What in the fucking fuck is this shit, Wizards? You had an easy,

It's not D&D if it ain't confusing as fuck. They're just going back to their roots, OP, you can't fault them for that.

>>34094201
Where is this page from? Didn't notice it in the PHB scan?

>>34095038
It's from the basic rules for the DM.

>>34095245
More like the BM, amirite?

Let's not forget how CR is basically just a guesstimated number that is as made up and contrived as it was in 3.5.

Because how else are you gonna get PF-fags back into D&D other than emulate 3.5?

>>34094201
Huh.

Looks like Mr Smug Wizard let himself be lead astray again. The Adult Red Dragon is just under a Medium challenge for a five-character party of level 17. Just like its challenge value would suggest.

It's almost like maybe we should take WotC seriously when they tell us that pre-release numbers used as examples aren't the final product.

>>34095440
it doesn't help that CR is built into the mechanics for spells like shapechange.

>>34094201
I just noticed this about a thread ago, friend.

While it's not the end of the world, it IS a colossal pain in the arse, and a big step back from 4e encounter design, but I imagine since 5e's enough of a big step backwards all-around 4e's Xp budget wouldn't have cut it for making accurate encounter guidelines.

Oh well, guess I've been getting good at eyeballing NPCs running a MnM campaign. 4e made me soft and naive with it's easy, streamlined monster and encounter design.

Or you could just have present whatever bad guys are suitable to the story and check the math every once in a while if you're concerned you're setting up a TPK.

>>34095639
Are you telling me a new group needs to understand from the beginning that a few TPKs will happen before they get the numbers right, or that they should absolutely ignore the guidelines given to them for creating balanced encounters?

Because neither of those are really good results.

sounds like crap.

What are you kids on about? This doesn't look hard at all.

CR: Don't use any monsters with a CR higher than the parties level.
XP: Add together the XP values of all the creatures in an encounter. Use a multiplier for larger encounters. Use this with the table to determine the encounter difficulty.

How fucking simple was it in 4E that this looks helplessly complex?

>>34096623
>Use a multiplier for larger encounters.

And that multiplier then gets adjusted for smaller or larger parties.

And that same multiplier is NOT taken into account for final XP value, or XP per adventuring day.

Shit's fucked.

>>34096623
>How fucking simple was it in 4E that this looks helplessly complex?
why is everyone so glad that the DM has to do more work?

>>34095440
>Let's not forget how CR is basically just a guesstimated number that is as made up and contrived as it was in 3.5.

What's wrong with this?

It gives DMs more freedom to homebrew monsters.

>3 pages of rules on something?!
>what an outrage

Are 4rries really so dumb they can't do this?

There are plenty of squishy free form rules lite hugbox games for you to play if it's too complicated.

>>34096650
If you have a larger or smaller party, you only have to note this once. It's not something you need to consider on a per encounter basis. I don't see where it says the multiplier isn't used for the adventuring day.

>Shit's fucked.
Cool hyperbole.

>>34096765
I mean that genuinely. I played extremely little 4E, and I didn't look at any DM materials. People are always going on about how simple and amazing 4E's encounter building was, but 5E's looks pretty damn simple to me.

>>34096944
>3 pages of rules on something?

That's a step back from 4e's more streamlined encounter building rules.

>>34097060
remember the criticism that 4e didn't have enough rules for social encounters?
this is the same crowd that needs rules and LOTS of them.

>>34096623
All monsters have a level, which, sets their xp cost.

Add XPs togeher. Aim for LEVEL XP times # of players for standard challenge.

So it didn't have a multipiier, nor did it have a table.

Also, that page says nothing about higher CRs.

>>34096870
Explain to me how that concept makes any fucking sense.
"you can't be certain that you've got the numbers right, because we didn't!" doesn't say to me "Have fun making creatures!"

4e was easier to homebrew, because you KNEW the numbers you were shooting for.

>>34096944
There are an overwhelming spree of arguments usable against you, but I'll settle for this: It's not a matter of intelligence. In fact, simplicity in design is seen as a MARK of intelligence. e=mc^2 works (for most values) and it doesn't take more than a sentence.

The question is: if you had a system that worked, efficiently and well, (For all that people didn't like some of 4e's combats, especially in the beginning, no one complained they were hard to work out.) why would you implement a less efficient model? They have tripled the amount of rules needed to work out combat XP, assuming the 3 page claim is accurate.

It's like requiring a new Ford car run on COAL.

>>34096963
Oh god, there's a multiplier for party size as well? Great.

Further, see above. Computing encounters consisted of two steps. the only table was how much a monster of the given level was worth, XP wise.

How in the fuck is this confusing?

>>34097273
>It's like requiring a new Ford car run on COAL.
damn, you're my hero right now

>>34097273
>Oh god, there's a multiplier for party size as well? Great.

There's a multiplier for party size, and an ADDITIONAL multiplier for party size if your party is only 1 or 2 PCs, or 6+ PCs.

At least solos don't suck ass now.

>>34096870
Huh? I'm not following your logic here. How does an imprecise measurement system help homebrewing?

>>34096944
>trying to defend this convoluted pile of shit

Are 5perglords so retarded they think that wading through this crap requires smarts?

It's not that the system is hard to understand, it's that it's an unnecessary slog.

Not really seeing the issue here. wtf

>>34094201
Reading that seems like an intuitive system. The 4E system was also really bad, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

>>34097572
Neat, you're the first person I've met who didn't like it.
Why not?

And, in a more sarcastic tone, why do you consider multiple multipliers intuitive?

>>34097699
>And, in a more sarcastic tone, why do you consider multiple multipliers intuitive?
because asbergers, id wager

>>34097383
>There's a multiplier for party size, and an ADDITIONAL multiplier for party size if your party is only 1 or 2 PCs, or 6+ PCs.
No, there are not two multipliers. If your PC party size is bigger or smaller, you skip up or down the table. You're going to do the same thing every time because the PC party size is static unless you have people constantly joining or leaving the table or use an excess of DMPCs.

>>34097422
>5perglords
I'd prefer a name that's actually pronounceable, thank you.
>convoluted pile of shit
I'm not saying anything was wrong with 4E's encounter builder, and hell, it was probably a lot better than this one, but calling 5E's a convoluted pile of shit really helps his argument that you're an imbecile.

Sphinx

http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_Sphinx.pdf

>>34094201
I don't see anything confusing here.
But than again, I started out playing AD&D

>>34097699
Not that guy, but I've actually heard a lot of complaints that 4E had really bad math and creating a challenging encounter was difficult.

Of course, this is /tg/, where literally every system ever created has the worst math possible.

