D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[1337 b4k4]

So your issue is with the fine details - that is, the damage and DCs on the p42 table - rather than the idea itself?

Which idea? That there should be tables given DMs and player alike guidelines on improvising outside the rules? I absolutely have no problem with it. As I've said, I think that should be the default setting for the game.

If your point is, "If you have no specific spells or feats or skills in your system, it forces you to be creative because you have to write all the rules yourself," then ... okay? And this is desirable?

The point is that you can have a game that encourages improvisation and creativity without having to write all the rules yourself either. As for whether or not that's desirable, of course it is. Why would it not be desirable to have a game and a hobby which actively encourages its participants to continue to experiment and expand the game outside the rules from on high?

Would you rather your DMG come with a list of 50 pre-made dungeons, or perhaps 1 or 2 pre-made dungeons and a list of guidelines and rules for building your own dungeons, with the pre-mades having been built using those same rules?

Or, to go with an analogy, imagine a world where LEGOs were not sold in boxes containing hundreds and thousands of generic bricks to be assembled in any way shape and form you desire. Imagine if instead, the only LEGO sets you could buy were these (http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Bug-Obliterator-70705 or http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Loki-s-Co...be-Escape-6867) full of pre-molded shapes with just the right connectors so that it really only goes together one way. Sure you can build your own things with the individual pieces, but they'll never be as cool as the things in the manual. Would the world not be a poorer place for the lack of plain building bricks and their sets?

Now, the world is not made worse by the existence of those pre-fab sets, but the world is far far richer for the fact that both of them exist, and can both be used interchangeably.

Which 4e classes?

Pick one, they're all complex. Go ahead and stat out (without a generator or build guise) a party of four 7th level 4e characters and tell me that it's a simple process that you would feel confident dropping on someone new to the game.

Because there are other games that do that better than D&D, and I already have them. On this note, however, I would greatly encourage every gamer in the world to pick up a copy of Savage Worlds for $10. It's pretty brilliant.

There are also other games that do complex balance better than D&D that you can pay $40 / book for, GURPS for one. Clearly then, no one should ever buy another edition of D&D because there is nothing they can do that someone else hasn't already done better.

Because they aren't abiding by the design rules that that system requires to be mechanically sound. Less complex classes are almost always mechanically weaker than the more complex classes, and for entirely inane and arbitrary reasons.

This is clearly a design problem, NOT a problem with having classes that are complex and classes that are simple in the same game.

What value does a simple class have if it does everything else as good or worse than the complex class when the complex class can also do other things really well? This is where you have to sit down and hammer out what the complexity in to impact out is for each class separately. A class that is three times as complex should not be three times as impactful to the game, that doesn't build a game where the simple options is valid even in hypothetical scenarios. As unintuitive as is sounds, the more complex the class is, the less power it should gain as a result of that complexity, especially if you are operating from the viewpoint that the simple classes should be a valid option.

That's not unintuitive at all. It's in fact fairly obvious. If you want a balanced system, then your default simple classes should be exactly that, default. It should be the guide line that is your power level throughout the entire game. Complexity should then be about trading away parts of that default power in exchange for superiority in more and more specific things. Is it tough to get right and tough to balance? Absoufreakinglutley, but then again, as people keep saying over and over here, what else are we paying WotC for?

[obryn]

The point is that you can have a game that encourages improvisation and creativity without having to write all the rules yourself either. As for whether or not that's desirable, of course it is. Why would it not be desirable to have a game and a hobby which actively encourages its participants to continue to experiment and expand the game outside the rules from on high?

Is this even addressing anything I said?

Would you rather your DMG come with a list of 50 pre-made dungeons, or perhaps 1 or 2 pre-made dungeons and a list of guidelines and rules for building your own dungeons, with the pre-mades having been built using those same rules?

At this point, I don't even know where you're going with this, so ...

Pick one, they're all complex. Go ahead and stat out (without a generator or build guise) a party of four 7th level 4e characters and tell me that it's a simple process that you would feel confident dropping on someone new to the game.

(1) Why are we making 7th level characters to start with, again?
(2) As compared to what? 3.x? About the same, maybe a bit easier, and potentially quite a lot easier depending on the class. RC? Harder, of course.
(3) I would feel completely confident with a new player playing any 4e class at 7th level, though I'd steer them towards one of the simpler classes (Ranger, Slayer, Knight, Scout, Hunter, Thief, Elementalist) first.

There are also other games that do complex balance better than D&D that you can pay $40 / book for, GURPS for one. Clearly then, no one should ever buy another edition of D&D because there is nothing they can do that someone else hasn't already done better.

But nobody has done a class/level system as well as recent versions of D&D, much less one involving the D&D tropes, and few games are as well-supported with as long a history. (Although Dungeon World looks pretty great.)

But really, though, Savage Worlds is pretty awesome. Next D&D campaign I run, I may use it.

-O

[1337 b4k4]

(1) Why are we making 7th level characters to start with, again?
(2) As compared to what? 3.x? About the same, maybe a bit easier, and potentially quite a lot easier depending on the class. RC? Harder, of course.
(3) I would feel completely confident with a new player playing any 4e class at 7th level, though I'd steer them towards one of the simpler classes (Ranger, Slayer, Knight, Scout, Hunter, Thief, Elementalist) first.

1) Because not every game starts at level 1.
2) I'm sure it will not surprise you that I find 3.x to be obnoxiously complex as well. So yes, I was comparing to pretty much any edition before 3.x
3) I didn't say playing a 7th level character, I said making one. But out of curiosity, why do you consider those classes "simpler"?

But nobody has done a class/level system as well as recent versions of D&D, much less one involving the D&D tropes, and few games are as well-supported with as long a history. (Although Dungeon World looks pretty great.)

So basically, no one else is D&D? It's a perfectly fine answer, but then that applies to any time you would ask why buy a new edition from WotC. As to how well recent versions of D&D have done class/level, I'd argue that 4th edition (like many other RPGs) basically eliminated "level" from the equation. Oh sure, it's there, but it's vestigial, much like the ability scores are, kept around for old times sake rather than anything useful. Because let's face it, the power creep that's inherent in 4e, with everything scaling up with you (why does my camp fire burn me more when I'm higher level?) means that they've essentially done what everyone else has and eliminated leveling up. You always face the same basic threat level.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

To reframe this into the discussion on D&D, spellcasters in 3.5 should only be marginally more powerful than the non-spellcasting classes (especially because they really aren't all that complex), with no individual spell, ability, or feat available to them being more powerful or versatile than any individual fighter's feat or ability. So no spell scaling based on caster level, no spells with absolutes, no spells that replace the simpler classes, no spells that replace checks-- either ability or skill checks, no feats or magic items to remove intrinsic limits to the class.

