Why is it so important?

[Grog]

That's actually the crux of the argument.

I would contend that there were more degrees in 1e, where even a goblin could potentially affect a 10th level fighter, than in 3e.

Are you kidding? A goblin in 1E had less chance to affect a 10th level fighter because, if the fighter's AC was low enough, the goblin couldn't hit him even on a natural 20. Now, if there were ten goblins or so, the screwy overbearing rules might come into play, but just one? Even less of a threat than in 3E.

Please explain to me how the resources of the PCs have changed from the pre-fight resources to the post-fight resources, as they enter the next encounter? How exactly is it different from "4 goblins against a 10th level fighter" in actual effect?

Because, yeah, people are going to go "Cool! I got to use my per encounter powers!" for a few months, I agree, before coming to the conclusion that they are actually wasting their time with such encounters because the outcome is both preordained and inconsequential.

You're making the same mistake that gizmo33 did. The key time frame is not after the battle, it's during the battle. Per-encounter powers most definitely are not inconsequential in the middle of a battle. Indeed, if it's a tough battle, deciding when and how to use your per-encounter powers will be every bit as critical as deciding when and how to use your per-day powers is under the current rules. It's a far cry from the "10th level fighter vs. 4 goblins" situation where the player doesn't have to make any decisions at all.

I see no reason why a battle can't be fun, exciting, and potentially dangerous even if the players mostly or entirely use only per-encounter abilities to fight it.

 

[Jackelope King]

Unless th cleric or "healer type" has a per encounter healing abilty. Even if it only heals a small amount but refreshes every minute it's going to make anything but the most damaging encounters negligible.

Or perhaps the healer can bring everyone up to a "decent" level of health at any given time (maybe 50~75% or somesuch), but only up to full using "per day" spells. We don't know how this works, but in every single incarnation of D&D ever, and in nearly every hitpoint-based game, the big limit on how long someone could go has always been hit points, and how easily you could replenish them. I know that in Mearles' Iron Heroes, while you always could earn tokens to play with per-encounter abilities all day long, your hit point totals still needed attention. That was where the attrition was, and that's probably where it will still be.

(And I may be mistaken, but I thought that the healing reserve feat only let the cleric bring someone up to a certian percentage but not full health).

This are all story resources, but let's for a minute suppose you are running a dungeon crawl...now what resources have changed? I wouldn't even call these resouces but more advancing the plotline than anything else. Resources are things that are expended to give your PC the ability to do a p[articular something.

First, why would I want to play a dungeon crawl? It's one type of fantasy roleplaying game, but not the end-all be-all. Certainly the game should support this style, and support it well, but it shouldn't restrict people to this style of gaming.

Resources are, quite simply, things which characters can use to make progress in the game. That's it. Resources needn't be something which deplete with use. Your fireball spell is just as important a resource as the favor of the mayor of the town you just saved. What is wrong with considering the suggestions I listed resources?

**EDIT:** And I nearly forgot to address a point you made. Again, I believe that the designers are going to continue making hit points a de facto per-day resource, making it increasingly difficult for the party to carry on at full health (possibly always able to continue decently, maybe at the oft-quoted 80% efficiency). It won't be impossible for the DM to throw more encounters at the party without slaughtering them just as it will still be possible for the PCs to be warry about continuing down to the next level of the dungeon when they're still battered and bruised from the current one.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

An interesting question is how the current"daily resource management" system affects the game experience for the players involved?

I certainly like planning my wizards spell well and using them precisely in the right moment. What I don't really enjoy are the kind of battles where I just sling some cheap Magic Missiles (usually at high levels, relying on Wands of Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer) or fire a Crossbow (low levels). The non-spellcasters usually enjoy these combats just as much as the ones where I get to sling my powerful spells. Essentially, a easy encounter in D&D 3.x means that the Wizard and Clerics hold back and just watch the fighters and rogues having fun. The difficult encounters means everyone is busy.

