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).