Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8591830" data-attributes="member: 6704184">While there is an assumption that informs things like encounter design, I don’t think they do think or expect that at all.&nbsp; &nbsp;People exaggerate the supposed “imbalance” between classes on different rest models. Wotc built the game to work fine regardless of number of encounters per day, the 6-8 is just there to have a comparison point for purely at-will vs fully long rest characters. And it works for that. The rogue does the right amount of damage per attack to match the average damage of a wizard using every spell slot to do single target damage, and then has broad competence at will to match the wizards “utility nova” ability with spells.&nbsp; &nbsp;4e was too tightly designed, as much as I love it, because it paired that tight design with enormous numbers of moving parts and options, and a huge math scale, which made power differences seem bigger than they were. 5e squashed the math scale, vastly reduced the moving parts and options, and defines thing more loosely. As a result, ironically, the same phenomenon occurs, where people crunch numbers and see a couple points of difference and perceive it as dramatic. But it isn’t. You have to compare “broken” CharOp builds to tiefling elemental monks or something to get an actually problematic power differential, and even then it’s not noticeable at tables that don’t try to optimize for combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8591830, member: 6704184"] While there is an assumption that informs things like encounter design, I don’t think they do think or expect that at all. People exaggerate the supposed “imbalance” between classes on different rest models. Wotc built the game to work fine regardless of number of encounters per day, the 6-8 is just there to have a comparison point for purely at-will vs fully long rest characters. And it works for that. The rogue does the right amount of damage per attack to match the average damage of a wizard using every spell slot to do single target damage, and then has broad competence at will to match the wizards “utility nova” ability with spells. 4e was too tightly designed, as much as I love it, because it paired that tight design with enormous numbers of moving parts and options, and a huge math scale, which made power differences seem bigger than they were. 5e squashed the math scale, vastly reduced the moving parts and options, and defines thing more loosely. As a result, ironically, the same phenomenon occurs, where people crunch numbers and see a couple points of difference and perceive it as dramatic. But it isn’t. You have to compare “broken” CharOp builds to tiefling elemental monks or something to get an actually problematic power differential, and even then it’s not noticeable at tables that don’t try to optimize for combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification