This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[Reynard]

Reynard- I'm curious, having not seen the new per-encounter mechanics, how do you know for a fact that it won't involve resource management?

I get the impression that it will, but you seem 100% convinced that any change away from the CURRENT resource-management paradigm means an end to gaming as we know it.

Any reasons for this?

Also, how do you know less worrying about resources might not ENCOURAGE exploration?

I've seen parties that were afraid to stray too far from civilization, lest they get seriously wounded in an encounter in dangerous territory.

These rules sound like they might encourage the playstyle you hold so dear.

Or, to put it more simply, why are you so positive that any changes to the current paradigm must be bad, sight unseen?

As I have stated, it is the difference between tactical and strategic resource management. per-encounter abilities require tactical resource management -- "in this fight, when should I use this ability?" kind of thought. This is as opposed to per-day, strategic resource management -- "Which 3rd level spell do I memorize? What are we going to encounter down here?"

It isn't that I am convinced that 4E will be a "bad game" -- it is that the changes being made to the game are making it "not D&D" as I define the game. And it isn't that it is purely a resource management issue. All the subsystems of the game interact with one another in such a way as to create a default playstyle. That means that changing that default playstyle requires houseruling, handwaving and so on. Why bother when there's a version of D&D that already does what I want -- other than because it is nice to be part of a "living" community and play a "living" game.

I think 4E will by and large be very cool for people that like 3.5 -- particularly the 3.5 we've seen in the last year or two. It's obvious from this thread and other places that old skool dungeon crawling with resource management, mapping, exploration, and save or die effects isn't what D&D fans want any more. People want "options, not restrictions" and to excise the "unfun" inherent in D&D's most sacred cows. That's all well and good, and I wish everyone a fun time, but that doesn't mean I have to play D&D the way the publisher wants me to, or even the game they want me to.

 

[Vigilance]

As I have stated, it is the difference between tactical and strategic resource management. per-encounter abilities require tactical resource management -- "in this fight, when should I use this ability?" kind of thought. This is as opposed to per-day, strategic resource management -- "Which 3rd level spell do I memorize? What are we going to encounter down here?"

But, assuming the per-encounter abilities work like Reserve Feats (and this is a big if, but I think it's logical), you will still need to use per day spells that you memorized in advance, and upon using those spells, your per-encounter abilities will be severely restricted.

I call that resource management.

In fact, if your per-encounter abilities are contingent on you holding a memorized spell, or spells, in reserve, that's an even stronger element of resource management, since casting that spell could weaken you even more seriously than it does now.

In 3e, you cast a spell, you lose a spell.

In 4e, you might very well lose the spell AND your per-encounter abilities.

This also simulates the spell taking a lot out of the caster.

I just think it's way WAY too early to say "this game isn't going to be D&D".

But then, I tend to recoil from saying that a certain playstyle "isn't D&D", which is why your statement to that effect above got something of a rise out of me.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

In 3e, you cast a spell, you lose a spell.

In 4e, you might very well lose the spell AND your per-encounter abilities.

That doesn't seem to track with the "80%" figure given.

But then, I tend to recoil from saying that a certain playstyle "isn't D&D", which is why your statement to that effect above got something of a rise out of me.

Why does that bother you? To me, there is a HUGE difference between saying "playing a fantasy RPG" and "playing D&D." D&D is not all fantasy RPG systems, it is one particular group of systems sharing some common features. Because the individual systems vary quite a bit, it's not a hard and fast definition, but there are still enough common threads that I am often comfortable making a judgment as to what "feels like D&D" to me.

Looking up specific critical hit effects on a table? Doesn't feel like D&D.
Goblins being gruff magical bankers? Doesn't feel like D&D.
Wizards being unable to run out of magic? Doesn't really feel like D&D.

You can play Poker a number of ways, there are nearly infinite variations. A game that doesn't involve betting? Doesn't feel like poker. A game that doesn't use cards? Doesn't feel like poker.

You can still be playing a great game even if it isn't D&D... but if it's too changed from the previous games called "D&D" that I've played, I'm simply going to say it doesn't feel like D&D.

 

[Vigilance]

That doesn't seem to track with the "80%" figure given.

Sure, what we've seen might be totally different from reserve feats. But even so, I've seen nothing to convince me that resource management is going away entirely.

They're reducing it. 80% abilities does not equal 100%.

Why does that bother you? To me, there is a HUGE difference between saying "playing a fantasy RPG" and "playing D&D." D&D is not all fantasy RPG systems, it is one particular group of systems sharing some common features. Because the individual systems vary quite a bit, it's not a hard and fast definition, but there are still enough common threads that I am often comfortable making a judgment as to what "feels like D&D" to me.

I'm not talking about D&D having a specific feel, I'm talking about judging other peoples' games.

The OP began by saying this "resting at 9:05 thing" didn't happen.

When several people responded that yes, it does happen, he then retreated to "well then you're not running the game the way it was MEANT to be run".

I have a problem with that sort of argument.

