D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[Emerikol]

Just to point out that this is how I have always interpreted the 4e skill challenge DC table. That the level of the skill challenge in question is based not on the PCs level, but on the level of what the are attempting to do. Trying to ambush Orcus in his lair is always going to have DCs associated with a high epic skill challenge, no matter whether the PCs are low paragon or high epic.

While a very easy fix and hardly worth crying over, it is illustrative when even you houseruled this approach.

I think if they had said it in a different way. Something like...

The DC's tend to rise as PC's level and take on additional challenges. This increase in DC though reflects the greater challenges they face. In no way should the exact same challenge at 7th level have a different DC at 13th level. Rather to use a trite example, the DM should use a wooden door at 1st level and a adamantium door at 13th level. Also bear in mind that increasing every single DC throughout a dungeon may affect verisimilitude. It is fine to occasionally have lower challenges that the PCs blow through without even having to roll. Instead of having an unlocked door like you would at 1st level, you can have a locked wooden door at 13th level. At that level they are both essentially unlocked.


Now. I am a static DC guy and prefer that philosophy but the above I think would have represented their philosophy better. RAW I believe does not bring this out and in fact says differently in my opinion.

 

[Emerikol]

See, I read people saying this about the 1e-2e transition, but I just don't recall it (granted we didn't have the webs to spread our disgruntlement, but there were still conventions I attended) I don't recall the 1e-2e jump being advertised or received as some tremendous update/shift in the rules...more a clarification and badly needed editing/representation. I suppose there were those who didn't change, but you could still basically run the two together...(at least plenty of folks around me did.)

Similarly, by the time 3e came out, most people around me were either dragging themselves with increasing resentment through 2e campaigns that were heavily houseruled or had switched to another system/game or had stopped ttrpg gaming. For a large number of younger people, Fantasy gaming meant computer games and Magic:the Gathering. The coincidental(?) release of 3e and the Invasion block resuscitateda lot of D&D in my circles.

I lived through all this myself. Started as a player with the redbox and went to 1e pretty quick as DM. I didn't see the vitriol on nearly the level it is today. I remember one guy who stuck with 2e and wouldn't try 3e. But he recently tried it and now thinks it's the best. LOL. He did briefly play in my ill fated 4e game BEFORE he even tried 3e.

Anecdotally I never met a group playing an older version in my gaming community until 4e. Now I see Pathfinder and 3.5e about equally and not much 4e. Now I said anecdotally so I know this is just my experience. I'm sharing. I'm not saying this is the norm nationwide or worldwide.

 

[D'karr]

While a very easy fix and hardly worth crying over, it is illustrative when even you houseruled this approach.

Interesting since the table does not refer in any place to PC level. It uses level generically, and the title of the table is Difficulty Class and Damage by Level. Once again not referring specifically to PC level. PCs have level, Monsters have Level, Traps and Hazards have Level, and challenges have level. So it is more appropriate to look at that table and think that the Level refers to the level of the Difficulty Class (the challenge) not necessarily the PCs.

So his use is no more house ruling than selecting the PC Level as the Level is houseruling. The chart is designed to be used for general purpose, in all adjudications the DM can come up with.

Could it have been explained better? Yes. That doesn't mean that those that have no problems with the chart are in some way houseruling.

 

[Iosue]

See, I read people saying this about the 1e-2e transition, but I just don't recall it (granted we didn't have the webs to spread our disgruntlement, but there were still conventions I attended) I don't recall the 1e-2e jump being advertised or received as some tremendous update/shift in the rules...more a clarification and badly needed editing/representation. I suppose there were those who didn't change, but you could still basically run the two together...(at least plenty of folks around me did.)

Absolutely. I'm not saying that 1e and 2e caused the same kind of vitrolic debating as, say, 2e and 3e, or 3e and 4e, or 4e and 5e. The rules were so much alike that a great many, probably the majority of folks made the switch with no problem. Or, even if they didn't go out and buy new 2e books, still availed themselves of 2e modules and/or settings.

But still, there were holdouts. Still some people were unhappy, for any number reasons. You can still see this today on boards and blogs dedicated to TSR D&D. There are no 3e/4e edition wars on Dragonsfoot; 3e actually remains a banned topic. But 1e and 2e each have their own separate forums, and big flame wars requiring locked threads have come up when the subject of 1e vs 2e comes up. And IMO, 2e is probably as light a change from 1e as is possible in a game of AD&D's size. If the only real changes between editions is presentation, people will draw lines in the sand over presentation. If the rules aren't all that different, people argue about the feel, the tone, the artwork. It's basic in-group/out-group dynamics.

 

[D'karr]

It's basic in-group/out-group dynamics.

It's MANDATORY on the internet.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Interesting since the table does not refer in any place to PC level. It uses level generically, and the title of the table is Difficulty Class and Damage by Level. Once again not referring specifically to PC level. PCs have level, Monsters have Level, Traps and Hazards have Level, and challenges have level. So it is more appropriate to look at that table and think that the Level refers to the level of the Difficulty Class (the challenge) not necessarily the PCs.

So his use is no more house ruling than selecting the PC Level as the Level is houseruling. The chart is designed to be used for general purpose, in all adjudications the DM can come up with.

Could it have been explained better? Yes. That doesn't mean that those that have no problems with the chart are in some way houseruling.

For the record, what level to set the skill challenges at is in no place defined in either the DMG 1 or the DMG2. It merely says that you have to set the level of the skill challenge and that the level of the party is a good place to start. Which it is in the absence of other information.

There is also a significant difference in the presentation of Skill Challenges in the DMG 1 and the DMG 2 and one that sets fundamentally different precidents while not redefining the rules.

In the DMG 1, every single skill challenge presented has a level equal to that of the party. From reading this I understand why people think this is the way to do things.

In the DMG2, the levels of the skill challenges are either fixed (e.g. "Crossing the river", "Moving through Suderham", "Travelling through Gorgimrith", "The Restless Dead") or just say "Any" (e.g. "Chasing the Bandits", "War by other means").

The DMG 2 way isn't an errata'd version of the DMG 1 way because the rules haven't changed at all. But it does set IMO much better precedents.

 

[Neonchameleon]

See, I read people saying this about the 1e-2e transition, but I just don't recall it (granted we didn't have the webs to spread our disgruntlement, but there were still conventions I attended) I don't recall the 1e-2e jump being advertised or received as some tremendous update/shift in the rules...more a clarification and badly needed editing/representation.

The changes from 1e to 2e were mostly either a clarification or subtle and far reaching of the sort that are easy to overlook. Such as the change away from XP for GP. What they changed was the default mode of play and the precedents that shaped the mode of play in an arbitrary group - but each existing table had its own precedents that were more important at that table than the precedents in the rulebook. So yes, some 1e fans hate 2e - but you need to look quite far below the surface to see why.

Similarly, by the time 3e came out, most people around me were either dragging themselves with increasing resentment through 2e campaigns that were heavily houseruled or had switched to another system/game or had stopped ttrpg gaming.

The core rules for 2e were by that point over 20 years old, and were always a bad fit because 2e had changed the playstyle and precidents without changing the rules.

*Additional Evidence: Both 3.5 and 4e contain many design elements/motifs that make it easier (theoretically) to play online, and WotC has several times stated, leaked, bragged, or over-confidently announced their desire to create an online D&D experience to mimic the tabletop....thus turning an occasional $30 purchaser into a $5/month subscriber. Why they seem to have soooo much trouble with this is a mystery that I, as an occasional software author and consultant, cannot fathom.

Here's one of the big reasons. (Trigger warning on the link.)

 

[The Choice]

Absolutely. I'm not saying that 1e and 2e caused the same kind of vitrolic debating as, say, 2e and 3e, or 3e and 4e, or 4e and 5e.

