Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Daztur" data-source="post: 9451352" data-attributes="member: 55680">The attrition isn't to HPs specifically as much as to ways to regain HPs, when they run out and players have no more ways of recovering HPs then they really feel like they're on the knife's edge and I like getting players to that point.Most likely. And that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, the problem is that right now 5.5e is caught in an awkward place where some of the bones of 5e that they didn't change seem to be built around a more traditional attrition-based model (for example how many spell slots casters get, vs. the lower number in the original 5e playtest) while a lot of people's playstyle is moving away from that, resulting in a mis-match in playstyle and rules. What I mean is:1. In an attrition based model easy fights serve a purpose since they drain away player resources.2. In a non-attrition based model easy fights don't serve much of a purpose since the players winning is a given and the fight can't attrit away meaningful resources, leaving it kind of pointless from a game perspective. A non-attrition based game can easily fix this by having fewer harder fights so that every fight matters.The problem is if you have fewer harder fights a lot of the wheels of 5e start to fall off (for example rogues become pathetically weak is everyone else can nova every fight).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Daztur, post: 9451352, member: 55680"] The attrition isn't to HPs specifically as much as to ways to regain HPs, when they run out and players have no more ways of recovering HPs then they really feel like they're on the knife's edge and I like getting players to that point. Most likely. And that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, the problem is that right now 5.5e is caught in an awkward place where some of the bones of 5e that they didn't change seem to be built around a more traditional attrition-based model (for example how many spell slots casters get, vs. the lower number in the original 5e playtest) while a lot of people's playstyle is moving away from that, resulting in a mis-match in playstyle and rules. What I mean is: 1. In an attrition based model easy fights serve a purpose since they drain away player resources. 2. In a non-attrition based model easy fights don't serve much of a purpose since the players winning is a given and the fight can't attrit away meaningful resources, leaving it kind of pointless from a game perspective. A non-attrition based game can easily fix this by having fewer harder fights so that every fight matters. The problem is if you have fewer harder fights a lot of the wheels of 5e start to fall off (for example rogues become pathetically weak is everyone else can nova every fight). [/QUOTE]

Verification