|
Elysiume posted:Guess Mearls and Sage Advice contradict one another. Maybe I was wrong and they should just be ignored--they really should've done actual errata/FAQ instead of the stupid Sage Advice/random twitter post mess. If people want to rule that Wall of Force does/doesn't provide cover or that said cover does/doesn't affect the rule for targeting a spell, that's their prerogative. Crawford says you are free to ignore whatever he tweets. Actual errata and articles on the site overrule anything he says on a social media post. We have actual errata after all. (Most recent linked to be helpful http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/errata-november-2018) No FAQ as far as I know however.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
I agree pretty heavily with the whole... the spell says what it does, so that's what it does thing. They are indeed meant to be their own mini-rules, and because Wall of Force doesn't say it actually blocks sight then spells which aren't projectiles of some kind should work. From my viewpoint, Wall of Force is basically a Tiny Hut spell that you can use in the middle of combat. Main difference being Tiny Hut is actually opaque, and unlike Wall of Force it actually specifically talks about spells and other magical effects being unable to pass through. Generally I would consider Wall of Force as something you'd use to block off creatures that have no magical affinity at all, you can effectively trap them and then run off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 11:19
|
|
|
Just a note, unless that wall is a dome or anchored to a ceiling, there's no reason a targeted spell with sufficient range to make the jink can't hit someone behind it. Combat is in a 3 dimensional battlefield, not 2. Hitting people with Magic Missile around corners or using Flamestrike on people behind walls of force since it specifically comes from above, not from the caster, is the oldest of old school. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Jan 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 11:55
|
|
|
ILL Machina posted:For my two cents, I suspect that they didn't think though the Natural Language "Natural Language" was a stupid idea in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Just a note, unless that wall is a dome or anchored to a ceiling, there's no reason a targeted spell with sufficient range to make the jink can't hit someone behind it. FWIW, this all started with a conversation I was having with AL DMs about the fact that the ecosystem was getting flooded with magic items from killing the bosses in WDH. WDH was clearly not built with AL in mind, and they sort of tossed all the boss characters and their lairs in as "what-ifs" for players who wanted to go way off the beaten path to murderhobo it up. This, unfortunately, means that every boss and all their loot now gets tossed into AL by softball DMs who let their parties go buckwild, often completely to the opposite reading of the book. The discussion started because one newbie wandered into Discord confused because his level 3 suddenly had like 13 item unlocks almost none of which he could even buy for a while because they were way beyond his purchasing capacity. Turns out his DM had Jarlaxle show up at the end of the Vault, force a fight, the players got backed up by the dragon some other NPC I can't remember, and then when they were still losing, the Open Lord showed up, fiat arrested Jarlaxle and gave all his loot to the PCs. This discussion caused another DM to point out that when he was a player, his group punked the poo poo out of Manshoon by using over-level party, OoC knowledge to Dispel the Sim from 61 feet, old-money use of spell scrolls to avoid resource consumption, DM replacing Manshoons threatening spells (i.e. PWK) with garbage ones (i.e. Time Stop), and Manshoon burning massively overleveled spell slots (like 6th level) to do Counterspells on cantrips. When pointed out that his DM was doing the loot-pinata thing that was exactly what we were discussing, he still "didn't see it". My suggestion was that in a scenario that the BBEG knew the adventurers were cakewalking all his minions, he's just erect a Wall of Force when they got to his inner lair and negotiate (the book does say for most of the bosses that they try to negotiate before combat because they are all mid-to-high teens CR and should paste any party that shows up because the party is supposed to be level 1-5 for the hardcover). Then, if the party still starts to rumble, he starts using the non-LoS magic he has, like PWK, to make his point and force them out. That's how we got to the whole "Crawford says no" vs. "Mearles says yes" thing on Wall of Force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:he's just erect a Wall of Force when they got to his inner lair and negotiate Negotiate via Pictionary? It’s gotta be hard to hear through a wall of force totally blocking an entrance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
