You are right, my comment isn't specific to what you were saying, SocraticCoaster.
I should have quoted this section only from your earlier comment:
Quote:
[...] but that's also because the climb itself is more treacherous in the 20th level game.
|
My point is in reference to something I read today in the DMG (cannot find it to properly reference the page number) suggesting that encounters be built to the level of the PCs, the memory of which was triggered by this phrase of yours.
In reference to that misplaced DMG comment, while it is very true that chasms that require a DC 30 to cross successfully will be very frustrating for a level 5 party, to suggest that such a chasm should not appear in a level 5 adventure doesn't allow for the type of adventure- and world- design that stems more from versimilitude than from perfectly balanced design.
Sometimes the party runs into a Level 20 encounter because there is a Level 20 monster/ruin/treasure sitting in the middle of the Forbidden Forest. If characters ventured there despite all warnings and foreshadowings that it might be beyond their ability, so be it. As a DM, I'll give them opportunity to escape and lick their wounds and come back when they are more able to survive it, but a world that only possesses Level 20 challenges when the players are ready for them is too much like a computer game that scales solely as characters do, and a living world just isn't that linear.
That's my point, and I'm not knocking the world- or adventure- design that does emphasize scaling at the same pace as the characters, merely acknowledging that not every DM adheres to that design philosophy.
With regards to the post of yours that I quoted, I think you have the idea of Amnistar's firmly in hand. A cliff is a cliff. You determine the DC to climb the cliff, based on the difficulty of the cliff irregardless of who wants to climb it. Per DMG p. 61, a DC 30 cliff is Hard for a Level 11 character, Moderate for a Level 19 character, and Easy for a Level 28 character.
I think the difficulty for us as DMs is in describing what distinguishes a DC 24 cliff from a DC 34 cliff. What is it about the cliff that would challenge a Level 28 character in ascending the latter, but not in ascending the former? if you are simply designing an obstacle for your players, cross-reference their level with whether you want the obstacle to be Easy, Hard, or Medium, and arrive at the DC you should assign. If you are more concerned with describing the cliff, assign it a DC first and then present it to your players, who will need to figure out how to deal with it.
The piece that Amnistar described that changed my perception is this:
Swinging on a chandelier may be a Hard challenge for a 1st-level character, but it wouldn't be for a 20th-level character. So one way of addressing the table on DMG p. 42 is to look at the DC values for a 1st-3rd level character and decide that swinging on a chandelier, generically, is DC 18 (subject, naturally, to situational modifiers). That becomes a Moderate challenge for 7th-9th level characters, and an Easy challenge for 13th-15th level characters.
Versus the interpretation The Firkraag heard elsewhere that swinging on a chandelier, generically, was supposed to scale in DC as character level scaled, which is a tough interpretation to accomodate.