Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6362753" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is certainly one way to go for fighter/wizard balance. AD&amp;D did a version of this. I agree that the nerfing of indomitable is a pity, because it moves fighters away from this.I don't think I missed the point. My point is that the more versatile the party, the more the party can control the length of the adventuring day, which is an advantage to those PCs with the highest proportion of time-rationed abilities.An additional factor, at least in my experience, is the extent to which one character and his/her choices influence the overall direction of play. A party can be cooperative, but one character might still be first among equals.I think that assymetric suites of resources depend upon a certain sort of adventure design to support balance. This is also why I don't think 5e is as versatile as some are touting it: a game doesn't become more versatile just because the rulebook doesn't actually describe the mode of adventure design that makes it play optimally.A classic D&amp;D adventure is ToH - both that particular dungeon, and more generally the abandoned tomb/dungeon/lair, guarded by demons, undead, golems etc, which is a largely static environment. This is one adventure site where there are no NPCs to adjust their forces.Another adventure where &quot;ajustment of forces&quot; isn't relevant is the generic scouting/exploration mission - whether in the city, the wilderness, or underground. In that sort of adventure, the PCs have no particular reason to be speedy. And wizards have no reason not to nova then rest.Yet another adventure along those lines is a &quot;surgical strike&quot;: the PCs go in, nova as best they can, get what they need, and pull out.In these sorts of scenarios, wizards and other casters have no reason not to nova then rest.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6362753, member: 42582"] This is certainly one way to go for fighter/wizard balance. AD&D did a version of this. I agree that the nerfing of indomitable is a pity, because it moves fighters away from this. I don't think I missed the point. My point is that the more versatile the party, the more the party can control the length of the adventuring day, which is an advantage to those PCs with the highest proportion of time-rationed abilities. An additional factor, at least in my experience, is the extent to which one character and his/her choices influence the overall direction of play. A party can be cooperative, but one character might still be first among equals. I think that assymetric suites of resources depend upon a certain sort of adventure design to support balance. This is also why I don't think 5e is as versatile as some are touting it: a game doesn't become more versatile just because the rulebook doesn't actually describe the mode of adventure design that makes it play optimally. A classic D&D adventure is ToH - both that particular dungeon, and more generally the abandoned tomb/dungeon/lair, guarded by demons, undead, golems etc, which is a largely static environment. This is one adventure site where there are no NPCs to adjust their forces. Another adventure where "ajustment of forces" isn't relevant is the generic scouting/exploration mission - whether in the city, the wilderness, or underground. In that sort of adventure, the PCs have no particular reason to be speedy. And wizards have no reason not to nova then rest. Yet another adventure along those lines is a "surgical strike": the PCs go in, nova as best they can, get what they need, and pull out. In these sorts of scenarios, wizards and other casters have no reason not to nova then rest. [/QUOTE]

Verification