What do you all think of adding a humanity system to 5E? I watched Made in Abyss recently and replayed Dark Souls and i really like the feeling of adventuring wearing down your soul. After thinking about it a bit i think it would also help mechanically as well. The setting would be sort of like a fantasy version of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., where there was some great cataclysm that flooded the world with demonic energy making everywhere outside of cities hazardous. Your humanity would be a score that would decrease. If you died and ressed it would decrease, acting as a middle ground between permadeath and death not mattering once you have access to res spells. It would also decrease for extended periods in the wilderness, which acts as a soft timer for excursions so that the players would have a reason not to rest after every encounter. I'd also say you would lose some for attuning to magic items but that's for thematic reasons and i haven't thought through the mechanical repercussions. As for the panalty, i was thinking that once it drops below a certain threshold you roll a d20 when long resting in the wilderness and ona 1 you lose your character, either from becoming a mindless zombie like going hollow in Dark Souls, or going crazy like in Cyberpunk 2020 or turning into a monstrosity like in Bloodborne. Then as your humanity got lower you would drop to smaller die increasing the likelihood. I like this because it's less gameable and plays into the chaotic unknown feeling of it. You can tell someone is in bad shape based on their score but you don't know if they will succumb that night or in 6 months. I'm not sure about debilities. I don't like the idea of wounds because it sucks to get crit then lose an arm, but maybe it's ok to accrue penalties for long term build up of small failures? Please tell me why this is a bad idea. The main negative i could think of was that the mechanics and setting might be too depressing/oppressive for some players to enjoy it. Mechanically it seems like it would work well as a deterrent for degenerate gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:"Natural Language" was a stupid idea in the first place. One of the major controversial points with fifth edition dungeons and dragons actually stems from a serious misunderstanding of design intent. The original intention for the druid spell Speak with Plants (then known as Natural Language) was for it to be core part of the druid class. However, due to a typo, the editorial team assumed all classes, monsters and systems in the game should have access to this feature. By the time this was noticed, there was no time to change the text in the game to move away from this, and thus Natural Language became Speak with Plants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Negotiate via Pictionary? It’s gotta be hard to hear through a wall of force totally blocking an entrance. Wall of Force doesn't block sound. That's the entire conceit behind a number of things, especially the entry encounter to WPM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
So spells that do sonic damage work then, right? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
CJ posted:What do you all think of adding a humanity system to 5E? I watched Made in Abyss recently and replayed Dark Souls and i really like the feeling of adventuring wearing down your soul. After thinking about it a bit i think it would also help mechanically as well. The setting would be sort of like a fantasy version of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., where there was some great cataclysm that flooded the world with demonic energy making everywhere outside of cities hazardous. Check our Urban Shadows for a cool corruption mechanic you could adapt to 5e that does something similar to this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Enola Gay-For-Pay posted:So spells that do sonic damage work then, right? Sonic damage does not exist in 5E.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Wall of Force doesn't block sound. Where does it say that? There’s nothing in the spell description, but maybe somewhere else? (And, like, how does a perfectly rigid, impenetrable thing not block sound?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
D&D basically since forever has tried to out-rules lawyer the rules lawyers, despite, at least since 3e, being written by people who are extremely bad at rules lawyering, then covering it up with muttering "DMs can do whatever they want, rule zero" when it doesn't work out. The problem isn't "natural language," the problem is "confusing and inexact language" because the writers are trying to be overly complicated and making a mess of it. Very little of 5e is actually written in natural language - it's all technical language made a bit flowery at best. Like, Wall of Force starts going in depth with it's contiguous 10ft panels - that's not trying to make the language easy to understand and naturally written, that's trying to get all exact and technical to ensure people don't "exploit" it. Why does it matter how thick the wall is if it's invulnerable to all damage, which is basically the only mechanical effect of a wall's thickness? It's the same thing with claiming 5e is built for "Theater of the Mind" when the entire game is written for explicitly 5 ft spaced out miniatures, then they cough out "and you can ignore that I guess."
