this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
13 points (84.2% liked)

rpg

3210 readers
29 users here now

This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs

Rules (wip):

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If D&D's CR is notorious for being bad and having nothing but perfectly balanced encounters is long term boring, why not just stick to CR religiously and let the two problems cancel each other out?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not every dnd does it wrong. I'm pretty sure 4th Ed had it right. Pathfinder and 13th age are also kinda just editions of dnd, and they both have very tight encounter math!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

4E had it right, because the NPC were given a relative “player” level, as in a Lv. 1 Goblin Backblade was a moderate encounter to a Lv. 1 player.

Also the HP calculation and action economy were much better IMO

If you want a good, tactical and balanced combat TTRPG experience, I can wholeheartedly recommend 4E

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree to a certain extent. I don't think 4e really comes into its own before a GM applies post-Monster Manual 3 math and gives defenses + expertise feats out for free. It works, more or less, but requires the GM to be cued in more than what they would get from just reading the GM guides (which are mostly excellent).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

My group had fun playing it for a few months with just the 3 core books. Also, it does a lot that makes combat varieted and fun, never does an experienced Fighter “just walk and attack” for a turn in that game! I'd say it works at least “pretty well” on its own

But it leaves little room for player interpretation and for them to come up with their own solutions; even something like “I shoot arrows into the wall to help us climb out of here” is a Power, not something you can just decide to do...