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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AeroDm" data-source="post: 5592893" data-attributes="member: 13650">I think this is a very fair assessment. The one neat revelation I've had so far is that both 3e and 4e set up the Economy Two so that monsters more or less equaled a PC in terms of actions. Monsters tend to be a bit simpler, but for the most part they can do everything a player can. As a result, the DM's turn takes substantially longer than any single player's turn. Because everyone at the table is, at the end of the day, a person looking to have fun, an ideal Economy Three would have them all take about the same amount of time per turn.Now, that might not be possible and we wouldn't want to overly diminish Economy One or Two just to ensure "fairness" in Economy Three. But where possible, it might be worth pursuing. One quick idea I had is that if we step back and think about what a player wants from his or her turn, we probably want most turns to be a "success." Often, that'll mean hitting with the standard action and so it might be reasonable to set up the math so that players hit 65% of the time. The DM, though, takes more standard actions and so we can give monsters a much lower success rate while still making the DM's turn feel like a "success." Since a miss takes less time than a hit to adjudicate, this should speed up the DM's turn. To balance the game, then we just need monsters to deal more damage. The final result is that monsters hit less often, but when they do it is a bigger deal--in other words, quicker combat that is also (hopefully) more exciting.Like I said--just seemed like a new way of thinking about issues and it was leading me in areas I thought might be neat and wanted input from the community.</blockquote>

Verification