Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3738214" data-attributes="member: 4937">And yet, people managed to design just these sorts of adventures for 3rd edition.&nbsp; How did they manage it?And the fact is, we don't really know if any of this has changed.&nbsp; All we really know is that characters never run so far out of resources that they are required to drop thier role.&nbsp; Spell-casters will always have something to cast.&nbsp; That's not necessarily a bad thing (it's not necessarily a good thing either), but it doesn't really apply to this discussion.&nbsp; Because, we certainly don't know amongst the little we know whether a CR appropriate encounter no longer is designed to consume 20-25% of the PC's resources, or whether the PC's will have to rest every four encounters or every ten or every one.&nbsp; But, for all that, it doesn't really matter, because we are talking about something that is completely relative.&nbsp; We'll just slide the scale.Suppose that in 4E a CR appropriate encounter is designed to consome just 10% of the PC's resources, meaning that they can go much longer before they have to rest.&nbsp; Isn't that really just another way of saying that CR appropriate encounters in 4E are comparitively weaker than CR appropriate encounters in 3E?&nbsp; All you really emulated is simply the adventure with 10 slightly weaker encounters (each with a larger number of relatively less threatening monsters) rather than 4 slightly tougher ones (with one or two truly threatening monsters)?&nbsp; True, these encounters will involve more monsters, but if a 20 goblins and thier leader is something equivalent to CR 2 in 3rd, its easy to imagine how you could keep the game going for a long time with lots of small encounters that consumed comparitively few resources.&nbsp; But, this isn't really an innovation in the mechanics, because, as you said, I could have designed the same thing in 3rd - I just might not have had the flexibility to do it at 1st level without making the threats potentially humorously small.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3738214, member: 4937"] And yet, people managed to design just these sorts of adventures for 3rd edition. How did they manage it? And the fact is, we don't really know if any of this has changed. All we really know is that characters never run so far out of resources that they are required to drop thier role. Spell-casters will always have [i]something[/i] to cast. That's not necessarily a bad thing (it's not necessarily a good thing either), but it doesn't really apply to this discussion. Because, we certainly don't know amongst the little we know whether a CR appropriate encounter no longer is designed to consume 20-25% of the PC's resources, or whether the PC's will have to rest every four encounters or every ten or every one. But, for all that, it doesn't really matter, because we are talking about something that is completely relative. We'll just slide the scale. Suppose that in 4E a CR appropriate encounter is designed to consome just 10% of the PC's resources, meaning that they can go much longer before they have to rest. Isn't that really just another way of saying that CR appropriate encounters in 4E are comparitively weaker than CR appropriate encounters in 3E? All you really emulated is simply the adventure with 10 slightly weaker encounters (each with a larger number of relatively less threatening monsters) rather than 4 slightly tougher ones (with one or two truly threatening monsters)? True, these encounters will involve more monsters, but if a 20 goblins and thier leader is something equivalent to CR 2 in 3rd, its easy to imagine how you could keep the game going for a long time with lots of small encounters that consumed comparitively few resources. But, this isn't really an innovation in the mechanics, because, as you said, I could have designed the same thing in 3rd - I just might not have had the flexibility to do it at 1st level without making the threats potentially humorously small. [/QUOTE]

Verification