D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[Neonchameleon]

1) Not weird at all, just because you don't agree does not make it weird; throwing 5th level monsters against a 15th level party in 4th Ed is pretty much totally ineffectual.

It's also ineffectual in 3.X - and in AD&D and oD&D. Does that mean you level the monsters up or you use different monsters and challenges? Me, I'd use different challenges. I'd also possibly minionise monsters - raise their level by 8 and cut them down to 1hp to keep the challenge about the same. But that's not levelling the monster up so much as looking at it differently.

 

[Steely_Dan]

It's also ineffectual in 3.X - and in AD&D and oD&D. Does that mean you level the monsters up or you use different monsters and challenges? Me, I'd use different challenges. I'd also possibly minionise monsters - raise their level by 8 and cut them down to 1hp to keep the challenge about the same. But that's not levelling the monster up so much as looking at it differently.

Yeah, well, I am also not a fan of where 3rd Ed took the game (number bloat, mathematical silliness).

Removing the 4th Ed cancerous 1/2 level bonus to character's and monster's Attacks, Defences, and Skills, helps a lot with those shenanigans.

 

[Hussar]

It's also ineffectual in 3.X - and in AD&D and oD&D. Does that mean you level the monsters up or you use different monsters and challenges? Me, I'd use different challenges. I'd also possibly minionise monsters - raise their level by 8 and cut them down to 1hp to keep the challenge about the same. But that's not levelling the monster up so much as looking at it differently.

Actually, that's not entirely true NeonC. In AD&D, where the math was so flat, a 5th level party could, at least in theory, handle threats that were a much higher level. Assuming for a moment they didn't actually need magic weapons to hit the creature, a 5th level party could handle most of the non-unique monsters in the Monster Manual. They might die, sure, but, it wouldn't necessarily be a TPK.

There's a reason there's an ancient black dragon at the end of the first Dragonlance module - which is for 5th level characters. It's a fairly reasonable threat.

Makes a huge difference when the entire game is really crammed into 10 levels.

 

[Steely_Dan]

It's also ineffectual in 3.X - and in AD&D and oD&D. Does that mean you level the monsters up or you use different monsters and challenges?

Not true (as Hussar elaborated), and monsters don't have levels in pre-4th Ed, and CR is not accurate.

 

[pemerton]

When using the encounter building guidelines, a 1st level party can have a range of encounters that include higher than level +2... yet when using party level as the basis for the chart for the DC's by challenge level in DMG 1, it confines the DC's for a first level party to those for levels 1-3 and on the other hand confines a 3rd level party to DC's between thise appropriate for level to level -2 challenges... This is the problem that arises when it is based off party level as opposed to encounter level.

I don't understand the language of "confined". That word is not used anywhere in the DMG; nor are any synonyms.

I can see two features of 4e that perhaps these comments are picking up on.

First, combat resolution in 4e is more mechanically intricate in 4e than is non-combat resolution: you have the action economy of multiple monsters (or elites/solos), the rules for on-turn and off-turn actions, rules for conditions and hit point depletion, etc. Skill checks, and skill challenges, don't have the same mulitiplicity of mechanical dimensions. All you can do is up the DC or (in a skill challenge) up the complexity. For example, a combat encounter has both an overall level - consequent on total XP value - and has levels for each constitutent element. A skill check, or a skill challenge, doesn't have the same internal structure able to be expressed in terms of levels. This generates a certain pressure in favour of "level appropriate" skill DCs that is probably greater than that for combat encounters.

Second, and not unrelated, the "dice pool" character of skill challenge resolution makes it highly sensitive to DC scaling (and hence level variation). It's well known that 4e combat encounters will work better if (say) level +4 elites are converted by the GM to level or level+1 solos - swinginess will be reduced, action economy will play more smoothly, the hit rate for both PCs and NPC will come closer to the system expecations, etc.

