Why is it so important?

Raven Crowking said:

Well, all I can say is that I hope you are right, and that if this thread has been of any help to that end, then it will have been worth it.

I do note, however, that it was the designers and developers who knew all the pieces and also tested them in game, too, that gave us this problem in the 3.X system. Of course, that was different designers and developers, so again, I hope you are right.

RC

Click to expand...

That's true. That's why there probably will be a 5th edition. At some point, maybe in 1 year, maybe in 2 years, the weaknesses of D&D 4 that only were uncovered after a few dozens modules and adventures were played will become apparent, and people will try to fix it.

I think the 3.0 designers made a tremendous job. I just began role-playing when D&D 3rd edition hit the streets, and thus I don't know much about the transition period. The only problems I had with D&D 3rd edition were conceptual ones, like "Hitpoints? How stupid is that? What's this strange spell sys
tem? In Shadowrun, we only have 10 wounds, we have a damage modifiers, and we can cast spell as often as we like or at least until our head explodes! That's far more realistic!" But as I continued to play and I gained some "rules mastery", I didn't see these as the real problems. The problems were in the detail (3.0 Haste, Ranger's Two-Weapon Fighting and many more). And only a few years later, after I also began DMing the 3rd edtion, more fundamental issues that cropped up - where and when does the CR system fail (Shadowrun didn't have anything comparable!) and so on...

CleverName said:

Thanks for sharing, but I will point out your on a 10-page thread most of these folks think that there is a problem with the current system and they are looking forward to more at will and per encounter options.

So, even with your anecdotes, it is pretty safe to say, that the majority of folks on this board disagree with you. I would even go so far as to say most of the folks who play D&D would disagree with you -- but we could argue that for another 10+ pages.

I, personally, look forward to more time at the table adventuring. I get to play maybe 4 hours at a stretch - giving me only 10-15 minutes back (during a long adventure) is going to be worth a lot.

Click to expand...

I don't care if people disagree with me. All I care about is what is true for my gaming experience. BTW, you may want to look at who started this thread and has been following it ever since. Plus it is at 22 pages.

I do find it extremely interesting about the Wand of Cure Light Wounds, though. We rarely ever get such a wand in our games. Potions is what we get. Even scrolls aren't that common, because they quickly add up in cost. Don't have much gold to spare at low levels. I make heavy use of scrolls starting about 5th level.

So it is interesting to wonder if its the perception of resource management that is most important. IE if the party is stopping to rest because everyone needs to recover something sits much better than when its just to stop for the spellcasters to recover spells. So all the fighter types selfishly forget the only reason they don't need to stop is because of those spells. Because those spells either already healed them, or killed the enemy faster and prevented more successful hits, or both.

Treebore said:

So it is interesting to wonder if its the perception of resource management that is most important. IE if the party is stopping to rest because everyone needs to recover something sits much better than when its just to stop for the spellcasters to recover spells. So all the fighter types selfishly forget the only reason they don't need to stop is because of those spells. Because those spells either already healed them, or killed the enemy faster and prevented more successful hits, or both.

Click to expand...

That's a good observation, too. Basically, this is was creates the so called "unfun" part (and it might be egoistical or selfish...)
But there is still the thing with 30 minutes of adventuring, which isn't so much about fun but typically something that comes in the way of the adventure's general pacing (or verisimilitude)

Raven Crowking said:

(1a) If a battle does not use up per-day resources, nothing is lost in engaging in that battle. This means:

(1ai) The PCs can engage in an effectively endless number of these battles.

(1aii) The only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff.

Click to expand...

Raven Crowking said:

It is basically my argument that, if you can have any number of encounters X, and at the end of those encounters you are at 80% resources, then an encounter that leaves you at 80% resources without a significant chance of loss of permanent resources falls below the mechanical threshold of significance.

Click to expand...

Raven Crowking said:

The mechanical threshold of significance model has been used as the standard for D&D for what now? Thirty years or more? There is little doubt in my mind that it is the standard for the average D&D group. That it will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0.........well, again, colour me skeptical.

The two factors above has caused many DMs to increase the mechanical challenges of their combats above the suggested guidelines in the DMG, making more combats be of the win/lose variety. Again, that this will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0...............skeptical.

It is always true that you have better odds of winning a win/lose fight with more resources. That this will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0.......skeptical.

Click to expand...

Raven Crowking said:

My conclusions are not based around the complete removal of daily resources. AFAICT, removing all long-term resource management (while it would have other effects I would not enjoy) would solve the problem of PCs resting to recover long-term resources completely. As long as both a benefit for resting exists, and a cost for resting does not, prudent play suggests that you rest.

Click to expand...

Raven Crowking said:

After a year's play (or less) I expect that same old complaint to resurface if, as Wyatt's blog implies, the change in resource management is how the designers tackled the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem. I certainly agree that the problem could be tackled in other ways; just not this way.

Click to expand...

