D&D 5E FeeFiFoFum *splat* goes the giants

[HammerMan]

Exactly, that's were codifying encounters for computation is bound to fail in 5e. 4e, which went further than any previous editions simplified this by having maps where starting positions were indicated, which meant that a number of DMs teleported characters and monsters on the map to the starting positions when combat started so that the conditions were as standard as possible. I'm not criticising that approach, but even in that case, initiative coud mean quite a bit of swinginess even before all the other dices started rolling.

citation needed

I have played adventure league the entire time it was open, and I ran/playesd and played 4e from playtest through playtest and into the first year of 5e. not once have I seen this happen or even heard of it.

 

[HammerMan]

The thing is that none of these factors are linear, and that some will matter in some fights more than in others, so in the end, while a few examples in a side bar might be interesting, they could also be misleading.

I was in no way saying my math was 100% or that my wording was the best (no one is hiring me to write RPGs) I am saying more detail is needed and gave a quick example. again I think you need multi axises to properly balance (4e used a level and a type and I think even that didn't go far enough)

both the monster detail needs a bit more, and the encounter building needs a bit more.

 

[Stalker0]

maybe next time read the whole thing before you respond... you quoted my "Hit like" and ignored my "Under damage and less HP" you HIT aka have the + to hit like those levels.

example: If your party has a + magic item to hit remember they are hitting like a party multi levels (+1 prof) higher would. a +3 sword on a 3rd level character makes them hit as often as a 20th level PC with no items.

I didn’t ignore it, but I felt like the example was trying to imply a combat equivalency that does not exist. To hit doesn’t actually mean anything in combat (at least for a fighter), it’s just a piece of the puzzle:

to hit x damage x number of attacks.

in a thread talking about how magic items effect encounter difficulty, a +3 item has a definite impact, but not nearly that to a +17 level gap.

and if we really want to get technical…the to hit is still not even equal. A 20th fighter certainly has +2 more strength and has a +6 prof bonus over +2, so with a +3 sword the 3rd level character is still -2 attack.

 

[Lyxen]

citation needed

I have played adventure league the entire time it was open, and I ran/playesd and played 4e from playtest through playtest and into the first year of 5e. not once have I seen this happen or even heard of it.

What do you mean "citation needed" ? It has happened to me personally with 2 different DMs, because when you have maps like the one below, the DM just said "OK, combat starts" and put the figurines in one of the of the grid cells in the area of the right, where, in his scenario, it says "start here".

To them, it was mostly a combat game, and it did not really matter how you played and what you did before, as soon as the doors were touched or some noise was made, it was "push your miniature on the map and roll dices" time.

 

[Lyxen]

I was in no way saying my math was 100% or that my wording was the best (no one is hiring me to write RPGs) I am saying more detail is needed and gave a quick example. again I think you need multi axises to properly balance (4e used a level and a type and I think even that didn't go far enough)

both the monster detail needs a bit more, and the encounter building needs a bit more.

That is debatable and debated, lacking these details did not prevent 5e from being the most successful TTRPG ever, so I don't think that there is a "need". Some DMs might appreciate a bit more help, understood, but as this current discussion shows, there are probably more opinions than there are DMs, and it is so dependent on the circumstances that it is, like everything in 5e, up to the DM to customise it. You can't be a DM in 5e like you were in 4e where everything was pre-chewed for you, it's the nature of a much more open game, you need to learn the ropes and how to fill in the blanks.

 

[Ancalagon]

There are many ways to play the game, some people like combat more than anything, and the challenge, etc. 4e in particular appealed to them because it was very organised and balanced, and the rules were clear, which allowed them to really optimise their tactics. And the good side of the coin was that the encounters were much easier to calibrate.

Not my type of game, but as I say, it's a very rich game full of possibilities.

some would say that this strict organization would strangle it out of possibilities. Are you familiar with combat as sport vs combat as war as a gaming concept?

 

[Lyxen]

some would say that this strict organization would strangle it out of possibilities. Are you familiar with combat as sport vs combat as war as a gaming concept?

The fact is that it is not really the way I enjoy playing D&D, but when saddled with an edition that has this as a design intent and friends who enjoy it (as well as roleplaying, it's not incompatible, just, as you say, constrained), you play it, and still somewhat enjoy it.

But I'm not judging, you will find people even on these forums who will explain that the constraining forces the creativity, that creativity is enhanced by constraints. My view is like yours, that it strangles it, at best it allows it but forcing it along very specific channels.

These are the same people who want the same type of game out of 5e, and are really frustrated by the fuzzy rules supported by plain language instead of jargon, and the "DM's rulings over rules" concept.

I honestly don't care, to each his own and all playstyles are valid if you enjoy them, it's just that some editions are much more suitable to certain playstyles.

And coming back to this thread, this is why, with 5e combat not being designed for that type of game, it makes it harder to create a fool-proof encounter calculator. The monsters' powers are fuzzy, the situations and characters ability are fuzzy, the possibilities are much greater, the game is more open. For me, it makes it more suitable to a very open game, and less for one where encounters are calibrated as a technical challenge, that's all.

 

[jmartkdr2]

some would say that this strict organization would strangle it out of possibilities. Are you familiar with combat as sport vs combat as war as a gaming concept?

Right, so some people liked it and some didn't. That's what he said above.

Nothing wrong with Combat as Sport (or Combat as Performance), and it still allows for just as much creative play. It's just a different set of constraints to be creative within.

 

[Lyxen]

Right, so some people liked it and some didn't. That's what he said above.

Nothing wrong with Combat as Sport (or Combat as Performance), and it still allows for just as much creative play. It's just a different set of constraints to be creative within.

Exactly, just so that you know, the 3e design intent was recently shared, and it did not come up as a surprise to me that one of the intents was to make the game "competitive", and I'll take any bet that this was even more one of the design intent of 4e. On the other hand, in my opinion, 5e has clearly reverted to the really collaborative / casual style of play.

I think it's good overall, that everyone has something to play with and that the hobby is so varied, as long as some people don't try to enforce that their way of playing the game is obviously the one true way and superior to the others.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Exactly, just so that you know, the 3e design intent was recently shared, and it did not come up as a surprise to me that one of the intents was to make the game "competitive", and I'll take any bet that this was even more one of the design intent of 4e. On the other hand, in my opinion, 5e has clearly reverted to the really collaborative / casual style of play.

I think it's good overall, that everyone has something to play with and that the hobby is so varied, as long as some people don't try to enforce that their way of playing the game is obviously the one true way and superior to the others.

Near as I can tell, 5e was designed to sort-of support all three. Certainly they wanted CaS and CaW to both work, which meant dialing back some of the balancing stuff and adding fuzzier skill checks (compared to 3e and 4e) to make CaW work better... but playing lose with those rules, while keeping stuff refluffable, and bringing down the base difficulty, made Combat as Performance very easy to handle as well.

It all goes back to 5e trying to be a jack-of-all-editions game, and largely succeeding.