|
Oligopsony posted:I'm lazy and incompetent, what's a good one-stop summary of what's wrong with 5e? Player side: Caster Supremacy (not overtly so until later levels, but spells are strong even at level 1), a few boring and/or mechanically bad classes (Fighter especially), and somewhat odd short-rest intervals that severely hinder some classes unnecessarily, balance others, and most casters don't really care about because their power is tied to the long rest. DM side: CR/XP budget doesn't always work very well for judging how rough an encounter can be. I haven't tried to dm for 5e so I wouldn't know much about it. A lot of people call it a simplified/streamlined 3.5e if that means anything to you. It's an okay game that's alright to play, just probably not worth the price if you're open to other games or already have an ed of D&D you like.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
kingcom posted:Four necromancers summoning skeletons on the edge of a cliff... Johnny Five-Crossbows
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Oligopsony posted:I'm lazy and incompetent, what's a good one-stop summary of what's wrong with 5e? Back to the lovely DND 3.x monster design from the pretty awesome 4E one monster wise. Player wise class balance is all over the place with Caster Supremacy rearing it's ugly head like it's 3rd edition all over again. So basically the game is a lot like 3.x, so if you just wanted more 3.x, it's honestly probably fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Back to the lovely DND 3.x monster design from the pretty awesome 4E one monster wise. Player wise class balance is all over the place with Caster Supremacy rearing it's ugly head like it's 3rd edition all over again. Though Supremacy is much lower then 3 and is much closer. Monster building is makes rather easy encounters. Unless you are using really tough monsters that CR is much higher then the party's level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
It's a stripped-down 3.x that's quick to play and unbloated only because we still don't even have the DMG yet, but the bloat and the gonzo mechanics are guaranteed to show up later on once more books/modules are released.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
I'm lazy(and can't really find the 4E and 5E stats easily on short notice) but if someone would link say, a 3.x orc, 4E orc, and 5e orc, and then a 3.x kobold, 4e kobold, and 5e Kobold I think what I mean by the monster design would be pretty abundantly clear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Oligopsony posted:I'm lazy and incompetent, what's a good one-stop summary of what's wrong with 5e? Everything 4e fixed is broken again, but not as broken as it was before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
quote:DM side: CR/XP budget doesn't always work very well for judging how rough an encounter can be. I haven't tried to dm for 5e so I wouldn't know much about it. Several times I've read DMs talking TPKs and often they had put in a deadly+ rated encounter since they hadn't looked at xp budgets. Most of the angst people have seem to be that xp rewards dont scale with the multipliers according to RAW.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
For a minute here, stop trying to judge the CR of a level 1 or 2 or even 3 fight (although 3 would be rough honestly) and try like, I dunno, a level 13 fight. And gently caress, play it out right here, on this forum, see how well it goes. I would honestly love to see it. Seriously. Like, let's just stop bullshitting and just do this thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Actually that part works pretty well every time I've tried it. Obviously there's always a futz factor; ambushing seems to be deadlier than in 3.5 so you really have to take that into account. If you want your players to fight some orcs, and their PCs are level 2, then you make an encounter with four orcs and the book says it's "Deadly" but they blow through it easily. So next time you build an encounter, you think "my guys got through deadly pretty easily", but you're not 100% convinced that the book is wrong yet, and you put another "deadly' encounter in. This time it's actually deadly and you wipe the party. But that's OK, it's just "futz factor" and you're an idiot for not looking at the math and "fight some orcs" is kind of an edge-case for D&D anyway so you'd never expect the math to work out for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
