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: 6713870" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yeah, I had a 4e game where something like this happened. It was an enormous fight and if we hadn't blown all our "major" resources, people would've died (or at least rolled death saves--I only stayed standing because I was a Paladin, with survival abilities, and had two leaders backing me up). I'd really rather not repeat that experience in any game system at any point in the slightly near future.I can understand your issues--they are, in fact, the "other side"* of my criticism of 5e's "short" rest. I think it's ridiculous that any more-or-less enclosed space--like a dungeon, a fort, a cave, an enemy village/encampment, or just about anything an Adventuring Party might explore that isn't a huge and trackless forest--can house distinct encounters that are widely-separated enough that a group can just take an hour-long break and not either (a) alert the entire area, (b) allow their enemies to replenish their strength, or (c) both. As a result, the majority of dangerous places strike me as woefully inappropriate for 5e adventuring parties--you're almost guaranteed to bring the whole thing down on your head, and because 5e is a numbers game, that basically means you die.Of course, I haven't yet had a chance to see too much of this in action, but it's a major concern. The fact that you've voiced (essentially) exactly what I said, just from an (apparently) positive perspective,* increases my concern that it's true.*I am assuming you think this is a good thing, whereas I don't. If that assumption is false, I apologize.</blockquote>

Verification