This is even more true for a skill challenge. If you want to make it harder or more involved, it's almost always better to increase th complexity rather than increase the level, because of the different mathematical implications. (This feature of 4e provides an argument in favour of bounded accuracy.)

For these two reasons, good non-combat encounter design in 4e, and also good DC-setting for improvised actions, is going to stick fairly closely to the level-appropriate DCs. Otherwise the maths of success/fail comes under too much pressure, and there are no other mechanical dimensions of resolution (of which the most basic, in combat, is the retries in subsequent rounds that are possible as long as your PC has hit points left) to compensate.

if the PC's go to explore the City of Brass when they are level 21 then the DC's they encounter will be based on a party level of 21... however if they return at level 27, suddenly anything that hasn't been established in their previous visit... has harder DC's.

Why? That's entirely up to the GM to determine, and whether or not the DCs change will depend on what the fiction is that the GM is trying to support, as well as the group's understanding of the relationship between fiction and DCs.

I am speaking to DMG 1... where almost every skill challenge is presented with a generic... level = party level

From the DMG, pp 72-73:

Level and complexity determine how hard the challenge is for your characters to overcome. The skill challenge’s level determines the DC of the skill checks involved . . . Set a level for the challenge and DCs for the checks involved. As a starting point, set the level of the challenge to the level of the party . . .​

That's pretty unequivocal: the level of the skill challenge determines the DCs, and the GM is advised to default to party level if in doubt (much like the advice for building combat encounters).

I'm with [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] here, and I don't really understand the point of arguing that Rodney Thompson misunderstood his own and his colleagues' design intentions.

 

[Iosue]

Not true (as Hussar elaborated), and monsters don't have levels in pre-4th Ed, and CR is not accurate.

Okay, now that's a weird statement.

P.10 of Dungeons & Dragons III: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures has the "Monster Determination and Level of Monster Matrix", which cross checks "Level Beneath the Surface" and six "Monster Level Tables".

P. B4 of Moldvay Basic: "A 'monster level' indicates how tough and ferocious a type of monster is. A monster's level is equal to the number of hit dice (a measure of how much damage a monster can take and still survive; see MONSTERS, page B29) it has. Some monsters have special powers and the DM may consider them one "monster level" or (or hit die) higher than the number of their hit dice.

P. B29: "'Hit dice' also gives the level of the monster and the dungeon level on which it is most commonly found. In general, a monster's level equals its number of hit dice, ignoring any pluses or minuses. EXAMPLE: A monster with 3+1 hit dice is a third level monster and is most commonly found on the 3rd level of any dungeon. Note: if a monster has several special powers, the DM may consider it one level greater than its hit dice

"A monster's level is only a guide, and a monster could be found anywhere in the dungeon, whatever the level. However, as a general rule, it is useful to limit monsters to 2 dungeon levels higher or lower than their hit dice. When monsters are encountered on dungeon levels less than the monsters' level, there should be fewer monsters than normal. And when monsters are met on dungeon levels greater than the monsters' level, there should be more monsters than normal."

P. 63 of Mentzer Basic Rules Player's Manual: "monster level -- A measure of how tough a monster is, usually equal to its hit dice."

P. 22 of Mentzer Basic Dungeon Master's Rulebook:
Monster Levels
"A monster with 1 Hit Die is called a "first level" monster. A monster with 2 Hit Dice is a "second level monster", and so forth. Any "plusses" are ignored.
"Monsters are encountered more often on the dungeon level equal to their level.
"Therefore, most of the Goblins encountered by a party will be found on the first level of the dungeon. Goblins will be encountered less frequently on other levels of a dungeon.
"If encountered elsewhere in a dungeon, the difference between the monster's level and the dungeon level is usually no more too."


p. 174 - 170 of the AD&D DMG is made up of "Monster Level" tables for encounters.

