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?

  • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • CaffeinePanda@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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).

      • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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…