D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[GreyICE]

That's fine - I can up the fictional stakes while holding action resolution constant.

But I got pretty much the opposite impression from [MENTION=6684526]GreyICE[/MENTION], namely, that I will have to rethink how D&D works. Maybe I misinterpreted?

Well there's several issues on epic gaming that happen. First, is the roleplaying aspect. Death has become a joke, and minor problems have become downright trivial. I'm just going to use articles here, because people other than me have explored this nicely:
Article: The Ten Commandments of Epic Eternity Publishing

The second problem is the scaling math. Basically, by epic tier, most things you know about EL encounters have to be thrown out. Take an EL+4 solo and chuck it at your level 21 characters. Chances are even if it's MM3/MV solo, it's getting locked down and shredded in short order. There's just too much epic tier characters can do to a single monster that unless you just tweak the math to make it virtually impossible to hit, it's going down. As a small example, an Epic Psion can:

- Inflict -9 to defenses, every round
- Inflict -11 to hit, every round

They can also exploit paragon level tricks to send things 30-40 feet into the air, trivially.

That not worrying you?

Fighters can daze a target using at-will attacks.

That's the level of action denial that simply cannot be matched at lower tiers. And you can't handle it with any amount of "+5 to saving throws" "Saving throws at the start of the turn" or "la de da 2 turns of actions." Two turns of actions doesn't MATTER if those actions are taken at a -11 penalty to hit.

Solos take a short hop out the window. They're useless. Maybe if you throw 2-3 Solos at them you have a shot of an interesting encounter.

And that turns grindy. In short, at epic tier, the level of action denial and raw damage is such that encounter design doesn't work like it used to. Have three brutes in front of the squishy stuff? Cool, that's tough in Heroic. Not terrible in paragon. In Epic? Expect a striker to nova one for 300+ damage, the leader to allow him to add another 50-100 onto that or more (check out the char-op boards for some truly sick things leaders can do in Epic, including allow their entire party to move 8 squares and attack before the first round of combat begins). Expect the controller to simply lock one down forever. Watch the third one try and hit something and get teleported 10 squares away, knocked prone, and generally kicked out of combat.


This is partially a planning issue. WotC intended epic-tier combat to last 8-10 rounds. When they discovered no one LIKED 8-10 round combats when each round had multiple standard, move, and minor actions (hello 2 hour combats) they introduced a bunch of math fixes and other things to bump up characters chance to hit in Epic. This resulted in epic level characters that actually felt EPIC (not country bumpkins who couldn't hit a damn thing). It also resulted in conditionals and penalties that just went godtier. Damage also went god tier. In general, the following is true:

- Solos are not actually a threat. The eternity publishing site has rules for supersolos (which are basically phased fights, where each fight is a difficult solo encounter in its own right). These aren't necessarily sufficient. More tricks, such as limited invulnerability the PCs have to shut down mid fight, minion spawners, free healing, and more are necessary.

- Large packs of mobs are not actually a threat unless they have plentiful tricks. In general, tricks are more necessary at epic level. Nothing is going to get there by just doing damage and having defenses unless those defenses are so good that attacking them is pointless and the damage is so high that it's one-shotting people.

I don't have much experience, beyond one campaign that fell apart (don't use prepublished adventures, kids), but there's been a lot I've read on it, mostly because of how bad that was:

Eternity Publishing
Why I’m Starting to Love Epic 4e D&D : Critical Hits


Baaasically you have to become a part time designer because none of WotC's epic level stuff actually works as they think it was supposed to work.

 

[Emerikol]

But yes, I do agree its about compromise. Pretty much the entire endeavor is about compromise to one degree or another.

Well some things are but others are not. I do think the number of pages devoted to this subject or that can be a compromise. I think my suggestion to have a terse very clear stat block and a flavorful description is not so much a compromise as it is pleasing both sides. I think they need in some cases to please both sides and not settle for a lukewarm middle of the road approach.

There are some things which if widespread in the rules I'll probably just pass on the game. If they are rare then I'll houserule them worse case assuming no modular option is offered. Others though who are a bit averse to houseruling might actually abandon the game even in those situations. The designers I think need to realize which approach is best, compromise vs modularity.

They also need to strongly emphasize that rules are not set in stone. That DMs and their groups are very free to change anything. They need to give lots of examples of doing this in the DMG. They need to have enough modules to make the whole concept seem standard. This really was the beauty of the earlier editions. But I think 5e needs to do it even better.

