Why is it so important?

[Jackelope King]

My answer: per-encounter.

If it were per-day the DM wouldn't have felt compelled to make the encounter a life-or-death struggle in order to make it interesting.

So there has never been in the history of per-day resource management a life-or-death struggle? Yes or no.

For extra credit I'll also say that the DM fudges dice reguarly because for every "woohoo we got lucky and won" situation that occurs, those same characters are killed a week later by a "uh-oh, we got unlucky and lost". The DM has fixed this through fudging.

Your implication is interesting. How does it support your conclusion that this is "per-encounter" then? Or is this meant to be an insult?

 

[hong]

Finally, because the entire baseline has moved, it encourages DMs to do exactly what the DMs having the 9-9:15 problem eventually do -- set up every encounter to challenge a party at full resources.

1. To be precise, every encounter which is meant to be a risky challenge.

2. And this is a problem, why?

 

[Merlion]

In terms of the 9-9:15 problem? AFAICT it isn't. Which is rather the point.

In terms of the range of significant encounters using the mechanical threshold? It narrows the mechanical threshold by quite a large margin if you are not experiencing the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem already.

If you examine the CR/EL system, it is quite clear that an encounter that the party can clearly (even easily) beat is still significant because of the expenditure of resources that do not instantly renew.

Some groups, to hedge their bets, decided that they could use all their resources in a few battles, rest, and then repeat. This created the double problem that we call the "9-9:15 adventuring day". The problems caused by this are (1) the problem with verisimilitude, and (2) it causes any encounter that doesn't challenge full resources to become mechanically insignificant.

Wyatt's solution, AFAICT, is to simply give the benefits of resting without requiring resting. On the surface, this targets (1), but not (2), which is the far more significant problem. Moreover, because it makes the problems caused by the 9-9:15 adventuring day the de facto baseline of the game, it means that DMs not experiencing these problems get the joy of doing so. Finally, because the entire baseline has moved, it encourages DMs to do exactly what the DMs having the 9-9:15 problem eventually do -- set up every encounter to challenge a party at full resources.


RC

Hmmm. Well I havent been reading every post for a while, but just a few things I seem to notice.

1) what constitutes a "significant" encounter is mostly a matter of opinion.

2) a party that recharges its per encounter abilities isnt necessarily at full resources

3) it still seems to me that per-encounter abilities will make it easier for parties who want to continue on as long as possible to do so, without handicaping certain classes over others, without having to take a full 8 hours rest etc

4) parties that insist on having full resources at all times arent going to be impacted one way or the others.


It also seems like most who dislike the per-encounter deal arent calling it imbalanced they just 1) don't think it solves the problem it sets out to solve and 2) are afraid it will take away the resource management aspects they enjoy.

Personally, the at-will and per-encounter abilities are a good thing to me if only because they make the magic system more in line with how I see magic working and how it is often depicted. I also think it will improve the 9-915 thing for those who see it as a problem or something they are forced into. And their will still be resource management.

 

[gizmo33]

Yo know this is getting petty...does anyone know exactly what 4e will entail...anyone.

We don't know anything about 4E, therefore Vancian magic *could* be the coolest magic system anyone has ever seen when combined with the other 4E rules. But then again the "we don't know anything" idea is only used to selectively support one side of the argument.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Precisely. During the time-frame of an encounter, there is no magical loss of interest/coolness/fun/whatever. Each encounter can still be significant and fun.

Sure.....as Imaro said,

Per-day is significant in that the ramifications, even if it isn't win/loose causes the players to manage resources on a long-term basis.

Per-encounter is only significant if the specific encounter is hard enough(win/loose) where resource management within that specific encounter is necessary.​

But we've already all agreed with this, long, long ago (as soon as it was brought up AFAIK). Your example doesn't change what Imaro said, above.

This does not logically follow. It is equally likely to have occured under a per-day resource system. There is no logical connection between a small expenditure of resources and a per-encounter model as of the last round of the encounter.

Sure there is. Per-day resources, because they do not automatically renew, are automatically more important to retain (if possible) than per-encounter resources. Therefore, any battle where there is not significant chance of loss will overwhelmingly favor the use of per-encounter resources vs. per-day resources. Simply put, using per-day resources under such a system, when you do not have to, is foolish.

You have insufficent information to claim that all resources will regenerate. From what we've ready, not all resources will regenerate. Thus, this conclusion you reach is invalid.

Again, Imaro has already answered this:

when discussing it it is necessary to extrapoilate from what we've been told. I mean the whole "We don't know for sure" argument doesn't predicate not disscussing in a reasonable context what has been stated.​

Let me also add that, while I hope that I am wrong, "You might be wrong if they don't do what their playtest reports, blogs, and news indicates they are doing" is a very, very good reason for me to continue to press the point. If any WotC designer is reading this thread, and changes are made to curtail the problems being presented, that is a very, very good thing.

I would prefer that WotC makes me wrong than makes me right.


RC

 

[gizmo33]

1) what constitutes a "significant" encounter is mostly a matter of opinion.

Why not apply this to Wyatt's reasoning then?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hmmm. Well I havent been reading every post for a while, but just a few things I seem to notice.

You should go back and read that part of the discussion, then. Your points (1) and (2) have been discussed to death. Or don't, because even without doing so, you seem to understand the point that Gizmo33, myself, and others are trying to make (see below).

Your point (3) is factual under any system. If the party is going to continue without full resources it will do so. Class balance may be positively affected (or not). I think it depends very much on what abilities fall under which time-frame to renew.

Your point (4), "parties that insist on having full resources at all times arent going to be impacted one way or the others" is the point that Gizmo33, Imaro, myself, and others have been trying to make. Wyatt's blog statement that this model will fix the "9-9:15 adventuring day" is simply wrong.

You are further correct when you say:

It also seems like most who dislike the per-encounter deal arent calling it imbalanced they just 1) don't think it solves the problem it sets out to solve and 2) are afraid it will take away the resource management aspects they enjoy.

So, it seems as though you and I, at least, are now on the same page regarding this issue.


RC

 

[gizmo33]

So there has never been in the history of per-day resource management a life-or-death struggle? Yes or no.

There has, in the history of per-day resource manage, been life-or-death struggles. (I thought I would answer explicitly since saying "no" to a "never" question can be confusing.)

Your implication is interesting. How does it support your conclusion that this is "per-encounter" then? Or is this meant to be an insult?

Insult about what? I already gave the reasoning for why I concluded "per-encounter" resources. Was this a trick question?

 

[Jackelope King]

Sure.....as Imaro said,

Per-day is significant in that the ramifications, even if it isn't win/loose causes the players to manage resources on a long-term basis.

Per-encounter is only significant if the specific encounter is hard enough(win/loose) where resource management within that specific encounter is necessary.​

But we've already all agreed with this, long, long ago (as soon as it was brought up AFAIK). Your example doesn't change what Imaro said, above.

Resource management withing a given encounter is always necessary, hence the flaw in Imaro's argument.

Sure there is. Per-day resources, because they do not automatically renew, are automatically more important to retain (if possible) than per-encounter resources. Therefore, any battle where there is not significant chance of loss will overwhelmingly favor the use of per-encounter resources vs. per-day resources. Simply put, using per-day resources under such a system, when you do not have to, is foolish.

That's the case in either system, however. It's foolish for the wizard to cast a spell when the fighter can just kill the enemy anyway.

However: is it more fun for the wizard to twiddle his thumbs and wait for the fighter? Or should the wizard always have the option to do something at least moderately fun throughout the day?

I think the popularity of the warlock class is fair support for the latter.

Again, Imaro has already answered this:

when discussing it it is necessary to extrapoilate from what we've been told. I mean the whole "We don't know for sure" argument doesn't predicate not disscussing in a reasonable context what has been stated.​

Let me also add that, while I hope that I am wrong, "You might be wrong if they don't do what their playtest reports, blogs, and news indicates they are doing" is a very, very good reason for me to continue to press the point. If any WotC designer is reading this thread, and changes are made to curtail the problems being presented, that is a very, very good thing.

I would prefer that WotC makes me wrong than makes me right.


RC

Fair enough. However, from what we know, the system will still include per-day resources. If this is the case, why are we having this discussion?

 

[Jackelope King]

There has, in the history of per-day resource manage, been life-or-death struggles. (I thought I would answer explicitly since saying "no" to a "never" question can be confusing.)

Fair enough

This, however, contradicts your claim that something being a life or death struggle is definitively indicative of a per-encounter resource management system, since by your own admission, it is also a feature found in per-day resource management systems.

Insult about what? I already gave the reasoning for why I concluded "per-encounter" resources. Was this a trick question?

To clarify, do you believe that a DM fudging dice is indicative of a per-encounter resource management? If so, how?