NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9016624" data-attributes="member: 7040941">Nope. He said that removing rests, if we take the realism question as a reason, means we can't have anything else thats "real". That is the definition of a slippery slope. Doing one thing must automatically lead to all these other things because reasons. You not being affected by the problem doesn't make it not a problem. Its also a matter of consistency. Those things already exist in the game. Should we remove health potions, not just a classic part of countless RPGs over the decades but in 5e specifically one of the few things wortb buying? Obviously the answer is no, so then the question becomes where the "taste" comes in that leads to elaborating on and expanding those already existing game components becomes "silly". Particularly when compared to the alternative which, as Ive said, seeks to elaborate and expand on both. Making survival fully optional means theres design space to do it much better; when it also has to support the gamist side of the game then the design space is constricted. You're not able to go very far with survival when it can't interfere with not just the functional needs of the game, but also the expectations of the player base, most of whom are not playing DND as a survival game. By divorcing survival from the core game, and building up the core as a replacement, then we can have it both ways. Those that want survival can integrate mechanics that have room to be more robust and mechanically interesting, and everyone in turn gets a base game thats better balanced, better functioning, and frankly more fun, which is the entire point. Ive made this point more than once and people continue to ignore it.</blockquote>

Verification