D&D 5E Separating challenge and complexity in monster design

[AaronOfBarbaria]

But saying, "Can I make an Acrobatics check as part of my Disengage action to grab hold of the chandelier and swing out of reach?" isn't something that steps into a feat's territory; it's a legit creative move that no halfway-decent DM should even think of prohibiting (unless of course there's a good environmental reason it wouldn't be possible).

I'd prohibit part of that move. Specifically the asking for an Acrobatics check part, because I prefer players telling me what their character does without assumption as to how I am going to resolve it, which in this case would probably be without a roll of any kind because there isn't anything involved in the scenario details given that makes the Acrobatics check an interesting roll (by which I mean it appears that the pass/fail conditions of the roll are "you swing away"/"you walk away", which don't matter because no hindrance to walking away is detailed)

 

[ProgBard]

I'd prohibit part of that move. Specifically the asking for an Acrobatics check part, because I prefer players telling me what their character does without assumption as to how I am going to resolve it, which in this case would probably be without a roll of any kind because there isn't anything involved in the scenario details given that makes the Acrobatics check an interesting roll (by which I mean it appears that the pass/fail conditions of the roll are "you swing away"/"you walk away", which don't matter because no hindrance to walking away is detailed)

LOL, yes, that makes sense too. The protocols of skill checks are one of those things a table has to work out on its own. There are good reasons for all kinds of approaches, and yours has the additional benefit of cutting off the "I'm using Investigation!" callout while the die's already rolling as the characters walk into the room.

I don't mind players asking to use specific skills, because I like seeing my group find creative ways to employ what's on their character sheets and I'm eager to reward that kind of engagement. But in practice it often goes by default the way you describe, with players saying what they'd like to do and me adjudicating the kind of check that would cover it. Either way, I try to be relaxed and groovy about it and say Yes as much as I can manage.

For that specific example, I'd want a roll to see if it's a "dashing success with extra coolness" or a "success, but with complications" (which is how I'd rule anything above a crit fail), because I like the opportunities randomness would potentially introduce and the extra factors any result might add to the scene. But that's just me, and my way is not the only way.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

I think we're a little off topic, but I also think this is the interesting part. Just having a section on whether players should be talking about their skills when trying to do something new would be helpful, even it all it winds up saying is 'It's ok either way, just pick one'. Because that way we wouldn't need to spend something like 6 to 8 posts before finally getting to how we would rule on improvised actions. Without having something like that in the books, or at least not a book, every conversation about improvised actions has to start pretty much from scratch.

 

[ProgBard]

I think we're a little off topic, but I also think this is the interesting part. Just having a section on whether players should be talking about their skills when trying to do something new would be helpful, even it all it winds up saying is 'It's ok either way, just pick one'. Because that way we wouldn't need to spend something like 6 to 8 posts before finally getting to how we would rule on improvised actions. Without having something like that in the books, or at least not a book, every conversation about improvised actions has to start pretty much from scratch.

I'm happy enough to play the "I started this thread, so it wanders where I let it" card - in part because I agree with you, and the material we're getting to here is both interesting and relevant, if only a little indirectly, to the subject of how to add complexity to encounters (and, by extension, monsters).

 

[Quickleaf]

Mostly agreed, with the caveat that a couple of variants can make an encounter with minion monsters a lot more interesting than, frex, Here We Are Fighting Generic Orcs One Through Nine Again. It doesn't have to be twelve distinct abilities for each action type; it can be just spicing it up with a couple of goblin alchemists in the mix.

But the party running roughshod over your cool and unique encounter is an evergreen hazard of 5e, innit. I've been running my home game for nearly two years now, and I'm just figuring out how to calibrate boss monster fights so the PCs don't curb-stomp the Big Bad in three rounds before they even use half their kewl powerz. The last time, I pretty much just said, "The heck with it, I'm bringing the necromancer back as a penanggalan just so she can cast a spell or two before they beat the snot out of her again."

