Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Zardoz" data-source="post: 5976666" data-attributes="member: 704">I have a D&amp;D group that has 5 players.&nbsp; One of my table rules for running a game is what I call my 'Rule of 3'.&nbsp; This rule is as follows:I will run the game if I can get 3 of you to show up.&nbsp; Any less and there is not going to be a game.This rule serves the following effects.&nbsp;- The game can run more regularly.&nbsp; People play when they can&nbsp;- The game does not die if one PC is unable to show up for 3 months.&nbsp;- My game is not narrative that is tied to one player&nbsp;- The minimum number of players present means I can run a combat without turning it into a total TPK.&nbsp;- I need to be able to re scale combat based on number of players present.&nbsp;- I might start one adventuring day with a Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, and Monk, and end the day with a Wizard, Ranger, and Paladin.&nbsp; This would happen if I finished one encounter, and ended for the day and made notes about how much HP / surges / daily powers were used, and pick up next time right where I left off.4th Edition worked very well for this.&nbsp; There were clear rules for making an encounter harder or easier based on more or fewer players.&nbsp; There was enough secondary healing that the game did not become impossible to run if the cleric was not present.&nbsp; In terms of overall combat effectiveness, it did not matter which combination of players I had for any given game, I could run basically the same fight.I have not played the playtest materials, but much of the game feels like a regression to something closer to 3rd edition, but there is currently debate about balancing per adventuring day.&nbsp; With encounter based powers, dropping out one PC and replacing it with a different one at possibly full HP / Surges / Dailes was not too be a problem since you could expect to start most encounters at full HP with all encounter powers.So how robust would 5th edition rules be with my groups play habits?END COMMUNICATION</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Zardoz, post: 5976666, member: 704"] I have a D&D group that has 5 players. One of my table rules for running a game is what I call my 'Rule of 3'. This rule is as follows: I will run the game if I can get 3 of you to show up. Any less and there is not going to be a game. This rule serves the following effects. - The game can run more regularly. People play when they can - The game does not die if one PC is unable to show up for 3 months. - My game is not narrative that is tied to one player - The minimum number of players present means I can run a combat without turning it into a total TPK. - I need to be able to re scale combat based on number of players present. - I might start one adventuring day with a Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, and Monk, and end the day with a Wizard, Ranger, and Paladin. This would happen if I finished one encounter, and ended for the day and made notes about how much HP / surges / daily powers were used, and pick up next time right where I left off. 4th Edition worked very well for this. There were clear rules for making an encounter harder or easier based on more or fewer players. There was enough secondary healing that the game did not become impossible to run if the cleric was not present. In terms of overall combat effectiveness, it did not matter which combination of players I had for any given game, I could run basically the same fight. I have not played the playtest materials, but much of the game feels like a regression to something closer to 3rd edition, but there is currently debate about balancing per adventuring day. With encounter based powers, dropping out one PC and replacing it with a different one at possibly full HP / Surges / Dailes was not too be a problem since you could expect to start most encounters at full HP with all encounter powers. So how robust would 5th edition rules be with my groups play habits? END COMMUNICATION [/QUOTE]

Verification