D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[D'karr]

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.

If you've selectively limited yourself to create and use only what the DMG shows you how to create or use, I can understand the problem. Creating an ad-hoc trap can also be done with the chart of pg. 42. So no, it does not have to be pre-made. Nice try though.

That's fine, I really have nothing more to add than what I've already explained. I think the example posted was rather clear. If you ONLY use the rules in the most absurd way you will get absurd results... Who knew?





-

 

[GreyICE]

Pretty sure page 42 was the trap creation rules. Lessee, spear trap, 1-shot, heavy damage, level 5, pick a disarm DC (either moderate or hard), done.

You can get more complex, but you can build a trap in roughly 10 seconds by doing this (poison dart trap, repeating moderate damage, area, subtract the static damage, replace with 66% ongoing poison damage, disarm difficulty hard, done)

 

[Imaro]

Pretty sure page 42 was the trap creation rules. Lessee, spear trap, 1-shot, heavy damage, level 5, pick a disarm DC (either moderate or hard), done.

You can get more complex, but you can build a trap in roughly 10 seconds by doing this (poison dart trap, repeating moderate damage, area, subtract the static damage, replace with 66% ongoing poison damage, disarm difficulty hard, done)

Actually the official rules, which is what I was talking about, weren't until DMG 2... Pg. 64. But yeah I guess you can just make anything up in any roleplaying game...

 

[Imaro]

If you've selectively limited yourself to create and use only what the DMG shows you how to create or use, I can understand the problem. Creating an ad-hoc trap can also be done with the chart of pg. 42. So no, it does not have to be pre-made. Nice try though.

That's fine, I really have nothing more to add than what I've already explained. I think the example posted was rather clear. If you ONLY use the rules in the most absurd way you will get absurd results... Who knew?





-

Well then I guess we're not talking about the actual rules because you can make anything up in any roleplaying game. The funny thing is even the official trap rules in the DMG 2 state the assumption is that traps should be based on party level or encounter level... So even in DMG 2 we see the rules push in the direction of party level being the default base for DC's... Regardless of how you personally chose to use them.

 

[GreyICE]

Actually the official rules, which is what I was talking about, weren't until DMG 2... Pg. 64. But yeah I guess you can just make anything up in any roleplaying game...

When the roleplaying game is nice enough to publish standard difficulties and damage expressions? Yeah, yeah you can.

It's like, teaching a man how to fish versus giving him some fish. Page 42 teaches you how to fish, a pile of cooked fish is cool, but it still doesn't get you more fish when it runs out.

 

[billd91]

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?

You're starting to sound like a critic of 4e and the table on DMG page 42. After all, they way it is presented (whether or not that was what they meant), it's based on the level of the character (or party or whatever) involved. The example included is about an 8th level character swinging from a chandelier. The DC is set based on an easy difficulty for an 8th level character. So... a 1st level character would, presumably, have a lower DC (though not necessarily an easier time of it).

Now the description of how to use that table may have been lacking the fairly critical perspective Rodney Thompson provided about a year later. But I hope you understand that for those of us who weren't enamored of many of 4e's other mechanics, waiting a year for some kind of WotCean exegesis of their texts to find out what they meant wasn't really acceptable.

 

[D'karr]

Well then I guess we're not talking about the actual rules because you can make anything up in any roleplaying game.

Interestingly enough the encounter creation rules do appear in the DMG 1. An encounter is composed of elements (monsters, hazards, traps, etc.) that "fill" up to a desired XP Budget. Encounters can be designed at any level the DM desires to achieve the wanted result, from Level - X to Level + Y. If an encounter can be of any desired level, and a trap can be an element of an encounter, or even the only element of an encounter. Then a trap can be used at any level. The idea that a trap MUST always be the same level as the PCs is preposterous as demonstrated above, and would be, in effect, contrary to the encounter design guidelines. I guess those guidelines could be considered "actual rules" also.

If the idea is to argue that the "rules" must remain inviolate, then have fun, and count me out. To remain so focused on "the actual rules" as to miss out on the actual "fun" in the game, is not my cup of tea - I'll pass. It is not a way I want to play, or run games.





-

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

I've always understood this to be the default intention, and I don't see how RAW says anything different (look at the Door and Wall charts, for example). It's not always the approach I use, though.

Regarding DCs and PC Level or challenge level and how it is supposed to work, I don't know if the following helps.

That clarifies that the intention was what I took it to be, which is what Emerikol posted as a suggested amendment to the rules.

