Search results

Yeah, it’s all subjective. Everyone has different lines in different places. For me, making the referee’s life a touch easier by just accepting the game is a game makes for a better experience. Like so many of the other “little things” we do or ignore to make the game run smoothly. Shrugging...

You see it as a con, I see it as a pro. Not really. The longer the combat lasts, the more damage you take and the more resources you spend. It's not possible to design a game that gamers won't try to exploit. There's no perfect solution, only a series of compromises. To me, not having to deal...

I'm not sure I see what you're objecting to. They have to eventually get a long rest. If you make long rests a resource they gain after 18 rounds of combat and disconnect it from sleep, it solves all the problems with rests and balance.

You could also make rests a recharging resource based on combat. This is effectively what Draw Steel has done. Gain a spendable short-rest resource after six rounds of combat. Max two per long rest. Gain a spendable long-rest resource after 18 rounds of combat. You could even divorce these...

And the players expect to be challenged.

I was thinking about the two short rests between long rests and how that should be handled. For “balanced” days that would be two fights, short rest, two fights, short rest, two fights, long rest. Assuming 3 round fights, that’s 18 rounds. Which is close enough to Mearls’ ~20 rounds. That...

You can’t. A decade of most referees getting this wrong has trained a generation of players that they can long rest anywhere, anytime.

In a decade of playing 5E I've literally never had a combat go that fast.

The enormous influx of new players Critical Role and Stranger Things brought to 5E. I remember. I was not one of them. I pushed for freeform skills and other wild departures. It got far more eyes than it otherwise would have because of Critical Role and Stranger Things. But people quite...

That's literally all of D&D. The game is designed around attrition-based adventuring.

That's because it was designed as a dungeon crawler. Because it had to cover that aspect of play that people would certainly use. That the vast majority don't play that way apparently never occurred to the designers of the game.

The next obvious question is: would 5E be as wildly popular if the majority of referees got this right? That is to say, if 5E wasn't played as an alpha-strike cakewalk by the majority of tables, would it have become as popular as it is?

Some much pointless frustration.

Yep. Despite the DMG saying exactly that, people have been denying it for a decade.

Mearls. "It's quite likely that a semi-optimized party can vaporize boss monsters in a round or even less." LOL. Referees been saying that about 5E for a damn decade. But nope, it's a perfectly balanced game. To say nothing of players optimizing to the Nth. Ugh.

He explains it in the thread. It means alpha strike vs at-wills. That is how the players play the game (alpha) vs how the designers assumed the players would play the game (at-will).

It would be simple to do so. Treat the game like a game. Stop worrying about verisimilitude. Rest Update: You cannot take a long rest until you've had ~20 rounds of combat. Done. It's kinda hilarious though. Such obvious things as "rest as often as possible" and "hit fast and hard" were...

I think that sums up at least half the problems at any given table.

A lot of people skip words when they speak or write. It’s okay. We all do it. But if those skipped words are the key to understanding the whole, you’ve failed at clearly communicating. Part of being an editor is pointing out when words are skipped, rendering the communication unintelligible...

When I compare the two, there's no "demoting" going on. If anything, The Incredibles sets an impossibly high bar that no official Fantastic Four movie has come even remotely close to approaching. I don't think The Incredibles is a knock-off FF. I think it's very clearly a love letter to the FF...