You are a bad DM if you use rolled stats, but as stated above, this thread is not about how awful rolled stat generation is.
No, you're not. I don't agree with rolling stats, I don't use it at my tables or like it as a player, but you are not a bad DM if you use rolled stats. This is utterly incorrect, uncalled for, and extremely offensive for no reason.
Riiiigghhhttt....so his sideways shot at me about a being a "shitty DM" because I recognize the obvious about having to design a game and encounters to the most powerful chars, that is fine.....
If I told all the players in session 0, and said "OK, flip a coin. The ones that get a head get 2 extra ASI's at level 0. The ones that get a tail, get nothing.", there would be total uproar at my table. And that is what rolled stats are. It is entirely expected for there to be at LEAST a 4 point spread between the lowest and highest cumulative stats for the "lucky" and "unlucky" players, when rolling stats.
That is the mark of truly bad judgement by a DM. There are no debate on that.
Its much more balanced now, even with Items, than it was in 4th for example.
Even tho i love 4th Ed, the numbers where becoming ridiculous at higher lvl...
With like 35 AC and +38 to Hit, and thats not even with the magic items( there was Attunement back then, so you had like 10 magic items on you at all momments) that could go to +5 or even more in some cases...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Third ignore them, there is no gain in fighting. I admit that I am a horrible person and a terrible player and DM because I use rolled stats, and I am proud of it.
Not fighting them, just calling out them. I'm fine calling out jerks on either side of the aisle.
I was just calling out them being a jerk. I do that to everyone on these kinds of threads, whether they agree with me or not.
You are not a horrible person, player, and DM for using rolled stats. I did for the longest time, but decided I didn't like randomness in character generation.
Oh, and unless you are talking about me and someone else in this thread, the correct pronoun is "he". "They" refers to plural. "He" is male singular. The name is Vince, a male name.
You are a bad DM if you use rolled stats, but as stated above, this thread is not about how awful rolled stat generation is.
No, you're not. I don't agree with rolling stats, I don't use it at my tables or like it as a player, but you are not a bad DM if you use rolled stats. This is utterly incorrect, uncalled for, and extremely offensive for no reason.
Riiiigghhhttt....so his sideways shot at me about a being a "shitty DM" because I recognize the obvious about having to design a game and encounters to the most powerful chars, that is fine.....
If I told all the players in session 0, and said "OK, flip a coin. The ones that get a head get 2 extra ASI's at level 0. The ones that get a tail, get nothing.", there would be total uproar at my table. And that is what rolled stats are. It is entirely expected for there to be at LEAST a 4 point spread between the lowest and highest cumulative stats for the "lucky" and "unlucky" players, when rolling stats.
That is the mark of truly bad judgement by a DM. There are no debate on that.
He did not call you a "shitty DM," and I did not read that post as an insult. Yours, however, was more pointed saying specifically "you are a bad DM if you use rolled stats."
Also, I did not defend rolled stats, I defended the people who use it. I disagree with rolling for stats and only use Point Buy and Standard Array, but I don't go around calling people bad at the game for using it. I understand the tradition of it (which IMO is a bad excuse for anything), liking the randomness (which is exactly why I dislike it), and liking the variety of characters (which can be done with point buy or standard array, so I don't get that excuse), but I do not like that way of generating stats.
You are not a bad DM if you use rolled stats, I did for a long time. You're not allowed to insult people you have never met for using a rule written in the PHB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Its much more balanced now, even with Items, than it was in 4th for example.
Even tho i love 4th Ed, the numbers where becoming ridiculous at higher lvl...
With like 35 AC and +38 to Hit, and thats not even with the magic items( there was Attunement back then, so you had like 10 magic items on you at all momments) that could go to +5 or even more in some cases...
