Why is it so important?

[gizmo33]

Let's assume no per day abilities at all and assume ALL resources can be recovered at the end of each encounter(which isn't true of 4th Ed, but let's assume for a second):

First of all, I really appreciate this analytical approach you are taking with the list and all of that. It has seemed really difficult to me to get the other side of this issue to claim *any* sort of consequences for the per-encounter design.

Regarding the "entirely per-encounter" issue (where all resources are reclaimed) - the reason I assume that is because I largely find the mix of per-encounter and per-daily resources to be nothing more than per-daily resources with a higher threshold of significance/danger for individual encounters. I don't find it significantly different than the current situation for 3.5E in terms of the "9:00-9:15" problem - though I DO think it's potentially different in terms of flavor (wizards use spells instead of crossbows) and balance between classes (both fighters and wizards can adventure for an equal amount of time before resting).

In addition to your list of consequences for the "per-encounter" time frame, I also think it would be useful if some folks were a little more explicit in what their main objective was in the rule change. I suspect that some folks just want a flavor change for the wizard, for example, and aren't too concerned with resource management overall, in which case I think they should review Wyatt's comments and consider the possibility that the design would have to go far beyond their purposes in order to address Wyatt's concerns.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

There was or is a thread in main forum in which 1e combat is examined in detail by running a 9th level fighter (with -4 AC) against a group of goblinoids.

In the first simulated combat, the goblinoids simply swarm the fighter. In the second, they attempt an overbearing attack. You'll notice that the goblins actually do better with stardard melee tactics.

The reason isn't completely obvious to someone whose mainly familiar with 3rd edition. The goblins where equipped with military picks, and military picks have a strong bonus to hit targets with low base AC's. Between this and the fact that 1st edition had facing which made the flanking rules much harsher, comparitively low HD monsters in 1st edition could with the right equipment hit even well armored foes. Which isn't to say a 10th level fighter couldn't put his back to wall and kill off 200 or so orcs, but that between that and 1st editions greater emphasis on 'operational level' problems, you would see more encounters as a 10th level party that involved say 20 hobgoblins than you would as a similar party in 3rd edition and that these encounters meant more and were more sensible in context than they would be in 3rd edition.

As for the rest, I don't think anyone is suggesting that limited per encounter powers harm the game at a tactical level. Obviously, they do for exactly the reasons you suggest. But, if you are trying to prove that the game is still tactically rich with per encounter abilities rather than per day abilities, you are very much missing the point.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm curious as to how you justify this viewpoint that battles must consume resources in light of what I discussed back in post 588, RC. Battles have other significance than just, "Oh my, I hope my fighter lives through this one!"

Absolutely agreed. In fact, the purpose of the attrition model, in part, is to allow a fight that is not win/lose to have a significant effect on future events.

I fully advocate battles in which PCs get a chance to show off, or are on a very cool battlefield, but I don't think that these things are inherently "cool" when shorn of context. And, while I fully agree that (as I have stated previously) this sort of design carries a "shine" that lasts several months until the players realize that their actions have no significance, I do not see where this (or anything in post 588) negates my point.

For instance, in 588, you suppose the resource attrition model leads to combats designed only to remove resources. Not only does this not clearly follow, but if your battle in which the PCs shine and/or takes place on a cool battlefield also helps to make the PC decisions in those battles meaningful within the game, so much the better.

I've broken down my reasoning earlier quite clearly in an earlier post, in a point-by-point manner. I've yet to read any response that invalidates, or demonstrates an error in, either that reasoning or the premises that it is built upon. Which isn't, of course, proof that I am right, but certainly suggests ways in which, if I am wrong, I can be demonstrated to be so.

RC

 

[gizmo33]

Regarding your earlier post, which I did read then:

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.

This doesn't quite capture the priority issues that I'm trying to identify. Resource management serves as an effective way IMO for the game to include a dimension of failure other than PC death or failure that's plot-dependent. It's also a fairly realistic type of failure.

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.

Some people play DnD knowing that there is no real chance of their PCs dying, and still have fun. So saying that's something is fun is in the context of what type of game you prefer. Imaro, for example, has played games without the emphasis on daily resource management and AFAICT has a different opinion on it.

