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: 9658095" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Not at all. Because if the party has a healer, 99% of the time that healer is also a spellcaster, because Mearls & co. danced on the Warlord's grave. Meaning the party has every reason to stop fighting once the spell slots run out and they're functionally out of resources to prevent catastrophic failure.It's not about ignoring the 24-hour cycle. It's about packing it in. Waiting for a new day rather than taking on new challenges when the biggest resources are already used up...most importantly the healing resources, which are the ones the martial characters need the most because they're in the line of fire for the nastiest attacks.So are martials. That changes nothing.Why not? It's amount of damage per day. Only one set of classes is dependent on having a bazillion combat rounds each day. The other can burn through all of their resources and then present a very strong argument that we will be stronger if we pack it in.Great! You have groups intentionally playing suboptimally. That's totally fine. It's not what the game actually gives mechanical rewards to.I have personally seen it be a direct problem. Does that make you happy? To know that this is real, and you've just had a gentleperson's agreement not to let it be an issue?Concentration helps, but it should be far more widespread. There are far too many spells that should require it but don't. You are correct that 3.x/PF1e favored casters "a lot more", but that's kind of damning with faint praise. Because 3.x was so massively, horrifically broken, and nearly every possible mechanic favored spellcasters or punished martials or both.To be better than literally the single worst D&D for martial/spellcaster balance isn't saying much!Six months is 26-27 weeks. Only requires that you get the first handful of levels rapid-fire, or start at a slightly higher level, to work out as about one level every other session. E.g. if you start at level 5, you'd only need back-to-back levelling twice in that six-month period. Of course, it could also be that they were slightly exaggerating in both directions, e.g. not quite 20 but maybe 18 or 19 and not a mere six months but seven or eight. Going from level ~4 to level ~18 in just over seven months is ~14 levels gained in ~31 weeks, or about 2.2 weeks per level (meaning, most of the time it's 2 weeks, but occasionally it's 3).It's certainly fast, if ECMO3's group isn't starting at a higher level. But this just proves a point I've made many, many times on this forum and which people always deny, despite all evidence to the contrary: People presume absolutely every group starts at level 1 and never starts higher. Further, note the pace at which you say your levels come: closer to two years than one year. Call it 20 months, 86.96 weeks, call it 87 for simplicity. Given you have 19 levels to gain in that span (since you start at 1), that's more than four and a half weeks for each level, including level 2 and 3, which WotC has explicitly designed to take only one and two sessions apiece before settling at about 4 sessions apiece from there on out. And if we tweak it to assume you do get level 2 by the end of the first session and level 3 by the end of the third, that just makes all the others even slower, taking nearly five weeks every time (4.94).And people say my experience of DMs dragging out the XP rate is somehow weird and divergent!</blockquote>

Verification