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
I kind of like the idea of wizards not being able to target their spells through transparent total cover, because then you'll get scenes where they have to bust out windows with their wands like a TV Western shootout and that amuses me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
In Out of the Abyss, for the "pursuit level" at the beginning of the adventure -- should the players know that, or is it a DM only thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Sonic damage does not exist in 5E. Calling what should be sonic damage "thunder" is one of those little things that endlessly annoys me. How are you going to have both lightning and thunder damage? C'mon!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
Oneshot at level 13 next week. Any published material is okay. No word on magic items or spellbook additions yet. Anyone got anything fun in mind? We're probably fighting a dragon. I was thinking like maybe a valor bard on a Peryton via Find Greater Steed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:In Out of the Abyss, for the "pursuit level" at the beginning of the adventure -- should the players know that, or is it a DM only thing? DM only. They should not know the Drow are tracking them unless they actually spot them tracking them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
CJ posted:What do you all think of adding a humanity system to 5E? I watched Made in Abyss recently and replayed Dark Souls and i really like the feeling of adventuring wearing down your soul. After thinking about it a bit i think it would also help mechanically as well. The setting would be sort of like a fantasy version of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., where there was some great cataclysm that flooded the world with demonic energy making everywhere outside of cities hazardous. That is a terrible idea in a game which is by nature purely a dungeoncrawler. Seriously, mechanics that punish players for playing the game as intended are bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
Mr. Humalong posted:Are swashbuckler rogues decent as far as doing damage and being able to do sneaky/charisma stuff outside of combat? Or would a swords bard work better? Starting a ravnica campaign soon and I want to be a sneaky but charming rear end in a top hat. Rogues in general do good damage in an environment when they are allowed to take their sneak attack. A swashbuckler in particular is going to get a lot of sneak attack opportunities in melee range that other rogue archetypes will not get with Rakish Audacity. In my experience playing a 1 fighter/4 swashbuckler in my current campaign, I am getting to attempt a sneak attack on 85%+ of my rounds and I very rarely have to take a hide action/bonus action to do so. Any rogue will get to sneak attack when attacking something that an ally is in melee range of, which in a vanilla battle with a tank-like teammate should be at least 50% of your rounds. The amount of extra sneak attack chances you get from Rakish Audacity is going to be very situational, but unless your DM starts to meta-game battle layouts against you, you should get a lot of opportunities to engage a target from a position where you are adjacent to it and no-one else is adjacent to you. Additionally, Fancy Footwork is giving you a portion of the Mobility feat so you can freely move through the battlespace if you take an attack against an enemy. Fancy Footwork, and the aim of landing a sneak attack give the swashbuckler a desire to maximize the number of attacks per round they have. The simplest way to do that is to dual-wield and use one's bonus action to perform an offhand attack to have a second chance to trigger a sneak attack should the primary weapon attack miss, or to perform an attack against an additional melee combatant to avoid an Attack of Opportunity from using Fancy Footwork. Mechanically, at lower levels, Rakish Audacity and Fancy Footwork are all a Swashbuckler has going for them, but they can enable the Swashbuckler to dive in and make a melee attack only to withdraw without using their Cunning Action to Disengage (but this can be mimiced using the Mobile feat). Where the class shines is in charging into the enemy's formation, where it's not just sliding next to the main tank to get flanking sneak attack shots, landing sneak attack damage, and then withdrawing without triggering AoO's, Out of combat situations don't have anything special for the Swashbuckler, other than the "charm spell" ability at level 9 that a Bard is probably going to be better at. For the OP ... the Bard option is probably going to be the overall more powerful option, unless the DM is having a lot of battles per rest. A pure swashbuckler has no short rest/long rest abilities until 4th tier abilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Where does it say that? There’s nothing in the spell description, but maybe somewhere else? (And, like, how does a perfectly rigid, impenetrable thing not block sound?) If the wall is perfectly rigid and inelastic, would it block sound perfectly, or transfer sound perfectly? I'm imagining an air molecule hitting one side of the wall and bouncing off another air molecule on the other side with an equal amount of energy, sort of like a billiard ball hitting another ball, with one stopping and the other taking off, but it's been a long time since I've taken even introductory physics? In a more practical and reasonable interpretation, I'd compare it to a pane of glass, since a wall of force is almost like the platonic ideal of glass, and just imagine that sound does transfer through, but it's kind of muffled. It's also fun to imagine that a villain has to practically scream for the party to hear them across a Wall of Force, or maybe carry a magical megaphone, just to be heard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:That is a terrible idea in a game which is by nature purely a dungeoncrawler. How is it punishing the players for playing the game as intended? The mechanics i laid out were specifically to enforce the rules as intended, i.e. death having at least some risk and the adventuring day being designed around 6 encounters with 2 short rests per long rest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:DM only. They should not know the Drow are tracking them unless they actually spot them tracking them. Alright! Thanks for clearing that up!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:In Out of the Abyss, for the "pursuit level" at the beginning of the adventure -- should the players know that, or is it a DM only thing? Either way is ok. Depends if your game is more narrative or gamey. It could be kinda funny to have the pursuit level be like a GTA police score. "You're at 4 outta 5 spiders! Run!" If you go DM-only, pursuit is a narrative tool to help with event pacing. If you want to emphasize the pursuit you can make it feel like the drow are at their heels and about to catch up; if you don't mention it the players may not even realize they are being followed. Keeping it DM-only also let's you immediately discard it if it becomes tedious. That's a hard section of the adventure to run. Resource scarcity and random encounters are hard to do right. In something like this or a Dark Sun game, I track resources only while they are the immediate danger, then basically ignore it. Turning that part of OOTA into Oregon Trail tracking rations and miles traveled at which exploration speed doesn't seem very fun. When I ran it I just cherry picked the good encounters and areas, spaced them out and focused on describing the crazy underdark environment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