What were your conclusions based on your group's experience steamrolling Big Bad Evil Guys? And what level range / player experience level? I'm curious if by "calibrate" do you mainly mean boosting the defenses/hit points?

 

[pemerton]

I guess the disconnect for me is that the answer to "Okay, but what else can I do?" is "Whatever you can imagine that is appropriate to the fictional circumstances."

I mean, among the first three lines of the Basic Rules, it says, "It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination." Are folks just skipping past that bit and trying to find mechanics? I don't think we should look to the system first to find solutions to challenges. What mechanics may be employed by the DM to resolve uncertainty is a consideration, sure, but what makes D&D great in my view is that your options aren't limited as in a board game.

I'm okay with players who have a different style wanting more structure, though - especially in combat, where the issue of "okay, what counts as an action" can make it feel safer to stick to a predetermined menu.

The game goes to a lot of effort to establish: an action economy (eg some monsters have multi-attack; some clases have extra attack; fighters get action surge; etc); different allocations of damage (a fighter can choose damage as a fighting style, or AC, or "to hit" with ranged weapons; using a shield to boost AC takes higher-damage weapons off the table; spells have a range of rather arcane damage expressions which presumably were put there for a reason; etc); different trade-offs for condition infliction (eg the basic shove attack precludes dealing damage; monks have to use a limited resource to stun foes; etc).

I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect a referee to reverse engineer all that on the fly. But in many groups I think it's also unrealistic to expect a referee to just ignore it - if the player of the monk is spending PC build resources to stun single targets, and the fighter is able to make easy Athletics checks to pull rugs from under enemies and stun them all with a single attack that consumed no rest-based resources, that is going to raise issues of balance/overshadowing at many tables.

In a mechanically simple game like HeroQuest revised(where all abilities are just free descriptors rated on a single numerical scale), it's easy enough for Robin Laws to give advice (I'm paraphrasing a bit) along the lines of "If it's a minor overshadow of another PC's particular ability, apply a minor penalty (-3 on d20) to the check; if it's a major overshadow, apply a major penalty (-6 on d20)." But 5e is more mechanically complicated, with many more moving parts (and yet, at least by default, only one category of penalty, namely, disadvantage).

I think this is what makes the request for guidelines logical. In this respect, I don't think 5e is wildly different from 4e (which has a comparable attention to the details of action economy, damage differentials and condition infliction).

EDIT: I just looked at post 50 - overlap with feats is another consideration that comes into play. Is a GM meant to be familiar with every feat on every player's character sheet as part of the process of adjudication? That's a big ask!

 

[pemerton]

I think the default in 5e is not to ask for an Acrobatics check but a DEX check, to which Acrobatics training might then apply.

As to who asks: the player or the GM? The issue of auto-success or not is (in my view) neither here nor there - if a player in my 4e game or BW game says "I want to use my [such-and-such skill/ability] to do [such-and-such]" and there's nothing at stake and hence I as GM want to just say "yes", then I say yes. In 4e this means no d20 is rolled; in BW this means no dice are rolled and no check is logged for advancement (in BW, the player who wants the check therefore has an incentive to push his/her PC into situations where something is at stake).

I think it is more about [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s "basic conversation of the game". Are players expected to speak simply in character, describing their actions in "naturalistic" terms? I think the rulebook suggests so. Personally I feel this can give magic-users something of an advantage, as they can "naturalistically" talk about using their spells, which give them discrete and pre-established packets of effect defined in mechanical as well as "naturalistic" terms; whereas the martial types have to declare mechancially "blind", as it were, and then find out how it will be adjudicated.

At many tables I think this also generates some pressure on players of martial PCs to shift the focus of play to a domain where they can wheel out their own pre-determined packets of effects, namely, combat (with its action economy, damage rules, etc). Like "I cast a Charm Person spell", "I attack with my sword" is not just a contribution to the basic conversation of the game but also a mechanically significant move that invokes its own distinct resolution procedures over which the player has at least a modicum of control, via PC build plus the details of the action declaration.

