This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[Spatula]

Try giving your 1e DMG a re-read.

You said 1e adventures. All the published D&D adventures I had from back then were dungeon maps keyed with traps and combat encounters, not really any different from the 3e adventures I own.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Where the absolute numbers do provide some insights is in the diminished impact of the things that haven't changed.
A wizard whacking an enemy with his staff for 1d6 damage (any edition) is a lot less effective if HP are much higher.
A squad of town guards with crossbows (1d6 in Basic, 1d8 in 3E) are much less effective in 3E than in Basic.
Fireball (1d6/level) is much less effective when enemy HP are so much higher.

But that are not absolute numbers between editions, but within a specific edition.
Your analysis would hold even if wizards did deal 1d60 points of damage in D&D 3.5, but monsters had 10 times the current hit points.

 

[hong]

My games are primarily dungeon delves in a mega-dungeon complex. There is a lot of combat, but I would still call what my players do "adventuring". Note that the "rest after one encounter" is something I've encountered in both 1e and 3e games. IMO, it's been a bugaboo of D&D that has needed addressing for a long time.

Good heavens, Ourph.

 

[Vigilance]

Try giving your 1e DMG a re-read.

Yanno, this is starting to get on my nerves, so I probably shouldn't post at all, but here I am. Live and learn.

You started this thread, as near as I can tell, to say that resting at 9:05 is BS.

When people (many of them), have responded that it can and does happen, your response has been to tell them they're playing the game wrong.

If only they'd run it YOUR WAY, then you'd be right, and resting at 9:05 am would be BS.

Why don't you try instead, to listen, as opposed to pausing until you think it's your turn to expound again, and realize that when multiple people, some of whom are fellow board posters and some of whom are Wotc designers are all telling you that something is a problem, that maybe it's a problem, and it's not that your experience is somehow better than other peoples.

If it doesn't happen to you, awesome.

But it is a legitimate problem that I've experienced in various editions of D&D, including (but not just) 3e. I've never experienced the exact scenario of a party wanting to rest after one encounter, and I have harried parties that I felt were trying to rest too often, or were trying to rest in inopportune locations.

But that doesn't mean I haven't noticed with some irritation that frequently, the thing that makes parties feel like it's time to rest, is that all the spellcasters (not just Wizards) are tapped, when otherwise, they would push on.

I think tweaking the way spellcasting works can be a good thing because of this.

Chuck

 

[ashockney]

Anyway -- how do you feel about the idea that PCs can/should/must rest after just a couple of encounters. Do you run or play in games where this happens? Do you actively avoid it? Prefer it?

How I feel about PC's that should or must rest after a couple of encounters is that this can be distracting from the versimilitude of the game I want to run. Another poster on the thread talked about "resting" because of how physically and mentally taxing this type of work could be. I like that idea. But for D&D, we are trying to fit into the story that we started today at 9am, and well, here it is 10am, and it's time to sleep for 8 hours? How does your body even function this way?

Yes, I have run and played games where this happened. As a player, I once played a Mystic Theurge, and boy did I have spells. Lots and lots of spells. Well, what's funny about that, is that I had so many spells, I used many of them as "buffs", and as a result, pretty early into an encounter, I would find myself significantly depleted. By no means "useless". But, if I'm down 30%, 40% or 50% of my spells, particularly my better spells (4th - 6th level), if there's not a STORY element or DIRECT THREAT preventing me from suggesting we rest so that I can get myself, and the rest of the party through buffs, to "FULL POWER" before we move forward, I'm going to suggest that we do that. Yes, as a resource management game, it is to OUR advantage to wisely manage our resources in the context of the game. Further, as a powerful (higher level) player, I had extremely powerful resources available to me to facilitate a "rest". For example, a favorite tactic was to find a "safe spot" from which to teleport out, scry, and then teleport back in.

