Why is it so important?

[Jackelope King]

So, do you guys think that, once my current 2 year contract for Software Engineering is over, I should apply to WotC and help them design D&D 5th edition?

Only if you finally get them to include the Dancing Baby as a prestige class

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Only if you finally get them to include the Dancing Baby as a prestige class

Derwish with variant flavor?

 

[Jackelope King]

Derwish with variant flavor?

You've got my vote!

 

[pemerton]

Pemerton therefore argues that the conclusion (it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible) is only true if there is no other mitigating factor.

My point was more that the removal is being achieved by an introduction - so the mitigation is internal to the situation. In particular, the removal of the future risk (ie by introduction of per-encounter abilities) will itself give another reason not to lead with per-day abilities (because of the design of those per-encounter abilities) - assuming that those abilities are well-designed. And why wouldn't they be?

See, Pemerton? He's just a tease.

I guess that those of us who can't do logic, reading comprehension or game design have to make do with what we can get.

 

[IanArgent]

Whereas I'm only discussing one subset of mechanics/design: Will per-encounter abilities resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem for those who experienced it in 3.X, as claimed by Wyatt's blog?

Given that I have personal experience with a system in which all abilities are essentially at will, and that I find it easier to challenge players in it than in D&D; I would expect per-encounter abilities to make the DMs life easier, and not so much resolve the question of the 9:00-9:15 adventuring day as to make it an irrelevant question.

By concentrating on the specific mechanics we are trying to describe the elephant by feel - we have no idea how the mechanics integrate with the rest of the system.

 

[IanArgent]

My other complaint with primarily per-day-based resource expenditure is that you can, as aplayer, end up paying the price (holding back resources for the next fight) without gaining the benefit (being able to use it in the next fight) if the next fight comes after they have a chance to rest. Contrariwise, the pacing of the adventure suffers if the PCs used their resources prudently and the adventure still doesn't have a place for them to rest.


RC, I know you were complaining on antoher thread about the necessity for wealth-per-level. Why do you support a rule system that requires a certain # of encounters per rest period, and missing on either side unbalances the game?

 

[Wormwood]

Given that I have personal experience with a system in which all abilities are essentially at will, and that I find it easier to challenge players in it than in D&D; I would expect per-encounter abilities to make the DMs life easier

My experience with such systems has led me to just that conclusion.

 

[Reynard]

My other complaint with primarily per-day-based resource expenditure is that you can, as aplayer, end up paying the price (holding back resources for the next fight) without gaining the benefit (being able to use it in the next fight) if the next fight comes after they have a chance to rest. Contrariwise, the pacing of the adventure suffers if the PCs used their resources prudently and the adventure still doesn't have a place for them to rest.

Assuming there is an element of exploration in a given adventure, where the PCs are uncertain as to what the day will bring and what they might face in the way of challenges, this is, IMO, perfectly acceptable. To assume a dungeon delve, the PCs are going into a uncertain terriroty with a limited amount of information in order to explore it, knowing full well they are likley to come across dangerous obstacles. being prudent just makes sense, given the uncertainty of the situation. Should the PCs happen to find a secure location to hole up and rest before they need to, it is time to make a decision: press on, hoping to be able to either find another such place or return to this one, or hole up and get back to full force before moving on even if they aren't down that many resources. The game is about such decisions, and this one in particular is the perfect kind of decision for an exploratory game.

Exploratory dungeon crawling, hex mapping and other forms of "old school" play have kind of gone by the wayside in favor or action-adventure film pacing, however, and I can see where the difference in tone and playstyle might suggest per encounter abilities would be beneficial. But that doesn't mean per-day resources are "bad" or poor design as some have suggested, just geared toward a different sort of game. The problem is that by eliminating or seriously downplaying per-day resources has the effect of invalidating a playstyle, where simple includinga per-encounter resource model in addition to the per day resource model (for example, having both a Vancian Wizard and a Warlock as viable character options) would have broadened the possible playstyles of the game instead of limiting them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Assuming there is an element of exploration in a given adventure, where the PCs are uncertain as to what the day will bring and what they might face in the way of challenges, this is, IMO, perfectly acceptable. To assume a dungeon delve, the PCs are going into a uncertain terriroty with a limited amount of information in order to explore it, knowing full well they are likley to come across dangerous obstacles. being prudent just makes sense, given the uncertainty of the situation. Should the PCs happen to find a secure location to hole up and rest before they need to, it is time to make a decision: press on, hoping to be able to either find another such place or return to this one, or hole up and get back to full force before moving on even if they aren't down that many resources. The game is about such decisions, and this one in particular is the perfect kind of decision for an exploratory game.

