Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6846787" data-attributes="member: 6701872">Matching should be clear, being the adventure days that the party sees 6-8 encounters, each of not particularly difficult nature alone, but end up taking the number of rests suggested by the guidelines - with the XP numbers being within, or near enough to within, the listed guidelines, as apparent by the number of adventuring days before rising in character level.When I say &quot;or even exceeding&quot; I am talking about how the guidelines are presented: CR tells you not &quot;this will be a challenge at this level&quot; but &quot;no one should die at this level if rested and equipped&quot;, and the encounter difficulties (despite their names) tell you not things like &quot;this is going to be this difficult&quot; but &quot;you could end up dead if you do something stupid&quot; - so if you manage through a mix of smart play and luck to get through even more or even harder, then you are still doing what the guidelines say. That's a fact of their nature as being an at least sort of guideline, not an at most, or even a this much, give or take a small margin sort of guideline.Of course, that opens a different subject for conversation (that being whether an &quot;at least&quot; style guideline is useful, or whether an experienced group of players actual benefit from a different sort of guideline more than they would from this &quot;at least&quot; guideline).Yes, there are many easy to find examples of when a 6-8 encounter day has been presented in a way that strains the participant's ability to say &quot;that makes sense.&quot;. That doesn't mean that there is no such thing as a 6-8 encounter day that does make sense - or that a DM shouldn't, or couldn't, figure out how to set up a 6-8 encounter day that does make sense to their group (have to add that &quot;to their group&quot; clause because what makes sense to one group doesn't have to make sense to another).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AaronOfBarbaria, post: 6846787, member: 6701872"] Matching should be clear, being the adventure days that the party sees 6-8 encounters, each of not particularly difficult nature alone, but end up taking the number of rests suggested by the guidelines - with the XP numbers being within, or near enough to within, the listed guidelines, as apparent by the number of adventuring days before rising in character level. When I say "or even exceeding" I am talking about how the guidelines are presented: CR tells you not "this will be a challenge at this level" but "no one should die at this level if rested and equipped", and the encounter difficulties (despite their names) tell you not things like "this is going to be this difficult" but "you could end up dead if you do something stupid" - so if you manage through a mix of smart play and luck to get through even more or even harder, then you are still doing what the guidelines say. That's a fact of their nature as being an [I]at least[/I] sort of guideline, not an [I]at most[/I], or even a [I]this much, give or take a small margin[/I] sort of guideline. Of course, that opens a different subject for conversation (that being whether an "at least" style guideline is useful, or whether an experienced group of players actual benefit from a different sort of guideline more than they would from this "at least" guideline). Yes, there are many easy to find examples of when a 6-8 encounter day has been presented in a way that strains the participant's ability to say "that makes sense.". That doesn't mean that there is no such thing as a 6-8 encounter day that does make sense - or that a DM shouldn't, or couldn't, figure out how to set up a 6-8 encounter day that does make sense to their group (have to add that "to their group" clause because what makes sense to one group doesn't have to make sense to another). [/QUOTE]

Verification