recent d&d deathwatch data

[Lago PARANOIA]

It tells you the DC based on the level of the challenge. But nothing says the level of the challenge always has to equal your party level.

What part of relative is confusing you?

1) If you want to do something like 'have difficult locks' while simultaneously going 'but talking to the guards is easy' you can't DO that. Even if you adjust the level of the skill challenge upwards, you've made the 'talking to the guards is easy' part harder!

That's what relative means, guy. There aren't objective DCs. In a sane game, you could totally have tasks of differing difficulty.

2) Because of this, there's STILL no measure of objective difficulty. The difficulty of any particular task is assigned to what level you set the skill challenge at, which is the same thing as PCs not getting any better at anything. Making the treadmill go faster does not take PCs off of the treadmill.

The only way you could make this work is to pull DCs out of your ass. Convincing the guards to let you through is a level 4 medium difficulty DC, but picking the lock to the vault is a level 12 hard DC! I mean seriously, WTF?

3) While the skill challenge guidelines do not say 'don't adjust the level', they do not ever say or hint at you should do that. It says right on page 72 to:

• Set a level for the challenge and DCs for the checks involved. Notice it does not say levels, plural.
• If there is any lingering doubt, after you set the starting point, you adjust the level of the challenge AFTER YOU DETERMINE THE DCS. Skill challenge levels are done in a post-hoc fashion. They HAVE to be, because as you'll see by point 4 (though you should really know this by now) they're set relative to level. The only way DC would be consistent with the level of PC's feats is if you're in one of those MMORPG dungeons where Noob Cave got upgraded to Spider Cave and the rope bridges are a little more unstable, the skeleton knights swords are a little longer, etc. all uniformly with little deviation. How conveeeeeenient.

It also says that you can mix DCs in the same challenge, but it's NOT for level, it's just for difficulty.

4) Finally, this is for 'Actions the Rules don't cover' rather than Skill Challenges per se. Unfortunately, the skill challenge guidelines tell you to refer to this chart. Anyway, the DMG (page 42) CLEARLY adjusts the difficulty of a stunt for the player's level rather than the objective difficulty of it. I mean, seriously, here's what it says:

Other Checks: If the action is related to a skill (Acrobatics and Athletics cover a lot of the stunts characters try in combat), use that check. If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere in between. A quick rule of thumb is to start with a DC of 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character's level.
Setting Improvised Damage: Sometimes you need to set damage for something not covered in the rules--a character stumbles into the campfire or falls into a vat of acid, for example. Choose a column on the DC and Damage table based on the severity of the effect. Use a normal damage expression for something that might make an attack round after round, or something that's relatively minor. These numbers are comparable to a monster's at-will attack (Ed note: Did the massive damage errata cover this table or not?). Use a limited damage expression, comparable to a monster's special powers, for one-time damaging effects or massive damage.
Example: Shiera the 8th-level rogue wants to try the classic swashbuckling move of swinging on a chandelier and kicking an ogre in the chest on her way down to the ground, hoping to push the ogre into the brazier of burning coals behind it. An Acrobatics check seems reasonable.
This action is exactly the kind of thinking you want to encourage, so you pick an easy DC: the table says DC 15, but it's a skill check, so make it DC 20. If she makes that check, she gets a hold on the chandelier and swings to the ogre.
Then comes the kicking. She's more interested in the push then dealing any damage with the kick itself, so have her make a Strength attack against the ogre's Fortitude. If she pulls it off, let her push the ogre 1 square into the brazier, and find an appropriate damage number.
Use a normal damage expression from the table, because once the characters see this trick work they'll try anything they can to keep pushing the ogres into the brazier. you can safely use the high value, though--2d8+5 fire damage. If Shiera had used a 7th-level encounter power and sneak attack, she might have dealty 4d6 (plus dexterity modifier), so you're not giving away too much with this damage.

Well, aside from random assorted hilarity in that, such as non-minmaxed characters often actually being PUNISHED for investing in a skill rather than bullshitting their best unmodified bonus, putting more failure points in than a fire-and-forget power, or rewarding a player for their creativity and situational awareness by letting them do less damage than their 'fire and forget' powers...

We can clearly see that the designers intend for the stunt to be based relative to the level of Shiera. It does not say or hint 'if the brazier was filled with acid, it'd be a higher-level stunt'. It may have been a limited damage expression stunt, but if she got to a higher level the brazier would've done even more damage.

