D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[Ahnehnois]

There are two sorts of story that make the cut most of the time. The epic clash betweeen approximate equals in which the combat is balanced, not terribly swingy, and is about the people concerned. And the work of an utter bastard trickster that does something like coup de grace Medusa when she is asleep or pour out of the wooden horse, butchering drunk Trojans, and unlocking the gates while they are having their victory celebrations. This always takes some rigging by the protagonist and the battle has been won before the first sword blow lands unless there's a complete screw up.

Still missing the point. An "epic clash" between "approximate equals" is not what happens when you use D&D's encounter building guidelines. The baseline 3e assumption is that a "challenging encounter" is four characters of a certain level against one character of the same level. That's actually closer to your second option; a ludicrously unfair, even rigged situation. The one opponent would, in most circumstances, run away or surrender. It's a ridiculous baseline, and the entire system of CRs, ELs, LAs, XP, and so on that derives from it is influenced by it. The other major assumption, that a challenging encounter under this definition drains 20% of the party's replenishable resources, is no less problematic.

More fundamentally, the notion of encounters is inherently combat oriented, and particularly ties character design and character advancement to the baseline assumptions, which is a whole nother can of worms.

That's why the encounter building guidelines suck. That's why they're best ignored, and why the game would be better without them, replacing their basic function (DM training) through some other venue.

Of course it's impossible to balance all possibilities. What balanced math does is provide information about how the head on approach is going to work. Or if rigged, a given approach. If a fight was truly perfectly balanced, no one would ever win. But with balanced math you can estimate very accurately what is going to happen assuming there aren't an unusual number of surprises.

I don't see what "balanced math" has to do with encounter building guidelines. If anything, you appear to be making the point that good class and monster design allows the DM to build situations easily without an added encounter building XP budget/EL/etc. system, which has been and is still the point I'm making.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And essentially what you are saying is "The DM should be thrown in the deep end without much in the way of system notes to tell them what likely outcomes are".

That is what balance is about. Teaching new DMs skills rather than making them learn them the hard way. Because the hard way sucks and causes people who could be good DMs to give up after a screwup or two in which they accidently kill the PCs or give the PCs too many cakewalks because they are scared of killing them accidently.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying (increasingly tangentially to this thread).

The only thing I ever learned from these kinds of DM rules or metagame rules was how not to do things. I could have done without those lessons.

Balance is not needed by really experienced DMs. It is, however, extremely valuable for newbies.

Well, there's some food for thought I guess.

It's like learning from a pretty good teacher rather than pure trial and error.

Personally, I think a really good teacher does do exactly that, sit back and let you learn through trial and error.

When I was taking singing lessons for example, my teacher pushed us not to listen to recordings of the songs we were doing because we would naturally imitate them rather than develop our own style. Nor did he impose stylistic considerations on us. Sure, we learned the nuts and bolts, how to read music, project, rhythm, etc., but even as amateur artists it fell to us to decide what to do with those tools.

Same for D&D. A beginner needs to be taught the nuts and bolts, what a creature is, what a strength modifier is, what an attack roll is. But developing a style, how to design a creature, how to use it in play, that's something for the DM to learn by doing.

Like going up on stage and singing, D&D does indeed require a little bravery, because it won't always be perfect. The show must go on though.

 

[S'mon]

Still missing the point. An "epic clash" between "approximate equals" is not what happens when you use D&D's encounter building guidelines. The baseline 3e assumption is that a "challenging encounter" is four characters of a certain level against one character of the same level. That's actually closer to your second option; a ludicrously unfair, even rigged situation. The one opponent would, in most circumstances, run away or surrender. It's a ridiculous baseline, and the entire system of CRs, ELs, LAs, XP, and so on that derives from it is influenced by it. The other major assumption, that a challenging encounter under this definition drains 20% of the party's replenishable resources, is no less problematic.

4e is completely different though, and does indeed present the "epic clash of approximate equals" as pretty much the default encounter. 5 enemies vs 5 PCs. This has its own problems - very hard to do trivial fights or attrition in 4e, for instance, and too much epic fightiness just gets grindy - but the game is centred around epic, memorable battles and does indeed deliver those effectively.