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).

"Who do I kill first" IMO is not a resource issue per se. I disagree with something that statements like this seem to imply, and that is that the only difference between per-encounter and per-day is the time frame. The differences IMO are actually more substantial and your statement above actually hints at this - because now instead of deciding *whether* to use a spell, your simply deciding who to use it against. Also important to note: the encounter time frame is something the PCs have a large role in determining, to end the encounter they simply run away. But you can't end the day by running away.

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.

I don't see this at all. You are very much capable of running the "one encounter per day" type adventure as you were before. Adding per-encounter resources in order to keep wizards from dominating these kinds of scenarios IMO is fine with me, it's some of the other goals that I'm not too keen on.

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.

For me, I balance adventures based on the sum total of the encounters, and the ability of the "dungeon" to react to the PCs, so yes, that's how it happens. If the over all number of probably combats during the adventure is too easy, then this needs to be adjusted. This isn't fundementally different from what you would do with encounter-based adventures, only that I do it per adventure rather than per encounter. However, there are intimations here that the DM is actually linearly determining which encounters the PCs will face at each step, and I don't do this.

specifically because it's built around the 4-encounter per day system, but in the scheme of things, this is a minor point.

I disagree with this too. The system isn't built around the 4-encounter/day. The CR system predicts 4/day. You can just as easily increase the EL of an encounter and it becomes a 2-encounter per day. Or decrease it and get more. There's nothing fundemental about 4/day unless you match CRs with party level, but there is absolutely no mandate to do that.

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.

Whereas in the per-encounter paradigm, what do you do if the BBEG isn't high enough level for the party? Add mooks? Whatelse can you do? I don't see why the per-encounter paradigm changes anything about this - an easy situation, whether it's per encounter or per day is still an easy situation.

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.

It's a game, so everything is artificial and rules-based at some level. The idea that you get beat in the head with an axe and your cleric heals you and a minute later gets all his spells back is as least as artificial (and IMO moreso) than anything else.

I also feel that the latter is superior because it allows for different types of pacing,

I don't engineer pacing in my games because I don't engineer outcomes or the stories. Pacing in my game is driven by the player's choices and what makes sense for the situation, not how cool I would think it would be if the BBEG tells the PC that he's his father just before he falls off the cliff. That sort of heavy-handed manipulation IMO is fine for a novel but not what my players expect from a game. However - this is entirely a play-style issue. The irony here is that I'm skeptical that per-encounter resources support story-based gaming better than per-day. IMO per-encounter resources introduce as much plot-busting stuff as per-day.

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

Fatigue rules are a wonderful thing? So you use them? I doubt it based on what you've said above. I am always wary of unsubstantiated advice.

 

[Merlion]

I don't find it significantly different than the current situation for 3.5E in terms of the "9:00-9:15" problem

Thats because that issue, in the end, is going to be decided by playstyle, which isn't something that can be quantified or determined based on the rules.

Groups that insist on being at 100% at all times will always do the "9:00-9:15" thing. And those people probably wont see it as a problem.

though I DO think it's potentially different in terms of flavor (wizards use spells instead of crossbows) and balance between classes (both fighters and wizards can adventure for an equal amount of time before resting).

THESE issues are what lead other groups, groups that don't necessarily feel the need specifically to be at 100% at all times, to still do the 9:00-9:15 thing. These groups may be quite willing to go until say 20 or 30% resources. But the trouble is, in the current system, some classes drop to 20, 10 or even 0%, especially at low levels, while everyone else is still at 50% or more.

 

[gizmo33]

THESE issues are what lead other groups, groups that don't necessarily feel the need specifically to be at 100% at all times, to still do the 9:00-9:15 thing.

Well I'm all for solving this problem. Give wizards something "per-encounter" and effective to do instead of the crossbow. Balance out their powers so they don't dominate combat in the "1 encounter per day" model nor do they run out of steam before the fighters in the party do. I'm fine with all of that.

As it stands the mix of per-encounter and per-day abilites advocated by the web article of Monte Cook's cited in this thread, as well as what seems the likely design for 4E, does this fine IMO. The degree of power differential between per-encounter and per-day abilities will determine how much of a role attrition vs. deadliness will play in 4E, but that becomes a spectrum as long as there are still some daily resources.

