Any inherent conflict between per-encounter and per-day abilities?

[kennew142]

4E, in general, seems to be moving away from "ideological purity" and toward a "will it work in the game?" approach, which is good. I've never encountered a problem in my Vampire games over what a "scene" is; delineating time is just another part of being the DM/GM/Storyteller. I have, however, seen players scrambling from one corner of a dungeon to the next in order to keep their Bull's Strength going for the next fight. And of course, I've seen casters dominate the game outside the dungeon because there's rarely more than one encounter per day during overland travel. I hope 4E continues and improves upon D&D's tradition of providing solid play while leaving non-players on the Internet to complain about how the system obviously doesn't work.

It's been my experience as well that 1 minute per level (and at lower levels, 10 min per level) buffs encourage gaming the system. Characters rush through encounters, sometimes even leaving the searching for treasure or examining the interesting clues phase until later, all because their buff spells are set to expire soon. Moving these spells to per encounter abilities should solve this problem, encouraging players to role-play more and to game the system less.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Which is why the per-encounter/at-will abilities will really shine through. In that yes when you use up your per-day abilities you are less powerful, but to use your analogy they would then only be at 80% not 50%.

The reason's for them not to rest for the day to gain the per-day abilities like stated before I think has to come mainly from rp-terms. Now potentially there may not be the same level of utility-magic like being able to summon food, water, light, etc. But I think monster-patrols, time-limits on being underground (have to stop a ritual, door only open during certain days of the year, etc.) Or as put before the monster patrols.

 

[kennew142]

Which would be true, IF magic hadn't been so bloody powerful. Food and Water are no problems thanks to 1st level spells and neither is fire due to darkvision/spells.

For example , IRL, halfway into a really deep cave, my friends expect to be something like 80% of full effectiveness (effectiveness defined as oxygen reserves/batteries/flashlights etc). If they were at 55%, there's a good chance they would turn back.

With the power of magic, you go from 100% effectivness to easily under the 50% range when the mage/cleric have exhausted their top 3 level spells (a mage who normall has access to 6th level spells is WAY weaker when he only has his bottom 3 level spells still).

To press on after your most powerful member has been reduced to 50% power seems very gamist to me.

That's what players in my game thought, until the dungeon denizens noticed the carnage the party had caused, tracked them back to their hiding place, used detect magic to perceive the aura from the rope trick spell, called in reinforcements, dispelled said rope trick and then gave them two encounters rolled together into one APL + 7 encounter. They were less fond of that trick in the future.

 

[Henry]

For example, in the real world, people that do anything dangerous always attempt it with the best preparation possible. I've mentioned this before, but my friends are serious spleunkers and there's ABSOLUTELY no way my friends would go into a cave with only 1/4 of their oxygen/batteries.

On the other hand, a D&D adventure isn't like recreationally exploring a cave; if you turn back, there's no harm done -- the cave doesn't get explored. In D&D, adventurers are usually entering a cave because the princess is in trouble, or evil cultists plan to use their stolen mcguffin to perform some ritual at either a specific or unspecified point in the future, and so on.

It's more compared to a military counterattack on a superior power; you want to go in fully prepared, but sometimes you don't have that option, because someone else is counting on you to do something specific. If you NEED to be at a given place and time, and you're the last best hope, then you go whether you have all your ammo or not, because there are no reserve forces besides you if you fail.

If the D&D party were just dungeon-delving for fun and profit, as can be the case, then yes, it does make more sense to pull back and prepare. Of course, the defenders are preparing, too, with just as much time as you take to get back to full strength -- and they didn't have to expend any of their initial resources. So I can see where Oliviander is coming from.

 

[DamnedChoir]

In case anyone missed it, Vampire has been using "until the end of scene" for more than 15 years. And I never heard no one complaining.

I find it funny how whenever they announce a new feature in D&D that has been in other RPGs for years, people exclaim it's the end of the world and that it's an impossible mechanic to make function.

 

[kennew142]

On the other hand, a D&D adventure isn't like recreationally exploring a cave; if you turn back, there's no harm done -- the cave doesn't get explored. In D&D, adventurers are usually entering a cave because the princess is in trouble, or evil cultists plan to use their stolen mcguffin to perform some ritual at either a specific or unspecified point in the future, and so on.

