This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[Brother MacLaren]

But my biggest reason for supporting per encounter stuff has nothing to do with the rest at 9:05 "problem." I love it because it will always allow the wizard to blast stuff with magic (which he's good at) rather than spend half the combat plunking away with a crossbow (that he sucks at). That's the not-so-fun side of "resource management."

How many times have I heard: "Well...*sigh*....I guess I'll shoot him with my crossbow. Oh, look. I missed. Next."

I really don't get this. The wizard isn't that bad with the crossbow and his damage isn't that bad either. At 4th level his BAB is 2 behind, but his Dex is likely pretty high and he can certainly afford a MW crossbow. So with the usual Inspire Courage he's looking at maybe +6 to hit for 1d8+1 damage, where the fighter's at +10 for 1d8+5. Against a typical CR 4 opponent (AC 17), the wizard hits 50% of the time (70% as often as the fighter, who hits 70% of the time) and does 60% as much damage as the fighter. And that's with the fighter having a +3 Str and the wizard only a +2 Dex, and the fighter taking Weapon Focus (IME WF and WS are usually passed over in favor of more colorful feats) and having a +1 sword.

By the time the BAB difference is really significant, the wizard has lots of spells and the ability to make wands.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I once ran an adventure that was a dungeon crawl where the NPCs (soldiers of an Underdark Empire that has discovered an ancient teleportation system they tried to reactivate and used to launch assault on various enemies) acted on their own.

Basically, the group entered the dungeon, fought several guards, and eventually retreated, when their spells and hit points were low.

During this time, the remaining guards repositioned, put up some better ambushes, and they were certainly aware of intruders.

The party repeated this tactic. The guards seeing their assembled an assault team that was supposed to kill he PCs. They failed (naturally). The remaining guards requested further assistance from the military command they got, but it took some time. So they abandoned the first floor of the dungeon and retreated back, fortifying their positon further.

The group attacked again, fought, and retreated. The guards had gotten some assistance, but that was it. They tried and hope for the best, until the characters attacked again, mostly succesful. Eventually, the leader of the troop approached the party and declared that they were willing to stop the raids (which they couldn't do anyway since the party arrived) and was even willing to come to a peaceful solution.

The scenario certainly worked, but the repeating clearing of the same levels was pretty tedious, and I am not sure I would do it again.

What is also important: Will a DM ever be so harsh to put the parties in an ambush or attack at night that they don't have a reasonable chance of winning? I wouldn't do it, unless I knew the PCs would flee before it came to close to a TPK. Because, versimilitude aside, I want the PCs to be important and succesful. They will have to sweat getting to an succesful end, but I will never put them in a situation where they will fail, no matter what. Because I don't want to DM a group of losers, I want to run a group of world-shakers and heroes.

So, the only thing that I can really do to change the "Resting at 9:05 PM" syndrom would be to have adventures that are simply so short that they can be ended before all resources are spent, or where they can't rest due to time constraints (and hoping that they will survive)

What I don't want to do is throw in meaningless encounters that will cost no resources but are boring, or that will become repetitive fast, just for the sake of lengtehning the adventure day. (One Puzzle is okay. Two, Three? Not really.)

There is also another side to daily resource management in contrast to encouner management.
Daily resource management applies mostly to spellcasters and usually means "I can choose between casting a spell or not acting" (you can substitute "not acting" with firing a crossbow in most cases). Resource Management can be fun, but in this case, the fun is negated by all the times you don't get to have fun during a encounter. Which means that spellcasters need something fun to do, even if they are not spending their most precious resources. Okay, so the Wizard will not cast his Overpowered Fireball this encounter, but he can at least fire a few Magic Missiles or Scorching Rays...

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

I really don't get this. The wizard isn't that bad with the crossbow and his damage isn't that bad either. At 4th level his BAB is 2 behind, but his Dex is likely pretty high and he can certainly afford a MW crossbow. So with the usual Inspire Courage he's looking at maybe +6 to hit for 1d8+1 damage, where the fighter's at +10 for 1d8+5. Against a typical CR 4 opponent (AC 17), the wizard hits 50% of the time (70% as often as the fighter, who hits 70% of the time) and does 60% as much damage as the fighter. And that's with the fighter having a +3 Str and the wizard only a +2 Dex, and the fighter taking Weapon Focus (IME WF and WS are usually passed over in favor of more colorful feats) and having a +1 sword.

By the time the BAB difference is really significant, the wizard has lots of spells and the ability to make wands.