Now I'm willing to cut the game designers some slack here, because it's a defensible design goal to say 'I can trade internal consistency for speed and easy of play'. But that's not the point. The point is, if the improved damage rules don't adjust for level, what makes you think that skill challenges can?

Some people want a point where there doesn't exist a lock that can stop you. And well whatever, if the DM feels the same way, he can do that with his world in 4E. I don't advocate trivializing skills in that fashion, but if your group feels it adds more immersion, then whatever, knock yourself out.

Then they're being self-absorbed cocks. Seriously, these people are no different from the DMs that feel that you should fail a skill check not because you didn't meet a DC but because you didn't roll high enough--even if the total modifier was a 27.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with a game where there are DC 60 balance checks or locks. I do have a problem with a game that says 'well, in some games locks are a problem, in some games they aren't! Use your best judgment and these suggested DCs' and then uses this as an excuse to construct games where mundane locks foil paragon-tier rogues in some games and don't in other games.

Skill challenges are crap. But that has nothing to do with the subject on 4E DCs being challenge level based and not based on arbitrary labels.

First of all, do you know why skill challenges are crap? They're crap for many reasons, but the biggest reason is that it's a reflection of the exact paradigm you say doesn't exist in 4E.

Have you picked up a 4E adventure module lately? I have Kingdom of the Ghouls right here and the skill challenge, which is convince Vocir to help your party out, is one thematically appropriate for 1st-level characters but uses DCs appropriate for mid-epic level parties. How convenient.

Or how about the other skill challenge, 'Traveling Through Gorgimirth Skill Challenge'? Since this is an adventure for characters of level 24-26, you'd expect some pretty epic shit, right? Well, no. Here's what you can expect. If the skill challenges seem a bit low, it's because this adventure was published June 2009, which I believe was after WotC got wind of how much their system sucked and published a non-errata that made the skills so easy that everyone would auto-win. These aren't paraphrased, this is exactly how it appears in the module.

Dungeoneering: The characters find a safe path through the tunnels, realizing that the right direction lies in the tunnels that lead downward, away from the top of the mountain. (Ed: DC 26, we're rocking this epic-level shit here, baby!)

Stealth: The characters quietly work their way past a pack of bloodspawn devourers, remaining undetected. (Ed Note: The DC is 26 but the monsters have a Perception of +19.)

Athletics: The characters easily climb over hazardous recesses in the tunnel and jump over black, foul-smelling eruptions to progress deeper into the mountain.. (Ed Note: The first time it's DC 17. Doesn't follow the skill checks in the book, but whatever. The second time it's... DC 26? WTF? The skill challenge even uses the exact same description!)

There's more, but you get the idea. The sad thing is that this is actually one of the better published ones. There are actually a small range of different results you can get without outright failing or succeeding. The adventure doesn't screech to a halt or end with deus ex machina if the players fail.

I suppose that you could never use the skill challenge or improved action guidelines ever. I mean the basic skill system, while pathetic and compressed, is acceptable for the Conan-the-Barbarian grade shit the game peddles.

Unfortunately, you don't get experience or anything for using the PHB skill system. The 4E workday (and thus experience payout) is balanced around the assumption of you using skill challenges. As much as people would REALLY REALLY like the shibboleth of skill challenges to go away, it's just not going to.

[fectin]

If you look carefully, Swordslinger's point seems to be that the system isn't flawed, but that the writing is so hideously bad that humans can't tell how the system is supposed to work.

And that's a reasonable explanation and an interesting post mortem, but it doesn't ultimately change anything. It does make his points much more coherent though, and completely explains why all his arguements are analytics instead of primary sources.

[mean_liar]

Yeah, just look at the Rules Compendium, p132:

Acrobatics (Balance): Unstable surface is a Moderate DC
Narrow is Moderate, +5 if unstable
Very Narrow is Hard, +5 if unstable

Your 10th level character has a DC 18 to cross an Unstable surface. Your 25th level character has a DC 29. Nothing about the surface has changed.

Scaling DCs like this are shit.

Now, there are Fixed DCs in 4e, such as "Hop Down" (10 feet), a DC 15 Acrobatics check.

There are also Scaling DCs that make some degree of sense, such as Arcana being used to identify auras or creatures or whatever (Moderate DC of the level of the creature or effect, rather than of the observer).

