Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6979837" data-attributes="member: 5834">I don't expect complicated support. 5E isn't a complicated game. I did expect the game to play better at higher level. Monsters are weak. It's only a debate to a handful of people that think it's ok that they require "intelligent" play and highly beneficial environments to make them challenging. And they are weak regardless of resource management. If you can't see the weakness of creatures like Balors and Mariliths, I don't know what to tell you. It seems strange that there are players out there that can't easily exploit the weaknesses of two creatures with no ranged attacking capability or ranged defensive capability. The same with dragons. If people can't admit these creatures as they are written in the book are weak, then it's difficult to take the argument any farther. It never seems wrong to these folks debating me that they have to create a very dangerous environment or play the monsters "intelligently" to challenge such PCs. The fact that these monsters require a specialized environment or "intelligent" play proves my point that they are weak as written. No one is saying players need to play intelligently to beat these monsters in a neutral environment using the monsters straight up, which is how it should be. I've not read many books where the villain needed a special environment or "intelligent" play to defeat the protagonist. Usually it's the protagonist that needs some very special help to get the job done.5E is not a complicated resource management game. No edition of D&D has ever been complicated. As far as the math goes, 5E's math is much easier than 3E's math. I managed 3E/Pathfinder's math for years. There this strange idea amongst some D&D players that 5E is somehow different from past editions because the game designers spelled out this idea of three pillars and multiple encounters per day to reduce resources. This is not new, not at all. It has been this way since the early days of D&D. You had a limited amount of spellcasting power or uses per day for many significant class abilities. You have that in this edition. But for some reason because they spelled it out, I hear all this gobbly-gook about encounters per day and three pillars. As a long time D&D player, I can't help but think, "Gee, they had to spell that out for you for you to know it. Unbelievable." All of these elements have been aspects of the game since the early days including resource management. And none of it has ever been complicated.This is the easiest version of D&D since the basic days. The fact...and I do mean provable fact...is the monsters are extremely limited and thus weak in 5E. Some folks like Flamestrike and some others in this thread prefer to make the environment tough to help their monsters, while I prefer to rebuild the monsters to make them tougher. Not sure why one method is considered better than the other. The only reason I can think of is the folks that like sprucing up the environment seem to think that makes the monsters just fine because they don't consider making a tough environment the same as rebuilding an entire monster into something stronger. I say both accomplish the same task of making a weak monster more challenging. I don't see the difference. Not sure why you and others do.</blockquote>

Verification