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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9483268" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well, I was responding to your comparisons between the methods. You listed distinct methods used by OD&D/1e, 2e/3e, and 4e. You then said that 5e has "the issue" (problems with encounter-building guidelines in a game with "adventuring-day" resources) because it does...none of those three methods.One of my theses about 5e, for quite some time now, has been that its designers effectively tried to abdicate many actual design decisions in the first place. Not all, of course, as that would be impossible. But certainly a lot of them. That was why the 5.0 DMG was so full of advice that boiled down to, "You can do X, or you can not do X. You're the DM, you decide!" without even a gesture at explaining how, or why, or when--or giving worse-than-useless "advice" about it.Hence, in this case, it seems to me that 5e was trying to have its cake and eat it too, by more-or-less abdicating on this issue. It provides guidelines that are lenient to the point of being not very useful, and its CRs are of questionable utility (not as totally-useless as 3.X CR was, but still pretty bad), and outright breaks its own "rules" on this front (the formulae for determining CRs frequently don't match the CRs of actual monsters), etc.That's why I asked the question. It seems to me that 5e's answer to the issue of encounter-building guidelines under "adventuring-day" resource structures is to simply not give an answer, and hope that each DM cobbles together something instead.</blockquote>

Verification