It's also implemented inconsistently, though that's a good thing. Athletics (Climb), and Athletics (Swim), for example, have Fixed DCs entirely.

There actually are a lot of skills that work as you'd expect, not just the above. But there are still stinkers:

Perception is based on Easy/Moderate/Hard DCs keyed to your level when trying to perceive non-hiding things. Streetwise is based on your level.

But the greatest fuck-you is in the Skill Challenges, wherein everything is scaled on your level.

[TheFlatline]

Your 10th level character has a DC 18 to cross an Unstable surface. Your 25th level character has a DC 29. Nothing about the surface has changed.

What's important to note here is that the surface hasn't changed, and yet in an absolute sense it's *more* difficult to cross because you're more experienced. It's just that you're better trained than before, so the absolute difficulty increase isn't as noticeable in theory.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If you're playing a character that has a secondary in the skill, then it's actually a serious kick in the balls.

Now granted, 3E's skill system had a problem and had it bad. Cross-classing or failing to keep ranks maxed out caused you to become level-inappropriate. But that's because you were facing stronger challenges. While say, a fighter could make a reasonably decent showing at low levels by investing in Move Silently/Hide and got outclassed later on, they didn't suddenly get worse about sneaking past low-level mook guards.

In 4E you actually get worse about sneaking past low-level mook guards as time goes on unless you give the finger to the Skill Challenge system--which recommended, even by fans. But seriously, the fucking fix for this is so easy. Come up with three pages of example DCs with expected levels to pass them that are spread across all of the skills that don't have a corresponding entry in the PHB. From now on it's the responsibility of the DM, when adjucating the success or failure of actions, to determine whether a roll was high enough to succeed. They can then use that chart as a guideline about where to set a DC.

Then after that all you need to do is make it so that failures don't count against the group and make skill challenge limited by TIME rather than SUCCESS. And stop awarding experience points for passing these things. That's stupid and embarrassing. PCs should get exactly enough experience to advance them by 1/10th (or whatever) of a level. If you enter combat because of a skill challenge, you don't get any extra experience points. I don't know what that was about.

Seriously, I don't see what's so goddamn hard about this. They could seriously fix the whole system in a week if they gave a care. Mine isn't even the best one, the old crew at the Character Optimization boards had some (genuinely) good suggestions back in the day.

[Swordslinger]

1) If you want to do something like 'have difficult locks' while simultaneously going 'but talking to the guards is easy' you can't DO that. Even if you adjust the level of the skill challenge upwards, you've made the 'talking to the guards is easy' part harder!

The problem isn't the skill DC system, but the skill challenge setup that links everything to one challenge level. An encounter can have monsters of varying levels, but the skill challenge system doesn't allow that, because it sucks. It sucks for other reasons too, but the idea that you have a level of challenge that gives you a DC is a good thing.

The skill challenges suck terribly as a system, but that's just because the entire concept is flawed. It's rolling a bunch of random skill checks in a row and trying not to get failures. You can do the same in 3E or 2E and it would still suck, because it's not a flaw of the skill system, but rather the set up of the challenges themselves.

Other Checks: If the action is related to a skill (Acrobatics and Athletics cover a lot of the stunts characters try in combat), use that check. If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere in between. A quick rule of thumb is to start with a DC of 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character's level.

Yeah "rule of thumb" which means guideline, the base assumption is that you're facing a level appropriate challenge.

We can clearly see that the designers intend for the stunt to be based relative to the level of Shiera. It does not say or hint 'if the brazier was filled with acid, it'd be a higher-level stunt'. It may have been a limited damage expression stunt, but if she got to a higher level the brazier would've done even more damage.

It's far more important in an RPG that your attacker is 10th level rather than that he's using a sword. Higher level people do better damage, that's just how RPGs operate. Those Shinra grunts open up on Cloud with machine guns and he ends up taking only minor hit point damage. Damage from wounds isn't often about how deadly something is, as it is how much plot armor it removes.

[Krakatoa]

Damage from wounds isn't often about how deadly something is, as it is how much plot armor it removes.

This. There's a reason that Aeris can shrug off torrents of fire throughout Disc 1 and is later inexplicably killed by a pretty boy with a katana, and it has nothing to do with the logic of the game world.

