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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 5892694" data-attributes="member: 29398">It's not up to the DM to determine the length of the adventuring day, or what the party does within it.  It's up to the party, as represented by the players.If the party are worn down and have to choose between resting or carrying on, that's a choice - with (I hope) consequences both good and bad either way.  But if either you-as-DM or the game-as-system is keeping their tanks topped off all the time then the validity (or even the existence) of that choice goes out the window.I don't design encounters assuming they'll be at full h.p. when (or if) they hit said encounters.  Hell, most of the time when I come up with a given encounter in an adventure I don't even know which characters or even which party will be there at the time to find it!I agree about the reliance on wand-potion healing being bad design.However, healing surges and other things that let characters recover unrealistically fast without magic are also bad design.As for healing classes: there's a whole bunch of classes that are effectively re-skinned Clerics (Druid, Shaman, seventeen versions of Witch, etc.) that ought to be able to cast curative spells - and who, really, all should be using divine magic to do it.  Pick yer flavour; they're fun to play. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Lanefan</blockquote>

Verification