Captcha: Schools nartyr

File: 5c4feb10d3dc1c36a0f7fc7b0b7ca070.jpg (238KB, 700x757px)

238KB, 700x757px

>>34098254

>The effects of time are altered such that every creature in the lair must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or become 1d20 years older or younger (the sphinx’s choice), but never any younger than 1 year old. A greater restoration spell can restore a creature’s age to normal.

How often are sphinxes shotacons?

File: 4encounter.png (181KB, 650x530px)

181KB, 650x530px

>>34096623
>How fucking simple was it in 4E that this looks helplessly complex?
About a third of the complexity, at a glance.

Monsters also have roles (brute, artillery etc.) and ranks (minion, [normal], elite, solo) with tips on how to mix & match them to make encounters more fun.

>>34094201
>You had an easy, simple, and intuitive set of encounter-building rules for 4e.
Which is why they got rid of them: anything that was in 4e was scrapped, no matter how much of an improvement it was. 5e is the "we're really really sorry about 4e" edition.

>>34098312
>4E had really bad math and creating a challenging encounter was difficult.

Nah. The encounters were fine, it's just that (early on) monsters were pillowfisted sacks of hit points. They didn't hit hard enough and took too much to wear down. A CRX encounter was still the right amount of challenging, it just took too damn long.

By MM3 they were much better.

>>34098372
Take a second look at OPs image, half the page is dedicated to examples.

>>34094201
My biggest annoyance with this is that they give the exact same example twice, and get the math wrong both times.

>>34098365

50 ± 1d50 = %

depending on my dick

>>34098312
The math wasn't balanced in some of the earliest stuff. As a general rule, MM1 creatures needed half the health and twice the damage otherwise an average party will be fighting them forever.

Challenging encounters is a bit of a problem, especially at higher levels and/or when the party is well optimised. On the other hand, it's really easy to present more challenging fights just by using an XP budget for a higher level party, which is as simple as looking one row up on the table.

>>34094201
>>34098372
There's also a kind of philosophical difference there.

In 4e, you're supposed to decide how hard you want the encounter to be, and THEN you select the monsters involved, by spending an XP budget.

In 5e (AFAICT) you're supposed to make up encounters from scratch, with no guidelines. THEN you calculate the encounter difficulty, mostly just to check that it's not way too easy or way too hard.

>>34098431
I did. I stand by my words. 5e has a few more steps and requires backtracking to fix issues after you've already built your encounter.

>>34098469
?

>>34098431
Half the page is dedicated to examples on working out the math, not on making the encounter more enjoyable.

The roles of 4E let you work out how to balance a fighting line without it overwhelming the fighter and obliterating the party, how to use sneaky enemies without it becoming endless frustration trying to make perception checks, and how to add wizards and clerics to a group of goblins without worrying about making them obscenely overpowered.

The examples in OPs image are, "Here's how much hobgoblins cost. If you switch 4 hobgoblins for 2 bugbears, it's a bit easier." No explanation as to why, no suggestions on weapons or tactics as an intrinsic part of the game, just some basic math.

>>34098469
How do they get the math wrong?

File: encounter building 5e.png (369KB, 658x524px)

369KB, 658x524px

>>34098372
Thank you. This is exactly what I needed to see.

Honestly, everyone is overreacting. 5E has exactly ONE step more than 4E. Notice how at least 50% of the page the OP posted is examples?

Here. I've organized it so you simpletons can understand it without OH MY GOD WORDS getting in the way.

The only thing you have to do differently is the extra step of multiplication. Jesus Christ.

>>34098625
the flaw in your reasoning is assuming a large swath of D&D players are interested in tactics.

I still hate how monsters use different rules than characters.

>>34098661
whats the rationale for adding any more additional steps?

>>34098488
I've never really fought a not challenging encounter that my DM actually meant us to fight. At least two guys would drop per encounter. Maybe my DM was just a math wizard.
>>34098666
why play a game almost entirely designed around how characters fight if you're not interested in tactics?

>>34098661
You're forgetting the "adjust for smaller or larger parties" step.

>>34098721
5e table works for 3-5 players, 4e works for 4-6. Both images are missing rules.

>>34098661
In addition to >>34098721, there's no mention of CR in your breakdown (which was well-presented, I must say). CR has no purpose in the game than to produce a rough formula for guesswork. Give us math we can rely upon simply and easily, and let us do our own guessing, WotC; we don't need an official rule of thumb.

>>34098718
>I've never really fought a not challenging encounter that my DM actually meant us to fight. At least two guys would drop per encounter. Maybe my DM was just a math wizard.

Maybe. I think one or two people reduced to 0 HP in an encounter was pretty standard for at-level encounters.

>>34098702
Because the power of a monster is multiplied when they outnumber their enemy.

They could have left out the outnumbering step, but then the guidelines would have been inaccurate. Which doesn't really benefit anybody.

>>34098661
>5E has exactly ONE step more than 4E.
Step 1 is also a tad more complicated. More to the point, you're not actually done once you reach step 4 unless your numbers happen to line up just like you wanted. Those steps are just encounter-checking; it only becomes encounter-building AFTER step 4.

It's not the end of the world, it's just not what you'd expect out of a new edition that could take the best out of each previous edition.

>>34098718
>why play a game almost entirely designed around how characters fight if you're not interested in tactics?
who knows, i haven;t figured that out either. especially since D&d in its original form descends from tactics based war games

>>34098607
>>34098634

Easy: 3*(75) + 50 = 275
Medium: 3*(150) + 100 = 550
Hard: 3*(225) + 150 = 825
Deadly: 3*(400) + 200 = 1400

>>34098702
Because thanks to hectopeasnts, large groups of creatures are much more of a threat than their xp should say they are. The extra step compensates for that.

>>34098804
>Give us math we can rely upon simply and easily, and let us do our own guessing, WotC; we don't need an official rule of thumb.

Oh, come on. 4e had levels for monsters too.

It just means that when you're flipping through the book for monsters to use in your latest adventure for your 6th level party, you can see: Challenge 5 and know that it's about the right level.

>>34098702
4e was designed for encounters with a number of monsters equal to the number of PCs (give or take). 5e was designed around one-monster encounters, and needs a crutch to handle groups.

What I don't understand is why you use that step for encounter DIFFICULTY but not for XP REWARD. If a horde of goblins becomes as hard an encounter as a single troll, doesn't it deserve the same XP?

>>34098805
>Because the power of a monster is multiplied when they outnumber their enemy.

Hell fucking no.

Wizard: "I cast Fireball and deal 8d6 damage in a 20-foot-radius with a 3rd-level spell slot."

>>34098702
The short answer is bounded accuracy. It changed so much of the math that the threat level of encounters is drastically different. See: hectopeasant.

>>34098578
I do agree that the order is odd. I imagine everyone is going to start with step 4 anyway.

File: 4encounter2.png (24KB, 107x673px)

24KB, 107x673px

>>34098767
The actual rule in >>34098372 refers to this chart; you multiply the value on the right (for a given encounter level) by the number of PCs. The table in >>34098372 is just to save some effort for people with standard party size.