Right, but firing into melee (in 3.5) is harder and requires specialized feats. With fighters up front, the opponent is usually in melee (-4 to hit) and may have cover. Many wizards have point blank/precise, but many would rather spend their precious feats elsewhere.

 

[shilsen]

Anyway -- how do you feel about the idea that PCs can/should/must rest after just a couple of encounters.

I don't really have strong feelings about it, because I think PCs should do what their players think they should, which should preferably be the most reasonable thing to do under the given circumstances. So in certain circumstances, I think it makes absolute sense that PCs rest after a couple of encounters. In other circumstances, not so much.

Do you run or play in games where this happens? Do you actively avoid it? Prefer it?

It never happens in my games and I actively avoid it due to my preferred playstyle. I don't like dungeons and I almost never run them. And in my games PCs usually have one encounter in a given game day, with maybe two and very rarely three (in my current campaign, thrice in 60 sessions, I believe). So PCs needing to rest because they run out of resources is never a factor in my games.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't have this problem. Sure, if you run constant gauntlet-crawls I suppose it comes to this. I have smart players who prepare, that's all. The spellcasters make scrolls, clerics pool the party and buy a wand of cure light wounds, the fighters and rogues play a little smart in combat, that's all.

At level 2? Really? Your player characters have lots of wands and scrolls at level 2?

And, seriously, could we PLEASE stop with the insults?

 

[dmccoy1693]

One of the arguments for per-encounter abilities (both in new 3.5 supplements and 4e) has been this bugaboo about adventures coming to a halt 3 encounters in to the day because all the spellcasters and other per-day classes end up tapped of resources.

I think it is bunk.

*Applause*

In the words of JMS in Babylon 5:
"It's easy to fight when you've got a lot of ships to work with. The real crunch comes when you are down to almost nothing. Then you either play it safe and you probably lose it all or you take a chance."

I get the sense that WotC R&D has forgotten that. With the wizard being the most powerful character at high levels, when he's out of spells, that's when the group really shows their mettle. If the wizard can always still do something, then where's the courage in that?

To use an OotS example, when V was down to a single spell, (s)he used it to save him/herself (increadibly uncourageous). Instead, (s)he could have pulled all the troops at the breech back inside the keep or some other more defendable location and lead the troops to hold out longer, allowing more of them to live. Contrast that with what it sounds like 4E will have. If V had say, unlimited use of magic missle, less fireballs would have been used so early, less lightning spells, etc. (Yes they do less damage in 4E, but against 1st level hobgoblins, how much damage do you need?) Those would still be available to him/her/it. The day would have been saved. BIG WHOOP!!!

 

[Will]

This has been a problem in games I've been in, to varying degree. We've had situations where there's been a real difficult choice... 'We have to save the kids, time may be a factor. But we have almost no spells, so we aren't going to have a shot at saving the kids. Nnngh. Ok, we rest.'

One thing that's helped a lot is that we're currently doing a gestalt game; gestalt isn't overpowered (IMO), but one of the big benefits is that it tends to give characters more resources, and so allow them to last a lot longer before tapping out.

Count me in the group of folks eager to see per-encounter abilities.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Is putting the pressure on the players so they just can't rest at will a lost art?

Nope. It's a good tactic. But like all things, I don't think you can use it all the time.

However, I suggest everyone talking about "bad DMing" take a few sessions to play a character. A spellcaster like a wizard. You know what? When you're out of spells, you're out of options. Options that the adventure may well depend upon to get to certain places. Can you push your players with low or no resources? Certainly. Should PCs manage their resources better? Sure.

At the end of the day though, it is more fun to have more options available to you than less.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I get the sense that WotC R&D has forgotten that. With the wizard being the most powerful character at high levels, when he's out of spells, that's when the group really shows their mettle. If the wizard can always still do something, then where's the courage in that?

That's a cool scenario in the 10 percent or of campaigns that actually make it to high level.

Let's hear the argument for keeping the pressure on the level 1 group.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Let's hear the argument for keeping the pressure on the level 1 group.

That's the Fighter's time to shine. There, the wizard is the scholarly one, less useful in combat. That's the way its always been with D&D.

I don't want to come across that I don't like what I hear about 4E, I do like what I hear, but I from what I hear, the only similarity that 1/2/3/3.5 have with 4E D&D is the terminology. I'd love to play this game, if they called it something other then D&D. The points of light setting sounds awesome and if they make a single campaign setting book for it, I'll probably pick it up. But IMHO, the system isn't D&D, YMMV.