A system which allows me to use most (but not always my most powerful) magic in combat in such battles would be a lot more fun to a spellcaster. The difference shouldn't be between a Magic Missile and a Cone of Cold, but the difference between Alter Self and Polymorph or Scorching Ray and Enlarged Fireball (couldn't think of a better 4th level spell, and I hope Enlarge is just +1 spell level)).

A system that generously mixes per day, per encounter and per round resources might be able to pull this off.
Per Day spells: My highest level
Per Encounter spells: My second or third highest level spells
Per Round spells: Any spell below that.

 

[Imaro]

Or perhaps the healer can bring everyone up to a "decent" level of health at any given time (maybe 50~75% or somesuch), but only up to full using "per day" spells. We don't know how this works, but in every single incarnation of D&D ever, and in nearly every hitpoint-based game, the big limit on how long someone could go has always been hit points, and how easily you could replenish them. I know that in Mearles' Iron Heroes, while you always could earn tokens to play with per-encounter abilities all day long, your hit point totals still needed attention. That was where the attrition was, and that's probably where it will still be.

(And I may be mistaken, but I thought that the healing reserve feat only let the cleric bring someone up to a certian percentage but not full health).

I wasn't adressing reserve feats specifically, as I have only heard of them and don't posses the book there in. My main problem is this, if hp's can't be replenished at all, then all we're doing with per encounter abilities is upping the power level. If they can be replenished up to a certain percentage then how is this different from per-day and encounter guidelines currently, except maybe in being more hampering. I think of it like this

In the current system you start with 100% of your resources, now if my penultimate encounter is geared to a party with 60% of their resources I can accomplish how they get to that point. Perhaps four encounters that take 0% of their resources then another that takes 10% and finally another that takes 20%(for a total of 6 encounters+ the finale). This way if they play smart then they should face the final encounter with 70% of their resources...if they don't play smart from 60% to maybe 50%. If I structuure the final encounter to challenge them at 30% of their resources then I can make more encounters or less but harder encounters.

With the players at 80% to 100% efficiency, I will always(if I want it to be challenging) structure the final encounter to challenge the PC's at 80 to 100% of their resources. Which, and I am assuming here since I haven't seen the new encounter system, a much narrower range than what can be accomplished above.

First, why would I want to play a dungeon crawl? It's one type of fantasy roleplaying game, but not the end-all be-all. Certainly the game should support this style, and support it well, but it shouldn't restrict people to this style of gaming.

Different strokes for different folks, but you're examplae assume no one will, I was just providing a counter argument. Never said it should restrict people, but how do per-day or per-encounter resources impact your style(the resources you listed) in any way. In fact I see it impacting the dynamics of a dungeon-crawl the most.

Resources are, quite simply, things which characters can use to make progress in the game. That's it. Resources needn't be something which deplete with use. Your fireball spell is just as important a resource as the favor of the mayor of the town you just saved. What is wrong with considering the suggestions I listed resources?

No they don't have to be something that depletes with use. the problem is that in no way do the resources we are discussin impact(help or hinder) you giving out your own "story resources". In other words your resources are a negligible factor in what we are actually talking about. I hand them out all the time in my game, but I've never been stopped or helped in doing so by how the PC's abiltites refresh.

**EDIT:** And I nearly forgot to address a point you made. Again, I believe that the designers are going to continue making hit points a de facto per-day resource, making it increasingly difficult for the party to carry on at full health (possibly always able to continue decently, maybe at the oft-quoted 80% efficiency). It won't be impossible for the DM to throw more encounters at the party without slaughtering them just as it will still be possible for the PCs to be warry about continuing down to the next level of the dungeon when they're still battered and bruised from the current one.

You see it's that always at 80% efficiency that makes me wonder. At this level and let's say an average level of skill by your players, you're going to challenge them(and this is being generous) with encounters that force the party to use 65% to 100% of their resources. I can't see an encounter being challenging below 65%(maybe 60) but definitely not below that for even moderately competent players(and let's not even go with powergamers or experienced players), while an encounter over 100% will probably TPK a moderately competent player. This is all IMHO of course.