 

[Merlion]

Well I'm all for solving this problem. Give wizards something "per-encounter" and effective to do instead of the crossbow. Balance out their powers so they don't dominate combat in the "1 encounter per day" model nor do they run out of steam before the fighters in the party do. I'm fine with all of that.

As it stands the mix of per-encounter and per-day abilites advocated by the web article of Monte Cook's cited in this thread, as well as what seems the likely design for 4E, does this fine IMO. The degree of power differential between per-encounter and per-day abilities will determine how much of a role attrition vs. deadliness will play in 4E, but that becomes a spectrum as long as there are still some daily resources.

yea thats kind of my point. I dont think we can draw a whole lot of really specific conclusions without more info on the per-encounter and at will abilities. How many you get, their nature, their possible ties to prepared spells etc.

 

[Imaro]

You know what I was wondering, why does everyone regulate the wizard to the crossbow once his spells run out? What about thinking outside the box with the wizard character, some suggestions...

1. Use alchemist fire, holy water, tanglefoot bags and flasks of acid (great inspiration for this in the movie 300)

2. If you're spells are depleted throw some armor on (hastily donned chain mail or put it on before the encounter gives a +3/+4 to AC and most wizards already have at least a +1/+2 Dex bonus) and aid another or flank(which offsets the -2 armor penalty to attk rolls).

3. Use the feint maneuver(not affected by the Dex penalty since it's a bluff check) after putting the armor on, in tangent with the flanking bonus. It gives a +2 to hit(again offsetting armor penalty) and opponent looses Dex bonus, especially good for high cha sorcerers with Bluff skill)

These are just a few of the things I've seen my players pull and they were both creative and fun.

 

[Merlion]

You know what I was wondering, why does everyone regulate the wizard to the crossbow once his spells run out? What about thinking outside the box with the wizard character, some suggestions...

1. Use alchemist fire, holy water, tanglefoot bags and flasks of acid (great inspiration for this in the movie 300)

2. If you're spells are depleted throw some armor on (hastily donned chain mail or put it on before the encounter gives a +3/+4 to AC and most wizards already have at least a +1/+2 Dex bonus) and aid another or flank(which offsets the -2 armor penalty to attk rolls).

3. Use the feint maneuver(not affected by the Dex penalty since it's a bluff check) after putting the armor on, in tangent with the flanking bonus. It gives a +2 to hit(again offsetting armor penalty) and opponent looses Dex bonus, especially good for high cha sorcerers with Bluff skill)

These are just a few of the things I've seen my players pull and they were both creative and fun.

And theres nothing wrong with any of those.

But for many, playing a wizard is about the wizard archtype, which is about magic, and knowledge. Not running out of magic and then running into physical combat, one way or another, for which you are extremely ill suited and which is likely to kill you.

the "crossbow" has basically become a catch all for all those types of things. Few wizards in fiction run out of magic and then start firing a crossbow, or throw on armor and start feinting (it would be more likely that they'd run out of magic and FAINT from exhaustion.)

 

[Brother MacLaren]

But for many, playing a wizard is about the wizard archtype, which is about magic, and knowledge. Not running out of magic and then running into physical combat, one way or another, for which you are extremely ill suited and which is likely to kill you.

Which wizard archetype? The lowest-level wizards in D&D, for the past 30+ years, usually hang back and do rather little in combat but can throw a big spell once in a while. A wizard in LOTR rarely uses magic because it attracts attention, and often uses weapons. The wizards in Conan the Barbarian use a few magical effects (Raise Dead, Polymorph, Finger of Death, Charm Person, Hold Person), but do not shy from using weapons (Thulsa Doom kill Conan's mother with a sword, the other wizard kills an enemy with a spear).

Saying "D&D wizards aren't wizardly enough" is like saying trolls aren't troll-like, dwarves aren't dwarf-like, or elves aren't elf-like -- all of which may be true if you are considering them in the context of Scandinavian mythology. Or saying that clerics aren't very cleric-like.

D&D isn't a generic fantasy RPG system. It's D&D, with "wizard" having certain connotations just like "cleric," "dwarf," or "troll."