p. 98 of the 2e DMG states:
"Dungeon encounters are normally set up according to levels -- 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Each level is a relative measure of the power of those creature on it. In general, the level of the table corresponds to character level, although characters may also encounter and defeat (or be challenged by) creatures from higher or lower level tables. Generally, when adventuring in a dungeon, characters should meet random encounters that are equal to or no more than two levels higher or lower than their own.
"Sometimes dungeons themselves are arranged in levels (although this is by no means required). In this case, the dungeon level and the encounter table correspond. Characters on the 1st-level of the dungeon would encounter creatures from the first level encounter table. This not only keeps the power of the monsters in line with the strength of the typical party, it also maintains the logical structure of the dungeon level. It doesn't make much sense for extremely powerful monsters to mingle freely (and without consequence) among the weaker creatures that inhabit that level."

Of course, none of this takes away the point that 4e's 1/2 level scaling tends to narrow the range of usable monsters (without adjusting their default level). But every edition since the beginning has given monsters levels to help DM's create encounters that were a decent match for the party.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, monsters have always had a sort of "CR" like categorization to them. In AD&D, monsters were ranked 1-9 (or was it 10, been a while) (using roman numerals) to indicate which level of the dungeon they would normally appear on.

Thing was, because the monsters were generally so weak relative to the PC's, you could use the same monster for a number of levels without great changes. The PC's had a very, very flat power progression and the monsters were poncy. Means you can chuck giants at 3rd level PC's and, at least for hill giants, expect them to probably win through.

The change with 3e is that the scaling is so much higher and the monsters are so much stronger because of that scaling, that jumping up three or four CR's and you should be looking at a TPK.

 

[Manbearcat]

@pemerton

I think what may be causing the confusion here (and I've seen it more than once) is that the 4e rules texts are organized/formatted differently than prior editions. 4e rules texts have within their task resolution tables (eg, DC to break down door or open lock) an embedded meta-game consideration of level-appropriate challenge for PCs/party. Whereas prior editions didn't include this DM-side tool through which they can appropriately determine "of-level" DCs and their corresponding, fiction-side nature. Prior editions just told you; "Normal Wooden Door - n DC", "Adamantine Door - n + 10 DC".

I suppose this meta-game tool provided to DMs to determine "level-appropriate" challenges confused people into thinking this was some sort of world building mandate. Its just a guideline/tutorial on what a level-appropriate challenge is for PCs and the corresponding fiction for those DCs.

The above is, of course, related to exercises in Task Resolution. When invoking Skill Challenge mechanics, the rules work the same way but there is a subtle, key difference in DM considerations. The Conflict Resolution structure of the Skill Challenge presupposes that the Conflict being Resolved is an actual challenge...lest an actual Skill Challenge become superfluous and, in that case, you should just be performing S'mon's "You are here, what do you do?" You don't compose Skill Challenges to capture the "oh so compelling" trope of "Epic Level adventurers load cargo on their sailing ship for their voyage across the sea." Meta-game consideration should dictate Skill Challenge DCs as they should be roughly bounded to PC's level for it to be both a challenge and to induce the tension of the specter of failure as a possible outcome. Further, Skill Challenge "task-resolution" (and its corresponding DCs and outcomes) within the greater framework of the "conflict-resolution" of the Skill Challenge should primarily be that of a "fiction-first", narrative-driving conduit. You are not "world-building" here nor is the maintenance of internal consistency even relevant. You are "scene-building" and thus the "task-resolution" DCs and outcomes MUST be meta-gamed and decoupled from linear cause-and-effect. The idea of trying to constrain Skill Challenge DCs and outcomes to process-simulation for internal consistency of the world is anathema to the entire point of the effort at capturing the relevant fantasy trope.

Obviously I know that you know this, but I wonder if people understand the very real differences between task-based resolution and conflict-based resolution in 4e. I see people post things that seem very divorced from my reading of the rules texts, my understanding of them, and my in-play dynamics.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Okay, now that's a weird statement.

