NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6879983" data-attributes="member: 996">It wouldn't be hard, for instance, to just amplify the range of Bounded Accuracy.  Instead of +4 over 20 levels, +10 over 20 levels.  Bounded Accuracy is pretty tight.  It's a narrow range, it doesn't get broken out of a lot.  Here's a simple variant that might help a bit:Instead of proficiency adding +2 to +6 over 20 levels, it just adds +2 (+4 with Expertise - yeah, that 'nerfs' expertise a bit, maybe give the Rogue something to compensate - the Bard'd be fine even without it).  Every check gets the +4 over 20 levels, across the board.  So does AC.For more evident advancement and/or more meaningful specialization, just increase the numbers.  +5 or 10 over 20 levels and/or  +3 or +5 for proficiency.A feat is costly, but it'll usually give you something very significant or several things (or only 'cost half' in the sense of still giving you a +1 to a specific stat).  A daily spell slot is not that big an expense - you get a lot more of them in 5e.At low level, but it expands with level (see above about tweaking proficiency for a 'solution'), and expertise is gasoline on that fire.Yes, but (I'm getting tired of saying that), that's also a built-in solution to a different issue.  5e doesn't have any structured sub-system for resolving non-combat encounters that would draw everyone into those challenges.  What the smaller proficiency bonus and bounded accuracy in general does, though, /is/ let everyone participate in spite of that.  You don't have to angle for a skill you're good at, or intentionally 'ground' your turn with an aid-another check or anything, you can just jump in and roll that skill you're no good at, because it /is/ random enough that you might carry the day some of the time.Prettymuch what Legendary monsters are for.  Have you tried a few of them?  This is also where you can take more of the resolution behind the screen, create an air of mystery around the enemy, and adjust specifics on the fly to assure the climactic battle you're shooting for.More true of larger combats in terms of number of foes.  And, again, this is something you can fine-tune on the fly.And, there are solid support-capable classes in 5e (Cleric, Bard, Druid, Paladin) and tough 'tank' classes (Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian).  Play the monsters just a little 'badly' here and there - focus a bit more on the tank, leave the 'healer' alone - and the party can come back from some dramatic, threat-establishing damage.It does so neatly adapt the sole-monster threat to the number of PC, though.  It's slightly brilliant that way.That's the flip side of Bounded Accuracy.  Just statistically, a big enough horde becomes deadly to anyone.  Early on there were threads about a hundred or so rubes with bows killing legendary dragons and such.  One solution you can lift from 3e/4e is consolidating large numbers of foes into Swarms.  5e /does/ have swarms, even if it doesn't apply the mechancis to less teeny monsters.  It wouldn't be hard to extrapolate.That is not how you stated it, you phrased it universally.  You can compare more detailed combat with more options and more enemies one side and greater durability on the PC side as 'slower,' because it does take more rounds to finish and more table time to resolve, relative to less detailed combat vs fewer foes and less resilient PCs, without making one sound execrable and the other like the holy grail.  You can express your preference for one or the other.  You could even go into how the opposite was readily achievable under either system, if the DM chose to design encounters differently...I quoted what you said.  If you didn't mean for it to be taken a certain way, by all means, retract or further clarify it.  It's clear now that you were talking about a personal preference and a personal experience, and just couched that opinion as a quality of the system in familiar-from-the-edition-war terms.  You've rectified that mistake.  If the price is enduring a few more snide insults for pointing it out to you, I'll pay it.The frequency of 'updates' was an issue, but they did tamp down stuff like that.  Oddly, WotC's response to complaints about the game needing too-frequent errata wasn't to release less broken material in the Essentials era, but to just not fix it so much.D&D does have a certain history of past performance, and if your expectations of D&D were shaped by that history (if, like me, you've played the game since the 80s - or, like some others around here, since the very beginning, if not since Chainmail), then 5e doesn't exactly confound your expectations.  It's mainly a matter of default emphasis, though, not system, and can be changed substantially by the DM...You can't as a player, directly.  As a DM, you can.  See above for one example.  I know you're not looking for solutions, per se, but you have gotten a number of recommendations in the preceding pages. Find a good enough DM working towards similar expectations, and 5e will deliver on them.  All but guaranteed.</blockquote>

Verification