Why is it so important?

[pemerton]

As I said, I'm sure everyone will choose the adventure where there's a possibility of failure over the adventure with the long string of guaranteed wins.

How many guaranteed wins per adventure can there be before the adventure suffers?

I assume that "guaranteed win" means that the outcome of the adventure does not depend upon the players' choices?

If that's what it does mean, then there are all sorts of ways that an adventure can not be a guaranteed win, but where death in combat is not the principal issue that the PCs confront.

 

[pemerton]

No, that's what happens when the arguments being made "against you" don't actually speak to the points you have made.

Ex:

Person 1: "I don't think that this system will solve the problem that Wyatt says it will."

Person 2: "Sure it will. It will make wizards more fun to play."

Person 1: "The problem Wyatt identifies isn't that wizards are unfun."

Person 2: "Of course wizards are unfun now! This will help."

So, the quoted dialog might result because some people think they know the reason how the 15 minute adventure day came into being, and this being that playing a spell caster that holds back most of the time isn't fun, which leads to a different encounter dynamic.

Excellent point.

 

[Treebore]

You know I played in two first level games this past week. One last Friday and another last Sunday. In the Sunday game we had a fighter, a Ranger, a cleric, and a thief. We rested after a major battle, then went into a cave complex, fought six zombies, then moved on, fought two medium size spiders (fortunately saves versus poison were made), continued on until we exited the cave complex and found a Citadel in a valley. We then broke out grappling hooks, rolled a natural 20 to get it through the window 35 feet up, and started to climb. The Citadel appears to be empty, but we decided against going in the front door.

We did all of that without a single rest after the major battle.

Friday was DCC 1 "Idylls of the Rat King". We are about half way through the second level, fought a whole bunch of Dire Rats, Goblins, and were rat Goblins, even fought 6 skeletons in a room where we found a clue about there being a vampire somewhere. We rested two times.

We rested because the fighters were low on HP's, which was in turn because the cleric was out of spells. So the resource management issues were also because of the fighters lack of HP's, as well as lack of spells for our wizard and cleric. Plus the Wizard has been pretty darn effective with their crossbow. He has killed about as many creatures as any of the rest of us. We are level one or two? Level two, after all. Everyones to hit is within a couple of points of each others.

So we rested very little, and when I asked if anyone had a problem with us resting (due to this thread), they said, "No, we need to recover HP's and spells." When the DM's asked how we liked the game sessions we all responded, "Great fun. Looking forward to the next session!"


So I found it kind of funny that two groups of 5 or 6 people had no problems with "resource management" considering how its being debated in this thread.

Just thought I would share those experiences.

 

[pemerton]

has anyone suggested that the "per-encounter resource' model actually increases the possible number of dimensions of interest? Any reason that an encounter is interesting in "per-encounter 4E", it's interesting in 3E. All the 4E resource situation does is eliminate operational consequences.

Your last sentence is true. Thus, operational considerations will not get in the way of other dimensions of interest. This is not an absurd design goal.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know I played in two first level games this past week. One last Friday and another last Sunday. In the Sunday game we had a fighter, a Ranger, a cleric, and a thief. We rested after a major battle, then went into a cave complex, fought six zombies, then moved on, fought two medium size spiders (fortunately saves versus poison were made), continued on until we exited the cave complex and found a Citadel in a valley. We then broke out grappling hooks, rolled a natural 20 to get it through the window 35 feet up, and started to climb. The Citadel appears to be empty, but we decided against going in the front door.

We did all of that without a single rest after the major battle.

Friday was DCC 1 "Idylls of the Rat King". We are about half way through the second level, fought a whole bunch of Dire Rats, Goblins, and were rat Goblins, even fought 6 skeletons in a room where we found a clue about there being a vampire somewhere. We rested two times.

We rested because the fighters were low on HP's, which was in turn because the cleric was out of spells. So the resource management issues were also because of the fighters lack of HP's, as well as lack of spells for our wizard and cleric. Plus the Wizard has been pretty darn effective with their crossbow. He has killed about as many creatures as any of the rest of us. We are level one or two? Level two, after all. Everyones to hit is within a couple of points of each others.

So we rested very little, and when I asked if anyone had a problem with us resting (due to this thread), they said, "No, we need to recover HP's and spells." When the DM's asked how we liked the game sessions we all responded, "Great fun. Looking forward to the next session!"


So I found it kind of funny that two groups of 5 or 6 people had no problems with "resource management" considering how its being debated in this thread.

Just thought I would share those experiences.

Your experience are certainly welcome, and I think they are valid, and might be a typical experience for 1st to 2nd level characters.

But I still like to add a few comments. I think what is noticeable is that the dynamic you describe changes with levels:

1) As you point out, the Wizards attack bonus is just a few points off from the Fighters. Even though he is not doing wizardly things, he can at least be effective with his crossbow. That doesn't hold true at higher levels. (But it is yet another problem in D&D 3.x, that is not related to resource management - except of course that only a wizard out of spell resources has to care about his attack bonus with crossbows or his Quarterstaff )

2) Your group doesn't yet rely on the D&D 3.x typical Wand of Cure Light Wounds. (It this level, they are rarely available). If you had them, the Cleric and Wizard would have been out of spells, but thanks to the Wands, everyone would have been at full hitpoints. Now, suddenly the Clerics and Wizards would be the only ones that actually need to rest.
(This certainly indicates that, maybe, Wand of Cure Light Wounds are the problem. They are certainly a critical factor here.)