Do I actively avoid it or prefer it?
I don't prefer it, as I illustrate above. I encourage through the story and the design of the adventure that the players I DM do an effective job of managing all their resources (low level, mid level, high level, single use, and multi-charge items) through an extended "high threat" environment. It's not hard to avoid, but it can also be a delicate balance. In a module I recently developed for 17th level, I placed a big "boss" encounter at the end of the module with a big dragon. If the party hasn't rested prior to this combat, they will be in big trouble. That's just the reality of the (3.5) game.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

But that are not absolute numbers between editions, but within a specific edition.
Your analysis would hold even if wizards did deal 1d60 points of damage in D&D 3.5, but monsters had 10 times the current hit points.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I mean that from one edition to another -- from Basic/Expert to 1e to 2e to 3.5 -- some numbers stayed pretty much the same. A wizard's mundane attack, the typical town guardsman's crossbow, and the damage of the Fireball spell, the benefit of a Potion of Cure Light Wound.
Meanwhile, other things increased dramatically -- monster HP and damage, PC HP and fighter (or barbarian, or ranger) damage.

The 4th-level wizard's thrown dagger was no longer "almost as good as a bow", which it really was at low levels in B/X. Even a dozen town guardsmen could no longer pose a threat to a 4th-level PC running amok. Fireball could no longer clear out a room of "appropriate" opponents (using dungeon level in earlier editions as a proxy for CR).

 

[Veril]

"I like making my players manage their resources" is a pretty statement. I have little but contempt for DM's who see this as their golden rule.

Players like to do fun things. Managing resources as implied, especially at low levels , saying for a spell caster like a wizard is saying "don't cast your spells". Do something where you are a load less effective, and where you aren't a wizard, but instead are a third rate fighter.

Seriously, what do you expect the player to do while he is "managing his resources" I take a 5' step and load my crossbox. My turn is now over, wow that was really exciting for the player. Meanwhile the fighter is dashing from one monster to another making decisions like his power attack or expertese, or looking to get a flanking bonus for himself or the party rogue. The fighting types are their primary abilities (i.e. attack bonus, AC, HP to the fullest).

Perhaps you expect the player to say, I hold my torch up high so everyone else can do something exciting.

Try this at your gaming table: After the fighter attempts 2 attacks on a day with his best weapon tell him he has to use a dagger for the rest of the day. Because he has to manage his resources, just like the spellcasters. Seems like a pretty stupid idea doesn't it?

I can't wait for 4th, with per day, per encountee and per round abilities.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

"I like making my players manage their resources" is a pretty statement. I have little but contempt for DM's who see this as their golden rule.

That's a little harsh. The resource management aspect of D&D has been a fundamental design principle of the game for its entire existence. Especially for low-level spellcasters. A great many of us, both as DMs and players, LOVE that aspect and chose D&D over other systems because of it.

I was really looking forward to playing a wizard in a friend's upcoming Ptolus campaign. I as a player don't mind having my wizard sitting back and do nothing if the fighters have the battle under control. I can enjoy having a really big moment once in a while rather than a modest contribution every round. I was looking forward to the CHALLENGE of resource managament and the CHALLENGE of seeing if I could get this weak novice to survive to become a powerful wizard. Now 4E is going to ruin that. The designers are saying "The things that you thought were fun were really not, and we're going to make sure you don't have to do them any more."

 

[Kesh]

Actually, this gets best seen in another game system. Namely Shadowrun and when it comes to hacking. Oh boy, talk about twiddling of thumbs for the non netrunner.....

They finally fixed this in SR4. You should've seen the forums explode in anger over that one, too. The new system is a lot more fun for everyone involved, but some SR grognards (especially the decker-crowd) were up-in-arms.

 

[Umbran]

"I like making my players manage their resources" is a pretty statement.

Dude, we have certain standards of behavior around here. Please review The Rules. While you were caught by the language filter, it is pretty clear that you were stooping to a low we prefer not to see on these boards.

Profanity does not normally have a place in reasoned discourse. There is nothing so important here that it calls for such. Please refrain from it in the future.

While I'm here, folks, let me also remind the rest of you about our civility standards. This thread has been pretty darned rough in that regard. Please shape it up - if it continues or gets worse, we may decide this one is more trouble than it is worth.

As always, any questions, please take them to e-mail.