Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3823209" data-attributes="member: 30001">I disagree with virtually everything you say in this post.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />&nbsp; Here are some highlights:This isn't &quot;breaking it down&quot;.&nbsp; This AFAICT is assuming the very thing that is debateable.Yes, by itself this is not a problem.&nbsp; Nor does a per-day resource design prevent you from having some per-encounter stuff available.&nbsp; Also, I think the focus on earlier editions was on the &quot;strategic level&quot;.&nbsp; No doing something important in 3E in a given melee round is a big deal since rounds take about 10x as long to resolve in 3E than they did in earlier editions.&nbsp; Thus, I do think that some per-encounter stuff for wizards makes sense.This is overstated.&nbsp; IMO virtually every aspect of the game involves some sort of accounting.&nbsp; You don't even know what you hit bonus is without accounting.&nbsp; As soon as you take damage you're accounting.&nbsp; Basically I don't recognize what you're saying here as applying to DnD.&nbsp; The accounting aspect of the game is something that I would think most people are constantly aware of - just ask anyone who's learning to play the game.Only because of healing magic, if the fighters are low in hitpoints they'll have to rest as well.&nbsp; IMC that's not uncommon.If I hit myself in the head with a shovel while trying to dig a hole, that does not make the shovel a bad invention.&nbsp; You're talking about bad/boring encounters and suggesting that they are the rule or somehow made inevitable by the rules.&nbsp; Camping in DnD would be more fun if there were 6 PCs instead of 4?&nbsp; I can barely follow this because of the grammar.&nbsp; If there is a pressing need to complete the dungeon in a timely fashion then the players will have to proceed and not rest.&nbsp; If, as a DM, I've designed the dungeon with such a constraint, and made it out of 100 encounters of EL 10 for a 10th level party then the party is going to die.&nbsp; This is no different in it's basic calculation for not sending a CR 20 monster against a 2nd level party.&nbsp; Maybe DnD should remove character levels as well.&nbsp; After all, it's cramping my style if my beginning character can't kill Darth Vader in his first outing - that's just as much of an arbitrary limitation, isn't it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3823209, member: 30001"] I disagree with virtually everything you say in this post. :confused: Here are some highlights: This isn't "breaking it down". This AFAICT is assuming the very thing that is debateable. Yes, by itself this is not a problem. Nor does a per-day resource design prevent you from having some per-encounter stuff available. Also, I think the focus on earlier editions was on the "strategic level". No doing something important in 3E in a given melee round is a big deal since rounds take about 10x as long to resolve in 3E than they did in earlier editions. Thus, I do think that some per-encounter stuff for wizards makes sense. This is overstated. IMO virtually every aspect of the game involves some sort of accounting. You don't even know what you hit bonus is without accounting. As soon as you take damage you're accounting. Basically I don't recognize what you're saying here as applying to DnD. The accounting aspect of the game is something that I would think most people are constantly aware of - just ask anyone who's learning to play the game. Only because of healing magic, if the fighters are low in hitpoints they'll have to rest as well. IMC that's not uncommon. If I hit myself in the head with a shovel while trying to dig a hole, that does not make the shovel a bad invention. You're talking about bad/boring encounters and suggesting that they are the rule or somehow made inevitable by the rules. Camping in DnD would be more fun if there were 6 PCs instead of 4? I can barely follow this because of the grammar. If there is a pressing need to complete the dungeon in a timely fashion then the players will have to proceed and not rest. If, as a DM, I've designed the dungeon with such a constraint, and made it out of 100 encounters of EL 10 for a 10th level party then the party is going to die. This is no different in it's basic calculation for not sending a CR 20 monster against a 2nd level party. Maybe DnD should remove character levels as well. After all, it's cramping my style if my beginning character can't kill Darth Vader in his first outing - that's just as much of an arbitrary limitation, isn't it? [/QUOTE]

Verification