This approach is also found in HeroQuest revised, Maelstrom Storytelling, and The Dying Earth RPG: set DCs to reflect PC capabilities, and then narrate the fictional difficulty of the challenge accordingly.

In some cases, I set level-appropriate DCs even though the fictional circumstances are the same, namely, when the check has more of a metagame than an ingame character, and it supports the dynamics of play better for it always to be comparable in difficulty - for example, the Arcana check required to do something extra or non-standard with a particular spell (say, using a possession spell to read its target's mind, or using Icy Terrain to freeze a pond solid) is something that I'm going to set the same regardless of level.

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.

There is additional weirdness here, as there can be with combat encounters. For example, the XP for a Comp 3 challenge of level N +3 are very close to those for a Comp 5 challenge of level N (for some values of N they are identical). But the way the skill challenge mechanics work, the more complex lower level challenge is almost always going to be significantly easier - because even very modest increases in DC have a major effect on the probability of success for a skill challenge.

 

[Steely_Dan]

The funny thing is even the official trap rules in the DMG 2 state the assumption is that traps should be based on party level or encounter level...

Which i don't really dig, why would a trap conveniently level up with the party.

The rolling boulder is what it is in Indy.

 

[GreyICE]

For the same reason that monsters tend to "level up" with the party or that treasure tends to "level up" with the party. It's more interesting. I mean yeah, you could make an entire dungeon full of 1-3rd level monsters and traps and send level 8 PCs through it, but... yeah, that's not compelling or interesting.

In the case of traps though, it's even more important that they follow party level, because a large part of the difficulty comes from detection chances. High level traps are going to be nigh-undetectable without huge boosts to perception, while low level traps are going to be detected almost automatically.

 

[Steely_Dan]

For the same reason that monsters tend to "level up" with the party or that treasure tends to "level up" with the party. It's more interesting.

Mine don't, an efreeti is an efreeti; and I find it less interesting when the ogre you fought at level 5 is suddenly tougher when you bump into it 5 levels later, just to conveniently keep up with the party, thank god they are remedying this in 5th Ed.

 

[Imaro]

When the roleplaying game is nice enough to publish standard difficulties and damage expressions? Yeah, yeah you can.

It's like, teaching a man how to fish versus giving him some fish. Page 42 teaches you how to fish, a pile of cooked fish is cool, but it still doesn't get you more fish when it runs out.

Well there are slight differences in the designing of a trap... one of those differences, as stated in DMG 2, is that the range of DC's for skill checks for traps can go beyond the DC's indicated by level in the page 42 chart... I think by as much as 5 over, I'll have to check when I get back to my books. I'm also curious how page 42 provides guidelines for the effects of non-damaging traps?

 

[Imaro]

Interestingly enough the encounter creation rules do appear in the DMG 1. An encounter is composed of elements (monsters, hazards, traps, etc.) that "fill" up to a desired XP Budget. Encounters can be designed at any level the DM desires to achieve the wanted result, from Level - X to Level + Y. If an encounter can be of any desired level, and a trap can be an element of an encounter, or even the only element of an encounter. Then a trap can be used at any level. The idea that a trap MUST always be the same level as the PCs is preposterous as demonstrated above, and would be, in effect, contrary to the encounter design guidelines. I guess those guidelines could be considered "actual rules" also.

If the idea is to argue that the "rules" must remain inviolate, then have fun, and count me out. To remain so focused on "the actual rules" as to miss out on the actual "fun" in the game, is not my cup of tea - I'll pass. It is not a way I want to play, or run games.





-

Keep twisting that logic. Wouldn't it be easier to admit that originally, as presented in DMG 1, the DC/level table was in fact presented as creating challenges based on party level. Sometimes the simplest answer is the right answer.

EDIT: The point isn't to argue that the rules are inviolate, but I remember when this issue first came up and many 4e fans seemed to imply that people were purposefully misconstruing or ignorant of the rules and how page 42 was intended to be based on monster level, or encounter level, or level of challenge (whatever this means), which is what I still see being presented by some posters in this thread. IMO, those people were correct and it was the 4e fans who had adapted the table and it's intended use to their own methods. Nothing wrong with that but then don't push blame onto those who used it exactly as it was presented/intended to be used and didn't like the rules...

 

[Neonchameleon]

EDIT: The point isn't to argue that the rules are inviolate, but I remember when this issue first came up and many 4e fans seemed to imply that people were purposefully misconstruing or ignorant of the rules and how page 42 was intended to be based on monster level, or encounter level, or level of challenge (whatever this means), which is what I still see being presented by some posters in this thread.

And I still believe this to be what was intended. That you picked challenge level in the same way you do encounter level - and as 4e runs on an adventure path style system this is likely to be around the level of the party.