Or, conversely, all feats scaling based on BAB, feats with absolute attacks and defenses, class features that let you fill in for other classes in a pinch, feats that obviate the need to roll for things, and some feats and magic items that let you get around weaknesses. It's possible to do things either way or compromise somewhere in the middle, as long as you stick with that baseline for everything.


Regarding improvisation: Guidelines for improvisation should definitely exist and make improvisation worthwhile, but they should merely supplement broadly useful rules for combat maneuvers, exploration, etc., not replace them. Page 42 was a good piece of DM guidance to have, but the problem was that you needed to rely on it for common things to do in combat. Disarming is not something that should wait until high paragon to incorporate into a power; moving people around is something that should be able to be done in very general ways; the combinations of status effects in fighter powers is essentially arbitrary.

Take a look at this page, where someone revised the 4e fighter to use a build-your-own-powers system and managed to approximate (if not duplicate) most of the PHB fighter powers in a single page (possibly more, I'm not very familiar with Martial Power 1 and 2). That's the kind of rules I'd like to see for combat maneuvers: not "here's a short list of possible maneuvers" or "no maneuvers, just make stuff up" but rather "here's a bunch of things you can possibly do, and here's how you put everything together." Improvisation should be for the things you can't codify with rules like that or accomplish in any other ways.

[obryn]

1) Because not every game starts at level 1.
2) I'm sure it will not surprise you that I find 3.x to be obnoxiously complex as well. So yes, I was comparing to pretty much any edition before 3.x
3) I didn't say playing a 7th level character, I said making one. But out of curiosity, why do you consider those classes "simpler"?

Right, not every game starts at level 1.

And as for (3)... There's simplicity of character generation and simplicity in play. Most every class in the two Heroes Of... books is easier on the first, and several are easier on the latter.

Mage is the most complex, and its complexity is about even with the PHB Wizard. It's also notably more complex than a normal 4e class, with more powers to choose.

Warpriest is in the middle. It's easier to generate - there are some choices locked in - but in play it's about standard complexity.

Slayer is on the easiest end. It's very quick easy to generate, without attack power choices at all. It's also very easy in play, especially if they just stay in a single stance (like a +X to damage one). There are fewer conditions to track and powers to manage, so much so that they can fit on a single page easily through at least mid-Paragon.

Now, as with everything, complexity balloons with more sources. But the two main Heroes Of... books are very self-contained, and make characters both effective and competitive with anything else in the system.

So basically, no one else is D&D? It's a perfectly fine answer, but then that applies to any time you would ask why buy a new edition from WotC. As to how well recent versions of D&D have done class/level, I'd argue that 4th edition (like many other RPGs) basically eliminated "level" from the equation. Oh sure, it's there, but it's vestigial, much like the ability scores are, kept around for old times sake rather than anything useful. Because let's face it, the power creep that's inherent in 4e, with everything scaling up with you (why does my camp fire burn me more when I'm higher level?) means that they've essentially done what everyone else has and eliminated leveling up. You always face the same basic threat level.

I'd argue that 3e removed "level" a lot more than 4e did - and pretty well removed "class" as a meaningful descriptor alongside it. The 3e multiclassing system is basically a bundled point-buy, every bit as idiosyncratic as the 4e Power system is.

And camp fire doesn't burn you more at higher level, nor do rough stone walls become harder to climb, nor do generic goblins become harder to kill. Why in the world would they?

-O

[1337 b4k4]

Take a look at this page, where someone revised the 4e fighter to use a build-your-own-powers system and managed to approximate (if not duplicate) most of the PHB fighter powers in a single page (possibly more, I'm not very familiar with Martial Power 1 and 2). That's the kind of rules I'd like to see for combat maneuvers: not "here's a short list of possible maneuvers" or "no maneuvers, just make stuff up" but rather "here's a bunch of things you can possibly do, and here's how you put everything together." Improvisation should be for the things you can't codify with rules like that or accomplish in any other ways.

Incidentally, something like this is almost exactly what I'm talking about. The rules should give you the tools to make the game you want to play and to build whatever you can imagine. I would love to see something like this for building maneuvers and spells in D&D Next, with each class just having a nice middle of the road basic "hit it with my [wizard] stick" power that can be modified using a table like this. Mages spend spell slots / points to do the customization, Martials spend expertise dice. New players can hit things with their stick, or experiment with custom powers and attacks without having to commit to a "build". Let plays build their character over time. If they use the same custom power over and over again, so what? Hows that different from them taking an at will at level 1 other than they got to experiment first and find something that worked for them, and they aren't locked in later.

Slayer is on the easiest end. It's very quick easy to generate, without attack power choices at all. It's also very easy in play, especially if they just stay in a single stance (like a +X to damage one). There are fewer conditions to track and powers to manage, so much so that they can fit on a single page easily through at least mid-Paragon.

So it is possible to have a simple class with basically nothing more than "I hit it with my stick" next to complicated classes and maintain power parity? This is what I hope to see more of with D&D Next, only more so.

I'd argue that 3e removed "level" a lot more than 4e did - and pretty well removed "class" as a meaningful descriptor alongside it. The 3e multiclassing system is basically a bundled point-buy, every bit as idiosyncratic as the 4e Power system is.

As I said, I find 3.x to be just as guilty in committing many of these sins, with the added bonus that 3.x pretty much ignored all the history of D&D and why things were done certain ways, replacing it with something that looked like older D&D, but without the chains that held certain parts in check. At least 4e just split entirely, and as I've said before, probably would have done a thousand times better if it had been sold as D&D Tactics rather than D&D. Essentials did a good job of dialing it down, but I would like to see it simplified further. My hope, my wild dream, is that D&D Next simplifies things down even further than Essentials took it, and then 4e/Essentials is re-packaged as a tactical module add on, which is what it should have been in the first place.

And camp fire doesn't burn you more at higher level, nor do rough stone walls become harder to climb, nor do generic goblins become harder to kill. Why in the world would they?

I don't have the book in front of me, but I'm fairly positive one of the examples they give along with the damage by level chart is the damage caused by being thrown into the camp fire. Since damage is scaling by level, we can only assume that either the fire burns me more at higher levels, or high level fires are made with white phosphorus.

[obryn]

So it is possible to have a simple class with basically nothing more than "I hit it with my stick" next to complicated classes and maintain power parity? This is what I hope to see more of with D&D Next, only more so.

The Slayer has more tactical options than just that. But yes - it is possible for simple classes to maintain numerical parity, at least. They additionally get Utility powers and some interesting attack options, knock people down, move around smoothly, etc. But they are perfectly workable on the table if a player stays in one stance and hits things.

My issue isn't with Slayer-like classes existing. It's with the only Fighters being slayer-like classes.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I'm fairly positive one of the examples they give along with the damage by level chart is the damage caused by being thrown into the camp fire. Since damage is scaling by level, we can only assume that either the fire burns me more at higher levels, or high level fires are made with white phosphorus.

Being kicked into a brazier (as in the example): stepping into a campfire :: being stabbed in the chest with a knife : stepping on a knife.

Remember that we're talking - with p. 42 - about actions that adventurers are improvising, mostly. Not random mundane environmental features like a random wall in a city, a door, or basic environmental stuff like a campfire.

-O

[Seerow]

I don't have the book in front of me, but I'm fairly positive one of the examples they give along with the damage by level chart is the damage caused by being thrown into the camp fire. Since damage is scaling by level, we can only assume that either the fire burns me more at higher levels, or high level fires are made with white phosphorus.

Or kicking someone into a fire is a low level improvisation that deals low level damage no matter what level you are. If you're first level, kicking someone into the fire should be a good idea. If you're level 10, you should recognize that you and your foes alike have outgrown such petty tactics, and doing so would be little more than an annoyance, not a maneuver on par with using an actual 10th level ability.




What I'd honestly like to see is some sort of improvisational system that taps into abilities that are printed, but the character doesn't actually have. I'm not sure on the details of how to make it work without slowing down play as people try pouring through all the abilities in the book for the perfect ability for the situation, but if a way was found it would be great.

Basically you would need to make an extra roll as a part of the improv. The difficulty would need to be scaled such that it's easier to do lower level abilities from the same class/power source, and the further the divergence in source and/or the closer to your level it is, the harder it gets. A Fighter might try in a clutch situation to cast a cantrip spell, but he's most likely going to fail, just like a Wizard might try to use a combat maneuver, but knows it's most likely a waste of his action. On the other hand, any low level maneuver out there a Fighter can use nearly effortlessly, helping to eliminate some of the dissonance of "Why can't my 10th level fighter do these things that a layman can do easily?"

Then, if there isn't an equivalent printed ability (or not one known offhand by the players/DM), it goes to DM adjudication of what type/level it would be considered.

Ideally I'd also like to see these improvisations be able to use resources. Say a Wizard wants to improvise a magical effect equivalent to a 5th level spell, he'll actually use the 5th level (or maybe higher) slot to do so. Possibly have it take extra resources to reduce the difficulty/eliminate the roll for failure. So say you have the Wizard wanting to improv a 5th level spell equivalent when he has access to 7th level slots. He can do so by spending a 5th level slot with say a 30% chance of failure (and wasting the slot), or he can spend a 6th level slot to cut that down to 10%, or a 7th level slot and have it be guaranteed.



Just spitballing here, I don't have a fully thought out system. But I do think the way to help bridge the gap between improvisation and codification of abilities is to bring codified abilities into the realm of improvisable abilities. The trick is doing it in a way that is balanced and doesn't slow down play.

[Zeful]

Or, conversely, all feats scaling based on BAB, feats with absolute attacks and defenses, class features that let you fill in for other classes in a pinch, feats that obviate the need to roll for things, and some feats and magic items that let you get around weaknesses. It's possible to do things either way or compromise somewhere in the middle, as long as you stick with that baseline for everything.

True, but since I was limiting my example to just 3.5 I was pointing out what you'd have to do to fit into the design constraints that having simple and complex classes intended for play together require; and in 3.5 it's easier to go down than it is to go up.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Basically you would need to make an extra roll as a part of the improv. The difficulty would need to be scaled such that it's easier to do lower level abilities from the same class/power source, and the further the divergence in source and/or the closer to your level it is, the harder it gets. A Fighter might try in a clutch situation to cast a cantrip spell, but he's most likely going to fail, just like a Wizard might try to use a combat maneuver, but knows it's most likely a waste of his action. On the other hand, any low level maneuver out there a Fighter can use nearly effortlessly, helping to eliminate some of the dissonance of "Why can't my 10th level fighter do these things that a layman can do easily?"

Then, if there isn't an equivalent printed ability (or not one known offhand by the players/DM), it goes to DM adjudication of what type/level it would be considered.

Ideally I'd also like to see these improvisations be able to use resources. Say a Wizard wants to improvise a magical effect equivalent to a 5th level spell, he'll actually use the 5th level (or maybe higher) slot to do so. Possibly have it take extra resources to reduce the difficulty/eliminate the roll for failure. So say you have the Wizard wanting to improv a 5th level spell equivalent when he has access to 7th level slots. He can do so by spending a 5th level slot with say a 30% chance of failure (and wasting the slot), or he can spend a 6th level slot to cut that down to 10%, or a 7th level slot and have it be guaranteed.

I'm going to say something here that I never in my wildest nightmares thought I'd type:

Basing this on skill challenges might be a good idea.

Now, hear me out: Skill checks already scale nicely relative to lower-level abilities, different classes have associated/signature skills (like Spellcraft for wizards, Acrobatics for rogues, etc.), multiple checks reduce the chance of failure if you're good at all the skills involved, spending resources can net you automatic successes, and it gives Knowledge checks a solid mechanical use. It avoids the major issues with skill challenges (doesn't actually encourage non-specialists to participate, doesn't map actions to rolls, etc.) because it's just one person's action during a single turn, and you actually want a binary outcome from this.

To use the fighter-casting-a-cantrip example with 3e-/PF-style skills for the purpose of illustration, let's say that he needs to roll Knowledge (Arcana) to know how the general effect he wants works, Spellcraft to know exactly what you need to do to achieve that effect, and Concentration to put some magical oomph into it. Two successes will cast it: Knowledge (Arcana) + Spellcraft = he pulls off the words and gestures correctly, so he doesn't need any extra magical oomph; Spellcraft + Concentration = he doesn't really get the magical principles involved, so he tries words and gestures that he thinks should work and focuses his mind on the task and pulls it off; Knowledge (Arcana) + Concentration = he has no idea what gestures he needs, but he he's seen his wizard buddy do something similar before, so he just focuses really hard, copies the gestures, and pulls it off sorcerer-style.

