Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6799300" data-attributes="member: 6787650">The attrition model is newfangled, very nontraditional. Attrition has always been one component of (A)D&amp;D, as far back as I've played (Mentzer Red Box, but mostly AD&amp;D2) but usually only a minor aspect of the game. 5E has almost completely removed save-or-die from the system and leans primarily on attrition if you're not careful, and that's new, and has implications which can make the game boring if not managed correctly.I wouldn't know. The only 3.5 I ever played was the ToEE videogame, which was quite boring.That's an interesting definition of &quot;balanced.&quot; By that standard, 5E is extremely well-balanced, but the encounter guidelines are far too weak because there are a number of builds that shred them utterly. (Or maybe it's the MM which is the problem, and not the encounter guidelines--after all there are a handful of monsters in the MM which are challenging (scary!) and interesting, and a large number of boring meatsacks which are there only to die in three rounds or less.)That's not the standard I'm using when I discuss DMG encounter balance though. The DMG is designed so that there are no &quot;trap options&quot; as you call it, and so that a casual player who makes a basic Champion fighter can kill monsters and get treasure. It's easy by design, and the fact that he isn't making a &quot;viable&quot; choice by your apparent standards (i.e. some options dominate others) doesn't stop him from having fun. I claim that the 5E guidelines were designed with such players in mind; but the fun part of 5E is that it's a floor on effectiveness and not a ceiling.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 6799300, member: 6787650"] The attrition model is newfangled, very nontraditional. Attrition has always been one component of (A)D&D, as far back as I've played (Mentzer Red Box, but mostly AD&D2) but usually only a minor aspect of the game. 5E has almost completely removed save-or-die from the system and leans primarily on attrition if you're not careful, and that's new, and has implications which can make the game boring if not managed correctly. I wouldn't know. The only 3.5 I ever played was the ToEE videogame, which was quite boring. That's an interesting definition of "balanced." By that standard, 5E is extremely well-balanced, but the encounter guidelines are far too weak because there are a number of builds that shred them utterly. (Or maybe it's the MM which is the problem, and not the encounter guidelines--after all there are a handful of monsters in the MM which are challenging (scary!) and interesting, and a large number of boring meatsacks which are there only to die in three rounds or less.) That's not the standard I'm using when I discuss DMG encounter balance though. The DMG is designed so that there are no "trap options" as you call it, and so that a casual player who makes a basic Champion fighter can kill monsters and get treasure. It's easy by design, and the fact that he isn't making a "viable" choice by your apparent standards (i.e. some options dominate others) doesn't stop him from having fun. I claim that the 5E guidelines were designed with such players in mind; but the fun part of 5E is that it's a floor on effectiveness and not a ceiling. [/QUOTE]

Verification