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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8411587" data-attributes="member: 7006">This is going to be something impossible to really figure out... mainly because every table and DM is going to be different, and how their encounter building and adventure focus will be up and down the underpowered/overpowered line.So for instance... I don't agree that even in 5E you need to pull from three/five/eight books to overpower the game.  Personally, I think some players can overpower the game just by using the PHB as it is, with certain choices of optional rule-- and if playing at a table with a DM who is not focused or prepared to build encounters to match up against them.A DM who uses the standard encounter creation design rules in the DMG might have their encounters get completely overwhelmed because of the number of players at their table they are building for, the class combinations working together at the table, the tactical skill of the players in question, the optional rules the players are using, how often the DM is allowing for rests, etc. etc. etc.  The game is just not that vigorous in its math.  It's not designed to allow every type of table to be run in every type of way, ALL of them ending up with really well-balance and equal combat.  It's just not possible.  Heck... even asymmetric board games designed specifically for that purpose that don't have to worry about all the other "character crap" of RPGs have a hard time getting their mechanics completely balanced.  So to think the 5E designers should have been able to get it correct during their design (when they were probably dealing with alpha and beta testers who might not have actually been the kind of optimizers who have been decrying these feats after the fact since the very beginning) is probably putting way too much of an expectation upon them.</blockquote>

Verification