Exploratory dungeon crawling, hex mapping and other forms of "old school" play have kind of gone by the wayside in favor or action-adventure film pacing, however, and I can see where the difference in tone and playstyle might suggest per encounter abilities would be beneficial. But that doesn't mean per-day resources are "bad" or poor design as some have suggested, just geared toward a different sort of game. The problem is that by eliminating or seriously downplaying per-day resources has the effect of invalidating a playstyle, where simple includinga per-encounter resource model in addition to the per day resource model (for example, having both a Vancian Wizard and a Warlock as viable character options) would have broadened the possible playstyles of the game instead of limiting them.

I disagree. What if I want to play a bookworm mage, not a spellcasting pacting with demons or feys to gain powers, but we don't run an exploratory campaign? My character won't work well in this scenario.

But if every class can rely - for the most time - on its per encounter or at will abilities, and only in rare cases has to spend strictly limited daily resources, you can have both play styles with any class.

From my experience, there are also other reasons to halt your dungeon exploring then being out of spells. You might need other supplies (food, arrows), or you have found so many treasure that you want to get it back to the next town. Or you have found some information you need to check with a sage in town, or just report to someone else.

Resting just because you're out of spells has no equivalent in real life. In real life, you rest because you need sleep. In every other case, you (have to) retreat back into a safer location, to treat wounds, replenish supplies and so on.

 

[Jackelope King]

Assuming there is an element of exploration in a given adventure, where the PCs are uncertain as to what the day will bring and what they might face in the way of challenges, this is, IMO, perfectly acceptable. To assume a dungeon delve, the PCs are going into a uncertain terriroty with a limited amount of information in order to explore it, knowing full well they are likley to come across dangerous obstacles. being prudent just makes sense, given the uncertainty of the situation. Should the PCs happen to find a secure location to hole up and rest before they need to, it is time to make a decision: press on, hoping to be able to either find another such place or return to this one, or hole up and get back to full force before moving on even if they aren't down that many resources. The game is about such decisions, and this one in particular is the perfect kind of decision for an exploratory game.

Exploratory dungeon crawling, hex mapping and other forms of "old school" play have kind of gone by the wayside in favor or action-adventure film pacing, however, and I can see where the difference in tone and playstyle might suggest per encounter abilities would be beneficial. But that doesn't mean per-day resources are "bad" or poor design as some have suggested, just geared toward a different sort of game. The problem is that by eliminating or seriously downplaying per-day resources has the effect of invalidating a playstyle, where simple includinga per-encounter resource model in addition to the per day resource model (for example, having both a Vancian Wizard and a Warlock as viable character options) would have broadened the possible playstyles of the game instead of limiting them.

But the problem is that D&D is meant to represent the genre presented in fantasy fiction (including High Fantasy and Swords & Sorcery). Within that genre, there are very few (if any outside of D&D fiction) where characters have to rest because they've "run out of spells". A spellcaster resting because he's tired? Sure! Resting because you're tired makes perfect sense, and so does a spellcaster's magic fatiguing him physically and emotionally (at least as it's often presented in popular fiction). But in D&D, a spellcaster who has cast every single spell in his daily alotment is just as physically capable as he was first thing in the morning before casting any spells. As I've pointed out before, D&D spellcasters don't suffer fatigue, they run out of spells, a metagame concept limited to D&D and D&D-based games and fiction.

I've always thought that the Gygaxian dungeon exporation/wilderness exploration would be better served in representing what it tries to represent not with artificial "I ran out of spells" resources, but instead with real "We ran out of food" resources, and these will still be present in 4e. As Ridcully pointed out, there are still plenty of reasons to have to turn around or ration in an exploration-type scenario, but they won't be ones which will artificially restrict other game-types to playing like that narrow niche of exploration. DMs who want to focus on this sort of exploration can do so by carefully tracking food, arrows, disposable magic items (like potions and scrolls) and other resources, while DMs who aren't as interested in it can just handwave food and carry capacity and the like to keep the game moving.