Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7191821" data-attributes="member: 71699">I don't think I belittled anyone. In my OP I did say &quot;Please respect the goals of this thread and focus on the game mechanics. The question is not whether we approve of rests or require rules for resting, but how to mechanically buttress the &quot;rests&quot; pillar of 5e's game balance given that goal?&quot;. Additionally, I don't want to pretend I believe every view is equally valid. Obviously if its apples and pears and you prefer pears, nobody can gainsay that. But if you want to argue that &quot;pears&quot; contains fewer than two vowels, then you're flatly incorrect.In principle it could work, but in practice there seems to be a lot of backpedalling on consequences. Maybe that's something people need to decide. Do they in their hearts want consequences to actually be consequences. Or when the time comes do they know they will back down? A few pages back someone raised that very question &quot;What happens when you're out of recoveries?!&quot; Consequences, that's what happens.5th edition offers resilient mechanics that validate and diversify play, and solve problems. Like 4th edition it represents the work of highly skilled, experienced designers with access to a large body of testing. A lot of the mechanics are invisible to DMs and players only because we've become used to them. New mechanics have not only have to prove themselves effective, but also fight through community conservatism. Maybe that's a good thing. What I valued most were posts that raised genuine mechanical problems with the mechanical solution. As a designer, I can use that to enhance what I can offer the community.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7191821, member: 71699"] I don't think I belittled anyone. In my OP I did say "[I]Please respect the goals of this thread and focus on the game mechanics. The question is not whether we approve of rests or require rules for resting, but how to mechanically buttress the "rests" pillar of 5e's game balance given that goal?[/I]". Additionally, I don't want to pretend I believe every view is equally valid. Obviously if its apples and pears and you prefer pears, nobody can gainsay that. But if you want to argue that "pears" contains fewer than two vowels, then you're flatly incorrect. In principle it could work, but in practice there seems to be a lot of backpedalling on consequences. Maybe that's something people need to decide. Do they in their hearts want consequences to actually be consequences. Or when the time comes do they know they will back down? A few pages back someone raised that very question "What happens when you're out of recoveries?!" Consequences, that's what happens. 5th edition offers resilient mechanics that validate and diversify play, and solve problems. Like 4th edition it represents the work of highly skilled, experienced designers with access to a large body of testing. A lot of the mechanics are invisible to DMs and players only because we've become used to them. New mechanics have not only have to prove themselves effective, but also fight through community conservatism. Maybe that's a good thing. What I valued most were posts that raised genuine mechanical problems with the mechanical solution. As a designer, I can use that to enhance what I can offer the community. [/QUOTE]

Verification