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: 3765375" data-attributes="member: 30001">I don't konw what you mean here (out of context, ironically).  What I think of when I think of context includes the resource issues, and removing daily resources removes this context.  There are other contexts that matter that have to do with the world/plot, those things are affected neither way.I compared that to calling AoOs a resource issue - clearly certain attacks are best done at certain times, I consider that more of a tactical issue.  Again though, that's out of context and I don't really know why this matters.  Hypothetically if you went with daily-only resources, you'd still worry about using your fireball at the right time.  Most of this argument seems to me to be something like "well you still can do XYZ", but when I'm arguing against something's removal, this necessarily sway me.  Suggest cutting the number of monsters in DnD to 1/10th of the current Monster Manual, and then try to soothe folks by saying "but there are still monsters."  In the case of "dimensions of significance" to combat, more is better.But by auto-refreshing resources after each encounter, how does it become challenging at all?  Again, you haven't really established a "% chance of death" for me to figure this out.  Same reason people don't play 5 football games in one day.  It's somewhat of a nod to the limits of endurance, and some of the boundaries of reality.  Other than that there's no real reason any more than there's a reason why dragons are color coded.A number of reasons IMO.  First:  it's a logical consequence of determining power levels for the monsters and the various levels of character classes.  The designers are going to decide that your average first level fighter is not going to kill your average dragon.  Secondly, I don't think you can have a floating scale of resource values because these things are balanced across classes.  So if it's decided that wizards can cast a spell X times per day, and that's balanced against a rogue's unlimited backstab ability, how are you going to arbitrarily and safely increase spell casting without finding some compensation for rogues - which could be very difficult depending on the nature of the powers you have to work with.You haven't, but it seems a logical question to ask when the only virtues you establish for a rule change are identical to other changes.  It makes me believe that I've missed some crucial factor that distinguishes why you support one and not the other.I guess I did miss something.  I'm not sure how this relates to my analogy about the 4-armed PCs.If that were my logic.  But by that logic, 10,000 years from the events, since it won't matter, then nothing matters.  That's not really my logic.  Hopefully my logic carries with it  shades of degree.  A one minute refresh time is orders of magnitude less significant than a day.That's not the only difference, there are others.  For example they won't perceive any combat that does not pose a measurable chance of death, or a measurable chance of daily resource expenditure, as a challenging encounter.  Now even in the case of daily resource expenditure, if it seems clear that losing a day doesn't matter to the overall mission, it won't matter then either (as Wyatt's blog insinuates AFAICT).  There are other qualitative differences I must refer you to my previous 100 posts on that subject  <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=":)" />    <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

Verification