recent d&d deathwatch data

[DragonChild]

There's plenty of stuff that isn't "included for design purposes" in an adventure. Because... PCs sometimes don't just follow the rules of the book.

Maybe PCs, for whatever reason, try to break into somewhere you didn't plan.

Or during a chance atop some rooftops, someone ends up conjuring, throwing down, or finding something to balance on.

Or maybe they just decide to jump the gap.

Or try to scramble up a wall, or climb a tree.

Or leap ontop of a train, and not lose their balance.

Or so on.

There exists more in D&D than "what the DM purposefully put in to serve as a challenge". If that's all that exists, I'll just go play NWN instead. And guidelines ARE necessary.

BTW - every time you guys post while avoiding my question, you're just admitting I'm right to everyone else.

[DragonChild]

Also, the great part about skills is that "high level" stuff and "low level" stuff can be HOW you approach a problem. I've had crossing a gorge on a rickety bridge a major encounter for a level 1 party. For a party just two or three levels higher, it would be a minor encounter. That's OK. I don't need to make the bridge on fire or anything, or arbitrarily raise the skill DCs.

[TheFlatline]

100% Wrong. Every official module I've seen with slippery terrain gives a DC right there that PCs need to cross it. I am unaware of any that don't do it this way, and because you've presented zero examples, I'm going to assume it doesn't exist.

I'm talking about the rules in the books and you're talking about the modules.

Apparently modules supercede the rule books in your universe.

Frank is right. It's impossible t debate with 4rries.

[tzor]

Go with easy. Say they pass it. Then they level and come back. The board should now be trivial. Did the DC change?

But isn't there a fundamental flaw in your logic? You are in effect asking them to do an encounter over again at a higher level. Of course the DC for this specific encounter won't change (*)

(*) Unless Lucy the Troll passed by and made the board even more loose than before. Or unless the party nearly broke the board the first time. You should also note that if there was the same monster it would be easier as well. Duh.

[fectin]

You are in effect asking them to do an encounter over again at a higher level. Of course the DC for this specific encounter won't change

Except that RAW, it will. As intended also.
That is indeed dumb, which is sort of the point.

Basically the folks defending it are stuck arguing that this is not the way it works despite strong citations for both as-written and for intent (i.e., that the book is very poorly written). That's sort of given way to an arguement that scaling DCs are actually good because you can narratively retcon them. I think. It doesn't seem very coherent.

[jadagul]

But you're still approaching it backwards. If I'm describing a room the players walk into, I shouldn't have to figure out ahead of time that a tumbling check that may or may not be needed should be hard, and therefore when someone asks "what's the floor look like" match a description to a potential skill check you may make.

As an adventure designer, you should be thinking that way. An adventure designer doens't randomly include a mind flayer for the sake of it. He envisions an adventure of treachery and deception where a monstrous mastermind controls pawns from the shadows. He then check the monster manual and find something that is around the target level of difficulty and may choose a mind flayer. That's how adventure design works.

I have yet to encounter a DM who has a hard-on for a moderate lock or a factory-spec wooden plank and includes it in his adventure without it serving any design purpose.

Otherwise, you run into the DM who 'thought it'd be cool' to insert a CR 15 monster against a party of 1st levels. Then when you ask him why he was being such a dick, he explains how he was trying to create a consistent world and that high level monsters don't cease to exist because the party is low level.

Hey, sometimes low level guys do have the misfortune of running into a random dragon attack, right?

I mean, if there's a dragon's lair in your world, it probably has a dragon in it. If the PCs don't want to meet a dragon, they shouldn't go to the dragon lair. But if I say there's a dragon lair and the PCs go there anyway, the dragon doesn't magically disappear because the PCs are too low level. Actually, I think this exact same example got discussed somewhere on this board some time this week.

Players don't think in reverse that way. They ask what the floor looks like, and if it's super-slippery they decide if it's worth doing an acrobatics check or not.

Players do go by descriptions yet, which is why I say that descriptions are important, but descriptions can be suited to the task. Descriptions can on occasion be intentionally misleading. Sometimes a surface doesn't have quite as much traction as it appears to have.

Assuming your DM is doing his descriptions right, PCs won't have problems with suspension of disbelief.

The problem is that if I've designed a room and the players want to do something with it that I didn't anticipate, there's no way for the system to tell me anything about it's properties. The players need to be able to know things about the world--like, say, how slippery the floor is, in case they want to do acrobatics. And if I've already described the room, they need to be able to use that description to guess how slippery it is or whatever. It's an incredible fuck-you to the player to say "Oh, this dungeon floor happens to be incredibly slippery for no apparent reason." It's just insulting to say, "Oh, you want to do acrobatics? Forgot to mention that the floor's covered in slime." That's the sort of thing the characters would notice.

[hogarth]

To be an obstacle they overcome.

Is it hard, easy, trivial?

Go with easy. Say they pass it. Then they level and come back. The board should now be trivial. Did the DC change?

I thought the point was that for some types of skill check, the DC should never be trivial, even for a skilled character. It might get somewhat easier, but it should never be trivial and it should never get less easy. And likewise, for an unskilled character the challenge should be about the same.

Now whether they accomplished those design goals, I haven't the foggiest. I have no interest in doing the math.

[fectin]

As an adventure designer, you should be thinking that way. An adventure designer doens't randomly include a mind flayer for the sake of it. He envisions an adventure of treachery and deception where a monstrous mastermind controls pawns from the shadows. He then check the monster manual and find something that is around the target level of difficulty and may choose a mind flayer. That's how adventure design works.

