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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7006088" data-attributes="member: 996">Thinking in terms of RAW is a mistake in 5e, yes.  In 3.x, you could run aground on the letter of the rules pretty easily.  Rules issues could grind the action to a halt, 'grid dependence' was arguably at its height, with AoO and AE templates demanding exact positioning.  It's not that RAW was bad, it gave players (and, at a price, DMs) a lot of power to customize just about everything.  You could scale a monster by adding levels to it, you could even scale a combat to model hordes using variations on the swarm mechanic 3e (AFAIK) introduced (and 4e & 5e retained & simplified).  OTOH, the RAW lent itself to the infamous 'static combats,' in spite (or even because) of the many combat options that were available.  And, while it gave you customizeability it also locked in what was and was not possible for a PC (or monster) based on which of those many options you took - and it could be a lot of work to level up a custom monster, that then only survived a round or two.You could 'stick to RAW' in 4e, too - it wasn't impractical, the rules were clear & balanced enough, and 'RAW' included p42, so you could even improvise with the safety-net of nearly as clear/balanced guidelines.  You could formulaically scale a monster's level or secondary role quite simply (or the monster builder could do it for you, when it wasn't glitching) to have the party face a solo, a similar-size group of standards, boost numbers of enemies with minions or trim them by replacing two standards with an elite, or even use a swarm for a horde with little more effort (and while the swarm mechanic or crowds of minions certainly favored AE controller types, all PCs could meaningfully take them on).But, in 5e RAW-obsession borders on nonsense.  Those rules are written to be starting points for the DM to work from, not to limit him.  If you did stick slavishly to RAW, it might not be pretty...Cases in point, yes. There's also a relative (to C&T/3e/4e) lack of non-spell combat options, so if you aren't open to stepping outside of RAW you lose some interest and dynamism, there. Then there's the problem of scaling a combat under BA.  The guidelines aren't exactly dependable to begin with, and numbers tell heavily, so even legendary monsters have a hard time taking on a decent sized party, and hordes get overwhelming very quickly (remember the early dragon vs 100 archers complaints).  But, if you aren't stuck to RAW, and don't mind whipping up your own stuff, the swarm rules are still there and you could extrapolate a more manageable 'horde' that way, and you can always narrate or rule your way around any mechanical awkwardness.Nod.  I like how they both get back to the 1e paradigm of monsters being just different from PCs.  Less detailed, more monstrous.  (The formating in 4e was probably the more practical - even PF uses something superficially similar, with shading to make it easier to find just the thing you're looking for, I believe - but 5e's use of stark text & lines evokes 1e stat blocks for me.)</blockquote>

Verification