To improvise trapfinding, one might use Knowledge (Architecture), Perception, and Sleight of Hand; to improvise a fighter maneuver, one might use Knowledge (Tactics), Acrobatics, and Athletics; and so on and so forth. Perhaps BAB "checks," CL checks, and similar could be used by default, or maybe that would require class features or feats. You'd have one skill for Do you know what you're doing?, one skill for How are you doing it?, and one for How hard are you trying?; the check DCs would be based on how far it is from your area of expertise, the minimum level of the effect, and the resulting strength of the effect, respectively, so a fighter trying to cast a cantrip would have a high initial DC (far from his specialty), a low second DC (it's just a 0th-level spell), and a scaling third DC (better result, higher CL), and the same for a wizard trying a fighter maneuver.

For the higher-level and/or more exclusive abilities, more checks can be added or spending resources might be mandatory. 9th level spells and the equivalent in maneuvers might require 4 or 5 checks due to their complexity, and a rogue trying to cast a niche spell in a niche domain only available to a niche god might run into the same (or worse) difficulties. Perhaps only a fighter can pull off the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique, and he has to expend a maneuver and then make 2-5 checks based on relative level.

One of the nice benefits of doing things this way is that a series of rolls is already how a lot of DMs handle it ("You want to hit them with the chandelier? Okay, first make a Use Rope check to untie it, then a Spot check to aim it, then an attack roll to hit them, then....") so it wouldn't feel "too easy" for those DMs. A hidden benefit is that it actually gives skillmonkey classes their own schtick: the more skills you're trained in, the more and better things you can improvise, which meshes well with the jack-of-all-trades archetype. And finally, it throws those characters who put tons of ranks in different knowledge skills and use that to justify mechanical benefits for their crazy plans a bone and lets you apply theoretical knowledge of things without factotum-style Int-to-X mechanics.

True, but since I was limiting my example to just 3.5 I was pointing out what you'd have to do to fit into the design constraints that having simple and complex classes intended for play together require; and in 3.5 it's easier to go down than it is to go up.

It certainly can be, but it's often more interesting to make things scale; how many people try to fix Dodge or Weapon Focus by giving them a scaling bonus, as opposed to just nixing them? It's definitely a tradeoff (make the simplest classes less simple for more interesting stuff, or make the most complex classes less complex for less interesting stuff) and which one works better depends on your tastes and how much time you're willing to spend.

[obryn]

Or kicking someone into a fire is a low level improvisation that deals low level damage no matter what level you are. If you're first level, kicking someone into the fire should be a good idea. If you're level 10, you should recognize that you and your foes alike have outgrown such petty tactics, and doing so would be little more than an annoyance, not a maneuver on par with using an actual 10th level ability.

I don't like this solution because, as I see it, there's never a point at which "kick monster into fire" ceases to be cool and fun. Given a choice between something cool & fun and a vague gesture towards simulation, I'll go with the former every time. If that means scaling effects so "kick into fire" stays pretty effective with advancement, so be it.

What I'd honestly like to see is some sort of improvisational system that taps into abilities that are printed, but the character doesn't actually have. I'm not sure on the details of how to make it work without slowing down play as people try pouring through all the abilities in the book for the perfect ability for the situation, but if a way was found it would be great.

I think a 42-like table sounds like a good solution to it, frankly.

Additionally, there's a whole system for "terrain powers" in 4e - more or less At-Will or Encounter powers that are linked to the field. It could be "knock wobbly pillar over," "draw magical energy out of the gem," or (yes) "kick into fire."

-O

[Seerow]

I don't like this solution because, as I see it, there's never a point at which "kick monster into fire" ceases to be cool and fun. Given a choice between something cool & fun and a vague gesture towards simulation, I'll go with the former every time. If that means scaling effects so "kick into fire" stays pretty effective with advancement, so be it.

So you expect "Kick it into a normal fire" to still be effective when you're playing at a level where most things have fire resistance? Or where most PCs and enemies have enough HP to wade through a flaming inferno with no fear of death, or eat magically enhanced fireblasts to the face and still keep coming?

I can't agree with that. Making fire damage scale up with level is just the sort of thing that bad 4e DMs do (oh my players are higher level? This mundane thing must have a higher DC to compensate!) that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Fire is a mundane thing, I don't care how cool you think it is to kick someone into the fire, doing so to a demon, or a beholder, or a dragon, or some other high level threat, should not be effective. This is a core part of what leveling up is all about, where old things stop being threats and you have new things that need new tactics. You can't just keep tossing enemies into fires for your entire career and expect it to keep working unless you're playing E6. (or DDN as it currently looks. *rimshot*)

[obryn]

So you expect "Kick it into a normal fire" to still be effective when you're playing at a level where most things have fire resistance? Or where most PCs and enemies have enough HP to wade through a flaming inferno with no fear of death, or eat magically enhanced fireblasts to the face and still keep coming?

Again - if it's cool, I say go for it. If there comes a time when every fight has had a brazier full of coals, and this is the 18th monster you've tried to kick into them, I could see it becoming boring and thereby less effective.

I'm a lot more interested in "fun and enjoyable for the specific people at my table" than I am in simulation.

I can't agree with that. Making fire damage scale up with level is just the sort of thing that bad 4e DMs do (oh my players are higher level? This mundane thing must have a higher DC to compensate!) that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Fire is a mundane thing, I don't care how cool you think it is to kick someone into the fire, doing so to a demon, or a beholder, or a dragon, or some other high level threat, should not be effective.

The fire is not doing more damage. You kicking them into the fire is doing more damage. I really don't see the problem here; you're doing more damage with your other attacks, too. Just because this one involves part of the scenery, I don't think it deserves to be less effective.

-O

[noparlpf]

The fire is not doing more damage. You kicking them into the fire is doing more damage. I really don't see the problem here; you're doing more damage with your other attacks, too. Just because this one involves part of the scenery, I don't think it deserves to be less effective.

-O

"I'm immune to fire damage!"
"Rargh I kick you into the fire and it's awesome!"
"Oh no fire damage aghh."

[huttj509]

So you expect "Kick it into a normal fire" to still be effective when you're playing at a level where most things have fire resistance? Or where most PCs and enemies have enough HP to wade through a flaming inferno with no fear of death, or eat magically enhanced fireblasts to the face and still keep coming?

