Raven Crowking
First Post
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Obviously the PC hit points matter. The level of danger the PCs face in a given encounter cannot be gagued without some clue as to what they can sustain.
RC
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Why is it so important?
- Thread starter Treebore
- Start date
Obviously the PC hit points matter. The level of danger the PCs face in a given encounter cannot be gagued without some clue as to what they can sustain.
RC
Raven Crowking
First Post
Wyatt said:
The 15-minute adventuring day problem arises from players not asking themselves, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?"
Why do they not ask this?
EDIT: Let me emphasize this, because it is the crucial question. You might get lucky, and solve a problem through sheer happenstance, but in general it is better to understand why the problem exists and then target that reason.
Now, I say that the player who does this does not ask himself "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?" does not do so because the game rewards him for not doing so. Using the big gun at the first hint of trouble increases his chance of survival. The only cost to him is that he has to rest -- i.e., accept that his character adventures for 15 minutes before resting to recover and reset. This is an acceptable (if not desireable) exchange for this player, or he would not do it.
If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.
Jackalope, I hope that you will respond to this, but I will still examine encounters with you either way. Otherwise, if anyone wants to further discuss this issue with me, you will please respond to this post.
RC
Last edited:
Jackelope King
First Post
My appologies. I've been swamped with classwork.Raven Crowking said:
It's acceptable from a mechanical point of view, if not from a contextual point of view.
Raven Crowking said:
As long as you have any per-day resource management your point will generally hold. I think what they are creating is a way to mitigate this effect to a degree.
I think Pmertons is probably being optimistic as I really think the scenario 9/10 times is going to be unleash your big per-encounter guns first (or basically it will be the same set of tactics in most every encounter). On the other hand reading many of Pmertons posts he (she) does have a nice grasp of game mechanics from several systems so he might have some insight i don't.
I think his idea of action tokens though is probably a good way to balance and bring more diversity to tactics, as actions have become the most valuable commodity in combat.
Apoptosis
Raven Crowking
First Post
Jackelope King said:
If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.
Raven Crowking
First Post
apoptosis said:
I am not talking about resolving the problem here; merely with identifying it and its cause(s).
If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.
RC
Jackelope King
First Post
Briefly, from a mechanical point of view, it's always desireable to enter an encounter with your full allotment of resources, but it's acceptable to enter an encounter with a merely sufficient allotment of resources (i.e., if an encounter can be bested with only 10% of your resources, then it's acceptable to enter that encounter with at least 10% of your resource allotment).Raven Crowking said:
From a conceptual point of view, it goes against just about every fantasy genre for the heroes to rest while fully energized early in the morning for the sole reason of reseting their daily resources. If magic actually fatigued a caster, or if the party was legitimately at low health, then this is more acceptable, but when the sole reason for resting is to let the unscathed and energized party marshal its handful of expended daily resources, it absolutely shatters suspension of disbelief. This is a playstyle difference, I realize, but the fantasy genres that I look to emulate when I play D&D simply don't have this element. As was said many pages back, yes, they do have magical fatigue which must be slept off, but since expenditure of resources does not cause fatigue (except in rare cases, like the barbarian), then this element clashes with my view of what D&D should be trying to emulate.
Since fewer encounters under the proposed system will consume resources which can be triggered to replenish by sleeping, there will be less of a mechanical advantage to be gained from resting early and often. If the game is successful in making the encounters themselves more interesting (whether through increased tactical options, more cinematic gameplay, or through other means), much in the way that games such as Iron Heroes did with Maneuvers, Stunts and Zones, then each individual encounter will be more fulfilling without encouraging the party to break and rest to the detriment of the versimilitude of the game. In my mind, this increased focus on making individual combats more fulfilling coupled with a system which does not encourage genre-breaking actions is an acceptable trade-off for the resource management which has been present in other editions of D&D.
Raven Crowking said:
That would be difficult as I am agreeing with you
i believe as long as you have any per-day resource the question of using a big gun now or later will evolve into the scenario you proposed. I think the addition of per-encounter resources just allows for maybe some mitigation of the problem of the 9-9:15 adventuring, as the casters might be more inclined to press forward as they do have some resources available in every encounter.
At the same time careful parties will eventually start the camping cycle so that they always have their big gun for every encounter in addition to their per-encounter abilities.
I actually LIKE the vancian system and have never had the camping issue others have. I think if it is an issue, as long as there are any per-day resources the camping cycle will still occur.
Last edited:
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Raven Crowking said:
Because I chose the wizard class.
I chose the wizard class because the way in which I want to interact with the game world is by casting spells. If I'd wanted to be an archer, I'd be a fighter or a ranger.
I want to do something wizardly (cast an appropriate spell) in every encounter in which I play a part.
I would like to play a part in the majority of encounters.
I would like to play a part in the majority of the rounds of each combat encounter.
Therefore, I want to be able to cast a spell in the majority of the rounds of each combat encounter.
3E, because it is tied to a per-day formula based on the earlier "horde your resources" model of earlier D&D, does not give me enough spells to do this without buying wands or scrolls until I reach a relatively high level (at which point I am generally able to afford those wands I'd've like to have earlier in the game).
The power slope for my character is far too steep. After just a couple combats of doing my wizardly thing, I'm unable to do anything wizardly for the rest of the day.
Therefore, I have an unpalatable choice to make. I can either conserve my resources by "shooting my crossbow" (which violates my "Do something wizardly" precept) or expend my resources (which results in me running out of them very quickly compared to the other characters, which forces the 9:00 to 9:15 adventuring day).
By analogy:
Because I chose the ranger class.
I chose the ranger class because the way in which I want to interact with the game world is by being a stealthy archer. If I'd wanted to be a major spellcaster, I'd be a wizard or a druid.
I want to do something rangery (attack with my bow or sneak about) in every encounter in which I play a part.
I would like to play a part in the majority of encounters.
I would like to play a part in the majority of the rounds of each combat encounters.
Therefore, I want to be able to attack with my bow in the majority of the rounds of each combat encounter.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Jackelope King said:
I am not talking about resolving the problem here; merely with identifying it and its cause(s). Once we have identified the cause(s) we can talk sensibly about solutions.
If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.
RC