 

[Obryn]

I don't see what "balanced math" has to do with encounter building guidelines. If anything, you appear to be making the point that good class and monster design allows the DM to build situations easily without an added encounter building XP budget/EL/etc. system, which has been and is still the point I'm making.

Um... no. It's all tied together. Without the fairly balanced math, you can't have a reasonable estimate of an encounter's difficulty. It's why 3.x's CR/EL system barely works, and 4e's works quite well.

In 3.x, an Ogre with default strength/con and an Ogre with 40 Strength and 40 Con are considered the same CR because 3.x CR is process-based rather than results-based.

In 4e, it's all about the outcome - an Ogre with more HPs and better attacks is a higher-level opponent. And therefore, the encounter balancing works pretty well.

-O

 

[N'raac]

Still missing the point. An "epic clash" between "approximate equals" is not what happens when you use D&D's encounter building guidelines. The baseline 3e assumption is that a "challenging encounter" is four characters of a certain level against one character of the same level. That's actually closer to your second option; a ludicrously unfair, even rigged situation. The one opponent would, in most circumstances, run away or surrender. It's a ridiculous baseline, and the entire system of CRs, ELs, LAs, XP, and so on that derives from it is influenced by it. The other major assumption, that a challenging encounter under this definition drains 20% of the party's replenishable resources, is no less problematic.

While true, this is not inconsistent with heroic fiction - several encounters which, while requiring use of some resources and exposing the heroes to some risk, do not truly leave any doubt as to their eventual outcome, with the occasional battle against true equal forces, typically in a climactic role.

When I was taking singing lessons for example, my teacher pushed us not to listen to recordings of the songs we were doing because we would naturally imitate them rather than develop our own style. Nor did he impose stylistic considerations on us. Sure, we learned the nuts and bolts, how to read music, project, rhythm, etc., but even as amateur artists it fell to us to decide what to do with those tools.

Same for D&D. A beginner needs to be taught the nuts and bolts, what a creature is, what a strength modifier is, what an attack roll is. But developing a style, how to design a creature, how to use it in play, that's something for the DM to learn by doing.

Like going up on stage and singing, D&D does indeed require a little bravery, because it won't always be perfect. The show must go on though.

A key difference I see in this situation is that the singer generally rehearses, practices, and rehearses some more before appearing before a live audience. How does the novice GM rehearse and hone his craft before going live before a group of players? It seems you are placing the player group in the role of teacher, reviewing those faltering steps, trying not to wince at those awful initial efforts, until the student is finally capable of making an effort decent enough to be seen by the public.

The game's advice on a "weak", "typical", or "highly challenging" encounter seem to me like the basic building blocks (reading music, proper control of one's breath, hitting notes) from which the GM will construct his game, and learn further from those games.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Still missing the point. An "epic clash" between "approximate equals" is not what happens when you use D&D's encounter building guidelines. The baseline 3e assumption is that a "challenging encounter" is four characters of a certain level against one character of the same level.

Well it's a good job I'm not recommending th 3e CR mechanics then, isn't it. The 4e equivalent is balanced around 5 monsters or equivalent for a 5 person party - or one monster each.

Everything else you say about balanced encounters in that paragraph is talking about the 3e version. And literally does not apply to the 4e version. Your entire chain of objections here is irrelevant.

More fundamentally, the notion of encounters is inherently combat oriented, and particularly ties character design and character advancement to the baseline assumptions, which is a whole nother can of worms.

And you're wrong here as well - once more talking about 3.x as though it was the be all and end all. An encounter is just anothe word for a scene - and 4e has guidelines for non-combat encounters as well as combat encounters. Further, D&D is a hacked tabletop wargame. This has been part of its baseline assumptions throughout.

I don't see what "balanced math" has to do with encounter building guidelines. If anything, you appear to be making the point that good class and monster design allows the DM to build situations easily without an added encounter building XP budget/EL/etc. system, which has been and is still the point I'm making.

Good class and monster design quite literally are balanced math. The XP budget adds precisely one thing on top of this. An easy way to compare the effectiveness of wildly disparate monsters by reducing the combat effectiveness to a single number that is more or less linear. You don't have anything like the 3.X CR table. The XP budget is useful because it's simpler than trying to compare a small goblin warband to a dragon two levels higher without being able to reduce the threat rating of both to a single number.

