Why is it so important?

[Merlion]

Really? In a world where I can click my fingers and restore my health, capabilities, and resources to full power once a minute has passed? In such a world, IMO, I actually find there is not much of a range between life or death and "gimme". Unless encounter poses a measurable chance of killing my character, in the 4E paradigm the only real effect it has (outside of the story significance) is to make my dice arm get tired and take up some time (and in a 3E 6-second AoO combat model, that's often a lot of time).
.

Ok, several problems here. First, theres the obvious. Even when your at full resources, OVERCOMING the encounter might be very easy, slight easy, difficult, very difficult, impossible (that is everyone dies, or must retreat to avoid death) and various other degrees of difficulty.

next, and you've been told this repeatedly but still dont seem to get it PER ENCOUNTER ABILITIES ARE NOT ALL OR EVEN MOST OF A CHARACTERS ABILITIES so where you get this snap fingers one minute back to 100% thing I dont know

 

[gizmo33]

in general difficult fights tend to be more fun, but that's not true 100% of the time.

Ok, that seems reasonable to me. But if it's true the *majority* of the time then why not design a rule system to recognize that? Seems to me that the best strategy is to design a game where those things that you do most often are the most fun.

in all previous editions of D&D, daily resources were the only resources the players had.

I think this is objectively not true. It's also at the core of some of my reasoning on this issue so IMO it's important to understand why this is not true. Players have at-will and even encounter level resources in 3E, they just don't think much of them. A fighter can swing a sword whenever he feels like it, and this is fundementally no different from a wizard being able to use a touch spell at will. (I mean 'no different' in terms of the issues discussed by this thread, obviously it matters when you compare using a sword to using Shocking Grasp when fighthing a lightning elemental).

And the fact that they don't currently think much of them shoud be *carefully* considered before you turn everything into an "encounter-level" resource or expect the "encounter-level" resource design to solve the stated problem. For reasons that Celebrim outlined during his discussion of "operational" aspects of DnD and resource management, it's an open question IMO whether or not at-will and encounter-level resources can really be considered resources at all.

 

[Merlion]

I think this is objectively not true. It's also at the core of some of my reasoning on this issue so IMO it's important to understand why this is not true. Players have at-will and even encounter level resources in 3E, they just don't think much of them. A fighter can swing a sword whenever he feels like it, and this is fundementally no different from a wizard being able to use a touch spell at will. (I mean 'no different' in terms of the issues discussed by this thread, obviously it matters when you compare using a sword to using Shocking Grasp when fighthing a lightning elemental).
.

But these arent really resources. Not to players and not from a design perspective. The ability to walk isnt a resource. The ability to speak isnt a resource. Not in terms of how people generally think about it.


And I think a fighter being able to swing a sword for 1d8 at will and a wizard being able to cast a touch spell for 1d6/level, or even just 1d6 plus some other effect are not the same, even allowing for the fact that the fighters 1d8 gets some accesories over time eventually as well.

Other than the ability to do basic things like walk or make a basic attack, pretty much everything that characters have is either all the time (like a constant magic item) or per day. Some things are even less...the charges of a wand for example arent per day, they are a set limit.

Spells are per day. The class abilities of all the standard PH races I know of are either per day, or continious.

Give me some examples of "at will or per encounter" resources other than basic physical functions such as being able to make a melee attack.

 

[wgreen]

Y'know, it occurs to me that the reason why many combats feel exciting is not that per-day resources are spent, but that limited resources are spent. Thing is, per-encounter resources are still limited! There will be those "Oh, !@#$, I'm out of per-encounter abilities, and this bastard still hasn't dropped...!" moments, which are not necessarily life-or-death moments. Just...uncertain moments.

-Will

 

[Merlion]

Y'know, it occurs to me that the reason why many combats feel exciting is not that per-day resources are spent, but that limited resources are spent. Thing is, per-encounter resources are still limited! There will be those "Oh, !@#$, I'm out of per-encounter abilities, and this bastard still hasn't dropped...!" moments, which are not necessarily life-or-death moments. Just...uncertain moments.

-Will

Prexactly! and even Excisely!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I disagree [with gizmo, per usual] - the fighter's only real resource is his hitpoints. These are certainly a per-day resource (and, at high levels, could actually be a per-several-days resource).

These are, almost always, tied to the cleric's ability to heal, which is another per-day resource.

No, I agree with Grog - the only significant resources* which required any management whatsoever throughout the history of D&D were per-day. At-will abilities don't consume any resource management at all.

* - Okay, you could have a 1 / hour magic item.

 

[William Ronald]

Y'know, it occurs to me that the reason why many combats feel exciting is not that per-day resources are spent, but that limited resources are spent. Thing is, per-encounter resources are still limited! There will be those "Oh, !@#$, I'm out of per-encounter abilities, and this bastard still hasn't dropped...!" moments, which are not necessarily life-or-death moments. Just...uncertain moments.

-Will

That does contribute to a sense of excitement, of the characters having a hard won victory against a foe. I think that it is important for victories to have meaning to the players in a group, so their characters can sweat a bit at the major combats. (Part of the fun of a game is a sense of accomplishment.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It might be also interesting to note that in describing a map/adventure Mearls built for a D&D 4 scenario, he said he had placed a very difficult encounter so that the players could theoretically get there early in the adventure, and might need to retreat then. This might indicate that
1) either the players will get wary that, if this was the first, we stand no chance for the rest, or
2) there are still some significant resources that can be lost and not that easily retained.

Which certainly begs the question: How much is the focus on "per encounter "abilities really? What kind of resources are so significant that we can lose them? Can this defeat the supposed purpose of the per encounter abilities?

Maybe we are still thinking to much in D&D 3.x terms, here, though.
Maybe there are encounters that are difficult when using just the per encounter effects. But some abilities are so difficult that everyone loses more than just that, and they really lose some permanent resources.

As an example: Let's say a Wizard prepares Fireball. As long as it it prepared, he can shoot tiny balls of fire (touch attacks, dealing damage comparable to the damage the fighter will inflict.). Once per encounter, he can throw a larger fireball (10 ft diameter, more damage), approximately as powerful as the Fighters once per encounter Whirlwind Strike ability (totally made up). And than he can cast the "real deal", full range, area and damage. But than, the Vancian part kicks in, he loses the spells, and he has to go along without his tiny fireballs.

Can this totally avoid the "going nova effect" of a mage? I don't see that, but it can lessen the effect. It certainly doesn't require you to hold totally back. And if the "Full" Fireball isn't vastly more powerful than the once per encounter one, very specific circumstances will actually make it really useful to use the full spell.

In 3.x terms, the mechanic is similar to the Reserve feats, but the game effect of the "reserve" ability is stronger. It's more like holding back your 6th level spell in exchange for using your 5th level spells once in each encounter and your 4th level spells or lower at will. But if you put out your 6th level spell, than you also lost your 5th and 4th level ones..
That might also be a good reason to have more than 9 spell levels, because you need more gradual differences between the "full" effect and the lower level effect.

But well, that's totally guessing and I don't have a clue if it is what we will get to see. But I am eager to find out. Maybe I will even try to come up to house rule something like this in my D&D game. But wait,I am running Iron Heroes...

 

[Grog]

Ok, that seems reasonable to me. But if it's true the *majority* of the time then why not design a rule system to recognize that? Seems to me that the best strategy is to design a game where those things that you do most often are the most fun.

I think most rule systems out there do recognize that. I just don't like seeing "difficult" and "fun" used interchangeably. Sometimes they're the same, sometimes not.

I think this is objectively not true. It's also at the core of some of my reasoning on this issue so IMO it's important to understand why this is not true. Players have at-will and even encounter level resources in 3E, they just don't think much of them. A fighter can swing a sword whenever he feels like it, and this is fundementally no different from a wizard being able to use a touch spell at will. (I mean 'no different' in terms of the issues discussed by this thread, obviously it matters when you compare using a sword to using Shocking Grasp when fighthing a lightning elemental).

