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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5511121" data-attributes="member: 78116">It does in fact seem that way, but with the more detailed explanation I can see what you're trying to achieve. I just don't think it's required to get the lethality or danger - but it does do an excellent job of solving another issue: PCs wanting extended rests in dungeons (or frequently).I often have 3-5 encounters per extended rest. Depending on what I'm doing and the point of the story at the time. The time between each battle doesn't have to be very immediate and neither do they have to be in sequence. So I can get plenty of roleplaying in between every encounter without a big issue.Generally speaking, that is because 3-4 encounters is pretty much one important part of the adventure - not just a random days adventuring. I also make sure all 4 encounters are interesting and aren't just throw away "This stuff just happens" encounters - but all of them can (in the right circumstances) threaten PCs considerably. In many ways I am unconcerned about this aspect in the first place - though I do manage to see similar effects (but not directly with surges) as I'll describe below.Personally my experience is that I already am seeing that - because one individual encounter can ruin you so badly if it goes wrong. My players tactics and even basic item choices are becoming much more defensive. Things I've never seen PCs use before like woundpatches, silverdust and even hoarding potions of healing like precious gold are becoming important aspects in a post-MM3 campaign. Maintaining this items has the same kind of flow on factor from day to day. If they can get through 4 encounters today while expending less resources - physical resources like potions - it makes those genuinely hard encounters so much more bearable.So I don't see any advantage there to be honest, but where I do see a major advantage in the way you are doing things is in mitigating extended rests. Personally I really hate extended rests for numerous reasons - partly because of the effect they have on disrupting the flow of a story. It also adds numerous logical issues, like "How do these PCs manage to spend 8 hours in the dank dark dungeon of doom?". What I like about the way you are doing things is that it puts more onus on continuing to adventure on whatever limited resources you have, instead of trying to "dump and rest". I think now you've described your full ideas on the matter I can definitely see the considerable advantages of your approach. What I disagree with you on is that it's required to add more tension or deadliness to combat - it really doesn't with the way good ole monsters are designed now. But in terms of ongoing effects in improving the whole "Extended rest" dilemma I dislike so much, your ideas are quite an inspiring on fixing that.I see the same thing to be honest, just with standard design. What I do like is that there is definitely an aspect of "An extended rest" cannot save us. That is an interesting decision and one I might think about myself. In the end though thank you for making your concepts more clear and I can see where you're going. It's certainly an interesting idea with penalizing extended rests in the middle of a dungeon (for example) but giving a reward for resting in a much safer environment.I am thinking of having a similar representation in my own games, except that I wouldn't really turn it into such extreme penalties as you are - but rather grant a bonus to total surges when resting in a safe environment. Given I am demolishing my PCs surges so much that after 1 encounter I often find the Rogue has 1 (or 0!) surges remaining, the concept you have is fascinating as a way of improving the situation. While also eliminating a problem I have of trying to rest in the middle of dangerous dungeons/terrain (unless no other option is clearly available).</blockquote>

Verification