Even within 5e's bounded accuracy, there are huge issues, at least with some broken char classes. My 9th level Paladin has a +12 on his Con saves. That DM allows a 37 point buy (yes, so dumb), and starting as a Half-Elf, Resilience in Con, the result is ridiculous numbers on saves. The DM has to do immense damage to my char to have any chance to break my Conc, at least with damage based attacks. And that allows the char to wreak havoc with certain spells, forcing the DM to ramp up the encounters.
A Paladin's +5 (20 CHA) natural ability has huge huge impact within the confines of 5e.
Third ignore them, there is no gain in fighting. I admit that I am a horrible person and a terrible player and DM because I use rolled stats, and I am proud of it.
Not fighting them, just calling out them. I'm fine calling out jerks on either side of the aisle.
I was just calling out them being a jerk. I do that to everyone on these kinds of threads, whether they agree with me or not.
You are not a horrible person, player, and DM for using rolled stats. I did for the longest time, but decided I didn't like randomness in character generation.
Oh, and unless you are talking about me and someone else in this thread, the correct pronoun is "he". "They" refers to plural. "He" is male singular. The name is Vince, a male name.
So, wait, I'm confused. Are you mad at me for not assuming your gender? I'm sorry that my act of human decency ended up offending you, Vince. "They" does not refer to plural, it is the proper term to use unless you absolutely know the preferred pronoun of someone you interact with (especially online).
Again, I do apologize for being openminded. I'm so very sorry.
You are a bad DM if you use rolled stats, but as stated above, this thread is not about how awful rolled stat generation is.
No, you're not. I don't agree with rolling stats, I don't use it at my tables or like it as a player, but you are not a bad DM if you use rolled stats. This is utterly incorrect, uncalled for, and extremely offensive for no reason.
Riiiigghhhttt....so his sideways shot at me about a being a "shitty DM" because I recognize the obvious about having to design a game and encounters to the most powerful chars, that is fine.....
If I told all the players in session 0, and said "OK, flip a coin. The ones that get a head get 2 extra ASI's at level 0. The ones that get a tail, get nothing.", there would be total uproar at my table. And that is what rolled stats are. It is entirely expected for there to be at LEAST a 4 point spread between the lowest and highest cumulative stats for the "lucky" and "unlucky" players, when rolling stats.
That is the mark of truly bad judgement by a DM. There are no debate on that.
No, I said that a DM who only balances their encounters around a single player or PC instead of balancing around the whole party is a shitty DM. Any time a DM focuses on a single player or PC instead of considering the entire party is a mistake. There is no debate on that.
But any DM with a brain and an inclination to not be a wangrod can learn to adjust their campaign to accommodate various “cumulative stats.” Not to mention, where those stats go is just as important or more so than the total number. I could have 2 high stats and nothing else above an 8 and still make a strong character by carefully choosing Race, Class and Subclass.
And as a DM I can adjust for any variation between the perceived power levels of the party’s PCs. I little divine blessing here, a magic item there, voila. Mischief managed. You know how I know? Because I've been doing it for almost 30 years. And I’m not special, if I can do it, anyone can do it. Except the aforementioned wangrods of course.
No, I said that a DM who only balances their encounters around a single player or PC instead of balancing around the whole party is a shitty DM. Any time a DM focuses on a single player or PC instead of considering the entire party is a mistake. There is no debate on that.
I will qualify this because I don't agree with the wording. Characters will be specialised, the more so at higher level, and you cannot balance every encounter for the whole party. If you put a boss that the fighter can go toe to toe with, the boss will smash the mage. So on that encounter, the fighter will probably shine.
Now, if you put all encounters on that mode, you are probably not the best DM, but if there is globally balance between the spotlights for various party members, it is much better.
I'm pretty sure that this is what you meant anyway, just wanted to insist on the fact that for me, you create a great game by building on the characters' strength and not by limiting them, this is a hero game, and it can be done, just globally and not on each specific encounter.
Well sure, each fight is unique, but aggregated over the course of the entire campaign it has to all generally average out or it sucks for the players/PCs that get ignored.
And a DM shouldn’t put that foe against that mage unless the mage can hold their own against that foe too.