Again, it's not, you seem to have a penchant for the word "weird", and appear to be stalking me!

 

[GreyICE]

Yeah, monsters have always had a sort of "CR" like categorization to them. In AD&D, monsters were ranked 1-9 (or was it 10, been a while) (using roman numerals) to indicate which level of the dungeon they would normally appear on.

Thing was, because the monsters were generally so weak relative to the PC's, you could use the same monster for a number of levels without great changes. The PC's had a very, very flat power progression and the monsters were poncy. Means you can chuck giants at 3rd level PC's and, at least for hill giants, expect them to probably win through.

The change with 3e is that the scaling is so much higher and the monsters are so much stronger because of that scaling, that jumping up three or four CR's and you should be looking at a TPK.

Depends on the tier. +4 levels is probably lethal in heroic. It's quite doable in Paragon. It's a trivial challenge in Epic.

(Of course there's the argument that Epic 4E requires a DM to completely rethink the entire mentality of how D&D works in every respect and cannot be treated like level 1-20 play, and that's fair).

 

[Hussar]

Depends on the tier. +4 levels is probably lethal in heroic. It's quite doable in Paragon. It's a trivial challenge in Epic.

(Of course there's the argument that Epic 4E requires a DM to completely rethink the entire mentality of how D&D works in every respect and cannot be treated like level 1-20 play, and that's fair).

I'm not really sure about 4e to be honest. I don't have enough experience DMing it to be able to have a strong opinion one way or another.

OTOH, I am pretty darn sure that if I bomb a CR 9 creature on a 5th level 3e party, I'm going to be looking at a lot of character death. When the baddie's average damage is enough to kill a PC, and it pretty much never misses, it should be whacking PC's.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I'm not really sure about 4e to be honest. I don't have enough experience DMing it to be able to have a strong opinion one way or another.

I do, fluctuate a few too many levels, and the whole thing goes out of whack, removing the 1/2 level bonus from all character's and monster's Attacks, Defences, and Skills really helps.

 

[pemerton]

Depends on the tier. +4 levels is probably lethal in heroic. It's quite doable in Paragon. It's a trivial challenge in Epic.

I'm not really sure about 4e to be honest. I don't have enough experience DMing it to be able to have a strong opinion one way or another.

I recently ran an encounter for my 17th level, no-Expertise feats party, with two level 22 death giants (damage upped to MM3 standards) and a 17th level Eidolon (again, appropriately MM3-ed). According to the XP this a level 18 encounter and it played like that, ie pretty straightforward for the PCs. The comparatively high defences of the giants showed a bit, but that was a deliberate choice I'd made in designing the encounter.

Of course there's the argument that Epic 4E requires a DM to completely rethink the entire mentality of how D&D works in every respect and cannot be treated like level 1-20 play, and that's fair

Can you elaborate? My PCs have just reached 18th level, so I'm expecting to go Epic by the end of the year.

 

[pemerton]

I wonder if people understand the very real differences between task-based resolution and conflict-based resolution in 4e. I see people post things that seem very divorced from my reading of the rules texts, my understanding of them, and my in-play dynamics.

I also share your curiosity and experience the same dissonance between my own experience and what others describe or attribute to the rulebooks.

The above is, of course, related to exercises in Task Resolution. When invoking Skill Challenge mechanics, the rules work the same way but there is a subtle, key difference in DM considerations. The Conflict Resolution structure of the Skill Challenge presupposes that the Conflict being Resolved is an actual challenge

<snip>

Meta-game consideration should dictate Skill Challenge DCs as they should be roughly bounded to PC's level for it to be both a challenge and to induce the tension of the specter of failure as a possible outcome.

<snip>

You are "scene-building" and thus the "task-resolution" DCs and outcomes MUST be meta-gamed and decoupled from linear cause-and-effect.

I think there are some mechanical infelicities here, though, which I have experienced in play, and which the rules could do more to help with.

