Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 8768934" data-attributes="member: 53980">Unless the DM is exceptionally heavy handed, it can go any which way. That seems self evident.Does the enemy auto-magically detect the party, even if they were sneaking? This might make sense if the area the enemy is guarding is alarmed, but that certainly doesn't make sense for every encounter.Does the enemy automatically attack like mindless murder-bots, even if the party tries to prevent the combat via a clever ruse? It might make sense if the enemy is a bunch of zombies, but again, it certainly doesn't make sense for every enemy.I do think that the game is closer to being balanced&nbsp; when the players can expect 6-8 combat encounters between long rests. Though non-combat encounters that consume similar resources are just as effective, they are more challenging to execute effectively. Open ended challenges are more interesting than those with a single, hard-coded solution, but they're also the least easily gauged in terms of expected resource expenditure.I really doubt that there are many (if any) DMs who are forcing their players through 6-8 combat encounters despite the players doing their best to avoid combat. That seems like bad DMing to me. It's more likely that 6-8 encounters works if the players go with the flow and do not attempt to avoid combat, but that will only hold true in a subset of campaigns. In my own personal experience, unless the players haven't had a combat in a while and want one, they sometimes will try to avoid unnecessary encounters. And as their DM, I let the dice fall as they may, 6-8 combat encounters or no.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 8768934, member: 53980"] Unless the DM is exceptionally heavy handed, it can go any which way. That seems self evident. Does the enemy auto-magically detect the party, even if they were sneaking? This might make sense if the area the enemy is guarding is alarmed, but that certainly doesn't make sense for every encounter. Does the enemy automatically attack like mindless murder-bots, even if the party tries to prevent the combat via a clever ruse? It might make sense if the enemy is a bunch of zombies, but again, it certainly doesn't make sense for every enemy. I do think that the game is closer to being balanced when the players can expect 6-8 combat encounters between long rests. Though non-combat encounters that consume similar resources are just as effective, they are more challenging to execute effectively. Open ended challenges are more interesting than those with a single, hard-coded solution, but they're also the least easily gauged in terms of expected resource expenditure. I really doubt that there are many (if any) DMs who are forcing their players through 6-8 combat encounters despite the players doing their best to avoid combat. That seems like bad DMing to me. It's more likely that 6-8 encounters works if the players go with the flow and do not attempt to avoid combat, but that will only hold true in a subset of campaigns. In my own personal experience, unless the players haven't had a combat in a while and want one, they sometimes will try to avoid unnecessary encounters. And as their DM, I let the dice fall as they may, 6-8 combat encounters or no. [/QUOTE]

Verification