Why is it so important?

[gizmo33]

If you are lucky, you might have some interesting RP between players at that point, but I don't see much more redeeming an element than that.

The first interesting aspect of managing your resources is that every combat matters - not just the one's you can win easily - because if you aren't careful about how you cast your spells, you'll have fewer for the next battle. A critical hit might not kill a powerful fighter, but it might force a difficult decision about whether or not to use a daily healing spell. Also, it's pretty standard for an intelligent adversary not the sit around and wait for PCs to sleep before counter-attacking. That means that the descision whether to sleep and where also has to be taken seriously. The significance of resource management goes far beyond just resting for the day.

When facing a fortress of evil bad guys, the sum total encounters in the fortress need to be considered in 3E because you might get through only part and then the fortress will counter-attack. In the proposed 4E system (according to the design goals) it won't matter - the PCs can go through all 1000 encounter areas and if a single one doesn't become a life or death situation, they're essentially all a meaningless waste as the effectiveness of the PCs is reset to 100% each time. There's no grimace from the players when a kobold hits the party fighter with a critical because he can just get his hitpoints back at the end of it all. (And if he can't then we're back to the 3E rest situation).

 

[Rakin]

Easy=Fun! Duh!

I wonder if there's anything good on TV tonight...

 

[Merlion]

How is that different from "Same reason they decided that you should have to create monsters using the same rules as PCs, or made AoOs requiring a list of what provoked them, or any of the other things they are now "fixing" with 4.0: because they thought it sounded good at the time."?

Sure, they think it will improve the game.

Sure, they think it is what the players want/will want.

But simply because they believe this doesn't make it true. Nor is it true that people's initial ideas of what they want turn out to be what they actually want, once they've had the chance to examine them. Witness the many, including WotC designers working on 4e, who thought that certain 3.X design elements would be ideal until they discovered that they changed the play experience in unexpected ways, or created additional problems (such as increased DM workload).

I do not believe that the game will necessarily be improved by making the classes more mechanically even. Right now, and moreso in previous editions, there are certain roles that the various classes are optimized for playing in the game world. Some of these roles are not particularly combat-oriented. I suppose that is a difference in seeing D&D as a game in which combat has a large part, and seeing D&D as a combat-oriented game. As a player of wizards in previous editions, I never saw going toe-to-toe with monsters as my "role". Rather, I saw my role as provider of information through divination spells, advice, backup, and the occasional magical whammy. That seems, to me, an endangered species under the new rules. 4e will, apparently, make that doubly true.

When classes are not mechanically even, they require taking different approaches to the same problem. This was a strength of the system. I would hate to see that strength utterly removed.


RC

I'm not sure I understand. How will making it so Wizards don't run out of resources quicker than the other classes eliminate this?

And how does having the option to remain more effective in combat for longer and/or having more combat options effect that? Just because a wizard will be able to be an effective combatant across a larger number of encounters doesnt mean you have to do so. If you prefer to play your wizard as sitting back and providing intelligence and information with the occasional massive magical intervention, how will any of this stop you? Unless you really believe they are going to more or less remove non-combat magic and skills from the game, which seems unlikely to me.


As to the rest. Yes, of course their believing it will improve it doesnt mean it will...or at least, that it will for everyone. But thats going to be true regardless. If something is flawed, you have the choice to either repair or replace it, or simply leave it as it is. Obviously, they are going to do a new edition and make changes, and some of them will be good and some of them probably wont be. So what of it? The other option is to simply leave it as it is, which is viable but unlikely to happen.


Also, belief aside, I feel that there are certain things that could be mechanically, factually found to "improve" the game from the perspective of a certain design philosophy. Now some people arent going to like that philosophy...but those changes can be more or less gauranteed to be "improvements" from the point of view of those that do.

 

[Merlion]

. In the proposed 4E system (according to the design goals) it won't matter - the PCs can go through all 1000 encounter areas and if a single one doesn't become a life or death situation, they're essentially all a meaningless waste as the effectiveness of the PCs is reset to 100% each time.).

Where are you getting this impression exactly?

 

[Dalberon]

"In the proposed 4E system (according to the design goals) it won't matter - the PCs can go through all 1000 encounter areas and if a single one doesn't become a life or death situation, they're essentially all a meaningless waste as the effectiveness of the PCs is reset to 100% each time."

I think its a bit early to assume that everything resets every encounter. From what I have read, I get the impression that you will be able to still function at a depressed level with a reduction in effectiveness. With remenants of the old spell system still in place, I still think that players will have to manage their resources and that battles will still wear on them as they go through them. One poster likened it to the prepared spells being more effective or damaging with reusuable abilities having less of a 'tide turner' effect. I believe the goal is to mitigate downtime, not eliminate it.

 

[gizmo33]

Where are you getting this impression exactly?

