Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9457874" data-attributes="member: 2067">Single combats don't last 10 rounds IMXP. I suppose I could FORCE one to last that long, but folks start to loose focus after 3 or 4 rounds, IMXP, so I don't know why I'd inflate it artificially beyond that.I dunno what to tell ya. 10 round combats aren't happening in my 5e games. The hard combats peter out around round 5 (depending on die rolls). Math and internet polls aren't going to convince me that the experience I'm having at the table isn't actually the experience I'm having at the table. Theorycraft and Very Online fans don't drive my games, actual play does.A nova just doesn't shift the needle all that much, IMXP, in actual play. Math is theorycraft. Simply telling me I'm an outlier isn't convincing. What would it mean to you if you were to accept the data I'm giving you at face value, I wonder? What do you think would create my experience, the experience of my different groups across the last 10 years, as a player and as a DM, in many different campaigns?I'm working with the idea that 5e's encounter design is what's creating that experience, since I pretty closely follow the rules in Xanathar's for making challenging encounters (meaning, encounters where one PC might drop to 0 hp), and it delivers the expected results over and over again, whether there is one encounter in the day or six encounters in the day., whether the party has wizards and clerics in it or not. But it could be something else. Define &quot;effectiveness,&quot; and tell me why it matters. Describe for me the different play experiences that result from this delta in effectiveness.I've never seen a wizard or cleric dominate in a single-encounter day in 10 years of playing D&amp;D 5e. Why do you think that might be?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 9457874, member: 2067"] Single combats don't last 10 rounds IMXP. I suppose I could FORCE one to last that long, but folks start to loose focus after 3 or 4 rounds, IMXP, so I don't know why I'd inflate it artificially beyond that. I dunno what to tell ya. 10 round combats aren't happening in my 5e games. The hard combats peter out around round 5 (depending on die rolls). Math and internet polls aren't going to convince me that the experience I'm having at the table isn't actually the experience I'm having at the table. Theorycraft and Very Online fans don't drive my games, actual play does. A nova just doesn't shift the needle all that much, IMXP, in actual play. Math is theorycraft. Simply telling me I'm an outlier isn't convincing. What would it mean to you if you were to accept the data I'm giving you at face value, I wonder? What do you think would create my experience, the experience of my different groups across the last 10 years, as a player and as a DM, in many different campaigns? I'm working with the idea that 5e's encounter design is what's creating that experience, since I pretty closely follow the rules in Xanathar's for making challenging encounters (meaning, encounters where one PC might drop to 0 hp), and it delivers the expected results over and over again, whether there is one encounter in the day or six encounters in the day., whether the party has wizards and clerics in it or not. But it could be something else. Define "effectiveness," and tell me why it matters. Describe for me the different play experiences that result from this delta in effectiveness. I've never seen a wizard or cleric dominate in a single-encounter day in 10 years of playing D&D 5e. Why do you think that might be? [/QUOTE]

Verification