Let's look at it this way - what changes would we have to make to your premises, such that your pessimistic conclusion doesn't follow?

*We can suppose that other standards of significance are relevant to encounters besides the "mechanical threshold of significance", which you have defined to depend on resource depletion or acquisition.

*We can suppose that the threat of mechanical significance (in your sense of that phrase) is present in encounters.

*We can suppose that not all players engage in prudent play (in your sense of that phrase).

It seems to me that each of my suppositions is plausible. Wyatt's more recent post confirms what other posters on this thread have indicated, namely, that powers are being designed so that the question of which power to use in a given round in an encounter is a meanginful and engaging one (other features of encounter design, like the "half hit-point" trigger abilities for monsters, will probably enhance this aspect). This introduces a dimension of significance that is not related to resource depletion or acquisition.

Furthermore, this scope for meaningful tactical play means that the threat of long-term resource depletion may be present in an encounter even if (in the end) no such depletion occurs (because skilled use of per-encounter abilities obviates it).

Finally, if the above two paragraphs are true, then even resource-depleted parties can go on to have interesting and enjoyable encounters without having to rest. Combine this with the oft-mentioned fact that many players do not regard prudence (in your sense) as the only consideration relevant to the question of whether or not to rest, and we can envisage a more flexible approach to play, and to encounter sequencing, emerging from per-encounter abilities.

Despite the fact that the 1st ed PHB and DMG did not identify any other metagame priorities, D&D has never been solely about operational play. This is obvious from the most cursory readings of early texts (compare Roger Musson and Lewis Pulsipher's articles in early numbers of White Dwarf, for example). It seems fairly clear that 4e is intended to remove the obstacles to these varieties of play that the current resource-management system imposes. For the reasons given above, I don't think your pessimisim about the likely success of this attempt to be warranted.

gizmo33 said:

That's the fundemental point? The point I was responding to was "heroes fight all of the time and never rest". Stalker0 never said what you're saying here.

Click to expand...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio Gizmo, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Last time in 3E that a whole bunch of days passed when nothing happens I said "a whole bunch of days pass, and nothing happens".

Click to expand...

Which was not the salient point. Try again.

Are you suggesting that 4 encounters per day is a minimum?

Click to expand...

No, I am suggesting that imposing the structure of an assumed number of encounters per day is nonsensical, ludicrous, and models nothing of what is seen in literature.

Is that better?

Raven Crowking said:

This is true, but unless the vast majority of DMs is somehow converted to using other thresholds of significance, the fact that Hong and others benefit doesn not imply that this change will have the effect of removing the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem, as Wyatt claims.

Click to expand...

Pish tosh. The vast majority of DMs use published adventures, so as long as the adventure writers can manage to treat modules as more than glorified ASL campaign scenarios, all will be fine.

Raven Crowking said:

If a risk factor to resting is re-introduced to the game, that would IMHO solve the problem.

Click to expand...

And overturn 30 years of tradition involving tiny huts, magnificent mansions, teleports, plane shifts and rope tricks? The mind boggles. Why, next you'll be suggesting banning erinyes.

Treebore said:

We rested because the fighters were low on HP's, which was in turn because the cleric was out of spells.

Click to expand...

I'd like to call attention to that line.

The fighters were only out of their "Per Day" resources because the cleric was out of his.

If the cleric had more per-day healing spells available, he'd've been able to cast them on the fighters. At that point, the fighters would be at "~100%" of daily resources, while the cleric and wizard were at "~0%" of daily resources.

hong said:

Which was not the salient point. Try again.

Click to expand...

Does salient mean the same thing as erratic? I guess I don't really have an opinion about how many fireballs Gandalf can cast. How's that for trying?

hong said:

No, I am suggesting that imposing the structure of an assumed number of encounters per day is nonsensical, ludicrous, and models nothing of what is seen in literature.

Is that better?

Click to expand...

"Little Women" isn't really within my sphere of knowledge. I do find that the lack of substance gives your idea clarity though. I'm tempted to ask for some examples or development. Say, for example, an actual story and what you thought it showed about the entire field of fantasy literature and it's take on resources. Of course such a thing itself would be literature, and there would be a risk that it was self-referencing. Oh well. Play on.

Imaro said:

Let me put it this way...if you give me a choice between a character who will be at 80% or a character who will be at 30% after using their per-day abiltity, I would be stupid to pick the 30% character and creating such an imbalance is bad game design. A per-day ability can only be used in any encounter one time, so as long as I don't use it Im effectively fighting at 30% and in the one fight where I use it I'm 100% and then 30% after that until I rest.

Click to expand...

Did you just switch sides of this argument?

The D&D wizard reduced to crossbowing and throwing flasks of burning oil is that guy at 30% efficacy.

Then, he can use his per-day resources to be at 100% for a short period of time. However, when he isn't using those resources, he's still operating at 30%.

Congrats on making the switch!