 

[Remathilis]

Something to that. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call 4e itself 'offensive', but the promotion of it was certainly off-putting.

At times, it almost came across as, "The game you've been playing all this time - and which we've been selling to you - is now suddenly bad! How can you possibly go on with it, when we now have something so superior to sell you?"

They have changed their tone immensely for 5e, and the change is welcome. But I think they themselves helped stoke the fires of the edition wars, and those fires are still blazing.

I was there at the same time, and I still don't recall the tone being as confrontational as other people do.

Maybe because I recall the debates on the boards during those days, and there was a lot of complaints that seemed pretty common:

• Paladins and other classes are unnecessarily restricted by alignment (fixed: Paladins can be any alignment),
• wizards/clerics are too powerful (fixed: limited options, more bound due to roles),
• fighters too boring weak (fixed: fighter get powers like wizards/clerics do),
• saves/attacks/skill bonuses all raise too wildly different (fixed: everyone uses the exact same progression),
• Prestige classes and multi-classing abuse (fixed: original MC was feat-driven, prestige classes built in automatically as paragon paths).
• magic item Christmas trees (partial fix: the six items reduced to three, the rest limited use),
• linear fighters/quadratic wizards (fixed: everyone uses the same power advancement),
• Buff suites/tracking bonuses (fixed: everything either permanent of lasts a round),
• monsters too hard to create/modify (fixed: monster math simpler),
• ability damage (fixed: as was level drain),
• shut-down monsters with DR/SR or crit/SA immunity (fixed: every monster is attackable by most classes),
• combats too quick/one sided and hard to run with multiple foes (fixed: combat a LOT slower, more tactical, and lasts longer even with five on five combats)
• alignment too mechanically tied and confusing (fixed: alignment collapsed into five, no mechanical influence).

They didn't tell us these problems existed, WE TOLD THEM. We can be right to say their answers weren't good or what we wanted, but we have no right to complain about WotC telling us 3e was broken when we spent hours talking about how broken it was.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Glad you liked the articles [MENTION=6684526]GreyICE[/MENTION].

I have already solved all these 4E Epic Problems (with very simple solutions).

Problem #1 : These Epic PCs are too powerful for same level monsters...

There is a mathematical imbalance in 4E that gives players approx. 18.3% of a level more power per level than same level monsters.

Therefore every 6 levels a PC has, they are effectively 1 level higher than you think.

Level 6 PC is balanced for Level 7 standard monster
Level 12 PC ~ Level 14
Level 18 PC ~ Level 21
Level 24 PC ~ Level 28 standard monster or Level 24 Elite monster
Level 30 PC ~ Level 35

Therefore at the epic tier, PCs are between 3-5 levels more powerful than you think they are.

However, you cannot just use vastly higher level monsters to compensate for this because the math will get a bit annoying on to attack rolls (especially versus soldiers).

So you want higher level encounters BUT don't use monsters more than about 3 levels higher unless you can avoid it.

One elegant way of doing this is to slide ranks up one:

Use standard Monsters instead of Minions
Use Elites instead of standard monsters
Use Solo's instead of Elites
Use Super-solo's instead of Solo's.

Problem #2 : What are Super-Solo Monsters?

KRONOS Level 30 Super-Solo Brute


Problem #3 : Action Denial

It took me a few tries to solve this (and I may not have fixed the above Kronos stat-block with my latest solution), but I think I have cracked it:

Elite Resilience: At the start of its turn. the [Elite Monster] can spend a Standard Action to remove a single negative condition or ongoing effect (even if it doesn't allow a save).

Solo Resilience: At the start of its turn. the [Solo Monster] can spend a Minor Action to remove a single negative condition or ongoing effect (even if it doesn't allow a save). Or it can spend a Standard Action to remove ALL negative conditions and effects.

Super-Solo Resilience: At the start of its turn. the [Solo Monster] can spend a Free Action to remove a single negative condition or ongoing effect (even if it doesn't allow a save). Or it can spend a Minor Action to remove ALL negative conditions and effects.

 

[JamesonCourage]

They didn't tell us these problems existed, WE TOLD THEM. We can be right to say their answers weren't good or what we wanted, but we have no right to complain about WotC telling us 3e was broken when we spent hours talking about how broken it was.

If I say "my hand hurts" and then the doctor cuts it off, I'm going to be mad that not only did he make my problem worse, he's telling me "but now your hand doesn't hurt."

