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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 3754592" data-attributes="member: 537">Why not? How is it any more contrived than to have the party miraculously wander into his living room just as they're half out of resources? The only difference is that with one setup, the onus is on the party to keep things moving; with the other, it's on the DM.Or if you don't like the BBEG just showing up unannounced, you can just run it as one big fight against BBEG-plus-minions, all at the same time.However, the battle with the mooks is meaningful _only_ if the party decides to keep on going. If they do, great! If they don't, then all that elaborate resource attrition is nullified. Again, the difference is only in who the onus is on to keep things moving.The issue of uncertainty also happens in per-encounter balancing, but over a shorter time frame. Do I burn a spell this round to heal the fighter, when I might need it next round?Basically instead of small, individually meaningless fights that only make sense from a design perspective if you string them together correctly, you can have larger, more elaborate fights that make sense even when taken individually.No, I'm saying that IF you like the escalating-challenge paradigm, THEN you can still do it with per-encounter balancing. Personally I think escalating-challenge is silly more often than not, and a relic of the focus on dungeoneering; instead I have lots of one-off, climactic fights. But if that's the kind of thing you like, you can still do it. And yes, IF you want escalating-challenge, then fights have to happen in a particular sequence. The same thing happens with per-day balancing, only in that case the sequence is not in terms of specific fights but that there _is_ a sequence. The onus is on the players to make sure that sequence comes about: if they don't want it, they can just run away and rest up, thus making a mockery of escalating-challenge."Easy" is relative. An easy fight might still be enough to kill someone, or come close to it.Why NOT rely on battles that threaten the lives of PCs? Isn't risk supposed to be part of the game, or so that's what a lot of people keep saying? Where's the excitement if there's no risk?</blockquote>

Verification