This is just one specific instance, of course, but the idea of an across-the-board +half-level bonus feels odd to me.
I thought of some steps to divorce certain things from +half-level.
Ability and Skill Checks
Simply remove +half level, with the understanding that DCs will not be tied to character level either. Just because they are of a high level will not mean they will automatically find high-level challenges everywhere.
For skills, add higher levels of skill: Heroic (+10), Paragon (+20), Epic (+40 once per day); all these cost 1 feat apiece to improve one step. Skill Focus becomes +50% instead of +3.
Along with these fat numbers, advise the players that except for unusual circumstances, at some point these will be over-kill. There simply won't be all that many challenges that call for DC 30 or 40 or whatever. Further, limit over-the-top results.
I suppose I could try going back to a 3.5E model, but I also like the current simplicity.
Attack Rolls
Characters start with 2 attributes for which they add +half-level to their attack rolls. Typically, this will be the pair that relates to the defense they target, but perhaps not always. For one feat, get any 2 more.
This means, for example, that Martial characters can very significantly out-perform their non-Martial counterparts when it comes to, for example, seeing who does better in a wrestling ring. Right now, when it comes to basic tasks (i.e., when not using features/powers/feats/whatever) the difference comes from ability scores, and that doesn't feel enough.
So you haven't changed anything that would apply at level 1, which shows that the difference between a martial character (18 strength fighter) and non-martial character (10 strength wizard) is acceptable to you.
Why then, does the difference in strength need to widen?
If a difference of 4 on ability checks, and possibly 9 on athletics and endurance checks is okay at 1st level... why is it not okay at 2nd, or 30th?
Okay...
So you haven't changed anything that would apply at level 1, which shows that the difference between a martial character (18 strength fighter) and non-martial character (10 strength wizard) is acceptable to you.
Why then, does the difference in strength need to widen?
If a difference of 4 on ability checks, and possibly 9 on athletics and endurance checks is okay at 1st level... why is it not okay at 2nd, or 30th?
Pretty much my question
Okay...
So you haven't changed anything that would apply at level 1, which shows that the difference between a martial character (18 strength fighter) and non-martial character (10 strength wizard) is acceptable to you.
Why then, does the difference in strength need to widen?
If a difference of 4 on ability checks, and possibly 9 on athletics and endurance checks is okay at 1st level... why is it not okay at 2nd, or 30th?
The issue is that adding half-level to everything indiscriminately is not intuitive. If the idea that gaining in levels helps you bash open a door, assuming all else is the same (notably, Strength), makes complete sense to you, then I don't think we'll ever be on the same wavelength with this issue.
Just don't try and cook anything in game. Or play music. or do anything too specialized... I miss 3.x skills.
Honestly in terms of skill challenges if you remove the +1/2 level and kept the DC's the same, it would have little difference in terms of game play for the life of the character. There's little difference if you have a base of 20+d20 against a DC 35 versus a base of 1+d20 versus a DC of 15.
To paraphrase Syndrome, "When every number goes up, no number goes up."
Honestly static skills make more 'sense' in several ways. Example a skill challenge at level 1 to find the hidden temple is (5/10/15 or 10/15/20 or 15/20/25 depending on much you like the errata). For level 30 that exact same challenge would be roughly 10 higher across the board. Since the DC's go up exactly 15 from 1 to 30, it's for all intents and purposes the exactly same skill check.
Which brings us to the 'not very sensical part'. Just by being 30 levels higher the players now have a much harder time in numbers to find the temple.
But static skills don't make 'sense' either. People get better over time at something.
But for your first question, in terms of gameplay mechanics I think it's a wash. Either way you go with it since the recommended DC's go up by an equivilent amount to the skill level, not counting stats does it matter whether you're trying to hit a 15 or a 30, it's the same d20 you're rolling and that's all that matters.
The issue is that adding half-level to everything indiscriminately is not intuitive. If the idea that gaining in levels helps you bash open a door, assuming all else is the same (notably, Strength), makes complete sense to you, then I don't think we'll ever be on the same wavelength with this issue.
You are probably right about us not ever being on the same wavelength about this.
Mostly because you have said that adventurer A should get better at knocking down doors (no matter how good he was to start) but that adventurer B should never get better at knocking down doors (no matter how good he was to start)
I have to ask though, If only certain classes are supposed to get better at smashing doors as they level... what do the classes that don't get better at smashing doors get that the "door smashers" don't?
