DMG II Preview and Mearls old work

[Derren]

Look, its obvious that the chandelier in the town tavern, regardless of which characters are present, is a heroic-level terrain feature.

And its also obvious that if, for whatever reason, a low level character finds himself in the palace of an archdevil, the chandelier there won't be made of simple wood and rope...

Only if you are houseruling.
By the rules, when fighting a level equivalent encounter in a run down tavern at paragon level, maybe because you found the BBEGs assassin sidekick there the chandelier will have a appropriate defence so that paragon heroes have a chance at missing.

It would have been (a bit) better when they simply said you have a 50% chance of cutting the rope with a ranged attack. Thats what the math aims for anyway and you wouldn't need a world which reshapes itself every time the PCs gain a level.

The best would of course be a table of hardness and HPs of several materials like in 3E which can not be used for cutting rope but other thinks like smashing doors, stone altars, ripping appart portcullis with bare hands for epic characters and so on. All without having to resort to reshaping the world to suit the PCs level.

 

[Klaus]

1st-level character vs. chandelier: +2 (ability) +3 (weapon) = +5 vs. AC 6. Hits on a 1

11th-level character vs. chandelier: +5 (ability) +3 (weapon) +5 (level) +2 (magic) = +15 vs. AC 16. Hits on a 1.

21st-level character vs. chandelier: +7 (ability) +3 (weapon) +10 (level) +4 (magic) = +24 vs. AC 26. Hits on a 2.

30th-level character vs. chandelier: +9 (ability) +3 (weapon) +15 (level) +6 (magic) = +33 vs. AC 35. Hits on a 2.

Factoring other bonuses at Epic tier, seems like the chandelier will fall unless there are circumstances hindering the character (range, concealment, cover, marks, etc).

 

[FireLance]

Only if you are houseruling.
By the rules, when fighting a level equivalent encounter in a run down tavern at paragon level, maybe because you found the BBEGs assassin sidekick there the chandelier will have a appropriate defence so that paragon heroes have a chance at missing.

Of course, the easiest way to ensure that this never happens is to make everything level-appropriate: location and enemy (and if you want to argue that the DM is houseruling when the PCs encounter an enemy who is not level-appropriate, is DM would also be houseruling if the location is not level-appropriate). Note that this tends to happen most of the time, anyway - Orcus is generally not encountered in a run-down tavern, and normal dire rats are generally not encountered in the Abyss. I am sure that exceptions exist, but they are, you know, exceptions.

It would have been (a bit) better when they simply said you have a 50% chance of cutting the rope with a ranged attack. Thats what the math aims for anyway and you wouldn't need a world which reshapes itself every time the PCs gain a level.

Arguably, if the DM is doing his job correctly, the world will never have to reshape itself because the PCs never encounter the same chandelier twice. Or, in the unlikely event that the PCs encounter what is ostenibly the same chandelier twice, a creative DM should be able to come up with a quick reason why it has changed since the last time the PCs saw it. Of course, a DM who doesn't want to take the trouble can simply re-use the statistics of the old chandelier. Chances are, the players won't even notice.

The best would of course be a table of hardness and HPs of several materials like in 3E which can not be used for cutting rope but other thinks like smashing doors, stone altars, ripping appart portcullis with bare hands for epic characters and so on. All without having to resort to reshaping the world to suit the PCs level.

No, ideally, we should have both: the simple rule of thumb for the DM who wants to quickly create a level-appropriate chandelier, and the table for the DM who wants to further individualize the chandeliers in his campaign. If I had to pick only one, I would go with the former, though. Simple tools are more usable than complex tools, and if I really wanted a table listing sample chandeliers from Level 1 to Level 30, I could start a thread on ENWorld.

 

[LostSoul]

The best would of course be a table of hardness and HPs of several materials like in 3E which can not be used for cutting rope but other thinks like smashing doors, stone altars, ripping appart portcullis with bare hands for epic characters and so on. All without having to resort to reshaping the world to suit the PCs level.

Those tables are on pages 64-65 of the DMG.

 

[Derren]

Those tables are on pages 64-65 of the DMG.

So why not use that instead of a AC = Level + 5 mechanic?

Especially as Klaus calculation has shown that this is not a 50/50 chance like most things in the game, but the chance of failure is minimal.
If they wanted to avoid using tables, they could have simply said "Any character with a ranged weapon or power can spend a standard action to cut the supporting rope". No need to let the party/encounter level influence environmental factors which just make the game more silly or limited (depending on if the DM is making sure PCs adventure only in "level appropriate" areas or not)

Of course that doesn't solve the "level to damage" and "level to attack" silliness the chandelier has.

 

[LostSoul]

So why not use that instead of a AC = Level + 5 mechanic?

I don't know, you'd have to ask the specific DM.

Each DM does things differently, and there are many different approaches. Pick the one that works best for you.

Rulings not rules.

Of course that doesn't solve the "level to damage" and "level to attack" silliness the chandelier has.

No, though if you use the terrain's level instead of the PC's level it can mitigate that effect.

 

[Lizard]

So now chandeliers and its ropes get better defences the better trained the attacker is.
That or demigods are universally bad at cutting ropes.
When does the silliness end...

Well, it can be interpreted in many ways, and WOTC is confusing and contradictory about how things ought to be read.

One way to read it, the stupidest possible way (but one which is, sadly, supported by some Primary Texts), is that if a 10th level character walks into a bar, the bar has a 10th level chandelier.

The smart way, also supported by some primary texts, is that the DM ought to decide the "level" of the terrain feature, USUALLY based on the level of the adventurers if they are encountering it as part of a level-appropriate adventure in a level-appropriate setting. That is, if the 10th level adventurers stop in at a small village tavern en route to the dungeon, the tavern probably has level 1-3 "stuff" in it; if, in the Grand Temple of The Cult, the adventure they're supposed to be on, there's a chandelier, THAT one is a tenth level one, and it will still be 10th level if they go back there 10 levels later.

In short, the debate about all the various "scaling" issues in 4e boils down to:
a) Does the DM set the level of an item based on the level of the challenge he wishes the players to face?
b) Is the level of an item determined by the level of the PCs that interact with it?
c)Is the level of an item set by the DM based on an objective idea of the world, the items properties, and so on, without regard to the players?

In general, using "c" will lead to very "a-like" results, because it's generally not worth bothering statting out items very far above or below the players. A flimsy level one chandelier won't even annoy Orcus; a level 30 chandelier made of hell-forged iron and girded with mithral is so untouchable by 1st level PCs it might as well have an infinite AC. Thus, you can either think "What would a 10th level chandelier be made from?" and come up with a description, or you can think "Hmm, I described this candelier as being made of soft iron with poor craftsmanship, I guess it's level 7", and either way usually works. My personal preference is to work from "a", but to then be consistent and unchanging; once the idea of a "10th level chandelier" is established, any item of similar construction and form will be within a level or two of that, and the players can make a reasoned judgment, based on the description, what kind of item they're dealing with.

 

[Reigan]

This is how it works:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcW-IrZe6aI]YouTube - only fools and horses[/ame]

The old ones are the best.

 

[Derren]

I would go with d)
Terrain features do not have levels.

 

[Walking Dad]

I would go with d)
Terrain features do not have levels.

Boooriiinng!! Seriously, I think we got that you don't like the 'level + something approach' but many (myself included) think it helpful. And in 4e, terrain features do have levels. Nothing wrong with liking 4e, 3.5, Pathfinder and M&M, BTW.