Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7182401" data-attributes="member: 16814">Dude, so many problems.  Your definition of balance is incomplete, and presupposes your playstyle as a basis (and is incomplete even there, as you don't address pillar balancing or character balancing at all).  You do hit on a point that 5e has done a poor job of rest/recovery/ability recharge pacing, but, then, that's not exactly revelationary in this thread, is it?  The whole premise of the thread is that.  You haven't built a cogent addition, you've just pointed out it doesn't work well without heavy adjudication, which, again, isn't novel in this thread.  I did enjoy the bit about not alienating your kind of gamer though, with the unspoken but dire consequences for doing so.  That was a nice touch.  Because no one else (like me, who doesn't engage an antagonistic DM vs Players playstyle) remotely could care about balance.  You've made the mistake of thinking that because you think Thing A, and Thing B, that Thing A is in any way required to think Thing B.  You'd classify me as a Big DM (which is a ridiculous categorization) and I definitely think WotC dropped the ball on encounter pacing and recovery.  Not in the 'you shouldn't get everything back on a long rest' front, because I don't care, but in the ease with which the base ruleset allows for rests.  The pacing is off.</blockquote>