goldjas posted:For a minute here, stop trying to judge the CR of a level 1 or 2 or even 3 fight (although 3 would be rough honestly) and try like, I dunno, a level 13 fight. And gently caress, play it out right here, on this forum, see how well it goes. I would honestly love to see it. Seriously. Like, let's just stop bullshitting and just do this thing. Most people play at the low levels, so that's where accuracy is most needed. Level 1 is the deadliest in 5e by design, before taking into account the sometimes-inaccurate CRs. By 13 the players have ways to cheat death even if the CR system fails the DM. But here's what a level 13 fight could look like. The budget for a 'medium' difficulty encounter for 4 level 13 PCs is between 8800 and 13600xp. Medium is defined as an encounter that should require the expenditure of some resources but will result in victory for the PCs. 3 intellect devourers 1 mind flayer 1 umber hulk 6050xp, 12100 difficulty That fits right in our range and is a fight you might see in any underdark-themed adventure. Can our party of badasses breeze through the brain eaters? It depends on who wins init and how many fail the save against that stun cone. They'll also need charisma saves to avoid the hulk gaze (or be confused), and of course int saves for brain loss instant-death. Per the guidelines, the party should be able to do this fight 6-8 times per day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
Man that level 13 party is in for a rough day, they'd need a whole squad of fighters to soak up the brain damage. And replace it every morning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
Hell, if someone is bored enough to roll up a party of 13s I'll run the fight 6 times for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
I'm sure that by level 13 there are some high-level spells that can be burned to make things a little less lovely for everyone. Idunno about 6 fights worth of that, but I'm sure a properly-kitted party could do ok. The problem is that when you rely on spells to make certain fights even sort of balanced: A) Caster supremacy B) Those spells aren't available at lower levels so whoops
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
quote:If you want your players to fight some orcs, and their PCs are level 2, then you make an encounter with four orcs and the book says it's "Deadly" but they blow through it easily. 4 orcs arn't quite statistically equal to a standard level 2 party, but they're drat close. One crit will bring down the weaker classes. hell, if all of them gang up on a wizard with just their ranged attacks they can probably down him right there. It's not beyond what a level 2 party can handle, it's just dangerous. quote:The budget for a 'medium' difficulty encounter for 4 level 13 PCs is between 8800 and 13600xp. Medium is defined as an encounter that should require the expenditure of some resources but will result in victory for the PCs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:A) Caster supremacy TheDeadlyShoe posted:One mage spell and all the IDs are dead. Literally thats all it takes. It's just a medium fight, so you probably don't want to blow your best spells on fodder. Level 13 gives you spell level 7 (1 of them), and after 6 fights of this you'll be dipping into the level 3-5s. Personally I wouldn't expect a classic party of fighter/cleric/mage/thief to make it past 4 battles. When luck runs out the rockets will tag.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
Spell slots should be running low at the end of the day. In any case, you don't need a level 7 spell to kill IDs and AOEing weak poo poo is exactly what casters are good at. And if you are throwing dozens of save or sucks/saves or dies at your players in a single adventuring day you're pretty much trying to kill your players. Isn't the proper way to use IDs having them possess your favorite NPC and leading you to a 'underground treasure', anyway? Or perhaps having them in an NPC so that they pop out in the pregame when the party buffs up with protection from evil. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:4 orcs arn't quite statistically equal to a standard level 2 party, but they're drat close. One crit will bring down the weaker classes. hell, if all of them gang up on a wizard with just their ranged attacks they can probably down him right there. If 4 Kobolds ganged up on a 2nd level wizard with their ranged attacks they'd probably down him too. "If all the monsters focus fire on the squishiest character..." isn't a good way to measure encounter difficulty. TheDeadlyShoe posted:Spell slots should be running low at the end of the day. In any case, you don't need a level 7 spell to kill IDs and AOEing weak poo poo is exactly what casters are good at. Isn't this what the encounter math is for? Like, the book tells you that doing exactly what was posted is the sort of thing you should be doing. Also, where is this "proper way" to use Intellect Devourers explained to the DM? You're arguing that the math and rules are fine by telling us that you should totally just not use these overly deadly monsters which are built to the medium encounter standard. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:32 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Deadly difficult just says there's a significant risk of losing a party member. And no, I don't think kobolds can do it. i'm AWB but IIRC they have 3 damage shortbows. The 'template wizard' i made up had 13 hp so statistically? they arn't gonna one round him outside crazy bad luck.quote:Isn't this what the encounter math is for? Also, where is this "proper way" to use Intellect Devourers explained to the DM? "illithid Creations. Mind Flayers breed intellect devourers to serve as roaming hunters of the Underdark, creating an intellect devourer by taking the brain of a thrall and subjecting it to a horrible ritual. As it sprouts legs, the brain becomes an intelligent predator as twisted and evil as its masters. Deadly Puppet Masters. An intellect devourer consumes a creature’s mind and memories, then turns the host body into a puppet under its control. An intellect devourer typically uses its puppet host to lure others into the domain o^ the mind Öaqers to be enthralled or consumed." I derived it from reading that. It really doesnt seem to me that Illithids are gonna mass produce IDs anyway since every ID is one less brain. IDs are roamers and predators, designed to bring in food; not warriors. Presumably the DMG will be the place to look for tips on tweaking encounters, and the dangers of save spam. It's not out yet though so who knows? quote:You're arguing that the math and rules are fine by telling us that you should totally just not use these overly deadly monsters which are built to the medium encounter standard. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Isn't the proper way to use IDs having them possess your favorite NPC and leading you to a 'underground treasure', anyway? Or perhaps having them in an NPC so that they pop out in the pregame when the party buffs up with protection from evil. I think you missed the point of that exercise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Kobolds have 1d4+2 slings (Average 4). A second level wizard who's got no con mod and rolled max HP on levelling up has 12hp. If he's rolled low and taken the option of a flat hp increase, he only has 10hp. TheDeadlyShoe posted:It really doesnt seem to me that Illithids are gonna mass produce IDs anyway since every ID is one less brain. IDs are roamers and predators, designed to bring in food; not warriors. Pack it up guys, he's won this one, we were totally wrong. That medium encounter that's built by the encounter-building rules just doesn't make sense and so you'd never put it in your game anyway and therefore the rules that let you do it are fine. TheDeadlyShoe posted:They arn't built to any encounter standard, they just have XP values and CRs. Encounter difficulty is a derived stat that's not even finalized. And yes, you are a bad DM if every critter has save or suck/save or die effects. I really shouldn't need to explain this. No, the rulebook is bad for telling me that these encounters are acceptable medium challenges. The whole loving point you're trying to make is that the encounter building rules are fine. Telling me that I'm a bad DM for following them isn't convincing me that the rules are fine. edit: And what the gently caress do you mean they're not built to an encounter standard? Yes they loving are. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Deadly difficult just says there's a significant risk of losing a party member. And no, I don't think kobolds can do it. i'm AWB but IIRC they have 3 damage shortbows. The 'template wizard' i made up had 13 hp so statistically? they arn't gonna one round him outside crazy bad luck. Wat. The weakest kobold I've seen does 1d4+2(no roll = 4), no idea where your getting your shortbow damage of 3 from. 8 Kobolds is a standard encounter for a party of 4 adventures of level 2. Each will have advantage for being kobolds and a base +4 to hit. If 8 kobolds decide to focus a wizard its good odds hes going to drop. Focus firing was a completely nightmare in 3.5e and its carried over to 5e. The gentlemans agreement for a GM to not do this is a pretty commonly done thing. Mostly because theres absolutely no way to prevent it happening. Max HP going by no rolling rules is to have 16 hit points picking master race human so you have 16 con (Level 1= 6 + 3 con, Level 2= 4 +3 con, Total 16). Thats not really going to save you from 8 kobolds who only need half of them to hit and it takes you out. kingcom fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
quote:A second level wizard who's got no con mod and rolled max HP on levelling up has 12hp. If he's rolled low and taken the option of a flat hp increase, he only has 10hp. quote:Pack it up guys, he's won this one, we were totally wrong. That medium encounter that's built by the encounter-building rules just doesn't make sense and so you'd never put it in your game anyway and therefore the rules that let you do it are fine. i know y'all arent dumb enough to not understand that you shouldn't throw dozens of deadly saves at players, stop pretending otherwise. quote:I think you missed the point of that exercise. However, many 5e critics seem completely unable to engage in conversation without legged brains appearing by the bargeload. '5e doesnt work because its hard to deal with infinite IDs' is not convincing to me, and I find it ludicrous on the basis of fluff and on the basis of good DM practices that anyone would do that except as a laugh. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
