Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6656394" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I think Imaro, in quoting the Cave Slime passage and then drawing the conclusion that he does, is ignoring the part of the rule book that [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] quoted upthread of Imaro's post. From DMG p 67 (on the same page and column as the Cave Slime entry, two short paragraphs above):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Terrain scales in order to keep it relevant as PCs and monsters gain higher attack bonuses and hit points. It is an element of game balance and a reflection of the greater magical power present in paragon or epic locations.</p><p></p><p>In other words, the scaling cave slime <em>is not the same stuff</em> in the fiction. Locations of greater magical power, which are the sorts of places where paragon and epic PCs hang out and have their adventures, have more slimy slime.</p><p></p><p>Now I'm the first to agree that cave slime is not the most powerful fantasy fiction of all time, and I don't recall ever having used it in my game. But in the DMG we see the same principle applied in relation to stuff that gets closer to core fantasy tropes: the Environmental Dangers chart on DMG p 159, which tells us that the DC for enduring cold is 22, frigid cold 26, and pervasive necromantic energy 31. (On the p 42 chart, those are Moderate DCs for low paragon, upper pargon and upper epic respectively. The RC p 126 chart is in pretty close agreement: mid-paragon, low epic and upper epic respectively.)</p><p></p><p>But I think it is the king example that really gets to the heart of things.</p><p></p><p>Both the PHB and the DMG set out descriptions of the three tiers of play. I am going to quote from the DMG, pp 146-47, but the PHB contains nearly identical text (but addressed to the reader in second person rather than third person):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The fate of a village might hang on the success or failure of heroic tier adventurers, to say nothing of the characters' own lives. Heroic characters navigate dangerous terrain and explore haunted crypts, where they can expect to fight savage orcs, ferocious wolves, giant spiders, evil cultists, bloodthirsty ghouls, and shadarkai assassins. If they face a dragon, it’s a young one that might still be searching for a lair and has not yet found its place in the world - in other words, much like themselves. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The fate of a nation or even the world might depend on momentous quests that [paragon] characters undertake. Paragon-level adventurers explore uncharted regions and delve long-forgotten dungeons, where they confront savage giants, ferocious hydras, fearless golems, evil yuan-ti, bloodthirsty vampires, crafty mind flayers, and drow assassins. They might face a powerful adult dragon that has established a lair and a role in the world. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Epic adventures have far-reaching consequences, possibly determining the fate of millions - in the natural world and even places beyond. Epic characters traverse otherworldly realms and explore never-before-seen caverns of wonder, where they fight savage balor demons, abominations such as the ferocious tarrasque, mind flayer masterminds, terrible archdevils, bloodthirsty lich archmages, and even the gods themselves. The dragons they encounter are ancient wyrms of truly earth-shaking power, whose sleep troubles kingdoms and whose waking threatens existence.</p><p></p><p>This fictional framing of the tiers of play is reinforced by the Monster Manuals, and also by PC build elements. Just to pick a couple of examples: a paragon warlord can become a Knight Commander - or, in otherwords, the leader of a military order. What is the DC for this character to get the headman of a friendly village to obey a reasonable command? There isn't one! Paragon PCs are fictionally located such that ordinary people asked by them to do ordinary things just do them.</p><p></p><p>An epic PC can be a Demi-God, or (in MP2) a Legendary Sovereign. What is the DC for a Demi-God or a Legendary Sovereign to get an audience with the Duke? Again, there isn't one - when Hercules comes knocking at the door, or King Arthur, the Duke answers!</p><p></p><p>Conversely, a GM who frames 1st level PCs into a situation of political conflict with the king is already choosing to ignore the default fictional framing of the game. It's up to that GM - together with the rest of the table - to then work out what changes, in the fiction, as the PCs progress levels, and hence to work out what sorts of challenges are appropriate for paragon or epic characters in that campaign. (Eg perhaps the PCs start out on an earthly court, then at paragon graduate to a Fey court, then at Epic end up intriguing in the outer-planar courts of Hestavar.)</p><p></p><p>But a GM who makes the very same king, in the very same context, <em>just as hard to persuade</em> for paragon PCs as 1st level ones, is not running the game as the books present it. S/he is dictating that nothing in the fiction has changed. Whereas the whole orientation of the books, as demonstrated in the passages quoted and the elements of PC build pointed to, is that as PCs gain levels the fictional context of their adventures changes, mostly by dramatically expanding.