Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kraydak" data-source="post: 4602098" data-attributes="member: 12306">This has been largely answered already, but:As noted, LtA is encounter duration.&nbsp; It can easily double a party's damage output.&nbsp; So a boss encounter either:a) has enough hp for LtA to make it close.&nbsp; If LtA misses, the party wipes.b) has enough hp to make it close if LtA misses.&nbsp; If LtA hits, the party stomps.c) has indeterminate hp: the party would have been better off the the warlord had played a cleric.&nbsp; The warlord player will be incensed if/when he finds out.None of these options are good.&nbsp; In 3e, there are enough LtAs available that you can operate under the assumption that the party will eventually land one.&nbsp; Messy?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; But it has its advantages.Similar things work for saves/defences.&nbsp; In neither edition can you keep all your defenses at relevant numbers for the full level range.&nbsp; The (entirely accidental I assume) genius of 3e is that *just* as the various saves/ACs start to catastrophically diverge, other effects come on line that let you bypass the issue.&nbsp; Whether your anti-spell defenses come in the form of saving on 2s, being immune to 90+% of the incoming effects or a massive SR doesn't really matter.&nbsp; What does matter is that you will bounce 90+% of the incoming effects if you spend any effort at all.&nbsp; In 4e, without the (messy) array of options, the DM *cannot* operate under the assumption that 90+% of incoming effects will be bounced, and some party members will be getting hit on 2s OR some party members will be being missed on 19s.3e gives high level characters enough options (spells/day etc...) that a single spell hitting/missing is NOT mission critical.&nbsp; This is not the case in 4e.&nbsp; 3e gives enough options that having divergent saves/AC/BAB is not a major problem.&nbsp; This is not the case in 4e.&nbsp; 4e is cleaner, but that means you don't have enough fiddly knobs to tune the game to any given party.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kraydak, post: 4602098, member: 12306"] This has been largely answered already, but: As noted, LtA is encounter duration. It can easily double a party's damage output. So a boss encounter either: a) has enough hp for LtA to make it close. If LtA misses, the party wipes. b) has enough hp to make it close if LtA misses. If LtA hits, the party stomps. c) has indeterminate hp: the party would have been better off the the warlord had played a cleric. The warlord player will be incensed if/when he finds out. None of these options are good. In 3e, there are enough LtAs available that you can operate under the assumption that the party will eventually land one. Messy? Yes. But it has its advantages. Similar things work for saves/defences. In neither edition can you keep all your defenses at relevant numbers for the full level range. The (entirely accidental I assume) genius of 3e is that *just* as the various saves/ACs start to catastrophically diverge, other effects come on line that let you bypass the issue. Whether your anti-spell defenses come in the form of saving on 2s, being immune to 90+% of the incoming effects or a massive SR doesn't really matter. What does matter is that you will bounce 90+% of the incoming effects if you spend any effort at all. In 4e, without the (messy) array of options, the DM *cannot* operate under the assumption that 90+% of incoming effects will be bounced, and some party members will be getting hit on 2s OR some party members will be being missed on 19s. 3e gives high level characters enough options (spells/day etc...) that a single spell hitting/missing is NOT mission critical. This is not the case in 4e. 3e gives enough options that having divergent saves/AC/BAB is not a major problem. This is not the case in 4e. 4e is cleaner, but that means you don't have enough fiddly knobs to tune the game to any given party. [/QUOTE]

Verification