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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elvinis75" data-source="post: 930803" data-attributes="member: 4379"> But, why?  Why is the line somewhere between 40 rounds and 600 rounds, and not between 4 rounds and 40 rounds?  Isn't it completely arbitrary? Because there is a difference.  No it not arbitrary.  Time is passing and things will happen.The difference between those to times and waiting is huge.  If the first is deemed necessary the players might accept that the first battle is going to be lost without them.  They chose to regroup at full strength and counterstrike.The 1 hour later is accepting a much greater loss.  And things would have to be vastly different to justify that. I would never predetermine an encounter in this way.  If the 4 were sufficiently clever enough to actually beat the encounter, then more power to them - I obviously underestimated my players.  I'm not going to arbitrarily change things to make it so that they must have the others.  (But I'm not going to make it easier on them because they left people behind, either.) If anything, that is what is not fair - you're hosing the PCs for making good choices and winning when they weren't "supposed to".The DM has already predetermined the combat in that he said that he wanted to make the players fight without their armor.  I didn’t think that he should have changed anything either in the combat.  He did however fall back on the NPC jumping in to save the PCs(at their request).  IMO not a good thing to happen as it further keeps the 3 players out the session and yeild more situations were the players split up. BTW if 4 players could have beat the enemy then I think that it would have been poorly planned.But you just said that 600 rounds was too long.  What if the wizard said "I'm not going unless I'm full up on spells"?  Aren't you 'hosing him out of playing?  Or is he hosing himself?  And if he is hosing himself out of playing...aren't the people insisting on the armor doing exactly the same thing?Yes, based on the situation, as I said above the two different amounts of time have different affects on the battlefield.  The above situation becomes unreasonable because of the difference in times.  It isn’t arbitary.  I have never met a player that always expected that he would have his full compliment of spells for every battle.  Like I said before it is a false analogy.  To put them on the same level the 3 wizards (in our hypoth. Group) would have had to all lost all their armor related defensive spells but had good offensive touch spells the required that he get into melee yet had the option to find and cast the armor spells but they needed in 40 rounds through their own searching or 20 rounds with help and maybe less with haste to cast those spells.But it is indeed the point - what you are talking about is the same choice as I am!  Logically, a rogue wouldn't want to fight undead or golems.  Logically a wizard wouldn't want to go into a big combat without a full complement of spells.So what do you do if the rogue says, "No, I'm not going to that golem fight"?  Or the wizard says "I'm not going to go save the city until I've had a good night's rest"?The example above have different answers so here it goes:I guess we are just going to agree to disagree about our points be we see this point differently.Logicaly a rogue isn’t going to want to fight a golem but that doesn’t make our situation.  If he could go find something that made him and two other rogues like him more effective ….that is our situation.I addressed the situation with the wisard scenerio above.Sounds to me like your NPCs are the ones getting special treatment, because you've already decided the course of the battle.Which NPC is getting better treatment?  I don’t get this statement.</blockquote>

Verification