Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 907199" data-attributes="member: 5">While I understand the premise I do not agree that it is a bad thing to encourage moving from one combat to the next quickly in some cases.  I disagree that the "Go, go, go" approach always makes for unrealistic play.In certain situations, such as a medium to high level group in a cave complex held by lower level creatures, it makes sense to not only strike quickly, but to maintain a relentless assault from combat situation to combat situation to keep the defenders on their heels and unable to regroup or prepare.Sometimes, as in that situation above, an encounter can actually consist of smaller groups strung out over a number of defensive positions and that is where that sort of duration really shines.In an alternate example what of the PC group that defends an area as waves of attackers strike, fall back, regroup, re-assault.  This is certainly a realistic battle strategies, isn't it?I see nothing wrong with leaving more options open by having the one minute per level spell durations.  Upping all one minute per level durations might make some spells overly powerful and reducing them to one round per level greatly decreasing the flexibility of the system.  To have all spells compartmentalize combat into single encounters, followed by healing and buffing, then back to combat after a rest diminishes the options of both DM and players.I think the neat little packages approach is rearing its head here.  We know that each encounter is intended to balance with 20% of a party's resources being used to overcome it, but restricting the durations of spells to fewer potential categories just seems like overkill to achieve a balanced nirvana that would never truly come to pass anyway.</blockquote>

Verification