Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bawylie" data-source="post: 8991472" data-attributes="member: 6776133">Attrition model is fine. Mixes of daily vs encounter vs at-will actions are fine (though arguably classes should be designed that way - wizard all dailies, fighter all at-will/encounter). But there’s really nothing wrong with anticipating the usage of resources and then saying “hey your parties have X resources so if you tax them greater than X, there may be trouble.” That’s all fine. Where we might really improve encounter-design (for combat) is a ground up redesign of monsters on the tier-schedule rather than an individual CR, and then perhaps broadly a Role (like 4E had). Number appearing/organization would also be helpful. So you can go “alright my players are tier 2, so I can drop 4 tier 2 monsters here, 8 tier 1 monsters there” and not have to worry so much. I suppose you’d want to determine number appearing by relative strength versus one average adventurer. So it might take 2 goblins per adventurer or one ogre per 2 adventurers. Something like that. And then the real coup would be to have the XP value communicate all that info, somehow. So you can come at it both ways. If you can reasonably assume an adventuring day of X resources can overcome Y XP, then you can build whatever you like by either slotting in versus your party, or “buying” monsters out of the tier list as you go. Such that when you are out of your daily budget, you could check to see whether pushing further would be catastrophic or not. If a goblin was worth 1 XP and an ogre is worth 4, for example you could reasonably conclude a tier one party of 4 could overcome 8 goblins, or two ogres, or some combo thereof. And you’d know how many times they could do this before the expected end of resources.It doesn’t have to be perfect… it just needs to be “about right” in order to be useful to the average DM. Because, after all, actual results will come down to decisions made by the party rather than some systemic design.</blockquote>

Verification