CJ posted:How is it punishing the players for playing the game as intended? The mechanics i laid out were specifically to enforce the rules as intended, i.e. death having at least some risk and the adventuring day being designed around 6 encounters with 2 short rests per long rest. You play the game, your soul meter goes down. It's punishment for playing. The things you want it to encourage are already a part of the game, and I know it's a lovely answer that people here hate but the DM should be facilitating the adventuring day or whatever if you want x amount of encounters per day. The humanity/soul has to give the players some kind of benefit tradeoff though, or serve another purpose as well because as you described it it just serves to artificially limit players time out adventuring, which is the opposite of what I'd want in a dnd game. I can see it fostering an attitude of having to "game" the system and work around it, all while being another tedious thing you and them have to track. I like the idea of a soul/humanity meter, and have had an idea for a campaign kicking around in my head similar to what you describe with a corrupting force and untamed wilderness to explore. It just needs to serve more of a purpose than limiting players.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
kazr posted:You play the game, your soul meter goes down. It's punishment for playing. The things you want it to encourage are already a part of the game, and I know it's a lovely answer that people here hate but the DM should be facilitating the adventuring day or whatever if you want x amount of encounters per day. Can you clarify what you mean by "the DM should be facilitating the adventuring day"? One of the biggest problems i have with 5E's rules is it is apparently designed around having x encounters per rest with resource attrition being a major balancing factor. So then i have to come up with contrived reason why they can't just take a rest after every night which is fine if there's a sense of urgency in the storyline but gets kind of annoying when they are exploring an abandoned tomb. I don't like random encounters when resting because it seems too swingy, it either doesn't solve the problem or it screws the party over. Also i don't like spending game time on resolving what is effectively a random trash encounter intended to balance the system. Rations is an option but people can just buy lots of rations so you have to come up with reasons why they can only carry x amount of food and i don't like fine grained inventory management. Having a humanity system is sort of like rations anyway except it's a softer system. It's not you have 5 days of food then you starve to death, it's that you have 5 days of tolerance then you start to take sanity damage. As for it being a penalty compared to the base rules, i don't necessarily see a problem with that. It's a common mechanic for lovecraftian and zombie board games. It just requires that your players are cool with the creeping death tone. That said i'd be interested to hear of some sort of positive aspect to it if you have any ideas. The only idea i could think of off the top of my head is cursed magic items that are more powerful at low humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Yeah I’d be much more inclined to go the “power but at a cost” route of losing humanity. Giving perks/items to incentivize remaining human is also a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
In 5e the DM shouldn't have to set the adventuring day by pure fiat. You can take one long rest per 24 hours. If the party wants a rest every fight they have to wait a full day after the first time they do that. As for a Corruption mechanic itself I'd try to make something that encourages the player to engage in brutal grimdark poo poo while becoming more distasteful to PCs. So a corrupted fighter may be rocking an extended crit range and the Savage Attacker feat on a bonus. But to do that they've become a blood drinking weirdo that isn't really welcome in the inn. Then you add some diminishing returns to Corruption powers so that they become less and less worth it. A 5% chance to effectively die during a rest doesn't really sound like it'll lead to satisfying moments imo. And adding rez timers and whatnot just feels like early level Pathfinder where a bad encounter forces the party to sit around taking a long weekend. It's not particularly compelling and players usually just find the cheapest way to skirt that part of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
With how lovely the encounter design system in 5E, and your unequal the different classes are (and how different optimization can be), why is the short/long rest economy trotted out as a good example of balance? The minigame of "conserve the most resources" is a huge system mastery issue, and is kind of the anti-balance. If a player can use a Meteor Swarm once a day, and the intent is that it won't trivialize an encounter... then all of the encounters need to be balanced around that. At which point, assuming the players will enter any particular encounter with depleted resources ends up breaking it if they get ahead of the resource curve. It seems like endurance being an issue is more of an exploration pillar challenge than a basic assumption. Sometimes, long adventuring days will give different players a spotlight, and will give exhausted characters a level of desperation, and on days where that's less of a focus, conservation can take a backseat. Hopefully a DM/adventure designer can weigh that out to spread out the spotlight time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:With how lovely the encounter design system in 5E, and your unequal the different classes are (and how different optimization can be), why is the short/long rest economy trotted out