Why is it so important?

[Imaro]

Did you just switch sides of this argument?

The D&D wizard reduced to crossbowing and throwing flasks of burning oil is that guy at 30% efficacy.

Then, he can use his per-day resources to be at 100% for a short period of time. However, when he isn't using those resources, he's still operating at 30%.

Congrats on making the switch!

Nice bit of non-logic there, especially where you don't put what I said in the context of the(original post) player deciding what percentage of resources he starts a per-day encouter. If I choose not to cast any spells in the first encounter I enter the next at 100%...if I cast two 0 level spells let's sat I'm at 70% for the next encounter(this is an arbitrary number as I have not done the math work to acurately represent the exact percentage that each of a wizards spells represent, but it serves the purpose of making my point nonetheless.

Let me first note, the purpose of the original post was an argument for why the per-encounter abilities would have to keep characters at a basically similar level of power. However, since Patryn has decided to take it totally out of context(and stiill totally screw up what it means even in that context) let me explain further...

Taking the previous post, in a per encounter model I am effectively at 30%(not 100%) all the time unless I use my per-day ability(at which point I am 100% for exactly one encounter then back to 30% for the rest of the day). So it is again less granularity through my own decisions. There is one major decision to make...when/what encounter will I be 100% in. In a per-day model I can choose to be a wider(both higher than30% or lower than 30%) range of effectiveness starting and throughout. IMHO, this allows for a wider range of "challenging" encounters, where in the above example(per-encounter) I will structure encounters for 30% and 100%.

Now I admit that the range of per-day abilities will impact this model greatly, but since we have heard the use of your per-day abilities(for the wizard) will leave one at 80% then we can infer that per-day will be about 20% of a characters overall effectiveness. Thus, the only resource impact one can have is a difference of 20%(through making a character use their per-day abilities). The per-encounter which make up 80% will never be lower than 80% at the beginning of any encounter, thus limiting the types of opponents(without DM fabricated factors) that one can challenge PC's(on a tactical and mechanical) level in the game to those monsters/NPC's that are a challenge for them at 70-100%. Almost anything else will be a cakewalk(20% to 90% difference).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A fight is either one in which you will win, given even modest skill at playing, or one in which there is a clear chance to lose.

I believe there is a 3rd option that is between those two. An encounter where given MORE than modest skill you will clearly win.

Basically, I find that my players would prefer to know that they are near invincible(like they had a 5% chance of dying each encounter). But only because they know what they are doing and they are making the right decisions. They know if they make the wrong decisions that they had a real chance of dying(like 50% chance). They know that even if they were completely incompetent, there would be an average chance they'd win anyways, since they are the heroes of the story. But, given bad luck one of them would die. They want to avoid that, and luckily, they are given a bunch of "cool powers" that can tip the odds in their favor if they use them correctly.

Right now, an encounter that has "significance" is still, basically a 95% chance of winning given even modest skill(and say an 85% of winning with no skill at all). The average one is easy to beat just by rolling to hit and healing the damage afterwards and casting the most basic attack spells. The only reason it has significance at all is that it uses up resources.

Players prefer the nail biting encounters closer to the ones mentioned at the beginning, They want to know that they WOULD have lost if only they didn't use all of their cool powers. Unfortunately, using all your cool powers generally means using up way more resources than 20%. Therefore making them rest as soon as the nail biting encounter is done.

There is currently a HUGE difference in flavor between "I attack with my longsword for 15 damage. I get hit for 15 damage. He magic missiles it for 15 damage. Oh look, it died. Now we'll heal the damage we took." and "I fireball that group over there for 30. They are still up? He attacks the big guy for 20. He's still up? We get hit for 50. The cleric casts his highest level cure spell for 35. The barbarian hits the big guy for 30. Still up? The wizard takes 15 damage from arrows. Next round."

The first uses up resources and is significant but isn't very much fun. The second uses up a LOT of resources and is much more fun. Played correctly, though, both have the same risk of death. It's just that in the first example, you save your high level spells and use low level ones instead.

Mechanically there is almost no difference. The damage being done to the group each round is only slightly more than they heal each round. This means that barring bad luck, the party knows it's just a matter of a number of rounds before they win. However, if the fighter delays rather than attacking one round or the wizard spends a round readying for something that never happens, it decreases their odds of winning a decent amount. Everyone has to pull together to win.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Now I admit that the range of per-day abilities will impact this model greatly, but since we have heard the use of your per-day abilities(for the wizard) will leave one at 80% then we can infer that per-day will be about 20% of a characters overall effectiveness. Thus, the only resource impact one can have is a difference of 20%(through making a character use their per-day abilities). The per-encounter which make up 80% will never be lower than 80% at the beginning of any encounter, thus limiting the types of opponents(without DM fabricated factors) that one can challenge PC's(on a tactical and mechanical) level in the game to those monsters/NPC's that are a challenge for them at 70-100%. Almost anything else will be a cakewalk(20% to 90% difference).

That looks reasonable. (Though note that 80% just gives us the upper limit of resources available per encounter, since the comment was only related to spells, not hit points or action points or similar things)
But I am not really thinking it is a bad thing.
Because it eliminates encounters that are just there for the "resource attrition" thing, and are to often not interesting on their own.
A key difference is also: As long as their is any way to keep a Fighters hit points up, he will be at 100 % effectiveness all the time. This means there is a grave disparity between these classes. Which is what makes the whole thing work in the first place, I guess, but it has some further effects.
The range of encounters that can only serve for resource attrition, but not to fully exhaust the PCs is pretty slim. If the enemies are too weak, there is no need for the spellcasters to intervene - the Fighter will take care of everything, being protected by virtue of his AC and HP.
Just as an example: Fighting against 4 enemies 4 levels/CRs below the groups level means that the enemies can rarely hit the fighter and deal little damage, or that their AC and HP is so low that the melee warriors can quickly dispatch them. There is no need for spells, and a experienced group will not waste any important spell resources on this encounter. (They might not know the exact CR or EL, but guessing the real threat of your enemies can be quickly done in D&D...)

 

[Raven Crowking]

But I am not really thinking it is a bad thing.
Because it eliminates encounters that are just there for the "resource attrition" thing, and are to often not interesting on their own.

Which is why, in the end, you have 90% win/lose fights.

 

[Imaro]

That looks reasonable. (Though note that 80% just gives us the upper limit of resources available per encounter, since the comment was only related to spells, not hit points or action points or similar things)
But I am not really thinking it is a bad thing.
Because it eliminates encounters that are just there for the "resource attrition" thing, and are to often not interesting on their own.
A key difference is also: As long as their is any way to keep a Fighters hit points up, he will be at 100 % effectiveness all the time. This means there is a grave disparity between these classes. Which is what makes the whole thing work in the first place, I guess, but it has some further effects.
The range of encounters that can only serve for resource attrition, but not to fully exhaust the PCs is pretty slim. If the enemies are too weak, there is no need for the spellcasters to intervene - the Fighter will take care of everything, being protected by virtue of his AC and HP.
Just as an example: Fighting against 4 enemies 4 levels/CRs below the groups level means that the enemies can rarely hit the fighter and deal little damage, or that their AC and HP is so low that the melee warriors can quickly dispatch them. There is no need for spells, and a experienced group will not waste any important spell resources on this encounter. (They might not know the exact CR or EL, but guessing the real threat of your enemies can be quickly done in D&D...)

Yes but this reasoning leads us back to the "uninteresting" encounters. Using your above reasoning in the per-day model, even a group of four Goblins can become a "significant" encounter if enough resources are depleted and they are encountered later in the adventure. In the per-encounter model, at a certain point, anything that doesn't challenge the players to use between 70% to 100% of their resources is now a boring encounter(exceopt for the badassitude of killing mooks, which can again be done in the per-day model). Instead of encounters that serve as resource attrition, you now have a range of encounters that serve as litlle more than scenery and will quickly be dispatched by the party(just like your example above).

If every encounter is a 70 to 100 percenter then the actual risk of TPK or death rises exponentially as there is a greater liklihood of dying in these encounters. Thus the win or die encounter either becomes the norm(with high rates of party death) or a rarely invoked fight just as in the per-day encounter. In other words the factors for limiting the "interesting" fights aren't solved...the reasoning for it has just been changed.

My suggestion is that per-day abilities be structured for all characters to last throughout the day(but allow for attrition in smaller increments until a total day of rest is achieved). Since the spellcastrers are the main culprits of this...I would suggest a spellcraft roll system with fatigue that increases the DC to cast a spell(each spell has it's own DC to cast). This model allows them to keep casting(low spells often/higher less often) with the risk that a particular spell will fail and that at a certain point fatigue will cause them to have to make very high rolls in order to keep going. You then take this model and do the math so that it actually lasts in the 4 to 5 hours of play range(or whatever is the average for a group of players) and make fatigue grow so that after this point it really starts to take it's toll. Allow spellcasters to heal small amounts of fatigue in the every 10 min range(so there is the real chance the PC's might be discovered or attacked for that small boost but not have to stop for a whole day). Thus you've covered the average playing time of a group and have allowed them to keep going but at the risk(instead of certainty) that they're spells become less and less dependable. It keeps the flavor of magic as an unknown and that it must be used responsibly, but allows wizards to keep going if they're willing to risk something for it.

It's a litlle rough, but I'm getting ready for work and it's kind of off the cuff.

 

[gizmo33]

Why are you even bothering with someone who clearly has no actual interest in the conversation, apart from threadcrapping?

You and Imaro seem to be holding down the fort pretty well on the interesting parts of this thread. Someone teleported in and made some generalization about movies/books and then teleported out. Hong started off as wanting to explain this, then it degenerated into him listing synonyms for "absurd". He feels that it's the sort of thing people mean when they say 'reasoning', and I didn't think there was any harm to let him play around with it.

 

[hong]

You and Imaro seem to be holding down the fort pretty well on the interesting parts of this thread. Someone teleported in and made some generalization about movies/books and then teleported out. Hong started off as wanting to explain this, then it degenerated into him listing synonyms for "absurd". He feels that it's the sort of thing people mean when they say 'reasoning', and I didn't think there was any harm to let him play around with it.

... which reminds me, I'm still waiting for evidence of the 4-encounters-per-day paradigm in fantasy literature.

 

[hong]

If every encounter is a 70 to 100 percenter then the actual risk of TPK or death rises exponentially as there is a greater liklihood of dying in these encounters.

Not necessarily.

 

[Imaro]

Not necessarily.

Remeber healing/hit points are a resource...so yeah, necessarily.

 

[Baby Samurai]

... which reminds me, I'm still waiting for evidence of the 4-encounters-per-day paradigm in fantasy literature.

Exactly, thank god that arbitrary malarkey is being ditched.

I'm sure 4th edition will support 1 or 10 encounters in a day as the story/adventure demands.