>>34098889
see
>>34098906
And this is why evil wizards love fire elementals. Lightning bolt is a shitty shape, and ice storm is just plain shit.

>>34098883
4E had monster levels, but they served no purpose and were never mentioned as important, IIRC. If you wanted to flip through the book and use them that way, you could, but it was never told to GMs that they should take it into account.

Plus, calculating CR is more complicated than seeing a 4E monster level and figuring, "yeah, that's about right." I can't find the article since WotC redid their site, but in the Q&A post where they unveiled CR Mearls showed how it was broken at first level by one ogre as opposed to a pack of goblins.

>>34098906
>Assuming there's someone with AoE damage

>>34098827
Wow, that's embarrassing.

>>34098982
It's trivial for a wizard to prepare Fireball with the way spell slots now work.

>>34098906
And?
If there are ten monsters, that's ten chances to make a save vs whatever spell. That's ten chances to be out of the area of effect. It's ten chances to lose excess damage from a single attack.

One encounter with twenty enemies is harder than two separate encounters with ten.

>>34094201
> OP is a faggot
> want to state how easy it really is, and that he's baiting with a bare hook
>>34098469
> this guy points out the math is wrong
> go back and do the in-book math

... It really is quite simple, so for the life of me idk how they couldn't get that (75x3)+50=275, not 375. Like, this is grade school math here. OP's a faggot for thinking it's even remotly deserving of the description "byzantine,'' but holy cow how did they get it wrong in the fucking official release?

File: Confusion.gif (449KB, 245x183px)

449KB, 245x183px

>>34098982
>Assuming there's not going to be a wizard in the party with a couple good spells, or someone with alchemical grenades

>>34099018
And yet that's half of the entire encounter completely destroyed right then and there.

>>34098980
He said CR is there to say "If this is above your player's level, don't use it."
Which is good because an ogre will leave level 1 wizards as smears across the pavement.
>>34099023
Be happy it isn't CGL tier editing. The pain of being a Shadowrun fan is neverending.

>>34098804
The CR isn't part of the step-by-step encounter building. It's just an at-a-glance "maybe this one's too hard" measurement.

>>34098980
>4E had monster levels, but they served no purpose and were never mentioned as important
They served a very important purpose during encounter building: you're supposed to stick to monsters within +/- 4 levels of your party. 4e doesn't have bounded accuracy, so a monster of much higher level will have a much higher AC. Even if the math says it's a balanced encounter, missing all the time will make it a boring one.

That being said,
>>34098883
In 4e, the monsters followed a strict math formula, so 4e levels were a good indicator of their actual power level. It doesn't seem like 5e monsters do, making their CR much less trustworthy.

>>34099058
Yes, AoE damage is good against groups of weak enemies that are close together - that's its main function.

If the enemies aren't all clustered up though, you would rather fight them one at a time rather than all at once.

>>34098972
That could be a problem with the difficulty multiplier, but it still doesn't explain why difficulty and XP reward don't match.

>>34099168
They didn't match in 4e either, and the answer is I'm not sure.
But possibly because we don't want players slaughtering entire vilages for the XP.
Hell, don't reward slaughtering innocents in any way. The retroclone I'm playing right now has a spell that performs better if you do a bit of human sacrifice, and I figure if I go slaughter the town I saved way back when I can get a 30 HD monster to carry my level 3 ass around.

>>34099092
They served a very important purpose during encounter building: you're supposed to stick to monsters within +/- 4 levels of your party. 4e doesn't have bounded accuracy, so a monster of much higher level will have a much higher AC. Even if the math says it's a balanced encounter, missing all the time will make it a boring one.

True, I forgot about that rule, but I've honestly never seen anyone try and throw in a monster of super-high or super-low level as compared to the party. 4E had plenty of options at every level, so I've never known a DM to try and stretch a monster past it's expiration date, or have the budget for something horrifically OP.

>>34099225
>They didn't match in 4e either

They did.

What the hell are you talking about?

>>34099225
>They didn't match in 4e either

From the 4e DMG:
>Characters earn XP for every encounter they overcome. The XP reward for completing an encounter is the sum of the XP values for each monster, NPC, trap or hazard that makes up the encounter. You noted or assigned this number when you built the encounter, to judge its difficulty against your players. [...] Divide the XP total for the encounter by the number of players present to help overcome it, and that's how many XP each character gets.

In 4E, you look at the level of the party, get the right amount of XP per adventurer from the table, then multiply by number of adventurers.

To hand out XP, you look at the right amount of XP you figured out earlier, then give them that. It matches entirely.

>>34098661
You've now summarized one of three pages. Further, and this is more 4e's fault than yours: in the 4e picture? Steps one and two are identical.

A level 14 encounter (4,000) is 4 level 14 monsters' worth of XP (1,000). For 5 players? ADD another monster's worth.

>>34098805
So your adventuring parties are now one, solo player? Or did you miss that having two of a monster makes them magically worth 150% their XP?

If it was simply: XP is normal, unless the monsters outnumber the players, that'd be fine. but it's not.

>>34098883
The difference is, that the math worked out. ALL level 8 monsters had similar attack bonuses, defenses, HP, etc. 4e's later monster design of the basic numbers was so simple, you can fit it on a business card.

Let's glance at some CR three threats for 3.5, eh? Ogre, Giant Scorpion, Fire mephit.

HP? 29, 32, 13. Pretty comparable except the last.
AC?: 16,16,16. That's comparable!
Attack bonus? +8/+1 ranged,+6, +4. That's a much wider range.
Damage? 2d8+7/1d8+5, d6+4, and 1d3+1d4.

Average full attack? Well, the ogre gets one attack, the scorpion gets 3, and the Mephit gets 2, so they convert to 2d8+7, 3d6+10, and 2d3+2d4. So Average damage a round? 16, 20.5, 9.

Of course, the mephit has damage reduction, while the others don't, Fast healing, the ability to summon ANOTHER mephit, two spell like abilities, and a breath weapon.
And the scorpion inflicts poison with one of its attacks.

>>34099225
They did match in 4e. The XP count of the encounter was the XP count. HERE, you only multiply by the number of monsters to find the DIFFICULTY, but you don't actually award any more XP.

So, if I want to throw 4 hobgoblins at my players, they have a DIFFICULTY XP of 800 (100X4,x2 for the number of them.) And if my players win, they get 400 XP, because THAT'S HOW MUCH 4 HOBGOBLINS ARE WORTH.

So now I know that 4 hobgoblins are a HARD challenge for a party of 4 level 6 players, but award XP as an EASY.

>>34099275
>>34099355
Eh. I thought they hadn't. Still, there's the second reason: don't encourage slaughtering several hectopesants worth of pesants.