[FatR]

Damage from wounds isn't often about how deadly something is, as it is how much plot armor it removes.

This. There's a reason that Aeris can shrug off torrents of fire throughout Disc 1 and is later inexplicably killed by a pretty boy with a katana, and it has nothing to do with the logic of the game world.

Not only this argument completely fucking sucks if the party actually cares about immersion (and if they don't why they aren't playing a MMORPG yet?), the example provided is also flat-out wrong. Because in FF world high-level DOES equate to more observable in-setting power. Such as cutting whole buildings with your katana and exchanging dozens of sword blows while dancing on falling debris before it hits the ground. So high-level people being able to one-shot lesser-level people, even if the latter already can survive ridiculous stuff is exactly how logic of the game world works.

[Krakatoa]

Damage from wounds isn't often about how deadly something is, as it is how much plot armor it removes.

This. There's a reason that Aeris can shrug off torrents of fire throughout Disc 1 and is later inexplicably killed by a pretty boy with a katana, and it has nothing to do with the logic of the game world.

Not only this argument completely fucking sucks if the party actually cares about immersion (and if they don't why they aren't playing a MMORPG yet?)

Dude, it's not just my argument, it's in the DMG. Hit poitns are not neccesarily a measure of how much tougher you've gotten (though there is an element of that) but how much plot armor you've accrued. It's a trope of fantasy as old as fantasy.

the example provided is also flat-out wrong. Because in FF world high-level DOES equate to more observable in-setting power. Such as cutting whole buildings with your katana and exchanging dozens of sword blows while dancing on falling debris before it hits the ground. So high-level people being able to one-shot lesser-level people, even if the latter already can survive ridiculous stuff is exactly how logic of the game world works.

I'm not saying you don't get better, I'm saying that leveling up isn't neccesarily some sort of sudden infusion of new power. How is that any more friggin immersive? They're both completely artificial concessions to the genre, and there's not a damn thing wrong with that. Stop acting like a friggin grognard.

[FatR]

Dude, it's not just my argument, it's in the DMG. Hit poitns are not neccesarily a measure of how much tougher you've gotten (though there is an element of that) but how much plot armor you've accrued. It's a trope of fantasy as old as fantasy.

Being in DMG does not make it any less fucking stupid in the game, where characters are supposed to be regularly impaled by poison stingers half their size, rended by trolls, raked by dire tigers, snatched and carried aloft by rocs, chewed on by castle-sized dragons, and shrug it all off.

Well, unless you remove all of these and similar effects from the game. Thus making her shallower and therefore worse.

That's besides the fact that the notion of HPs as plot armor should just die because it's one of the justifications for the attempts to insert Vanilla Action Heroes in DnD.

I'm not saying you don't get better, I'm saying that leveling up isn't neccesarily some sort of sudden infusion of new power.

It is. Necessarily.

How is that any more friggin immersive?

Gee, I wonder. How about the fact that the immersion is, by definition, broken every time you realize that changes on your charsheet has jack-shit to do with what happens in the world you're supposed to be immersed with?

[Krakatoa]

Being in DMG does not make it any less fucking stupid in the game, where characters are supposed to be regularly impaled by poison stingers half their size, rended by trolls, raked by dire tigers, snatched and carried aloft by rocs, chewed on by castle-sized dragons, and shrug it all off.

That's sort of the point, isn't it? It's fundamentally unrealistic for any of this to be happening, and 'HP as plot armor' mitigates this by saying 'the poison stinger didn't actually impale you, it grazed you enough to get poison in you without punching a massive hole through your shoulder.'

It is. Necessarily.

Touche'.

Gee, I wonder. How about the fact that the immersion is, by definition, broken every time you realize that changes on your charsheet has jack-shit to do with what happens in the world you're supposed to be immersed with?

But that's not what I'm arguing for. You can knock strawmen down all day, but that doesn't strengthen your position. The idea that a level-up is some sort of infusion of power from On High or Deep Within is no more or less immersive than the idea that you've become that much more signfiicant in the world and thus that much more worthy of notice for the Powers that run the world. It makes, if anything, more sense that Avandra gives Axeman McHammer a little more luck than it does that, through chopping off monsters heads with axes, he somehow becomes able to survive being impaled.

They're both artificial tropes designed to make the game more fun, and if it really upsets you that much, then you're taking the game too seriously.

