Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7206117" data-attributes="member: 29398">I don't see that drift as a feature, though.In a broad sense that's exactly how I'm looking at this: a different type of resource attrition with more (and more varied) narrative to back it up.Which one - the accretion or the randomizing?Without accretion of defenses to replicate accretion of hit points one of the biggest benefits of levelling - increased toughness and resilience - goes away.&nbsp; Now this may or may not be a good thing depending on one's point of view, but be aware of it and be aware of how it'll affect the game - and how people approach it.And what's the point of a randomized game when it isn't random? <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That's one possible solve for the half-damage issue, yes.Looking at the bit I bolded - I should ask, I suppose, how much risk of character death you prefer your games to have.Me, I look at it from an old-school almost Rogue-like approach where death and other extreme risks (level loss being one) are relatively frequent occurrences.&nbsp; Flip side: I don't mind there being means within the game to revive the dead, particularly at higher levels, and with some sort of hard outer limit (for example the 1e rule where the hard limit to the number of times you can be revived is your starting Con score).5e - like 4e - is a different animal, where due to there being so much in-combat healing available it's generally harder - not impossible, but harder - to kill one or two characters in a combat without taking down the whole party.Lan-&quot;you know you're in over your head when the fireball takes you from full to dead even on a made save&quot;-efan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7206117, member: 29398"] I don't see that drift as a feature, though. In a broad sense that's exactly how I'm looking at this: a different type of resource attrition with more (and more varied) narrative to back it up. Which one - the accretion or the randomizing? Without accretion of defenses to replicate accretion of hit points one of the biggest benefits of levelling - increased toughness and resilience - goes away. Now this may or may not be a good thing depending on one's point of view, but be aware of it and be aware of how it'll affect the game - and how people approach it. And what's the point of a randomized game when it isn't random? :) That's one possible solve for the half-damage issue, yes. Looking at the bit I bolded - I should ask, I suppose, how much risk of character death you prefer your games to have. Me, I look at it from an old-school almost Rogue-like approach where death and other extreme risks (level loss being one) are relatively frequent occurrences. Flip side: I don't mind there being means within the game to revive the dead, particularly at higher levels, and with some sort of hard outer limit (for example the 1e rule where the hard limit to the number of times you can be revived is your starting Con score). 5e - like 4e - is a different animal, where due to there being so much in-combat healing available it's generally harder - not impossible, but harder - to kill one or two characters in a combat without taking down the whole party. Lan-"you know you're in over your head when the fireball takes you from full to dead even on a made save"-efan [/QUOTE]

Verification