Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 6487499" data-attributes="member: 3424">Apart from the usual caveat of &quot;it depends on the game&quot;, this is a false dichotomy.&nbsp; The monsters encountered by the party can be selected both to present a good challenge and based on where they should exist logically (within the context of the game world). That said, the DM can always come up with some explanation for, say, why a manticore could be encountered somewhere other than its favored terrain (if the game even defines this in the first place).I realize that it is apparently not a popular opinion, but I did enjoy the greater precision and predictability of 4e. Not total predictability, of course - even I would find that dull, but a smaller range of potential outcomes. To me, it changed the gameplay by increasing the importance of tactical and strategic decision-making and reducing the importance of luck.&nbsp; It's probably fair to say that my ideal game would be one in which your decisions determine if you win, and luck determines how you win. Frankly, I think that whether or not magic items appear to be &quot;meaningless&quot; is a matter of how they are presented.&nbsp; The difference is psychological, not mathematical.&nbsp; If I were to change the 4e CR guidelines based on 5e's philosophy, I would simply define CR as the level the PCs need to be to defeat the monsters without magic items. So, the previously-mentioned CR 12 monsters would now be CR 15 and a suitable challenge for a party of 15th-level PCs without magic items. Then, if the PCs happen to have +3 magic items, they are actually able to take on CR 18 monsters! (CR 15 under the old system.) This would make the magic items seem like they are making the PCs more powerful and providing them with an advantage, right?If that is your philosophy, then I am sure that the 5e encounter guidelines are exactly what you deserve.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 6487499, member: 3424"] Apart from the usual caveat of "it depends on the game", this is a false dichotomy. The monsters encountered by the party can be selected both to present a good challenge [U]and[/U] based on where they should exist logically (within the context of the game world). That said, the DM can always come up with some explanation for, say, why a manticore could be encountered somewhere other than its favored terrain (if the game even defines this in the first place). I realize that it is apparently not a popular opinion, but I did enjoy the greater precision and predictability of 4e. Not total predictability, of course - even I would find that dull, but a smaller range of potential outcomes. To me, it changed the gameplay by increasing the importance of tactical and strategic decision-making and reducing the importance of luck. It's probably fair to say that my ideal game would be one in which your decisions determine [I]if[/I] you win, and luck determines [I]how[/I] you win. Frankly, I think that whether or not magic items appear to be "meaningless" is a matter of how they are presented. The difference is psychological, not mathematical. If I were to change the 4e CR guidelines based on 5e's philosophy, I would simply define CR as the level the PCs need to be to defeat the monsters [U]without[/U] magic items. So, the previously-mentioned CR 12 monsters would now be CR 15 and a suitable challenge for a party of 15th-level PCs without magic items. Then, if the PCs happen to have +3 magic items, they are actually able to take on CR 18 monsters! (CR 15 under the old system.) This would make the magic items seem like they are making the PCs more powerful and providing them with an advantage, right? If that is your philosophy, then I am sure that the 5e encounter guidelines are exactly what you deserve. [/QUOTE]

Verification