Consider the DC to see through a hag's disguise using Insight. This is set high enough (generally, Hard DC of the hag's level +5) to provide a real challenge to task resolution. Which is fine. But won't work if incorporated into a skill challenge (too high! it will muck up the maths).

Bluff DCs are similar - work well for opposed checks in task resolution, too high for skill challenges.

The solution that I use is to use skill challenge appropriate DCs, and require multiple successful checks before the full details (of the lie, of the hag's identity, etc) come out in the course of resolution.

But I can see how this sort of thing, which the rules don't really deal with at all, can cause some confusion and/or dislike of the system.

 

[Manbearcat]

<snip>

Consider the DC to see through a hag's disguise using Insight. This is set high enough (generally, Hard DC of the hag's level +5) to provide a real challenge to task resolution. Which is fine. But won't work if incorporated into a skill challenge (too high! it will muck up the maths).

Bluff DCs are similar - work well for opposed checks in task resolution, too high for skill challenges.

The solution that I use is to use skill challenge appropriate DCs, and require multiple successful checks before the full details (of the lie, of the hag's identity, etc) come out in the course of resolution.

But I can see how this sort of thing, which the rules don't really deal with at all, can cause some confusion and/or dislike of the system.

I have never run a social Skill Challenge with a hag, but I think that is a classic trope that would be well serviced by the Skill Challenge resolution system. If I ever do run one, I would assuredly do the same thing as you describe as it is standard operating procedure for a Skill Challenge.

I have run a ruthless, Jack Bowersesque, interrogation Skill Challenge whereby two PCs attempt to secure mandatory information regarding an imminent terrorist plot (poisoning the nobility district's water supply with a deadly toxin) from an otherwise unwilling target. Naturally Bluff and Insight were heavily involved and I used Skill Challenge appropriate DCs to resolve it. Its a very intuitive process once you understand the (relatively) outcome-based simulation of Skill Challenges versus the (relatively) process-based simulation of mundane task resolution.

Its very relevant to Hussar's topic. Although the 4e rules texts are quite thorough in many respects and, as a whole, the product is exceedingly coherent, there are "holes in its game" whereby the authors and editors did not conceptualize how their lack of bridging of logic (just expecting it to be intuitive and therefore no need to be made explicit) would affect the polish of their final product. In editions predating 3e, it was expected that players would infill the authors/editors lack of explicit bridging of logic with their conceptualized understanding of the rules texts (the marriage of RAI with RAW). However, we no longer grok this responsibility as the mental fog of a subtle paradigm shift (which Hussar outlines in his initial post) - "fidelity to the orthodox of the anointed texts" - has become cultural mainstay over the course of the last two editions. That being said, I hope I've made it abundantly clear at this point that I favor coherent, transparent, thorough rules texts over incoherent, relatively opaque, shallow rules texts. However, what I do hold as true is that if rules texts conveyed a schematic of each subtle (intuitive?) "logical transition" (Skill Challenge metagame, level-appropriate, DC design over-rules mundane, non-level-centric, task resolution DC standards), then word count and page count would increase dramatically...and I suspect that rules texts would start reading like my posts with a thousand and one caveats and clarifiers embedded within (driving the gaming community at-large to madness).

With that caveat on top of another caveat...I have one more caveat. I do have issues with the coherency of some of the designers' rules text (and its likely, poor manipulation by its editors). I've stated as such in a few posts here and there. If there is one thing I hope for in the next edition (if I choose to partake) is that the designers' intentions are coherent/clear and that, after editing, they are allowed to go back through the books again to make sure their message (to make sure important "logical transitions" are still well-represented, and are not outright omitted, in the edited version), was not pruned too much to the point that the rules text move from coherent to relatively incoherent (with respect to their iteration prior to editing). Too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the soup. If players must bear to much of the burden of conceptualization of RAI from RAW, if long term gamers end up with too many exchanges over RAW, it means that RAI (logical transitions) was not clear enough in concept.

