Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6089494" data-attributes="member: 27160">Actually, my experience indicates differently. I run a game for seven player characters (2 fighters, 1 paladin, 1 ranger, 1 rogue, 1 wizard, 1 warlock) and 4e is the first game since OD&D/Basic D&D where I've been able to do so without generating a thumping headache. Does play slow down? Sure - but with a modicum of patience and runs that are weekend rather than evening affairs that really isn't a big deal. We get at least as much done in a weekend as we did with a 4-5 player party in 3.x (although that was a different DM; how much effect that had I really can't tell).Edit: to say something on-topic <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush    :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" /> The big issue I see with the indecision on what HP mean and how healing works is that it has a huge impact on what the party can tackle in terms of an adventure. Especially if in-combat healing is either in or out, everything from encounters to adventuring days to speed of campaign time will have to be differently figured. That seems to me to put the promise of "guidelines for the DM as good as those in 4e" out to dry. Even well-conceived "monster mark" systems are doomed if the rules for healing they have to cope with are mutable.</blockquote>