</p><p></p><p>Yep. I think what I've written above agrees with this and expands on it.</p><p></p><p>Also yep - where by "level appropriate challenges" I am taking you to mean "challenges that make sense in the fiction for PCs of that level/tier - so eg when things fall on upper-epic demigods they're not chandeliers, but rather (say) the ceilings of great caverns or the sides of mountains or similar demi-god level stuff.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think that AbdulAlhazred is correct here, and Saelorn mistaken (not in his claim about 5e, but in his claim that it is the opposite of 4e).</p><p></p><p>In 4e the GM sets up the fiction that makes sense, given - as AbdulAlhazred says - the fiction that surrounds the PCs, which includes their personal abilities, their themes/paragon paths/epic destinies, the campaign background (which in default 4e will include the tier descriptions above, but will be different in (say) Neverwinter or Dark Sun), etc.</p><p></p><p>S/he then reads DCs for that fiction off the appropriate chart. Or, when the fiction involves monsters, NPCs or traps, s/he looks for appropriate write-ups in one of the Monster Manuals or other sourcebooks, or if necessary writes his/her own using the guidelines in the DMG and taking existing statblocks as models.</p><p></p><p>To give a concrete instance: when the PCs in my game travelled, at mid-Epic tier, to the Feywild to fight the frost giants who were gathering there, under Lolth's direction, to start a War of the Seasons and wrest control of winter from the Raven Queen, I knew what the fiction was - namely, these are Frost Giants who are powered up by Lolth, and by the magic of the Feywild, and can't be bested except by some of the most powerful heroes in the world (in my particular case, a Marshall of Letherna and a Demigod enforcing the Raven Queen's will, accompanied by a Sage of Ages opposed the the spread of elemental power, an Emergent Primordial serving Corellon and the good archomentals, and a dwarven Eternal Defender wielding a giant-slaying hammer).</p><p></p><p>Most published frost giants are statted at upper paragon level, and many also have pre-MM3 damage. So I wrote up my own page of frost giants stats (about 8 columns with 1 giant type in each column), converting the published exampes to MM3 damage at around levels 23 to 26.</p><p></p><p>In other words, to borrow [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s language, the game <em>drove me to generate the fiction that I liked, and then told me what the appropriate DCs (damage spread, etc) were for that fiction</em>. It's just that part of what was involved in identifying the fiction that I liked was identifying at as a challenge fitting for epic heroes.</p><p></p><p>I think the second of these quoted passage provides something of a response to the first. And connects to what [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] posted.</p><p></p><p>I'm agnostic on whether subjective and objective DCs <em>have</em> to give different play experiences, but I think they can tend to do so.</p><p></p><p>When you look at the 4e process that AbdulAlhazred and I have described, part of what is involved in framing the fiction is <em>thinking of it in relation to the context of the PCs</em>. And the DCs the system then delivers are mechanically calibrated to the mechanical features of the PCs (eg default 60% chance of success for a Moderate DC). This supports a certain sort of pacing, and at least when we're talking about 4e feeds into other aspects of 4e that are all about supporting a certain sort of pacing (eg the way combat works, with monsters being frontloaded relative to PCs but PCs having unlockable reserves that monsters lack).</p><p></p><p>Whereas in 5e, as both Saelorn and you point out, there is no support for thinking of the fiction in terms of its mechanically-determined pacing/dramatic relationship to the PCs. Eg there is no indication of what DC will generate a default 60% chance for what level of PC.</p><p></p><p>In Burning Wheel, this sort of objective DC approach produces a game with more failures than 4e (in a system with a very strong "fail forward" orientation) and also puts more pressure on the players to choose carefully how they engage the gameworld and marshal their fate point resources that give them the chance to overcome mechanically hard DCs. For lack of a better word, it's a <em>grittier</em> experience than 4e.</p><p></p><p>5e doesn't have either of these features that Burning Wheel has (no strong emphasis on fail forward, no all-purpose player side resources for making challenging DCs achievable, although the Inspiration mechanic might be an approximation to this). So it probably gives a different experience again.</p><p></p><p>I think this is an interesting point of technique in 4e GMing.</p><p></p><p>My own practice is to use a range of levels for monsters/NPCs - where the multiple rolls of combat, plus the multiple vectors of attacks, damage, defences etc, mean that a mix of levels can have an interesting effect.