NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5725737" data-attributes="member: 11300">It depended. Because we were using high level characters (above 15th level ending in almost epic), you can kind of rest where and when you want. Conserving resources usually meant resting at about 40 to 50 percent of resources used. At that level, you can keep going, so long as the casters are conservative with the big stuff. You just have so many resources at your disposal.I played a wizard alienist and can verify that resources never got this low. He had so many resources, I made up about 8 spell selection sheets, depending upon the focus for the day. Otherwise, running a high level wizard was just impossible. Occasionally, you would have an all out encounter that sucked all the big stuff but they would be somewhat rare and to be purposefully avoided.Typical party with an extra cleric (5 PCs). All high level.3.5 core and complete only and the DM was regularly using the epic book towards the end.Certainly. Chalk it up to PCs at very high levels.A conservative party however can use a minimum of resources if that is their aim. I can't see too much wrong with a typical 4 to 6 encounters. I'm sure there were also times when the first encounter blew the party out of the water but this would be atypical from DA's description. I'm also sure there were times that they went past 6 encounters too. The thing with a large party at an average resource level of 20% is that you still have one or two characters that are OK in the frontline with those characters with resources almost used out the back. A good group controls things so they don't get easily ambushed so mix these together, I don't see any reason not to believe DA; even though I imagine other groups would play it differently.And I'm sure it did, (even though it would not have been typical) and upon these occasions, the group may have had to bunker down. I think it would take a high degree of skill and occasionally luck for sure. A group focusing on not using resources though can stray a fair way from the baseline assumptions in my opinion (particularly at higher levels - if not quite the levels we did for RttToH.) Please understand, I'm not trying to be contrary here, I'm just imagining a group being able to accomplish this most of the time if that is their focus and style of play.I don't know. I'm just working on the same information as you are in this thread. Remarkable yes! Impossible... I sincerely don't think so.Your not wrong (or at least those facts sound in the ballpark). But if you have smart players who can regularly control the field of combat (as DA alluded to), you minimize the damage that those creatures do. The biggest issue I have with 3e combat is the typical thoughtless rush to the middle style of hp attrition that it implicitly encourages. If however you ignore that, and control the battlefield and "what" gets hit, you can minimize damage significantly. I bet that DAs DM would have had a Dickens of a time trying to get full attacks on those PCs. Your numbers above are based on the enemy optimising their attacks and I am guessing that this did not happen that often in that campaign.I suppose one thing that this assumes is that the DM plays his monsters in a consistent way. Too often, I have seen a DM looking to compete against their players good tactics by playing their bad guys better than they should. Perhaps DAs DM was most consistent in this regard, allowing good tactics to consistently reap benefits where a lesser DM would try too hard to "do something" against the PCs. If an enemy leader went down, chances are the morale of the enemy plummeted making those bluff/intimidate checks of value. I know this is how we play and expect to be rewarded (and how I reward my PCs when DMing).I can understand and appreciate your frustration. For what it's worth though, perhaps you have been playing 4e and it's mathematical dynamic of forced attrition over a number of rounds and forget how forgiving (and quick) 3e combat can be if the PCs can effectively control the field of battle. I would still consider DAs play remarkable and highly effective and not something typical for most groups.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification