Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shilsen" data-source="post: 3798991" data-attributes="member: 198">That's the cool thing about the per-encounter resource, from what I've seen of it in play in 3.5e (via Bo9S and similar abilities). They exist along with per-day and one-use resources. So if the enemy has a one-use magic item you'd like to get and you fail to stop him using it, that's a consequence which is relevant, and it's still relevant in a system where PCs have per-encounter abilities.I see you skipped the bit I mentioned about the enemy surviving long enough to escape. An enemy escaping doesn't kill you, but in a lot of cases that can be a significantly negative consequence. A spell you're relying on may be doing all sorts of things besides keeping you alive. It might be a Fly spell, without which you won't be able to reach location X. It might be an Arcane Sight, without which you won't be able to detect the magical portal the BBEG escaped through. And so on. As I mentioned before, death is only on the line if you're not thinking through the various possibilities, as you clearly aren't.Wrong. See above.Wrong again. It all depends on what the alarm would achieve. Would the alarm let the BBEG escape before you get to him? Then the significance can be long-term and campaign-changing. Does the alarm mean the city watch (who otherwise wouldn't do so) shows up to cart the PCs off to jail for breaking and entering? No death, but that's sure to be significant.  As noted above, a DM's failure to imagine beyond a limited area doesn't mean the system is to blame.  Some of them, yes. My game actually literally has no death in it, since I allow PCs to use action pts and swashbuckling cards to survive attacks and effects that kill or take them to -10. And, as noted above, I only usually have 1 encounter a day. Both of which combined should mean (according to the arguments I've seen from RC and yourself) that combat is meaningless in my game. On the contrary, combat usually has a whole lot riding on it, simply because there are all kinds of repercussions to failure and a context within which they occur. As noted by Jackelope King above, attaching context to a combat is hardly heavy-handed or manipulative. By definition, the attrition model is also attaching context to a combat by making it relevant in the context of the future combats that the PCs are supposed to have. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.</blockquote>

Verification