If you ask me, any character should be able to say "I kick the door" and any character should get better at it the more they do it.... even though, in the case of low-strength characters, they will consistently not be able to break down the doors they most likely are running in to given that the DMG encourages scaling door types with party level so the DC remains relevant.
I fail to see how your proposed changes make the game a) more balanced, b) more fun, or c) run smoother so I fail to see their purpose.
Also... everything increasing at the same rate is actually very intuitive.
"And everything goes up by one on even levels" is much easier to remember than "Only these 2 things go up by one on even levels, unless you take this feat that makes it more things... or if you do this, or that... or this other," and so on.
I mean, the rookie cop is probably terrible at door bashing compared to am experienced officer. Real terrible. OJ in Naked Gun terrible door-bashing.
In 3E, the olny bonus a Fighter had in attack bonus over a Wizard was 1 + STR bonus difference. That made the difference around 4 or 5. But later on, because of the way BAB scaled, the Fighter got a +10 over the Wizard BEFORE STR BONUS AND WEAPON PLUSES ARE ADDED. While at low levels the Wizard's trusty crossbow was at least SOME use, at higher levels it's a joke for him to even concider it. (Although, if we are talking high level 3E Wizard, he has already won the encounter anyway, but we won't go into that.)
This was the same for skill checks. Someone with max ranks in a skill likely only has a +6 or 7 more than people unskilled, which is still rather alot, but not so much that the unskilled can't use that skill at all.But later on, the skilled person had 23 + Attribute bonus + 5 or so from item bonus, so maybe around +30. Unfortunatly, the unskilled person likely never put ranks in the skill, so he likely has + 0 or up to 2 if he is lucky. Even more unfortunatly, DCs scaled to fit the SKILLED individual. He could instantly win anything with a DC of 31 or less, and up to about DC 40 was a cakewalk. The unskilled person has a 0% probability of succeding on anything about 21 or higher, if he has no attribute bonus. Most low level DCs were even a problem for them, nevermind those in the range of 30 to 40.
This was, quite plainly, horrible game design. At low levels, someone "good" at something is marginally better than someone who is "bad" at someting. Later on, the difference became laughabley huge, to the point where there was pretty much no point for someone to do something that they hadn't trained their whole life for.
Some might say "well, they shouldn't be able to!" Some people think that level 30 Wizards should always lose in a armwrestling contest with a level 1 Fighter. They think that in the years and years that that Wizard has been getting hurt, moving through terrible terrain, working every muscle in him to keep going, he never got any stronger. He's still that wimp who just got out of Wizard college without doing so much as a situp in his life. They think that that Fighter, who has had to solve feindish puzzles, live by his wits to survive for so long, having to outsmart villainous masterminds, never got the least bit more clever. He's still that dumb-as-a-post brute that the party picked up at the bar as a bodygaurd all those years ago. To put it plainly, those people think that characters don't grow. Unless they are master experts at their feild, the stagnate, their ability in stasis for all eternity.
DCs in 4E are meant to scale. This way, the +1 every two levels never makes that gap in ability between instant fail and instant win. If you are really that set in making them NOT ever scale, here is my suggestion. For skill checks, make it skill bonus + applicable ability bonus + 1d20. For ability checks, make it the ability SCORE + 1d20. This will not only allow someone who is stronger than someone else have a better chance of succeding (and it can be quite a large difference), it makes those odd numbers that don't usually change bonus mean something.
To paraphrase Syndrome, "When every number goes up, no number goes up."
...
Example a skill challenge at level 1 to find the hidden temple is (5/10/15 or 10/15/20 or 15/20/25 depending on much you like the errata). For level 30 that exact same challenge would be roughly 10 higher across the board. Since the DC's go up exactly 15 from 1 to 30, it's for all intents and purposes the exactly same skill check.
Suppose the concept of Skill Challenges is not used at all. Suppose level 30 characters don't stumble on temples that have DC 25/30/35 doors, because DC 25/30/35 doors simply aren't all that common?
Suppose Gnome Doors Inc. sell a particular door model that is DC 15 to bash open. When the players come back at levels 10, 20, or 30 to buy it for their ever-expanding country estate, that door will still be DC 15 to bash open.
