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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6371137" data-attributes="member: 42582">This isn't a bug, though. For someone using slow rests it is a feature - exactly the feature they are seeking to achieve.Subject to some spell descriptions (which I will comment on below) the difference between two days and two weeks is purely a flavour difference. The whole point of using slow rests is to slow down the passage of events in the game, and to increase the number of times that two weeks pass rather than two days. A GM/group using slow rests will - assuming they are rational - adapt the fictional pace of the game, and ingame events, to fit with this overall slowing-down.This was mentioned by [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] in the OP, I believe. That's why he asked if anyone has had actual play experience.I haven't done a comprehensive check for the number of long-duration spells. But if it's only a handful, a GM who wants to use slow rests can probably just make an ad hoc correction of them. (Eg 1 hour/level becomes 1 day/level.)Likewise for the handful of creatures like mummies. It becomes damage/week rather than damage/day (ie as with the 4e disease track it is linked to the long rest cycle).Huh? Warlocks can nova X times per Y encounters, based on the pacing of short rests relative to encounters. Changing the ingame timing between encounters doesn't affect this pacing. If you make it one encounter per two hours, with hour long short rests, or one encounter per day, with overnight shorts rests, warlocks don't get any more powerful.</blockquote>

Verification