I can't agree with that. Making fire damage scale up with level is just the sort of thing that bad 4e DMs do (oh my players are higher level? This mundane thing must have a higher DC to compensate!) that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Fire is a mundane thing, I don't care how cool you think it is to kick someone into the fire, doing so to a demon, or a beholder, or a dragon, or some other high level threat, should not be effective. This is a core part of what leveling up is all about, where old things stop being threats and you have new things that need new tactics. You can't just keep tossing enemies into fires for your entire career and expect it to keep working unless you're playing E6. (or DDN as it currently looks. *rimshot*)

I just want to point out that there's multiple ways to make use of the page 42 information.

Now, page 42 has a table with things like easy/med/hard DCs, damage for improvised stuff, etc, by level, right? The same sort of things they use when saying "hey, this adventure is for 8th level PCs, what should the DC of this be approx.?" (Though adequately making the description/situation mesh well with the stated DC is a separate matter entirely.)

The character wants to do something nifty/unexpected, so the DM looks at page 42 for 'wing it' guideline numbers.

Method 1: "What the character is doing would be appropriately reasonable for his level, so I'll use the numbers for that level. Yeah it's a normal campfire, but it's a cool move in this situation, and maybe he slams the guy extra hard into a burning log as opposed to just making him stumble in a bit." If you want to reward a really fitting creative use of environment or something? Bump up the damage a bit. If it's because the player knew the villain had been horribly scarred by fire, and is uneasy around it, and is specifically kicking him into the fireplace to add insult to injury...sure, the higher damage wouldn't be universally applicable, so little worry about abuse if it's too strong.

Method 2: "What the character is doing would be reasonable for a lower level, but cmon, a normal campfire? That gets trite past level 5 or so, so I'll use the level 5 numbers for this." This can encourage players to do level-appropriate cool stuff ("you have a sword made of the living embodiment of fire and brimstone forged from the depths of the underworld, that can sear the flesh of even greater demons, the campfire's not gonna come anywhere close to that"), but the danger is making sure you and your players are on the same page regarding what's level appropriate.

Personally, I lean towards method 2 (the bar door's not gonna be harder to pick at higher levels), unless the situation calls for something to be particularly narraratively significant (thief on the run from the guards, depending on your game it might be a buzzkill for a random door to have a chance stymie his skills as he tries to hide, or it could be completely in keeping with your group's preferred narrative flow).

Now, in both cases, the same table of information is being used. It gives you the tool, "at level X, general DCs and damage looks like ____." How you use it is up to you, and your group's expectations.

[obryn]

"I'm immune to fire damage!"
"Rargh I kick you into the fire and it's awesome!"
"Oh no fire damage aghh."

In fairness, I never said anything about stuff that's immune to fire damage. Immunity and resistance would of course help. Outright immunity is blessedly rare in post-MM3 4e, however, largely because it's boring.

That doesn't mean tricks like this would be utterly ineffective, though - there's all sorts of non-damaging stuff that can still happen, from knocking prone to dazing and so on.

-O

[navar100]

I want to swing on the 4E chandelier and attack the bad guy. Why should the exact same 4E chandelier have a higher DC check to swing upon (for whatever reason - being able to do it at all, doesn't fall or break, etc.) because I'm level 20 instead of level 10 or level 1? The chandelier does not know what level I am. Neither does a 4E campfire know the level of the person who pushed someone into it nor even the level of the one who was pushed in.

[obryn]

I want to swing on the 4E chandelier and attack the bad guy. Why should the exact same 4E chandelier have a higher DC check to swing upon (for whatever reason - being able to do it at all, doesn't fall or break, etc.) because I'm level 20 instead of level 10 or level 1? The chandelier does not know what level I am. Neither does a 4E campfire know the level of the person who pushed someone into it nor even the level of the one who was pushed in.

If you're swinging through the air on a chandelier to kick a higher-level foe, don't you expect that they're more capable of evading whatever whammy you're trying to lay down on them?

And again, for about the third time now, the fire's not doing more damage. You kicking them into the fire is doing more damage. You're also doing more damage with your weapons, you have a wider range of special effects you can lay down, the casters have better spells, etc. In all ways you're more capable, and yet you're only as good at kicking monsters are you were at 1st level?

-O

[Menteith]

If you're swinging through the air on a chandelier to kick a higher-level foe, don't you expect that they're more capable of evading whatever whammy you're trying to lay down on them?

Yes, and they should have a higher Armor Class against your attack roll to reflect this. However, making an Acrobatics (or whatever skill) check to swing over to them shouldn't change in difficulty because you leveled up.

And again, for about the third time now, the fire's not doing more damage. You kicking them into the fire is doing more damage. You're also doing more damage with your weapons, you have a wider range of special effects you can lay down, the casters have better spells, etc. In all ways you're more capable, and yet you're only as good at kicking monsters are you were at 1st level?

If you're using some kind of maneuver (whether baseline in the system or through a class feature) which both damages and moves a target, then the maneuver should (hopefully) already scale with unarmed or weapon damage. If a vanilla campfire deals 1d6 damage/round at level one, it should deal 1d6 damage/round at level 20 - you might have gotten better at kicking a target (the maneuver scaled with Expertise Die or strength or whatever), but the Fire didn't. You are going to deal more damage when you kick someone into a fire, but it's because of the character scaling up, rather than a scaling environment. I think we agree on this, but I just want to clarify.

[ThiagoMartell]

Just want to say, I really don't want D&D to use building blocks for maneuvers. That's great for point-buy systems and awful for class systems. If you break down maneuvers into things you build, well, why not do the same with everything else? At the end of the day, you end up with a point buy system or a class system that would work better as a point buy system (see the laughably awful BESM d20 or brazilian system Daemon).

Other than that, I've grown to dislike too open power-building systems, because the idea itself is unbalanced. Any of those systems is very easy to minmax, from Mutants and Masterminds to Fight!, passing through Godlike and even Ars Magica. It also takes forever to build powers and thus to build characters in systems like these.

The system, IMHO, is to use several available chassis and apply upgrades to them. Basically, only break it down up to the middle. Thrash 2.0 does it very, very well.

[obryn]

Yes, and they should have a higher Armor Class against your attack roll to reflect this. However, making an Acrobatics (or whatever skill) check to swing over to them shouldn't change in difficulty because you leveled up.

