be.

The point I am making is that a 20th level fighter doesn't beat the tarrasque by being as strong as it is. He beats it by being so skilled that strength doesn't matter.

High level fighters don't smash mountains, they dodge raindrops.

That's a difference of opinion. What if I want to play a character who can smash a mountain - or better yet, pick up that mountain and throw it at the Tarrasque? I actually can build characters who can accomplish these things in 3.P. My point is that a Level 20 should be the best in the world at what they specialized in. I say that a high level fighter should be able to be built accomplish literally any feat of strength imaginable.

[Reverent-One]

Reskinning something to make it harder isn't a perfect solution, either. I agree with you that it's functional, but it of leads to the exact same outcome. Still, it's better than just nonfuctional scaling (which is what 5E has right now) or variable challenges (which is what 4E has).

Actually, the 4e system is what we're talking about. Anyway, the thing is, if you don't provide harder challenges, than it's like just fighting kobolds and goblins over the course of 20 levels. Sure, the PCs definitely see that they've improved, but it gets boring and leads to the question of why the PCs are rolling at all.

[Stubbazubba]

I'm with Seerow when it comes to Skills. The problem in 4e wasn't the idea that your abilities scaled with your level, it was that all the DCs you encountered also scaled with your level, thus eliminating any benefit from the scaling. Removing both of those leaves you with the exact same problem; things are always just as challenging no matter how high level you are.

If level 20 is supposed to be god-like powers again, that's unacceptable. The PCs need some scaling to evidence that they have progressed past lower-level challenges, and then they need to actually see some lower-level challenges so they feel it.

That means that the players will be truly challenged a little less frequently. That's a somewhat strange thing to swallow, but it's the only way to make progress count. It also means that play tends to speed up as you level up.

All that being said, it is an action-genre trope that the big strong guy will still avoid the blows from mooks rather than just walk through the army of simpletons ignoring their feeble attacks. I agree with the idea behind the idea, that low-level things, in big enough numbers, can still threaten PCs. I would just have them form squads and attack as a single unit, Squad of Goblins, instead of 6 Goblins attacking individually. The Squad's AC would simply be the average AC of the Goblins, so you would hit and kill almost every attack, which would decrease the Squad's to-hit bonus and damage.

In fact, you could just add the individual to-hit bonuses of lower-level enemies together in a squad, and have their combined damage be roughly half of what it would be if they all hit. So, a Squad of 6 Goblins has a +12 to attack, and deals 3d6 damage on a hit. It's AC is still 15, and it has 30 HP, but for each 5 HP damage you do, it loses a Goblin, losing +2 from its to-hit and (1/2)d6 damage, rounded up. So if you deal 15 damage, you've killed 3 Goblins, the Squad is down to +6 to-hit and 2d6 damage on a hit. A Squad needs at least 3 creatures to form; if one more Goblin dies, the remaining Goblins attack individually.

That would be fun, although having to re-calculate to-hit and damage each round is kind of lame. Better, though, than rolling each attack individually. I dunno, I'm just rambling at this point.

[kyoryu]

That's a very good rule. Giving infinite retries on most tasks has always been a weak point of D&D skill resolution.

This has to be combined with the idea of "failure means complications". Which isn't a very D&D thing. "Failing" a check to open a gate in BW might mean that you're noisy enough to attract attention doing it. It could mean that you hurt yourself in the process. It generally doesn't mean that you're stuck where you are.

The "let it ride" rule also applied to a ton of things in AD&D - most strength checks and thief abilities were no retry until you leveled, IIRC.

That does fix the automatic scaling problem, but it still does nothing about the single roll ability check system. It is a bad resolution mechanic, and now they are basing their whole system on it.

The simple fact is that bonuses on ability checks are small compared to the values the d20 can take, and thus are almost meaningless. If your bonus caps out at +5, then in reality breaking down a door is just as hard at level 20 as it is at level 1 when you had a +3 bonus. It has nothing to do with your character and all to do with how you roll. If you add something like a extended series of rolls type of test, then these small bonuses become more meaningful again, but it does not seem they are going in that direction.

Yes, and that suggests a flatter power curve, where characters start human, and end human. That's very 1e, and I personally think it's a *good* thing.

I see no problem in a system designed in such a way that if a character did not allocate any (or a small amount) of resources to a ability that he shouldn't even roll at level 20. Its logical, in the same way I don't have to bother to show up to a tennis match against Roger Federer to know that he will win 100% of the time.

Tennis is more analogous to combat than it is to opening a door. A 20th level fighter would destroy a 1st level fighter flat out. If anything, the fact that the hypothetical tennis match using skills doesn't have the same guarantee is an artifact of the game not being focused on tennis matches. It's also not focused on opening doors. I'm okay with some level of inconsistencies in these areas if it's service of the greater playability of the game.

The point is that if the spread on skills is 9 points, and the spread on the die roll is 20 points, then whether you succeed or not depends mostly on luck, not skill.