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Your experience are certainly welcome, and I think they are valid, and might be a typical experience for 1st to 2nd level characters.

But I still like to add a few comments. I think what is noticeable is that the dynamic you describe changes with levels:

1) As you point out, the Wizards attack bonus is just a few points off from the Fighters. Even though he is not doing wizardly things, he can at least be effective with his crossbow. That doesn't hold true at higher levels. (But it is yet another problem in D&D 3.x, that is not related to resource management - except of course that only a wizard out of spell resources has to care about his attack bonus with crossbows or his Quarterstaff )

2) Your group doesn't yet rely on the D&D 3.x typical Wand of Cure Light Wounds. (It this level, they are rarely available). If you had them, the Cleric and Wizard would have been out of spells, but thanks to the Wands, everyone would have been at full hitpoints. Now, suddenly the Clerics and Wizards would be the only ones that actually need to rest.
(This certainly indicates that, maybe, Wand of Cure Light Wounds are the problem. They are certainly a critical factor here.)

1) This problem appears at levels where the wizard doesn't run out of spells that quickly (if he is played a little bit more than just "blow the biggest guns immediately" ), before that his BAB doesn't limp behind that badly (I call a 3 or 4-point difference not bad when comparing somebody who studied instead of training swordplay with a trained fighter. 20% difference in to-hit chance should be granted at some point). Also, at those levels the wizard is able to stock up on self-scribed scrolls, that's what the free Scribe Scroll feat is there for after all.

2) This might indeed indicate a problem with Cure Light Wounds wands, specifically in groups that already have a source of healing (the cleric). Personally, I always prefer to hand out healing potions...easier to limit, easier to explain (for me) because they are cheaper to manufacture than a full wand of CLW, and usually only when the group doesn't have a cleric, or are all 1st level.

 

[CleverName]

So I found it kind of funny that two groups of 5 or 6 people had no problems with "resource management" considering how its being debated in this thread.

Just thought I would share those experiences.

Thanks for sharing, but I will point out your on a 10-page thread most of these folks think that there is a problem with the current system and they are looking forward to more at will and per encounter options.

So, even with your anecdotes, it is pretty safe to say, that the majority of folks on this board disagree with you. I would even go so far as to say most of the folks who play D&D would disagree with you -- but we could argue that for another 10+ pages.

I, personally, look forward to more time at the table adventuring. I get to play maybe 4 hours at a stretch - giving me only 10-15 minutes back (during a long adventure) is going to be worth a lot.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Your first sentence is true.

The rest of your first paragraph is probably true, given a certain assumption about the interests of D&D players and GMs.

Your second paragraph, however, ignores the point that for those GMs who do want to rely on other thresholds of signficance than the mechanical, the move from per-day to per-encounter may facilitate that, by stopping the mechanical issue getting in the way.

This is true, but unless the vast majority of DMs is somehow converted to using other thresholds of significance, the fact that Hong and others benefit doesn not imply that this change will have the effect of removing the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem, as Wyatt claims.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I assume that "guaranteed win" means that the outcome of the adventure does not depend upon the players' choices?

If that's what it does mean, then there are all sorts of ways that an adventure can not be a guaranteed win, but where death in combat is not the principal issue that the PCs confront.

A fight is either one in which you will win, given even modest skill at playing, or one in which there is a clear chance to lose.

IOW, a fight is either win/lose or it is not. If it is not, it is either a clear "win" (10th lvl fighter vs. 4 goblins, for example) or a clear lose (1st lvl fighter vs Tarrasque, for example). "Lose" does not necessarily mean death.

The argument that auto-wins and auto-loses are boring has been made endlessly on EN World with relation to 3.X. That it will suddenly cease to be made with 4.0........well, I am a bit skeptical about that.

The mechanical threshold of significance model has been used as the standard for D&D for what now? Thirty years or more? There is little doubt in my mind that it is the standard for the average D&D group. That it will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0.........well, again, colour me skeptical.

The two factors above has caused many DMs to increase the mechanical challenges of their combats above the suggested guidelines in the DMG, making more combats be of the win/lose variety. Again, that this will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0...............skeptical.

It is always true that you have better odds of winning a win/lose fight with more resources. That this will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0.......skeptical.

That the per-encounter model will resolve these problems..............I'm very skeptical, and I've said why I am exhaustively. There is nothing more that I can say that isn't simply repeating myself.

Here's a prediction, though, and we'll see whether I am right or wrong. Within the first year after 4.0 is released, we'll start hearing about the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem again. They might call it the 9-10 adventuring day, but it will be the same problem.

Now, who wants to lay odds that I am wrong? Because in two years we'll know who was right, who was wrong, and who's complaining about the short adventuring day. Time will tell. It always does.


RC

 

[D.Shaffer]

Uhm...I would say them all being at 80%, for balance reasons would make more sense. Now I could see that balanced percentage being achieved in different ways through different abilities but what I don't see is all of us expending our per-day abilities and suddenly the wizard is at 80%...the fighter at 20%...the rogue at 100% and the cleric at 10% efficiency.

Again, it's never been that way in the past. It might be that way in 4th edition, but making the assumption that because wizards are at 80% when they use up all their per day abilities means that ALL classes will be at 80% when THEY use up all their per day abilities is likely to be a false assumption. (IMO) Assuming it as FACT when trying to make an argument leads to a bad argument.

I find it much more likely that classes will have a mix of effectiveness with their abilities, some having more powerful 'At Will' abilities with less powerful Per Day/Per Encounter abilities, and others going the other way around. Much like current and previous versions of the game.