But if someone goes down the list, adds up all the PC’s Ability Scores, finds the one with the highest total, and gears every encounter against that 1 PC, then how is that fun for everyone?!? The whole table needs to shine. Every PC needs to be badass in turn, and every Player should feel like a hero through their PC. Singling out 1 and basically dumping on the rest is bad form.
And you can’t tell me the GWF, Sharpshooter, Sentinel, or Warcaster aren’t every bit as valuable as the ASI they would replace on the right character. Raw Ability scores are not the be-all-and-end-all of D&D. The same goes for magic items.
The concept has its merits, but the designers have to understand that feats, ASI and magic items are core to the game. They flubbed up on their monster design ignoring those for CR. A lot of monsters if you take away 1 to 2 CR you get a better example of their actual toughness from 10 to 15, in some cases its more.
I think they did, but solo monsters without legendary actions or lair actions are way weaker than their CR implies, due to the action economy. My players aren't powergamers and I find they can regularly smash encounters 3 or 4 CR above what their level would imply.
The concept has its merits, but the designers have to understand that feats, ASI and magic items are core to the game. They flubbed up on their monster design ignoring those for CR. A lot of monsters if you take away 1 to 2 CR you get a better example of their actual toughness from 10 to 15, in some cases its more.
I think they did, but solo monsters without legendary actions or lair actions are way weaker than their CR implies, due to the action economy. My players aren't powergamers and I find they can regularly smash encounters 3 or 4 CR above what their level would imply.
That's because they based their game balance on an assumption of 6-8 encounters per day, not because of action economy. They do have a tendency to make signature monsters a bit more powerful than their CR, and a lot of signature monsters are legendaries, but non-legendaries tend to have higher value on-turn actions than legendaries of the same CR.
The concept has its merits, but the designers have to understand that feats, ASI and magic items are core to the game. They flubbed up on their monster design ignoring those for CR. A lot of monsters if you take away 1 to 2 CR you get a better example of their actual toughness from 10 to 15, in some cases its more.
I think they did, but solo monsters without legendary actions or lair actions are way weaker than their CR implies, due to the action economy. My players aren't powergamers and I find they can regularly smash encounters 3 or 4 CR above what their level would imply.
That's because they based their game balance on an assumption of 6-8 encounters per day, not because of action economy. They do have a tendency to make signature monsters a bit more powerful than their CR, and a lot of signature monsters are legendaries, but non-legendaries tend to have higher value on-turn actions than legendaries of the same CR.
I read something like this. Is that assuming they're all combat, though? Because that seems like a really high encounter density if such is the case. I find a lot of groups move from really frequent encounters to a slower pace over time.
The concept has its merits, but the designers have to understand that feats, ASI and magic items are core to the game. They flubbed up on their monster design ignoring those for CR. A lot of monsters if you take away 1 to 2 CR you get a better example of their actual toughness from 10 to 15, in some cases its more.
I think they did, but solo monsters without legendary actions or lair actions are way weaker than their CR implies, due to the action economy. My players aren't powergamers and I find they can regularly smash encounters 3 or 4 CR above what their level would imply.
That's because they based their game balance on an assumption of 6-8 encounters per day, not because of action economy. They do have a tendency to make signature monsters a bit more powerful than their CR, and a lot of signature monsters are legendaries, but non-legendaries tend to have higher value on-turn actions than legendaries of the same CR.
I read something like this. Is that assuming they're all combat, though? Because that seems like a really high encounter density if such is the case. I find a lot of groups move from really frequent encounters to a slower pace over time.
Its suppose to be a mix of combat/exploration with resource burn of some sort. I've found that you can make environmental stuff that needs resources/spells/HP to work around that acts like a combat encounter but is much shorter.
Overall I think 2-3 hard/deadly encounters a day is about the same if you want to do fewer combats and don't like environmental stuff.
Full-Casters tend to be a lot lot lot better if you only have like 1-2 encounters a day as they can NOVA out really hard. You need like 3-4 ideally to make it feel balanced in my experience.
