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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3757125" data-attributes="member: 30001">It matters IMO.  There is a qualitative difference between the types of resources - as I tried to indicate with the WoW vs. TRPG comparison for example.  It boils down to the amount of game world information you need to absorb to manage long-term resources.  What Celebrim calls "operational" stuff - is something you need to make an assessment of the overall environment to deal with.  Neither Wyatt's DM, nor Wyatt, apparently, give two hoots about this element of the game AFAICT, but it would have been nice if he would have acknowledged it's existence.They do, fighters and rogues have to manage their hitpoints.  (And an occasional potion or scroll).  None of the classes as currently designed are exactly the same in capability after an encounter.  All suffer some form of attrition.  I don't object to rebalancing things so that fighters and wizards have the same relative staying power.  But I object to rebalancing by removing the issue entirely.That IMO is a seperate issue from resource management.  Increasing tactical options was interesting.  At first it was very interesting.  Now, after a few years of playing 3E, all of the "who steps where when" stuff really slows down battle.  First of all, a high level fighter is going to have an intuitive sense not to step some place that's going to get him killed.  Secondly, movement is relatively uninteresting and time consuming in 3E after you've done it for a few dozen battles.  So there are pros and cons to raising or lowering the tactical options available in combat.  To speed up combat, I've been suspecting that they're going to reduce these options, but I don't know specifics.</blockquote>

Verification