Actually...

One of the most interesting and revealing responses came from a long-time player of the game who was upset about all of tye changes as a whole. Zeb recalls that he was not calmed by our claims that all we were doing was making the game more accessible. This fan "wrote to say that we had ruined the game because we had made the rules understandable. Now everyone would be able to play the game!" AD&D's complexity gave it an air of elitism that kept out the riff-riff (riff-raff?), apparently.

That's Steven Winter on one fan's reaction to a column written by AD&D Second Edition designer Zeb Cook for Dragon Magazine.

There's always been vitriol, hate and impotent nerdrage whenever a new edition comes out, it just used to be "slower", I think. I mean, looking at that player's remarks, it's basically the same argument as "4E= babies' first pen-and-paper WoW simulator", only more condescending if possible.

 

[Imaro]

Interesting since the table does not refer in any place to PC level. It uses level generically, and the title of the table is Difficulty Class and Damage by Level. Once again not referring specifically to PC level. PCs have level, Monsters have Level, Traps and Hazards have Level, and challenges have level. So it is more appropriate to look at that table and think that the Level refers to the level of the Difficulty Class (the challenge) not necessarily the PCs.

So his use is no more house ruling than selecting the PC Level as the Level is houseruling. The chart is designed to be used for general purpose, in all adjudications the DM can come up with.

Could it have been explained better? Yes. That doesn't mean that those that have no problems with the chart are in some way houseruling.

Hmmm, I'm sorry but it has nothing to do with being explained better. All of the examples, including the one on page 42 point towards level being indicative of party level. Both the DC for Shiera the rogue to swing on the chandelier and the damage expression are computed from the rogue's level. It even says the rule of thumb to compute DC's is to start with a DC 10 (easy), DC 15(moderate) or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character's level... this is clearly based on the level of the character. In fact is there an example anywhere in DMG 1 where there aren't either static DC's or the party level is used to set a DC or damage expression?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hmmm, I'm sorry but it has nothing to do with being explained better. All of the examples, including the one on page 42 point towards level being indicative of party level. Both the DC for Shiera the rogue to swing on the chandelier and the damage expression are computed from the rogue's level. It even says the rule of thumb to compute DC's is to start with a DC 10 (easy), DC 15(moderate) or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character's level... this is clearly based on the level of the character. In fact is there an example anywhere in DMG 1 where there aren't either static DC's or the party level is used to set a DC or damage expression?

I refer you to my post here. The rules didn't change between the DMG 1 and the DMG 2 - but the guidance on how to apply them did. However that there are static DCs (as on p37 - listening through a door or p64 - DCs to climb or break through walls) to me indicates that the world is meant to be static and if you don't otherwise have something then you should take the PC's level. Using the PCs level is only ever presented as a default rule of thumb, and a static DC trumps this.

 

[S'mon]

Just to point out that this is how I have always interpreted the 4e skill challenge DC table. That the level of the skill challenge in question is based not on the PCs level, but on the level of what the are attempting to do. Trying to ambush Orcus in his lair is always going to have DCs associated with a high epic skill challenge, no matter whether the PCs are low paragon or high epic.

It's explicitly not that, though. Otherwise there would not have been 3 PC levels all with the same DCs, in the original versions of the table. My own table is better because (a) I can hold it in my head and (b) every particular DC number appears in it once, not a redundant 3 times. Each DC number has a particular in-game-world meaning associated with it, eg a DC 24 is a slightly easier than usual moderate-Paragon task, nothing else.

 

[Imaro]

I refer you to my post here. The rules didn't change between the DMG 1 and the DMG 2 - but the guidance on how to apply them did. However that there are static DCs (as on p37 - listening through a door or p64 - DCs to climb or break through walls) to me indicates that the world is meant to be static and if you don't otherwise have something then you should take the PC's level. Using the PCs level is only ever presented as a default rule of thumb, and a static DC trumps this.