The Acrobatics check can in this sort of situation replace the attack roll, so you're not forcing two rolls for one maneuver. If all you were doing was swinging on a chandelier to get from Point A to Point B, there's no reason for it to scale. So, for example, Acrobatics vs. Reflex Defense.

If you're using some kind of maneuver (whether baseline in the system or through a class feature) which both damages and moves a target, then the maneuver should (hopefully) already scale with unarmed or weapon damage. If a vanilla campfire deals 1d6 damage/round at level one, it should deal 1d6 damage/round at level 20 - you might have gotten better at kicking a target (the maneuver scaled with Expertise Die or strength or whatever), but the Fire didn't. You are going to deal more damage when you kick someone into a fire, but it's because of the character scaling up, rather than a scaling environment. I think we agree on this, but I just want to clarify.

This goes a lot more sim than I think the situation warrants. The important facts are the difficulty of the maneuver and the end effects; whether the damage is from the kick, the fire, spikes on the brazier, etc. is largely immaterial. If Acrobatics vs. Reflex doesn't work, I'd use a Medium DC of the target's level. I'd use the character's level + 8 as an average damage baseline; maybe +25% if we're just doing damage, or -25% if there's a daze or blind stuck in there - either of which could be appropriate. Part of the damage could be ongoing Fire damage as well; maybe 5 of it.

The end result is that you have all your essential details without worrying much about what portion of that damage is fire vs. kick, because only the end results matter. As a DM, you're enabling a quick, fun improv (or you've planned a terrain power of sorts) to make things more fun and interesting.

-O

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Just want to say, I really don't want D&D to use building blocks for maneuvers. That's great for point-buy systems and awful for class systems. If you break down maneuvers into things you build, well, why not do the same with everything else? At the end of the day, you end up with a point buy system or a class system that would work better as a point buy system (see the laughably awful BESM d20 or brazilian system Daemon).

Other than that, I've grown to dislike too open power-building systems, because the idea itself is unbalanced. Any of those systems is very easy to minmax, from Mutants and Masterminds to Fight!, passing through Godlike and even Ars Magica. It also takes forever to build powers and thus to build characters in systems like these.

The system, IMHO, is to use several available chassis and apply upgrades to them. Basically, only break it down up to the middle. Thrash 2.0 does it very, very well.

The idea isn't to decide on build-your-own powers at character creation time, but rather to use mix-and-match combat maneuvers on the fly. To put things into 3e terms, it would be like if things like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Knockback, Stunning Fist, Rapid Shot, and similar were combat maneuvers usable by anyone like bull rush, trip, disarm, and the rest are, and you could combine them rather than using separate actions for each. So instead of just pushing someone back or just disarming them, you could do something like take a -10 to your attack to shoot two people with arrows that would push the targets back, knock them over, and deal an extra 2 damage.

D&D already has a sort of dichotomy between martial abilities combining and building on each other while magic comes in discrete packets which are individually modified (compare magic missile + Empower Spell with Power Attack plus Leap Attack plus Shock Trooper plus Combat Brute plus Dungeon Crasher plus...). 3e has a robust system of metamagic to more easily tweak spells, so opening up the combat maneuver/ToB maneuver subsystems (or their 5e equivalent) to be more easily combined for greater effect is a logical progression.

It would largely avoid the pitfalls of M&M-style build-your-own powers, since the breakability of point-based systems generally comes from using drawbacks for extra points with which to further empower those powers and overspecializing in one area, just like Arcane Thesis and other metamagic reducers are the real problem with metamagic stacking and the individual feats themselves--barring exceptions like Quicken and Persist--are fairly underwhelming. Feats and class features can certainly be created to improve on such maneuvers, but they wouldn't (hopefully) become the linchpin of one-trick-pony builds like M&M/GURPS powers or 3e chain-trippers/super-chargers.

[theNater]

I want to swing on the 4E chandelier and attack the bad guy. Why should the exact same 4E chandelier have a higher DC check to swing upon (for whatever reason - being able to do it at all, doesn't fall or break, etc.) because I'm level 20 instead of level 10 or level 1? The chandelier does not know what level I am. Neither does a 4E campfire know the level of the person who pushed someone into it nor even the level of the one who was pushed in.

The table on page 42 gives appropriate DCs by level. A level 20 character can swing from a chandelier which is appropriate for level 1 characters to swing from, and a level 1 character can(but probably shouldn't) try to swing from a chandelier which is appropriate for level 20 characters.

A common misreading of the table is that characters only encounter level-appropriate DC's, but that's not the fault of the table.

[Menteith]

The Acrobatics check can in this sort of situation replace the attack roll, so you're not forcing two rolls for one maneuver. If all you were doing was swinging on a chandelier to get from Point A to Point B, there's no reason for it to scale. So, for example, Acrobatics vs. Reflex Defense.

Sure, that makes more sense. If that's the case, I wouldn't have an issue with the roll being harder - however, I'm under the impression that D&D Next would probably take the path of Skill Check + Attack/Attribute Check to cover that maneuver, rather than a single check.

The end result is that you have all your essential details without worrying much about what portion of that damage is fire vs. kick, because only the end results matter. As a DM, you're enabling a quick, fun improv (or you've planned a terrain power of sorts) to make things more fun and interesting.

-O

Difference of opinion, then. I would much rather just have a general guideline for how a baseline "knockback" maneuver works (attack roll with a penalty/deals less damage and moves the target) and allow the natural scaling of such a maneuver to cover for a character's scaling, with a flat damage boost due to a campfire regardless of level.

And for the record, I agree with Pair 'o Dice - I'd love to see general rules for bull rush, overrun, knockback, disarm, dirty trick, blind, stun, impede movement/cripple, etc, as baseline maneuvers which anyone can attempt, and that a martial character has a decent skill at before Feats come into play (Let's avoid 3.5's mindset of "You can try, but you'll suck unless you have the feat" for D&D Next).

EDIT

The table on page 42 gives appropriate DCs by level. A level 20 character can swing from a chandelier which is appropriate for level 1 characters to swing from, and a level 1 character can(but probably shouldn't) try to swing from a chandelier which is appropriate for level 20 characters.

A common misreading of the table is that characters only encounter level-appropriate DC's, but that's not the fault of the table.

I want you to describe a chandelier which only a demigod could possibly swing from. There comes a point where, regardless of the construction and materials modifying it, one would logically expect that they could swing on any chandelier without falling because they're so good at it.