Then, having even basic skill, even one that's not scaling with level, will be worthwhile throughout your career. Having a ton of skill investment is overkill, but can occasionally be useful when you are exploring DeathTrap Dungeon or vacationing in The Cityport of Traps. As a DM, you just need to clarify this for the players to set their expectations as to what they can expect to get in return for investing in skills.
D&D 4E sets expectations in one way that is internally consistent, but to me not intuitive or correct.
I don't scale DCs just to make them challenging. I set them according to what is reasonably there. I guess I should have made this clear from the start, and more than just an oblique reference to skill overkill in the original post.
Scaling DCs is not only not-very-intuitive, but it's also like having an arms race with the players. Why? Just so they feel the satisfaction of overcoming an insane challenge, you create an arbitrary mechanic for it? Only CRPGs do this--such as in NWN, when you move through the game, they estimate your level, and surprisingly, every trap you encounter becomes insanely deadlier and harder to find.
Now, the 1st level bandit encounter at level 20 is ... funny, for a few seconds. I had players literally beg me to stick one in so that their tank could walk over and try to have a conversation with the 1st level human bandits while they tried to rob him. He KO'ed one by accidentally turning and hitting him and then the entire party kept on going leaving the bandits on the side of the road. I could have attempting something more clever, but it wasn't going to be worth any XP and it was BORING for all involved after the novely wore off and the novelty didn't last very long to begin with. On a 20 I could get a hit, no chance to confirm that hit and his non-critical damage was not sufficient to beat the PC's DR. On the off chance he could the PC had 300 some hit points and the attacker could have done, at most 6 points to him on a maxed double 20 critical roll, and then he had regen.
So in short, you don't scale to scale, you scale because what your players does scales. And adding in 1/2 of their level to checks allows players who otherwise could not do anything to at least marginally participate in certain encounters and adding in 1/2 level to ability checks makes sense as I honestly believe that a 11th level character is wrapped up in more awesome than a 1st level character and can easily break through a wooden doorway that the lower level fighter might have a challenge on. Plus its easier for all parties with less of a chance for fudging. I'd just play it by the rules because its less work and if you honestly want to go the other way play ... well, 3.5 and don't worry about it.
but leveling up should make you better at breaking open the door. People pick up little tricks and tidbits of knowledge that allow them to do things much more effectively. This is in real life but D&D is much the same.
They also pick up minor spells that better focus the force they apply, lift them a little higher when they jump or whatever.
The half-level bonus is as easily rationalized as the fact that your character gets inherently harder to kill as he gains levels, or that killing monsters makes him better at sneaking around.
It's certainly simpler to keep the mechanics as is and honestly I'll probably do that unless this infant of an idea finds some fertile soil in mine and my players minds and it can be used in a workable fashion.
But in looking through all the skill challenge systems out there, the problems with scaling, the problems with the mechanics and skill disparity, I keep coming back to that question. Why does the door have to get harder to open even in context, why does the cliff get harder to climb, the river harder to swim, the motives harder to perceive, the guards harder to bluff etc. If it ends up being a DC30 to intimidate a demigod but players have 30 initimidate?
Is it any more cinematic to need to roll a 15+ to open the door to the goblin cave than it is to roll a 15+ to open the door to the abyss?
I don't know, maybe it's just my whole perception that in most games, the numbers scale as you level but the battle remains the same because they scale equally. More damage but more hit points. Better chance to hit but higher defenses.
Well the straw man against that is that if you don't scale the encounters, they get really easy pretty quickly. In short, not every door is going to be dc 30 to crack, but your party shouldn't be attempting to pry open dc 15 doors to the goblin's lair at 20th level, they should be attempting to pry open the dc 30 door to the gates of the abyss while fending off demonic patrols in a desperate battle to save the world.
In D&D Terms it would be an easy or moderate DC.
The first door took me a couple of minutes, a few curses and I even managed to hurt myself. I finally was able to bash it open.
The last two doors i bashed open with a single blow, knowing exactly what i was doing by now. The doors weren't any easier to bash open then the previous ones.
I'm pretty sure my strength remained the same.
Yes, I'm convinced that a D&D character gets better at bashing doors open when his level increases.
The first door took me a couple of minutes, a few curses and I even managed to hurt myself. I finally was able to bash it open.