The encounter building in 5E is full-stop the most problematic part of the system. I was originally a 3E DM and I hated running fights because even if you tried to make the fight as fair as possible depending on little (ostensibly) meaningless choices you made players would randomly get overwhelmed or bored with very little in-between. I honestly thought I was a terrible DM who really got depressed about my role because I liked it in theory and also nobody else seemed interested in doing it, and I stopped playing D&D for a long while. 4E was such a huge change in how I looked at things. And where I used to stress out about who the mobs were hitting, what they were doing, were they using their abilities too much? With 4E I started using the strategy of "Build Fair & Play To Win" that The Angry DM posts about, and I loving loved it! So now we're back to "build random and hit the fighter" and I'm not going to do that again. Also thanks to TheDeadlyShoe we also have "Don't put boss fights at the end of the adventuring day" and "don't build boss fights for how interesting they are but on vague concepts of the economics of illithid society" so thanks for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:i know y'all arent dumb enough to not understand that you shouldn't throw dozens of deadly saves at players, stop pretending otherwise. No, your very very clearly not understanding the exercise. Where is it advised that this isn't a normal encounter. This is something you can come up with that makes perfect sense in universe. You have a Mind flayer running around with its bodyguard and hunting dogs. You have built it perfectly reasonably in the rules. And it has a decent chance of just murdering all your players. This is pointing out that the rules are poo poo and dont function as they are supposed to. So essentially the rules are something I should be ignoring. In which case, why am I buying these rules if they demonstrably don't work? If I have to make it myself anyway. Why not save me the money and not buy it. Why would I waste time trying to work out these rules and build encounters using them when they dont work. Plenty of systems dont provide combat encounter rules because the monsters they give out are not designed to work within an encounter framework. D&D could take a crack at that but they dont. They provided encounter rules that dont work. 30.5 Days posted:The encounter building in 5E is full-stop the most problematic part of the system. I was originally a 3E DM and I hated running fights because even if you tried to make the fight as fair as possible depending on little (ostensibly) meaningless choices you made players would randomly get overwhelmed or bored with very little in-between. I honestly thought I was a terrible DM who really got depressed about my role because I liked it in theory and also nobody else seemed interested in doing it, and I stopped playing D&D for a long while. 4E was such a huge change in how I looked at things. And where I used to stress out about who the mobs were hitting, what they were doing, were they using their abilities too much? With 4E I started using the strategy of "Build Fair & Play To Win" that The Angry DM posts about, and I loving loved it! Interestingly enough I first started GMing in a game that tended to have combat relatively often but provided zero rules about building encounters. Dark Heresy is the warhammer 40k rpg, it has plenty of save or death or horrific killing machines and tends to run around as a rocket tag type combat. It essentially provides mechanics with the understanding that combat is rocket tags (burning fate points to not die) and it definitely taught me that everyone has a lot more fun if nobody thinks the GMing is constantly pulling punches because the scenario can't handle it or they miss built an encounter. Tension is a lot higher when the players know the GM is going for the jugular but there is still an element of fairness and that the players have a chance of pulling this off. GMing 5e at the moment means I constantly have to run the monsters like they are stupid and don't have any idea how to fight or understanding the concept that you should always immediately murder the wizard if you want a chance at this fight. Save or Deaths without a way to deal with them are dumb and painful. Anything that causes a player to skip more than 1 turn is super dumb to be honest. kingcom fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:The encounter is quite doable. 6 of that encounter is pretty bad. So I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from? Are you saying that hard fights shouldn't happen at the end of the adventuring day, or that most fights should expend 0% of a player's resources? Because you seem to be claiming that of course you wouldn't use this fight when the player's resources have been expended, that's certain death! But the order of the day, in most adventures I've run and been in, is that you have you know, 3-5 fights, the last one is the hardest, and the previous fights mainly exist to use up party resources to raise the stakes of the last fight and tie your quality of play in the first few fights into the result in the last fight. You seem to be saying that depending on what your last fight is, doing this in 5E results in certain death. So why do you not see this as a problem?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:The encounter is quite doable. 