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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jackelope King" data-source="post: 3818983" data-attributes="member: 31454">I'd like one. Heck, I'd like them to go one further and ditch hit points for a toughness save/defense instead, but the chances of that are about the same as my walls spontaneously shooting pineapples at me. I also don't think that it's particularly likely that the PCs will be seriously threatened by a low-level threat: the instance I described was a result of unlucky rolling.Again, not necessarily. A growing number of gamers simply have a spoken or unspoken rule that they don't kill PCs for whatever reason. For one of my GMs, it's because she can torture them more when they're alive. For another, older DM, it was because he hated working new PCs into the game and really liked the continuity of one adventuring party.And there can be encounters which are at a certain challenge level because that's simply what makes sense within the context of the game. The local militia of a town aren't going to deploy a force of dragons against a high-level party just because the PCs are such a high-level threat: they'll deploy the forces they can muster and probably get cut down in short order. Sometimes it doesn't make sense to provide a particularly dangerous encounter.Considering how many ifs you need to back up your point, and considering the responses of several posters in this thread which point out quite nicely that PCs don't tend to lead with their biggest resources, I find this argument wanting once again. Until you can prove to me that players lead with their most powerful abilities (which in my experience is utter bunk: they'll always lead with their bread-and-butter abilities that aren't as cost-prohibitve to use), your points aren't convincing. In my experience, the average player leads with the plentiful resources in the middle of the bell-curve, power-wise, for fear of being without a high-level resource if they really need it later on. And since bread-and-butter abilities will always be available, there will be less of an requirement to rest-rinse-repeat, as you put it.So again, until you can provide convincing evidence to support your claim that players tend to use their most valuable resources first, you're only offering me idle speculation, which on the internet, I can get by the truckload.However, I am glad to see that you agree that a purely per-encounter system does indeed allow for mechanically interesting encounters, a retraction of your previous argument that challenges under a purely per-resource system cannot allow for mechanically meaningful encounters.</blockquote>

Verification