Why is it so important?

[Celebrim]

INote that I often only had one encounter per day. Even when I didn't, I tended to just handwave any hit point loss anyway.

And the pwnage just continues.

 

[gizmo33]

Except, of course, that he's attempting to claim that per-day resources automatically constitute a "significant portion of the party's resources" simply because they're per day.

This is not what I'm claiming at all. I think it was understood that in the earlier context of what I was saying, 1/day powers are generally more powerful than per-encounter powers. It makes no sense game balance wise for it to be the opposite, although it sometimes happens because of the haphazard way in which powers are accumulated (nor would I have it otherwise). However, it does not even support my point to suggest the thing that I think we both think is wrong: that 1/day powers are identical to powerful powers. There's no reason for that, there's no reason for me to suggest it, and it doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying, though it does use alot of the same words. I really think there's some confusion here.

 

[hong]

I can have one big encounter. Or I could have multiple big encounters, each achieving a part of the overall objective.

I could fight all of these encounters in one day. Or, if the situation allowed it, I could pull back, do something after the first big encounter, and come back the next day (or the next week).

It is up to me. Again, this is attempting to fix a problem I don't have.

Ah. This must be a new definition of "big" that this thread hasn't seen before. (I do hope you're not attempting to claim that resource attrition is no longer a part of the per-day paradigm.)

Finally, if each encounter does not depend on previous encounters for its tactical significance, then designing the individual encounters becomes much harder,

Are you kidding?

as does managing the consequences if the party has a string of bad luck (because each encounter was never intended in itself to fully stretch the party anyway).

If the party has a string of bad luck sufficient to kill someone, they can have exactly the same recourses available to them: raise, resurrect, etc. They can run away and fix the problem, and this will not affect the difficulty of later challenges.

 

[hong]

And the pwnage just continues.

Tch.

 

[Imaro]

I don't see why a "fight" should be treated as purely a tactical exercise, shorn of all in-game context or exogenous factors. Ultimately, fights are there because they're fun. I don't know anyone who derives ALL of their D&D enjoyment from the tactical side of things. Fights can be fun for reasons other than just exercising your wargamer gene.

Nice way to twist what I'm saying. Let me clarify, no tactical and strategic combat are not the end all and be all of a good battle in D&D. However if the tactics of the fight break down to the same thing over and over again(more likely when you have per-encounter abilities then per day abilities) it becomes more an excercise in tediousness IMHO.

What, so while reading/watching LotR, you weren't consciously aware that there was also no risk, no excitement, no real challenge?.

The first time I read it...no I didn't know what was going to happen, and that's the honest truth. I am an african-american who grew up on the southside of Chicago, an english teacher gave me the book to read, and I had never even heard of LotR, much less knew what was going to happen. The movie...I liked some of the visuals but the fights were meh as far as anticipation or excitment goes, because yeah I knew how it was going to turn out.

Eh. That doesn't mean D&D can't steal some of their schtick.

Touche...but they need to make this clear in the DMG as far as advice for designing encounters, and(hopefully) avoid all encouters becoming either a breeze to or a win/die as the only type of binary end result to a challenging encounter.

I'm not sure why an issue with what SW considers an appropriate encounter should be considered a problem when it comes to 4E.

Uhm...because even the designers are now openly flaunting it as a "preview" of 4e so I'd rather throw my concerns out now and hope they're listening than get mad when the game is released even though I found issues with SW and chose not to say anything.

PHB2 class, can heal big loads of hit points per day, as well as remove disease, poison, curses, energy drain, etc etc.

OK...wait, you said per day...I'm confused.

Note that I often only had one encounter per day. Even when I didn't, I tended to just handwave any hit point loss anyway.

So with one encounter per day and a handwaving of hit point damage...how can you honestly say there were no longterm problems. Perhaps it's because in SW combats do go fast and you can run alot more per game time than I've experienced with D&D that the boredom and tediousness set in after awhile. The problem is WotC is claiming it will be the same way in D&D 4e.

 

[gizmo33]

What, so while reading/watching LotR, you weren't consciously aware that there was also no risk, no excitement, no real challenge?

The difference between a movie and RPGs is that movies can manipulate your perception of risk whereas in RPGs the perception of risk is based much more on the numbers, and players tend to know alot about the numbers involved in any conflict. There's no reason in the LotR movie that the audience can dismiss even a lone orc getting lucky with a crossbow and killing a PC - but the chances of that sort of thing in an RPG are so remote that it's never a serious consideration. Aragorn being charged by a mean looking orc in a movie would be somewhat interesting, but the same thing in an RPG is not.

 

[gizmo33]

Note that I often only had one encounter per day. Even when I didn't, I tended to just handwave any hit point loss anyway.

Yea, so why change the existing system to do something that you don't need to do anyway? Folks that want to have big Armageddon battles can still do so and the per-day resources automatically become per-encounter resources.

 

[gizmo33]

It's either succeed with what you have or die, without any type of inbetween where a player can assess after say 40% of his resources are gone and decide to rest.

This was Gary Gygax's justification for the hit point mechanic IIRC. He defended the lack of realism with the fact that it was a design goal of the game to not have every encounter be a life or death coin toss. If this design goal has changed, why not just state this explicitly? Then maybe we can dispense with the whole hit point mechanic and every sword swing just has a percent chance of killing you?

 

[Celebrim]

Are you kidding?

You are asking me this? Isn't that your schtick? If you can't tell whether I'm kidding or not, how is anyone going to tell whether hong is kidding or not.

For the last three or four pages of this thread, I've been going, "Is hong being stupid, or is he just being hong? Does me mean that, or is that his idea of funny?"

I decided to just stick with taking you seriously, despite the extreme ludicrousness of doing so.

 

[hong]

Nice way to twist what I'm saying. Let me clarify, no tactical and strategic combat are not the end all and be all of a good battle in D&D. However if the tactics of the fight break down to the same thing over and over again(more likely when you have per-encounter abilities then per day abilities) it becomes more an excercise in tediousness IMHO.

Okay, I can see something in this. Playing a swordsage in AOW, I did sometimes fall into a routine where I open with a certain maneuver A, then maneuver B next round, maneuver C next round, etc. Still, the actual specifics of each encounter were usually different enough that fights were interesting. Sometimes maneuver A isn't enough to finish off the enemy, so I have to use maneuver B on him; sometime maneuver A misses; sometimes I have to run away because I'm getting pounded, etc.

If there are triggers in 4E that people can use to hinder opponents' powers, that might go some way to addressing this problem. Or even better, have different powers usable on different circumstances, eg you can only use X if you precede it with a move-and-attack; Y with a full-round action; etc.

OK...wait, you said per day...I'm confused.

To clarify. The party consisted of 4 characters who had per-encounter abilities, and 1 who had per-day stuff. However, the impact of the per-day stuff was minimal.

So with one encounter per day and a handwaving of hit point damage...how can you honestly say there were no longterm problems.

There were no longterm problems because resource attrition wasn't a big part of what made the fights interesting.