D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[Imaro]

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.

-

Maybe I'm reading The designer's statement wrong... But I'm seeing it as when you set the DC party level is the basis... Consistency says once a DC is set it should stay at that number... He doesn't speak to the use of encounter level, monster level or challenge level whatsoever... So maybe I'm not understanding your position here but that seems to support using party level to determine DC pretty strongly, do you disagree?

 

[Iosue]

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

I'm a BECMI and 4e player, so I'm certainly not one to say that monsters should function just like characters. But to say that a recurring monster can't ever get better and stronger, especially if we're talking the length of time for characters to go up 5 levels, well, that's a little too metagame even for me. So, no, monsters don't get XP. But their whole lives are an adventure, so it seems perfectly cromulent to me that they can gain HD and improve AC. After all, somehow that BECMI Goblin King went from 1-1 HD to 3 HD, and likewise his bodyguards from 1-1 HD to 2-12 HP (with 2 HD combat abilities).

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.

I think that's something entirely up to playstyle, and has nothing to do with mechanics, 4e or otherwise. All the monsters in 4e monster books have one level listed, and there's nothing stopping a DM from simply following those levels, and never changing them. Likewise, if I want to stock my BD&D dungeon with a slightly stronger wight, there's nothing stopping me from upping it's HD and bumping its AC. Both options are entirely within the scope and spirit of the rules.

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

Well, I thought we could have a civil discussion about this, but I guess not.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

1: As you have agreed static trumps non-static. Static DCs are in the DMG 1.
2: Level = encounter level, which for Adventure Path play is based on the level of the party. Underlined by the XP for skill challenge rules and the fact no one would set all encounters to exactly the level of the party.
3: The tentative tone that the party's level is a good place to start, and the indication that you can vary it.

 

[Iosue]

Maybe I'm reading The designer's statement wrong... But I'm seeing it as when you set the DC party level is the basis... Consistency says once a DC is set it should stay at that number... He doesn't speak to the use of encounter level, monster level or challenge level whatsoever... So maybe I'm not understanding your position here but that seems to support using party level to determine DC pretty strongly, do you disagree?

It's using party level as a shorthand to determine DC. The idea is not that the world needs to be constructed according to the players' level, but that creating thousands of consistent possible DCs ahead of time on the chance the players might need them, or designing adventures with no thought to level at all tends to be more trouble than some DMs want to go through. Particularly if they are improvising, one of the presumptions of p. 42. So the idea is you only come up with DCs if you need them. If players are high level, some things that needed a skill check in the past don't need one now. Or they're not high enough for some other thing, again, no check is needed. The tables come in for those points in-between.

 

[Imaro]

1: As you have agreed static trumps non-static. Static DCs are in the DMG 1.

Right, I've already agreed with you about this one, but it's kind of a non-starter since you aren't actually setting the DC's if they are static.

2: Level = encounter level, which for Adventure Path play is based on the level of the party. Underlined by the XP for skill challenge rules and the fact no one would set all encounters to exactly the level of the party.

Yet, EVERY example of a skill challenge in DMG 1 has level = Party level.

3: The tentative tone that the party's level is a good place to start, and the indication that you can vary it.

This is about the only one I'd consider... and even it kind of falls apart when there are no examples of setting DC's not derived from party level (outside of static DC's of course) in the book.

 

[Steely_Dan]

!) I'm a BECMI and 4e player, so I'm certainly not one to say that monsters should function just like characters. But to say that a recurring monster can't ever get better and stronger

2) especially if we're talking the length of time for characters to go up 5 levels, well, that's a little too metagame even for me.

3) Well, I thought we could have a civil discussion about this, but I guess not.

1) I'm not saying they can't develop, I once threw a 10th level Orc Fighter against a player in a Solo campaign back in 1988 (but surely, every orc isn't a 10th level Fighter, conveniently; and sorry, for calling you Shirley), but your average ogre is not 15th level just because you are.

2) Opposite to me: monsters just happen to always be appropriate to the precious characters, not for me, thanks.

3) Well, we are, sorry for injecting some levity into the discussion; come on, I like to have a laugh, I thought we both could with that, no offence.

 

[Iosue]

1) I'm not saying they can't develop, I once threw a 10th level Orc Fighter against a player in a Solo campaign back in 1988 (but surely, every orc isn't a 10th level Fighter, conveniently; and sorry, for calling you Shirley), but your average ogre is not 15th level just because you are.

No, they are not. Not in any edition of D&D, including 4e. Monsters have set levels that do not change to fit the characters. DMs can choose to customize them to fit, if they want to.

2) Opposite to me: monsters just happen to always be appropriate to the precious characters, not for me, thanks.

Again, that's playstyle, not game design. You can play that way just fine in 4e. The game doesn't say all encounters have to be PC level-appropriate. Quite the opposite, in fact.

3) Well, we are, sorry for injecting some levity into the discussion; come on, I like to have a laugh, I thought we both could with that, no offence.

I like to have a laugh, as well, but that seemed to be snarking on my argument. Laughing at me, not with me.

 

[D'karr]

Right, I've already agreed with you about this one, but it's kind of a non-starter since you aren't actually setting the DC's if they are static.



