Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Monayuris" data-source="post: 7940447" data-attributes="member: 6859536">Character abilities can exist to provide differentiation for character classes. The game isn't just about character abilities. It/s about interacting with a fantasy environment. The choices you make in the actual game should be more important than the character abilities.You bring up another reason 5e is less challenging. Every character race except for 2(?) have Darkvision. It is another change that reduces challenge and makes the game easy. When you are delving into the dark dungeons of the world, light should be a sacred resource. Try walking around in an unknown environment in pitch black.Torches are an interesting challenge because running out of them is a death sentence. Torches take up weight and space. They last only so long. You only have so many of them. They are objects that can be lost, blown out by wind, disarmed, etc. Managing light is an important challenge.Yes, I do consider attrition beyond the base Unit of Challenge of one day. I made a mistake in arguing the idea of a unit of challenge. It is a ludicrous position that challenge is portioned out in discrete chunks. Challenge is something that develops organically over time during the course of a campaign.Scenario A, if you drop to zero and you're dead, you can roll up a new character and jump back into the game, or play a henchman, or play a monster or any number of options. Yes, your character death is going to force the party to change their tactics to overcome.Scenario B doesn't really happen often, except in very poorly built parties. You're unconscious, the cleric casts healing word and you are no longer unconscious. Done.I disagree. A wizard who uses a crossbow is still a wizard. Doing magic all the time makes magic less impactful, it makes it routine. I think of cantrips as just crossbows, but worse. They are boring. They are default actions that are predictable and require very little thought or consideration to use. The exact opposite of magical. The act of deciding to expend a limited resource to create a magic spell effect is what makes magic interesting and compelling.The point of introducing monsters with immunities is to force players to find alternative approaches to defeating monsters. Magic weapons can do it, but when you don't have them, you have to think outside of the box. It forces players to figure out different ways to defeat a monster you can't kill. This makes the game more engaging and interesting. It increases the choices you have and adds a level of challenge.5E removes this by making magic ubiquitous, which allows players to approach such monsters in the same way as any other. There is no challenge because these monsters don't force a change in approach.Fair enough. I regret buying into the concept of a unit of challenge. There should just be campaign time with a sensible recovery per day/month/year mechanic. It should be organic and logical and clear and not based on an arbitrary game mechanic.</blockquote>

Verification