PCs rapidly grow in power

"easy" "normal" and "difficult" skill check DCs change as you level up in 4e

This is not meant to imply that climbing a ladder swiftly gets more difficult, but rather that climbing a ladder swiftly changes from a normal check, to an easy check, to no check required, as you level up

This. Back in the day when I played Pathfinder (didn't better systems existed back then), we would play for months at a time IRL and years at a time in-game and only gain like 2-4 levels. It wasn't uncommon for us to play several campaigns culminating in saving a city/country/world and still be like level 12, even though our characters had been adventuring for years. People don't understand that level 20 is supposed to be like the stuff of highly-romanticized legends and children's storybooks, it's not a point the players are supposed to reach by the end of their first adventure.

Also this . With SLOW levelling, each choice you make will feel alot more meaningful... and you know what, you won't get mad or upset that the villains and world and other NPCs leveled too, because you have a new toy to play with. Furthermore, finding out how to use YOUR new toy better than THEIR new toy will make you feel like you actually outsmarted the villain and won due to your choices and cleverness rather than just because your numbers were higher.

He's reading things that arne't there.
The expected climb difficulty does increase, however, that's because climbing a ladder is not worth rolling for.

A level 1 challenge is a rope.
a level 5 challenge is a cavern wall.
a level 10 is a slippery cavern wall.
level 15 is a wall without handholds.
and so on until level 30 where the walls are spidersilk threads that are on fire.

That's not how it works.

What actually happened:

>The book had a list of DCs that would be concidered hard/normal/easy for a PC of a given level.
>This is clearly so GMs can quickly work out what sort of DC they want if they don't have one already set.

People instead took it as 'The same task gets more difficult as you level' rather than assuming it's GM help.

So as I thought.

user is clinically blind and or retarded. Or both.

Probably just spouting memes.

>NPCs that journeyed with the PCs soon become too weak to actively contribute
>The villains simply wait for the PCs to get strong enough to defeat them
Nah, man. NPCs might keep pace with PCs if they're the championing type, maybe a couple steps behind but still. If they give in to stagnation, it's because the story the PCs have built around their actions demands the PCs reach some new height others cannot.

Also a villains are always doing their shit, PCs just fuck up the ones they can while climbing the ladder of assholes who are building the empire of suffering and death that makes the world require men like them to fix it.

(you)
(you)
(you)
Funny, but some of us have actually read the 4e players guide, and it straight up says that these checks should have their numbers go up to stay in their difficulty skill range.

I have just read through the 4e player's strategy guide, and I can not find what you are referring to

They've had years to work the delusion into their brain meat.

They didn't accept it when it was thrown in their faces at the beginning, and they won't now.

You can see the same happening with 5e, where instead of making low-level things more threatening, they compressed the range of power to keep them threatening. Resulting in even worse conflicts between the fluff and the mechanics.

The fans will not accept this. It makes them feel bad, and they want to feel good. It's easier to think you're just an enemy.

>You can see the same happening with 5e, where instead of making low-level things more threatening, they compressed the range of power to keep them threatening. Resulting in even worse conflicts between the fluff and the mechanics.

Are you the guy who keeps whining about how 210 peasant archers can kill a CR 24 Ancient Red Dragon in one turn?

the meteoric rate at which PCs gain power can only be explained as a game mechanic, and while it can seem sensible to imagine a living world where other people are also growing more powerful, if they grow at the same rate as the PCs it only multiplies the implausibility of the situation where characters can master skills in the span of less than a year that should take a lifetime.

How about instead they are aging rapidly?

FOX... DIEEEEE

So why don't you post the page then?

>Funny, but some of us have actually read the 4e players guide, and it straight up says that these checks should have their numbers go up to stay in their difficulty skill range.

No, it says the checks should go up in context. A "moderately difficult check for a level 25 Barbarian is X".

This doesn't mean knocking down a reinforced door is X for a level 35 Barbarian. It means if you want to challenge said Barbarian with a moderately difficult door to bust down, make it require X.