Uhh, no. You don't fill rooms with CR __ monsters, with the illithid flavor glommed on at the end. That's a randomly generated dungeon crawl, which sucks and is less good from every perspective. Build sensibly: start with the illithid, otherwise your mastermind's spooky plan is going to look like the patchwork it is (and kind of silly too).

[TOZ]

I thought the point was that for some types of skill check, the DC should never be trivial, even for a skilled character. It might get somewhat easier, but it should never be trivial and it should never get less easy. And likewise, for an unskilled character the challenge should be about the same.

What kind of checks?

[sabs]

Are you telling me that for a high level rogue, climbing a wall should never be 'trivial?

REALLY?

[tzor]

Are you telling me that for a high level rogue, climbing a wall should never be 'trivial?

If the goal is not trivial, then neither should the wall be.

If your goal is trivial.

You see the inn, your rooms are on the second floor.

I go into the inn, and walk up the stairs.
I go outside and climb up the wall.

Whatever.

[fectin]

Are you telling me that for a high level rogue, climbing a wall should never be 'trivial?

REALLY?

That was apparently the design goal. I agree it's dumb.

And yes, as you level up, tasks should get easier.

[hogarth]

I thought the point was that for some types of skill check, the DC should never be trivial, even for a skilled character. It might get somewhat easier, but it should never be trivial and it should never get less easy. And likewise, for an unskilled character the challenge should be about the same.

What kind of checks?

Variable DC checks are supposed to represent "never trivial" tasks, according to the screenshot from the Rules Compendium that mean liar posted the other day.

[TOZ]

Again, what kind of tasks should never be trivial?

[hogarth]

Again, what kind of tasks should never be trivial?

Are you asking me or asking you the designers of 4E (who probably aren't monitoring this thread)?

[tzor]

Again, what kind of tasks should never be trivial?

If you start scatting the theme to Indiana Jones, then the task should never be trivial.

If you start scatting the theme to Jepordy, then the task should be trivial.

[TOZ]

Yes, I'm asking hogarth, the one here.

Although I think tzor put up a reasonable metric.

[Swordslinger]

I'm talking about the rules in the books and you're talking about the modules.

I'm pointing out examples of the rules in practice, since you're reading them incorrectly, as I've been saying. You refuse to accept the prospect that you might be wrong, despite every official example contradicting you. Yeah, every single guy at WotC who writes modules is doing it wrong. Every single one. But you're correct, because you're an omniscient being from the planet Xenu and I should take your word for it, despite the fact that nobody writing official modules has ever done it how you think it works. But nah dude, it's not you whose wrong. Maybe you can turn your omniscience to some better purpose like laying out the meaning of life.

[Swordslinger]

The problem is that if I've designed a room and the players want to do something with it that I didn't anticipate, there's no way for the system to tell me anything about it's properties. The players need to be able to know things about the world--like, say, how slippery the floor is, in case they want to do acrobatics.

If your floor was slippery and can cause the PCs to slip, then you absolutely should have written a DC for it ahead of time. That's just poor adventure design if you haven't detailed what should be an obvious obstacle. If there is no DC given for a slippery floor in your adventure, then the floor isn't slippery, it's as simple as that.

You're just being a dick if you're making up obstacles on the spot to screw with them.

[DragonChild]

I'm talking about the rules in the books and you're talking about the modules.

I'm pointing out examples of the rules in practice, since you're reading them incorrectly, as I've been saying. You refuse to accept the prospect that you might be wrong, despite every official example contradicting you.

You refuse to answer questions directed at you about the modules.

Swordslinger is quite obviously trolling - if he wasn't, he wouldn't be avoiding people's questions and debating dishonestly. There are apparently no honest 4e fans.

[Archmage]

You're just being a dick if you're making up obstacles on the spot to screw with them.

You've never played any even remotely sandboxy D&D games, have you?

[Krakatoa]

There are apparently no honest 4e fans.

[DragonChild]

There are apparently no honest 4e fans.

You laugh, but seriously. Why is my question outright ignored, when it contradicts his "truth" and "cite" he's waving about? Why is it the ONLY people who are even able to speak well of 4e outright trolls and idiots?

If honest debate is wanted, fine. But if they're not willing to debate honestly, and keep yabbering away, they're a troll. Period.

[Krakatoa]

Well perhaps Swordslinger is, but there are entire forums where people generally prefer 4E, such as the Traditional Games Discussion at Something Awful. They generally don't dismiss 3E fans as trolls, but defending it will likely get you a snarky and flippant rebuttal.

I've found it pretty difficult myself to debate people in this thread about whether 4E is financially in trouble because on some level, all people don't want to listen to information that contradicts their point of view, especially when the point is: "you know, maybe it IS failing, but since you don't have access to WOTC's books, it's all just speculation."

So what seems like an unwillingness to answer questions may be "I've dealt with this already and can't be bothered to repeat myself."

[DragonChild]

Yes, there have been pretty bad arguments here. But Swordslinger crossed a line.

The question is, basically.

Does ANY module provide information for scaling monsters but not scaling skill DCs?

Does any module provide information for boths?

It is my argument that they essentially scale in the same way. You up the DCs just like you up a monster level. So unless it has monster encounters that explicitly scale, and skill encounters that don't, pointing to "all modules, forever!" as a cite is actually not proving anything.

But Swordslinger doesn't care. That would prove him WRONG, so he ignores it. Instead, he claims the modules show what he says is a FACT despite that he's been shown it's not, and refuses to acknowledge the argument on why it's not. That's what makes him too stupid to be worth talking to, or a troll. And THAT is a fact.