Of course I started DMing 4e after the DMG 2 came out. So I'd seen the book that presented skill challenges as I believe they were meant to be presented. The presentation in the DMG 1 didn't say what they intended it to IMO - and as a quote confirms.

 

[Imaro]

And I still believe this to be what was intended. That you picked challenge level in the same way you do encounter level - and as 4e runs on an adventure path style system this is likely to be around the level of the party.

Of course I started DMing 4e after the DMG 2 came out. So I'd seen the book that presented skill challenges as I believe they were meant to be presented. The presentation in the DMG 1 didn't say what they intended it to IMO - and as a quote confirms.

But I'm not speaking to how it was presented after DMG 2, and in fact on this I think we're probably in agreement. That said I think it's a little disingenuous to expect people who didn't like 4e to have bought DMG 2 for clarification/revision/whatever.

I am speaking to DMG 1... where almost every skill challenge is presented with a generic... level = party level... or the example of the rogue on the same page as the chart is based on the rogue's level. 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? I've given multiple examples of party level being used which is exactly how many people claimed the table was supposed to be used and then were told they were doing it wrong when they found the rules and their applications unsatisfying.

 

[D'karr]

Keep twisting that logic.

I didn't know that using the encounter design "rules" as described was twisting logic. Seemed perfectly logical that an encounter has components. Encounters can be of any level; the same, above or even below PC Level. The components that make up an encounter can be of any level to "use up" an expected XP budget. Therefore a trap can also be used at any level, which was another of your objections.

I think that I've explained, with quite a bit of clarity, how I don't find myself slavishly tied to the rules. IME this provides a better experience when running/playing an RPG. I've explained how pushing the "rules" towards absurdity, gives absurd results, which shouldn't be a surprise. I've also explained how I've used the rules, which it seems was the way WotC intended them. I also expressed that the "rules" could have been better explained, to which you also objected.

At this time it seems the conversation has turned to a "yes you can, no you can't" argument, and I'm really not interested in continuing it along that path. So you do your thing, and I'll do mine. Mine seems to work quite well for my group as I never had the problems you describe.



-

 

[Iosue]

Mine don't, an efreeti is an efreeti; and I find it less interesting when the ogre you fought at level 5 is suddenly tougher when you bump into it 5 levels later, just to conveniently keep up with the party, thank god they are remedying this in 5th Ed.

Well, from the perspective of the ogre, that party you fought at level 5 is suddenly tougher when you bump into them 5 levels later.

And if its not the same ogre, then I don't see the issue.

Incidentally, BECMI has Lesser Efreeti in Expert (AC 3, 10 HD, one 2-16 dmg attack), Lesser Efreeti of the Elemental Plane in Companion (AC 1, added special abilities), as well as Greater Efreeti (AC -2, HD 20, two attacks of 3-30 dmg). It's almost as if Mentzer and Gygax wanted to provide stronger versions of the monsters that were a level appropriate match for the party...

 

[Imaro]

I didn't know that using the encounter design "rules" as described was twisting logic. Seemed perfectly logical that an encounter has components. Encounters can be of any level; the same, above or even below PC Level. The components that make up an encounter can be of any level to "use up" an expected XP budget. Therefore a trap can also be used at any level, which was another of your objections.

I think that I've explained, with quite a bit of clarity, how I don't find myself slavishly tied to the rules. IME this provides a better experience when running/playing an RPG. I've explained how pushing the "rules" towards absurdity, gives absurd results, which shouldn't be a surprise. I've also explained how I've used the rules, which it seems was the way WotC intended them. I also expressed that the "rules" could have been better explained, to which you also objected.

At this time it seems the conversation has turned to a "yes you can, no you can't" argument, and I'm really not interested in continuing it along that path. So you do your thing, and I'll do mine. Mine seems to work quite well for my group as I never had the problems you describe.



-

Dude, we're not talking about your specific game table or even how you choose to do things, I think that's where the problem lies... you can change anything you want in an rpg... but that in no way reflects upon the rules and how they were intended to be used by those designing the game, which is what I am discussing.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Well, from the perspective of the ogre, that party you fought at level 5 is suddenly tougher when you bump into them 5 levels later.

And if its not the same ogre, then I don't see the issue.

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

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.

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

 

[D'karr]

Dude, we're not talking about your specific game table or even how you choose to do things, I think that's where the problem lies... you can change anything you want in an rpg... but that in no way reflects upon the rules and how they were intended to be used by those designing the game, which is what I am discussing.

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.




-