Yet, EVERY example of a skill challenge in DMG 1 has level = Party level.



This is about the only one I'd consider... and even it kind of falls apart when there are no examples of setting DC's not derived from party level (outside of static DC's of course) in the book.

Isn't this "adherence" to the printed rules, and only what is printed, exactly what the OP was talking about on this thread?

I know it's been many pages so I'll repost.

Something I've noticed for some time now, is a very, very strong sense that people are no longer willing to apply any sort of personal interpretation to the rules. That if something is written in the game in a certain way, that way must absolutely be followed, must never be deviated from and must never be given a moment's introspection on how to make it work

Is this what people took from 3e? I know that the 3e discussions frequently focused on RAW, but, even then, there was usually a sense of "Well, here's what the RAW says, but..." That sense seems to have entirely disappeared whenever someone criticizes the way an edition did something.

I'm looking at the various criticisms of 5e, and particularly any 5e elements that smack of 4e, and I see it over and over again. But, it's also very visible in 3e criticisms as well. Yes, something like CR was wonky in 3e, but, it wasn't impossible to use. It took some work, but it certainly was possible to make it work. In fact, I spent some time collecting http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/200150-factors-affecting-cr-el.html . So, it's not like it can't be done.

But, why are people so steadfastly insisting that one and only one interpretation must be the only interpretation and rejecting any other interpretation that could work? Is it simply stealth edition warring? X comes from Edition Y and thus must never be seen again?

What happened to creativity and flexibility? What happened to looking at something and pointing out flaws AND offering constructive criticism?

I have to admit, I'm rather baffled.

Have we actually come to the point, as a "collective" of gamers, where a DM and players can't actually read the "rules" and figure out how they "best" work for him and his group? That the only "correct" interpretation is what the "book" says?

And even further, when the designers chime in with the intent of the "rules" there is still argument to the fact that "that's not what it says".

It's actually kind of sad.




-

 

[Manbearcat]

Maybe I'm reading The designer's statement wrong... But I'm seeing it as when you set the DC party level is the basis... Consistency says once a DC is set it should stay at that number... He doesn't speak to the use of encounter level, monster level or challenge level whatsoever... So maybe I'm not understanding your position here but that seems to support using party level to determine DC pretty strongly, do you disagree?

Rodney is stating:

1 - When the fiction is meant to challenge the PCs, then the fiction should be of requisite level in order to perform as a challenge to the PCs/party; eg. city of Brass doors/locks for epic level characters or Nobleman's doors/locks for heroic level characters.
2 - If number 1 is true then the DCs for challenging fiction will then naturally scale with party level.

This does not state that normal nobelman's doors are going to scale with PC through Epic tier. Just that when you comopose "challenging fiction" it should have "challenging DCs" that "scale with PCs" (logically). It (just as everything with 4e) is outcome-base simulation and top-down game engineering.

The engineering works like this:

- The interest is to create fiction for epic level characters (City of Brass complex lock)
- Consult table for challenging DCs for those epic level characters equals what.
- Marry the two by way of coherent, relevant fiction that "threatens" the PCs.

It is not saying that Bob the Nobleman's standard lock on his wood door goes from DC 12 to DC 40 as the PCs evolve in level. It says that PCs should waltz through Bob the Nobleman's home at epic tier because their check is + 35 and his lock is not DC 40 (its still DC 12)...but Bob is no longer a threat so the DC system is premised upon someone creating "of-level" challenges to the PCs. It is telling the DM's that if you want to "threaten" the PCs, here are your scaling DC's to do so. Pick the proper fiction to map it to. If you want to have Bob the Nobleman "threaten" the PCs...ok. But expect them to waltz in and take his stuff at their leisure as his wood door with standard lock is still DC 12. If Bob has taken up with an Efreeti overlord in the City of Brass...ok, now you have an "of-level" challenge; Here are your DCs.

 

[Imaro]

It's using party level as a shorthand to determine DC. The idea is not that the world needs to be constructed according to the players' level, but that creating thousands of consistent possible DCs ahead of time on the chance the players might need them, or designing adventures with no thought to level at all tends to be more trouble than some DMs want to go through. Particularly if they are improvising, one of the presumptions of p. 42. So the idea is you only come up with DCs if you need them. If players are high level, some things that needed a skill check in the past don't need one now. Or they're not high enough for some other thing, again, no check is needed. The tables come in for those points in-between.

My point is moreso that the rules in 4e are that when improvising the DC for a challenge, one uses the party level (at least when refering to the DMG 1) as the basis. Now I get that once a DC has been set (whether by you improvising or by the cases listed in the DMG) it doesn't change... but that's after it's been set. The rules in DMG 1 pre-suppose one will encounter challenges appropriate to party level and thus those rules use class level as their basis and are, IMO, flawed. I actually feel that D'karr's fix is exactly what should have been used as the basis from the beginning... encounter level. It makes much more sense and doesn't lead to weird or inconsistent situations where the party runs into something that's not an appropriate challenge.

My secondary point was that instead of admitting these rules were flawed, 4e fans instead blamed those who used them, just as the book instructed them too when, again IMO, the rules themselves were flawed and should have had encounter level as the basis all along.