D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Scribe]

it would be amazing... but since teh mosnter building guide in the DMG doesn't work and the MM CRs are all over the place do we trust them to have that math right?

And with how forgiving the math is anyway if you follow the recommendations?

No.

Which is why I'm interested in this claim of a tool.

 

[Parmandur]

bull.

that is just insulting.

You would rather blame "You must be doing it wrong" or in the analogy "Well if you didn't go out that day you wouldn't have had a minor fender bender and the car wouldn't have blown up" then admit that we have found flaws in the system.

there it is "I wasn't personally effected by this problem"

and I wont. I will believe MY and many others experience and math over you shoving your fingers in your ears and yelling "I don't see a problem"

I see the problem, and the DMG offers the tools to solve them. Or not, play the game your way.

 

[Parmandur]

Do they? Would be interesting to see that.

I am yet to see a source other then "I am sure they do" for them though

The source is Mike Mearls, who particularly goes into this in the Happy Fun Hour over the course of that show. Please, listen to the whole thing, it is illuminating.

He didn't share the spreadsheets, because theybare trade secrets. But they exist.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm sorry, what? How on earth does equipment NOT matter in 4e? It's hugely important! Much moreso than 5e.

Also, there IS variation in HP and AC... that's literally printed on the index card I showed, and DMs were always free to change things further as they desired...those are merely useful guidelines figured out by players, not any kind of "rule" you had to follow.

For monsters, their equipment has no relevance for the monster math. And this is straight from the 4e guidelines.

Yes, you could deviate from the guidelines, but the default rule was exactly what you can find on your index card.

To the other points: I don't want to argue about preferences or experiences. There is no right or wrong. I won't deny that your experience was positive and I can swear that mine was not.
To clarify my point: 4e math scaled with your level. Especially later even skills DCs scaled relative to your level. Monsters AC scaled with your level. For us there was no feeling of progression. Just more of the same powers but with bigger numbers. I really fought against that feeling by varying my encounters and so on, but in the end, I failed or better said, it was more work than I was willing to do.

In 5e I open the book and play as it is, without regard of the math. For our games with a lot of different player and over a lot of level it just works steaight out of the book and gives us a good feeling.

So who is right: you or me?
I think we both are right about our experience and I think it is a good thing that we have different preferences.

Arguing that 5e math does not work is just a wrong statement, because it does (in most cases) for us, while 4e math made several of us leave the game.

 

[Parmandur]

no I didn't I showed that if a wizard ONLY wanted to do damage they could one day wake up and do 80% what the fighter does... but the wizard ALSO has dozens of things he could choose a fighter can not... and worst of all I didn't use every resource for the wizard and I gave the fighter every advantage (constat round up) to be 20% better at the 1 thing they are better at. Run those numbers with a melee full caster so they are only down 1 attack and that goes away when you can use the BIG BOOMs and keep the small booms for other things and fall back on 2 attacks

Each of those Spell effects has a specific HP value, so the math still works out. If the Wizard does something other than direct damage... the mathematical value is the same.

 

[Parmandur]

For monsters, their equipment has no relevance for the monster math. And this is straight from the 4e guidelines.

Yes, you could deviate from the guidelines, but the default rule was exactly what you can find on your index card.

To the other points: I don't want to argue about preferences or experiences. There is no right or wrong. I won't deny that your experience was positive and I can swear that mine was not.
To clarify my point: 4e math scaled with your level. Especially later even skills DCs scaled relative to your level. Monsters AC scaled with your level. For us there was no feeling of progression. Just more of the same powers but with bigger numbers. I really fought against that feeling by varying my encounters and so on, but in the end, I failed or better said, it was more work than I was willing to do.

In 5e I open the book and play as it is, without regard of the math. For our games with a lot of different player and over a lot of level it just works steaight out of the book and gives us a good feeling.

So who is right: you or me?
I think we both are right about our experience and I think it is a good thing that we have different preferences.

Arguing that 5e math does not work is just a wrong statement, because it does (in most cases) for us, while 4e math made several of us leave the game.

The math can work and not be fun for someone. And math can work different ways.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The source is Mike Mearls, who particularly goes into this in the Happy Fun Hour over the course of that show. Please, listen to the whole thing, it is illuminating.

He didn't share the spreadsheets, because theybare trade secrets. But they exist.

this guy who works for the company made a youtube video and said everything works... why didn't you say so.

Why didn't ford try that, would have saved them a lot of money on the pinto

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Each of those Spell effects has a specific HP value, so the math still works out. If the Wizard does something other than direct damage... the mathematical value is the same.

except it isn't...

we need to get through the bog of trolls, and up the cliffs of dragons and past teh deadly shadow beast to get to the ruins... it will take a few days, or we can rent a boat, sail around for two months land at the city of theives guild really runs it and head up 2 days on an easier root...

"Or I can cast teleport circle and use the ruines we know for there and we skip all that"

yeah that's the equivalent of a handful of dice of damage.

now that is tongue in cheek, but lets talk a real example I have seen.

"Man, we don't have a lot of time how fast can we build walls" the martial character asks
"You a couple days, me a few actions" says the wizard.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

except it isn't...

we need to get through the bog of trolls, and up the cliffs of dragons and past teh deadly shadow beast to get to the ruins... it will take a few days, or we can rent a boat, sail around for two months land at the city of theives guild really runs it and head up 2 days on an easier root...

"Or I can cast teleport circle and use the ruines we know for there and we skip all that"

yeah that's the equivalent of a handful of dice of damage.

now that is tongue in cheek, but lets talk a real example I have seen.

"Man, we don't have a lot of time how fast can we build walls" the martial character asks
"You a couple days, me a few actions" says the wizard.

Did the wizard really say "actions"?
Or "seconds"?

And still you are comparing apples and oranges. In our group this conversation would never have happened.
It would rather be like this:
Fighter: "How fast can we build walls?"
Wizard: "I can summon them in a few minutes"
Figher: "That is great, I will rally the troops and prepare them to defend them."

From those few statements, it seems that your group is very antagonistic. But that might be a misinterpretation due to relativ few points to extrapolate.
I would never play a fighter in such a group.

 

[payn]

We really comparing a car exploding to D&D not being balanced enough?