Why is it so important?

[Treebore]

Mr. Wyatt is wrong about something critical here. Player's that metagame the system like that don't attempt three encounters. They just do one. If they expend any resources at all, then they rest. Afterall, why risk going into the next encounter missing 4 of your 60 hit points? That 4 hit points could be the difference between life and death!

This is true whether thier abilities are regained per encounter or per day.

The only difference aside from fluff (we rest 'a minute' and we rest 'a day' are both really no more than fluff and hand waving) is whether there is any risk in resting. If resting takes a whole day, then there is a significant risk provided that the story has a time line and the enemy is ran proactively by the DM. If resting takes a whole minute, then there is comparitively a much smaller risk. You don't even have to set watch and try to avoid a night ambush. You can just keep on pushing on. After a rest, of course. One that forces you to make no meaningful trade offs.

Alot of the pro-per-encounter types have made the argument have made the argument that 4e will be best of both worlds, in that some fraction of the player's resources will be per day so that there will be some resource management. But this isn't really an answer. Either they will do one encounter and rest a day to get thier full abilities back (no net change over what people are complaining about), or they will choose to push on with less than optimal resources (again, no net change), or they can't run out of useful resources at all in which case the distinction is meaningless. I don't think many are yet arguing that the game would be better in the latter case, but I can't help but notice that the first two options are the same as what we have in 3rd edition.

I still think that per encounter abilities aren't going to fix some people's problem with the metagame because they aren't addressing the core issues that cause the metagame. It might make for more satisfying fluff though.

Yea, thats a good "different way" of saying what I've been saying, essentially.

 

[F4NBOY]

Are they going to work in a fatigue mechanic since players won't be doing all this resting?

I don't think Hit Points will be "per encounter" so character will eventually need to rest.

 

[broghammerj]

I don't think Hit Points will be "per encounter" so character will eventually need to rest.

I think of HP as my degree of injury or how near death my character may be. People are throwing around the suspension of belief because they are resting in the dungeon. By resting I am referring to the need to actually sleep which is very realistic. However, I do agree that characters will need to eventually rest.

 

[Grog]

If sales are any indication, in the opinion of a great many more than myself or those I personally know.

Just because people buy the game does not necessarily mean that they like everything about the game. You can't draw any conclusions about specific game elements from sales, only about the game as a whole. It's entirely possible that a large percentage of the people who bought previous editions of D&D think that playing a first level wizard sucks, too.

 

[F4NBOY]

I think of HP as my degree of injury or how near death my character may be. People are throwing around the suspension of belief because they are resting in the dungeon. By resting I am referring to the need to actually sleep which is very realistic. However, I do agree that characters will need to eventually rest.

If they don't sleep 8 hours per day they become fatigued.

What about the fact that fighter can swing a 12 lbs. Greataxe for 16 hours ininterruptly
without getting tired? Doesn't that hurt verosimilitude?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just because people buy the game does not necessarily mean that they like everything about the game. You can't draw any conclusions about specific game elements from sales, only about the game as a whole. It's entirely possible that a large percentage of the people who bought previous editions of D&D think that playing a first level wizard sucks, too.

Sure, that's possible. Hence the word "If" in my "If/Then" statement.

RC

 

[Grog]

Alot of the pro-per-encounter types have made the argument have made the argument that 4e will be best of both worlds, in that some fraction of the player's resources will be per day so that there will be some resource management. But this isn't really an answer. Either they will do one encounter and rest a day to get thier full abilities back (no net change over what people are complaining about), or they will choose to push on with less than optimal resources (again, no net change),

Let me stop you right there. There will be a big net change, because the definition of what "less than optimal resources" means will change. If a wizard in 4E who uses all his per-day spells is at 80% power (a figure that's been mentioned before) thanks to the per-encounter spells he has, that's a big difference from 3E, where a wizard who uses all his per-day spells is at 5% power or so, if that (barring wands and such, which will probably exist in 4E as well).

 

[Celebrim]

I know, for one, I welcome our new per-encounter masters....Something, lately, is always forcing us to go back to the rest period to get back spells.

--fje

You realize that you just described in exacting detail one of the reasons why the 'per-encounter' system is never going to work, right?

High level D&D post-3E has an annoying reliance on a large number of defences to be in place. It's only a slight exagerration to say that you better have mind-blank, death ward, freedom of movement, appropriate energy resistance, find the path and have eaten a hero's feast or else you are toast. Plus you need a couple of break enchantments and heals as back up for anything that might go wrong, to say nothing of a plethora of equipment (actually a resource but fortunately one that generally doesn't break). Loose one of those things, and the smart party doesn't say, "Heh, we've only used 25% of our resources - let's keep pushing on." No, the smart party assumes that as soon as they push on, it will be the one resource that they have a shortage in (whatever it is) that they will critically need. Smart high level parties don't take risks. That's how they got to be high level in the first place. As soon as they expend any critical resource at all, they are going to go on the defensive.

Now, there are some changes which might help, but changing from a per day to a per encounter or (as is more likely) some mixture of both won't change that situation at at all. In fact, its my opinion that much of what I've heard so far (number inflation, for example) actually reinforces the above.

So, go ahead and welcome your new 'per encounter' overlords. New master, same as the old master, plus 50% more game imbalance and brokenness as the natural and predicatable result of completely redoing the system (which means 4.5 is just around the corner, in some form no matter what WotC says).

 

[F4NBOY]

You realize that you just described in exacting detail one of the reasons why the 'per-encounter' system is never going to work, right?

They've been working pretty darn well in Iron Heroes for some years now. Kudos to Mike Mearls.

 

[ruleslawyer]

SNIP

How does that follow, exactly?

Let's hypothesize that 4e will require that same array of abilities and defenses to be in place at high levels (my feeling is that it won't, or that those defenses will be changed to always-on powers, or something else entirely). Let's then hypothesize that you can replenish these abilities after an encounter is over. How, then, is this not the *ideal* way to fix the problem you're signaling? A party can stop, rest for 1-10 rounds, or a minute, or whatever restarts the "encounter" meter, renew its defenses, and press on. The party will never be missing any of its critical resources due to expenditure of that resource in a single encounter; it's only after the "uber-resources" (hp and awake time) have been expended that they'll need to rest.

Or am I missing something?