Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9775517" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I don't think you can really talk about 1 without the other.  As an example, a class twice as strong as another will always need different pacing to be equally challenged.Unless you are meaning something much different by pacing than I am.My contentionFunctionally for a single class in relation to pacing, if you are designing a floor/ceiling it doesn't matter whether the floor/ceiling consists of at-wills, encounter powers or daily powers or some combination of them, so long as you get your encounter powers back every encounter and limit the dailies in uses per encounter such that you have no choice but to pace them.Pacing is derived from the floors and ceilings themselves compared to the encounter guidelines and not from the at-will/encounter/daily distribution that the floor and ceiling is derived from.Traditional 5e casters often have a very low floor and a very high ceiling output for a typical encounter.  This is the difference in using only cantrips vs your biggest spells in that encounter.Having such large floor/ceiling discrepancies can make the game really forgiving to players.  That's probably an overall good thing.  As if the DM miscalculates encounter difficulty the players have the proper levers they can pull to still overcome the encounter.  They may need to rest sooner than later, but they didn't die in the encounter.This would be an example of raising the floor and lowering the ceiling.  Assuming no other changes to the game structure this would decrease the variance around class output and thus help stabilize the pacing.I think it might be helpful to look at various classes floor/ceilings to really get an idea of what's happening.  I'll do a few in a subsequent post.</blockquote>

Verification