 

[Imaro]

An interesting question is how the current"daily resource management" system affects the game experience for the players involved?

I certainly like planning my wizards spell well and using them precisely in the right moment. What I don't really enjoy are the kind of battles where I just sling some cheap Magic Missiles (usually at high levels, relying on Wands of Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer) or fire a Crossbow (low levels). The non-spellcasters usually enjoy these combats just as much as the ones where I get to sling my powerful spells. Essentially, a easy encounter in D&D 3.x means that the Wizard and Clerics hold back and just watch the fighters and rogues having fun. The difficult encounters means everyone is busy.

A system which allows me to use most (but not always my most powerful) magic in combat in such battles would be a lot more fun to a spellcaster. The difference shouldn't be between a Magic Missile and a Cone of Cold, but the difference between Alter Self and Polymorph or Scorching Ray and Enlarged Fireball (couldn't think of a better 4th level spell, and I hope Enlarge is just +1 spell level)).

A system that generously mixes per day, per encounter and per round resources might be able to pull this off.
Per Day spells: My highest level
Per Encounter spells: My second or third highest level spells
Per Round spells: Any spell below that.

One thing I will be curious about concerning this new paradigm in design...is how, exactly the designer's plan to balance the Wizard(and to a lesser extent the other spellcasters) versatility. I always thought this was the fact that other classes shined in the type of situations you sight above. I mean a fighter will never ba able to do the type of things that spells such as polymorph, wish, fly, etc. allow a wizard to do. So yeah, I wonder how they will balance this without spellcasters again being more powerful at higher levels.

 

[Jackelope King]

I wasn't adressing reserve feats specifically, as I have only heard of them and don't posses the book there in. My main problem is this, if hp's can't be replenished at all, then all we're doing with per encounter abilities is upping the power level. If they can be replenished up to a certain percentage then how is this different from per-day and encounter guidelines currently, except maybe in being more hampering. I think of it like this

In the current system you start with 100% of your resources, now if my penultimate encounter is geared to a party with 60% of their resources I can accomplish how they get to that point. Perhaps four encounters that take 0% of their resources then another that takes 10% and finally another that takes 20%(for a total of 6 encounters+ the finale). This way if they play smart then they should face the final encounter with 70% of their resources...if they don't play smart from 60% to maybe 50%. If I structuure the final encounter to challenge them at 30% of their resources then I can make more encounters or less but harder encounters.

With the players at 80% to 100% efficiency, I will always(if I want it to be challenging) structure the final encounter to challenge the PC's at 80 to 100% of their resources. Which, and I am assuming here since I haven't seen the new encounter system, a much narrower range than what can be accomplished above.

Ah, but what you describe requires a pretty in-depth knowledge of your group that only really experienced DMs have (and my hat's off to you for managing it! Kudos!). You know their abilities and resources inside-and-out. Not every group has a DM like this.

But what your'e doing is assuming attrition, which the current system assumes and indeed enforces. It works wonderfully for what you describe. Fantastically. But, as I've said, there are other styles it doesn't work for.

Different strokes for different folks, but you're examplae assume no one will, I was just providing a counter argument. Never said it should restrict people, but how do per-day or per-encounter resources impact your style(the resources you listed) in any way. In fact I see it impacting the dynamics of a dungeon-crawl the most.

Per-day resources mean that my players are more likely to make camp or find an inn than they are to head off to continue the adventure. Per-encounter resource management means that it is much easier to predict the heroes' abilities at any given point in the game. The paladin will always have one smite, the barbarian will be able to rage, and the wizard will have between one and three fireballs, as well as his magic bolt every round. Easy peasy. It also means that I can have a day with one encounter just as easily as I can have a day with ten and it won't change the in-party balance. Currently, if I run fewer than four encounters, the game tends to favor spellcasters. If I run more than four encounters, it means that the non-casters get more spotlight time.