 

[Uchawi]

Part of the discussion needs to focus on the base system that player characters, NPCs and monsters use. So if movement is very basic, the action economy is limited, terrain or environmental effects lack depth, or skills/saves/attacks specialization is limited (for example martial based abilities don't rely heavily on the save mechanic), then that has a direct impact on making monsters being more challenging, etc.

 

[iserith]

The game goes to a lot of effort to establish: an action economy (eg some monsters have multi-attack; some clases have extra attack; fighters get action surge; etc); different allocations of damage (a fighter can choose damage as a fighting style, or AC, or "to hit" with ranged weapons; using a shield to boost AC takes higher-damage weapons off the table; spells have a range of rather arcane damage expressions which presumably were put there for a reason; etc); different trade-offs for condition infliction (eg the basic shove attack precludes dealing damage; monks have to use a limited resource to stun foes; etc).

I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect a referee to reverse engineer all that on the fly. But in many groups I think it's also unrealistic to expect a referee to just ignore it - if the player of the monk is spending PC build resources to stun single targets, and the fighter is able to make easy Athletics checks to pull rugs from under enemies and stun them all with a single attack that consumed no rest-based resources, that is going to raise issues of balance/overshadowing at many tables.

In a mechanically simple game like HeroQuest revised(where all abilities are just free descriptors rated on a single numerical scale), it's easy enough for Robin Laws to give advice (I'm paraphrasing a bit) along the lines of "If it's a minor overshadow of another PC's particular ability, apply a minor penalty (-3 on d20) to the check; if it's a major overshadow, apply a major penalty (-6 on d20)." But 5e is more mechanically complicated, with many more moving parts (and yet, at least by default, only one category of penalty, namely, disadvantage).

I think this is what makes the request for guidelines logical. In this respect, I don't think 5e is wildly different from 4e (which has a comparable attention to the details of action economy, damage differentials and condition infliction).

EDIT: I just looked at post 50 - overlap with feats is another consideration that comes into play. Is a GM meant to be familiar with every feat on every player's character sheet as part of the process of adjudication? That's a big ask!

I don't think it's any stunning revelation that the game's success depends greatly (but not solely) on the skill of the DM. The DMG strongly implies this if not outright states it. The DM is expected to improvise and to know and use the tools provided (the rules) as necessary to pursue and achieve the goals of play. No DM is going to get it exactly "right" every time - that is an unrealistic expectation. We learn by doing - and making mistakes - and hopefully over time the DM's rulings become fair and consistent according to that particular group's standards. If we obsess over getting "balance" right, we risk letting the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good enough for now."

 

[iserith]

I think the default in 5e is not to ask for an Acrobatics check but a DEX check, to which Acrobatics training might then apply.

As to who asks: the player or the GM? The issue of auto-success or not is (in my view) neither here nor there - if a player in my 4e game or BW game says "I want to use my [such-and-such skill/ability] to do [such-and-such]" and there's nothing at stake and hence I as GM want to just say "yes", then I say yes. In 4e this means no d20 is rolled; in BW this means no dice are rolled and no check is logged for advancement (in BW, the player who wants the check therefore has an incentive to push his/her PC into situations where something is at stake).

I think it is more about [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s "basic conversation of the game". Are players expected to speak simply in character, describing their actions in "naturalistic" terms? I think the rulebook suggests so.

There is definitely a contrast between D&D 4e and 5e here. In the former, the rules state that players can ask to make skill checks and the DM is encouraged to say "Yes," so long as there are actual stakes. D&D 5e doesn't go that route. At best a player asks to apply a skill proficiency to an ability check where appropriate and the DM is encouraged to rule as appropriate to the situation. (Personally, I cede it to the players to state they are adding their proficiency bonus under the assumption they are acting in good faith because I don't care for questions in my games.)

Personally I feel this can give magic-users something of an advantage, as they can "naturalistically" talk about using their spells, which give them discrete and pre-established packets of effect defined in mechanical as well as "naturalistic" terms; whereas the martial types have to declare mechancially "blind", as it were, and then find out how it will be adjudicated.

This goes back to DM skill.