>>34099225
>They didn't match in 4e either
Not sure what you mean. In 4e, the XP budget is in fact the encounter's XP reward.

>I've honestly never seen anyone try and throw in a monster of super-high or super-low level as compared to the party.
I think that if monsters didn't have a level, just an XP value, some GMs would.

Honestly, the only edition where encounter building/XP was a pain in the ass was 3e and its derivatives.

Every other edition that I know of (I only played 2e and after) was more or less straighforward, including 5e.

>>34099406
2e didn't have any rules for encounter building other than "don't throw stone golems at parties without magic weapons."

>>34099085
Went up against ogre as a level 2 wizard in a party of 3, had to use a scroll of fireball to get out.

>>34099379
> it was simply: XP is normal, unless the monsters outnumber the players, that'd be fine. but it's not.

Monsters no longer flock to the fighter/melee. High probability squishies will be in some shit past the first round in 5e, so yeah it makes the encounter harder.

>>34099383
Sure, don't support slaughtering peasants, and do that by not giving them an XP value. I don't give out XP for the PCs doing something that's not a challenge. If they want to take on a whole kingdom, go for it, but murdering a bunch of pig farmers at the bar isn't worth squat.

>>34099355
Writing up an encounter for my LV21 group last night:
>LV21, 5 PCs, that's 16,000XP to spend on... undead, they're fighting undead
>Can +/- 4 levels, but let's err on the side of tougher because 4e epic PCs are silly
>spend 16,800XP in the encounter
>party facerolls it because 4e epic PCs
>each character gets 16,800/5 XP.
>5 minutes of monster maths

Looking at writing up a 5e adventure for our group to test the game:
>Okay, 4 PCs, LV3
>Check the CR-appropriate monsters, hrmmm, wow, what the fuck am I doing
>mutiply something afterwards
>"Uhhh, you guys can take 12 zombies right? Because that's as far as I got."

>>34099567
If they have clubs, each one is worth 10 xp.

>>34099386
My DM did once.

A party of LV4-5 guys taking on a single giant.
I told him afterwards that the math wasn't meant to work like that, and from then on we've been mostly good.

>>34099571
>>each character gets 16,800/5 XP.

Where are you getting the 5 from? Shouldn't it be split by 4 for the 4 PCs?

>>34098681

Says someone who never experienced the "joys" of statting 3.x monsters

>>34098681
What purpose is served by having them use the same rules?

>>34099681
oh god the flashbacks

>>34099673
5 PCs. So the suggested XP was [LV-appropriate-per-PC] x5, rather than 4x.

It actually went overbudget, being 16,800 rather than 16,000 (making it 800XP more difficult), but that just means more XP afterwards for beating it.

In 5e, against a party of 4 characters of LV X, you'd, say, chuck 4 enemies of [1/4 X] (4x0.25X = X = appropriate challenge), except it's actually going to be around as difficult as fighting a 1.5X monster, except you still only get X level of appropriate XP as a reward.

>>34099540
So having 2 of ANYTHING means one will immediately run past the fighter (which, by the way, is not a great argument to make against fans of 4e, "Congrats, because we stripped fighters of their ability to DO THEIR JOB of defending the rest of the party, we had to make XP math stupid as well!") ?

>>34099250
Well, you can throw a super-high level to say "DON'T BE HERE." and give them a chance to run.

Or, the foes you faced earlier became minions at higher level. It's not super uncommon.

>>34099673
He states he has 5 PCs.

>>34099681
I was fine with it, but there were too many CLASSES of monsters.
Aberrations, Animals, Contructs, Dragons, Elemnetals, Fey, Giants, Humanoids, Magical Beasts, Monstrous Humanoids, Oozes, Outsiders, Plants, Undead, Vermin.

All with different hit dice, Saves, skills, attack bonus progressions, and special traits!

And some clearly OP. Dragons had barbarian hit die, full BAB, ALL saves good, and 6+int per level of skills, while fey had rogue dice, wizard BAB, sucked at fort, and had the same skills.

>>34099747
>What purpose is served by having them use the same rules?
You can tell, with 100% autistic certainty, what a monster's "ass-scratching" skill ranks are, or what their Anal Circumference is.

>>34099805
>Or, the foes you faced earlier became minions at higher level.
The math didn't work out great if you did that. That's why there were high-level minion versions of lower-level monsters instead.

>>34099379
>You've now summarized one of three pages.
I'm inclined to believe that the one image posted does not represent the entirety of the details on encounter building in the 4E DMG.

A huge amount of the second page is occupied by the same example twice, which is clearly an error.
A lot of the third page is actually blank, and most of it details the adventuring day, which isn't something covered by the 4E picture.
The first page has intro text and descriptions of what the different difficulty levels mean, as well as an explanation of CR, which, like the example, was posted twice in error.

Honestly, people should be complaining about the lack of proofreading rather than the complexity of the guidelines.

>So now I know that 4 hobgoblins are a HARD challenge for a party of 4 level 6 players, but award XP as an EASY.
In any game I can think of, fighting more enemies at a time is harder than fighting them one by one, and in no game I think of, you are given extra XP for killing more at a time. (Unless it's a video game with some kind of goofy killstreak bonus, but let's not worry about that.)

>>34099854
I think that's what he meant?

Once an enemy starts to have HP low enough you can kill it in a single swing, it's best to use it either as a LV-appropriate minion, or make a swarm with the same features.

4e had no qualms about levels being game mechanics indicative of challenge, and absolutely ZERO 'hard physics" approach to levels, power, etc.

Which is why grogs get scared of the term 'minion' or the fact that there's no LV21 Town Guards to fuck your shit up if you go off the rails.

>>34099379
>So your adventuring parties are now one, solo player? Or did you miss that having two of a monster makes them magically worth 150% their XP?
>
>If it was simply: XP is normal, unless the monsters outnumber the players, that'd be fine. but it's not.
Another way of looking at this is that you're taking an XP penalty for outnumbering the monsters. Multiplying by 0.5 or 0.75 would have been more annoying.

>>34099863
"Other games fuck up too" is no excuse.

Especially since other games typically fuck up by not adjusting difficulty based on monster group size, leaving it to the GM to eyeball. 5e has a rule for that, and then an extra rule saying that you shouldn't award XP based on the modifier. It would take LESS words to do the sensible thing and have complexity match XP reward, so that's really weird.

>>34099772
Yeah, my bad on the reading part; I thought you said 4 people.

>>34099805
>Well, you can throw a super-high level to say "DON'T BE HERE." and give them a chance to run.
>Or, the foes you faced earlier became minions at higher level. It's not super uncommon.

If you're throwing a "supposed to lose" (or "Run or have your ass pounded into raw beef") fight at the party, you don't care much about following the rules for having a balanced encounter anyways.