His play style isn't the one true way any more than anyone else's.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

As I have stated, it is the difference between tactical and strategic resource management. per-encounter abilities require tactical resource management -- "in this fight, when should I use this ability?" kind of thought. This is as opposed to per-day, strategic resource management -- "Which 3rd level spell do I memorize? What are we going to encounter down here?"

Why is a single day strategic?

I get the feeling that if D&D 4E were moving from a per-week to a per-day refresh on Wizard spells, Reynard [and his ilk] would be making the same argument.

What is it about the 24-hour period (or, rather, the "8 hour rest" period) that turns a resource from tactical to strategic?

 

[hong]

Three square fights a day makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.

 

[Lanefan]

Why is a single day strategic?

I get the feeling that if D&D 4E were moving from a per-week to a per-day refresh on Wizard spells, Reynard [and his ilk] would be making the same argument.

What is it about the 24-hour period (or, rather, the "8 hour rest" period) that turns a resource from tactical to strategic?

I'd guess it's largely because we as real people function on a 24-hour clock, at least once during which we (usually) rest for 6-9 hours to refresh ourselves. It's an easy translation to have that same clock work in-game as well.

Lanefan

 

[Arkhandus]

Why is a single day strategic?

I get the feeling that if D&D 4E were moving from a per-week to a per-day refresh on Wizard spells, Reynard [and his ilk] would be making the same argument.

What is it about the 24-hour period (or, rather, the "8 hour rest" period) that turns a resource from tactical to strategic?

Not really.

You seem to be ignoring the very definitions of the words, for instance. :\ Tactical is the situation/actions during one battle. Strategic is the overall combat situation of a mission/campaign/etc. and all the planning/coordination/tension that goes with it.

Having to worry about expending your only Fireball of the current battle is hardly as pressing a concern as expending your only Fireball of the current hour, day, or week.

In the first case your Fireball will be useable again in a few minutes or less anyway, so it's hardly much of a decision at all; the only reason you wouldn't use it yet is because your comrades have already foolishly charged into the thick of melee like retards (...or raging barbarians), OR because the enemies jumped you and already rushed into melee with your comrades.


Then once your Fireball is expended and many enemies are burning, you let loose with the Scorching Rays or Webs or what-have-you, since you'll get them back after the battle anyhow. Once those are gone you resort to your at-will Magic Missile or-what-have-you. And once the battle is finished, you resume the next fight at full or nearly-full power.

There might have been a temporary challenge for you in the fight, but you're the mage, so you stayed up in a tree or something and are probably unscathed, barring the occasional arrow that hits. Eventually those rare arrow-hits will require you to rest and recuperate, assuming the cleric hasn't just used one of his per-encounter or at-will healing spells to make you more-or-less fully functional again.


Sure, you may have a few paltry spells that are limited per-day, but they hardly matter because being at 80% effectiveness all the time doesn't really make most fights challenging to you, in and of itself. Sure the big boss fights or similar will require you to expend those superior per-day spells, but you're not going to fight several such battles in one day. So you don't have to worry about not having those minor per-day resources available.

You can mow through a goblin warren one tunnel at a time, all in one day, just using the occasional Expeditious Retreat or similar to buy yourself a 5-minute breather or whatever to replenish your per-encounter magic.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not talking about D&D having a specific feel, I'm talking about judging other peoples' games.

The OP began by saying this "resting at 9:05 thing" didn't happen.

Actually, I started with a question, because I hadn't seen it happen.

When several people responded that yes, it does happen, he then retreated to "well then you're not running the game the way it was MEANT to be run".

I have a problem with that sort of argument.

His play style isn't the one true way any more than anyone else's.

You know, having to paste up IMO and IME and YMMV in every post just to CYA gets old pretty quick. This is a discussion forum. It should be pretty obvious that what I and everyone else writes here is opinion. I haven't once "badwrongfuned" anyone. What I have done is try and explain why resource management is a fundamental part of D&D gameplay (IME) and that moving to a per-encounter resource model will hurt that part of the game (IMO), which makes it appear as though 4e is going to feel less like "D&D" (YMMV).

I am not advocating one-true-wayism. However, I am suggesting that there has been and is going to be a shift in the default model of play for D&D (this IS NOT an opinion -- this is fact) that changes the game, and not for the better (THIS is the part that's opinion).

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Not really.

You seem to be ignoring the very definitions of the words, for instance. :\ Tactical is the situation/actions during one battle. Strategic is the overall combat situation of a mission/campaign/etc. and all the planning/coordination/tension that goes with it.

While I agree with you here, I do perceive one way in which "per-encounter" abilities could be made more "strategic," and that's if battles are more dynamic. You start fighting the goblin guards, they take cover and start shooting, you throw your once-per-encounter Fireball spell... and *then* the wave of reinforcements shows up with the ogres. If it's still the same encounter, you don't get another Fireball, so you're stuck.

But the only way per-encounter resource management can be strategic is if there's a real element of "you don't know what you'll be facing next" within the encounter.