</p><p></p><p>But when it comes to skill challenges, I tend to stick to on-level DCs and use complexity to moderate degree and duration of challenge. I personally haven't felt that varying the level of a skill challenge (as opposed to complexity) adds much to the play experience.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6656394, member: 42582"] I think Imaro, in quoting the Cave Slime passage and then drawing the conclusion that he does, is ignoring the part of the rule book that [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] quoted upthread of Imaro's post. From DMG p 67 (on the same page and column as the Cave Slime entry, two short paragraphs above): [indent]Terrain scales in order to keep it relevant as PCs and monsters gain higher attack bonuses and hit points. It is an element of game balance and a reflection of the greater magical power present in paragon or epic locations.[/indent] In other words, the scaling cave slime [I]is not the same stuff[/I] in the fiction. Locations of greater magical power, which are the sorts of places where paragon and epic PCs hang out and have their adventures, have more slimy slime. Now I'm the first to agree that cave slime is not the most powerful fantasy fiction of all time, and I don't recall ever having used it in my game. But in the DMG we see the same principle applied in relation to stuff that gets closer to core fantasy tropes: the Environmental Dangers chart on DMG p 159, which tells us that the DC for enduring cold is 22, frigid cold 26, and pervasive necromantic energy 31. (On the p 42 chart, those are Moderate DCs for low paragon, upper pargon and upper epic respectively. The RC p 126 chart is in pretty close agreement: mid-paragon, low epic and upper epic respectively.) But I think it is the king example that really gets to the heart of things. Both the PHB and the DMG set out descriptions of the three tiers of play. I am going to quote from the DMG, pp 146-47, but the PHB contains nearly identical text (but addressed to the reader in second person rather than third person): [indent]The fate of a village might hang on the success or failure of heroic tier adventurers, to say nothing of the characters' own lives. Heroic characters navigate dangerous terrain and explore haunted crypts, where they can expect to fight savage orcs, ferocious wolves, giant spiders, evil cultists, bloodthirsty ghouls, and shadarkai assassins. If they face a dragon, it’s a young one that might still be searching for a lair and has not yet found its place in the world - in other words, much like themselves. . . . The fate of a nation or even the world might depend on momentous quests that [paragon] characters undertake. Paragon-level adventurers explore uncharted regions and delve long-forgotten dungeons, where they confront savage giants, ferocious hydras, fearless golems, evil yuan-ti, bloodthirsty vampires, crafty mind flayers, and drow assassins. They might face a powerful adult dragon that has established a lair and a role in the world. . . . Epic adventures have far-reaching consequences, possibly determining the fate of millions - in the natural world and even places beyond. Epic characters traverse otherworldly realms and explore never-before-seen caverns of wonder, where they fight savage balor demons, abominations such as the ferocious tarrasque, mind flayer masterminds, terrible archdevils, bloodthirsty lich archmages, and even the gods themselves. The dragons they encounter are ancient wyrms of truly earth-shaking power, whose sleep troubles kingdoms and whose waking threatens existence.[/indent] This fictional framing of the tiers of play is reinforced by the Monster Manuals, and also by PC build elements. Just to pick a couple of examples: a paragon warlord can become a Knight Commander - or, in otherwords, the leader of a military order. What is the DC for this character to get the headman of a friendly village to obey a reasonable command? There isn't one! Paragon PCs are fictionally located such that ordinary people asked by them to do ordinary things just do them. An epic PC can be a Demi-God, or (in MP2) a Legendary Sovereign. What is the DC for a Demi-God or a Legendary Sovereign to get an audience with the Duke? Again, there isn't one - when Hercules comes knocking at the door, or King Arthur, the Duke answers! Conversely, a GM who frames 1st level PCs into a situation of political conflict with the king is already choosing to ignore the default fictional framing of the game. It's up to that GM - together with the rest of the table - to then work out what changes, in the fiction, as the PCs progress levels, and hence to work out what sorts of challenges are appropriate for paragon or epic characters in that campaign. (Eg perhaps the PCs start out on an earthly court, then at paragon graduate to a Fey court, then at Epic end up intriguing in the outer-planar courts of Hestavar.) But a GM who makes the very same king, in the very same context, [I]just as hard to persuade[/I] for paragon PCs as 1st level ones, is not running the game as the books present it. S/he is dictating that nothing in the fiction has changed. Whereas the whole orientation of the books, as demonstrated in the passages quoted and the elements of PC build pointed