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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7189717" data-attributes="member: 996">It may not be obvious, but I'm about to agree with you. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> This is very much like the 'dissociated mechanics' kerfuffle.  You had your choice of mechanics ('crunch') to model what your character could do, and the latitude to 'fluff' those mechanics in the narrative as you liked.  It was only an issue if you willfully chose a flavor that didn't work for you.  Same thing, here, only it's shifted from the player to the DM and the character to the world (though, really, it's always applied to DMs on some level):  you can let the mechanics imply what they may about the world, and not let it concern you, in which case the world will be consistent in that it always works according to the mechanics (though it might be decidedly Pratchett-esque), or you can change the mechanics to fit the level of consistency you want in the world, either way, it's only if you willfully choose to establish a fluff-crunch disconnect that you get an inconsistent world.  In both cases, the tools are there to avoid the 'problem,' it's just a matter of accepting responsibility for using them. Not the only way, but a perfectly valid way. They're heroes, heroes are trouble magnets...... but, 5e went to the BA model, in part, so that you wouldn't have to resort to that kind of thing as much, or as dramatically.  A more plausible encounter - bandits, a corrupt official and his guards, whatever - could still be non-trivial to a party of 'heroes,' you don't need to throw down a dragon (or whatever) just because they have some levels under their belt. It is important never to lose sight of that, yes.  Not difficult, not a real risk, but important.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Oh, because the original topic of the thread, and the 'solution' of using 3 deadlies/day:  the story calls for a meaningful (possibly deadly) combat that day - maybe some sworn enemy of the PCs is going to ambush them or whatever, the world & the DM's vision/story, and the player's choices call for that to happen - but, it'll be a pushover and/or show balance cracks among the party if it's a sole encounter that day, so you need to attrit them a bit first, or present a plausible concern of encounters following it that they know about ahead of time to force them to manage resources even in a life-or-death struggle with a hated foe.  It'd make 0 sense for the hated foe to divide his forces, so the other attacks have to come from somewhere.  So, throw in two 'random' deadly encounters.</blockquote>

Verification