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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6834629" data-attributes="member: 6701872">I judge all games to the same same standard (Do the rules meet their design intentions within acceptable margins? Is the game fun to play without heavy alteration?)What it is that is different between my view of 5th edition and other editions is those stated design intentions being extremely different - for example, that 3.5 encounter building guidelines claim a percentage of the party's resources which an encounter of a certain difficulty is meant to consume (a highly specific goal which my experience suggests is rarely, if ever met when using what you call a "power combo"), while the 5th edition encounter building guidelines claim only a benchmark for when the party might (meaning if the dice go that way) have some number of casualties greater that 0 while defeating the encounter (a goal which is not very specific and which I have yet to experience an encounter not meeting).That's why every time you, or someone else, says "this is broken" I point to your expectations not matching what the game tells you to expect as a cause for you thinking that is true while I think it isn't - because if someone expects the 5th edition encounter building guidelines to have the same function as the 3.5 or 4th edition encounter building guidelines, it's not the game that broken, it's that expectation. The same holds true for other parts of the game, I only mention encounter building because it's a popular point and one which is easy to cover the issues clearly with.And lastly, you might note that when I talk about prior editions of D&D breaking I refer to the core game math - not these "power combos" - which is a subtle, but important distinction.</blockquote>

Verification