[Ashdate]

I really wish players would take page 42 for what it is: a quick reference for DMs when they don't have an answer immediately available to them. It's not meant to be extracted to the point where it is all of a sudden modelling the physics of the game world.

If you want fire to deal 1d6 forever in your game, make it so. That doesn't mean that a DM who declares that pushing a drow into a campfire deals "2d8+6" damage because the PCs are 13th level is doing it wrong.

Just recognize that in the first example, you might not be giving players much incentive to improvise compared to the second.

[Menteith]

If you want fire to deal 1d6 forever in your game, make it so. That doesn't mean that a DM who declares that pushing a drow into a campfire deals "2d8+6" damage because the PCs are 13th level is doing it wrong.

Just recognize that in the first example, you might not be giving players much incentive to improvise compared to the second.

If everyone's enjoying the game, then the game is being played correctly. (I hope) that everyone's on board with this. But when we're discussing a still changing beta, it's worth voicing our (different) opinions for what we think would be a better game. I'm not saying one is wrong to have a scaling campfire if that's what enjoyable in those games, but I am saying I would enjoy a more consistent campfire.

Our disagreement probably won't be resolved, as it comes down preference. I think that a consistent, realistic game where a campfire doesn't spontaneously become hotter/colder depending on a metagame concept like Level is a better game. I think that obryn would prefer a system which focuses more tightly on the PCs, and which would rather have fun, cool stuff happen for the players even if it means ignoring verisimilitude. Both viewpoints are fine, but are mutually exclusive with each other.

[neonchameleon]

While it clearly requires a creative player to make a creative decision, there are all kinds of ways that the rules can stimulate or disincentivize creativity. The most obvious example is that 2E is the last edition that explicitly gives bonus XP for creative ideas.

2e: A vague nod in the direction of XP for creative ideas.
3e: Not very much except in outcomes.
4e: A creative plan as opposed to a simple spur of the moment thing becomes a skill challenge which the DM runs on the fly and has an XP reward based on the challenge and effectiveness.

4e wins very handily here.

Plus single point improvisation should be its own reward. You've improvised to get a good result. Go you.

Look at how the various editions treat disarming an enemy:

Which is a stock maneuver rather than creative.

[*]2E doesn't have rules for it (to my knowledge) so it's up to your DM. That's great with a good DM, and bad with a poor DM.

2e has minute long combat rounds. Too zoomed out for it to really be that influential.

[*]3E has clear rules for disarming, which state that you need a good BAB, specific weapon, and the improved disarm feat to be effective at it.

Stock maneuver.

[*]4E says that you can use any power you like and pretend you've disarmed your enemy, even though by the rules this makes zero difference. Otherwise, the only way to disarm anyone is with a single L17 fighter power.

Which is different from the 2e situation how?

So in a nutshell, 2E encourages creativity, 3E attempts to give clear rules for every creative trick the designers could think of, and 4E says that creative ideas have the exact same outcome as non-creative ideas.

So in a nutshell, 2e vaguely tries to reward creative play without understanding it or giving much indication of what it is. 3e attempts to nail everything down. And 4e empowers players and DM by making handling creativity easy and giving a reward for it.

When you have a broad system like most White Wolf stuff or Paranoia, you have a lot of flexibility, a system where anyone can do pretty much anything, where the basic rules are fairly simple and intrusive. It makes it puts emphasis on roleplaying over the mechanics.

4e skill challenges are a better implementation of many forms of this this than White Wolf ever came up with. And for situations where it's not applicable you have other things to use.

Further, these systems can lead to a lack of uniqueness among characters, and can also lead to a more freeform method acting exercise rather than a game.

[Citation needed].

Crunchy bits, and systems heavy in their use, remove ambiguity and create clear rules. They create a system that puts emphasis on mechanics over roleplay, create clear and unique characters, and can create a fun game outside of(and optimally along with) roleplaying. Unfortunatly, crunchy bits are bad at handling situations outside of their scope, and they can force players into certain roles and limit options.

Which is why you use a system with crunchy bits for common situations and has good open guideliens for situations beyond their scope. 4e does precisely this.

Most every good RPG system uses both broad rules and crunchy bits, D&D has always been heavier on the crunchy bits, and 4e took it to kind of critical mass, where the game less resembles an RPG and more represents a group TCG.

3e has far more cruncy bits than 4e.

There should be specific rules for disarming folks, D&D is a combat game at it's heart, and there needs to be rules for it, but I don't think EVERYone needs to be able to do it.

And this shows a deep ignorance of the traditions of D&D. Gygaxian play was born out of tabletop wargaming but the goal was to avoid combat wherever possible (which is why early combat is so lethal). There is a grand total of one branch of D&D that has had specific disarming rules (3.0/3.5/Pathfinder). So to say "There should be specific rules for disarming folks" is against most of the traditions of the game.

There's nothing unique or innovative about Page Forty-Two; literally all roleplaying games do that in one way or the other.

Page 42 on the other hand is one of the best implemented such systems I've ever seen. There are maybe half a dozen new concepts in RPGs - the important part is the implementation.

Why? What's wrong with having different classes having different levels of complexity?

Absolutely nothing. It just shouldn't be "Wizards are brainy, fighters drool". And even 4e has simple and complex classes - with the 4e slayer being simpler than any 3.X class.

Here's a better question: Why should getting into roll playing games be a $40 (x3 [PHB, DMG, MM]) investment in books?

Because WotC and Paizo want to make money. Spirit of the Century doesn't cost that much. Dread doesn't. Fiasco doesn't. Even MHRP doesn't. It's a traditional model that suits the publishers.

Would you rather your DMG come with a list of 50 pre-made dungeons, or perhaps 1 or 2 pre-made dungeons and a list of guidelines and rules for building your own dungeons, with the pre-mades having been built using those same rules?

I'm honestly not sure - the guidelines and rules can be inferred from 50 dungeons.

Pick one, they're all complex. Go ahead and stat out (without a generator or build guise) a party of four 7th level 4e characters and tell me that it's a simple process that you would feel confident dropping on someone new to the game.

You're arguing against post-TSR D&D here. Slayers, thieves, hunters, and scouts are easier to create than any 3.X class (just look at those skill points and having to roll hp). I'd argue that a 4e PHB ranger is only about as hard to create as a 3.X barbarian or ranger, and easier than a 3.X fighter.

There are also other games that do complex balance better than D&D that you can pay $40 / book for, GURPS for one. Clearly then, no one should ever buy another edition of D&D because there is nothing they can do that someone else hasn't already done better.

