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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6842186" data-attributes="member: 996">That'd make it harder.  I do feel that 5e is one of those games that works better with more kept behind the screen.  It facilitates making rulings and adjustments without players becoming frustrated from 'seeing the wires,' or second-guessing you.It's a guideline, not so much 'baked in,' but, yes, one way of minimizing class balance issues would be to just stick to around 6-8 encounters between long rests, and about 2 between short rests.  It'd also help with encounter difficulty.  But it's not the only way.I think we've hammered out in this or a related thread, that 3-4 harder encounters between long rests, with a short rest after each should be very nearly as 'safe' for class balance/encounter difficulty.Of course, that's not no issues, that's just minimizing issues from the classes having different resource schemes, and keeping encounters at all challenging.They don't balance on mechanics, alone, no. They do work, though, they're not unplayable.  It's just that, in some situations, one class will outshine another.  The trick isn't house-ruling them into mechanical balance (a prohibitive effort, it'd likely be easier to design a game from scratch), but just giving each PC a chance to shine now and then.  In a sandbox, you have to hope that emerges as a result of what the individual PCs try to do, and you can always nudge things in one direction or another.  In a more directive campaign, you can outright engineer it.I've yet to really delve into official monster design.  I'll run a monster 'off the cuff,' without stats, rather than build one ahead of time, for instance.</blockquote>

Verification