D&D (2024) Should the environmental conditions scale by tier?

[Clint_L]

Being exposed to the elements isn't represented by HP damage though, it's done via exhaustion so it's already just as deadly to the level 10 wizard as the level 1 one without any kind of scaling on the DM's part.

Depends how you test it. I'm going to scale that test to the threat level I think suits the story. Or I'm not going to have it in the story, because it doesn't matter.

Edit: this is also why I do constantly doubling falling damage: 1d6 for 10', 2d6/20, 4d6/30, 8d6/40, 16d6/50, 32d6/60, 64d6/70, and capping out at 128d6 at 80' or more. I allow saving throws for half damage, and reduced damage it there are viable ways a character could reduce their speed. But basically, past a certain height a fall is almost certainly lethal, barring incredible luck or player cleverness in figuring out a way to mitigate it. I just think some threats should always be threats, because it makes the story better, and if RAW doesn't let me do it, then I fix RAW.

 

[Sorinth]

Depends how you test it. I'm going to scale that test to the threat level I think suits the story. Or I'm not going to have it in the story, because it doesn't matter.

Sure but the point is you don't even need to scale the threat to make a blizzard as relevant/deadly to a 1st level wizard whose never been out of the city as it is to a 10th level wizard whose never been out of the city. They both have to make saves every hour they spend exposed, have equal odds of passing those saves because they don't have proficiency, and will both die after failing 6 saves. The survival odds are exactly the same meaning you don't have to scale the threat by say increasing the DC just because it's happening to higher level players.

 

[Lanefan]

They aren't deadlier. They are just a little less deadly, rather than trivial.

And what you are describing doesn't differentiate between experience at survival, it merely differentiates between level. So a level 10 wizard who has never camped a day in their life and spent all their time in the city - a total "greenhorn", as you say - would be way better at surviving a blizzard than a level 1 barbarian who grew up in the frozen north just because of hit points. Where's the story logic in that?

Now, they could learn and cast Leomund's Hut, and then that's fine - that's an advantage they've earned. But I'm talking about just withstanding the elements.

I find it very strange that DMs think it is perfectly rational to scale monster threats according to level, but not other kinds of threats.

I would just ask myself: what is the story we are going for here? A story of survival in the frozen north? Okay, what does that look like in terms of the game mechanics I need for it to feel like a suitable challenge at level.

I agree with all of this except the very last bit; for something like this, level shouldn't matter.

The challenge is in this case static - it's going to be -40 on a 10-knot wind in that location at that time of day/year whether the PCs are 1st level or 15th, with the difference being that 15th-level characters are likely to have more ways and means of overcoming the challenge those conditions present.

Same thing for monsters - an Ogre is an Ogre, and is the same Ogre, regardless of whether it's meeting a 1st-level party or a 15th-level party (and with this I emphatically reject the 4e way of changing monsters' stats to reflect what they're facing). Again, the difference is that the 15th-level party has much more going for it and thus can easily dispatch what would be a major headache for the 1st-level lot.

Same reasoning I apply to building a monster encounter, or designing a trap, or a tough negotiation, or whatever. Few things in a story should ever be trivial. That's a waste of time.

Disagree again here, perhaps because I'm not going for "story" as much as you are. If something's trivial then it's trivial; and on the flip side if something's overwhelming then it's overwhelming. The PCs will wade through the trivial things with - one hopes - little trouble, and had better be ready to run from any overwhelming things they happen to meet.

That, and what might be trivial on its own can be or become quite significant if-when combined with something else. Simple basic 10'-deep pit traps - no spikes, even, just pits - are a triviality for any but the lowest-level parties and yet can become a serious problem if their presence makes running away from something else that much more difficult.

 

[pemerton]

My personal take on this is that even though the players can in theory get hit by an F5 tornado at any level as DM I simply won't have that happen when they are at low levels because it's unfun. They will either be hit by less powerful tornados, or more likely the tornado won't hit them directly and simply be near to them so that they can see the destruction and deal with the aftermath.

Agreed, which is my answer to the OP:

In the same way that, as a GM, I introduce the dragon assault or giant wars when the PCs are of an appropriate level - not when they're first level, as a general rule - so the narration of epic weather events seems better suited to higher level PCs.

But why, from a story perspective, should sleeping in a blizzard or stepping into a tornado or swimming through lava ever be trivial?

The environment is a key antagonist in a lot of great stories. Why do I want to take that off the table?

what you are describing doesn't differentiate between experience at survival, it merely differentiates between level. So a level 10 wizard who has never camped a day in their life and spent all their time in the city - a total "greenhorn", as you say - would be way better at surviving a blizzard than a level 1 barbarian who grew up in the frozen north just because of hit points. Where's the story logic in that?

<snip>

I find it very strange that DMs think it is perfectly rational to scale monster threats according to level, but not other kinds of threats.

Just as PCs get better at withstanding attempts to run them through with spears - even if they're non-fighting wizards - so they get better at withstanding strong winds, raging water and the like. These are all aspects of their toughness (for me, the classic fantasy example here is the Fellowship in the pass of Caradhras).

And so the analogue to "scaling" monster threats - say, Ogres rather than Orcs - is stepping up the weather - say, a cyclone rather than a gale.

 

[TiQuinn]

But why, from a story perspective, should sleeping in a blizzard or stepping into a tornado or swimming through lava ever be trivial?

The environment is a key antagonist in a lot of great stories. Why do I want to take that off the table?

D&D takes that off the table in a number of ways - Leomund’s Tiny Hut is just a 3rd level spell but it makes it completely possible for a party to get a good night’s sleep while an F5 drops rolls right over them.