Also some feats are definitely better than others which makes it tough as well. Sharpshooter/GWM with the right setup can really make an impact. Stuff like War Caster/Sentinel are good but are much more situational. Magic Initiate and other flavor feats are less impactful.
Ability scores are much much much more important IMO as they come into play almost CONSTANTLY vs. these feats that come up once/twice a session. A +2 to your main stat regardless of class will come up much more often than a feat will most of the time. There are exceptions but they are that....exceptions.
Bounded Accuracy really does make ability scores the most important aspect in the game as they drastically shift success chances.
I like bounded Accuracy. Players don't need a +4 or better weapon any more. So no more golf bag of swords. Attunement limits some of items you can carry. And the math is easier.
6=8 encounters a day is a ridiculous rate, honestly, even 4 in previous editions was a lot. Combat is much more streamlined in 5e but still. Most DMs I know change this to 3-4 deadly encounters, but even that is far stretched in environments outside of a real dungeon, which we almost never do in out games. So he have to be creative and create situations that at least drain some resources, make really tough combats and ensure that there is a least some threat remaining so that the casters are loathe to go full nova.
Unfortunately, the only real way to fix it would be to mostly eliminate the concept of long rest abilities (either make everything short rest abilities, or change long rest abilities to be something like 'only recover when you return to civilization').
6=8 encounters a day is a ridiculous rate, honestly, even 4 in previous editions was a lot. Combat is much more streamlined in 5e but still. Most DMs I know change this to 3-4 deadly encounters, but even that is far stretched in environments outside of a real dungeon, which we almost never do in out games. So he have to be creative and create situations that at least drain some resources, make really tough combats and ensure that there is a least some threat remaining so that the casters are loathe to go full nova.
Unfortunately, the only real way to fix it would be to mostly eliminate the concept of long rest abilities (either make everything short rest abilities, or change long rest abilities to be something like 'only recover when you return to civilization').
I think this is the one deficiency in 5e. I really don't know how to fix it, but I have to agree that 6-8 encounters a day is a nightmare for the players and DM alike. And one consideration with that concept is say the session is 4 hours, and that includes all the time with the players settling in. I have seen many a combat encounter last an hour when there are 5 players and numerous monsters. So it is not unrealistic for 3 sessions to cover only 2 "in game days". Meanwhile, the players are piling up a ton of experience. Now, I don't play that way, and use milestones. But even if say, a group levels up every 6 sessions, now were looking at that only be 4-6 'in-game days".
That is a ridiculous progression rate.
And as for eliminating short rest bonuses, then we have to overhaul so many class features, or classes entirely. Like I said, I don't think there is an easy fix.
6=8 encounters a day is a ridiculous rate, honestly, even 4 in previous editions was a lot. Combat is much more streamlined in 5e but still. Most DMs I know change this to 3-4 deadly encounters, but even that is far stretched in environments outside of a real dungeon, which we almost never do in out games. So he have to be creative and create situations that at least drain some resources, make really tough combats and ensure that there is a least some threat remaining so that the casters are loathe to go full nova.
I generally have 1-3 real combats per session. But a lot of encounters end up being things like sneak attacks/brawls/chases that have combat elements intermixed with roleplay or exploration. It's miles faster and better balanced than 3.5 combat, but still one of the least interesting parts of D&D imo.
Unfortunately, the only real way to fix it would be to mostly eliminate the concept of long rest abilities (either make everything short rest abilities, or change long rest abilities to be something like 'only recover when you return to civilization').
The Gritty Realism variant already enforces this to some extent, since you probably can't spend 7 days in most D&D wilderness uninterrupted. The only downside is it makes Warlocks really powerful, which depending on your setting might not necessarily be a bad thing.