It's more compared to a military counterattack on a superior power; you want to go in fully prepared, but sometimes you don't have that option, because someone else is counting on you to do something specific. If you NEED to be at a given place and time, and you're the last best hope, then you go whether you have all your ammo or not, because there are no reserve forces besides you if you fail.

It is exactly this situation, all too common in games I run, that is hampered by the 15 minute adventuring day. When the storyline requires the party to get into the dungeon to rescue the kidnapped children before they can be sacrificed by the cultists in order to allow the Entelechy of Entropy to manifest in the world, the rules of the game make it very difficult for them to succeed. Entirely too many iconic stories cannot be modeled using the 3e mechanics.

 

[AllisterH]

On the other hand, a D&D adventure isn't like recreationally exploring a cave; if you turn back, there's no harm done -- the cave doesn't get explored. In D&D, adventurers are usually entering a cave because the princess is in trouble, or evil cultists plan to use their stolen mcguffin to perform some ritual at either a specific or unspecified point in the future, and so on.

It's more compared to a military counterattack on a superior power; you want to go in fully prepared, but sometimes you don't have that option, because someone else is counting on you to do something specific. If you NEED to be at a given place and time, and you're the last best hope, then you go whether you have all your ammo or not, because there are no reserve forces besides you if you fail.

If the D&D party were just dungeon-delving for fun and profit, as can be the case, then yes, it does make more sense to pull back and prepare. Of course, the defenders are preparing, too, with just as much time as you take to get back to full strength -- and they didn't have to expend any of their initial resources. So I can see where Oliviander is coming from.

But then there's also the military axiom, "Don't go in half-cocked" and in many cases, unless it is, "Defeat z RIGHT now or world goes boom" you actually make it harder when you are less prepared.

I can see Time-pressure adventures being a reason for going into a cave which works in both the 3E and 4E system of resource management but that type of adventure tends to be a singular example.

Most adventures into deep and dark places dont have a time pressure component which is IMO better modeled with the 4E system which is why I'm more in favour of that type of resource management.

 

[Pale Jackal]

I find it interesting that the only concern most people have is balance. Per day is plausible in the game world; per encounter is strange, to say the least, and is clearly derived from metagame concerns.

I like balance.

Another poster already did the "physical exertion" example... depending on specifics, it might be a bit odd for melee/combat classes, but for spellcasting classes: having to meditate for a minute to recall certain teachings is simply part of magic.

And others have already made the case for, "it's up to the DM"... malicious DMs are already capable of "breaking the game" if they really want to, and there are plenty of reasons that the party should keep pressing on.

 

[Dragonblade]

I always saw the 15 minute workday not as an example of players trying to be gamist, but of players being simulationist....

For example, in the real world, people that do anything dangerous always attempt it with the best preparation possible. I've mentioned this before, but my friends are serious spleunkers and there's ABSOLUTELY no way my friends would go into a cave with only 1/4 of their oxygen/batteries.

Anyone that would suggest such a thing would be automatically kicked out and personally banished on the online community because not only do you put yourself in danger, you put your teammates/friend in danger.

This is the same way I saw Vancian casting. I always saw the "push on even with limited resources" person as a gamist as he knew that the DM wouldn't punish him harshly for that. Thus the idea that "Stopping after 15 minutes" makes more sense to me in context of the world (you're going to be facing down unknow creatures who quite frankly want to eat you...) than the reverse.

QFT! The bottom line for me is that per day powers should be minimized as much as possible and most powers should be at will, and per encounter.

 

[kennew142]

QFT! The bottom line for me is that per day powers should be minimized as much as possible and most powers should be at will, and per encounter.

I'm holding my opinion on this aspect of the game. I have no problem with a large number of per day powers, so long as the character in question still has enough resources in per encounter and at will powers to make him effective once the per day abilties have been used up. I like the direction the game is heading, and I have enough faith in the designers to hope that I will like the final product. Until we see how the at will, per encounter and per day abilties interact, I don't think I can venture an opinion as to what percentage of them should fall into what category.

As an aside, I play a lot of wizards and have hardly ever (above 5th level) run out of cool spells to use. The 15 minute adventuring day was always more a construct of the cleric blowing all of his healing spells in the first fight or two than it was for me. The nice thing about 4e is that at will and per encounter powers should replace the need for a character to have so many wands.