Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hassassin" data-source="post: 5817662" data-attributes="member: 6675228">Interesting post again!Re: The Sliding Scale of Meaning vs. BalanceI agree that there is a trade-off between the consequences of an encounter and it's destabilizing effects on the ones that follow.Traditionally you could theoretically use up almost all of your resources in one encounter and have none of them restore until the next. 4e solution is healing surges and encounter powers - the absolute worst you can do is lose about 50% of the party's encounter affecting resources.Losing 50% is plenty, so I don't think that's the main problem (although I also don't think such a limit is needed). I think it's the fact that in 4e attrition only last for the rest of the day.Re: The Glory of AttritionI agree that 15 MAD is the dark side of attrition. However, like [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], I think moving from days to weeks would only make it a 15 MAW.Instead, I think it is a necessary consequence of heavy attrition that 15 MAD becomes optimal for survival. The DM needs tools to deal with it, but getting rid of it would mean getting rid of attrition. That's worse.Having most resources, but not all, restore each day is the best I can think of. Hit points are an obvious candidate for longer term attrition, and I think healing (both magical and mundane) should be scaled back from 3e/4e levels. Some casters might also have longer term consequences, but it has to work easily.(There was actually an interesting dynamic in 3e, where divine casters had the same 8h recent casting limit as arcane, but didn't necessarily prepare their spells in the morning (Faiths and Pantheons had the times for Forgotten Realms deities). Unfortunately, it was tedious to track when spells had been cast, so I usually allowed clerics of all deities to either prepare spells in the morning or ignore the limit.)Re: The Glory of Tactical PlayI think the solution here is modularity. Groups who want purely CAS can use the tactical combat module for all fights, whereas a more CAW oriented group would probably only use it for a minority of combat encounters with some needing no rules.The important thing, as I explain below, is that tactics aren't seen in isolation.Re: The Glory of Strategic PlayI'd like to add a couple of points you don't mention here.Blurring the lines of encounters. I don't think there should be a hard line of what constitutes an encounter. Sometimes you retreat for a minutes of healing and planning before continuing a fight. The short rest means these sort of things need to be tracked more closely.Introducing strategic concerns to encounters. Having strategic and tactical concerns be at odds introduces tension. Attrition is one important part of it: you could blow the opposition to pieces with your single scroll of chain lightning, but you were hoping to save it for the goblin chief's bodyguards. However, there are other issues like morale (the goblins you let get away will live to fight another day/encounter), loot (disintegrate destroys loot, in some editions other spells as well), persistent effects (buffs/debuffs that last longer than an encounter but not for the whole day), etc.Re: BalanceOn encounter balance, I disagree with balancing adventures. For CAW it is either impossible (if you can't predict how resources are consumed) or counterproductive (if it makes resource attrition predictable). For CAS it doesn't really solve the problem of wanting fair fights.Instead, I would like to see encounters balanced against an unworn party, with guidelines for the DM to take the party's attrition into account. E.g. if the party has lost half their total hit points + healing, encounters will be X levels harder. This (plus easily modifiable encounters) would let CAS DMs adjust so that each fight is "fair" within their individual preferences. Add some sort of restore option between encounters and it should fulfill the needs of both styles of play.About PC balance, I agree. The notion that all PCs should be about as useful in all encounters needs to go. Instead, the rule of thumb should be that all characters have something useful to contribute in every encounter. The fighter may be twice as useful as a wizard in a given encounter, but the converse will be true in another. Some swinginess in PC abilities would in my opinion be a good thing: If the wizard crits in the encounter I mentioned, he won't be less useful after all.Undead immunity to crits and thus sneak attack is something that comes up often. This sort of thing wouldn't happen if 1) no class relied too much on one ability and 2) immunities in general were rare and limited. Taking only 50% sneak damage, for example, would be an acceptable ability for some monsters. Being immune to sneak attack with piercing weapons would as well, since the rogue can bypass the immunity.</blockquote>

Verification