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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6835534" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Are the two actually opposed? Is it truly a zero-sum game?And are you certain that a reduction in quantity never results in a reduction in quality as well?While normally I am (very) skeptical of advice that recommends totally disregarding the expected rest-ratio (2-3 short :: 1 long) and long-rest/encounter ratio (6-8 enc :: 1 long), this is a great point. Part of the advantage of having a smaller number of big, powerful, chunky bits to throw at baddies lies in how well you can "game the system" (or maybe "play the odds" is a better, less-accusatory way of putting it): strategic usage is always a force multiplier, and when you have more baseline force to work with, the effect is commensurately larger. Leveraging the party's ignorance against them reduces this advantage.If you're going to ignore the game's advice about how many fights to have, ABSOLUTELY do as Dormouse suggests. Keep your players guessing. A climate of uncertainty and, if not paranoia, then at least "abundance of caution" at least gives psychological value to "safe(r) investments."Well, mathematically, yeah it is. Fighters need their 3x-4x Action Surge a day, and Barbarians need a solid number of combat rounds, to keep up with a Paladin's Smiting ability. Even if combats end in two rounds (which still sounds completely ridiculous to me, no matter how much people insist it is the case), Divine Smite is flexible enough because of variable slot size that you can strategize with it pretty well.Similarly, is a Warlock who casts only 4 spells at (say) fourth spell level really keeping up with a Wizard who can cast 2-3 fourth-level spells (due to Arcane Recovery) and 3 each of every lower spell level (well, 4 first-level)?</blockquote>

Verification