I think this is the one deficiency in 5e. I really don't know how to fix it, but I have to agree that 6-8 encounters a day is a nightmare for the players and DM alike. And one consideration with that concept is say the session is 4 hours, and that includes all the time with the players settling in. I have seen many a combat encounter last an hour when there are 5 players and numerous monsters. So it is not unrealistic for 3 sessions to cover only 2 "in game days". Meanwhile, the players are piling up a ton of experience. Now, I don't play that way, and use milestones. But even if say, a group levels up every 6 sessions, now were looking at that only be 4-6 'in-game days".
I think the easiest way is to just ignore the suggested encounter rate and do whatever you want. I might use XP if I was running a megadungeon or something.
And you can’t tell me the GWF, Sharpshooter, Sentinel, or Warcaster aren’t every bit as valuable as the ASI they would replace on the right character. Raw Ability scores are not the be-all-and-end-all of D&D. The same goes for magic items.
I agree, but it depends on the ability and class. +2 to ASI to Dex is basically +1 to hit, +1 damage, +1 AC, +1 initiative, +1 to three skills, and +1 to one of the most common saves in the game.
And you can’t tell me the GWF, Sharpshooter, Sentinel, or Warcaster aren’t every bit as valuable as the ASI they would replace on the right character. Raw Ability scores are not the be-all-and-end-all of D&D. The same goes for magic items.
I agree, but it depends on the ability and class. +2 to ASI to Dex is basically +1 to hit, +1 damage, +1 AC, +1 initiative, +1 to three skills, and +1 to one of the most common saves in the game.
This is a great hightlight of why ASI is the most important for sure. I do think it depends on the ability score unfortunately. For Dexterity it is almost always better to get that Dex to Max.
The exception would be the Sharpshooter/CBE fighter meta but that is offset by Archery Fighting Style and Precision Attack so even then you are still getting a boost to hit.
The most glaring example is Monk as they absolutely need DEX and WIS maxed. I know you can play without it but to be the best monk you really need to have them maxed ASAP.
Almost every caster is going to be better going with maxing their casting stat first before feats.
I think this is the one deficiency in 5e. I really don't know how to fix it, but I have to agree that 6-8 encounters a day is a nightmare for the players and DM alike. And one consideration with that concept is say the session is 4 hours, and that includes all the time with the players settling in. I have seen many a combat encounter last an hour when there are 5 players and numerous monsters. So it is not unrealistic for 3 sessions to cover only 2 "in game days". Meanwhile, the players are piling up a ton of experience. Now, I don't play that way, and use milestones. But even if say, a group levels up every 6 sessions, now were looking at that only be 4-6 'in-game days".
I think the easiest way is to just ignore the suggested encounter rate and do whatever you want. I might use XP if I was running a megadungeon or something.
That breaks class balance (means casters are overly powerful), though because of other design issues in 5e (different level scaling of caster vs non-caster), that's mostly a problem at higher level, and also means the CR rules wind up being even more nonsense than they already are and needing to run everything at 150-200% of Deadly budget.
I think this is the one deficiency in 5e. I really don't know how to fix it, but I have to agree that 6-8 encounters a day is a nightmare for the players and DM alike. And one consideration with that concept is say the session is 4 hours, and that includes all the time with the players settling in. I have seen many a combat encounter last an hour when there are 5 players and numerous monsters. So it is not unrealistic for 3 sessions to cover only 2 "in game days". Meanwhile, the players are piling up a ton of experience. Now, I don't play that way, and use milestones. But even if say, a group levels up every 6 sessions, now were looking at that only be 4-6 'in-game days".
I think the easiest way is to just ignore the suggested encounter rate and do whatever you want. I might use XP if I was running a megadungeon or something.
That breaks class balance (means casters are overly powerful), though because of other design issues in 5e (different level scaling of caster vs non-caster), that's mostly a problem at higher level, and also means the CR rules wind up being even more nonsense than they already are and needing to run everything at 150-200% of Deadly budget.