The last two doors i bashed open with a single blow, knowing exactly what i was doing by now.
What if you looked at it this way: Initially, you were Unskilled. Later, you were Skilled.
If levelling increases proficiency, then there would be no theoretical limit to how much better you could bash the door. But I would conjecture that there would be such a limit. At some point, until someone showed you an even more optimal way to bash it open (i.e., you earn more skill points), you would have your door-bashing ability capped.
My current thought rattling around in my brain is, but do we need that? Does the gate to the abyss need a DC30? It's just a door after all. What if the climactic part of getting that door open is defeating the boss, unraveling the puzzle, or whatever to get the key, open the lock or notice the convienent garbage chute that bypasses it? Does the door itself need to be an adventure in the opening?
The way the mechanics are presented -- a Skill CHALLENGE -- I suspect that the reasoning behind it all *is* simply to make it "an adventure". To give skills strong relevance in-game. Every game system tries to do that.
If you see a skill in use on TV or in the movies, it's the uncertainty factor that creates drama. Once you have numbers and you can see "how the universe works", that uncertainty is gone and it's very hard to recapture. There are a lot of variables in combat that naturally lend it a lot of uncertainty. So far, game systems use a sort of pass/fail system with a predictable range of results. This takes away a lot of the uncertainty and anxiety/excitement that comes from that.
By forcing an unnatural sort of levelling where all numbers go up as level goes up, 4E is maintaining the sense of uncertainty. They've got a good chunk of their goal, but (IMO) it cost them plausibility.
This seems to me to be an attempt to bring back the old 3E standard of "Little difference at level 1, insermountable difference at level 20".
In 3E, the olny bonus a Fighter had in attack bonus over a Wizard was 1 + STR bonus difference. That made the difference around 4 or 5. But later on, because of the way BAB scaled, the Fighter got a +10 over the Wizard BEFORE STR BONUS AND WEAPON PLUSES ARE ADDED. While at low levels the Wizard's trusty crossbow was at least SOME use, at higher levels it's a joke for him to even concider it. (Although, if we are talking high level 3E Wizard, he has already won the encounter anyway, but we won't go into that.)
This was the same for skill checks. Someone with max ranks in a skill likely only has a +6 or 7 more than people unskilled, which is still rather alot, but not so much that the unskilled can't use that skill at all.But later on, the skilled person had 23 + Attribute bonus + 5 or so from item bonus, so maybe around +30. Unfortunatly, the unskilled person likely never put ranks in the skill, so he likely has + 0 or up to 2 if he is lucky. Even more unfortunatly, DCs scaled to fit the SKILLED individual. He could instantly win anything with a DC of 31 or less, and up to about DC 40 was a cakewalk. The unskilled person has a 0% probability of succeding on anything about 21 or higher, if he has no attribute bonus. Most low level DCs were even a problem for them, nevermind those in the range of 30 to 40.
This was, quite plainly, horrible game design. At low levels, someone "good" at something is marginally better than someone who is "bad" at someting. Later on, the difference became laughabley huge, to the point where there was pretty much no point for someone to do something that they hadn't trained their whole life for.
Some might say "well, they shouldn't be able to!" Some people think that level 30 Wizards should always lose in a armwrestling contest with a level 1 Fighter. They think that in the years and years that that Wizard has been getting hurt, moving through terrible terrain, working every muscle in him to keep going, he never got any stronger. He's still that wimp who just got out of Wizard college without doing so much as a situp in his life. They think that that Fighter, who has had to solve feindish puzzles, live by his wits to survive for so long, having to outsmart villainous masterminds, never got the least bit more clever. He's still that dumb-as-a-post brute that the party picked up at the bar as a bodygaurd all those years ago. To put it plainly, those people think that characters don't grow. Unless they are master experts at their feild, the stagnate, their ability in stasis for all eternity.
DCs in 4E are meant to scale. This way, the +1 every two levels never makes that gap in ability between instant fail and instant win. If you are really that set in making them NOT ever scale, here is my suggestion. For skill checks, make it skill bonus + applicable ability bonus + 1d20. For ability checks, make it the ability SCORE + 1d20. This will not only allow someone who is stronger than someone else have a better chance of succeding (and it can be quite a large difference), it makes those odd numbers that don't usually change bonus mean something.
QFT