[FatR]

That's sort of the point, isn't it? It's fundamentally unrealistic for any of this to be happening, and 'HP as plot armor' mitigates this by saying 'the poison stinger didn't actually impale you, it grazed you enough to get poison in you without punching a massive hole through your shoulder.'

You know what? This is exactly the sort of cretinism that should be erased from DnD with a Sphere of Annihilation. It is because of people like you, who don't realize that to do fundamentally unrealistic things, characters must have fundamentally unrealistic abilities Fighters Never Get Nice Things.

Also, you don't seem to realise that "plot armor" is a derogatory term. God obviously cheating in the favor of main characters is something that good authors tend to avoid/hide. In fact, absence of such obvious cheating is one of the main lines between good authors and bad ones (and while in some media you can conceal the plot armor by blinding the viewers with awesome explosions, role-playing is not one of them).
So the proposal to treat HPs on plot armor is stupid for this reason as well.

But that's not what I'm arguing for. You can knock strawmen down all
day, but that doesn't strengthen your position. The idea that a level-up is some sort of infusion of power from On High or Deep Within is no more or less immersive than the idea that you've become that much more signfiicant in the world and thus that much more worthy of notice for the Powers that run the world. It makes, if anything, more sense that Avandra gives Axeman McHammer a little more luck than it does that, through chopping off monsters heads with axes, he somehow becomes able to survive being impaled.

Did you actually read what you wrote? What you descride as level up is exactly an "infusion of power from On High". Except in an ass-backwards way that serves no purpose but to ensure that Fighters Will Not Get Nice Things.

They're both artificial tropes designed to make the game more fun, and if it really upsets you that much, then you're taking the game too seriously.

No. Only one of them is. Try to rub your braincells together and get the difference "people having superpowers" and "people having the author/God babysitting them".

[MGuy]

FaTR, why are you ranting about HP? Seriously HP being Damage Avoidance Points is probably one of the most acceptable ways to have HP. Your entire argument that actually does rail against HP and not some other random thing is that you feel that damage resistance/avoidance/mitigation doesn't feel right to you because it must come from the author/god instead of the character just being bad [ass] enough to dodge/reduce/mitigate damage more effectively every level.

But lets say I agree with your notion that HP shouldn't be this. What DO you think HP should represent that makes more sense?

[FatR]

Well, Krakatoa is one who is saying that HPs should not come from the characters' own powers, but from plot shielding. So I don't know why you are attributing this position to me.

Hit points should represent noticeable harm (as opposed to attacks that entirely failed to connect, or did not penetrate whatever defensive shell the character might have) that accumulates during the battle, without, however, actually impairing character's ability to fight, until enough of it piles up. Like in One Piece when characters indeed can be sliced, shot and stabbed, even repeatedly, and shrug it off, because they did enough pushups to gain some levels. Unless a character of significantly higher level dishes out the hurt, in which case people still drop in one hit.

And as most opponents in mid-high level DnD have pretty epic attacks, getting hurt by them, without also getting squashed, or demanding from players to suspend disbelief every time, automatically requires superhuman durability. In fact, fighting mid-high level DnD monsters requires it anyway to explain how characters can stab purple worms and T-Rexes hard enough to kill them in a few hits, without reducing their own bones to powder by exerted force, or, indeed, being squashed accidentally, so we should just come out and admit, that high-level characters are superhumans who can withstand superhuman amounts of damage.

[Shazbot79]

And as most opponents in mid-high level DnD have pretty epic attacks, getting hurt by them, without also getting squashed, or demanding from players to suspend disbelief every time, automatically requires superhuman durability. In fact, fighting mid-high level DnD monsters requires it anyway to explain how characters can stab purple worms and T-Rexes hard enough to kill them in a few hits, without reducing their own bones to powder by exerted force, or, indeed, being squashed accidentally, so we should just come out and admit, that high-level characters are superhumans who can withstand superhuman amounts of damage.

I fully endorse this viewpoint, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Swordslinger]

Acrobatics (Balance): Unstable surface is a Moderate DC
Narrow is Moderate, +5 if unstable
Very Narrow is Hard, +5 if unstable

Your 10th level character has a DC 18 to cross an Unstable surface. Your 25th level character has a DC 29. Nothing about the surface has changed.

