Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9449583" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Let's discuss an often brought up point.  Classes that don't really rely on resources (in the old days, this was the Fighter, now it's really more the Rogue) can do their thing all day, while other classes have to ration out resources.The idea being, well, at some point, some classes will run low on resources, allowing the "resourceless" classes to really shine.But that's never been the reality of D&D in my experience, because even "resourceless" classes do have a basic, elementary, resource.Hit points.When there is no longer any source of magical healing or limited-use resources that can hasten combats in various ways to mitigate damage, the adventuring stops.  I've never heard a Fighter say "hey, it's ok that you are all out of magic, we can keep going!".  If encounter design is in any way based on everyone doing something that isn't "stay in the back and spam cantrips", then there's a problem- classes like the Rogue do not get stronger when everyone else gets weaker, thus, if the other characters get weaker, the party as a whole gets weaker, and that doesn't lead to "the Rogue now shines", it leads to "we're all limping along and barely surviving!".That's why this kind of class balance simply doesn't work and never has.  But when 4e tried to put all classes on the same resource track, a lot of people didn't care for it.  Because in their mind, they felt that not having to rely on resources was a strength.  "My character can go all day, ha ha ha!" but they really can't.  They just don't have to make decisions on when and where to use resources, which makes it easier to play the game for them, but isn't a strength.If it was, a party of two Fighters and two Rogues would be far superior than any other possible combination.  And it really isn't.  You shouldn't look at the game as "individual characters are using resources to succeed."The reality is, "the party as a whole is using resources to succeed".  The fact that a class might not have any resources to speak of and does the same thing turn after turn isn't, in reality, a great advantage.  This isn't to say that such classes are useless or don't have a place, but what they are providing isn't superior to what everyone else provides in general play.  There is no "the Rogue gets weaker if other players never run out of resources" paradigm.  The Rogue remains exactly the same on encounter 6 as they were on encounter 1.  The fact that they could theoretically be just as viable on encounter 11 (if they somehow haven't run dry on hit points, of course) doesn't matter- the party as a whole is weakened to the point that nobody could get to encounter 11!Resource attrition as a concept applies to the whole group, not just individual characters, because the game is predicated on the idea you need multiple characters working together to survive.The fact that there are several different resource management methods for different classes is really not a feature (at least, as far as I've ever noticed) because there's too many variables.  Oh what if they only get one short rest? What if they get no short rests?  What if the Wizard uses a fireball in encounter 3 instead of encounter 5?I'm not saying it's impossible- some of you may have long since mastered this sort of thing.  I wish I had!But from my perspective, it's a pain in the backside.  I'd much rather have everyone functioning at the same power level every encounter than wonder "is this the encounter that gets turned inside out by a powerful resource?".  Or worse "is this the encounter that breaks the party because they don't have enough resources?".</blockquote>

Verification