D&D is its own genre, and does not play nicely with other types of story beats that we may want to have in a game.

 

[jgsugden]

How do you know they feel that way?

Feedback.

And why would they (feel like I'm not respecting their investment in perception/investigation when they fail to find a trap)?

Let's walk it through: Each PC in a group is going to run their PC through a gauntlet as part of a challenge. Each PC is 12th level. Player A has a pure barbarian with no proficiency in perception or investigation - and 8s in Int and Wis. Player B has a Monk PC with an 18 Wisdom, 12 Intelligence and no proficiency in Perception or Investigation. Player Player C has a Rogue with 14 Intelligence and Wisdom, Expertise in Perception and Investigation, and the 2014 version of Observant.

By the time I design the challenge, I know that these will be the PCs and roughly what their abilities are.

Let's say I decide to put a trap into the challenge.

Version A: The nuisance trap: We have a standard DC 13 to find trap that deals 6d6 damage. DC 13 Dex Save for half.

The Barby won't find it passively, and is more likely than not to miss it even if intentionally looking for it. They'll take a little damage and move on. Kind of boring. Monk has a passive 14 perception, so they might notice it ... or DC 11 passive Investigation so might not. It depends upon whether the DM decides to require passive investigation or perception. That means the DM is inherently deciding if the monk automatically finds it. If the DM says figuring out the trap required an investigation roll due to the design - not just perception - that monk player will have that nagging feeling the DM just decided to have them fail. It is human nature. We may overcome that feeling, but it occurs to all of us (and it is ok to have it - let's not have the people claiming they don't have the same base impulses that we all have today, ok?). Finally, the rogue inherent finds it due to their investment in perception and investigation as they have a 25 passive in each. He inherently can avoid the trap with no investment - which is proper given that he actively invested in choices that serve him well.

Version B: The heavy hitting trap. We have a DC 26 to find trap that deals 20d6 damage with a DC 26 Dex save for half. Barby has no chance to find and may get lucky with those Barby reflexes ... but is going to take a big hit, even if he looks for the trap. The Monk can't find it. They didn't invest heavily in being able to find traps ... so that is an ok result. They might avoid the damage with evasion ... if they get a good save. That could be a good moment. However, the Rogue ... he is going to think he should not bother looking for traps because he has a passive 25. He expects to just find things as he devoted so much to it. Most PCs with Observant 2014 do / did not search intentionally in my experience. Even if he did, he needs to roll a 16 - a 1 in 4 chance - to find it. Again, human nature dictates that the player will have that nagging feeling that I intentionally decided to make them miss the trap ... but here it feels worse as they put so many resources into being able to find traps.

This feeling can be avoided if the players know the DM did not set the challenges. If you're playing a stock dungeon from an adventure path the players are less prone to that feeling ... but it is still there. I've seen it and felt it too many times.

Both Version A and Version B have big problems.

How is this different than combat challenges? Combat is more dynamic than a trap. When a player casts a fireball, the timing (this round or next?), the location (do I get 3 extra enemies by including an ally?) and the byproduct damage (will the fires it sets cause problems for us?) all matter. When a melee character engages an enemy they need to consider their positioning, which target to engage, and how much abuse they can take before falling. Healers need to decide whether to bring up a downed ally, make another ally less likely to fall, or decide that offense is the best defense.

Traps, on the other hand, usually break down to a maximum of three rolls: Detection, disarming/bypassing, enduring (saves). You can liven them up ... but unless your trap summons monsters, they have a huge tendency to be less dynamic than combat encounters.

It is better to not spend the time and effort for detailed traps after a certain point for the reasons above.

But, you ask, what about the PC that invested in Observant 2014? Won't they feel like their investment was wasted if they never encounter traps? Yes - they would. But if you make it clear that their ability is allowing them to find traps and avoid them with quick comments rather than prolonged rolls, you respect the investment without bogging down the game. A few quick comments acknowledging that it made sense for a trap to be there based upon story reasons, but that the PC found and avoided it as it was trivially easy for them to find works.

 

[Scott Christian]

No. On top of that, locks, swimming, climbing cliffs, spotting a trap shouldn't scale either. If the trap makers are great, even at first level, then the DC is very hard. If they are terrible at building traps, even at high levels, then the DC is easy.

 

[Clint_L]

But, you ask, what about the PC that invested in Observant 2014? Won't they feel like their investment was wasted if they never encounter traps? Yes - they would. But if you make it clear that their ability is allowing them to find traps and avoid them with quick comments rather than prolonged rolls, you respect the investment without bogging down the game. A few quick comments acknowledging that it made sense for a trap to be there based upon story reasons, but that the PC found and avoided it as it was trivially easy for them to find works.

See, that seems disrespectful to the players, from my perspective. It's like a pat on the head.

 

[Jolly Ruby]

No, but in later tiers characters are more capable of dealing with environmental conditions they couldn't before. For a Tier 1 party a hailstorm could be a challenge, but exploring caves inside a volcano would be outright deadly (YMMV).

 

[jgsugden]

See, that seems disrespectful to the players, from my perspective. It's like a pat on the head.

I play with adults. Thus, they're taller and it is a pat on the back.

The game needs to feel different at different tiers in order for the players to feel like their characters are actually progressing. A big part of feeling progress is seeing things that used to be a challenge be taken for granted because the PCs are so much better. You could deliver this information in a condescending pat on the head manner ... but I've used this for decades and do not recall seeing people react negatively to the delivery.