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.