D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[D'karr]

Uhmm... Wouldnt a level 5 trap have a set DC, especially since there weren't any trap creation rules in DMG 1... So it would be pre-made. We've already stated static DC's supersede the chart so I'm not understanding your point here.

If you've selectively limited yourself to create and use only what the DMG shows you how to create or use, I can understand the problem. Creating an ad-hoc trap can also be done with the chart of pg. 42. So no, it does not have to be pre-made. Nice try though.

That's fine, I really have nothing more to add than what I've already explained. I think the example posted was rather clear. If you ONLY use the rules in the most absurd way you will get absurd results... Who knew?





-

 

[GreyICE]

Pretty sure page 42 was the trap creation rules. Lessee, spear trap, 1-shot, heavy damage, level 5, pick a disarm DC (either moderate or hard), done.

You can get more complex, but you can build a trap in roughly 10 seconds by doing this (poison dart trap, repeating moderate damage, area, subtract the static damage, replace with 66% ongoing poison damage, disarm difficulty hard, done)

 

[Imaro]

Pretty sure page 42 was the trap creation rules. Lessee, spear trap, 1-shot, heavy damage, level 5, pick a disarm DC (either moderate or hard), done.

You can get more complex, but you can build a trap in roughly 10 seconds by doing this (poison dart trap, repeating moderate damage, area, subtract the static damage, replace with 66% ongoing poison damage, disarm difficulty hard, done)

Actually the official rules, which is what I was talking about, weren't until DMG 2... Pg. 64. But yeah I guess you can just make anything up in any roleplaying game...

 

[Imaro]

If you've selectively limited yourself to create and use only what the DMG shows you how to create or use, I can understand the problem. Creating an ad-hoc trap can also be done with the chart of pg. 42. So no, it does not have to be pre-made. Nice try though.

That's fine, I really have nothing more to add than what I've already explained. I think the example posted was rather clear. If you ONLY use the rules in the most absurd way you will get absurd results... Who knew?





-

Well then I guess we're not talking about the actual rules because you can make anything up in any roleplaying game. The funny thing is even the official trap rules in the DMG 2 state the assumption is that traps should be based on party level or encounter level... So even in DMG 2 we see the rules push in the direction of party level being the default base for DC's... Regardless of how you personally chose to use them.

 

[GreyICE]

Actually the official rules, which is what I was talking about, weren't until DMG 2... Pg. 64. But yeah I guess you can just make anything up in any roleplaying game...

When the roleplaying game is nice enough to publish standard difficulties and damage expressions? Yeah, yeah you can.

It's like, teaching a man how to fish versus giving him some fish. Page 42 teaches you how to fish, a pile of cooked fish is cool, but it still doesn't get you more fish when it runs out.

 

[billd91]

If I have 2 characters of different level in the same party should the hazard change DC because of their level? See the absurdity in that logic?

You're starting to sound like a critic of 4e and the table on DMG page 42. After all, they way it is presented (whether or not that was what they meant), it's based on the level of the character (or party or whatever) involved. The example included is about an 8th level character swinging from a chandelier. The DC is set based on an easy difficulty for an 8th level character. So... a 1st level character would, presumably, have a lower DC (though not necessarily an easier time of it).

Now the description of how to use that table may have been lacking the fairly critical perspective Rodney Thompson provided about a year later. But I hope you understand that for those of us who weren't enamored of many of 4e's other mechanics, waiting a year for some kind of WotCean exegesis of their texts to find out what they meant wasn't really acceptable.

 

[D'karr]

Well then I guess we're not talking about the actual rules because you can make anything up in any roleplaying game.

Interestingly enough the encounter creation rules do appear in the DMG 1. An encounter is composed of elements (monsters, hazards, traps, etc.) that "fill" up to a desired XP Budget. Encounters can be designed at any level the DM desires to achieve the wanted result, from Level - X to Level + Y. If an encounter can be of any desired level, and a trap can be an element of an encounter, or even the only element of an encounter. Then a trap can be used at any level. The idea that a trap MUST always be the same level as the PCs is preposterous as demonstrated above, and would be, in effect, contrary to the encounter design guidelines. I guess those guidelines could be considered "actual rules" also.

If the idea is to argue that the "rules" must remain inviolate, then have fun, and count me out. To remain so focused on "the actual rules" as to miss out on the actual "fun" in the game, is not my cup of tea - I'll pass. It is not a way I want to play, or run games.





-

 

[pemerton]

I think if they had said it in a different way. Something like...

The DC's tend to rise as PC's level and take on additional challenges. This increase in DC though reflects the greater challenges they face. In no way should the exact same challenge at 7th level have a different DC at 13th level.

<snip>

the above I think would have represented their philosophy better. RAW I believe does not bring this out and in fact says differently in my opinion.

I've always understood this to be the default intention, and I don't see how RAW says anything different (look at the Door and Wall charts, for example). It's not always the approach I use, though.

Regarding DCs and PC Level or challenge level and how it is supposed to work, I don't know if the following helps.

That clarifies that the intention was what I took it to be, which is what Emerikol posted as a suggested amendment to the rules.

This approach is also found in HeroQuest revised, Maelstrom Storytelling, and The Dying Earth RPG: set DCs to reflect PC capabilities, and then narrate the fictional difficulty of the challenge accordingly.

In some cases, I set level-appropriate DCs even though the fictional circumstances are the same, namely, when the check has more of a metagame than an ingame character, and it supports the dynamics of play better for it always to be comparable in difficulty - for example, the Arcana check required to do something extra or non-standard with a particular spell (say, using a possession spell to read its target's mind, or using Icy Terrain to freeze a pond solid) is something that I'm going to set the same regardless of level.

To me skill challenge level has been level in the same sense that total effective encounter level is level. A first level group of PCs can face a fifth level combat encounter, and they can also face a fifth level skill challenge.

There is additional weirdness here, as there can be with combat encounters. For example, the XP for a Comp 3 challenge of level N +3 are very close to those for a Comp 5 challenge of level N (for some values of N they are identical). But the way the skill challenge mechanics work, the more complex lower level challenge is almost always going to be significantly easier - because even very modest increases in DC have a major effect on the probability of success for a skill challenge.

 

[Steely_Dan]

The funny thing is even the official trap rules in the DMG 2 state the assumption is that traps should be based on party level or encounter level...

Which i don't really dig, why would a trap conveniently level up with the party.

The rolling boulder is what it is in Indy.

 

[GreyICE]

For the same reason that monsters tend to "level up" with the party or that treasure tends to "level up" with the party. It's more interesting. I mean yeah, you could make an entire dungeon full of 1-3rd level monsters and traps and send level 8 PCs through it, but... yeah, that's not compelling or interesting.

In the case of traps though, it's even more important that they follow party level, because a large part of the difficulty comes from detection chances. High level traps are going to be nigh-undetectable without huge boosts to perception, while low level traps are going to be detected almost automatically.