Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7521357" data-attributes="member: 42582">That example wasn't raised by me. And as far as TotM is concerned I said whatever floats your boat. I explained what floats my boat, and under what conditions.I don't care what 5e GMs do. I'm explaining what features that 4e has that (i) are salient to me and (ii) are absent from 5e.I've never seen that done for combat in non-4e D&amp;D at any table. And I don't think I've ever heard of it. People work out what the AC of an orc is by looking it up in a book (either directly, or by deciding that the orc is wearing (say) mail and then looking up mail on an AC-by-armour-type chart). People work out that a 1st level fighter can't beat a pit fiend not by thinking about the fiction and then assigning the pit fiend appropriate AC and hp, but by looking at the pit fiend stats in the MM.4e is an exception: various of the devices discussed in this thread, like treating 1st level standard goblins as 10th (or whatever) level minions, minionising a lich, treating a phalanx of hobgoblins or a swarm of were-hyenas as a swarm, etc, all depend upon first making a decision about feasibility in the fiction, and then assigning stats (level, monster type, etc) on that basis. I have seen 4e criticised a lot for adopting this approach to the combat-statting of opponents (&quot;Schroedinger's minion&quot; and the like).As far as non-combat is concerned, this thread hasn't revealed (to me, at least) a consistent approach in 5e for setting DCs. But there does seem to be a general if not uniform view that if it is DC 15 for a 15th level fighter then it is DC 15 for a 1st level fighter also (&quot;bounded accuracy&quot;). That seems to be a reading of feasibility of prior mechanics rather than vice versa.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7521357, member: 42582"] That example wasn't raised by me. And as far as TotM is concerned I said whatever floats your boat. I explained what floats my boat, and under what conditions. I don't care what 5e GMs do. I'm explaining what features that 4e has that (i) are salient to me and (ii) are absent from 5e. I've never seen that done for combat in non-4e D&D at any table. And I don't think I've ever heard of it. People work out what the AC of an orc is by looking it up in a book (either directly, or by deciding that the orc is wearing (say) mail and then looking up mail on an AC-by-armour-type chart). People work out that a 1st level fighter can't beat a pit fiend [I]not[/I] by thinking about the fiction and then assigning the pit fiend appropriate AC and hp, but by looking at the pit fiend stats in the MM. 4e is an exception: various of the devices discussed in this thread, like treating 1st level standard goblins as 10th (or whatever) level minions, minionising a lich, treating a phalanx of hobgoblins or a swarm of were-hyenas as a swarm, etc, [I]all depend[/I] upon first making a decision about feasibility in the fiction, and then assigning stats (level, monster type, etc) on that basis. I have seen 4e criticised a lot for adopting this approach to the combat-statting of opponents ("Schroedinger's minion" and the like). As far as non-combat is concerned, this thread hasn't revealed (to me, at least) a consistent approach in 5e for setting DCs. But there does seem to be a general if not uniform view that if it is DC 15 for a 15th level fighter then it is DC 15 for a 1st level fighter also ("bounded accuracy"). That seems to be a reading of feasibility of prior mechanics rather than vice versa. [/QUOTE]

Verification