Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3764954" data-attributes="member: 30001">You can't escape the per day time frame any spell short of temporal stasis.  What you're talking about is not escaping the time frame, but instead avoiding conflict.  The significant difference here is that enemies can move around, sacrifice captives, etc. significantly easier than in a time frame that is dictated substantially by player actions.  That's like saying avoiding AoOs is an issue of resource management.  I don't think we're using the terms in the same way now.This is hardly a decision IME most monsters are vulnerable to most spells - and when they're not their immunities don't change from round to round (a devil is just as immune to fire on round 1 than on round 100).  So consequently, IME spells typically get cast in order of most powerful to least powerful, this is not a very difficult assessment to make, and the only mitigating factor is the consequence that this will have later in the day when the spell is no longer available.I must have forgot the rest of the statement.  In any case CR is an approximation of monster level and I don't see anything fundemental that mandates that you match CR with party level.  Nor have you provided any.You could invent a new branch of mathematics and logic?  Seriously - if CR means what it means then how are you going to get around this?  If you design a system where the PCs can fight 6 encounters a day, then clearly 18 encounters of the same strength is going to kill them right?  Unless you remove all daily resource issues, in which case there is no difference between 2 and 2,000 encounters.  If you want a string of tiny fights then run them.  I really don't see what the problem is.  You can get many EL 1 fights in if the party is 4th level.  There you go.    Well then "average" becomes meaningless.  Average what?  In 3E it mean an average utilization of daily resources (25%).  In your case what would it mean?  An average chance of PC death?  What IS the average change?  Define all this and I think it makes more sense than it currently does.  Otherwise I just don't follow you.You asked the mirror image question of what happens if a dungeon doesn't contain enough encounters (in a resource managment sense) to challenge the PCs?  Why isn't this equally a strawman?  How is a premise a strawman anyway?  A strawman is a situation with misleading connotations, but a clear statement of the premise without misleading connotations is not a strawman if it doesn't purport to establish anything other than what it is clearly intended to.   It's a matter of priorities.  Remove all random number generation from your game.  Making a series of bad rolls that lead to character death or the destruction of a campaign element that the DM doesn't want destroyed is "getting in the way" of the things you described.  Random resolution of events is/was a core part of the basic DnD game, and turning into a story telling game should at least be made explicit.This is a matter of play-style.  My players might stumble upon an armory full of weapons and think about how much fun it would be to sprout 4 extra arms and weild all the weapons that they find.  My players might wake up one morning and decide how much fun it would be to have their novice characters challenge and kill Thor.  This migrating, player-centric definition of "fun" is one that my players have not been clamoring for.  If the rule system establishes limited daily resources then it's simply a matter of managing those things.  It may be fun to do whatever you feel like whenever you feel like, but that ultimately becomes meaningless if it's the only criteria for deciding what happens in the game.That's no artificial, it's a clearly established part of the game.  It's not artificial to not be able to climb Mount Everest because some dragon bit your leg off - no matter how much you *want* to.  Then there's no such thing as a "long and brutal" mission.  There is no tangible reason to use those words if the PCs current operating state is *indistinguishable* one minute after the so-called "long and brutal mission" from that of a cakewalk.  Though I suppose you might wear down the *players*, but that's a different situation entirely.Oh!  Those fatigue rules. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I don't know anything about them, I assumed you were talking about 3.5E.Perhaps, but I would be loathe to mix and match True20 fatigue rules with 4E casting rules.  Such a thing IMO has virtually no chance of being correctly balanced in such a complicated situation as RPG spell casting.</blockquote>

Verification