4e monsters threat ratings are built on two axes, not one. You have the level which says how accurate they are and how tough to hit. And you have the role which says how powerful they are. A dragon is the archetypal solo; one dragon is considered to be a threat for an entire party of five adventurers of a given level and worth five normal monsters. An elite is some sort of champion and considered worth two PCs. Soemething like an Ettin that's just big and tough - and has two heads, or a Lich that's a scary threat but also has minions would be an Elite. As would a named champion normally. A standard is a standard. And a minion is heavily outclassed and dies in one hit but still has some teeth, and so is worth a quarter of a normal monster. Working out the threat of a goblin warparty that includes a champion, a shaman, a couple of blooded warriors, and twenty weak and cowardly goblins is easiest with an XP budget if you aren't certain.

Literally all the points you have raised in this entire post are points that are perfectly true when applied to the 3.0 CR system but utterly irrelevant for 4e.

The only thing I ever learned from these kinds of DM rules or metagame rules was how not to do things. I could have done without those lessons.

Once again you are arguing against bad examples. When the 4e examples (after polishing in the case of skill challenges) aren't bad ones.

Personally, I think a really good teacher does do exactly that, sit back and let you learn through trial and error.

If they'd done that I'd still be unable to ride a bike. Or to dance. The idea practice makes perfect is a myth - practice makes permanent. And I trust your teacher was correcting you when you went off key.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Your entire chain of objections here is irrelevant.

To what? I wasn't talking specifically about 4e to begin with.

And you're wrong here as well - once more talking about 3.x as though it was the be all and end all.

Well, it's not everything, but it is the most reasonable point to start a general discussion on D&D.

An encounter is just anothe word for a scene

Not so. An encounter implies a structure and goals and defined outcomes that aren't necessary for a scene.

An easy way to compare the effectiveness of wildly disparate monsters by reducing the combat effectiveness to a single number that is more or less linear.
...
...

If this was your attempt to convince me that XP budgets are more worthwhile than CRs and ELs, I'm unconvinced.

Literally all the points you have raised in this entire post are points that are perfectly true when applied to the 3.0 CR system but utterly irrelevant for 4e.

Probably because that is the example I chose to use. That said, see above.

The idea practice makes perfect is a myth - practice makes permanent.

The idea that there is a "correct" baseline DMing strategy for designing encounters that can be codified, written, and implemented is far more fallacious.

Practice alone doesn't necessarily make perfect, but practice with reflection and feedback...

And I trust your teacher was correcting you when you went off key.

Just like my players correct me when I make a bad DMing decision.

I don't quit the game every time something isn't perfect. Frankly, I seriously doubt that any significant number of people have tried D&D and quit because they had some bad things happen in the game. And frankly, if they did, that's okay. That's like football players who quit after they pick up a minor injury for the first time, or performing artists who quit if the crowd boos. If you can't stand the heat, you don't belong in the oven.

The downside of the rules trying to be dogmatic is far greater than the downside of people having to learn to play their own way.

 

[Ahnehnois]

A key difference I see in this situation is that the singer generally rehearses, practices, and rehearses some more before appearing before a live audience. How does the novice GM rehearse and hone his craft before going live before a group of players? It seems you are placing the player group in the role of teacher, reviewing those faltering steps, trying not to wince at those awful initial efforts, until the student is finally capable of making an effort decent enough to be seen by the public.

I am placing everyone in the boat of learning together (as many are not lucky enough to have teachers). So yes, player feedback is absolutely critical to developing DMing skills, far more so than anything a DMG has to offer. And yes, there are some bumps in the road.

Incidentally, many singers learn that way too. Not everyone is classically trained.

Are you suggesting that reading a DMG with extensive encounter building guidelines builds good DMing skills or is a replacement for those bumpy early sessions? I'm skeptical of that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To what? I wasn't talking specifically about 4e to begin with.

No. You were making statements about the usefulness of certain tools. And then making statements that are true about bad versions of those tools (like the 3e CR ratings) and false about the 4e version. The problems you outline are with the instance not the principle. It's nothing more than an argument that runs "Someone failed to scale Everest so no one should try ever again" while there are people waving at you from the top.

