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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grog" data-source="post: 3768010" data-attributes="member: 6183">We're talking about the 3.X paradigm that a CR-appropriate encounter will consume 20-25% of the party's resources. This means that after four CR-appropriate encounters, an average party will be right around 10% resources. That's certainly not enough to survive another CR-appropriate encounter, and even a substantially weaker encounter is going to be a dicey proposition at best. Of course, you could throw an incredibly weak encounter at them that only takes 5% of their resources - but that just means that afterward, they have an even greater need to rest.Well, you are the one arguing in favor of using wandering monsters to keep the PCs from resting. So if you didn't contemplate something like this example, IMO you probably should have.I agree, as I noted when I said "They'll probably try to get to somewhere safer this time."But the location in which the PCs rest is really irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains that, under the 3.X design paradigm, the average result is that the PCs have to rest after every four CR-appropriate encounters. The complaint is that that leads to ridiculously short adventuring days. If your solution to the complaint is to throw wandering monsters at the party when they try to rest, then nothing changes if the party can just avoid the monsters by retreating to a safe location.I understand how the resource management game works just fine. And I'm not jumping to unwarranted conclusions.Let me explain. You say that using wandering monsters to deter the PCs from resting will deal with the problem of the short adventuring "day." I'm saying that won't work, because of the way resource consumption is handled in the 3.X rules. After four CR-appropriate encounters, the average party will be at anywhere from 0-20% of their resources. At this point, under your suggestion, there are four possibilities:1. The party continues on without resting. The next encounter wipes them out. TPK.2. The party rests and is hit with a wandering monster patrol that they can't defeat. TPK.3. The party rests and is hit with a wandering monster patrol that they can defeat. They do, and then they rest again, perhaps moving to a safer location. No change from the current situation, except that the party fought an extremely weak group of monsters that they otherwise wouldn't have.4. The party rests and is not hit with a wandering monster patrol, perhaps because they moved to a safe location first. No change from the current situation.So as we can see, using your suggested system will either result in no significant change from the current situation, or a TPK. The design of the 3.X rules basically guarantees this, barring unusual parties or unusual circumstances. Unless there is a possibility I missed - in which case, feel free to point it out to me.</blockquote>

Verification