People have every right to complain about WotC telling them their game was broken when they complained about mild aches and lost a limb for it. To some people, the game was "broken" to the point that it was unplayable. I didn't have that experience, but I can see where they're coming from. To others, though, the game had problems, but was very playable.

It's like what's going on now with 5e. A lot of people who love 4e understandably initially hoped 5e would be a cleaned up 4e that fixed the problems they had. They had a few aches. Now, they're afraid to they're going to lose a limb. And I understand why they feel that way, even if I don't share the same sentiment myself.

Again, though, WotC "fixed" problems that either helped groups (many people love 4e, and I get why they do), or it hurt them (many people reject 4e, and I understand why they do). I'd agree with you if everyone complained that "3e is broken and nobody can play it." But, that wasn't the case. To one group, you cut their arm off to stop the ache in their hand; to another, you gave them a kickass cybernetic arm that can beat up robots.

For that first group, though, I think they have the right to complain, especially during feedback on 5e, where people are bringing up past edition "mistakes" and "fixes". I think they certainly do have that right. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

The problem is JC, even today, we're still seeing lots of people who deny these problems exist at all. There are people who swear up and down that there are no balance issues in 3e or that 15 MAD is a figment of people's imagination. And, these same people are the ones who are generally the ones who are up in arms the most about WOTC's marketing.

 

[timASW]

IMO, 4e simply gave me more appropriate mechanics (more tools) to both "punish" (tax the PCs) and "reward" (appropriate XP) exploratory play. This is in addition to the mechanics that I already had in previous editions.
-

Here's the disconnect you guys dont seem to get.

You dont need "tools" to do exploration. you shouldnt be "punishing" or "rewarding" it. Everything you described feels like a bunch of unnecessary gunk.

Heres an example of how I do exploration and how I feel it should be done in a system ( of course right? Otherwise i would do it a different way)


The characters are attempting to find their way down off the top of an active, but not erupting volcano.....


"Okay guys you can go back down the way you came up and go around the mountain at its base. You wont get lost and it wasnt a hard climb but it will take a lot longer.

Or you can head down the other side of the mountain. Your not sure what you'll find but its probably going to be a lot faster. "

(some back and forth among the players ending with them deciding the party ranger should lead them the shorter way)


Okay ranger you lead the way, whats your survival skill ? ( 12 with mods ).

"Okay you lead them around some snow banks and cravasses, lesser guides might have had a problem but you've got everything handled".

2nd day of travel...

Me "you see some fresh tracks of other travelers on the foot path. Make a survival check.... Okay they're such and such. "

The cleric steps forward:
"I'll go talk to them, my diplomacy is high". ( i check how high, not bad for his level)

brief RP encounter. One roll, stories (foreshadowing) and some goods traded everyone goes on their way.

"okay ranger you get everyone down the mountain and back on the road. You cut a few days easily off of the trip"

Calculate XP for RANGER ONLY for CR 1 skill encounter (some danger, no real risk).

Calculate XP for CLERIC ONLY. CR 2 skill encounter (no real danger, fair chance of failure)

DONE. No one else did anything. The rest of the party should not earn XP for following a guide through the mountains.


Wilderness exploration over, some wild-y things done, some RP in, some skills used. Extended skill challenge? Hell no.

Do i need a bunch of tools? No i dont.

No punishment, no need to track resources or surges or anything of the sort, because theres no good reason to clutter up the game that way anymore then theres a good reason to make the characters count out how many calories worth of rations they eat each day and carry.

Rewards? A few skill based XP but nothing major. The reward was speeding the story along and getting a little foreshadow of dangers to come because of the RP encounter.

 

[Remathilis]

If I say "my hand hurts" and then the doctor cuts it off, I'm going to be mad that not only did he make my problem worse, he's telling me "but now your hand doesn't hurt."

People have every right to complain about WotC telling them their game was broken when they complained about mild aches and lost a limb for it. To some people, the game was "broken" to the point that it was unplayable. I didn't have that experience, but I can see where they're coming from. To others, though, the game had problems, but was very playable.

It's like what's going on now with 5e. A lot of people who love 4e understandably initially hoped 5e would be a cleaned up 4e that fixed the problems they had. They had a few aches. Now, they're afraid to they're going to lose a limb. And I understand why they feel that way, even if I don't share the same sentiment myself.

