Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheSword" data-source="post: 8933728" data-attributes="member: 6879661">By meaningful - I mean the choice to engage in combat or seek other methods is meaningful. As I mentioned earlier I genuinely believe that combat is the easiest method to achieve most aims in D&amp;D. Why sneak through a house when you can just bump the person off and search the house - or tie them up and interrogate them. I want not fighting to be an option.However, if you’re going to have less combats then you have to deal with the fact that D&amp;D derives it’s difficulty from attrition. If the attrition isn’t there then the game is too easy. Unless of course you are going to increase the difficulty of foes to an excessive degree.So the alternative is to make combat a greater challenge. In my case by making it so that at 0 hp while not dead necessarily (as in earlier editions) you are essentially battered. At that point the party must re-evaluate their behavior and come up with another idea or risk death of one or more characters.I totally take on board [USER=18]@Ruin Explorer[/USER] and [USER=6788736]@Flamestrike[/USER] ’s feeling that this disproportionally affects martials but I think that is lessened by using One D&amp;D playtest and ensuring that the encounter design spreads the pain and makes it harder for one character to easily tank. The role of tank is not a good choice in this kind of campaign essentially.The alternative is to leave combat as a fairly weak diversion which little consequence, risk or uncertainty - in essence meaningless.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheSword, post: 8933728, member: 6879661"] By meaningful - I mean the choice to engage in combat or seek other methods is meaningful. As I mentioned earlier I genuinely believe that combat is the easiest method to achieve most aims in D&D. Why sneak through a house when you can just bump the person off and search the house - or tie them up and interrogate them. I want not fighting to be an option. However, if you’re going to have less combats then you have to deal with the fact that D&D derives it’s difficulty from attrition. If the attrition isn’t there then the game is too easy. Unless of course you are going to increase the difficulty of foes to an excessive degree. So the alternative is to make combat a greater challenge. In my case by making it so that at 0 hp while not dead necessarily (as in earlier editions) you are essentially battered. At that point the party must re-evaluate their behavior and come up with another idea or risk death of one or more characters. I totally take on board [USER=18]@Ruin Explorer[/USER] and [USER=6788736]@Flamestrike[/USER] ’s feeling that this disproportionally affects martials but I think that is lessened by using One D&D playtest and ensuring that the encounter design spreads the pain and makes it harder for one character to easily tank. The role of tank is not a good choice in this kind of campaign essentially. The alternative is to leave combat as a fairly weak diversion which little consequence, risk or uncertainty - in essence meaningless. [/QUOTE]

Verification