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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7908479" data-attributes="member: 6987520">First, why do you feel the need to change the types of encounters on low encounter days? So what if the party has just one easy encounter during the "adventuring day" (a concept which, BTW, is pretty stupid IMO... but anyway...). Some days are just easier than others.Part of playing is understanding and managing resources. If the party has the opportunity to refresh themselves, they should take it, because they can't be certain when the next chance might come. In that light, they also shouldn't use all their best stuff because they are counting on getting a rest soon.For instance, as a DM, have you ever hit the party with 5-6 encounters during a traveling day? Hmm? Most groups feel (wrongly IMO) that such days they can expect an encounter or two, maybe three, but also are under the assumption that the DM will "balance" it out so it might be challenging but not horrible.Screw balance.If your party uses a lot of resources on the first encounter, and then the second they are almost out of "big bang" features, the third is harder, but they see the light fading and know sleep is coming. WRONG! Suddenly, the night is restless, no sleep comes--only 3 more encounters. "But... but... but... we need to rest! We can't handle it," they cry. Oh, and they come quickly, so they are even denied the short rest they crave!If players played more like life in a war zone, they would understand resources are precious and should only be expended when necessary. Sure, it might make a fight harder because they don't nova or something, but then at least they know if the time comes later on, it is there.The real balance comes in understanding that.Our table has had times when we were stretched to the breaking point, spread so thin we feared even easy encounters because we knew if too many happened, we would eventually fold. Dungeon crawls are like that. Rarely is it one assault into the complex, more often it is a series of attacks and retreats, moving in and holding ground or retreating to safety when we understand we are so depleted that if we can't get back, we're screwed.5E is notorious for being too easy IME if you play by the guidlines for encounters. It is basically like a video game, once you get to a certain point, you just have to put in the time and you will win. Changing things up like encounter difficulties makes it unpredicatable and more exciting as well as more challenging IMO.Now, sorry for that sort-of-rant, maybe it does address your issues--maybe not. To address a specific concern of the players with casters. You are nerfing them. I'm not saying that is bad thing necessarily, but to them it is. Remember that 5E nerfed a lot of spells compared to earlier editions to remove the power difference between casters and non-casters. With your idea, short-rest classes become more powerful because their abilities refresh, while the long-rest classes abilities don't.Consider the ki points of a Monk or the Warlock's spell slots compared to the spell slots of a Paladin who wants to divine smite. The paladin's slots are much more valuable because you are making them even rarer when you require a longer long rest. Meanwhile, the Monk and Warlock and Battle Master and other short-resters are sitting pretty with most if not all their stuff back.</blockquote>

Verification