You are correct about wrecking class balance. If a DM alters the meaning of a Long Rest, and their frequency, then the DM better be prepared for the cascade effects, and be also be prepared to scale back the amount of spell slots for a caster. The entire thing becomes a mess. And going the other way, of messing with Short Rests, completely trashes a whole whack of features in so many classes. The more I look at it, the real issue is Warlock's, and their short rest focus. If you crank up the CR level of each encounter, that tends to lead to longer encounters, which nerfs the Warlock. I love playing a Warlock, but can easily see myself banning them from the game I DM, because of the mechanics issues.
You are correct about wrecking class balance. If a DM alters the meaning of a Long Rest, and their frequency, then the DM better be prepared for the cascade effects, and be also be prepared to scale back the amount of spell slots for a caster. The entire thing becomes a mess. And going the other way, of messing with Short Rests, completely trashes a whole whack of features in so many classes. The more I look at it, the real issue is Warlock's, and their short rest focus. If you crank up the CR level of each encounter, that tends to lead to longer encounters, which nerfs the Warlock. I love playing a Warlock, but can easily see myself banning them from the game I DM, because of the mechanics issues.
Warlocks just make some things obvious, because they're a short rest class when other spellcasters are long rest, but it's an issue for all short rest vs long rest classes.
In a 'working as designed' game, a level 10 Paladin gets 9 smites per day (for a total of 25d8, worth 112 damage) and 3 uses of Channel Divinity (variable; something like Vow of Emnity probably averages converting one miss to a hit for +12 damage or so); total thus 148, while a level 10 Battlemaster (2 short rests per day) gets a total of 15 superiority dice per day (15d10, worth 82 damage) and 3 uses of action surge (typically worth something like 20 damage each); total 142. This is fairly even. If we cut the day down to a single super hard fight, the paladin still gets all his smites (though he loses some uses of channel divinity) and is thus at +124 damage from class features, but the fighter loses 2/3 of his bonuses, and is at a mere +40.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Riiiigghhhttt....so his sideways shot at me about a being a "shitty DM" because I recognize the obvious about having to design a game and encounters to the most powerful chars, that is fine.....
If I told all the players in session 0, and said "OK, flip a coin. The ones that get a head get 2 extra ASI's at level 0. The ones that get a tail, get nothing.", there would be total uproar at my table. And that is what rolled stats are. It is entirely expected for there to be at LEAST a 4 point spread between the lowest and highest cumulative stats for the "lucky" and "unlucky" players, when rolling stats.
That is the mark of truly bad judgement by a DM. There are no debate on that.
Its much more balanced now, even with Items, than it was in 4th for example.
Even tho i love 4th Ed, the numbers where becoming ridiculous at higher lvl...
With like 35 AC and +38 to Hit, and thats not even with the magic items( there was Attunement back then, so you had like 10 magic items on you at all momments) that could go to +5 or even more in some cases...
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
Oh, and unless you are talking about me and someone else in this thread, the correct pronoun is "he". "They" refers to plural. "He" is male singular. The name is Vince, a male name.
He did not call you a "shitty DM," and I did not read that post as an insult. Yours, however, was more pointed saying specifically "you are a bad DM if you use rolled stats."
Also, I did not defend rolled stats, I defended the people who use it. I disagree with rolling for stats and only use Point Buy and Standard Array, but I don't go around calling people bad at the game for using it. I understand the tradition of it (which IMO is a bad excuse for anything), liking the randomness (which is exactly why I dislike it), and liking the variety of characters (which can be done with point buy or standard array, so I don't get that excuse), but I do not like that way of generating stats.
You are not a bad DM if you use rolled stats, I did for a long time. You're not allowed to insult people you have never met for using a rule written in the PHB.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Even within 5e's bounded accuracy, there are huge issues, at least with some broken char classes. My 9th level Paladin has a +12 on his Con saves. That DM allows a 37 point buy (yes, so dumb), and starting as a Half-Elf, Resilience in Con, the result is ridiculous numbers on saves. The DM has to do immense damage to my char to have any chance to break my Conc, at least with damage based attacks. And that allows the char to wreak havoc with certain spells, forcing the DM to ramp up the encounters.
