Search results

The entire chapter 3 of the DMG, but specifically the encounter rules on pages 81 onwards. To turn that around to you - can you find me any rules for designing and running encounters specifically designed not to be winnable by the party?

Its what the game is designed for. As you stray from the game's assumptions for how it will be played, it has a tendency to break. In this case, if you stray from the assumption that the game will be composed of a large number of winnable combat encounters, it breaks in that there are no...

Yes that's what I said. That's working as intended. Deadly encounters are tuned to drain about 1/3 of a party's daily resources. They shouldn't kill a party unless they're extremely low on resources, especially if you're playing with experienced player or players that are min-maxing hard.

Page 81 of the DMG has clear guidelines on how to design encounters and how many of them to give your party. Nothing in the DMG addresses creating encounters which are too strong or unwinnable for your party. The hardest difficulty is Deadly - "A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or...

Part of the social contract of 5e is that the PCs will not flee from combat, and that the GM is designing all combats to be winnable. Even "Deadly" encounters should be easily within the capabilities of most parties. 5e is an attrition game. The choice of whether or not to flee is not made...

The best weapon for a magic user to wield is 2-3 hirelings. You're a skinny dude in robes. Buy some beefy boys and send them into danger for you!

The Deadly threshold is only 1/3 of the XP budget of an adventuring day. An encounter meant to be a sole encounter for a day ought to be triple the XP of the deadly threshold. For example, a single encounter for the day for four Level 5 PCs could be 6 CR 4 monsters, 4 CR 5s, a trio of CR 6s...

My dungeons and dragons adventures tend to involve Dungeons. Most have had 4-6+ encounters per long rest, easily. I don't think I've ever once run an adventuring day with only a single combat encounter. Even when I'm running other adventure styles than dungeon crawls. An example - I ran a...

I really like this as an implementation of the classic pf1 concepts into the new system! Additionally re: the name change - the inquisitor name evoked a more specific concept than Vindicator does, and excluded itself from some of the more popular and iconic deities, namely shelyn or desna.

And this is exactly what they're hoping people will do again with 5.5

Oh don't worry, tons of people edition war over the minor differences between those too

I haven't felt the need to significantly house-rule OSE. It works pretty well out-of-the-box.

Because Kelsey liked it better that way. The point is that this isn't an outlier design feature of SD - other successful games do similar things.

Each crawling round is a chance for each PC to do a single thing. It's so that the PCs have a limited number of actions they can accomplish before checking for additional danger. The Black hack is another OSR game which uses both a real-time timer and also cares about crawling rounds.

they know the fans will do the work for them for free

A particular 3PP that I enjoy is planning to fully update their offerings to 5.5 and publish new products for 5.5 in the future - which means essentially I won't be able to use anything else they put out. Which sucks for me.

I think 5e is a better game than 5.5

Obviously the morally correct choice is to slaughter and pillage the Keep instead.

What can I say, they won - and so did we.

Putting aside the fact that what WotC did with the OGL was significantly more egregious than what Paizo did in this scenario. Paizo put something out publicly, immediately opened communications channels with major players with concerns (The pf2 Foundry team, for example), then put out a...