Again you're assuming that the challenge level always equals the character level. That doesn't have to be the case, unless your DM is a moron.

[Krakatoa]

This isn't a difficult concept: challenges scale to meet the level of the players (it's in every Bioware game of the past two decades...)but you can still make any challenge significantly higher or lower than the player level for the sake of game progression, tension, immersion, or what have you. This is nothing even NEW, it's just that Wizards was smart enough to put it in the DMG this time around.

You can even explain it in the story that there are different degrees of unstable surfaces. I mean how the hell often do players return to dungeons they've already gone through? (And if for some reason they do? You can give the challenges there the same DC you gave them the first time. There, your precious immersion is preserved.)

[Username17]

This isn't a difficult concept: challenges scale to meet the level of the players (it's in every Bioware game of the past two decades...)but you can still make any challenge significantly higher or lower than the player level for the sake of game progression, tension, immersion, or what have you. This is nothing even NEW, it's just that Wizards was smart enough to put it in the DMG this time around.

Of course it's not a difficult concept. People aren't confused about how relative difficulty works, it's just retarded. Relative difficulty was bar none the worst thing about Oblivion. There's a mod to take it out because it sucks so much. There is an entire school of powergaming in that game based around not gaining levels, just to keep the challenges from scaling.

-Username17

[MGuy]

@FATR the reason why I attributed the "Let's not have HP" position to you is because in the back and forth between you and Kraka that's what it seemed like you were going for. If indeed you take the stance that you posted then I agree with you.

[MGuy]

This isn't a difficult concept: challenges scale to meet the level of the players (it's in every Bioware game of the past two decades...)but you can still make any challenge significantly higher or lower than the player level for the sake of game progression, tension, immersion, or what have you. This is nothing even NEW, it's just that Wizards was smart enough to put it in the DMG this time around.

Of course it's not a difficult concept. People aren't confused about how relative difficulty works, it's just retarded. Relative difficulty was bar none the worst thing about Oblivion. There's a mod to take it out because it sucks so much. There is an entire school of powergaming in that game based around not gaining levels, just to keep the challenges from scaling.

-Username17

+1

[Doom]

Oblivion is, in fact, MUCH MORE FUN if you set up your character so it doesn't level...had no idea it was a school, though.

[FatR]

Of course it's not a difficult concept. People aren't confused about how relative difficulty works, it's just retarded. Relative difficulty was bar none the worst thing about Oblivion. There's a mod to take it out because it sucks so much. There is an entire school of powergaming in that game based around not gaining levels, just to keep the challenges from scaling.

-Username17

Well, in limited amounts relative difficulty is widely accepted. People hate it when you are expected to explore/powergame/grind alot, but the relative difficulty punishes you for grinding in traditional, sensible ways, and forces you to go and see gamefaqs, unless you want to shaft your character completely by doing something that seems to reward you (that's why I dropped Oblivion and, by association, refused to even look at Fallout 3, by the way).
4E's relative difficulty is closer to Mass Effect 1 though. You do alot of fiddling and scrounging for minor bonuses, and then it doesn't improve your efficiency in the field noticeably (unless you find a right gamebreaker combo or obtain end-game uberequipment), because enemies scale to you. Which is still bad, but not quite as bad (at least it's way harder to actually gimp yourself by leveling up).

[RobbyPants]

The idea of relative DCs reminds me a lot of Rubber Band AI, except the rubber band is pretty stiff, so no matter how hard you try, the DC just keeps up with you. You don't even get that brief feeling of satisfaction of being ahead before the rubber band snaps back.

[Swordslinger]

Some relative difficulty is essential in RPGs. You don't want your DM rolling up some random encounter table and getting an elder red dragon and stomping a party of 1st level characters.

[Username17]

Some relative difficulty is essential in RPGs. You don't want your DM rolling up some random encounter table and getting an elder red dragon and stomping a party of 1st level characters.

That is horse shit. If you can walk into the elder red dragon's lair and never run into the elder red dragon because you're 1st level and the difficulty always scales to you, then your choices don't matter. Smaug's lair has to have a genuine chance of having Smaug in it or low level parties will not fear it.

Yeah, you shouldn't force the players to go to the elder dragon's lair if they aren't high enough level to take it on. But you damn sure shouldn't edit the dragon out of the universe and then have it suddenly spawn when the PCs are high enough level to deal.

-Username17