Complete Champion excerpts

[Henry]

Note that your post was immediately followed up by folks who did indeed advocate that very position.

Looking over them, not really - all I've seen so far is cries of "resource management is boring", but so far no "everything refreshes and nobody gets hurt, because that takes away from the killing." However, I can see the "everything refreshes" coming pretty easily, because it's a staple of other games besides D&D, even if I don't like it for D&D.

 

[Particle_Man]

Don't hav e the manual but there are the "reserve" feats that require certain domain spells to be prepared.

Then there are domain feats that anyone can take, but they give 1x/day sorts of abilities.

 

[Felon]

Looking over them, not really - all I've seen so far is cries of "resource management is boring", but so far no "everything refreshes and nobody gets hurt, because that takes away from the killing." However, I can see the "everything refreshes" coming pretty easily, because it's a staple of other games besides D&D, even if I don't like it for D&D.

The posters who are gung-ho about losing the resource-management aspect of the game are de facto saluting an "everything refreshes per encounter" approach (and yes, some of the posts endorsed it quite openly).

The biggest issue for me is that a savvy gamer is going to know when he's out of danger of being reduced to -10, which is of course the only meaningful number in a campaign where healing is on tap. Doug McCrae speaks of "imminent risk of death" and Kunimatyu speaks of "everything-on-the-line" scenarios, but D&D combat's going to pan out a lot more predictably than that in the majority of battles. It is the very prospect of running out of resources over the long haul that brings the element of danger to D&D , and managing those resources is part of the strategy of the game.

And of course, then there's the general attitude of "thinking is boring" that's somewhat grating, especially as its proclaimed so boldly. Not sure when it happened, but people have developed some screwed-up notions about how self-esteem is supposed to work.

 

[Felon]

I think the domain feats are strong, and well done.. One of the interesting things are that these feats scale with levels. They will always be useful.. remains to see if they are too strong. For non-cleric/paladins, its once per day use of a ability for the cost of one feat. If you got TU, you can get more uses.

Thanks for the info.

So, burning turn attempts grants extra uses? That makes it like a divine feat, except that someone who can't turn at all can reap the benefits. Which makes me wonder if the domain feats are comparable to divine feats in terms of power.

 

[Victim]

but D&D combat's going to pan out a lot more predictably than that in the majority of battles. It is the very prospect of running out of resources over the long haul that brings the element of danger to D&D , and managing those resources is part of the strategy of the game.

Only if you structure the game that way. I'd argue that most of the people who don't like resource management set up fights in their games so that most of them do carry significant risk. "We're outnumbered, and they're higher level!"

 

[hong]

The biggest issue for me is that a savvy gamer is going to know when he's out of danger of being reduced to -10, which is of course the only meaningful number in a campaign where healing is on tap. Doug McCrae speaks of "imminent risk of death" and Kunimatyu speaks of "everything-on-the-line" scenarios, but D&D combat's going to pan out a lot more predictably than that in the majority of battles.

Says the guy who's never seen a character taken from full to 0 hp in 2 rounds, or failed a save against slay living.

It is the very prospect of running out of resources over the long haul that brings the element of danger to D&D , and managing those resources is part of the strategy of the game.

Poppycock.

And of course, then there's the general attitude of "thinking is boring" that's somewhat grating, especially as its proclaimed so boldly. Not sure when it happened, but people have developed some screwed-up notions about how self-esteem is supposed to work.

Because D&D is character building.

 

[Piratecat]

Poppycock.

If you're going to disagree with someone, please don't fall back on short retorts that don't further the discussion. If you're at that stage, it's probably time to go find a different thread.

In other words, folks, please don't hijack the thread with bickering or a side disagreement. You know the drill.

 

[MerricB]

The biggest issue for me is that a savvy gamer is going to know when he's out of danger of being reduced to -10, which is of course the only meaningful number in a campaign where healing is on tap. Doug McCrae speaks of "imminent risk of death" and Kunimatyu speaks of "everything-on-the-line" scenarios, but D&D combat's going to pan out a lot more predictably than that in the majority of battles. It is the very prospect of running out of resources over the long haul that brings the element of danger to D&D , and managing those resources is part of the strategy of the game.

Well, that Fort save bonus and corresponding DC tends to get rather important as well at various times...

In truth, the new feat does not *eliminate* resources, but it does *prolong* them. A campaign with two high-level Incarnates in it can actually end up with infinite healing to full HP, but most campaigns still have a fair whack of healing spells to go through. Wands of cure light wounds, great though they are, do run into trouble in higher level games.

(Best use of the new feat, IMO: stabilising a dying character).

It is a simple fact that, especially in 3e D&D, high level monsters deal a lot of damage. This is as compared to AD&D 1e, where high level monsters... did a lot of damage. Hmm. (The real difference is between high-level NPCs: they do a lot more damage in 3e than in 1e. A 10th level fighter in 1e is somewhat wimpy in damage dealt compared to monsters). It is quite possible in 3e to be reduced significantly in hit points in just one round - especially when the effect of criticals is taken into account.

The trouble with resource management is that you need a game structure where resource management is feasible. Having one encounter per day has (rightfully) been described as breaking certain portions of the challenge structure - especially for psionics, IMO.

An attritional game really demands a structure which doesn't have the wild swings of damage that 3e has. If no monster did more than 1d8 damage, then you get the idea of hit points of a resource - and something to be preserved. At present, they work more as a buffer between you and certain death. "You took 49 damage. Are you still okay?"

Having put the attritional component purely onto healing spells may be something that is not desirable in later editions of the game.

Cheers!

 

[Kunimatyu]

And of course, then there's the general attitude of "thinking is boring" that's somewhat grating, especially as its proclaimed so boldly. Not sure when it happened, but people have developed some screwed-up notions about how self-esteem is supposed to work.

I wasn't aware that not liking long-term resource management means I'm a proponent of anti-intellectualism. Or screwed up notions of self-esteem!

I, personally, find it more interesting to decide which of my options is the best choice for the very tough situation I'm in, as opposed to "I'm out of uses for my ability and we're getting slowly chipped down by wandering monsters".

Do note that I'm not necessarily advocating instant refresh here - it should be possible to make things harder for the PCs by quickly throwing a succession of challenges at them. That being said, I'd prefer if the *most* important resource a PC has is their limited number of actions in combat, with per-day resources secondary to that.