A Paladin's +5 (20 CHA) natural ability has huge huge impact within the confines of 5e.
So, wait, I'm confused. Are you mad at me for not assuming your gender? I'm sorry that my act of human decency ended up offending you, Vince. "They" does not refer to plural, it is the proper term to use unless you absolutely know the preferred pronoun of someone you interact with (especially online).
Again, I do apologize for being openminded. I'm so very sorry.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No, I said that a DM who only balances their encounters around a single player or PC instead of balancing around the whole party is a shitty DM. Any time a DM focuses on a single player or PC instead of considering the entire party is a mistake. There is no debate on that.
But any DM with a brain and an inclination to not be a wangrod can learn to adjust their campaign to accommodate various “cumulative stats.” Not to mention, where those stats go is just as important or more so than the total number. I could have 2 high stats and nothing else above an 8 and still make a strong character by carefully choosing Race, Class and Subclass.
And as a DM I can adjust for any variation between the perceived power levels of the party’s PCs. I little divine blessing here, a magic item there, voila. Mischief managed. You know how I know? Because I've been doing it for almost 30 years. And I’m not special, if I can do it, anyone can do it. Except the aforementioned wangrods of course.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well sure, each fight is unique, but aggregated over the course of the entire campaign it has to all generally average out or it sucks for the players/PCs that get ignored.
And a DM shouldn’t put that foe against that mage unless the mage can hold their own against that foe too.
But if someone goes down the list, adds up all the PC’s Ability Scores, finds the one with the highest total, and gears every encounter against that 1 PC, then how is that fun for everyone?!? The whole table needs to shine. Every PC needs to be badass in turn, and every Player should feel like a hero through their PC. Singling out 1 and basically dumping on the rest is bad form.
And you can’t tell me the GWF, Sharpshooter, Sentinel, or Warcaster aren’t every bit as valuable as the ASI they would replace on the right character. Raw Ability scores are not the be-all-and-end-all of D&D. The same goes for magic items.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think they did, but solo monsters without legendary actions or lair actions are way weaker than their CR implies, due to the action economy.
My players aren't powergamers and I find they can regularly smash encounters 3 or 4 CR above what their level would imply.
That's because they based their game balance on an assumption of 6-8 encounters per day, not because of action economy. They do have a tendency to make signature monsters a bit more powerful than their CR, and a lot of signature monsters are legendaries, but non-legendaries tend to have higher value on-turn actions than legendaries of the same CR.
I read something like this. Is that assuming they're all combat, though? Because that seems like a really high encounter density if such is the case. I find a lot of groups move from really frequent encounters to a slower pace over time.
Its suppose to be a mix of combat/exploration with resource burn of some sort. I've found that you can make environmental stuff that needs resources/spells/HP to work around that acts like a combat encounter but is much shorter.
Overall I think 2-3 hard/deadly encounters a day is about the same if you want to do fewer combats and don't like environmental stuff.
Full-Casters tend to be a lot lot lot better if you only have like 1-2 encounters a day as they can NOVA out really hard. You need like 3-4 ideally to make it feel balanced in my experience.
Also some feats are definitely better than others which makes it tough as well. Sharpshooter/GWM with the right setup can really make an impact. Stuff like War Caster/Sentinel are good but are much more situational. Magic Initiate and other flavor feats are less impactful.
Ability scores are much much much more important IMO as they come into play almost CONSTANTLY vs. these feats that come up once/twice a session. A +2 to your main stat regardless of class will come up much more often than a feat will most of the time. There are exceptions but they are that....exceptions.
Bounded Accuracy really does make ability scores the most important aspect in the game as they drastically shift success chances.
I like bounded Accuracy. Players don't need a +4 or better weapon any more. So no more golf bag of swords. Attunement limits some of items you can carry. And the math is easier.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Unfortunately, the only real way to fix it would be to mostly eliminate the concept of long rest abilities (either make everything short rest abilities, or change long rest abilities to be something like 'only recover when you return to civilization').