Post #15 has the quote from James Wyatt's blog - and this matches what I've seen elsewhere (though it could, theoretically, all be due to a single source).

 

[Merlion]

"In the proposed 4E system (according to the design goals) it won't matter - the PCs can go through all 1000 encounter areas and if a single one doesn't become a life or death situation, they're essentially all a meaningless waste as the effectiveness of the PCs is reset to 100% each time."

I think its a bit early to assume that everything resets every encounter. From what I have read, I get the impression that you will be able to still function at a depressed level with a reduction in effectiveness. With remenants of the old spell system still in place, I still think that players will have to manage their resources and that battles will still wear on them as they go through them. One poster likened it to the prepared spells being more effective or damaging with reusuable abilities having less of a 'tide turner' effect. I believe the goal is to mitigate downtime, not eliminate it.

Exactly. Just because their will be "per encounter abilities" doesnt mean those abilities will be sufficient to deal with every situation.

And yes, a party can still *choose* to rest constantly and reset themselves to 100%, but thats already the case...and as it is you have to do so. And you usually have to do so when most of the party is still at 70 or 80% because the Wizard is already down to 0%. This will change that

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not sure I understand. How will making it so Wizards don't run out of resources quicker than the other classes eliminate this?

The best answer to that question would be found by perusing the class role information supplied in earlier editions of the game.

Simple answer: Knowing that you have finite resources, but that those resources are usually the most effective resources available when used, changes the way in which you go about using said resources. If your resources are the same as all other characters, in terms of both when they can be used and how effective they are, then there is nothing significant in game terms to differentiate your role from any other.

Which is why, I imagine, that WotC is now telling you what your class role is supposed to be.


RC

 

[gizmo33]

I think its a bit early to assume that everything resets every encounter. From what I have read, I get the impression that you will be able to still function at a depressed level with a reduction in effectiveness.

Isn't that what we have already? Having your wizard use a crossbow instead of spells is operating at reduced effectiveness. Granted, they could just be replacing the crossbow with something more "wizardly", but it makes no difference in terms of resource management. Here's the quote I keep referring to:

Originally Posted by James Wyatt's blog
See, in 3e there's a basic assumption that an encounter between four 5th-level PCs and one CR 5 monster should drain away about 25% of the party's resources, which primarily translates into spells (and primarily the cleric's spells, which determine everyone else's total hit points). What that actually means is that you get up the morning, then have three encounters in a row that don't reallly challenge you. It's the fourth one that tests your skill—that's where you figure out whether you've spent too much, or if you still have enough resources left to finish off that last encounter. Then you're done. So basically, three boring encounters before you get to one that's really life or death.

It kind of makes sense, mathematically. The problem is, it's not fun. So what lots of people actually do, in my experience, is get up in the morning and have a fun encounter: there are multiple monsters that are close to the PCs' level, so the total encounter level is higher than their level. There's interesting terrain and dynamic movement. Sometimes there are waves of monsters, one after another. Whew! It's a knock-down, drag-out fight that could really go either way. And it's fun!

So first of all, why is he talking about "25% resources" and stuff if all he wants to do is replace the crossbow with something equivalent (or maybe a little more powerful)? What, according to the author, is "fun" (reminds me of the reading comprehension part of the SATs). My answer - Waves of monsters, and a fight that can go either way

Well according to common sense (as I understand it), everyone is going to want to be at 100% effectiveness when the fight can go either way. Also, it seems logically that you either have daily resources or you don't. The rest of it is just connecting the dots.

 

[AllisterH]

A general question -- will a "per-encounter" system lead to PCs retreating from a combat and resting for 1 minute (or whatever is necessary) to reset their per-encounter abilities?

.

Not likely since if the players are designed on the mixture of per day, at-will and per-encounter basis, the monsters will probably be designed on that same basis as well. So if you're thinking "I'll simply reload and retry" the monster itself should also have reloaded as well so the PCs don't gain any advantage.

Furthermore, there's also the fact that unless the monsters don't follow the retreating characters, being on the run will prevent reseting of their powers.

re: Hitpoint recovery.
Gizmo33, This, we don't actually know much about. Remember, we have a MIX of per day, at-will and per encounter,

In both SWSE and Bo9S, it isn't possible to go through 1000 battles since your HP recovery system is tied to a per-day system or a condition that only occurs in battle. For example, SW has the "Second Wind" feature (use a swift action to regain 1/4 of your total HP or your CON score, whichever is greater) but it only works once a day. Whereas the devoted spirit "healing" strikes aren't sufficient by themselves to heal a character to full and are not useable outside of combat.

Thus, a party in 4E might not be as dependent on a cleric as before but if IH/SWSE/Bo9S are anything to go by, if you actually want to do an "Iron Man" marathon style adventure, you will NEED dedicated healers.