I find this was a really well thought article. Spike pointed that it might not be that different that the RAW rules, but I find the last part, the expectation part to be crucial.
Maybe its because I am new to the game and those tips are probably well known (although, internally known since I havent seen them around). Hope my players realize the difficulty of an encounter and I do a decent job describing with those tips, since I dont want to keep recalibrating encounters as they misjudge situations / I explained poorly.
Thanks again, congratulations. Time to read the 5e encounter system is broken article again... even if I dont like the "cure" that is presented
I think there's a lot of good insight here, but I'm failing to see how this is much different than the RAW encounter design method; it seems to produce the same outcomes just with a different mathematical process. Am I missing a component?
Hi Dragna, I've written a post that uses the outlook on combat as outlined in this article. Maybe you'll find it interesting. All best! https://teigills.substack.com/p/exploring-a-first-principle-approach
I find this was a really well thought article. Spike pointed that it might not be that different that the RAW rules, but I find the last part, the expectation part to be crucial.
Maybe its because I am new to the game and those tips are probably well known (although, internally known since I havent seen them around). Hope my players realize the difficulty of an encounter and I do a decent job describing with those tips, since I dont want to keep recalibrating encounters as they misjudge situations / I explained poorly.
Thanks again, congratulations. Time to read the 5e encounter system is broken article again... even if I dont like the "cure" that is presented
I think there's a lot of good insight here, but I'm failing to see how this is much different than the RAW encounter design method; it seems to produce the same outcomes just with a different mathematical process. Am I missing a component?