Application is part of the rules. This is akin to saying that declaring one's action and then rolling a d20 uses the same rules as rolling a d20 and then declaring what your action is. Yes you roll a d20 in both examples but the application of when to roll the d20 and when you declare an action is very much a part of the rules and changes the nature of the game. As to static DC's trumping the DC and DMG by level rules... I agree.

 

[D'karr]

Hmmm, I'm sorry but it has nothing to do with being explained better. All of the examples

Examples are fine, that is exactly what they are. Are you supposed to use the rules ONLY in the way the example shows for all instances? Is that the ONLY way to look at that chart? Specially since the entire section where this appears is called Actions the Rules Don't Cover. If character level was the ONLY way to use that table it seems like all the people that use the Challenge of the task as the level have been doing it wrong. The chart is generic for a reason. The level column does not say PC Level, it says Level.

A 15th level character arrives at a trapped door, the Trap is level 5, what DC does the PC need to disarm it? As a DM I have only 2 things to look at, what is the level of the trap, and the difficulty of the task (easy/moderate/hard).

If the chart was designed to be used solely as the level of the PC, a level 5 trap would be more difficult to disarm by a higher level character than a lower level one.

Of course there are tasks that will be tied to the PC Level, I agree. But to say that all tasks MUST be tied to the PC level because the examples provided only show PC level is absurd.

I know that pushing the rules towards absurdity doesn't provide the needed results, so I don't.




-

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's explicitly not that, though. Otherwise there would not have been 3 PC levels all with the same DCs, in the original versions of the table.

I don't follow your logic here. To me skill challenge level has been level in the same sense that total effective encounter level is level. A first level group of PCs can face a fifth level combat encounter, and they can also face a fifth level skill challenge. And while they should probably technically be separated this has always struck me as a matter of rounding.

My own table is better because (a) I can hold it in my head and (b) every particular DC number appears in it once, not a redundant 3 times. Each DC number has a particular in-game-world meaning associated with it, eg a DC 24 is a slightly easier than usual moderate-Paragon task, nothing else.

Your own table is better for you. Actually, could you post it please?

 

[D'karr]

I don't follow your logic here. To me skill challenge level has been level in the same sense that total effective encounter level is level. A first level group of PCs can face a fifth level combat encounter, and they can also face a fifth level skill challenge. And while they should probably technically be separated this has always struck me as a matter of rounding.

BTW, that table was separated later on to have distinct DCs for each level 1-30 instead of the 3 level groupings.

D&D has always used a bunch of things tied to "level". The Level of a dungeon, the level of a monster, the level of a character, spell level, etc. It should not be a surprise that a chart that has "Level" as one of it's columns can have multiple uses for the "Level" column.

If as an "improv" effect I have "Level 4 Zone/Trap/Hazard" that does Necrotic damage and a character wants to try to scramble/tumble through it to avoid damage. Should the chart use the level of the "hazard", or the level of the "character" to determine the chance of success?

If I say "hazard" level the DC is static, if I say character level the DC is not static. If I have 2 characters of different level in the same party should the hazard change DC because of their level? See the absurdity in that logic?




-

 

[S'mon]

Your own table is better for you. Actually, could you post it please?

OK, but it's designed to be held in my head so I never need to look up a table. 'Easy Heroic Task' means an easy task for Heroic Tier monsters and PCs, or minor opposition created by a Heroic Tier antagonist. The table goes from 10-40, which seems the appropriate range, though it can be extended.

Task DC

Easy Heroic: 10
Moderate Heroic: 15
Hard Heroic/Easy Paragon: 20
Moderate Paragon: 25
Hard Paragon/Easy Epic: 30
Moderate Epic: 35
Hard Epic: 40

Modify by up to +2/-2 according to circumstances, which covers every possible number from 8 to 42.