And I never felt the need to recycle the same statblocks to turn dangerous enemies at low levels into mooks at high ones. 4E has a bunch of variations of every kind of monster for whatever level you want, ranked according to threat from minion to solo (and some simple guidelines about bumping dmg, HP and defenses if you want to keep old ones but make them mechanically interesting). Something that is too weak to be a threat to the party isn't really worth anything more than a handwave about cutting through a dozen town guards on the way to the palace.

ITT: 4e players continue to demonstrate why they should have stayed with World of Warcraft

>>34099966
WoW ruins all bait credibility these days.

>>34099951
I'm not saying other games fuck up, too. I'm saying no designer has ever seen anything wrong with this. Should players be rewarded for clustering their enemies? No. They should have incentive to pick them off a few at a time like sensible adventurers.

>Wait, let the hobgoblin sound the alarm!
>What? Why? The whole fortress will be on us.
>We'll get way more XP that way.

I'd really rather we didn't encourage this behavior.

>>34099023
It's not the final release. That's why there are little warnings telling you it's a work in progress, not the final shit from the DMG. WOTC already said they're fixing those math errors. (Though probably not the boring stat-porn magic items, which I find far more offensive.)

>>34100008
I gotta know. What is the point of baiting? How is it different than trolling?

>>34100066
They are discouraged from that behavior by the fact it's hard, and they will likely die. That's why the reward should be high in the first place

So let me get this straight.

Everyone has their panties in a bunch because there's an extra step which adjusts for groups of different sizes (either enemy groups or PCs).

That sounds like a good thing. Am I missing something here or is /tg/ just stroking its hateboner for D&D?

>>34100066
>Should players be rewarded for clustering their enemies? No. They should have incentive to pick them off a few at a time like sensible adventurers.
That's just the usual problem of rewarding combat with XP.
>Should players be rewarded for fighting the kobold tribe when they could have negotiated passage diplomatically?
Yup, D&D incentivize getting into difficult fights, at least ever since XP was dissociated from GP. That's just part of the ride.

>>34099805
>So having 2 of ANYTHING means one will immediately run past the fighter

Most of my 5e encounters have been multiple enemies, and yes that's the way they tended to play out. At least 1 or two would move to attack the ranged or the rogue if they could find him.

I mean what do you expect? There's no concept of threat and AoO aren't used to hold aggro anymore.

I don't think the figher is the defender anymore. I think everyone should be able to handle their own. Casters should be able to burn down anything coming at them, and past 1st level survive a hit or two.

>>34100175
Personally, I'm upset that they added complexity without gaining anything. It's just bad design.

>>34100133
Synonyms as far as I can tell, except the word "trolling" gets taken less seriously these days so falling out of favour.

>>34100175
Yes, you're missing something. Read the thread, see the comparisons with 4e.

>>34095639
That's some old school encounter building right there son, and I salute you.

>>34100175
It's mostly just unprofessional maths.

Firstly, the CR for any given monster isn't a good indicator of how challenging that monster is.

Secondly, we're told that an encounter with multiple groups of monsters with CR X is - explicitly mentioned - as challenging to a party as an encounter with a single monster of CR 2x(X) or above. But the party will only be rewarded as if it were a challenge of CR X, which makes the purpose of calculating the 'effective CR' wasteful and not very helpful except as an afterthought..

Thirdly, the example maths given in the sidebars are wrong, making it more confusing and unhelpful.

>>34100235

The main points against it being:

>one extra step is too hard even if it accurately adjusts encounters based on group size
and more importantly:
>waaah waaah it's not 4e therefore it's bad

>>34100309
try hard.

>>34100309
You're repeating yourself instead of reading the thread.

>>34100352
he's not really here to contribute

>>34100193
Then there is no need to make the enemy artificially more difficult if every player can handle the threat.

If everyone can deal with it, then there's NO DISTINCTION.

>>34099863
The entirety? No. The entirety of calculation? yes.

>In any game I can think of, fighting more enemies at a time is harder
Allow me to explain what I hate about this.

IN 4e, you had an encounter XP budget. So I could spend all 5,000 on a single dragon. Or on 5 Hobgoblins. The hobgoblins, each worth 1k on their own, were considered a 5k threat together.

NOW, Those same 1k (100, by wizards) hobgoblins, are somehow magically twice as strong for the budget, but don't REWARD YOU as if they were.

A two hobgoblins are now worth 3 hobgoblins. That's what 5e tells me. That, for difficulty, two hobgoblins are worth 3. But, when my players gain experience, having overcome the DIFFICULTY of that fight, they magically become 2 again.

STICK TO ONE. Either having more enemies OF NOTE (AS D&D constantly says, under a certain level, they're worth nothing) makes the fight MORE DANGEROUS, and therefore you get more XP, or it doesn't and fuck that random multiplier.


>>34099854
>>34099965
Yes, sorry, this guy >>34099917 covered it. I was unclear, I meant that 4e itself went, "Fuck it, you're cool enough that those guys are minions now"

>>34099571
Yes, everything is difficult if you pretend you're actually retarded.

>Check the CR-appro-
You already fucked up. The encounter building rules don't involve CR. Literally the only thing different is the multiplier.

Is this some kind of elaborate troll to convince everyone that 4rries are genuinely as stupid as people think they are?

>>34100431
>A two hobgoblins are now worth 3 hobgoblins. That's what 5e tells me. That, for difficulty, two hobgoblins are worth 3. But, when my players gain experience, having overcome the DIFFICULTY of that fight, they magically become 2 again.

It's to discourage players from picking fights with enemies in group so that they get more XP out of it.

>>34100545
The threat of death is not sufficient?

>>34100512
>Literally the only thing different is the multiplier.
And the *order*. Which actually makes the multiplier a bigger deal than it otherwise would. You can't actually reverse the 5e encounter-checking rules to get the 4e encounter-building procedure, because the multiplier can only be known after you've chosen the number of monsters in the encounter.

>>34100545

Okay, why would that be a thing to discourage?

They're making it harder on themselves, and getting rewarded for doing so. Increased risk, increased reward.

The only problem I can possibly see here is if you're making PCs go through fights that are so weak that them piling more on does not meaningfully increase the risk in which case WHY ARE YOU ROLLING FOR COMBAT?

>>34100545
Wouldn't want to encourage players to get into dangerous fights. That's against the spirit of D&D. In fact, every Hard encounter should give only 10% of the XP.

>>34100431
>>34100545
>>34100578

I'm pretty sure you guys have that backwards.
Tossing Two Hobgoblins against your party nets them the experience of 3 Hobgoblins.
Which by all means makes sence considering that Hobgoblins deal like an extra d8 plus some as bonus damage for having you next to one of their allies.

