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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Treantmonklvl20" data-source="post: 7267151" data-attributes="member: 55582">You are not the first (nor I suspect the last) person to suggest to me that 6-8 encounters per day with 2 short rests is the "standard" and we should evaluate abilties on that standard.However, pg 85 of DMG isn't telling you what every adventuring day is supposed to look like (adventuring days should look like many different things), but instead to give you an idea of what is intended to be survivable.  6-8 easy to mid difficulty encounters with 2 short rests is intended to be a survivable challenge for most parties.  That's it.  The belief that this means that one single difficult encounter in a day is, to use your words, "If a DM is allowing a single-encounter work-day they're distorting the game balance" does not lead me to believe you have a strong grasp on the variety that D&D tends to provide.I have run HotDQ and OotA, and although I can't speak to all official D&D adventure paths, I can tell you in those two, in order of frequency, would be:1) A single very tough encounter between long rests2) Several easy encounters followed by a mid to high difficulty encounter at the end, all jammed together with no rests inbetween3) A few mid level encounters with optional short rests in betweenThere are of course other scenarios, but these 3 would be the most common.For the record, a single Spirit Guardians would get you through the first 2 of those 3.  (15 minute duration)So I don't really accept your analysis that assumes several encounters with a separate casting required for every encounter.  Duration matters.  1 minute duration and 15 minutes duration are not equivalent game wise.P.S. - there are some assumptions you make in earlier posts I have some issues with:Why would we say that?  I certainly didn't.  I would say (and I think this should be obvious), that a foe will generally choose to avoid provoking attacks of opportunity OR giving up actions.  This means, a foe that is in melee will tend to either: 1) stay put or 2) move in a way that doesn't leave the threatened area.  How is that not plainly obvious?Of course there are obvious exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the norm.  Some factor that creates the need for the opponent to either provoke an attack of opportunity or give up an action to disengage.  Without such a factor, the only reasonable assumption is that the foe will do neither.Furthermore, I am assuming that the average foe does not know about the secondary damage of Booming Blade.  Once that becomes apparent, I would think the average foe would avoid moving if it is reasonable to do so if hit with the attack again.  Once again, I don't think I'm reaching here.  This seems pretty plain to me.I never said that, nor did I imply that. I said that creatures provoking attacks of opportunity was uncommon.  I suggested that something that was uncommon was probably not worth in-detail analysis.That said, feel free to re-do the analysis with a dex boost instead.  Personally, I would still go with Warcaster for the ability to maintain concentration spells if nothing else.You didn't exactly wait for my answer did you?  When I'm working, I'm not on Enworld.  You could have saved yourself a lot of effort only to have me have to post now saying that I have to reject your analysis because you assumed my answer rather than waiting for it.</blockquote>

Verification