I find it very easy to use this table to set DCs on the fly. In doing so I don't look at the level of my PCs or what their mods are, but the table was initially created after looking at WoTC's various attempts to create a DC table in the DMG, DMG 2, Essentials etc - it's easier than DMG, harder than DMG 2, and not far off the Essentials one, but much easier to use.

One reason I don't want to refer to the PCs in setting DCs is that I want a sense of progression, this is fostered by a sense of immersion, and that IMO is fostered by things getting easier over time, as long as the PCs are 'playing in the same league', dealing with similar threats. Static DCs also often mean that it's not pointless for the unskilled PC to roll, while the skilled one auto-succeeds - IME that makes both players happy! And if the skilled PC wants to step up and try something really hard, fine, I can handle that too - and I never have to look up a table.

If/when the PCs step up from local issues to global issues, they face much more challenging threats - this might happen at a Tier break, but often not.

 

[Hussar]

I agree - and in my current campaign the big fights now seem to be taking more like 2 hours (even with half-hp monsters!), when we only get about 2.5 hours actual play time into the typical session.

The worst thing, I find, is that after one of those big sloggy fights, everyone is just exhausted and completely uninterested in going back to exploratory play. No one (me included) even wants to search the room! OOC we take a toilet break, get a drink, maybe chat OOC and wind down/chill out. Then the session ends.
So, I find that as GM I need to get all the exploratory and dramatic (talky stuff) done BEFORE the first fight, or it's not going to happen. 4e has a weird tempo - with other editions, a session starts calm, with anticipation, rises to the first fight scene, relax, explore, another fight, and so on. With 4e you basically need to do it as a single ramp going up the whole time until the session climax, then let it fall way off, chill, and either take a midway break in a long (5-6 hour) session, with the second half essentially a new game session, or else see-you-next time in a shorter (2.5-3 hour) game.

Can't xp you at the moment.

But, this is nailing my perception rather well. I hadn't actually thought about it like this, but, I can totally see what you're saying. Instead of appetizer encounters, every encounter is a main dish. And, while I'm a big lover of food, there's just only so many entree's you can munch in a row.

 

[Ratskinner]

Absolutely. I'm not saying that 1e and 2e caused the same kind of vitrolic debating as, say, 2e and 3e, or 3e and 4e, or 4e and 5e. The rules were so much alike that a great many, probably the majority of folks made the switch with no problem. Or, even if they didn't go out and buy new 2e books, still availed themselves of 2e modules and/or settings.

But still, there were holdouts. Still some people were unhappy, for any number reasons. You can still see this today on boards and blogs dedicated to TSR D&D. There are no 3e/4e edition wars on Dragonsfoot; 3e actually remains a banned topic. But 1e and 2e each have their own separate forums, and big flame wars requiring locked threads have come up when the subject of 1e vs 2e comes up. And IMO, 2e is probably as light a change from 1e as is possible in a game of AD&D's size. If the only real changes between editions is presentation, people will draw lines in the sand over presentation. If the rules aren't all that different, people argue about the feel, the tone, the artwork. It's basic in-group/out-group dynamics.

Actually...

That's Steven Winter on one fan's reaction to a column written by AD&D Second Edition designer Zeb Cook for Dragon Magazine.

There's always been vitriol, hate and impotent nerdrage whenever a new edition comes out, it just used to be "slower", I think. I mean, looking at that player's remarks, it's basically the same argument as "4E= babies' first pen-and-paper WoW simulator", only more condescending if possible.

