|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:04AM
#11
|
|
|
Yeah, unless the DM sets the DC wrong at the start of the game, then the rest of the DCs will cascade out of wack for the rest of the game.
A problem that would only be compounded if DCs scaled. I am unsure what you're trying to prove here.
They assume the DM will get it right at low levels without any guidance. Go look at the forum threads in the DM and Player section, wildly different DCs.
Yeah, it also means you can't put save or die mechanics in the game on the PCs side or they will just bypass whole groups of monsters or boss monsters. It won't matter what level they are or what level the monsters are.
Are you aware of the hit point threshold mechanic that they've been talking about using for powerful effects? You can see it in the playtest on the sleep spell. Expect save-or-dies to be handled like that.
Sure which means the wizard can put 64 monsters to sleep at level 1 and 20 (since the monsters HP isn't going to scale you'll just fight the same low level mobs at higher level, just in greater numbers). The fighter will hit what 3 maybe 4 of them at level 20?
This part is hilarious. Its exactly the situation that is created. Expectations don't cross from table to table and the players have no real clue how hard a specific obstacle is without asking the DM what the DC is. One party might have a high str fighter because they know their DM sets DCs for strength based tasks high, but when they take that character to another table the new DM might set strength DCs low and Cha high, other DMs might auto-succeed on cha checks (like role-players that ignore in game rules and make you role-play it out). In other words they enable **** DMs, and turn mediocre DMs into **** DMs by default...
I'm, again, not sure what you're trying to prove here, or how you get to here from what Thompson wrote.
I got there from what he wrote because the DM in one game will set the DC for that iron door at 17, the next DM will set it at 25. Another one might say its an auto success. Another might say its impossible. Then when the party finds that magically sealed door the first DM sets it at 20, the second says its impossible and the third laughs at the players futile attempts. I can't imagine trying to build a character with the intent of being good at breaking down iron doors because I'd have to know my DM pretty good. It just doesn't work. It didn't work in 2E, and it doesn't work now...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:05AM
#12
|
|
|
I really like this idea, in fact I was just talking to my friends that this exact thing would be a good idea if they wanted to reduce the math, which seemed to be their goal.
I would actually like to see magic items without any bonus to attack on them and just added effects and damage. Actually having a bonus to attack would be far more powerful and rare I would imagine.
Also for those who are concerned over the example and having hordes of orcs and goblins, it was just an example for those who don't mind that kind of game (which there are plenty). There will be plenty of high HP monsters out there that don't require hordes to be a challenge. I'm sure they will have optional (suggested) rules for these encounters.
It will be interesting to see some of the high level monsters though and how much damage/hp they have. Good news is that there likely won't be errata for AC changes on monsters when the MM comes out (well hopefully less anyway).
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:11AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
This part is hilarious. Its exactly the situation that is created. Expectations don't cross from table to table and the players have no real clue how hard a specific obstacle is without asking the DM what the DC is. One party might have a high str fighter because they know their DM sets DCs for strength based tasks high, but when they take that character to another table the new DM might set strength DCs low and Cha high, other DMs might auto-succeed on cha checks (like role-players that ignore in game rules and make you role-play it out). In other words they enable **** DMs, and turn mediocre DMs into **** DMs by default...
From reading this, it sounds like you believe that WotC won't provide a table of DCs for most types of checks. I see no reason why DCs would be wide open to interpretation when both 3E and 4E included DCs for certain skill uses, and the playtest materials themselves include DCs for many different types of ability checks. A skill module should include even more DCs for the specific skills.
Walking across an icy surface is a Dexterity (Balance) check DC of 11. Most DMs (the "mediocre" DMs you mention, though it's hard to tell what's good and what's bad without knowing your specific criteria) are going to stick with that DC printed in the book. Why bother trying to make up a new DC when one already exists? Other factors may come in, which can modify the DC, of course. Perhaps the ice is melting, creating an even slippier surface then normal. Then maybe the DC goes up to 13. But every player can expect a character with a +0 Dex modifier to be able to successfully traverse the ice 50% of the time.
I'm really not sure what you're on about with the DM quality argument here.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:17AM
#14
|
|
|
This part is hilarious. Its exactly the situation that is created. Expectations don't cross from table to table and the players have no real clue how hard a specific obstacle is without asking the DM what the DC is. One party might have a high str fighter because they know their DM sets DCs for strength based tasks high, but when they take that character to another table the new DM might set strength DCs low and Cha high, other DMs might auto-succeed on cha checks (like role-players that ignore in game rules and make you role-play it out). In other words they enable **** DMs, and turn mediocre DMs into **** DMs by default...
From reading this, it sounds like you believe that WotC won't provide a table of DCs for most types of checks. I see no reason why DCs would be wide open to interpretation when both 3E and 4E included DCs for certain skill uses, and the playtest materials themselves include DCs for many different types of ability checks. A skill module should include even more DCs for the specific skills.