>>34100186
Personally, I reward XP on a per adventure basis, so that particular rule isn't even relevant to me, but I don't feel that one bad turn deserves another.

Also, that DM a shit for not rewarding those players at least as much XP for negotiations as combat would provide.

>>34100431
>If everyone can deal with it, then there's NO DISTINCTION.
But it is harder. Everyone can handle their own, but it's dicey when the party has to spread its damage out because two guys are on squishies instead of 3 guys on the fighter where they can just focus fire each one down.

>>34100512
I'm rechecking the DM Basic rules for encounter building, and I can't see anywhere in these 4 steps where it asks you to check the CR, only the XP budget and various sidebars suggesting to me that a single CR X monster is a challenge for a LV X party.

So, when setting out to design some encounters, why wouldn't I want to set aside a few beasties from the bestiary who fall within appropriate CR for my party, so when I've gone through Step 1 and am ready for Step 2 I can straight away start selecting from monsters I know won't faceroll my party? Then I can happily go along to Step 3 and adjust for a value that won't affect anything, and then Step 4 where I recap that nothing is horrifically OP?

>>34100613
>They're making it harder on themselves, and getting rewarded for doing so. Increased risk, increased reward.

Why do the PCs get less XP if they cleverly pick off the enemies one by one?

>>34100684
>that DM a shit for not rewarding those players at least as much XP for negotiations as combat would provide.
Problem with that idea is that it doesn't scale very well. Like, a level 1 group can have a chat with an elder dragon and convince him to let them pass. That's an obvious non-combat encounter at that level, but they COULD choose to attack him if they wanted. So do they get elder dragon XP? Obviously not, that's an extreme example, but there's a large grey area.

>>34100657
Nope, the encounter building rules just let you know that 2 hobs at once is approximately the challenge of something worth 3 of them.

>>34100807
Because the fight was easier.

>>34100193
I agree that there's a difference here in a 5e fighter versus a 4e defender, but I'm not sure it's as catastrophic as some 4e fans seem to think. I tend to think a 5e fighter's job is to keep the attention of the biggest threat in the room. He's the main tank, in MMO parlance. You will need some combination of secondary tanks, crowd control, and slipperiness or durability from the rest of the party to survive a tough encounter.

To make up for being unable to hold off 20 minions at once, fighters can now do other crap too, such as deal damage, protect adjacent allies, and so on. I think they could definitely do well to include a more 4e-style defender-fighter subclass at some point down the line, perhaps with a defendery aura like the 4e knight, but what we have now isn't just a shitty 4e defender; it's a fairly effective something else.

>>34100807

Because your reward there is increased chance of living.

>>34100861
>To make up for being unable to hold off 20 minions at once, fighters can now do other crap too, such as deal damage, protect adjacent allies, and so on.
You're not wrong overall, it's just the "now" that grates. That "now" makes sense in a comparison to the 3e fighter. But it's ridiculous in a comparison to the 4e fighter, who could most definitely do all that crap, and do it better too.

What we have now is very much a shitty 4e defender.

>>34100613
>>34100837
>>34100872
>>34100652
Look at those multipliers. Getting x2 XP if you can manage to drag in a couple more creatures each fight is super enticing.

Rewards should encourage smart play, not reckless behavior. This is basic fucking shit. Don't encourage your players to play your game in a dumbass way. Remember: the lack of a reward is a penalty if the reward becomes standard. It's often harder to pick off enemies intelligently.

>b-but mah risk vs reward
Fuck off.

>>34100837
So I get punished for not being a retard?

>>34100861
4e fighters could also protect adjecent allies and were the highest damage defenders in the game, along with being not too shabby at inflicting status ailments. 5e fighters aren't bad at all, but are still kind of a straight downgrade from 4e.

>>34101009

At best interpretation, as DM, I would have that you would get the x2 multipler anyway if I thought that it would take work to divide and conquer those hobs.

>>34101009
>Getting x2 XP if you can manage to drag in a couple more creatures each fight is super enticing.
The reward is too steep, but not incorrect as a concept.

>Rewards should encourage smart play, not reckless behavior.
Rewards should encourage behavior appropriate to the game's genre.

"increased risk gets you increased rewards" is the foundation belief of every adventurer by default (else you would just be a farmer, or work a steady domestic job with those skills, not a life-threatening one), and thus D&D as a whole bows to it.

>>34100589
I will agree that the order is goofy, but once you understand what's happening you'll end up doing it in a better order anyway.

The backasswards order makes it harder to learn, but not harder in practice.

>>34101009
>>34101026
You're not being rewarded for cleverness, and punished for recklessness. You're being rewarded for *fighting small groups* and punished for *fighting large groups*. It may happen that one or the other is a consequence of your cleverness or recklessness, but the rule is fucking up your reward just as much if you get ambushed by ten goblins.

>>34101026
you are rewarded with survival. the retard is likely dead, unless he was also a very skilled/lucky retard

>>34101060

Granted, worst interpretation might be what happens.

>>34101079
>The backasswards order makes it harder to learn, but not harder in practice.
As that post just said, the multiplier makes it harder in practice. In 4e, you have an XP budget to spend. In 5e, adding one monster to the encounter changes its difficulty by a different amount than that monster's XP cost.

>>34100966
I know a 4e fighter could do decent damage, but a 5e fighter can outdo just about everyone at single-target and burst damage. Plus the Battlemaster gets some semblance of leader powers the 4e fighter didn't. No, 5e commander's strike and rally sure as fuck aren't their 4e warlord equivalents, but they're also not something the 4e fighter could do.

I think I read that the DMG is going to have rules for adding 4e-style roles to the classes.

>>34101207
I can only see that infuriating the very audience they're trying to appeal to. I highly doubt they'll do something so blatantly 4e-esque

>>34098415
>Which is why they got rid of them: anything that was in 4e was scrapped, no matter how much of an improvement it was. 5e is the "we're really really sorry about 4e" edition.
or more specifically
>Lets completely shit on all our remaining fans in hopes of reclaiming all the 3e users who left for alternatives
they aren't just getting rid of every 4e improvements, they are openly bashing the system AND have openly insulted anyone who likes it in press statements

>>34101084
Then why bother giving him bonus XP? If he's dead, why do you care.
Your idea encourages what DCSS Devs would be right to call degenerate behavior.

>>34101273
because he lived, because he was very skilled/lucky. This isn't hard to follow

>>34101070
>"increased risk gets you increased rewards" is the foundation belief of every adventurer by default (else you would just be a farmer, or work a steady domestic job with those skills, not a life-threatening one), and thus D&D as a whole bows to it.
If we want to look at this in-universe, we don't really worry about XP. The treasure rewards (the rewards the adventurer's are after) don't change with the number of enemies per encounter. One at a time or all ten at once? All the same treasure to the characters.

