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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 9749736" data-attributes="member: 9254">3e made it easier because NPC classes and leveled monsters were baked into the core books.  It was much easier to have a retinue level up and be close enough in power that they won't die in the first round of combat with tier2 mooks.  It can still be done in 5e but you have to massage the system more.  Without using the TCoE follower classes, you can impose "don't attack mount/allies" effects with spells (Sanctuary, invisibility), magic items (saddle of cavalier), and feats (mounted combat).  Some non-concentration buff spells (Aid, armor of agathys), feats (leadership, cook) can augment durability.  I'm fine with PCs consuming resources as part of having cohort-actions available.I wish 5e was more like 3e. Some people disliked it as they hate the idea of "being forced" to use a framework (class) to make NPCs because they don't see value in it.  The utility for managing larger groups on either side is undesirable, possibly because that kind of game is undesirable.  Aside from enabling cohorts, I find it easier to balance encounters with classed enemies rather than fully bespoke ones.  I learned that plant and beast were generally -2CR unless they had some kind of engulf/autograpple against my PCs, while stealthy rogues were +1CR as the PC defenses were focused on defeating invisibile more than hidden foes.Interesting thing I figured out, is if a group of champions arrive with a contingent, say the Knights of the Round Table, when the knights go fight Mordred or whatever, the "heroic mooks" are a big enough force that they justify occupying the villain mooks, which actually reduces the complexity of the PC-BBEG fight while maintaining versimilitude.</blockquote>

Verification