Again, though, WotC "fixed" problems that either helped groups (many people love 4e, and I get why they do), or it hurt them (many people reject 4e, and I understand why they do). I'd agree with you if everyone complained that "3e is broken and nobody can play it." But, that wasn't the case. To one group, you cut their arm off to stop the ache in their hand; to another, you gave them a kickass cybernetic arm that can beat up robots.

For that first group, though, I think they have the right to complain, especially during feedback on 5e, where people are bringing up past edition "mistakes" and "fixes". I think they certainly do have that right. As always, play what you like

Again, I think its completely reasonable to discuss (and disect) WotC's "fixes" but to say they "fixed what ain't broke" is slightly disingenuous. They took the feedback and tried to address it. Its why I worry about things like the generic classes debate; I fear WotC might be listening.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here's the disconnect you guys dont seem to get.

You dont need "tools" to do exploration. you shouldnt be "punishing" or "rewarding" it. Everything you described feels like a bunch of unnecessary gunk.

Its pretty bold of you to assume that there is a disconnect. Its further bold for you to assume that we don't get it. Its further bold still to tell us that we don't need "tools" to capture the emergent exploration fiction/scenes that we, and our tables, are looking to capture. Its bold yet again to tell us that we don't need punitive measures or incentives/stakes in order to capture the mood and scenes that we're looking for. Bolder still to tell us you "feel" that our table dynamics and fictional renderings (by way of mechanical resolution and creativity) yield a bunch of unnecessary gunk. It sounds like you're just looking to pick a fight.

But against my better judgement I'll indulge you anyway as politely as I can.

If you look upthread what you are depicting is very much akin to S'mon's "you are here...what do you do" exploratory play. That is the standard benchmark for typical sandbox, simulatory, task resolution of locale exploration. Its loose, its fast, and its mostly mechanic-neutral roleplaying and a few task resolution skill rolls. This is the predominant mode of operation for non-scene framed exploratory play. Free-form, "getting to know you...getting to know all...about you" exploration of the immediate surroundings (and perhaps bringing to bear some background or a deployable resource or two). For anyone who has played role-playing games, this is not avant garde or breaking news. It is probably the baby steps that all DMs/gaming tables take in the genesis sessions of their gaming experience.

It is all but mandatory to one degree or another. However, what it doesn't do is capture a specific genre relevant trope through a mechanical resolution ruleset that is contingent upon the co-authorship of the scene (DMs and PCs) by way of genre logic and fiction-first intent. A well-rendered Skill Challenge should feel like a closed scene of a play or a movie married to a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book. There must be something at risk; stakes (pass or fail). The DM must set the scene appropriately and the fiction must move forward from that initial starting point (where stakes are clearly laid out and the genre-inspiration clearly conveyed through implication) by way of the PCs initial reactive or proactive response (contingent upon the fiction) to the "set scene." The fiction then emerges by way of the resolution rules and the "fiction-first", "genre-relevant" interpretation of the result of each roll. Linear process-simulation of one task resolution (after another) has neither a "fiction-first" motive nor a "genre-relevant" motive...so it will ultimately fail in attempting to capture whatever it is that you're attempting to capture (and will then render its pointless).

Further, specifically in this scenario, what you would be trying to capture is whatever exploratory genre-convention you are aiming at (I title it Appalachian Trail Attrition play as its my own and my players most broad understanding of the genre). It could be something like the climbing of Mount Everest, being lost in the frozen tundra like the first Arctic Explorers, the jungle scenarios from "The Heart of Darkness", being lost off the beaten path of the Appalachian Trial a la "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon" or "A Walk in the Woods"...etc, etc. There are tons of movies and real life stories for inspiration of this theme/genre. There are very specific things that you need to induce within your players (an ominous dread...the eerie threat of a passive-aggressive, callous, ruthless, indifferent, non-sentient wilderness...that will just as soon eat you as feed you)...and you must do this through some tangible form of attrition.

