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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eric V" data-source="post: 6955718" data-attributes="member: 6779717">Ok.  In your example above, there are 3 variables thrown in that are different from the Basic Rules: Feats, Multiclassing, and having a group of 6.  I don't think a Solo monster designed for a group of 4 should be able to handle a group of 6.  The designers did include rules in the encounter building section about how to compensate for that...and it's still way off.  To me, that's a design flaw.Feats and multiclassing are rules found in the PHB.  Feats are made to be equivalent to ASIs; that at least implies that a game including both feats and ASIs is not different power-wise from a game that includes only ASIs; it seems that is not the case.  Either the design team was unaware of this, making it a design flaw, or they were and it was just kind of weird to not include a warning to the DM and players that PCs will be more powerful to the point that things need to be adjusted on the other side of the screen.The same would be said of multiclassing.  If these official options make it so that the DM can't use the monsters from the MM as "plug and play," there should be a note saying so, no?Same thing for high level play.  If it's really true that high-level D&D play doesn't work according to the rules of the game, why is it being sold as though it does?  That doesn't seem right to me.I'm not sure how 4e failed in that approach, tbh.  Encounter building was the easiest it has ever been.  The post-Monstrous Manual math was tight.  Not perfect (In practice, at paragon tier, high end encounters were level+5, not +4, and at epic tier they were +6), but certainly better than now.  It's one of the odd step backwards 5e made.None of this negates the necessity for the DM to cater the game to the PCs in front of him, obviously.  I just wish the tools provided were more up to the task.I'd settle for somewhat accurate.  Again, it's just weird to me that the design team included system-breaking stuff in the PHB with no note as to how it would be system-breaking.Thanks for the input though.  I confess, I hadn't originally seen 5e as being that fragile in this regard, but it looks like I need to give more credit to the people who have been calling for no optional rules in the first place; they had a better argument than I originally thought. :/</blockquote>

Verification