6 of that encounter is pretty bad. That's what the rules say you can handle. TheDeadlyShoe posted:i know y'all arent dumb enough to not understand that you shouldn't throw dozens of deadly saves at players, stop pretending otherwise. That's what the rules say you can handle. Yes, I know it's deadly. No, I wouldn't do it. But that's what the rules say you can handle. You know, the rules which you are saying are good and fine and nothing's wrong with them. Those rules. The rules you're defending by telling me not to use them because they produce silly results. TheDeadlyShoe posted:However, many 5e critics seem completely unable to engage in conversation without legged brains appearing by the bargeload. '5e doesnt work because its hard to deal with infinite IDs' is not convincing to me, and I find it ludicrous on the basis of fluff and on the basis of good DM practices that anyone would do that except as a laugh. Your original contention was that the encounter building rules are good. Now people building encounters by those rules, which are good, are just doing it as a laugh. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
Also if a fight can't be survived when the players are low on resources that's not an "average" fight sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
quote:Wat. The weakest kobold I've seen does 1d4+2(no roll = 4), no idea where your getting your shortbow damage of 3 from. 8 Kobolds is a standard encounter for a party of 4 adventures of level 2. Each will have advantage for being kobolds and a base +4 to hit quote:No, your very very clearly not understanding the exercise. Where is it advised that this isn't a normal encounter. This is something you can come up with that makes perfect sense in universe. You have a Mind flayer running around with its bodyguard and hunting dogs. You have built it perfectly reasonably in the rules. And it has a decent chance of just murdering all your players. This is pointing out that the rules are poo poo and dont function as they are supposed to. So essentially the rules are something I should be ignoring. In which case, why am I buying these rules if they demonstrably don't work? If I have to make it myself anyway. Why not save me the money and not buy it. Why would I waste time trying to work out these rules and build encounters using them when they dont work. Plenty of systems dont provide combat encounter rules because the monsters they give out are not designed to work within an encounter framework. D&D could take a crack at that but they dont. They provided encounter rules that dont work. Your complaints about the xp system are nonsensical since the DMG isn't out and that's where alternate xp rules would be. I don't have information on that, I doubt you do either. quote:Also if a fight can't be survived when the players are low on resources that's not an "average" fight sorry. quote:Your original contention was that the encounter building rules are good. Now people building encounters by those rules, which are good, are just doing it as a laugh. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Noone's said that. You said that doing the illithid encounter 6 times was "pretty bad". The only way that's true is: - Each iteration of the encounter has a higher chance of death than what you would normally consider an "average" encounter and you don't see a problem until that high chance of death compounds a few times. - The first iteration of the encounter is not a problem, but as player resources are expended it becomes one. Neither of those possibilities meshes with the idea of an average encounter!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I said the encounter rules have worked well for me so far, and commented on the results some other people have commented on with it. I don't really know what you mean by 'doing it for a laugh' since I've consistently stated I see no problem dealing with the level 13 encounter. I do see a problem with 6 of the same encounter when its save spam all day. It's like throwing nothing but dex saves at your party all day; the clumsy guys gonna get hosed and that is bad DMing. It's built to the rules for a Medium encounter for a level 13 party. The rules tell us that a party should be able to do 6-8 Medium encounters per day. You're telling me that doing that encounter 6-8 times would be too hard. Are other medium encounters easier than that one? Then it's not a medium encounter and the rules are bad. Are other medium encounters at least as hard as that one? Then you can't do 6-8 of them per day and the rules are bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
quote:You said that doing the illithid encounter 6 times was "pretty bad". The only way that's true is: In any case, spamming save or sucks and save or dies is simply a matter of probability. Spam enough of them and you will kill people. Parties do have very limited mechanics for resisting these, like specific spells or Indomitable. Sooner or later their luck will run out. That's why it's bullshit. I really shouldn't have to explain that. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:A party has limited resources to handle any given dimension of threat. If you keep hammering that one dimension of threat you will often break a party. For example, if I threw nothing but flying enemies at my party all day they're going to run out of arrows. What if you threw nothing but martial enemies? Oh, they'd be fine. HMMMMM. quote:In any case, spamming save or sucks and save or dies is simply a matter of probability. Spam enough of them and you will kill people. That means that the chance of death against a monster with save-or-die is statistically higher than other monsters of similar CR, and they are not actually balanced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
