I don't quite understand milestones

[No Name]

I thought you reach a milestone when you do two encounters in a row without an extended rest. My way of interpreting that doesn't seem to match what most of you think. So maybe I have it wrong.

Here's my way:

Encounter #1 completed, no milestone

Encounter #2 completed, milestone reached

Encounter #3 completed, milestone reached

Encounter #4 completed, milestone reached

And so on to infinity...



Completing #1 and #2 in a row is obviously a milestone. But isn't #2 and #3 also two encounters in a row? And #3 and #4 are also two encounters in a row?

The characters get weaker after every encounter, healing surges are spent and so forth. I don't see the harm in doing it my way, but I could easily be mistaken.

Opinions?

 

[DLichen]

It makes a certain battle archer power useless if you do it that way, so I'm going to say no from a rules standpoint.

And I'm not sure of the exact wording, but I'm pretty sure the intention is that you reset the counter after a milestone...

 

[Danceofmasks]

Complete 2 encounters without stopping for an extended rest ...

Erm ... I think the OP may be right ... but against the intent and needs errata?

 

[hong]

No.

 

[Vanuslux]

Their wording is clumsy, but I'm fairly sure they mean every two encounters without resting...not every encounter after the first without resting.

 

[Andur]

Based upon RAW OP is correct, based upon RAI incorrect. It has been stated several times by the designers the intention is characters get an action point every other encounter between extended rests. It is not what is stated in the rules though.

 

[ozziewolf]

It's ment as 12121212 not 123456... why do people insist on trying to break the game in their favor? The rule clarification may be a little shady but the intent is crystal clear.

 

[RangerWickett]

I almost want to make it so that if you come back from the dead, you're weak until you physically pass three milestone markers on a road.

 

[SableWyvern]

It's ment as 12121212 not 123456... why do people insist on trying to break the game in their favor? The rule clarification may be a little shady but the intent is crystal clear.

Yeah, the nerve! Imagine someone coming to a D&D message board and asking for clarification on a rule they feel they may have misinterpreted! The OP should be ashamed of himself, dirty little cheat that he is. I mean, the way he poses the question, he even appears to be passing himself off as a DM who is tempted to rule in a fashion that makes life easier for the players. How low can you get?

[Just in case, let me clarify that I am being SARCASTIC.]

 

[Danceofmasks]

Your clarification is a bit shady, but your intent is crystal clear!