Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Discuss: Combat as War in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8265481" data-attributes="member: 29398"><p>I never got deep enough into 3e to know what Spheres of Power/Might even were (are they a 3.5 thing? never really did 3.5).</p><p></p><p>The underlying principle in 3e of tying every creature in the setting to a quasi-universal and consistent-within-setting mechanical framework is an excellent starting point. That they then went on and kinda butchered the execution doesn't diminish this.</p><p></p><p>First thing: the whole idea of CR, while possibly helpful for new DMs, isn't something I really subscribe to. What that means is that I don't really care what "CR6" actually means in any given situation; it's a red herring.</p><p></p><p>But to say that Grunt the Ogre has 45 hit points doesn't constrain anything. Grunt has 45 h.p., just like Bob the PC Fighter has 63 hit points: those hit point values are locked in as part of those creatures' mechanical descriptions. Our little rat has 7 hit points, same thing.</p><p></p><p>There's nothing wrong with assessing threats as relative until-unless that assessment starts forcing mechanical changes; at which point it violates setting consistency.</p><p></p><p>Because then you end up with, in a way, Schroedinger's lock. That particular element of the physical setting in which the characters are supposed to operate becomes inconsistent with itself from one moment to the next, which in my view is unacceptable setting design.</p><p></p><p>It isn't identical in threat, not due to anything that's changed about it but due to what's changed about the PCs as they've advanced in level. It still is what it was.</p><p></p><p>An analogy might be your elementary school gymnasium. When you were a kid it seemed huge, but go back and visit as an adult and it seems way smaller. Nothing's changed about the physical gym - it's the same size it always was - but your perception of it has altered. The change is in you, not the gym.</p><p></p><p>The parallel here is that the change is in the PC, not the ogre or the rat.</p><p></p><p>I don't use threat assessment as a starting point. The creature is what it is and it's up to the players/PCs to figure out its degree of threat.</p><p></p><p>Whcih again means the difference is in the patient (the PC), not the pathogen (the ogre). You've made my point for me, here. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>But <em>nothing physically changes about the teen</em>, or the 2x4, when faced with each of these opponents; and therefore were this a game there's absolutely no reason to change any of the teen's mechanical descriptors.</p><p></p><p>To me they're being measured against the setting as a whole. The setting is more than just the PCs.</p><p></p><p>I should mention that I only have the first DMG for 4e; on reading it (and the PH, and the MM) I decided not to bother following it any further.</p><p></p><p>Ditto for the allegedly viable but actually pushover range; the point is that the wider that allegedly-viable range is the better IMO.</p><p></p><p>And 3e, and 5e. I don't use a numerical rating system, the encounters are what they are and over time there's going to be a mix ranging from "utterly trivial" to "you can't win this".</p><p></p><p>I guess I'm here for alternate-real.</p><p></p><p>A death-free adventure in my games is unusual - there's most often one or two - but a TPK is very rare: I've DMed one TPK in 37 years. Also, an average adventure in my games takes about 8-10 sessions to play through, so it's not like there's a death every session*.</p><p></p><p>* - unless you play gonzo like they did in the first adventure in my current campaign: in 20 sessions they turned the whole party over twice, one and two characters at a time, and I don't think they ever stopped laughing. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Yeah, I go for a bit more of a gritty style. High adventure and heroism can be fine for a while, but that's all.</p><p></p><p>The thing with C-as-A and the setback-rally-recovery-victory pattern in combat is that the pattern becomes very predictable, and thus boring. I remember seeing this in 3e, where it became almost a meme or joke amongst us that if we could get to the third round of combat we'd win no matter what.</p><p></p><p>That said, I'm all about unpredictability in combat: re-rolled initiatives each round, fog-of-war, etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8265481, member: 29398"] I never got deep enough into 3e to know what Spheres of Power/Might even were (are they a 3.5 thing? never really did 3.5). The underlying principle in 3e of tying every creature in the setting to a quasi-universal and consistent-within-setting mechanical framework is an excellent starting point. That they then went on and kinda butchered the execution doesn't diminish this. First thing: the whole idea of CR, while possibly helpful for new DMs, isn't something I really subscribe to. What that means is that I don't really care what "CR6" actually means in any given situation; it's a red herring. But to say that Grunt the Ogre has 45 hit points doesn't constrain anything. Grunt has 45 h.p., just like Bob the PC Fighter has 63 hit points: those hit point values are locked in as part of those creatures' mechanical descriptions. Our little rat has 7 hit points, same thing. There's nothing wrong with assessing threats as relative until-unless that assessment starts forcing mechanical changes; at which point it violates setting consistency. Because then you end up with, in a way, Schroedinger's lock. That particular element of the physical setting in which the characters are supposed to operate becomes inconsistent with itself from one moment to the next, which in my view is unacceptable setting design. It isn't identical in threat, not due to anything that's changed about it but due to what's changed about the PCs as they've advanced in level. It still is what it was. An analogy might be your elementary school gymnasium. When you were a kid it seemed huge, but go back and visit as an adult and it seems way smaller. Nothing's changed about the physical gym - it's the same size it always was - but your perception of it has altered. The change is in you, not the gym. The parallel here is that the change is in the PC, not the ogre or the rat. I don't use threat assessment as a starting point. The creature is what it is and it's up to the players/PCs to figure out its degree of threat. Whcih again means the difference is in the patient (the PC), not the pathogen (the ogre). You've made my point for me, here. :) But [I]nothing physically changes about the teen[/I], or the 2x4, when faced with each of these opponents; and therefore were this a game there's absolutely no reason to change any of the teen's mechanical descriptors. To me they're being measured against the setting as a whole. The setting is more than just the PCs. I should mention that I only have the first DMG for 4e; on reading it (and the PH, and the MM) I decided not to bother following it any further. Ditto for the allegedly viable but actually pushover range; the point is that the wider that allegedly-viable range is the better IMO. And 3e, and 5e. I don't use a numerical rating system, the encounters are what they are and over time there's going to be a mix ranging from "utterly trivial" to "you can't win this". I guess I'm here for alternate-real. A death-free adventure in my games is unusual - there's most often one or two - but a TPK is very rare: I've DMed one TPK in 37 years. Also, an average adventure in my games takes about 8-10 sessions to play through, so it's not like there's a death every session*. * - unless you play gonzo like they did in the first adventure in my current campaign: in 20 sessions they turned the whole party over twice, one and two characters at a time, and I don't think they ever stopped laughing. :) Yeah, I go for a bit more of a gritty style. High adventure and heroism can be fine for a while, but that's all. The thing with C-as-A and the setback-rally-recovery-victory pattern in combat is that the pattern becomes very predictable, and thus boring. I remember seeing this in 3e, where it became almost a meme or joke amongst us that if we could get to the third round of combat we'd win no matter what. That said, I'm all about unpredictability in combat: re-rolled initiatives each round, fog-of-war, etc. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Discuss: Combat as War in D&D
Top