In 3.5 years of gaming with the 4e ruleset, I have used this convention twice:

1) An Artic Explorer Skill Challenge to start off the game in Heroic Tier. The PCs were captured by a tribe of nomadic orcs, starved, forced into indentured servitude in the great white north for a full season. The PCs were chained together in a hovel every morning...barely enough to keep the cold and the chill wind at bay. They were fed just enough to keep them alive. Two of their numbers had died and they were forced by the orcs to consume their remains as food was scarce. After one stormy evening, their orc handlers did not stir them. That evening turned into three. On the third day the game formally began by the PCs working their way out of their bondage and investigating the scene outside of their hovel. The orcs were gone, possessions still in hovels, stewpot creaking in the wind as it hangs over the spit, now frozen over. In the great white north, a few hours of winds and the constant snow will undermine all track investigations. They were half-starved, struggling to hold onto their senses with nothing but the blinding white of a howling wintry tundra staring back at them. However, they were able to scavenge scraps of food and crude weapons...and off they went attempting to find civilization...but first they must find suitable shelter and replenishing food while evading all of the non-sentient and sentient threats around them. I used the story of the Elisha Kent Kane and Isaac Israel Hayes' Arctic Expedition as inspiration and genre-logic. The Skill Challenge and Disease/Condition Track system captured it perfectly and we were all terrifically pleased at the table. The Extended Skill Challenge went on for 4 sessions with 3 failures before the PCs (barely) made it to civilization alive (one PC was literally dragged in on a makeshift sled/gurney). They were intensely connected with their PCs for the rest of the campaign (which was high fantasy regardless of its mundane beginnings) which ran through late Paragon tier.

2) A Paragon Tier "A Heart of Darkness" jungle excursion to find a remote Shaman that could perform a ritual to restore the PCs (two of which were suffering from an incurable Abyssal Plague while one other was in its final stages). Not only were they suffering the attrition of the Condition Track that I rendered for the jungle but two of the PCs were suffering concurrent Disease Track implications from the Abyssal Plague. This Skill Challenge was resolved with only one failure but again, a stunning success.

Neither of those two situations (not the focused, co-authored, genre-relevant fiction nor the induced tension and sense of dread) came off as well in efforts in editions past as they did in 4e.

Now you may not enjoy "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. You may not enjoy fiction-first, outcome-based simulation, genre relevant co-authorship of closed scenes at your gaming table. You may not enjoy the convention of attrition-gaming (nor the 2 scenes that I outlined above). That is perfectly fine. But maybe you could rein it in a little and try not to tell me that I don't know my own tastes (or that of my players) and I don't know how best to run my own games, or that I cannot analyze the implication of mechanical resolution sets on our shared fiction, or that my games and resolution techniques yield "a hunk of unnecessary junk".

That would be great.

 

[pemerton]

You dont need "tools" to do exploration. you shouldnt be "punishing" or "rewarding" it. Everything you described feels like a bunch of unnecessary gunk.

Heres an example of how I do exploration and how I feel it should be done in a system

<snip example>

Wilderness exploration over, some wild-y things done, some RP in, some skills used. Extended skill challenge? Hell no.

Do i need a bunch of tools? No i dont.

<snip>

Rewards? A few skill based XP but nothing major. The reward was speeding the story along and getting a little foreshadow of dangers to come because of the RP encounter.

There's two reasons I prefer an approach more like the one [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] describes.

First, by giving XP based on (at least roughly) the amount of time and effort the scene soaked up at the table, rather than on which PC did the guiding and which the talking, I get a better pacing and progression of PC advancement in my game. The story moves on (in orthodox D&D, I should add, the story is heavily level dependent, because you can't move on from kobolds to their dragon overlords, let alone Tiamat, without a few levels under your belt).

Second, Manbearcat's sounds more interesting. Whereas yours sounds kind of dull, at least to me. Nothing really seems to have turned on the choice of which path to take. Nothing really seems to have been at stake in the cleric's conversation. We could do it all by email, or via GM fiat ("You make it down the mountainside, and on the way you talk to some people who tell you XYZ") and the outcome for the game would seem to be hardly any different.

Maybe the GM's description of the mountainside, and RPing of the travellers spoken to, was more evocative than your example seemed to suggest. But what's with the bit about saving a few days on the trip. I mean, why did that even matter? And if it was predetermined by the ranger's Survival skill with no need to roll, what is the point of making the players choose which way to go? I mean, if the players choose to go the slower way they take longer (and maybe that costs them something?) and they don't get to meet the travellers (and so miss out on some info) and they get no benefit in return, because both the navigation down the short path and the talking to the travellers were auto-successes. It's just that the GM set up a "gotcha" for the players because s/he hasn't told the players that they're auto-successes.

I don't see the point of that sort of play. It seems to me that it's the GM playing with him-/herself, using the players' choices as a sort of die-roll ("Haha, they chose to go the long way! So now I better work out what happens when they're running late and haven't caught up on the latests gossip!").