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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8626743" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Fundamentally a huge part of these issues is that so much of the game has traditionally been combat, spells, and universals (everyone can do X and is constrained by Y, etc.). Skill systems have been vestigial (or in the case of 3e-rigorous, integrated, and weak*), and many to most OOC tasks don't have specific resolution mechanics.  Those that do tend to have serious chances of failure, serious consequences of even attempting, and a handy spell available which can solve the problem without a failure chance. *with some notable exceptionsThis too -- although I think this discussion is often really 'casters (and paladins) vs. the rest,' instead of really 'fighter vs wizard,' and that changes the calculus a bit. Honestly my recent clockwork sorcerer seems to be better at being prepared, as I always have 2 spells per level which devoted to transmutation or abjuration* spells. Thus I have knock and spiderclimb and dispel magic and so on when we run into the situation where they are needed.*of which I'm limiting their free slots to anti-magic and similar, not shield and absorb elements, etc.Not the person you're quoting, but for me the answer would be, "One should, but then one should have a system balanced around that assumption (or, if preferred, modify the system such that that isn't what they would logically do)." If you pack three candy/power/granola-bars per hike, because you assumed they would be all-day events, and then find a shortcut such that they only take two hours (whereupon you start a new hike with more restocked supplies), you can: adjust the number of snacks you take, hike the longer route regardless of obvious short cuts, or get fat. Players aren't 'trying to get away with something' or something, but they are getting something that was intended to be given to them based on an situationally invalid assumption, and thus one can enforce that assumption*, alter how much is given, or end up with whatever negative consequences not modifying either invokes (in this case inter-class imbalances and player-challenge imbalances). *If not however Helldritch is doing it, by the 'resting means ending the play session' or 'the opponents/treasure will flee/regroup if you go out to rest' method with which you and I both started, I suspect.Not the person you are asking, but for me it is this: Yes, WotC screwed up on what kind of gameplay is most representative amongst the players they ended up having. We got it. Everyone gets it. There are people who have been dead since 1873 who somehow have heard about this issue. I used to have this great big speech about how playstyle distribution is bi-modal (1-4 encounter days and 10-20 encounter dungeons), and choosing the valley in between those two peaks was foolhardy, until I realized there was no one who didn't know that. Now what?I mean, EzekialRaiden has it right -- if you don't get the expected amount of encounters,  short rests, rounds, situations where a spell might reasonably be needed if playing a caster, and so on, the balance shifts towards those classes which are mostly launching platforms for X/Long Rest ordinances and away from classes with more short-rest abilities or who rely on at-will or always-on qualities. Great, now what?One can do the Helldritch option and mold the play experience to conform to the designed-around playstyle (or use the printed-right-there-in-the-DMG optional rest rules which accomplish much the same thing), do the Lanefan option of letting players decide how to proceed (and presumably not have a lot of people wanting to play Champion Fighters or Thief Rogues -- at least if balance/contribution is a concern), or... I guess I'm not even exactly sure what you would propose people do.</blockquote>

Verification