Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xeviat" data-source="post: 6906065" data-attributes="member: 57494">Hi everyone. I'm fairly sure I know the answer, but I want to check, and I want to know the why. I'm loving 5th Edition's player side, but I'm not liking the monsters. I find them boring. All the dragons are basically the same, except their lair actions. Everything except for spellcasting enemies are one trick ponies.This, I can adjust for my games. What I can't adjust, without doing more work than just playing an older edition, is the concept of bounded accuracy and how it applies to monsters. I understand the notion of bounded accuracy. Is supports a very stable "rules represent reality" approach to game design: an Orc is an Orc is an Orc.In 4E, rather than use the same stats forever, you might adjust the monster for use at higher levels. An ogre could go from solo for a low level party (think of the cave troll in the "Fellowship of the Ring" movie), to elite, standard, and eventually minion for the high level characters taking down the Storm Giant King. This represents a system where the rules facilitate the gameplay, not simulate a reality.I like the 4E approach in theory, but I think I like the 5E approach in practice. 4E's approach allows for faster scaling, which some players like for making them feel like they are improving. 5E's approach let's you scale slower, allowing you to not feel like it's a constant grind to improve. So, what approach do you like best, and why?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk</blockquote>

Verification