as a good example of balance? The broad idea is that everyone has limited resources, so if an encounter is balanced around one player using a big bomb, then as long as at least one player has a big bomb left there shouldn't be an issue. It's very poorly executed in 5e though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The broad idea is that everyone has limited resources, so if an encounter is balanced around one player using a big bomb, then as long as at least one player has a big bomb left there shouldn't be an issue. Agreed, that's my point. Meta-mechanics to try and prevent rests don't balance out the bombs. The better way to balance out the bombs is to balance them within the individual encounters instead of within a nebulous "adventuring day." As long as players conserve some resources (and the game isn't devolving into how quickly everyone can dump their bombs on the table) then the resource economy is still working. And it gives DMs a lot more flexibility when they're not trying to include X amount of plot-meaningless combats per day in between the actually satisfying ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Agreed, that's my point. Meta-mechanics to try and prevent rests don't balance out the bombs. The better way to balance out the bombs is to balance them within the individual encounters instead of within a nebulous "adventuring day." Can you give an example of balancing it within the encounter? If you mean make them fight harder stuff then i do that already, but there's a limit you can take it before it gets too swingy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
I'm kinda curious to that, because I'm about to start a campaign with a DM who's doing 5e for the first time and specific tips would be good because unlike another game I'm in, short/long rest is about 50/50 and while I stacked the deck as S&B sorcadin tank i'm worried about our 2-3 other warlocks in the party absolutely dominating a long adventuring day, especially as we're starting at 3rd level. related: It was months back and search can't find it but does anyone remember that post with a bunch of fighter origin stories and one of them was something like "I grew up on a farm and one day the king's men showed up and handed me some money and a sword and told me to go fight for the country; now i'm back without a king or money but i've still got this sword" Bhodi fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jan 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:Then you add some diminishing returns to Corruption powers so that they become less and less worth it. Dangle something crazy juuuust over the hill, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Are there any rules for creating stronger undead as a wizard? I was looking at Animate Dead, since I'd like to play a necro wizard if my current character ever gets killed, and it seems like it only allows you to raise and control an increasingly large number of regular zombies/skeletons as you level. While that does seem fun, surely at higher levels it's just going to to cause combat to slow to a crawl? Think i'd prefer to have two strong minions rather than have to handle ten zombies turns or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
UrbicaMortis posted:Are there any rules for creating stronger undead as a wizard? I was looking at Animate Dead, since I'd like to play a necro wizard if my current character ever gets killed, and it seems like it only allows you to raise and control an increasingly large number of regular zombies/skeletons as you level. https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/create-undead
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
CJ posted:Can you give an example of balancing it within the encounter? If you mean make them fight harder stuff then i do that already, but there's a limit you can take it before it gets too swingy. the WoW model, maybe? you start every fight at "full" power, and there are no carry-over effects from one fight to the next, and any expressions of difficulty and skill are within the context of the individual fight I'm not necessarily saying that it would be easy to do this for 5e, on the contrary it would be pretty difficult to rip-out all of the stuff that's capable of ending an encounter in one go if we're expecting that people can just drop however many spells they want every fight, but that's the concept The opposite of this model is have everyone work off the same resource model as everyone else, i.e. what 4e did. 5e (and 3e, FWIW) have the problems that they do because classes are either or the other for the sake of gameplay diversity, which is not necessarily a bad idea, except they can't balance it for poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:the WoW model, maybe? you start every fight at "full" power, and there are no carry-over effects from one fight to the next, and any expressions of difficulty and skill are within the context of the individual fight It's actually very hard to just use an ability that ends an encounter against a boss-level monster. So worrying about that is kind of nonsensical. The real issue is finding the right offense/defense numbers to keep the fight going without it swinging too quickly in one direction, and without things ending up as HP sponges. For the record, the idea isn't that characters get to use all of their abilities in one fight... it's that 2-3 encounters in a day is a more realistic expectation than 6-8. They should be saving some gas in the tank in case something unexpected happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:the WoW model, maybe? you start every fight at "full" power, and there are no carry-over effects from one fight to the next, and any expressions of difficulty and skill are within the context of the individual fight I played a lot of 2nd edition, and one of the things that was normal in our campaigns was never being sure when we would rest, so the idea was to not use the big guns unless we had to. I'm not saying this to condescend, just relating something that I guess that we took for granted. Speaking of 4th editon: Did that game every run into resource issues in regards to daily powers? What I mean by this is if there were ever scenarios where an encounter would happen that was challenging but doable normally, but the PCs had some bad luck and/or made some bad decisions and came into the encounter without their biggest cannons and were wiped out. At-will powers were naturally infinite and encounter powers were too provided that a jerk DM didn't force the PCs to never rest, but I could easily see a group with no dailies and depleted healing surges getting flattened by a normally doable encounter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 02:18
|
|
