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: 3766996" data-attributes="member: 30001">I agree, I think RC is oversimplifying here what we've both said at length.  Can't blame him, he's had to say the same thing 100 times.In any case, I can speak for myself: >  I don't think nerfing certain spells like rope trick means that the party can no longer evade detection.  It's just that in this thread the anti-resource-management folks have treated resting as a given and said that their monsters typically can't deal with spells like ropetrick.  Thus, there's some room in between the extremes of "always effective" and "completely useless">  Secondly, the current system does not mandate that you rest after 4 fights.  It predicts that as a likely outcome.  Spinning in this way IMO is misleading, because it makes it seem more arbitrary and artificial than it is.  It's not as artificial because CR is the very benchmark that you use to measure difficulty and resource usage.  The purpose of CR is to allow the DM to estimate challenges, and if daily resources are an important part of the game system then it only makes logical sense that the impact on them is measured in terms of average result.>  The resting and recouperating situation has been discussed as a counter to Wyatt's implication that PCs always rest uneventfully and that the choice is meaningless.  Again, there is a lot of ground between the extremes here.  If RC is saying that the decision to rest should carry some risk (and thereby make it meaningful), that's a far cry from advocating TPKs."Any 4E system" is way too broad.  Any system would logically include a 4E system that says all PCs will die any time they engage in combat.  And this isn't just a matter of nitpicking your language - The vagueness of this doesn't do much to establish what it is you think 4E will do to prevent higher fatality rates.</blockquote>

Verification