Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[Wulf Ratbane]

As to my point, an encounter is presumed to take five minutes.

Maybe my math is off here, but isn't that 50 rounds?

I don't think I've ever had an encounter run 50 rounds.

So if you've finished an encounter, I can't imagine too many circumstances wherein you can't take a brief rest ... nor, given the healing surge mechanics, too many circumstances in which you wouldn't need to do so. So even if "per rest" abilities exist, they're not going to be lacking, and thus they're irrelevant in terms of "running on fumes."

There are too many circumstances where you can't take a 5 minute rest for me to bother listing them all.

Just from my own recent play experience:

1) The PCs assaulted a castle, got more than they bargained for, and retreated into one of the guard towers while the guards brought in ladders and battering rams. (And wizards...) We barely had 5 rounds to whip out healing wands and potions, let alone 5 minutes.

2) The PCs attacked a group of gnolls, and their gnoll priests ran off with some artifact. We dispatched with their toadies and pursued them a couple of rounds later, by which time they had already retreated past a summoned guardian. By the time we defeated the guardian, we were so drained we could not possibly contend with the gnoll priests, so we had to (very reluctantly) admit defeat. They escaped with their artifact.

Really, this isn't hard. It's a silly argument.

 

[catsclaw]

Hasbro would not sell of WOTC if 4e D&D had a hiccup in sales after a couple of years.

No, but Hasbro could easily spin off D&D and keep the more profitable divisions of WotC. Not that I necessarily believe this is likely, but it's a lot more plausible than the original poster made it sound.

(I admit, I only responded to this so I could argue with myself. Mother always warned it would come to this.)

 

[Frozen DM]

Just from my own recent play experience:

1) The PCs assaulted a castle, got more than they bargained for, and retreated into one of the guard towers while the guards brought in ladders and battering rams. (And wizards...) We barely had 5 rounds to whip out healing wands and potions, let alone 5 minutes.

2) The PCs attacked a group of gnolls, and their gnoll priests ran off with some artifact. We dispatched with their toadies and pursued them a couple of rounds later, by which time they had already retreated past a summoned guardian. By the time we defeated the guardian, we were so drained we could not possibly contend with the gnoll priests, so we had to (very reluctantly) admit defeat. They escaped with their artifact.

Really, this isn't hard. It's a silly argument.

I think the question is, how does 4E define an encounter? I'd say both of these examples actually represent single extended/complex encounters. Gone are the days of one encounter = 1 fight = 1 room in a dungeon. I think 4e will be defining encounters as one or more obstacles the PC's will need to overcome in a continuous timeframe. For example, if the PC's rush into a room and battle some guards, one escapes to alert his allies. The PC's pursue, running a gauntlet of archers waiting in ambush, and finally a third fight against the guard and his masters. All this is one encounter. In previous editions, particularly 3E, I think this would have been defined as 3 separate encounters.

I personally would prefer a different refresh mechanic than per encounter, but I'll withhold judgment until I read the exact definition of an encounter in 4E.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think the question is, how does 4E define an encounter?

Easy.

1) Do you stay in initiative count?
2) Do you have 5 minutes to rest?

I'd say both of these examples actually represent single extended/complex encounters.

You'd be wrong.

 

[Lizard]

No, but Hasbro could easily spin off D&D and keep the more profitable divisions of WotC. Not that I necessarily believe this is likely, but it's a lot more plausible than the original poster made it sound.

(I admit, I only responded to this so I could argue with myself. Mother always warned it would come to this.)

Hasbro would never give up the brand of "Dungeons&Dragons"; they might, however, outsource the publication of the paper&pencil roleplaying game. They care about the IP, but the actual game? It's of vanishingly little consequence from the bottom line, and they might make just as much money outsourcing it.

 

[Spatula]

Huh. The most enjoyable source of drama for me is when you HAVE stopped, and you ARE rested up, and you're STILL not sure if you'll survive the fight with the BBEG.

But then you remember that would be a TPK, and the DM can't do that...

 

[hong]

But then you remember that would be a TPK, and the DM can't do that...

Sigh.

 

[BryonD]

A 4e DM who wants to push the action can deny you per rest and per day abilities just the same as a 3e DM can.

What would you guess will be the presumption/pacing of WotC modules?

 

[dm4hire]

But then you remember that would be a TPK, and the DM can't do that...

...or can he as his face lights up with evil glee? You then hear strange chants to Cthulhu rising around you before he rolls his d20 whispering "My Precious" maniacally as the doppleganger wizard who replaced your rogue reeks havoc on your party.



I agree Hasbro will never let the license go now. Too much money coming in from secondary markets thanks to DDO, the Minis, Novels, etc. It would take a sudden loss of interest or a serious financial hit to the company to place them in a spot to sell off the IP and what they'd ask for would most likely put it in the hands of Mattel or another high end toy company.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

What would you guess will be the presumption/pacing of WotC modules?

I would guess the pacing is about the same as 3e.

But what actually happens "on screen" from the time the DM announces initiative should be bigger than 3e.

Taken together 4e should have bigger piles of dead bad guys.