Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6635817" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree that [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION]'s experiences probably aren't typical - as in, aren't particularly representative of the play experiences of the median 5e player.I don't think this is about distortion or twisting, though. Clearly D&D, including its 5e iteration, is intended to provide mechanically and tactically challenging combats. It's just that Celtavian's group is sufficiently hard core in this style of play that they have to push the system limits to achieve this.I remember some old 4e threads where you expressed disbelief at the number of encounters (including Level +3 or more encounters) that my 4e group could deal with between extended rests. Celtavian's descriptions of his group's style don't seem that alien to me.What they do bring out, though, is a possible salient difference between 4e and 5e . 4e uses multiple dimensions of monster/NPC strength (level, plus minion/standard/elite/solo), and has a relatively strict approach to tiered abilities (so low-level PCs won't encounter large amounts of fly that they lack the resources to deal with); whereas 5e's combination of bounded accuracy with a unitary measure of monster/NPC strength (CR) means that in a tough encounter for N-level PCs, the enemies might have capabilities (eg flight) that are hard for N-level PCs to deal with.When it comes to martial melee characters, this issue is perhaps further compounded by the comparative non-epicness of high level 5e compared to high level 4e, combines with a predominantly at-will resources suite. For instance, when Celtavian talks about the difficulties of a martial PC closing across difficult terrain, I think of the 6th level encounter power Mighty Sprint, which the dwarf fighter PC in my game uses to deal with this problem; or of the 10th level utility power Winter's Arrival that the paladin uses (allowing teleportation next to a marked target).I don't really agree with this. Everyone is playing with his/her own group's tweak on the rules. Celtavian has emphasised, for instance, that his group uses points buy, WotC modules, etc - that's hewing close to some of the norms of the game. I don't know of any reason to think that the departure from encounter building guidelines is introducing any greater variation into the table experience than differences across tables in magic items gained.I don't agree with this either. From WotC's point of view, the issue isn't who's playing "core" and who's playing "tweak". The issue of errata is a commercial matter, not a purity-of-core-experience matter. If only a small minority of hardcore players, playing at high levels, encounter the sorts of issues that you have, then WotC has no significant incentive to devote effort to resolving them. They'll be more worried about things going wrong in those hundreds and hundreds of 1st to 6th level games played by people with only modest amounts of system mastery.To me, this doesn't so much show that melee martial PCs are viable against flying enemies, as show that if you stick a flyer inside a relatively shallow-ceilinged space then many of its advantages of flying are negated.</blockquote>

Verification