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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HeapThaumaturgist" data-source="post: 4282467" data-attributes="member: 12332">I, myself, cannot fall into the "suck it up" camp.Because this is a converted module not built for this edition, put together with FUNDAMENTAL game-rule assumptions not available in this edition.Even if he used more healing surges than he necessarily SHOULD have, that there's no learning curve available because of the GM's choice of module, frankly, sucks.  It's akin to telling people to suit up for a game of football and then being confused to find a field full of people in pads and helmets while the other team runs on with a soccer ball.Last edition, littering an adventure with healing potions meant the designer recognized that he was, essentially, putting "too many" encounters into the adventure, but was compensating by providing a consumable resource to balance the party running out of healing.Now, however, healing uses an entirely different mechanic and you can't toss in extra healing potions to allow the party to get through too many encounters in a day.  In 4E I'm sure designers will be thinking things like:  "Okay, given that the tank should have 13 surges, and probably will use 3-4 per encounter, after 4-5 encounters I'll need to write in some method for an extended rest or there'll be a TPK."  Now, if the tank uses poor planning and needs 5 surges per encounter, and after the third encounter is over is entirely tapped out, then that's sort of on them.  That is bad luck, poor management, whatever.  When, given a reasonable expectation of behavior from the designer, the party fails, that's on them.But if the only means to success is an assumption of UNREASONABLE behavior on the part of the designer, that's poor design.  If the party has to search the king's bathroom to find a button under the sink to get to the win parameters, but there's nothing else in the whole module about a sink or a bathroom and the bathroom is just a numbered room with an S in it on the GM's map ... that's kind of unreasonable.  If the designer expected the tank to use up only one healing surge per encounter, or have a specific feat, or have 20 Con, or be a Dragonborn, that's unreasonable win parameters.Same if, say, we are playing a 3rd edition game with a 4th edition module, and there's an assumption built-in that everybody will have At Will powers, or that the healer should have 2 heals per encounter every encounter, or nobody needs The Big Six at mid-high level games, etc, and so the 3rd edition party fails to meet win criteria ... is that their fault for having poor planning to not take into account something that is totally different between editions?I would, myself, just say:  "Y'know, this is a converted adventure, the assumptions here are different, I can see they intended to give you additional longevity, so for this one when you guys reach a milestone you get back your Con bonus in Healing Surges OR an action point, whichever."The base mechanic of the Milestone is there.  It's a special-case sort of thing, and prime for this sort of additional rule.  If Milestones get rid of "Res Sickness", then they can probably give you more Healing Surges.  Doesn't have to be a house rule, just something to account for the differences in editions.  Be honest, give them a tough choice, they'll appreciate it and the game will move on.  That's me, though.--fje</blockquote>

Verification