Can you give me an example of an encounter-level resource in the core 3.X rules? I know that Bo9S has them, but I'm having trouble thinking of any in the core rules.

And I wouldn't call the fighter's ability to swing his sword a "resource" at all. He can do it every round, as often as he wants to, all day long. In the context of these discussions, "resources" usually mean things that can be expended. And encounter-level resources can be expended just as easily as per-day resources can, so they have to be tracked by the players just as per-day resources do (at least for the duration of the encounter). The presence of these per-encounter resources represents a fundamental difference from previous editions of D&D.

 

[gizmo33]

and various other degrees of difficulty.

I have trouble with the use of the word "difficulty" in this context.
Situation One: roll a 1 on a d20 or your imaginary character dies
Situation Two: roll a 1 on a d4 or your imaginary character dies

Is one situation really more "difficult" than the other? Of course no combat situation is this simple, and perhaps you're thinking that tactical considerations mean the players have to think, like chess, and that's tough.

But I find it contrived and uncomfortable to think that I'm going to have to design each combat encounter to feature rope bridges over pits of fire and random explosions and other battlefield and tactical nuisances, and use them to a level that such tactical thinking would be a significant part of the outcome of the battle. For the most part IME with DnD the encounter is won or lost on the basic strengths of the opponents.

next, and you've been told this repeatedly but still dont seem to get it PER ENCOUNTER ABILITIES ARE NOT ALL OR EVEN MOST OF A CHARACTERS ABILITIES so where you get this snap fingers one minute back to 100% thing I dont know

We've all probably told each other things that the other hasn't gotten. I don't know what to say other than deal with it. I'm doing the best I can to make sense out of what your saying.

Speaking of saying things repeatedly, I've already told you repeatedly where I get this idea, but I'll say it AGAIN: It's a logical conclusion drawn from the design goals clearly outlined in Wyatt's blog entry. His "9:00 to 9:15" problem stems from two basic facts - daily resources in 3E are a significant part of a party's overall resources, and combat that depletes such resources can occur in the span of 15 game minutes. The next step of the logic is to recognize the fact that no one has suggested lengthening the DnD combat round beyond 6 seconds. On top of that, he (or someone did) calls out explicitly the "daily resource" issue as being the primary culprit for the "9:00-9:15" adventuring problem.

So if you want to significantly affect the "9:00-9:15" adventuring problem and your only variable to play with are the resource levels (daily, per-encounter, at will, etc.) then you really are always going to have the same problem as long as a significant portion of the party's resources are of the "daily" variety. Otherwise, you don't ever actually solve the problem that Wyatt claims is a problem.

Now granted, this is a matter of degree. Given PCs *more* encounter level resources may extend the time they spend in the dungeon. But really I don't find "9:00 to 9:15" to be an exaggeration since it represents 150 rounds, and I really doubt a PC party can fight for even a modest fraction of that before being completely out of powers. So "extending" the capabilities of the PCs by even *multiples* of the current still gets you to a "9:00 to 9:45" problem - hardly worth the effort.

The idea that "per-encounter" means you get it back after 1 minute of rest was told to me by Patryn, who was quite taken back that I didn't know that that was what it meant (see earlier in this thread). If you have an issue with this then IMO either take it up with him (because he might have more specifics) or tell me what you think "per-encounter" means.

And yes "clicking your fingers" is actually more effort than it would actually take. Pretty much just sitting around and doing nothing for a minute gets your per-encounter powers back (according to Patryn's statements)

This is the reasoning that I have built up over dozens of posts on this thread. I am sorry you are frustrated with saying things over and over, but perhaps you should make note of the "I don't know" part of your quote above and consider that perhaps you're not addressing many significant points in what you're saying and that is creating the illusion that we're not listening. Perhaps if you understood better the fundementals of what some of us are arguing you'd be less frustrated in showing us the error of our ways. I will continue to try, in good faith and for the sake of genuinely being understood, to make my case. I would love to be wrong about what I think about 4E - but it's just not going happen by magic.

Otherwise - have a good weekend!