Walking across an icy surface is a Dexterity (Balance) check DC of 11. Most DMs (the "mediocre" DMs you mention, though it's hard to tell what's good and what's bad without knowing your specific criteria) are going to stick with that DC printed in the book. Why bother trying to make up a new DC when one already exists? Other factors may come in, which can modify the DC, of course. Perhaps the ice is melting, creating an even slippier surface then normal. Then maybe the DC goes up to 13. But every player can expect a character with a +0 Dex modifier to be able to successfully traverse the ice 50% of the time.
I'm really not sure what you're on about with the DM quality argument here.
They didn't in the playtest. A lot of people are letting them know that it is not ok, to not have guidelines.
If the final rules come out and there are charts, and I can take my DM aside and tell them after a game that their ruling was unrealistic and invalidated my characters build, background, and role-playing, then I'll be happy, and I'll know they listened.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:17AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
They assume the DM will get it right at low levels without any guidance. Go look at the forum threads in the DM and Player section, wildly different DCs.
But there is guidance. It's in the playtest materials, and it'll be in the books.
I got there from what he wrote because the DM in one game will set the DC for that iron door at 17, the next DM will set it at 25. Another one might say its an auto success. Another might say its impossible. Then when the party finds that magically sealed door the first DM sets it at 20, the second says its impossible and the third laughs at the players futile attempts. I can't imagine trying to build a character with the intent of being good at breaking down iron doors because I'd have to know my DM pretty good. It just doesn't work. It didn't work in 2E, and it doesn't work now...
Why wouldn't all the DMs look in the book and see that the DC for breaking down an iron door is a Strength check with a DC of 21? If they did, they'd also see a list of common lock types, and the DCs for picking them. Magical locks aren't listed, but I wouldn't use the "Pick a Lock" use of Dexterity for a magical lock, anyway. I'd use some sort of magical skill, as befitting the magical nature of the lock. And the DC for that would be based on the skill level of the person who cast the spell to lock the door, using the other skills' DC charts as a guideline.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:21AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
They didn't in the playtest. A lot of people are letting them know that it is not ok, to not have guidelines.
Those people did not read the DM portion of the playtest materials.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:21AM
#17
|
|
|
They assume the DM will get it right at low levels without any guidance. Go look at the forum threads in the DM and Player section, wildly different DCs.
But there is guidance. It's in the playtest materials, and it'll be in the books.
I got there from what he wrote because the DM in one game will set the DC for that iron door at 17, the next DM will set it at 25. Another one might say its an auto success. Another might say its impossible. Then when the party finds that magically sealed door the first DM sets it at 20, the second says its impossible and the third laughs at the players futile attempts. I can't imagine trying to build a character with the intent of being good at breaking down iron doors because I'd have to know my DM pretty good. It just doesn't work. It didn't work in 2E, and it doesn't work now...
Why wouldn't all the DMs look in the book and see that the DC for breaking down an iron door is a Strength check with a DC of 21? If they did, they'd also see a list of common lock types, and the DCs for picking them. Magical locks aren't listed, but I wouldn't use the "Pick a Lock" use of Dexterity for a magical lock, anyway. I'd use some sort of magical skill, as befitting the magical nature of the lock. And the DC for that would be based on the skill level of the person who cast the spell to lock the door, using the other skills' DC charts as a guideline.
Where was that in the playtest? I saw a chart that had easy, moderate, difficult, hard, and nearly impossible, I didn't see anything about actual examples...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:23AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
Where was that in the playtest? I saw a chart that had easy, moderate, difficult, hard, and nearly impossible, I didn't see anything about actual examples...
DM Guidelines, starting on page 6. It is a bit anemic now, but then so is the system itself. I expect to see more charts as the playtest goes on and the system is filled out for us.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:28AM
#19
|
|
|
Where was that in the playtest? I saw a chart that had easy, moderate, difficult, hard, and nearly impossible, I didn't see anything about actual examples...
DM Guidelines, starting on page 6. It is a bit anemic now, but then so is the system itself. I expect to see more charts as the playtest goes on and the system is filled out for us.
Its pretty sparse like you said. Maybe they will fill it out into a full chapter or three and put it in a word searchable PDF so it would be easy to find an example...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:29AM
#20
|
|
|
They assume the DM will get it right at low levels without any guidance. Go look at the forum threads in the DM and Player section, wildly different DCs.
Why do you assume there won't be any guidance? The article explicitly says there will be, and gives specific examples of it.
Sure which means the wizard can put 64 monsters to sleep at level 1 and 20 (since the monsters HP isn't going to scale you'll just fight the same low level mobs at higher level, just in greater numbers). The fighter will hit what 3 maybe 4 of them at level 20?
First of all, who knows what the fighter will be able to do at level 20? Second, it is possible - indeed, desirable - for different classes to have different strengths and weaknesses. Clearing out hordes of weaklings has traditionally been a strength of the wizard.
I got there from what he wrote because the DM in one game will set the DC for that iron door at 17, the next DM will set it at 25.
He wrote that "we" (as in, Wizards of the Coast) will set the DC for the iron-banded door at 17. He notes that DMs shouldn't feel like that's an absolute, and adjust it at needed, but it's pretty clear that he's trying to say there will be more hard-and-fast DCs for tasks.
|
|
|