No they don't have to be something that depletes with use. the problem is that in no way do the resources we are discussin impact(help or hinder) you giving out your own "story resources". In other words your resources are a negligible factor in what we are actually talking about. I hand them out all the time in my game, but I've never been stopped or helped in doing so by how the PC's abiltites refresh.

I wasn't intending them to be such. RC postulated that a per-encounter system means that encounters must, by default, be all-or-nothing to be meaningful. I provided a counterpoint whereby even cakewalk encounters have meaning. That's all.

You see it's that always at 80% efficiency that makes me wonder. At this level and let's say an average level of skill by your players, you're going to challenge them(and this is being generous) with encounters that force the party to use 65% to 100% of their resources. I can't see an encounter being challenging below 65%(maybe 60) but definitely not below that for even moderately competent players(and let's not even go with powergamers or experienced players), while an encounter over 100% will probably TPK a moderately competent player. This is all IMHO of course.

And your speculation does somewhat ignore what I said above: there's more at stake in an encounter than "how many points did the heroes spend to overcome it". There are in-character concerns and consequences. One of the first things I learned when I started running a game like Mutants & Masterminds, where a single healer will all but garuntee the group going in to every fight at full power, was that there were many more ways to challenge a group than just the "war of attrition". There's nothing wrong with a cakewalk or even a real meat-grinder that pushes the heroes to their limits, so long as it keeps the game fun and moving along in the right direction.

And indeed, a per-encounter resource system means that the "sweet spot" for the DM to aim for to actually peg those real meat-grinder, edge-of-your-seat-will-we-make-it encounters is so, so, so much easier. I can pretty much eyeball how well the PCs will fare against a particular challenge in M&M with about +/- 10% accuracy (including those occassional lucky crits). If D&D allowed a more constant (or at least steady) pool of resources to the PCs, this would help me immensely in designing interesting encounters.

 

[Imaro]

I wasn't intending them to be such. RC postulated that a per-encounter system means that encounters must, by default, be all-or-nothing to be meaningful. I provided a counterpoint whereby even cakewalk encounters have meaning. That's all.

That's all well and good, but I think he means in a mechanical sense. I mean the whole "if we don't pull this off the princess will be kidnapped" meaningful loses alot of it's punch when you can pull out everything and the kitchen sink to accomplish it. You then run into once again, making it a 80%-100& resource depletion encounter(which certainly infers a TPK as a consequence of loosing) to give it that punch.

And your speculation does somewhat ignore what I said above: there's more at stake in an encounter than "how many points did the heroes spend to overcome it". There are in-character concerns and consequences. One of the first things I learned when I started running a game like Mutants & Masterminds, where a single healer will all but garuntee the group going in to every fight at full power, was that there were many more ways to challenge a group than just the "war of attrition". There's nothing wrong with a cakewalk or even a real meat-grinder that pushes the heroes to their limits, so long as it keeps the game fun and moving along in the right direction.

Yet if the encounter is a given(once again I estimate a lower than 65% resource depletion) you know what the end mechanical outcome will be majority of the time, thus you know what effect, as far as "story resources" you will achieve from it. There's a lack of risk/reward and in a per-day encounter this type of reward is just as effective at keeping the PC's going. In other words I see nothing that makes per-encounter abilities superior to implementing what you propose here.

And indeed, a per-encounter resource system means that the "sweet spot" for the DM to aim for to actually peg those real meat-grinder, edge-of-your-seat-will-we-make-it encounters is so, so, so much easier. I can pretty much eyeball how well the PCs will fare against a particular challenge in M&M with about +/- 10% accuracy (including those occassional lucky crits). If D&D allowed a more constant (or at least steady) pool of resources to the PCs, this would help me immensely in designing interesting encounters.

I find this is the case with almost any game once you've taken the time to familiarize yourself with it and your players...not to mention the fact that an encounter can be adjusted on the fly. I think the fact that there aren't alot of steady resources in the hands of the PC's in D&D promotes longterm thought about consequences and strategy, as well as a sense of risk that is more satisfying than being able to blast/smite/rage every combat. YMMV of course.

