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?
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?
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!
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
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).
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…