to, is that as PCs gain levels the fictional context of their adventures changes, mostly by dramatically expanding. Yep. I think what I've written above agrees with this and expands on it. Also yep - where by "level appropriate challenges" I am taking you to mean "challenges that make sense in the fiction for PCs of that level/tier - so eg when things fall on upper-epic demigods they're not chandeliers, but rather (say) the ceilings of great caverns or the sides of mountains or similar demi-god level stuff. I think that AbdulAlhazred is correct here, and Saelorn mistaken (not in his claim about 5e, but in his claim that it is the opposite of 4e). In 4e the GM sets up the fiction that makes sense, given - as AbdulAlhazred says - the fiction that surrounds the PCs, which includes their personal abilities, their themes/paragon paths/epic destinies, the campaign background (which in default 4e will include the tier descriptions above, but will be different in (say) Neverwinter or Dark Sun), etc. S/he then reads DCs for that fiction off the appropriate chart. Or, when the fiction involves monsters, NPCs or traps, s/he looks for appropriate write-ups in one of the Monster Manuals or other sourcebooks, or if necessary writes his/her own using the guidelines in the DMG and taking existing statblocks as models. To give a concrete instance: when the PCs in my game travelled, at mid-Epic tier, to the Feywild to fight the frost giants who were gathering there, under Lolth's direction, to start a War of the Seasons and wrest control of winter from the Raven Queen, I knew what the fiction was - namely, these are Frost Giants who are powered up by Lolth, and by the magic of the Feywild, and can't be bested except by some of the most powerful heroes in the world (in my particular case, a Marshall of Letherna and a Demigod enforcing the Raven Queen's will, accompanied by a Sage of Ages opposed the the spread of elemental power, an Emergent Primordial serving Corellon and the good archomentals, and a dwarven Eternal Defender wielding a giant-slaying hammer). Most published frost giants are statted at upper paragon level, and many also have pre-MM3 damage. So I wrote up my own page of frost giants stats (about 8 columns with 1 giant type in each column), converting the published exampes to MM3 damage at around levels 23 to 26. In other words, to borrow [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s language, the game [I]drove me to generate the fiction that I liked, and then told me what the appropriate DCs (damage spread, etc) were for that fiction[/I]. It's just that part of what was involved in identifying the fiction that I liked was identifying at as a challenge fitting for epic heroes. I think the second of these quoted passage provides something of a response to the first. And connects to what [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] posted. I'm agnostic on whether subjective and objective DCs [I]have[/I] to give different play experiences, but I think they can tend to do so. When you look at the 4e process that AbdulAlhazred and I have described, part of what is involved in framing the fiction is [I]thinking of it in relation to the context of the PCs[/I]. And the DCs the system then delivers are mechanically calibrated to the mechanical features of the PCs (eg default 60% chance of success for a Moderate DC). This supports a certain sort of pacing, and at least when we're talking about 4e feeds into other aspects of 4e that are all about supporting a certain sort of pacing (eg the way combat works, with monsters being frontloaded relative to PCs but PCs having unlockable reserves that monsters lack). Whereas in 5e, as both Saelorn and you point out, there is no support for thinking of the fiction in terms of its mechanically-determined pacing/dramatic relationship to the PCs. Eg there is no indication of what DC will generate a default 60% chance for what level of PC. In Burning Wheel, this sort of objective DC approach produces a game with more failures than 4e (in a system with a very strong "fail forward" orientation) and also puts more pressure on the players to choose carefully how they engage the gameworld and marshal their fate point resources that give them the chance to overcome mechanically hard DCs. For lack of a better word, it's a [I]grittier[/I] experience than 4e. 5e doesn't have either of these features that Burning Wheel has (no strong emphasis on fail forward, no all-purpose player side resources for making challenging DCs achievable, although the Inspiration mechanic might be an approximation to this). So it probably gives a different experience again. I think this is an interesting point of technique in 4e GMing. My own practice is to use a range of levels for monsters/NPCs - where the multiple rolls of combat, plus the multiple vectors of attacks, damage, defences etc, mean that a mix of levels can have an interesting effect. But when it comes to skill challenges, I tend to stick to on-level DCs and use complexity to moderate degree and duration of challenge. I personally haven't felt that varying the level of a skill challenge (as opposed to complexity) adds much to the play experience. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
Top