 

[Jackelope King]

The assumption which you seem to be working under is that a resource-management system must, in order to be effective and fun, include attrition over the course of a day.

I disagree. From my experience with other games, this is simply not the case. I've had enormous fun playing and running Mutants & Masterminds and Iron Heroes, and both systems minimize the per-day resource management ideal and the concept of attrition.

What the system we are currently speculating about seems to imply is that the basic unit of measurement for resource management is shifting from the macro-management of the "day" to the micro-management of the "round". Under this model, the question isn't, "Do I use my fireball now or save it for another fight?" Instead, it's, "Do I throw my fireball this round and take out the goblins or do I hit the BBEG with a lightning bolt?" The fundamental resource in the game becomes the actions you have available to you (which IH did a wonderful job with using its tokens system... you could spend actions to get tokes, which you could spend in later rounds to activate abilities).

From what you describe, you tend to see encounters as "speed-bumps". You need to put X number of encounters in the way of the heroes in a given adenture not because the adventure calls for those fights in particular, but because the PCs need to suffer the attrition that those encounters will impose for the adventure to function correctly. You might have planned a heroic battle over a chasm on a swaying rope bridge and maybe a terrific encounter where the heroes encounter their first terrifying medusa before they square off with the dragon, but you then decide you need to go back and insert another encounter before the dragon lest that fight be too easy.

The upside to this viewpoint is that it promotes a very tactical sort of resource management. After each battle, the heroes need to take stock of what they have left and decide if they can go on or if they need to rest and heal. If you enjoy this sort of thing, then the system works wonderfully for that. I would still say it has difficulties in handling different degrees of resource management specifically because it's built around the 4-encounter per day system, but in the scheme of things, this is a minor point.

The downside is that you are sometimes forced to introduce challenges that are there only to cost resources, as both yourself and RC have described. Certainly this isn't the majority of encounters, but they're a sort of "necessary evil" for you to get the PCs where you want them before the next encounter. I know this from personal experience. While designing adventures, I sometimes find myself adding an extra fight as an afterthought if only to make the final fight that much more of a challenging. They serve no other purpose than to chew up resources.

And I don't find that to be good design. RC talks about what makes an encounter important in terms of what resources it costs. I think about encounters as important in terms of how they move the game forward. If attrition as a de facto requirement is reduced or removed from the game, then that's one less thing for me to worry about when designing an adventure. I'd rather make every encounter one that's exciting and moves the game forward as opposed to having to throw speed-bumps at the PCs to make sure that they're just the right sort of tired when they reach the end of the adventure.

Long-term resource management is one approach. So is short-term round-based resource management. I find that the latter better promotes the sort of games I want to play and run because they are less-likely to enforce artificial, rules-based restrictions on pacing. I also feel that the latter is superior because it allows for different types of pacing, but would join with you in agreeing that the per-day model does better allow for long-term resource management better than this model.

But personally, I value good pacing and meaningful, exciting encounters over long-term resource management. I like an RPG to run more like an adventure than a detatched, tactical game. This is a personal preference and nothing more, but I am pleased to see that this is one which WotC is recognizing as a valid one alongside their "classic" model of long-term resource management.

And by the way, even under a per-encounter model, it's still not too difficult to add attrition. Fatigue rules are a wonderful thing

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One thing I will be curious about concerning this new paradigm in design...is how, exactly the designer's plan to balance the Wizard(and to a lesser extent the other spellcasters) versatility. I always thought this was the fact that other classes shined in the type of situations you sight above. I mean a fighter will never ba able to do the type of things that spells such as polymorph, wish, fly, etc. allow a wizard to do. So yeah, I wonder how they will balance this without spellcasters again being more powerful at higher levels.

That's an interesting question. I would assume that's something the Designers are trying to address with the new mechanics for spellcasting, including the indicated 25+ levels of spells. The Book of Nine Swords might also give some interesting ideas on what they are planning to give the "martial" characters to grant them greater versatility.

