Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinak" data-source="post: 6240103" data-attributes="member: 6694112">The short answer is "I just really don't like it flipping back and forth based on party composition."It's fine if there's no point of comparison, generally, but party composition isn't static and the passage of in-world time is a major factor in a lot of my campaigns.So if the party has to complete the quests, get up to 15th level, and save the world from a looming threat, the party with the healer might be at it for a couple months. The party without the healer could be at it for over a year.Neither of those is a problem by itself. But if the party gains or loses a healer, the timeline is suddenly either impossible or trivial. You can always fake it and change the timeline, but I'd rather my worlds' consistency not depend on whether the party has a healer at any given moment.A similar thing happens in published scenarios, which either have to assume a healer, assume no healer, have everything happen between rests, fake it, or just leave time out as a factor. Most of them go for one of the last two, to the detriment of drama and the encouragement of the five minute work day.And, personally, even if the party composition never changes, I'm going to keep the time pressure on regardless. So the party's with healers just face faster-moving threats, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth.Cheers!Kinak</blockquote>