Well, it's not everything, but it is the most reasonable point to start a general discussion on D&D.

Except that 3e is in many ways an aberration in the history of D&D. Like every other edition. Saying "3e does something badly therefore it can't be done well" is silly when 4e does it well.

Not so. An encounter implies a structure and goals and defined outcomes that aren't necessary for a scene.

Minor correction accepted.

If this was your attempt to convince me that XP budgets are more worthwhile than CRs and ELs, I'm unconvinced.

XP budgets are more worthwhile than CR and EL because they work. They are also simpler because the complex and exponential maths was given to the XP chart rather than to the DM.

Probably because that is the example I chose to use. That said, see above.

When arguing against a concept you do not pick the worst examples of that concept to argue against. You pick the best. 3e's version didn't work. 4e's does. And it's been explained to you why - that the 4e level is based on outcomes, the 3e one is based on fudged inputs.

You are trying to argue against it by using an implementation that is conceptually flawed. All you are demonstrating is flaws in 3e.

The idea that there is a "correct" baseline DMing strategy for designing encounters that can be codified, written, and implemented is far more fallacious.

The idea is to get a strategy that works. There are plenty of others that also work. But the idea that one straight forward method can work is not a fallacy.

And with all due respect how would you even know? Your entire argument is based on the 3e CR system. Which, as we can agree does not work. You have not used a system that most of its adherents think does work. So you are simply ignorant of how one feels when working well. Your entire argument is based on the flaws of a flawed implementation which means that very simply you do not know what you are talking about.

Practice alone doesn't necessarily make perfect, but practice with reflection and feedback...Just like my players correct me when I make a bad DMing decision.

Of course. Try thinking of encounter balance as training wheels.

The downside of the rules trying to be dogmatic is far greater than the downside of people having to learn to play their own way.

And once more you are posting irrelevancies. Encounter balance does not say "You must do things this way". It says "If you do things this way, the results are likely to be good. If you don't, you do so at your own risk". Your man is made of straw.

Are you suggesting that reading a DMG with extensive encounter building guidelines builds good DMing skills or is a replacement for those bumpy early sessions? I'm skeptical of that.

I'm saying, just to take one example, that in my third session of DMing 4e I was able to cope with a completely off the wall improvised plan that involved disguising a turncoat enemy wyrmling dragon as a plague cart to take it through a city being bombarded from the air by dragons, and that I was able to do this almost effortlessly and in a way that made for an engaging scene that wasn't overlong, overdetailed, or trivial thanks to the tools 4e provides me with. I'm equally saying I'd have been struggling badly without some sort of encounter framing technique in the rules. So yes, for me it did replace those bumpy early sessions and gave me a pattern to reach for when I don't know what the hell to do (with a key DMing skill being to never be at a loss).

It doesn't replace all the skills you need. But certainly helps with some - especially the ones involving dealing with creative players whose idea of sticking to the session plan involves something weird involving a paper shredder, glue, and a fan.

 

[Ahnehnois]

When arguing against a concept you do not pick the worst examples of that concept to argue against. You pick the best. 3e's version didn't work. 4e's does. And it's been explained to you why - that the 4e level is based on outcomes, the 3e one is based on fudged inputs.

Yes, indeed, it's been explained. And I didn't buy it. It's still a set of numbers used to build a "balanced" encounter. And thus, still worthless.

And with all due respect how would you even know?

Experience? Common sense? Whatever shred of my once formidable intellect which remains? Pick whichever satisfies you.

Dare I ask what qualifies you (and only you) to speak so authoritatively on the topic?

You have not used a system that most of its adherents think does work.

Actually, a significant number of its adherents think it does. That's the problem.

Your entire argument is based on the flaws of a flawed implementation which means that very simply you do not know what you are talking about.

My argument is that implementation is irrelevant and that the goal of providing encounter building rules is not a worthwhile one in the first place.

Of course. Try thinking of encounter balance as training wheels.

I think of it as learning how to walk with crutches. It might "work" some of the time, but the outcome won't be nearly as good if you just stood on your own two legs.