D&D (2024) Not enough DMs / new edition

[Blue]

You misunderstand.


I am saying, level means the same thing for both character sheets and statblocks.

BZZT. You EXPRESSLY did not say that. You said that a [DESCRIPTIVE] 4 creature was the equivalent of four PCs of level 4. That is wildly different. And since the action economy change isn't linear, it's not even on the same scale.

At the best, you think you said that because you don't understand the mechanics. Otherwise you genuinely didn't say that and claiming you did is incorrect.

One X = Four Y, in D&D 5e combat, is not an equivalent.

level 3 statblock = level 3 character sheet
level 3 character sheet = level 3 statblock

The main difference is, if using a statblock (or a character sheet) for a combat encounter against the player characters, then the nonplayer statblock (or character sheet) gains a hit point boost.

You didn't say this part, and it's also not true at all because of the mechanics of the game, especially action economy that I pointed out. If you are unfamiliar with this, go look up the many, many discussions on the internet about 5e being poor with solo creatures, and the purpose of Legendary/Lair actions and Legendary saves.

Pitting the players against a creature of lower level but more hit points, helps stabilize the predictability of the outcome.

Has nothing to do with the discussion of what to call the rating you give them.

I do that. I always say a "slot 3 spell" rather than the ambiguous "level 3 spell".

Then you understand that giving similar but not the same meanings to something causes confusion.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

By the rules, Passive checks are explicitly intentional and are there simply to reduce rolling. "Passive" is actually a poor term fr what's going on and inspires folks to apply the common definition of "passive" and assume it meaning "noticing." It's not. It is staying intentionally alert, usually while moving through dangerous terrain.

The idea that "passive perception" means "casually noticing" things while not actively being alert runs counter to (amongst other things) the DC of noticing a Pit Trap - which is dc10. TEN. That would mean, that quite literally everyone (barring the unusual untrained character with a Wisdom of 8 or less - a RARE occurrence) would ALWAYS SPOT EVERY PIT TRAP. Certainly every animal would. (Y'know, the things that are most commonly caught in pit traps in the real world).

The DC of finding a Pit Trap means, AFAICT that RAI (intended by the designers) a player who says, "I search (this area)" should be told "You find a pit trap" without rolling, OR the expectation is that the DM would give clues that a pit trap might be there, but the player would have to do something more active in order to find it.

OR the DC of a Pit Trap is dumb, which I kinda think is true anyhow.

 

[Yaarel]

BZZT. You EXPRESSLY did not say that. You said that a [DESCRIPTIVE] 4 creature was the equivalent of four PCs of level 4. That is wildly different.

Four PCs versus one monster of the same level, relates with one PC versus one monster of a lower level.

Then you understand that giving similar but not the same meanings to something causes confusion.

You misunderstood the post.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Four PCs versus one monster of the same level, relates with one PC versus one monster of a lower level. You misunderstood the post.

I think if they were to use Level with monsters, then it should NOT be the equivalent of CR - it should be defined as "equal in power to a weakly-made PC of the equivalent level". The idea would be that a fight between 4 Level X monsters and 4 Level X PCs would result in the PCs winning, most of the time. You want the PCs to have a good chance of losing? Add more or higher level monsters. You want it to be a cakewalk? Less or lower level monsters. It's the easiest way to balance encounters.

 

[Yaarel]

I think if they were to use Level with monsters, then it should NOT be the equivalent of CR

Correct.

- it should be defined as "equal in power to a weakly-made PC of the equivalent level".

Yes, exactly.

But, the monster statblock is actually a more powerfully-made version of a PC of the same level. The monster tends to have a hit dice that is roughly d12+7 per level. And sotospeak, it can cast its most powerful spells for several rounds in a row.

The idea would be that a fight between 4 Level X monsters and 4 Level X PCs would result in the PCs winning, most of the time. You want the PCs to have a good chance of losing? Add more or higher level monsters. You want it to be a cakewalk? Less or lower level monsters. It's the easiest way to balance encounters.

Exactly.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

By the rules, Passive checks are explicitly intentional and are there simply to reduce rolling. "Passive" is actually a poor term fr what's going on and inspires folks to apply the common definition of "passive" and assume it meaning "noticing." It's not. It is staying intentionally alert, usually while moving through dangerous terrain.

Yeah this is what is interesting about the use of passive checks. Page 177 of the PHB describes it as;

"When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score"

This, I believe, heavily implies that the designers intended for them to be used any time there wasn't active participation. This interpretation is from "even if they aren't searching."

Not that I think this interpretation should be correct. Just that I think there is more to the confusion than just the name including "passive."

 

[Vaalingrade]

The idea that "passive perception" means "casually noticing" things while not actively being alert runs counter to (amongst other things) the DC of noticing a Pit Trap - which is dc10. TEN. That would mean, that quite literally everyone (barring the unusual untrained character with a Wisdom of 8 or less - a RARE occurrence) would ALWAYS SPOT EVERY PIT TRAP. Certainly every animal would. (Y'know, the things that are most commonly caught in pit traps in the real world).

The DC of finding a Pit Trap means, AFAICT that RAI (intended by the designers) a player who says, "I search (this area)" should be told "You find a pit trap" without rolling, OR the expectation is that the DM would give clues that a pit trap might be there, but the player would have to do something more active in order to find it.

OR the DC of a Pit Trap is dumb, which I kinda think is true anyhow.

More of an indictment of Pit Traps, really.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

One way to do that may be not presenting the GM with a 250 page adventure they are required to learn before session 1 while also committing to for the next 18-24 months.

Ad more short adventures. Very short. 2 pages.

Normalize improv.

I can’t. I own them. But just can’t.

I can have an idea of how thing work and then use donjon to assist. I can grab sunless citadel and run that. I can grab lost city by Goodman games and read and run that.

I cannot read storm kings thunder or princes of elemental the anpocalypse and just run it.

The extra stuff for me is worse/more work than just making my own stuff. Hands down

 

[FitzTheRuke]

But, the monster statblock is actually a more powerfully-made version of a PC of the same level. The monster tends to have a hit dice that is roughly d12+7 per level. And sotospeak, it can cast its most powerful spells for several rounds in a row.

That comes from the strange way that PCs do WAY more damage, while monsters have WAY more HP when compared to each other. PCs would slaughter each other in PvP. Monsters would slog away at each other.

 

[darjr]

I love DMing. In fact I'd rather. But it isn't easier than playing.

Gotta find those DMs, not try and make them. Though I'd guess the process would look similar.