Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7908648" data-attributes="member: 6987520">I guess that depends on how many encounters you had between long rests before?Or you could have a dozen easy, or a few deadly, or whatever. It really doesn't matter. I can have what should be an easy or moderate encounter and make it &quot;difficult&quot; simply due to the environment and scenario set-up.So, you are seeing the game as harder because you have more encounters between rests. Sure, makes sense, but IMO it removes the organic element of chance and real life from the game.Let's say your party is travelling and has an encounter or two a day, and then gets to &quot;rest&quot; in towns, etc. in between the days. Even with 36 hours they can just stay longer. And casters can still have most of their spells.But, by having more a more encounters some &quot;adventuring days&quot; and fewer on other days, casters can never know when they will be done. So, some days they rest with tons of spells left over and other days they will run into encounters with no spells left.Well, a lot of spells are attack spells. But if you are more inferring to cantrips, that was why 5E had at-will attack cantrips, which can keep up for the most part with martial classes.Now, also, why should they &quot;feel bad&quot; when their spells are depleted? And it is confusing. You nerf casters by changing your long rests, but then worry that they run out of slots and feel bad about it.Finally, you repeat a number of times about how the game was &quot;meant to be played.&quot; Just keep in mind, if you will, that the game is played differently by most tables. You seemed to have had one problem, and made a change to &quot;fix&quot; it, but now you are having other issues. So, I guess I have to wonder if your changes really fixed anything?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7908648, member: 6987520"] I guess that depends on how many encounters you had between long rests before? Or you could have a dozen easy, or a few deadly, or whatever. It really doesn't matter. I can have what should be an easy or moderate encounter and make it "difficult" simply due to the environment and scenario set-up. So, you are seeing the game as harder because you have more encounters between rests. Sure, makes sense, but IMO it removes the organic element of chance and real life from the game. Let's say your party is travelling and has an encounter or two a day, and then gets to "rest" in towns, etc. in between the days. Even with 36 hours they can just stay longer. And casters can still have most of their spells. But, by having more a more encounters some "adventuring days" and fewer on other days, casters can never know when they will be done. So, some days they rest with tons of spells left over and other days they will run into encounters with no spells left. Well, a lot of spells are attack spells. But if you are more inferring to cantrips, that was why 5E had at-will attack cantrips, which can keep up for the most part with martial classes. Now, also, why should they "feel bad" when their spells are depleted? And it is confusing. You nerf casters by changing your long rests, but then worry that they run out of slots and feel bad about it. Finally, you repeat a number of times about how the game was "meant to be played." Just keep in mind, if you will, that the game is played differently by most tables. You seemed to have had one problem, and made a change to "fix" it, but now you are having other issues. So, I guess I have to wonder if your changes really fixed anything? [/QUOTE]

Verification