Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Persiflage" data-source="post: 5288482" data-attributes="member: 73597">What Dandu said.&nbsp; I play full spellcasters (and never, incidentally, suffer from the 10-round adventuring day problem [1]) or fairly optimised ranged-attacking types.&nbsp; I'm fully of the opinion that melee characters being able to full-attack more often than not is a good thing, because it means they can still contribute meaningfully at mid-to-high levels.&nbsp; As a DM or a player, I really feel the pain of the beatsticks when enemies just refuse to stand still for a full attack.I was going to go for a point-by-point rebuttal of some of the previous posts, but stopped when I realised that it really does all boil down to how you want the power levels in your game.&nbsp; It's a matter of what you're used to and comfortable with, not what's right or wrong.&nbsp; If you're in a group where wizards throwing around d6's of damage dice is the gold standard for contribution to a battle (which is just about the least-effective thing they can be doing under most circumstances in a well-balanced party) then yes, you are going to see pounce as a high-powered ability.Personally, I don't.[1] For the record, the 12th-level party I'm currently playing with has just gone through its 7th back-to-back encounter - every one of them at our adjusted CR or significantly higher - and my arcane spellcaster hasn't got anywhere near running out of spells.&nbsp; Hell, I haven't even broken out any of my major mojo yet.&nbsp; Our record is 11 encounters in a day (at 8th level) and we only stopped then because the melee types were out of raging, shifting and whatnot.&nbsp; Usually we stop long before that because everything's dead and we need to talk about what to do next, or because we need to take a day out for divinations and information-gathering, not because the party's out of resources.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Persiflage, post: 5288482, member: 73597"] What Dandu said. I play full spellcasters (and never, incidentally, suffer from the 10-round adventuring day problem [1]) or fairly optimised ranged-attacking types. I'm fully of the opinion that melee characters being able to full-attack more often than not is a [I]good thing[/I], because it means they can still contribute meaningfully at mid-to-high levels. As a DM or a player, I really feel the pain of the beatsticks when enemies just refuse to stand still for a full attack. I was going to go for a point-by-point rebuttal of some of the previous posts, but stopped when I realised that it really does all boil down to how you want the power levels in your game. It's a matter of what you're used to and comfortable with, not what's right or wrong. If you're in a group where wizards throwing around d6's of damage dice is the gold standard for contribution to a battle (which is just about the least-effective thing they can be doing under most circumstances in a well-balanced party) then yes, you are going to see pounce as a high-powered ability. Personally, I don't. [SIZE=1][1] For the record, the 12th-level party I'm currently playing with has just gone through its 7th back-to-back encounter - every one of them at our adjusted CR or significantly higher - and my arcane spellcaster hasn't got anywhere [I]near[/I] running out of spells. Hell, I haven't even broken out any of my major mojo yet. Our record is 11 encounters in a day (at 8th level) and we only stopped then because the melee types were out of raging, shifting and whatnot.[/SIZE] [SIZE=1]Usually we stop long before that because everything's dead and we need to talk about what to do next, or because we need to take a day out for divinations and information-gathering, not because the party's out of resources.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification