Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 9353806" data-attributes="member: 20323">I thought it was interesting both you and [USER=16212]@wedgeski[/USER] call out scanning long spell lists as contributing to longer combat time. It actually sounds like this is two separate issues that when combined become a more noticeable problem...The first issue is what you say - long spell lists. The second issue is the 5e default initiative sequence rules. I wonder if initiative were structured different, could it reduce the "waiting for spellcaster to choose" & "oh no wait I want to cast a different spell" effect?And would such a change offer meaningful reduction in the time it takes to run through the combat?[USER=6879661]@TheSword[/USER] mentioned their 17th level group taking 1.5 to 2.5 hours for a significant combat. That's slightly horrifying to me - I'd want to do everything in my power as GM to avoid that (except maybe a campaign ending)! Does that not track with your own high level experience? Or another way to ask the question, have significant combats always been 1.5 to 2.5 hours (or whatever value) regardless of low level or high level?I admit – due to my lack of experience with high level play – I have a hard time separating "this is what makes a good high level adventure" vs. just "this is what makes a good adventure period." For example, when I'm presenting challenges/obstacles to the players, even with a random encounter (what I think you meant by "bump in the road"), they're always serving double or triple duty – maybe foreshadowing, maybe providing a clue, maybe illuminating some worldbuilding, maybe hooking a specific PC, maybe draining resources too. So that line between this is just good practice VS this is a change to make in your approach to high level... is muddy for me.I notice when you mention the knife's edge swinginess of high level play, you cited two spells. I wonder, in your experience, is the swinginess of high level MAINLY associated with specific save-or-suck spells? (i.e. and not other PC or monster features) Could your group enjoy high-level without those save-or-suck spells being implemented in such a swingy way? Or is it precisely that swinginess that they enjoy?If wish could not emulate an existing spell, would that help address this issue? Or is that just a pebble in the oceanic problem of "so many spells"? And is it a problem during character level up OR is it a problem during play scanning their spell list like [USER=6807784]@Shardstone[/USER] mentioned?Sorry for bombarding you with questions. Are you specifically saying that the Legendary Resistances mechanic triggers your players to strategize more intently/slowly in order to push through the monster's auto-saving throws? Or are you saying more generally when they know they're facing a boss/legendary monster – the thing they've been saving their powers up for – they then strategize to optimize their effectiveness more (irrespective of it actually having Legendary Resistances)?What I'm driving at – does the Legendary Resistances mechanic become (more) problematic at high level by contributing to longer combat times due to an "add on" effect of triggering player careful/slow strategizing?I'm curious is this basically restating the "spells that save-or-suck" problem"? Or is there more to the High Cost of Failure that's unique or more pronounced at high-level? For example, are you talking about a specific experience with the stunned condition being more common among higher tier monsters?What I'm driving at – How much of this "excessive risk aversion at high level" is normal emotional attachment after playing with a group for a while? Versus how much is a construct of 5e's mechanics?</blockquote>

Verification