You're overstating it a bit, and presuming that the max is 9 points. But let's go with that. For a 15 DC, the person with 9 skill points will succeed on a 6 or better. That's 75% of the time. A person with 0 skill points will succeed on a 15 or better, which is 30% of the time.

That hardly seems like "luck" is the biggest factor. However, it *is* a factor. I think people just like the idea of auto-succeeding, and I frankly blame 3e's "Rule of Ten" for that.

Thank you for proving my point. The Tarrasque is big, scary, and deadly. A normal person who stands toe to toe with it will be pasted. However in D&D, high level Fighters are supposed to stand toe to toe with it. You say that's not a 'sane' fighter or barbarian. I say **** you. The game says I'm supposed to be the tough melee guy, that means that against equal level challenges yes I will be standing in melee with them trading blow for blow, and at the very least holding my own.

So yes, you have a Fighter who steps in front of the Tarrasque, and not only manages to not die instantly, but somehow stops him from running right past him. This is a part of the game. If I can do that, why the hell is a simple door blocking my way?

See, I disagree with this, and this goes back to the idea that level 20 characters are gods. I don't want them to be, and I'm perfectly happy with a system that says level 20 characters aren't gods, and can't stand toe to toe with a Tarrasque. Want to take out a Tarrasque? Better have good tactics, strategy and plans.

One thing that I recently realized about 4E is that when a combat starts, the DM first has to spend several minutes explaining how this particular combat works. For instance, if there's lava or spiderwebs on the map, then he has to tell the players how this particular lava or these particular webs work on this map. It increases immersion and make gameplay faster to have a central rule for what lava or webs do, and to apply that consistently.

Meh. Not sure that I agree with that. Lava pools can be of various depths, sizes, and temperature. Webs can be of different consistencies. I can agree that it can take people out of the game to explain these things, but it also means that an encounter can be relatively self-contained and require less looking things up.

The same applies to monster abilities. An early criticism of 4E was that numerous cyclops-related monsters all have an ability called "evil eye" and that these abilities are all completely different other than the name. So if you tell your players "the cyclops uses his evil eye!" they have no idea what's going on. On the other hand, every 2E player knows precisely what's going on if you say that the evil demon casts fireball.

I'm still pretty much okay with this. I think it's fine for players to not be fully aware of every ability a creature has.

[Menteith]

Actually, the 4e system is what we're talking about. Anyway, the thing is, if you don't provide harder challenges, than it's like just fighting kobolds and goblins over the course of 20 levels. Sure, the PCs definitely see that they've improved, but it gets boring and leads to the question of why the PCs are rolling at all.

I'd rather change the nature of the challenges instead of increasing the same challenge's DC. Eventually, there may come a point where it doesn't matter how sturdy that door is or how complex a lock is; the PCs have abilities that fundamentally negate the challenge of a door. They might be able to cleave their way through fifty feet of stone around it and tunnel through, they might be able to turn themselves into a liquid and diffuse through it, or there might just be a spell like Knock that just negates the challenge. That's not a bad thing to me, it just means that I need to find other ways to challenge players. Instead of putting a Macguffin behind a door, it's in a chest at the bottom of the sea, or on the Negative Energy Plane, or inside of a dragon's stomach. I'm fine with changing the nature of a challenge to account for PC abilities, and I'd rather give different challenges instead of the same challenge with different flavor text.

See, I disagree with this, and this goes back to the idea that level 20 characters are gods. I don't want them to be, and I'm perfectly happy with a system that says level 20 characters aren't gods, and can't stand toe to toe with a Tarrasque. Want to take out a Tarrasque? Better have good tactics, strategy and plans.

We just want different things out of the game, then. I very rarely play at 20th level, but I'm glad that it's there and I have the option to. If I want to play a grittier game, I can run in E6 or a similar system. Playing against an awakened Tarrasque in E6 is really cool, and fighting off armies of Pit Fiends at level 20 is cool. And I want a system can deliver both of these experiences to me.

[lesser_minion]

That's a difference of opinion. What if I want to play a character who can smash a mountain - or better yet, pick up that mountain and throw it at the Tarrasque?

In which case you're hosed. There will be limits, because there have to be. If the game caps out at 20th level and the tarrasque is a 20th-level opponent, you will have what you need to fight the tarrasque.

While I'm sure that picking up a mountain and throwing it at the tarrasque would be fun, it would also be excessive. You may as well just pick up the tarrasque and throw it into space. It won't come back on its own, and anything that could intercede to bring it back would be powerful enough to resurrect it once killed anyway.

I actually can build characters who can accomplish these things in 3.P. My point is that a Level 20 should be the best in the world at what they specialized in.

If you're a fighter, that would be fighting, not weight-lifting or arm-wrestling.

I say that a high level fighter should be able to be built accomplish literally any feat of strength imaginable.

Fighters don't specialise in feats of strength, and no class is provided that does.

Moreover, if you actually take the phrase "any feat of strength imaginable" literally, then the game breaks: you just punch yourself so hard that you're invincible, immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient and then you declare the BBEG and everyone you don't like dead by fiat.