Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3771292" data-attributes="member: 18280">Could have been done under the current system.  For those who are comfortable with other thresholds of significance, this problem already doesn't exist.  Therefore it is unlikely that this is going to prevent the problem.Win/lose encounters are already part of my analysis.  I predicted a rise in win/lose encounters beyond that which we have already seen in 3.X, to cover the exact same problem that 3.X introduced.Win/lose encounters (in this case, those with the threat of mechanical significance, where anly loss of mechanical resources is perforce a significant one) make the problem worse, not better.For those who do not engage in prudent play, this problem already doesn't exist.  Therefore, this is unlikely to prevent the problem.So, yes, if you do not have this problem now because you use other thesholds of significance or because you have players who do not engage in prudent play, 4.0 might well allow you to carry on carrying on.  If you have this problem now, per-encounter resources aren't going to solve it.Exactly what I concluded........pages and pages ago.   <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=":)" /> RC</blockquote>