The devil's in the details. I have piles of GURPS books - but 4e PCs are cleaner, easier to create, match the archetype you want superbly, and no other game does kinaesthetic combat as well as 4e. 3.X being bundled point buy with unablanced packages has, to me, none of these advantages.

1) Because not every game starts at level 1.

2) I'm sure it will not surprise you that I find 3.x to be obnoxiously complex as well. So yes, I was comparing to pretty much any edition before 3.x

I'd say a 4e Thief is a whole lot less fiddly and a whole lot less spendy than a 2e thief. Skill training is easier than NWPs. Thief skills are a thing of their own and a whole new subsystem with a lot more finnicky detail than thief tricks. 4e stats are vastly simpler.

And the 4e thief a whole lot more effective.

Your only AD&D seventh level party that's simpler than a 4e Essentials party consists of pure fighters. Even then you've the silly weapon restrictions and complex NWPs.

I think you've forgotten due to familliarity how complex and confusing pre-WotC was. Five saves with no clear broad coverage, stats doing random things at random points (and then there's percentile strength), NWPs in 2e, weapon vs armour type tables, Vancian magic.

Yeah, I'm calling 4e simpler. Much simpler.

3) I didn't say playing a 7th level character, I said making one. But out of curiosity, why do you consider those classes "simpler"?

Slayers, Knights, Thieves, Hunters, and Scouts have no daily powers and only one (repeated) encounter power.

Take a look at this page, where someone revised the 4e fighter to use a build-your-own-powers system and managed to approximate (if not duplicate) most of the PHB fighter powers in a single page (possibly more, I'm not very familiar with Martial Power 1 and 2).

Most, not all. And it makes things much slower at the table as people assemble what they want to do rather than see the options available. The first rule of DMing improvisation should be "Don't sweat the small stuff".

I want to swing on the 4E chandelier and attack the bad guy. Why should the exact same 4E chandelier have a higher DC check to swing upon (for whatever reason - being able to do it at all, doesn't fall or break, etc.) because I'm level 20 instead of level 10 or level 1?

It doesn't. That table is what you use as a guideline when you have no other rules to go on. It creates a smooth experience with good enough numbers that resolves fast without having to look anything up. 4e has things like door break DCs and leaping distance. But you can't cover everything, and that's a good guideline. (Although even Dragon writers have misinterpreted this).

[navar100]

If you're swinging through the air on a chandelier to kick a higher-level foe, don't you expect that they're more capable of evading whatever whammy you're trying to lay down on them?

And again, for about the third time now, the fire's not doing more damage. You kicking them into the fire is doing more damage. You're also doing more damage with your weapons, you have a wider range of special effects you can lay down, the casters have better spells, etc. In all ways you're more capable, and yet you're only as good at kicking monsters are you were at 1st level?

-O

That accounts for the foe's higher AC and hit points. The DC for the physical act of swinging on the chandelier should not change based on my level nor even if instead of attacking I'm just moving across the room. The chandelier does not know my level or why I'm wanting to swing on it at all.

For kicking into the campfire, at 1st level I can kick an orc but not a troll. At 10th level, then I'm that good to be able to kick a troll into the fire. That's how I'm better. The campfire does the same damage assuming it has the same characteristics both times.

[1337 b4k4]

Absolutely nothing. It just shouldn't be "Wizards are brainy, fighters drool".

I never said it should.

Because WotC and Paizo want to make money. Spirit of the Century doesn't cost that much. Dread doesn't. Fiasco doesn't. Even MHRP doesn't. It's a traditional model that suits the publishers.

So is the assertion here that WotC and Paizo couldn't make money without the barrier to entry into the D&D fold being $40-$120?

I'm honestly not sure - the guidelines and rules can be inferred from 50 dungeons.

Well, then let's go back to your previous point. They want to make money, so they can sell the guidelines as a cheap core get you in the door product, and then sell you the Tome of Dungeons with 50 pre-made dungeons and get more money from you. Cheap barriers to entry means more people are likely to buy, which means more chances to get people to buy the bigger books as well.

You're arguing against post-TSR D&D here. Slayers, thieves, hunters, and scouts are easier to create than any 3.X class (just look at those skill points and having to roll hp). I'd argue that a 4e PHB ranger is only about as hard to create as a 3.X barbarian or ranger, and easier than a 3.X fighter.

As I said, I found 3.x to be just as guilty of overly complex character building.

I have piles of GURPS books - but 4e PCs are cleaner, easier to create, match the archetype you want superbly, and no other game does kinaesthetic combat as well as 4e. 3.X being bundled point buy with unablanced packages has, to me, none of these advantages.

YMMV, but aside from the magic system (which by default was all sorts of weird), I found building GURPS characters to be simpler than 4e, mostly because GURPS building is classless, and therefore you build your character by thinking about what you want them to do, and taking the skills that do that.

I think you've forgotten due to familliarity how complex and confusing pre-WotC was. Five saves with no clear broad coverage, stats doing random things at random points (and then there's percentile strength), NWPs in 2e, weapon vs armour type tables, Vancian magic.

You would be wrong, because I haven't played 2e enough to have become familiar with it. If you want my credentials, I started with GURPS (of which 3e is a horrible one to start new on because it doesn't make GURPS modularity clear up front), then moved to Vampire, then a home brew system (with 14 stats!), from there I moved on to 4e (of which I'm still in active campaigns), then all the way down to Microlite20, back up to 3.5 (then converted to 4e because the DM wanted to try it out), then finally to OSRIC (1e), then Labyrinth Lord and Dark Dungeons (which is the other ongoing campaign I'm in). So of all the D&D systems, I have the most direct familiarity with 4e, and as I said, it's far too complex for what it needs to be.

And it makes things much slower at the table as people assemble what they want to do rather than see the options available. The first rule of DMing improvisation should be "Don't sweat the small stuff".

Only if your players are assembling new things every round at the table. Incidentally, your second line, about not sweating the small stuff is exactly why I think that 3.x and 4e both are too complex. Because they do sweat the small stuff.

[navar100]

The table on page 42 gives appropriate DCs by level. A level 20 character can swing from a chandelier which is appropriate for level 1 characters to swing from, and a level 1 character can(but probably shouldn't) try to swing from a chandelier which is appropriate for level 20 characters.

A common misreading of the table is that characters only encounter level-appropriate DC's, but that's not the fault of the table.

Chandeliers can have levels now?