Why is it so important?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ignoring what? This is the first time I've seen this definition. "Per encounter" means after 1 minute of rest. That's cool, question answered.

Really?

In that case, I'm sorry for the snarkiness.

The current way in which per-encounter resources work has been mentioned in just about every "Per Encounter WTF?"-type thread. It's hard to miss it, but I suppose it's possible given the evidence!

"Per Encounter" is really just shorthand for "Most of the time, the PCs will be able to have all of these abilities available in every encounter." Generally, finding a minute to rest in between "encounters" isn't going to be an issue (it's less than the time a 3E rogue would spend Taking 20 on a single chest or door). So, if at any point the DM says something like, "You walk down the halls for 5 minutes and come to a ...", they're back. If the reinforcements from the last fight hit you after 6 rounds of break, they aren't.

 

[gizmo33]

Here's my "9:00-9:15" problem.

9:00-9:15: PCs fight the Armageddon of all battles
9:16: PCs rest up and are fully charged
9:17-9:25: PCs fight another Armageddon battle
9:26: PCs realize all monsters within a mile radius have been killed. Push loot into portable hole.
9:27: PCs teleport to next dungeon. Rest in order to recover teleport spell.
9:28-9:30: PCs fight another Armageddon battle
9:31: PCs level up
9:32: PCs teleport to King's castle, ask for new quest
9:33: PCs adventure through next dungeon
9:34-10:00: PCs fight a handful more Battles to End all Battles. Level up a few more times.
10:01: PCs teleport back to King. Usurp throne.
10:05: PCs heal after fighting King's army
10:06: PCs retire.

I'll rename it the "9:00-10:06" problem to distinguish it from the 3E version.

And basically, I think Mkhaiwati's post suggests pretty clearly to me that a big part of the problem has been the lack of a really sensible design. It's just not realistic for PCs to camp for 8 hours in a dangerous place with nothing happening, and often with intelligent adversaries nearby. And what's that sensible design? That's versimilitude (and I'll keep using that word, ha!)

And interesting that it be the case, given the issue raised lately by World of Warcraft One of the consistent things that I see from people defending the existence of table-top RPGs is that they hands-down do a better job of capturing a feeling of reality in the game world. Why? Because stuff happens and the DM actually remembers that it happens and adjusts the world accordingly, whereas the computer's ability to adapt is significantly limited.

So here, presumably, 4E is trying to develop something compelling and it's playing right into the hands of WoW. Encouraging DMs to develop a response to the "9-9:15" problem that requires versimilitude appears to be taking a back seat to the instant gratification slug-a-thon that is my experience with most computer adventure games. I'm not saying that people's 4E games will become human moderated computer games - I'm saying that the noose continues to tighten, so to speak, as the amount of game world elements that the players have to interact with is reduced. I remember Neverwinter Nights being like this and it just didn't feel like DnD.

 

[gizmo33]

Really?

In that case, I'm sorry for the snarkiness.

Yea, I am serious. In my defense there's actually an entire thread full of people asking this same question and AFAIK it has yet to be answered. I almost chimed in and told them what you told me but I have no source for the information.

"Per Encounter" is really just shorthand for "Most of the time, the PCs will be able to have all of these abilities available in every encounter."

I'd say the entirety of the rest of my argument has assumed this basic concept as you've explained it. I wasn't quite sure that it meant a minute of rest, or 10 minute intervals, or whatever, but the effect was going to be the same thing. I would say that the core of my objections are about the consequences of this design change - the consequences that you sum up in the "shorthand" description.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Why are you assuming that the PCs get to teleport?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yea, I am serious. In my defense there's actually an entire thread full of people asking this same question and AFAIK it has yet to be answered. I almost chimed in and told them what you told me but I have no source for the information.

Which one? I'm sure I've posted it in every such thread so far (at least, all the ones currently on the first couple pages of the forum).

As far as the source goes, the "source" is the way the per-encounter resources work in the current WotC d20 rules systems that use them: the Book of 9 Swords (where the "1-minute-rest" works for one of the classes) and the Saga Edition of the Star Wars rules (where the per-encounter resources are Force Powers).

Note that the Bo9S has ... three? ... different versions on how you regain the resources (tied to the three per-encounter classes) and Saga has numerous ways to play with the recharge rate. Since I'm more familiar with Saga than Bo9S, they're:

1. 1 minute of rest refreshes your Force Power suite
2. A natural 20 on a Use the Force check refreshes your Force Power suite
3. A certain talents allow you to spend a full-round action to make a UtF check to return a single power to your suite
4. A different talent allows you to, 1 / encounter, return a power from a specific list to your suite
5. Spend a Force Point as a reaction to return a Force Power to your suite

Note that, in Saga, the only way to get Force Powers is to take the Force Training feat. This feat gives you 1+Wis Bonus Force Powers each time you take it, and the feat can only be purchased as a character feat (it appears on no class's bonus feat list).

Thus, for the vast majority of Force Power users, they'll have somewhere between 4 and 8 Force Powers total.

I'd be very surprised if WotC designs 4th Ed in such a way as to increase that number too dramatically. After all, if you've got so many per-encounter resources that you never need to use your at-will ones, well, then, why do you have the at-will ones?

I'd say the entirety of the rest of my argument has assumed this basic concept as you've explained it.

Let's say that the Wizard's per-encounter abilities are Magic Missile and Fireball. (And his 1 / day resource is Really Big Fireball.)

How does this break the world?

It's one thing if Wish or Raise Dead were per-encounter resources, but I don't see that happening.

 

[gizmo33]

Let's say that the Wizard's per-encounter abilities are Magic Missile and Fireball. (And his 1 / day resource is Really Big Fireball.)

How does this break the world?

I have about a zillion previous posts that go through the various possibilities and what I think the problems are. In this case, the scenario you describe I don't find to be substantially different from 3E. Because of this, and the stated design goals in James Wyatt's post, I don't think it's a likely situation. Between 9:00 and 9:15, the wizard is going to use his big fireball. Presumably the DM has designed the basic encounter difficulty level for the adventure to assume that the party wizard has "Big Fireball". As soon as he's out, they camp, for the same reasons as in the 3E case. All that's different here is that instead of a crossbow, the wizard is using a bunch of equivalently powered spells. I don't object to that at all (I actually hope that's what they do), I just don't think it's where Wyatt was going with his reasoning.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I have about a zillion previous posts that go through the various possibilities and what I think the problems are. In this case, the scenario you describe I don't find to be substantially different from 3E.

I do.

In 3E, I'll have 1 Big Fireball per day, yes, just like in the putative 4E, but in 3E I also only have two Fireballs and 4 Magic Missiles.

In 4E, I'll have effectively unlimited Fireballs and Magic Missiles - and because I get them back so easily, I'll be tempted to use those before resorting to my Big Fireball. Accordingly, I may not need Big Fireball until the BBEG shows up, whereas in 3E, it's likely I've had to use Big Fireball already just to make sure I've made it to the BBEG.

However, I think a more likely situation for 4E is that Magic Missile and Fireball are my per-encounter abilities and Knock or Phantom Steed are my per-day abilities.

Thus, while my overall effectiveness decreases once I've cast my Knock spell (I won't be unlocking any more doors), my combat effectiveness is ... effectively ... unchanged.

 

[gizmo33]

Why are you assuming that the PCs get to teleport?

Teleport's existence has been assumed by people defending the proposed 4E design in their criticisms of the 3E resource management scheme. If Teleport changes significantly, then I think it's fair to re-examine some of the "I can't attack sleeping PCs because they just teleport away" statements that have supported the 4E design. Removing teleport just adds a few "and you walk for a couple of days" to my "9:00-10:06" example.

 

[gizmo33]

In 3E, I'll have 1 Big Fireball per day, yes, just like in the putative 4E, but in 3E I also only have two Fireballs and 4 Magic Missiles.

Ok - so look at it this way: Either magic missle+fireball gives you a typical fighter's combat ability, or it doesn't. Now if it doesn't, it either isn't close, or it's close. IF it isn't close, then it's basically no different than a crossbow in terms of resource management, a desperate ability of last resort (like Ray of Frost would be, for example).

If a wizard's fireball/magic missle powers are comparable to the fighter's ability in combat, then how "big" can the "big fireball" really be, because you have fighter capability PLUS a big fireball whereas a fighter only has his fighter capability.

So there's always a fundemental trade-off to make with wizards. The more significant the "big fireball" is, the more they'll have to pay for it in other areas (and it's not like they have a lot left to give up to balance it out). The less significant it is, the more the situation (and problems) resembles that of an "all encounter-level resources" scenario. (Edit: and if it's Knock and Phantom Steed that are going to be the per day abilities, then effectively you're also at the "all encounter-level resources" scenario.)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Removing teleport just adds a few "and you walk for a couple of days" to my "9:00-10:06" example.

Right - but I imagine that your problem with the 9:00-10:06 example is the fact that the PCs can create such huge swathes of destruction in such a short period of time. If you increase the amount of in-game time this takes, doesn't that solve the problem?

If a wizard's fireball/magic missle powers are comparable to the fighter's ability in combat, then how "big" can the "big fireball" really be, because you have fighter capability PLUS a big fireball whereas a fighter only has his fighter capability.

Except the fighter also has "Blood Frenzy," which, 1 / day, allows him to do the equivalent of the big fireball (assuming that everything else is equal).

And, while, yes, using your at-will Simple Magical Ray Attack may not be all that much different than a crossbow in terms of overall effectiveness (less damage vs. touch attack), it is vastly different in that one is magical and the other is mundane. People who sign up to play wizards generally want more of the former, in my experience.

In Saga terms, the Jedi can certainly attack with his lightsaber every round and can continue to do so as long as he has Hit Points. However, using a properly timed and placed Force Slam to beat up a horde of battle droids / clone troopers / stormtroopers is fun. And being able to do that once or twice in each combat is fun. Being able to do that once a day is less fun (because it's less likely you'll use it or more likely that once you use it it'll be time to take a sizeable break).