I mean why is "monsters with similar difficulty ratings should be equally likely to kill you" so hard to understand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:This is stupid and you should feel bad. Any possible encounter building rules result in fights that are easier and fights that are harder for any given party and encounter combination. It's axiomatic. You cannot avoid it. There are too many variables. So you're not saying that the encounter-building system in this game is good, you're saying that it would be literally impossible to make it good? e: Oh, you edited that out. I wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Where do you get that 'it just murders all the players'? The IDs are chumps, and while the other 2 are threats 4 level 13 players can lay out an immense amount of hurt. IDs have a save or death that doesnt become easier to resist as you get higher. It was shown in this thread that the fighter at best with a 10 int (which they never are going to waste points on to protect against a single enemy) has a 50/50 chance to be killed outright. Initiative is still a 1d20+Dex. That is an extremely swingy value. If the ID beat the wizard, they immediately move forward and make 3 chances to instant kill whoever is in front. The success or failure of the fight hinges on initiative, which is inherently insanely swingy. How exactly are they a chump? They are terrifying glass cannons you desperately need to kill first. The Mind Flayer also dumps a cone attack with a 1 minute stun with a whopping DC 15 save. If he beats the intellect devourers they get to try Body Thief on the target instead which means not only is a it a dead character. Its a permanently dead character who is now attacking you. That is a terrifying combination. Also unless your fighting in a significantly spacious cavern the Umber Hulk is going to be within 30 feet of almost everyone pretty easily and that means every single player is rolling DC 15 charisma saves to be able to even function. Yea totally this is a chump fight. You got it. I will ask you this now. Do you think the xp system as it currently exists is good or bad? Dont worry about how it might be different later. What do you think about it now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
Other medium-difficulty level 13 encounters: -a pack of 7 CR3 creatures, like 7 owlbears -a group of 4 CR4 creatures, like 4 shadow demons -a pair of CR8 creatures, like 2 frost giants -a solo monster, like the CR13 adult white dragon
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
I'm starting to get the feeling the entire criticism of 5e in this thread revolves around intellect devourers and not much else.quote:That means that the chance of death against a monster with save-or-die is statistically higher than other monsters of similar CR, and they are not actually balanced. Note that there are no true save or dies in that encounter. Both Flayers and IDs require multiple successes in sequence to kill a player, and players have numerous methods of shutting that down. Also note that XP is the defining stat for encounter building. CR is more of a level floor. quote:What if you threw nothing but martial enemies? Oh, they'd be fine. quote:It's built to the rules for a Medium encounter for a level 13 party. The rules tell us that a party should be able to do 6-8 Medium encounters per day. You're telling me that doing that encounter 6-8 times would be too hard. if you keep forcing players to jump over crevasses they're going to fall in eventually, that's just fact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Other medium-difficulty level 13 encounters: Wait am I reading this right? You're supposed to be able to fight 6-8 adult dragons a day at level 13? Are dragons chumps or is the CR "math" breaking again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Doing that specific encounter 8 times a day would be too hard because that's just something designed to gently caress players. It's theorycraft, not gameplay. About as relevant as pc skeleton armies and simulacrum-wish factories. So you're choosing "It's harder than other medium encounters", right? How does that mean the rules are fine? djw175 posted:Wait am I reading this right? You're supposed to be able to fight 6-8 adult dragons a day at level 13? Are dragons chumps or is the CR "math" breaking again? The book may say that and it's certainly a very well designed book, but you should know that fighting 6-8 adult dragons a day would be impossible. You're just doing this to gently caress players. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 11:33
|
|