In fact, if we want to the rules to encourage players to behave as is appropriate for their characters (who are unaware of experience points), they should definitely not grant bonus XP for fighting more things at once.

Ideally, the rules for any TRPG (or any RPG at all, really) should encourage you to behave approximately as your character would.

>>34101273
With greater risk comes greater reward.

>>34101273
Getting into more dangerous fights is not degenerate behavior. Same reason higher-level monsters are worth more XP.

>>34101247
Jesus, the butthurt. You really feel shat upon that they slightly tweaked the encounter-building guidelines? I'm sure Mearls was twirling his mustache as he callously added a multiplier for large groups, all to spit in the face of anyone who ever purchased a 4e rulebook.

>>34101310
If you look at it in-universe, someone who fights off multiple foes simultaneous really would get more much more experienced at fighting than someone who picks them off one by one in a controlled situation. It's like the difference between sparring and real combat

>>34101310
>In fact, if we want to the rules to encourage players to behave as is appropriate for their characters (who are unaware of experience points), they should definitely not grant bonus XP for fighting more things at once.
Fighting against many enemies at once is sure to be educative.

>Ideally, the rules for any TRPG (or any RPG at all, really) should encourage you to behave approximately as your character would.
This is debatable. We do want PCs to go on risky adventures, and not just when there's a contrived reason why not doing so would destroy the world. And difficult combat is just fun.

>>34101080
In pretty much any combat strategy, real life or otherwise, taking on fewer enemies at a time is tactically advantageous. Once again, if you ever have the OPTION of fighting fewer enemies at a time, you should not be penalized for doing so.

>>34101370
>Jesus, the butthurt
Actually I am an impartial observer you faggot 3ephile

i played 4e exactly once (for 1 session), declared it shit (although less shit than 3e) and moved on to better systems. that was after not playing 3e in years.

WOTC has been shitting all over 4e and its players in press release after press release where they are insulting them for liking the improvements they made in vain hopes of recapturing the crowd lost to shitfinder.

>I'm sure Mearls was twirling his mustache as he callously added a multiplier for large groups, all to spit in the face of anyone who ever purchased a 4e rulebook.
This has fucking zero to do with anything I said you retarded cum guzzling syphilitic whore

>>34101370
Not the multiplier, but I'm pretty sure that >>34098578 was a deliberate choice to stand apart from 4e.

>>34101310
>If we want to look at this in-universe, we don't really worry about XP.

Who said anything about in-universe? Or the characters? What kinds of characters players make is itself beholden go the game's GENRE, which is the important part.

And, again, one of the conceits of D&D's genre is that increased risk comes with increased reward, or else the entire foundation of being an adventurer falls apart.

Not in an "in-universe" sense, but as a story, as a thing a character is about, as a belief of the universe these stories take place in.

Kind of like how Shadowrun, as a game, ultimately tells you that increased risk DOESN'T come with increased reward. In fact, Shadowrunners are mightily encouraged to be the biggest fish in the tiniest pond they can find.

>>34101442
>Once again, if you ever have the OPTION of fighting fewer enemies at a time, you should not be penalized for doing so.
Once again, why?

>>34101308
Why reward someone because they were lucky?

>>34101466
>Kind of like how Shadowrun, as a game, ultimately tells you that increased risk DOESN'T come with increased reward. In fact, Shadowrunners are mightily encouraged to be the biggest fish in the tiniest pond they can find.

Enhance.

>>34101446
>WOTC has been shitting all over 4e and its players in press release after press release
Didn't they do a similar thing when launching 4e? "3e was bad and you should feel bad for liking it, but don't worry we made a good game this time." Good thing they learned their lessons.

>>34101493
>Why games of chance

Gee I think your autism is gonna win this one anon

>>34101479
Because you are rewarded for doing something that makes no sense in character, and this encouraging bad roleplaying.

>>34101493
Are you saying we should never give XP ever, because all combats have an element of luck and so we're rewarding the lucky?

>>34101493
Because it is a luck based game. It uses a d20 for everything after all. And why would you not reward them if the were genuinely skilled? Just because the same result could occur if they were lucky?

>>34101493
It's realistic, isn't it.

>>34101377
No, no. We're not going down that road. (Hint: it involves the word "simulationist".)

We're talking strictly about what type of behavior to encourage.

The adventurers want to take great risks for great reward. This is accomplished by putting great reward at the end of a greatly risky dungeon. Why should they get bonus points for intentionally making the dungeon more risky?

>>34101540
True.

But then why give XP for anything except the exact things your character would want to do anyway?

For many PCs, that doesn't involve fighting at all.

File: picture017.jpg (154KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1280x720px

>>34094201
Is this the right thread to bitch about Bryan Syme's art? There's no general, just like 6 really specific threads.

I considered posting in the skeleton thread, because this is very possibly a skeleton in an ill-fitting mask.

>>34101544
I'm an xp for completing goals dude. You finish the quest, you get the xp value of all the monsters in it. You could have snuck past then or used diplomacy (two things xp for combat ruins), or you could have killed them all, I don't care. The important bit is you did the thing.

>>34101528
>Didn't they do a similar thing when launching 4e
yes, they DID to the same when 4e was launched. this insulted a lot of 3e players and drove them to paizo.
WOTC came up with the brillian plan of recapturing those lost players by shitting all over 4e, saying it was a mistake, and that anyone who doesn't see it as a mistake is an idiot

>>34101507

Karma, at least the amount of Karma that players end up with in campaign-time, doesn't get you much. A dot here, a new spell there.

Money in Shadowrun gets you everything. It gets you to the endgame, it gets you a better life, a better existence.

Jobs, usually, pay better when you utterly crush them, in terms of competence. Do a job by the skin of your teeth and your employer will start docking "hazard" fees and "clean up your mess" fees, knowing full well you can't do shit to them. Do a job like ghosts, like over-qualified demigod-ninjas? They'll make that Johnson suck your dick for you.

Nevermind how dangerous, how explosively dangerous, moving into a bigger pond is. If you underestimate a new pond, you'll get cored like an apple in Jack the Ripper's fridge.

>>34101591
make a general

>>34101608
WRONG. It doesn't get tech based chars much. It gets magic chars everything.

>>34101608
Interesting.

Thanks anon.

>>34101634

That's true in theory. In THEORY, the magic character grows and grows and grows 100% off their magic.

But, in campaign-time, the amount of Karma characters usually accrue before a campaign dies or ends? That amount of Karma doesn't buy a Mage SHIT.

>>34101599
I'm generally in favor of leaving everybody at whatever level they're at until I feel like saying "Okay, everybody, you all go up a level." Because keeping track of XP just gets in the way of play if everybody's in the groove. If things are too easy, they get to the tough stuff sooner. If everything is too hard, I see that my players are getting frustrated and let them level up because I want to throw tougher stuff at them.