 

[Manbearcat]

- Some factions are worried about page count generally so as to keep the rules texts' costs down.
- Some factions are worried about page count per topic specifically (so their favored sections are given their relative due).
- Some factions are worried about rules texts' prose being coherent, concise, transparent and explicit enough so that all tables play generally the same and so it is impossible to confuse RAW and RAI.
- Some factions are worred about rules texts' prose being too explicit, too gamey, too much like an engineering-grade manual (and not enough purple prose-y), so that reading the books becomes less of "an adventure" unto itself and so that each table cannot "make the game their own".

Pleasing all 4 of these groups, with often mutually exclusive interests, is going to be a neat trick.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I recently ran an encounter for my 17th level, no-Expertise feats party, with two level 22 death giants (damage upped to MM3 standards) and a 17th level Eidolon (again, appropriately MM3-ed). According to the XP this a level 18 encounter and it played like that, ie pretty straightforward for the PCs. The comparatively high defences of the giants showed a bit, but that was a deliberate choice I'd made in designing the encounter.

I've done the same. My recent climactic battle involved the party against an invading ogre army. In the showdown it was the PCs and a handful of minions defending an Invoker's temple against a dozen ogres. (Seriously, if an Invoker of Erathis is in residence and the signs say keep off the grass, then keep off the grass*.) Defending PCs: 6 level 7s including the Invoker, four strikers, and a Warlord, a dozen or so minions, and defensive terrain. Invaders: a dozen ogres ranging from level 6 to a level 11 elite skirmisher and a level 14 plate armoured soldier. Yeah, the plate armoured soldier was tough. But the whole thing worked well. All minions and Invoker dead, and all PCs at least bloodied and with no remaining way to spend surges. One ogre survived to flee.

Can you elaborate? My PCs have just reached 18th level, so I'm expecting to go Epic by the end of the year.

The basic problem is that 4e Epic is more of the same.

* Five damage and combat advantage unless you're the BBEG when you just leave firey footprints. Rough on the ogres when the paths had defensive emplacements. And one of the strikers was a thief, backed up by a warlord.

 

[pemerton]

The basic problem is that 4e Epic is more of the same.

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?

 

[Emerikol]

- Some factions are worried about page count generally so as to keep the rules texts' costs down.
- Some factions are worried about page count per topic specifically (so their favored sections are given their relative due).

these two are really just about sharing and compromise

- Some factions are worried about rules texts' prose being coherent, concise, transparent and explicit enough so that all tables play generally the same and so it is impossible to confuse RAW and RAI.
- Some factions are worred about rules texts' prose being too explicit, too gamey, too much like an engineering-grade manual (and not enough purple prose-y), so that reading the books becomes less of "an adventure" unto itself and so that each table cannot "make the game their own".

These are major issues. I've suggested a stat block + flavorful description. DMs that want to do outcome based campaigns just use the stat block and feel free to ignore or reflavor the description. Those who prefer flavor to be the ultimate influence can have the DM adjudicate what is said in the description. For the common cases that stat block is still useful to the latter crowd as a quick reference.

 

[Manbearcat]

these two are really just about sharing and compromise

I was thinking more along the lines of:

- The demand for full explication of all nuance, all implied logical transition or bridge, or what some may find intuitive (while others find obscure) by necessity dictates that word/page count increases.

- If word/page count increases due to intense expounding upon rule application and 100 % circumnavigation of nuance, then cost of books increases in proportion to that page count/text proliferation.

- If word/page count is a zero sum game (in order to keep book size/cost down) and the proportion of page count spent on explication, expounding, circumnavigation (for the interest of clarity and to make all things considered explicit that would have been implicit instead such that RAI and RAW are coupled unmistakably) increases then, by necessity, the proportion of page count allotted to fluff/other will be decreased.

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