Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7931375" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I had to break that run-on sentence all to pieces to make sense of it. So, the problem is "adam west baman style"? By which I assume you mean campy music, bright colors and BAM WHIZ sound effects? Probably not, you probably mean a lack of threat from enemies correct? Well, let me just take a look here. On a basic level, we have the "storm trooper effect" right? Lots of faceless goons fire at the hero, and they all miss. In 3.5 I just opened the page of a MM and found a CR 12 creature that had a +15 to hit. A quick googling shows a discussion around the average AC of a level 10 character being 30 to 35. Now, I don't know how accurate this is, but no one seems to be calling this out as completely unreasonable. So, 30 AC, +15 to hit, means that the creature hits about half the time. In 5e, 30 AC requires an immense amount of effort to achieve. The highest I could see is +3 Full Plate +3 Shield and two items of protection giving an additional +2. That is four magic items, one is Legendary and another is Very Rare. And the 3.5 discussion mentions that level 20 characters should have an AC of about 50. So, in 3.5 when you are level 10 to 15 with that 30 AC, how likely is it for a Goblin to hit you? Looks like they get... a +1 to hit. So, it is actually impossible (unless crits always succeed) for a 3.5 Goblin to hit a Level 10 character. Even if we drop our AC calculation down to 22, 8 points lower than the low-end indicated, a goblin will still always miss. In 5e? A Goblin has a +4 to hit. Since your average character at level 10 might have an AC between 18 and 21... goblins still hit between 30% and 20% of the time. So, we have moved from "impossible to hit" to "possible to hit" So, in fact, I would argue all enemies are still a threat. You need incredible amounts of effort put into AC to have even the weakest monsters have no chance of hitting you. I'll give you ease of recovery, baseline 5e does have easy recovery, but lack of attrition and lack of danger? Maybe if you mean over the course of a month, but over the course of a single day I have worn parties out with minimal effort and put them in extreme danger. A single casting of fireball can take a significant chunk of hp (10%) out of even higher level parties. That is a single attack, let alone a single fight. Now, again, I will grant there are few ways to harm PCs for longer than a day or two. But, that does not mean you can't put them in danger or wear away at their resources.In terms of the number of encounters, I think 5e actually assumes the highest number of encounters across the editions. At least, meaningful encounters. And, honestly, I'm not really sure you can call designing the game with a set balance point as putting a "BadWrongFun Fence" around the other styles of play. And, you can point to Fireball as "deliberately unbalanced" all you like, it is just a few points of damage higher than it should be. It is barely significant in the grand scheme of the game. After all, 9 of the 13 classes don't even get access to it, and since the typical group seems to be between 4 and 6 people, that means you have a decent chance of never seeing a fireball cast during any given game of DnD. So, I can say I don't get it. Sure, monster effects are weaker. You can no longer die or have your character maimed into a useless state within a few bad rolls. But, there is still danger, there is still attrition, and while the game is balanced around a certain assumption, it is not has gonzo as you seem to think it is.</blockquote>

Verification