D&D 5E L&L for 7/7

[Ruin Explorer]

Is there an insult to call someone a 4e fan? What's so terrible about it?

I know several people who define themselves as such, who incidentally swear 5e is a return to the "fantasy vietnam" playstyle in which GMs kill PCs for the lulz because it enforces "rulings, not rules".

Didn't mean to generalize, though.

No, but it is pretty insulting to generalize by making inaccurate claims about what groups of other people think, and to diminish them by claiming that the issue they're concerned about is mere "semantics". I hope this thread (which contains many non-4E fans explaining how it is not "semantics") clears this issue up for you.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Despite the terminology, no part of 5E's encounter building functions like 3E's CR. So there's no "mix" of it there beyond the name. It's basically just 4E with the categories (both role and type) removed and the "you must be this tall" made more explicit.

While i'm not a 3E expert, i though CR was more than just name burrowed in 5E as it was also a guide to a monster power toward encounter building in 3E no? (akin to 4E monster level)

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Thanks for all clarifications buddies! While it really appears to be a more accurate system, I'll probably have an easier time with the 5E version, as I don't like monsters (or players, for that matter) being described in terms of combat role. A "fill your budget and watch out for the challenge level" approach seems easier to adapt to my DMing style.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While i'm not a 3E expert, i though CR was more than just name burrowed in 5E as it was also a guide to a monster power toward encounter building in 3E no?

Yeah, but a quite different one, that's my point. Obviously if not familiar with 3E it might seem similar!

 

[Plaguescarred]

Yeah, but a quite different one, that's my point. Obviously if not familiar with 3E it might seem similar!

I didn't say they were similar, i said 5E was a mix of 3E CR and 4E XP guidelines and you said there was no mix. If it uses CR as both a name and general power indication for the monster, 5E mixed this part of 3E CR indeed. I don't know why you're arguing me.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Well, I for one don't think it's fair when people overlook your thread and start their own.

 

[Morrus]

Well, I for one don't think it's fair when people overlook your thread and start their own.

Calm down. Folks sometimes don't see stuff. I'll merge them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I didn't say they were similar, i said 5E was a mix of 3E CR and 4E XP guidelines and you said there was no mix. If it uses CR as both a name and general power indication for the monster, 5E mixed this part of 3E CR indeed. I don't know why you're arguing me.

Yes, you did say that, and it's still not true. I don't think I can make it any clearer, though!

 

[jrowland]

Hmm...in no particular order you have to:

1) Choose a difficulty of the encounter
2) Select Monsters to fill a XP budget
3) Make sure no single monsters 'power' exceeds (or is too far above if the DM chooses) the party level
4) Make sure when using many monsters of low 'power' to adjust budget for sheer numbers

which edition did I describe?

 

[stinkomandx]

It is a little strange that commenters at WOTC aren't seeing that this is still a lot closer to 4e's encounter building rules than 3e's. Despite having played 4e for years now, I still have some brain space allocated to remembering how the 3e CR system worked, and now it seems very very insane that it was once the norm.

And having DMed 4e through levels 1-30, the idea that building challening 4e encounters didn't need SOME "tweaking" of Wizards' math is also silly (to me). My players would effortlessly smash through any enemies that were remotely at-level, and if monster damage and hp weren't modified, fights were lasting about 2.5 hours. I spent at least as much time in the Encounter Builder as I did working on the arcane math of 3e's encounters.