I think this is the one deficiency in 5e. I really don't know how to fix it, but I have to agree that 6-8 encounters a day is a nightmare for the players and DM alike. And one consideration with that concept is say the session is 4 hours, and that includes all the time with the players settling in. I have seen many a combat encounter last an hour when there are 5 players and numerous monsters. So it is not unrealistic for 3 sessions to cover only 2 "in game days". Meanwhile, the players are piling up a ton of experience. Now, I don't play that way, and use milestones. But even if say, a group levels up every 6 sessions, now were looking at that only be 4-6 'in-game days".
That is a ridiculous progression rate.
And as for eliminating short rest bonuses, then we have to overhaul so many class features, or classes entirely. Like I said, I don't think there is an easy fix.
I generally have 1-3 real combats per session. But a lot of encounters end up being things like sneak attacks/brawls/chases that have combat elements intermixed with roleplay or exploration. It's miles faster and better balanced than 3.5 combat, but still one of the least interesting parts of D&D imo.
The Gritty Realism variant already enforces this to some extent, since you probably can't spend 7 days in most D&D wilderness uninterrupted. The only downside is it makes Warlocks really powerful, which depending on your setting might not necessarily be a bad thing.
I think the easiest way is to just ignore the suggested encounter rate and do whatever you want. I might use XP if I was running a megadungeon or something.
I agree, but it depends on the ability and class.
+2 to ASI to Dex is basically +1 to hit, +1 damage, +1 AC, +1 initiative, +1 to three skills, and +1 to one of the most common saves in the game.
This is a great hightlight of why ASI is the most important for sure. I do think it depends on the ability score unfortunately. For Dexterity it is almost always better to get that Dex to Max.
The exception would be the Sharpshooter/CBE fighter meta but that is offset by Archery Fighting Style and Precision Attack so even then you are still getting a boost to hit.
The most glaring example is Monk as they absolutely need DEX and WIS maxed. I know you can play without it but to be the best monk you really need to have them maxed ASAP.
Almost every caster is going to be better going with maxing their casting stat first before feats.
This is kind of proven by JC as he stated most players do not use feats.
I wish feats were more ingrained into the game TBH. PF2E did this VERY well and I hope that 6e would follow suit. Free feat at 1 should be a thing!
That breaks class balance (means casters are overly powerful), though because of other design issues in 5e (different level scaling of caster vs non-caster), that's mostly a problem at higher level, and also means the CR rules wind up being even more nonsense than they already are and needing to run everything at 150-200% of Deadly budget.
You are correct about wrecking class balance. If a DM alters the meaning of a Long Rest, and their frequency, then the DM better be prepared for the cascade effects, and be also be prepared to scale back the amount of spell slots for a caster. The entire thing becomes a mess. And going the other way, of messing with Short Rests, completely trashes a whole whack of features in so many classes. The more I look at it, the real issue is Warlock's, and their short rest focus. If you crank up the CR level of each encounter, that tends to lead to longer encounters, which nerfs the Warlock. I love playing a Warlock, but can easily see myself banning them from the game I DM, because of the mechanics issues.
Warlocks just make some things obvious, because they're a short rest class when other spellcasters are long rest, but it's an issue for all short rest vs long rest classes.
In a 'working as designed' game, a level 10 Paladin gets 9 smites per day (for a total of 25d8, worth 112 damage) and 3 uses of Channel Divinity (variable; something like Vow of Emnity probably averages converting one miss to a hit for +12 damage or so); total thus 148, while a level 10 Battlemaster (2 short rests per day) gets a total of 15 superiority dice per day (15d10, worth 82 damage) and 3 uses of action surge (typically worth something like 20 damage each); total 142. This is fairly even. If we cut the day down to a single super hard fight, the paladin still gets all his smites (though he loses some uses of channel divinity) and is thus at +124 damage from class features, but the fighter loses 2/3 of his bonuses, and is at a mere +40.