Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3772456" data-attributes="member: 18280">It is also shorn of the atttition model, which meant that Joe Fighter was not at his best when confronting Wendy Dragon.1e had a lot more "mook fights" than 3e IME.1e had what I'd like to call a "slow attrition model" where ever battle might give you minor attrition, but allow you to continue on.  Resting was possible, but had attendent dangers.  Wandering monsters, for example, were encouraged.  There were spells to help mitigate these problems, but choosing them removed some other vital resource, and you could only gain them with the DM's permission.3e has what I'd like to call a "fast attrition model" where any battle that might give you attrition will give you at least 5% attrition, meaning that you can have somewhat less than 20 encounters before you have to rest, where none of those encounters (except perhaps the last) have an actual chance to kill you.  Using the lowest-possible CR encounters leads to an attrition level which, in 3e, is probably closest to that used in 1e.  The only problem is that a deadly encounter in 1e might nonetheless leave you relatively fresh, whereas in 3e that likeliness goes way down, so that you must choose between a few deadly fights or a lot of minor, boring fights.It seems that 4e is going to try to model both paradigms.  I admit that this, most of all, is what I am curious about.  It was, IMHO, the slow attrition model that made interesting mook fights possible in 1e.  How will they make mooks that are both significant and still mooks, if they are nerfing the attrition model at the same time?RC</blockquote>

Verification