D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[Steely_Dan]

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.

Mine don't, an efreeti is an efreeti; and I find it less interesting when the ogre you fought at level 5 is suddenly tougher when you bump into it 5 levels later, just to conveniently keep up with the party, thank god they are remedying this in 5th Ed.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Well there are slight differences in the designing of a trap... one of those differences, as stated in DMG 2, is that the range of DC's for skill checks for traps can go beyond the DC's indicated by level in the page 42 chart... I think by as much as 5 over, I'll have to check when I get back to my books. I'm also curious how page 42 provides guidelines for the effects of non-damaging traps?

 

[Imaro]

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.





-

Keep twisting that logic. Wouldn't it be easier to admit that originally, as presented in DMG 1, the DC/level table was in fact presented as creating challenges based on party level. Sometimes the simplest answer is the right answer.

EDIT: The point isn't to argue that the rules are inviolate, but I remember when this issue first came up and many 4e fans seemed to imply that people were purposefully misconstruing or ignorant of the rules and how page 42 was intended to be based on monster level, or encounter level, or level of challenge (whatever this means), which is what I still see being presented by some posters in this thread. IMO, those people were correct and it was the 4e fans who had adapted the table and it's intended use to their own methods. Nothing wrong with that but then don't push blame onto those who used it exactly as it was presented/intended to be used and didn't like the rules...

 

[Neonchameleon]

EDIT: The point isn't to argue that the rules are inviolate, but I remember when this issue first came up and many 4e fans seemed to imply that people were purposefully misconstruing or ignorant of the rules and how page 42 was intended to be based on monster level, or encounter level, or level of challenge (whatever this means), which is what I still see being presented by some posters in this thread.

And I still believe this to be what was intended. That you picked challenge level in the same way you do encounter level - and as 4e runs on an adventure path style system this is likely to be around the level of the party.

Of course I started DMing 4e after the DMG 2 came out. So I'd seen the book that presented skill challenges as I believe they were meant to be presented. The presentation in the DMG 1 didn't say what they intended it to IMO - and as a quote confirms.

 

[Imaro]

And I still believe this to be what was intended. That you picked challenge level in the same way you do encounter level - and as 4e runs on an adventure path style system this is likely to be around the level of the party.

Of course I started DMing 4e after the DMG 2 came out. So I'd seen the book that presented skill challenges as I believe they were meant to be presented. The presentation in the DMG 1 didn't say what they intended it to IMO - and as a quote confirms.

But I'm not speaking to how it was presented after DMG 2, and in fact on this I think we're probably in agreement. That said I think it's a little disingenuous to expect people who didn't like 4e to have bought DMG 2 for clarification/revision/whatever.

I am speaking to DMG 1... where almost every skill challenge is presented with a generic... level = party level... or the example of the rogue on the same page as the chart is based on the rogue's level. Using just DMG 1, tell me what indication, example, etc. was there that something besides party level was supposed to be used on the chart? I've given multiple examples of party level being used which is exactly how many people claimed the table was supposed to be used and then were told they were doing it wrong when they found the rules and their applications unsatisfying.

 

[D'karr]

Keep twisting that logic.

I didn't know that using the encounter design "rules" as described was twisting logic. Seemed perfectly logical that an encounter has components. Encounters can be of any level; the same, above or even below PC Level. The components that make up an encounter can be of any level to "use up" an expected XP budget. Therefore a trap can also be used at any level, which was another of your objections.

I think that I've explained, with quite a bit of clarity, how I don't find myself slavishly tied to the rules. IME this provides a better experience when running/playing an RPG. I've explained how pushing the "rules" towards absurdity, gives absurd results, which shouldn't be a surprise. I've also explained how I've used the rules, which it seems was the way WotC intended them. I also expressed that the "rules" could have been better explained, to which you also objected.

At this time it seems the conversation has turned to a "yes you can, no you can't" argument, and I'm really not interested in continuing it along that path. So you do your thing, and I'll do mine. Mine seems to work quite well for my group as I never had the problems you describe.



-

 

[Iosue]

Mine don't, an efreeti is an efreeti; and I find it less interesting when the ogre you fought at level 5 is suddenly tougher when you bump into it 5 levels later, just to conveniently keep up with the party, thank god they are remedying this in 5th Ed.

Well, from the perspective of the ogre, that party you fought at level 5 is suddenly tougher when you bump into them 5 levels later.

And if its not the same ogre, then I don't see the issue.

Incidentally, BECMI has Lesser Efreeti in Expert (AC 3, 10 HD, one 2-16 dmg attack), Lesser Efreeti of the Elemental Plane in Companion (AC 1, added special abilities), as well as Greater Efreeti (AC -2, HD 20, two attacks of 3-30 dmg). It's almost as if Mentzer and Gygax wanted to provide stronger versions of the monsters that were a level appropriate match for the party...

 

[Imaro]

I didn't know that using the encounter design "rules" as described was twisting logic. Seemed perfectly logical that an encounter has components. Encounters can be of any level; the same, above or even below PC Level. The components that make up an encounter can be of any level to "use up" an expected XP budget. Therefore a trap can also be used at any level, which was another of your objections.

I think that I've explained, with quite a bit of clarity, how I don't find myself slavishly tied to the rules. IME this provides a better experience when running/playing an RPG. I've explained how pushing the "rules" towards absurdity, gives absurd results, which shouldn't be a surprise. I've also explained how I've used the rules, which it seems was the way WotC intended them. I also expressed that the "rules" could have been better explained, to which you also objected.

At this time it seems the conversation has turned to a "yes you can, no you can't" argument, and I'm really not interested in continuing it along that path. So you do your thing, and I'll do mine. Mine seems to work quite well for my group as I never had the problems you describe.



-

Dude, we're not talking about your specific game table or even how you choose to do things, I think that's where the problem lies... you can change anything you want in an rpg... but that in no way reflects upon the rules and how they were intended to be used by those designing the game, which is what I am discussing.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Well, from the perspective of the ogre, that party you fought at level 5 is suddenly tougher when you bump into them 5 levels later.

And if its not the same ogre, then I don't see the issue.

I disagree, monsters are not characters (yes, I know you can play a Treant Monk), they do not generally adventure and gain XP.

Let's say a wight is a HD/level 4 monster, it shouldn't conveniently be a higher HD/level to challenge the party, a wight should always be a problem.

Speaking of perspective, have they made that remake of The Titatnic yet, but this time from the Iceberg's perspective?

 

[D'karr]

Dude, we're not talking about your specific game table or even how you choose to do things, I think that's where the problem lies... you can change anything you want in an rpg... but that in no way reflects upon the rules and how they were intended to be used by those designing the game, which is what I am discussing.

If you were actually discussing the design of the game you probably would not have objected when I said that the "rules" could have been explained better.

Obviously some, including myself, didn't have a problem with determining an appropriate use for those specific "rules". Obviously the intent of the rules was for them to be used as I've already explained them since that is how Rodney Thompson (one of the designers) explained them.

So at this point all you're arguing is that the rules were not as we "interpreted" them, even though one of the designers already said that they were. Which leads back to what I started with - that the "rules" could have been explained better.




-