It might be important to keep in mind that while spells are often quite impressive in the versatility department, mundane skill uses are not to discounted. A wizard might be able to make himself invisible, but a Rogue can sneak well enough that he doesn't need the spell (and is also not hampered by Detect Magic/Invisibility spells). A Fighter doesn't need fly to overcome a river or a cliff. There are some spells but that are truely beyond mundane means - flying is still superior to climbing during a combat, and Dimension Door or Teleport will certainly be unmatched by any other skill. But then, this might be just the advantage the wizards has for not being able to go toe-to-toe with a Dragon...

The primary concern is probably still wether things stay balanced during combat. But I agree it would be a very good idea to ensure that classes stay balanced outside of combat, too. Which means that even in an investigative heavy adventure, fighters get to do something and don't have to leave everything to the Diviners and Rogues or Bards. Even more so when a "social challenge" system has been established.
I think there are some indications that they are seeing these issues (I specifically remember the thing about traps being full-fledged encounters using all the party members, instead of just being the Rogue rolling 2-3 dice).

You see it's that always at 80% efficiency that makes me wonder. At this level and let's say an average level of skill by your players, you're going to challenge them(and this is being generous) with encounters that force the party to use 65% to 100% of their resources. I can't see an encounter being challenging below 65%(maybe 60) but definitely not below that for even moderately competent players(and let's not even go with powergamers or experienced players), while an encounter over 100% will probably TPK a moderately competent player. This is all IMHO of course.

Just some observations first that are not _that_ important here:
Under the current system, an encounter that gives the characters a 50 % chance to survive/succeed is an encounter with a Encounter Level equal to Party Level +4. Which means that on average, this will consume 50 % of the parties resources (which, worst case scenario, could be two full characters in the standard 4 player group!). It can be more, it can be less. I tend to think if no character died, you might actually have been below 50 %.
I tend to think the systems expectation for "average" might be a bit off, but maybe it doesn't account for good tactics of experienced players.

In encounters were Wizards and Clerics are usually holding back with spells (EL around PL), the expectation is that this requires 25 % of the parties resources. In such encounters, I think the estimation might be a bit farther off then described above, simply for the existence of Wands of Cure Light Wounds. At medium to high levels, the resources they require seem considerable less than what the systems expects (I assume that's because it is based on spells used for healing, or just the pure hit point cost, not on the wand cost formula)

Another thing is to keep in mind:
Most resources characters have cannot actually be spend within a single encounter.
Hitpoints burn through pretty fast in 3.x, but blowing out all your spells takes a lot of time at higher levels. If an average combat lasts 5 rounds, you usually won't get out more than 5 spells per round. So, even if you have 100 % of your powers available doesn't mean you get to use 100 % of them. Using a resource usually costs a new one that you have to keep track off only during the encounter: Actions. You only have a limited amount of them per turn, and the tactical component is to decide when do you use which of your other resources together with this one.

A think I just noticed: The 10 minute adventure day might also be result of aspects like quicken spell and more swift spells. These spells are balanced by the assumption that their effects are lessened (Swift Spells usually) or they cost more (Quicken Spell). On a pure power level, this is in fact the case, I think. But on the resource management side, they mean that you can spend more of your resources during an encounter. But since your resources do not replenish after the encounter, casters are out of spells even earlier.

 

[Merlion]

Bingo.

If the ability to swing a sword isn't considered a resource, because you can always do it, then the same will be true of the per-encounter abilities, sooner or later, once players figure it out.

As your examples demonstrate, only things where the use of them now significantly impacts the future ability to use the same things later are considered resources by players of the game.

Your missing a big difference that I and others have already brought up.

A Fighter can ALWAYS swing a sword.

Per encounter abilities are just that. Per encounter. Once used in an encounter, they can't be used again until the next encounter.

Previously in D&D everything was either at will and non-expendable (fighter swinging a sword) or per day (pretty much everything else.)

The only, only difference that there is going to be, that we know of at this point is that there will be a third catagory of things that fall between these two...their use not tied to daily rest, but not unlimited either.