D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[Stoutstien]

Another problem with 4e's presentation. That game was a master class in how not to market a game.

Lol that I can agree with. WoTC has never had a strong editorial staff.

 

[Stoutstien]

How did it try to correct it? Even in 4e the higher DCs at higher levels were supposed to represent more difficult challenges. And if that is not the case, then what's the bloody point of the numbers increasing?

Because players like bigger values. Unlike 3.x or even 5e forth edition had a good idea what odds they wanted and how each layer of investment had an impact. So unlike 5e bounded accuracy concept they needed a way to differentiate a easy check at level 1 compared to level 20 so they used a sliding scale on the DC values. What that doesn't mean is the world shifted with them. The chart is for reference so the math is easy not the other way around. This allows for quickly figuring out failure % which as a DM in 4e is half of it.
It wasn't eloquent at all but it did what it set out to accomplish.

 

[Reynard]

In a real static difficulty game, the DC 30 lock and CR 26 dragon were always there. Maybe the PCs didn't see them because they were in the wrong place, or maybe they did. Neither the locks on the potion shop nor the King's vault door should change as the PCs level (unless they already broke in). But new, more difficult zones are fine.

 

[Minigiant]

How did it try to correct it? Even in 4e the higher DCs at higher levels were supposed to represent more difficult challenges. And if that is not the case, then what's the bloody point of the numbers increasing?

The number increasing represented increasing skills.

The DCs were always static. The point is that you wouldn't or couldn't encounter the higher DCs stuff until you were strong enough.

And eventually you level up enough to abandon the normal world. In 4e, this was literal. You'd level up so hard, you become immortal and NP yourself. At best your old PC and his or her +100 to X rolls would be the DEM that stops your new party's TPK.

 

[Bill Zebub]

1) we have a lot of non-combat encounters.

2) My players are not interested in combat optimisation, they choose abilities on what they think most suits their characters.

D&D seems an odd choice of system for your group.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

D&D seems an odd choice of system for your group.

Why do you think so?
Our DnD Game also works like this. And we teied a lot of different systems but gravitated back to DnD, for different reasons.

 

[CubicsRube]

Static DCs don't mean that doors suddenly level up to match pace. It means that at high level you're not even going to roll for 90% of the worlds locks. You're on to bigger and better things.

 

[Hussar]

Why do you think so?
Our DnD Game also works like this. And we teied a lot of different systems but gravitated back to DnD, for different reasons.

Because if you are running a lot of out of combat stuff and playing with players who choose things based on what suits their character, you're pretty much leaving about 2/3rds of the D&D game out of your particular game, which is means for lots of combat stuff. At least, I think that's the way the argument goes.

And, it's not entirely off base either. D&D is a heavily combat focused game. It doesn't really have much support for the out of combat stuff, or, at least, it's fair to say it has a lot less support for the out of combat stuff, which means that if you're game is mostly out of combat stuff, then you're probably free-forming a lot of the time and barely referencing the game.

Which does rather lead to the conclusion that perhaps D&D isn't the best fit for this kind of play. To be fair, it doesn't actively resist it either though, so, if free-forming is what you like, then more power to you.

But, since we're talking about stat-blocks and monster design, which IS combat focused, then arguing that a given class doesn't play a particular way because your group happens not to play that way because your group is out of combat focused then perhaps it's incumbent upon the poster to realize that they aren't really perhaps the best person to ask about how to design combat focused game elements.

 

[Maxperson]

This was how 3.x actually worked (Adamantine doors everywhere once you hit high level) and what 4e was trying to correct.

That was due to DMs not understanding how to run a high level game. I ran many 3e campaigns to 15-21st or so level and I can tell you that adamantine doors were not everywhere. Almost nowhere in fact. That wasn't how to challenge a high level group.

 

[J.Quondam]

That was due to DMs not understanding how to run a high level game. I ran many 3e campaigns to 15-21st or so level and I can tell you that adamantine doors were not everywhere. Almost nowhere in fact. That wasn't how to challenge a high level group.

But.. but... but my favorite tavern ever was the one where the rickety outhouse door got harder to open because the PC turning the handle happened to be higher level than the guy in line ahead of him!