The Trad Reformation

13»

Comments

  • Yeah; I was goin for a baseline comparison with characters who are fully trained & using their favorite stat, but no special tricks or optimization for the specific check.
  • Hi @Jeph , sorry that I was unclear before. I was referring to monster hit point growth in my 8x vs 15x comparison. In 4e, most monsters gain +8 hp and +1 damage per level. In 5e, monsters tend to gain about +15 hp and +3 damage per CR. If we're comparing player characters it really depends on their Constitution scores, but most PCs gain +5 hp per level in 4e vs +6 to +8 hp per level in 5e.

    Your other points are well taken.

    Trent
  • Leveling up monsters they gain one hd + con every level…?
    CR aren't levels
  • edited May 2019
    EDIT: As Sandra points out, 4e monsters have level, not CR.

    Ah; it's kinda hard to compare 4e level and 5e challenge ratings.

    A non-Elite monster in 4e is supposed to be a challenge for a single PC of the same level.

    A monster in 5e is supposed to be a challenge for a whole party of PCs whose level equals the given challenge rating.
  • @Jeph 4e monsters don't have CR…?
  • That's true.
  • edited May 2019
    4e has an easy quick & fun encounter building algo. 5e doesn't really have encounters at all… when we were playing 1e (via Lab Lord AEC, I was kinda late to the D&D party) we were guerilla killing skeletons with tripwires & glue & Color Spray. 5e is kinda similar. My party was fearing monsters into a corner and putting up walls of fire & then killing them.

    It's just a very different kind of game. Of course there are math similarities to 4e. Why should they throw that out? But there are also math differences. Such as the boundedly accurate peasant revolution
  • 5e does have encounter building rules, doesn't it? They're on that page of the DMG opposite the picture of the giant ice cliff, if I recall. With the easy/medium/hard/deadly XP bands.

    I don't use them much, you don't use them much, and once I asked Mike Mearls about it on reddit and he said that he doesn't use them... but it does have them in the book. I think 5e is intended to support either a guerilla warfare sandbox style, or a setpiece encounter style more like 4e.

    I think a lot of people do play 5e with balanced setpiece encounters. Evidence: there's a website called Kobold Fight Club that automates the encounter building rules, and I have seen a lot of people online recommending it and talking about using it.
  • Because we don’t serve up encounters, we have the hobos exploring a world.
    Cute, but no. It seems pretty clear from the books themselves, the modules/adventures, and the play culture of modern D&D that "encounter chain" is very much the expected/default mode of play.

  • edited May 2019
    5e does have encounter building rules, doesn't it? They're on that page of the DMG opposite the picture of the giant ice cliff, if I recall. With the easy/medium/hard/deadly XP bands.
    Yes, I was tryna tell @Trent_W that the ones in 5e suck (they're on DMG p 81, the ice cliff is on the next spread over, p83; there are two alternative systems in XGE pp 88–91) while the ones in 4e are easy & work consistently from level to level. The way monsters work in 5e it's pretty much impossible to do what you could do in 4e, encounter chains.
    Like, what CR should an intellect devourer be? A level 2 party could handle one. I know that from experience because the third group of level twos that my party threw at one managed to survive long enough to kill it, after two groups being TPKd by it… :bawling: Talk about glass cannon monster. Or maybe not so glass cannon, it having 6hd and resistance to normal damage. But it's still listed as a CR 2 450 XP creature. Which… might be correct? The CR 3 Owlbear has also killed a lot of my PCs; it has seven hit dice and a beak+claw routine at… plus… seven!!! If both connect, the beak is a 10-damage and the claw is a 12-damage. (I.e. a damage that costs 10 or 12 to negate respectively.)
    Cute, but no. It seems pretty clear from the books themselves, the modules/adventures, and the play culture of modern D&D that "encounter chain" is very much the expected/default mode of play.
    Here, you are wrong. I play WotC modules. I've ran Lost Mine of Phandelver and Curse of Strahd, and we're just about to do sesh 64 of Tomb of Annihilation later today.
    The are not encounter chains. You can walk right up to Strahd right away in CoS. The castle is right there on the hill. You would die… but… you could. Our first batch of hobos skipped the haunted house in starting village and were killed by 3d6 wolves on a random forest encounter on their way to the castle. Our second batch died in the house. SMH. But we stuck with it and they ev explored the whole country & defeated Strahd. They did the "evil place where Strahd actually got his powers" much dangerouser thing than Strahd's own castle (the famous Ravenloft castle that inspired the Castlevania video games that I love♥♥♥) before they went to Ravenloft so they did a more difficulter thing first. Because it's not a chain.

    In our playthrough of Lost Mine of Phandelver, they saw the entrance to the "level 1 cave" and they were like "FUCK THAT! That looks dangerous! Let's get out of here" and then they got out of there and went to the level 3 place instead where they died.

    We've also done B4 The Lost City and B2 Keep on the Borderlands. They are set up similar to the three modules I just mentioned. It's not encounter chains. It's just a completely different mode of play.

    (We've also done a homebrew campaign [Glitchworld], a 3rd party campaign [Deep Carbon Observatory], and a 2e module [Corsairs of the Great Sea] where I took all the NPCs and locations from the railroad and relied more heavily on the setting books [I was lucky to snag all the al-Qadim stuff off an action site just after getting into 5e and just before D&D blew up] and threw the railroad out to make it a sandbox. Inverted the maguffin so that the PCs were on the "enemy's" side. I also moved the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan from Greyhawk to instead be nearby. We also started the Princes of the Apocalypse but abandoned it! I love the themes and NPCs but the book was sooo confusingly organized. Also it's more of a funnel; at the start of the campaign you can go to a bunch of different locations and sites and mini-dungeons etc but then as you dig yourself deeper you'll end up at the same place; that's not really my thing.)
  • Now, there are some things in 5E where the looseness of the design is a bit problematic. The fact that every group has to figure out exactly how they want to handle Perception vs. Investigation, and Perception vs. Insight, is a problem.
    I wrote a longer essay on this.

    Basically it's not something that can be fixed in a 5.5 pass with their current "skill challenge heavy" design mindset that the traps in XGE and the crew conflicts in GoS represent. They'd just completely de-finch the whole thing and you'd have to roll skills to just open your eyes in the morning.
  • That’s a great essay! Very nicely done.
Sign In or Register to comment.