But that door should deserve X. It shouldn't just be a regular old reinforced door. It should be some sort of magical portal door encountered in one of the Demonlord strongholds in the Abyss.

Because as you move up in level, 4e very much expected some challenges to fade away. By the time you reached Epic levels, they very much expected you to be roaming around the planes, fighting gods and demons, buying things with Astral Diamonds (not just gold) and saving the UNIVERSE not raiding Goblin camps to stop potential wars in order to save a town/kingdom.

Both.

Some things stay as they are and PCs can bulldoze them on occasion to show off.
A few recurring enemies also gear up and grow to remain a challenge.
Some friendly NPCs grow and some fall behind too.

Growing in power also opens bigger threats to seriously tackle.

They can still hand out medicine and help the active members of the party in other ways.

>(you)
>(you)
>(you)

So does fighting a goblin, according to this standard.

Maybe it's not the same ladder, but one made of razorblades and fire.

>PCs rapidly grow in power

>The rest of the world stays relatively static

>NPCs that journeyed with the PCs soon become too weak to actively contribute
>The villains simply wait for the PCs to get strong enough to defeat them
>The players appreciate how strong they are

Its about time. Unleash the Cthulhu!

>Uses a lot of shoulds
>inserting his own opinion and pretending it's whats in the rulebook

...and people wonder why both 3.5e and 5e are more popular than $e.

what if you had a system where PCs dont grow in power, but there's actually more tactical flexibility than "i hit him with my sword"/"i cast my powerful spells at him" so you could ease in with basic encounters and move up to your four man band taking out whole armies like some kind of distributed batman

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, from a pure gameplay perspective, character level is a useful tool and arguably simpler and easier to balance than point-buy. Plus it is very satisfying every time you gain a new level.

From a narrative standpoint it's a lot harder to justify. Like unless your campaign world uses DBZ-esque "power levels" or some shit you can't really quantify character level in a narrative sense. Does it represent experience? Importance to the plot? How do you justify the disparity between a level 10 warrior, who is still human in every aspect, and say, a level 5 bear that should, in theory, be able to kill even the most experienced warriors by virtue of being a fucking bear?

The problem is systems with extreme vertical progression. Systems that have a more reasonable cap here don't suffer from the same problems. Horizontal progression still offers rewards for players who like that angle of the game, but don't break a world's internal consistency in the same way.

i'd rather have the later because being a shonen protagonist is boring

Try the Monster Hunter route.
You never really grow stronger, your support net grows stronger and you get better equipment, talismans and supplies, plus you master the use of your weapons and gain experience as a trapper and knowledge of your opponents behaviour.

Being the only non-saijan that could still contribute by the end of Z is not so bad.

DMG, Pg. 23
>If two wooden doors appear to be exactly the same, but
one requires a DC 16 Strength check to break through
and the other one requires a DC 20 check, the world
feels arbitrary and inconsistent. It’s fine for one door to
be harder to break down, but your description should
give cues about why one door is so much sturdier than
the other, whether it has adamantine reinforcements
or a noticeable aura of magic sealing it shut.

pg 64 gives DCs for breaking down doors. A wooden door is give as a level 3 obstacle that requires a DC16 to break through. And Adamantine door is given as a level 29 obstacle that requires a DC 29. The DC to break down a door is based on the door, not the level of the character attempting it.

pg. 43, which gives the scaling DC values, lists DC 15 as a Moderate DC for characters 1 through 3 level, while a hard one is 20. By the time a character becomes 16th level or so, a 20 is an easy DC, and a 28 becomes a hard check.

The DC of the door never changes. The DCs the players can reliably hit is what changes. The game gives you a guide on what DC and level obstacles are appropriate to pit against players.
Never once does it suggest that the DC to bust down a wooden door changes as the PCs increase in level.

And I use a lot of "shoulds" because understanding/following what's written in the book before you try to critque the rule is what you "should" be doing.

Consider this:
>PC's dont level up
>The setting gets more dire and harder to survive in
(Whether BBEG gaining power or party heads toward not!mordor)
>The players/characters learn to put their meager skills and equipment to better use as they go along
>Non artificial character growth.