D&D 5E Goodman Games What's coming down the Pike for 5e.

[Mezuka]

Challenge Rating is like training wheels. Eventually you gotta take them off and do what seems fun.

Back in the day we didn’t have Challenge Ratings.

Too many senseless random deaths back in the 80s, me and my group didn't like that. Many groups didn't like that either. It lead to many new players leaving the hobby after just a few games.

 

[teitan]

Too many senseless random deaths back in the 80s, me and my group didn't like that. Many groups didn't like that either. It lead to many new players leaving the hobby after just a few games.

You’d think that players would learn that it’s sometimes a better idea to run than fight then. But also DM error and not knowing the capabilities of his group and sticking to the rules to closely to the detriment of fun. Which is counter to the advice given in the rule books and Dragon Magazine. But that’s just Me I think. I also could have been cracking a joke.

 

[Parmandur]

What I appreciate about CR in 5E is how upfront the rules are about how fuzzy and swingy an indicator it is. 3.x pretended to exactirude it did not live up to, and 4E was...clinical. 5E hits that old school fuzzy goal without being as useless as AD&D tools.

 

[Nikosandros]

I think that the "balancing" tools in 3e were quite useless and so were those in AD&D (but the latter were basically non-existent). The CR in 5e is, IMVHO, a very vague indicator and I always "balance" empirically. The only really functioning tools (again, IMHO), are those in 4e.

 

[Parmandur]

I think that the "balancing" tools in 3e were quite useless and so were those in AD&D (but the latter were basically non-existent). The CR in 5e is, INMVHO, a very vague indicator and I always "balance" empirically. The only really functioning tools (again, IMHO), are those in 4e.

Yes, 4E achieved "balance"...but at what cost?

 

[Nikosandros]

Yes, 4E achieved "balance"...but at what cost?

Personally, I think that the cost is combats that are too long. That's the main reason I haven't ran 4e in while and why I'm not interested in running a campaign with it. However, I'm well aware that it is a very controversial edition and that many think that the cost was much higher...

 

[Parmandur]

Personally, I think that the cost is combats that are too long. That's the main reason I haven't ran 4e in while and why I'm not interested in running a campaign with it. However, I'm well aware that it is a very controversial edition and that many think that the cost was much higher...

Pretty fully agreed. I'm not even mad, but...the drive towards "balance" over and against a more old school combat design didn't work for me

 

[dave2008]

Yes, 4E achieved "balance"...but at what cost?

No cost that are important to me. My issues with 4e have nothing to do with its balance. I really liked 4e, but I think most people that disliked 4e had issues with other things that aren't balance related.

 

[Parmandur]

No cost that are important to me. My issues with 4e have nothing to do with its balance. I really liked 4e, but I think most people that disliked 4e had issues with other things that aren't balance related.

Well, I found the combat not-fun for me, and it dominated playtime, so my overall enjoyment was impacted. And I think the changes they made that made that balance possible led directly to thst experience.

 

[dave2008]

Personally, I think that the cost is combats that are too long. That's the main reason I haven't ran 4e in while and why I'm not interested in running a campaign with it. However, I'm well aware that it is a very controversial edition and that many think that the cost was much higher...

Did balance make combats long or was it other factors? I think most people see the long combat times related to decision paralysis from:

1. what power to chose, &...
2. how to maximize the action economy

While those two got tangled up with how they balanced things in 4e, the are mostly independent.