Why is it so important?

[hong]

There has, in the history of per-day resource manage, been life-or-death struggles. (I thought I would answer explicitly since saying "no" to a "never" question can be confusing.)



Insult about what? I already gave the reasoning for why I concluded "per-encounter" resources. Was this a trick question?

No, it was just that your reasoning makes no sense at all.

 

[hong]

Your point (4), "parties that insist on having full resources at all times arent going to be impacted one way or the others" is the point that Gizmo33, Imaro, myself, and others have been trying to make. Wyatt's blog statement that this model will fix the "9-9:15 adventuring day" is simply wrong.

Why?

 

[gizmo33]

Fair enough. However, from what we know, the system will still include per-day resources. If this is the case, why are we having this discussion?

Largely because "If A then B" logic does not appear to be well understood. The argument that A implies B does not become invalid if A is proven to be false. "If you play DnD, then you are playing an RPG" does not become a false statement if it turns out that you do not play DnD.

If WotC chooses to change it's resource model for 4E to per-week resources, it does not invalidate the reasoning on this thread. All it invalidates is a thread about "here's what *will* happen with 4E" which is not really what most people have been talking about. Those people who can't seem to differentiate the hypothetical situations being discussed here with whatever actual reality there will be with 4E are missing the point.

 

[Jackelope King]

RC,

I'm going to ask you to clarify your position by responding to this question:

Would you claim that one of the problems you have with a hypothetical per-encounter system would be the loss of an attrition-based, per-day resource management system, which serves to affect the choices players make in light of the resources their characters have/have lost?

 

[gizmo33]

No, it was just that your reasoning makes no sense at all.

None? Is this more of that character building you were talking about? Are your attention requirements a daily or "per-encounter" resource?

 

[D.Shaffer]

Yo know this is getting petty...does anyone know exactly what 4e will entail...anyone. Ok then when discussing it it is necessary to extrapoilate from what we've been told. I mean the whole "We don't know for sure" argument doesn't predicate not disscussing in a reasonable context what has been stated.

It's not petty at all. In fact, he made the same correction I did.

Even in 3rd edition, the classes are a mix of At Will and Per Day abilities, with a varying mix of the two. With that known, what is more likely? That 4th ed classes will all share the EXACT same mix of per day, per encounter, and at will abilities (Thus, everyone being at 80% when they use all their per day abilities), or that a use of all their per day abilities will leave them at different levels of resource depletion?

 

[Merlion]

Your point (4), "parties that insist on having full resources at all times arent going to be impacted one way or the others" is the point that Gizmo33, Imaro, myself, and others have been trying to make. Wyatt's blog statement that this model will fix the "9-9:15 adventuring day" is simply wrong.

You misunderstand. What I mean is, some parties choose to inflict the 9-915 thing on themselves, because they insist on having 100% resources at all times. They dont see it as a problem, and will play this way regardless of the system.

For the ones that consider it a problem, its a problem for them because they dont necessarily feel the need to be at 100% at all times, but are forced to rest far more frequently because of the disparity between classes. The fact that the casters, and especially wizards, loose their % effectivness faster and more totally than other classes.

For these groups, casters having per encounter and at will abilities in addition to their daily spells will allow them to keep going with everyone at a more similar level of expenditure/ability.

 

[gizmo33]

This, however, contradicts your claim that something being a life or death struggle is definitively indicative of a per-encounter resource management system, since by your own admission, it is also a feature found in per-day resource management systems.

So it was a trick question! I was just choosing a probable answer, there's no reason it would have to be that way.

To clarify, do you believe that a DM fudging dice is indicative of a per-encounter resource management? If so, how?

IMO Fudging dice is indicative of a "I have to make the players feel like they could be killed by the encounter" approach to encounters. The rest is based on connecting the various dots, it hearkens back to earlier points I've tried to make.

 

[hong]

None? Is this more of that character building you were talking about? Are your attention requirements a daily or "per-encounter" resource?

Actually, it's a statement of fact. As in, your reasoning why the given example had to be per-encounter made no sense at all.

For extra credit, I'll also say that DMs who say they don't design encounters in a per-day setup to be life-or-death because a full-strength party would easily win, in the knowledge that the party will _not_ be at full strength when they fight that actual battle, are deluding themselves.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Resource management withing a given encounter is always necessary, hence the flaw in Imaro's argument.

You conflate two forms of resource management which you know have significant differences. Resource management within an encounter that has no effect outside that encounter, and which has no win/lose element, has been amply and repeatedly demonstrated.

I hope you don't take it wrong when I address the ad infinitum ad nauseum requests to demonstrate the same by saying simply "this has been answered upthread, and has not been successfully refuted since." Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy. Simply repeating the same question, while ignoring the response, is a form of argument by assertion.

However: is it more fun for the wizard to twiddle his thumbs and wait for the fighter? Or should the wizard always have the option to do something at least moderately fun throughout the day?

That is a seperate question than the affect of the per-encounter system on the 9-9:15 adventuring day, and (as I and others have stated repeatedly) if the redesign aids in this without introducing a host of other problems, that would be a good thing.

Fair enough. However, from what we know, the system will still include per-day resources. If this is the case, why are we having this discussion?

Again, if you read the thread, this has already been amply answered.

RC