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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3766437" data-attributes="member: 18280">Lets discuss the "threshold of significance" problem for a moment.If you examine Jackalope King's addendums to my arguments, you can see that one could easily make an argument on their basis that an encounter with four goblins could be made significant for a 10th level fighter.  Now, I personally agree with that, and I have suggested on other threads that much-lower CR creatures can still be significant in relation to higher level characters.  When I have said this, though, the overwhelming response has been that this is untrue and that such encounters should be handwaved.This is because the threshold of significance is different in terms of mechanical and non-mechanical aspects of the adventure.  There is certainly some overlap; if those four goblins bang a gong that summons the Tarrasque, for example.  However, I have heard it argued that rust monsters ought to be a hazard rather than a monster.  In this particular case, the effect of the goblins is that of a hazard as well.  (One of the reasons that I argued against the rust monster as mere hazard is that it can be used in other ways; certainly, however, a monster can be used effectively as a hazard.)The reason that the four goblins get handwaved (or dropped out) so often is that they fall below the mechanical threshold of significance for the game system.  It is basically my argument that, if you can have any number of encounters X, and at the end of those encounters you are at 80% resources, then an encounter that leaves you at 80% resources without a significant chance of loss of permanent resources falls below the mechanical threshold of significance.Encounters that fall below all thresholds of significance are boring.  The mechanical theshold of significance is the easiest and most obvious threshold of significance for a DM to achieve.  It therefore follows, to me, that DMs will raise the mechanical challenge of their encounters beyond the threshold of significance.  Moreover, since this change is hailed as solving the "9-9:15 adventuring day" problem, and since DMs who target other, non-mechanical, thresholds of significance are unlikely to have this problem in the first place (since it is derived from the mechanical threshold of significance), the DMs this is intended as a solution for are the ones least likely to continue using encounters that fall below the mechanical theshold of significance.Now, let's say that when your per-day resources are used, you are still at 80%.  Simply targetting per-day resources no longer raises the mechanical challenge beyond the threshold of significance.  You need either to target long-term resources (possibly ability damage) or permanent resources (such as character life).In turn, this means that DMs design challenges where, at 80% of your resources, things could go sour very quickly.In turn, this means that when you've lost 20% of your resources, you should do something about it if you can.In turn, this means that the "9-9:15 adventuring day" problem hasn't been solved, but it may have gotten worse.RC</blockquote>

Verification