I had a group spend about a year getting from 10th to 12 level in a 3rd edition game back in the day. I wish I had abandoned XP tracking sooner.

>>34101590
In some cases, the DM will (and should) reward such PCs. Of course, this will depend heavily on the style of campaign, which I'm pretty sure will be covered by the full DMG. Most of the classes are combat oriented, so combat is kind of assumed. Why are they playing D&D?

>>34101634
This seems like a flaw of the system.

>>34101586
>No, no. We're not going down that road
Then you can see how flawed bringing up how anything would be "in-universe" is. Don't use it in your arguments

>>34101671
>Why are they playing D&D?
Because the PLAYERS want to kick some goblin ass. The CHARACTERS are just trying to get rich quick and possibly save the world.

If you want PC/player alignment, then harder combats have to be either more attractive for the character, or less fun for the player.

>>34101671
>Why are they playing D&D?
Ale and whores, obviously.

>>34101237

Why would optional rules infuriate anybody?

>>34101729
that didn't answer anon's question on why PLAYERS are playing dnd if they don't want to do any fighting.

if you are playing dnd and rolled a pacifist then you are playing the wrong game

>>34101857
>Why would optional rules infuriate anybody?
People rage on about 2e all the time. Who knows.

>>34101857
You clearly unfamiliar with the grognard mindset. If it exists and you don't like it, it ruins everything forever. Nevermind just ignoring it; it's existence causes vile emissions that are intolerable to the grognard animal

>>34101710
Sorry, I should have avoided that term.

>"increased risk gets you increased rewards" is the foundation belief of every adventurer by default (else you would just be a farmer, or work a steady domestic job with those skills, not a life-threatening one), and thus D&D as a whole bows to it.
That's what brought up the "in-universe" discussion. The point I'm trying to make is that we assign rewards to encourage behaviors aligned with our characters', not give rewards because they "make sense".

In game design (any genre), players behave in the way most rewarding. Designers can shift rewards in ways that encourage certain behaviors and discourage others.

At this point I'm just repeating myself, so I'm gonna give it a rest.

captcha: subproblem

>>34101872
>that didn't answer anon's question on why PLAYERS are playing dnd if they don't want to do any fighting.
That's the wrong question. Players do want to fight.

>if you are playing dnd and rolled a pacifist then you are playing the wrong game
Few believable characters can be as bloodthirsty as the players who control them from the safety of their home.

>>34101664
Neither does cash. To be honest, that sounds like a problem with campaigns you've played.
>>34101670
That works too.
>>34101681
Yeah, the thing is tech based characters buy killer robots and cyber arms, but mages have nothing to buy but foci, and a lot of things to spend xp on.

>>34101729
>If you want PC/player alignment, then harder combats have to be either more attractive for the character, or less fun for the player.
Or harder combats could be less attractive for the player or more fun for the character.

>>34101872
Because I enjoy talking my way out of problems. Plus, it stalls for time while everyone else does math on where best to throw a fireball if talking fails.

>>34101970
I'm using attractive and fun more or less synonymously here, unless the suggestion is to make characters aware of XP rewards.

>>34094201
>5e regressed

If you haven't realized this is the constant theme of 5e there's no hope for you.

Why is it that a generic "knight" in the Basic Rules bestiary is a CR 3, okay-ish combatant, while a generic "mage" is a CR 6 badass?

>>34103147
Generic knights are cannon fodder. Most encounters you have a mage or two hidden behind a bunch of mooks you need to mow through while the mage shoots at you from range.

>>34100578
It encourages living in universe. Mechanics generating in-universe behavior in the players is kinda cool, if a little ham-fisted in this circumstance.

>>34103147

Because the Knight is like a really shitty NPC class(although it'd be nice if Fighters could get that Leadership ability), while the Mage is like a 9th-level wizard.

>>34094201
Because they are trying to appeal to the people that hated 4e's cookie cutters.

>>34103294
Why is a generic "mage" a 9th-level wizard?

File: wizard raids your fridge.jpg (212KB, 534x900px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 534x900px

>>34103147
Generic mages won't be coming at you in packs unless you are really really powerful.

Knights will come at you in droves.
Also, you could argue that mages don't go around getting into fights until they are strong enough to be too big for their breeches.

>>34103622
>Also, you could argue that mages don't go around getting into fights until they are strong enough to be too big for their breeches.
Besides all the low-level PC wizards. Though, to be fair, I've always suspected the average player character was at least slightly insane.

Jokes on you, my DM skipped XP all together when we playtested it.

>>34098365
/ss/ is disgusting.

>>34103530

Low level wizards will be too easy, if they only have level 2-3 slots and cantrips

>>34104162
Why aren't they listed down as "mage" and the 9th-level wizard as "adept mage"?

>>34104082
You're disgusting.

>>34103670
I know right! Also, low level PC wizards hide behind other party members.

>>34104228

Arbritrary naming ?

Or if their reasoning is that lower level casters will travel in group like your party

im not the devs, I just try to think why they do certain things

>>34103670
>>34103622
I see absolutely no reason to assume that wizards can sit in a room doing homework for 500 years to ramp up to 9th level spells in a safe fashion, otherwise you'd have arbitrary hordes of elven wizard archmages.

Its pretty terrible for the game to assume NPCs get infinite free shit automatically.

Why is 5e doing "more monsters = XP multiplier" when wizards can wreck the shit of encounters with AoE spells?

>>34106497
To give wizards more XP

>>34100813
>a level 1 group can have a chat with an elder dragon and convince him to let them pass
As a GM you should make social encounters challenging so they earn that xp.

They want to pass, that dragon shall want something from them, maybe fetch him some jewels or make a skill challenge like in 4e to try to convince him. It´s not just "I roll my diplomacy"

>>34096870
>it's good that it's broken
>that means I can fix it!

So...why is this even a thing? What sort of lazy ass Gming style do you fucks need tables to design what you should have prepped already?

File: 1406317793470.jpg (59KB, 380x757px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 380x757px

>>34094201
Ha-ha! I ignore all "encounter-building" rules in all editions, and just throw the monsters I like and are thematically appropriate for the adventure at the PCs.

Why are you people so fixated on mechanistic solutions to a story event?

>Fuck Da Rules Police!

>>34107770
They put encounter-building guidelines in so that a DM has a reasonable way to doublecheck how killtastic a scenario he's just come up with. If you're throwing 20,000xp worth of critters at five 6th level characters, there's something in the books telling you you're about to kill off the party. So you warn them a little with a generous "are you sure you want to do that?" and carry on with your TPK completely guilt-free anyway.

>>34109735
A couple of games under their belt and every GM will be able to wing this on the fly. I don't need encounter-building rulesets any more than I need magic item-building rulesets or guard-patrol-roster-building rulesets.

>>34107080
But it doesn't actually give you more XP.