I don't doubt there were holdouts at all. And the magnitude of any individual's reaction to any edition change isn't relevant to my thinking either (there's always a nutter somewhere..) Its the scale of the reaction to 4e that simply amazes me. I used to be in contact with dozens, if not hundreds of gamers through my campus club and conventions. After the 2e and 3e transitions, hardly a peep. I can't even recall a single incident of meeting a 2e resister in person. Even the 2e holdouts I knew (and there weren't that many) were hanging on mostly to finish some grand campaign and squeeze use out of their books. More "Meh, I've got all this stuff already." than "OMG! That's not D&D!"*

Nowadays, though, it seems like if you D&D, then you've got some strong opinion on 4e. Even gamers I know who don't visit the forums or game online have intense feelings about 4e that amaze me. Something (maybe several somethings?) about 4e or its transition turned a lot of people off (and kept them off) in a way that previous transitions didn't. Whether that's my "time to get bored with it" theory or something else, I dunno. Personally, I find it increasingly baffling the more I think about it.

*I did know one group that thought that removing the mild Algebra requirements of THAC0 would allow the "riffraff" in. I didn't understand their objections since they were very exclusive and would basically only play within their little clique, regardless of THAC0 or not. ::shrug::

 

[Greg K]

Regarding DCs and PC Level or challenge level and how it is supposed to work, I don't know if the following helps. It was posted here at ENWorld by Rodney Thompson (a.k.a. Moradin, a.k.a, WOTC Rodney) back 2009:

"See, that's one thing that I think is commonly misunderstood about 4th Edition's "DCs that scale by level" system. Perhaps we've just not adequately explained the intent, in which case further explanation may be necessary.

Essentially, the idea of DCs that scale with level assume that you are throwing level-appropriate challenges at the PCs. The charts by themselves assume that, whatever task the heroes are facing, they are facing it because it's meant to be a challenge for their level. The reason the DC to pick a lock is higher at a higher level is because it's a more complex lock, or perhaps it's forged with magic, etc.

At the same time, we also want to maintain internal consistency. To wit:


So, when your third level heroes decide to break into the mayor's house, and you decide that's an appropriate challenge for your level, then you set the DCs based on that. However, when the heroes are 26th level and come back to their hometown and decide to break into the mayor's house, then the DCs shouldn't scale--the doors aren't different, unless for some reason you decide that they are. So, you would use those same level 3 DCs...which pretty much means the rogue walks up, rolls his eyes, pops the lock and strides in.

However, if the heroes are breaking into the Efreeti Bank in the City of Brass, which is more of a level-appropriate challenge, that's when you set the Thievery DC using the PCs level as a basis. That's because the locks in the City of Brass are tougher to open.

The PCs should face challenges with level-appropriate DCs, but it's up to the DM to describe those challenges in a way that makes sense why it's harder. Climbing a cliff at 26th level has a higher DC than climbing a cliff at 3rd level because at 26th level you should be climbing the Cliffs of Death where to rocks bleed a slick ichor and steam vents blast scalding water on you every few seconds...and at 3rd level you should be climbing the rocky cliffs by the beach outside of town.

But if you ARE 26th level, the cliffs outside of town shouldn't have their Athletics DC to climb changed...unless suddenly the cliffs outside of town are now the site of a demonic invasion where deadly portals open every few seconds to release bursts of hellfire"

 

[Imaro]

BTW, that table was separated later on to have distinct DCs for each level 1-30 instead of the 3 level groupings.

D&D has always used a bunch of things tied to "level". The Level of a dungeon, the level of a monster, the level of a character, spell level, etc. It should not be a surprise that a chart that has "Level" as one of it's columns can have multiple uses for the "Level" column.

If as an "improv" effect I have "Level 4 Zone/Trap/Hazard" that does Necrotic damage and a character wants to try to scramble/tumble through it to avoid damage. Should the chart use the level of the "hazard", or the level of the "character" to determine the chance of success?

If I say "hazard" level the DC is static, if I say character level the DC is not static. If I have 2 characters of different level in the same party should the hazard change DC because of their level? See the absurdity in that logic?




-

Uhmm... Wouldnt a level 5 trap have a set DC, especially since there weren't any trap creation rules in DMG 1... So it would be pre-made. We've already stated static DC's supersede the chart so I'm not understanding your point here.