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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 3755070" data-attributes="member: 1757">See, this is my problem with your argument, Celebrim: It's too binary. I disagree that this is really the expected scenario. IME, even serious D&D tacticians back off only once significant or critical resources are expended. Your argument appears to be (and in fact you phrased it almost literally this way earlier in this thread) that "dropping to 99% of resources is going to force a rest." Again IME, the calculus is neither so extreme nor so linear. A party typically (again IME) retreats and rests when hp are low, buffs are exhausted, and the mages have no really decent combat capability to bring to bear. Add to that "essential defenses" like death ward, mind blank, and protection from spells. It's not a case of "Okay guys, Joe is down 10 of his 200 hp and I've got only one 9th-level spell left, so let's leave." A per-encounter system DOES address this issue by allowing critical or significant resources to be replenished to the point that the party doesn't feel the need to retreat.Moreover, those players who feel a single cantrip or 5 hp damage to be sufficient reason to retreat and rest aren't going to be worse off in a per-encounter/per-day hybrid; they're going to play it exactly the same. Thus, at worst, there's not an iota of difference between a per-encounter/per-day hybrid system and and a straight per-day system. The difference with a hybrid system, to use your example, is that a timed adventure like Ravenloft can be played with the understanding that the party will be weakened, but not entirely gimped with respect to spellcasting and other essential party roles, by the climax of the adventure.</blockquote>

Verification