Why is it so important?
- Thread starter Treebore
- Start date
hong said:
I don't understand what you're saying here. "4-encounters-per-day" is an oversimplification - and a misleading one I think in this context. There's no real limit to the number of encounters a party can face in DnD. The limit is the resources they have to devote to the encounter. A more complete statement of the above is "an average of 4 encounters per day where those encounters are of an EL equal to APL". When it really comes down to is that PCs have a limited amount of energy in that paradigm.
In any case, it's not even a strict limit of 4 when you confine it to only encounters of the specified EL. So AFAICT you're not objecting to a strict limit, you're objecting to the fact that there is an average result that stems from PCs having a limited amount of resources.
hong said:
By *fight* I was thinking actual fighting. Standing around in an army of 10,000 watching other people fight isn't what I thought you meant - mainly because it doesn't really deal with any issues of resource usage. Gimli and Legolas had some sort of contest about how many orcs they could kill. Did they get into the 20's? That would be about 3 orcs per hour based on what you're saying here - which is pretty casual by DnD standards.
Also, I don't know what Gimli or Legolas' levels are, but the relative weakness of orcs compared to them makes it very likely that 20-some orcs are well within their APL. The joking attitude that the "contest" between the elf and dwarf expresses would be indicative of a series of encounters far below the APL of the pair. (edit: granted, this is all based on my opinion of the closest correlation between what the book describes and what the equivalent experience would be in DnD)
I don't really recall the details of these two battles well enough - maybe they are better examples than I realize, but the above is my first impression based on my hazy recollection of the details.
D.Shaffer
First Post
I suspect we're talking about two different things here. I'm not (directly) talking about resource management at all here.Imaro said:
The 3rd ed wizard has a certain amount of per day abilities.
The 3rd ed bard has a certain amount of per day abilities.
The 3rd ed fighter has NO per day abilities (Barring certain feats)
Now, when a 3rd ed wizard uses all his per day abilities, he is at a lower effectiveness level then the 3rd ed bard. The Fighter is also still considered balanced, even though it has NO per day abilities. Why are these classes considered balanced? Because the per day abilities are not the only abilities they have, and the actual power of those other abilities varies. A wizards per day abilities give him a surge of power that (in theory) matches up with the fighters constant attacks (his per round abilities). Again, nothing that wizards has said contradicts them continuing this pattern in 4th. If they can maintain a balance with a diverse list of per day and per round abilities in 3rd, why would it suddenly be unbalanced if they did the same in 4th? This is why automatically assuming the 'power percentage' for all classes based on one class is, IMO, a false assumption.
What I find interesting in this is that you're essentially converting Per Day abilities into Per Encounter abilities, but you're adding a resource to keep track of while doing so. Which suggests to me your problem isnt exactly with per encounter abilities per se.
Last edited:
gizmo33 said:
Just because YOU don't like it doesn't make it misleading.
To put it into more syllables. I'm still waiting for evidence of resource attrition over the course of a day, refreshed at the end of that day, as a paradigm in fantasy literature.
There is an average result that may or may not conform to any particular adventure's requirements (in a game), or to the storyline in any particular work of literature (in a book or movie). Saying that the average is about right is useless, about as useless as saying that because your feet are in an ice bucket and your head is in an oven, then your average temperature is just right.
There are two sides who want to kill each other. That constitutes a "fight" by most definitions that I've seen. Just because it doesn't conform to your narrow view based solely on resource depletion issues (which you've just admitted is completely artificial) doesn't mean anything.
hong said:
That would be true but that's not why I'm saying it. Saying that DnD forces you to fight 4 encounters per day is not true. It's a mis-statement of a more detailed statement that explains a concept about resources and average results. And the mis-statement/shorthand wouldn't be such a big deal but it's often used to make a statment that makes the 3E system sound like it's doing something that it shouldn't, which happens to be part of the motivation for this sub-thread.
gizmo33 said:
To put it into more syllables. It is a system that is designed under the assumption of a certain number of encounters per day, such that if that assumption is violated, then there will be consequences for balance in the way that the different classes are affected.
Yes, you can always run 100 fights per day under 3E. This does not mean the system is balanced with that result in mind. Similarly, you can have one massive fight per day. Again, this does not mean the system is balanced with that result in mind. Some classes overshadow the others, with the specifics depending on how many fights occur.
... of course, you could just say "4 encounters per day" and be done with it, but apparently more syllables are always better.
Why, I am merely exaggerating to make a point. Surely you can't be complaining about that.
hong said:
Any story where someone gets tired. Here's a famous example (from the "Battle of Maldon, an Old English epic"):
"Our hearts must grow resolute, our courage more valiant, our spirits must be greater, though our strength grows less."
(DnD translation: man, I hope we win this fight before our resources run out) These examples are pretty easy to find because the peculiarities of DnD healing magic are not present in literature as a general rule. Plus the reality of the fact that you get tired when you are hurt or exert yourself for a long time is one understood by most authors.)
On ths subject of magic - Vance's magic system is an obvious example of resource depletion.
hong said:
I don't understand how the analogy applies to the situation. The analogy is describing that there are various kinds of "measures of central tendency" and that "average" is not always the most informative if it is the result of extremes. That would suggest that you think the CR system produces extremes in results as a matter of course, but I can't tell.
If the DM wants to write an adventurer with 1st level PCs going to kill Thor, then you're going to argue that the system is flawed because it imposes a "restriction" on the DMs creativity in this area? The question is: where are you going to draw the line in terms of a PCs endurance. Sure - it allows for the party to do more if they never have to deal with restrictions in what it is that they can do.
hong said:
My "narrow view" happens to be one that confines itself to the issue at hand IMO. Maybe Gimli was "fighting" to keep himself from laughing at the idea that he was going to spend all day killing orcs. That use of the word "fight" is not what I was thinking we were talking about.
Raven Crowking
First Post
gizmo33 said:
The Gods of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs:
After several running fights from chapters 1-4, at the end of Chapter 4:
By this time I was so thoroughly fagged out that I could go no further, so I threw myself upon the floor, bidding Tars Tarkas to do likewise, and cautioning two of the released prisoners to keep careful watch.
In an instant I was asleep.
In an instant I was asleep.
Chapter 5 opens:
How long I slept upon the floor of the storeroom I do not know, but it must have been many hours.
I was awakened with a start by cries of alarm......
I was awakened with a start by cries of alarm......
and later
I was refreshed from my sleep, but still weak from loss of blood. My wounds were painful. No medicinal aid seemed possible. How I longed for the almost miraculous healing power of the strange salves and lotions of the green Martian women. In an hour they would have had me as new.
gizmo33 said:
Contrary to popular belief, hit points are not the sum total of resources. Not to mention that hit points are a specific resource that will not refresh per encounter in 4E.
To be precise, you get tired to an arbitrary degree based on being hurt to another arbitrary degree, based on the author's judgement of when it is appropriate for it to happen. Said judgement may or may not correspond to the hard limit imposed by a 4-encounters-per-day paradigm, even adjusted for easier or harder fights than normal.
50% of D&D gamers have never heard of Vance. 75% of non-D&D gamers out there have never heard of Vance. 90% of non-gamers out there have never heard of Vance. The only reason Vance has the profile he does is because of D&D, so pointing to him is effectively an admission that D&D only models itself.
This seems to happen a lot.
Say what?
Wherever the DM or adventure writer wants to.
"After slaying the company of orcs, you can see no other enemies around. Your band of heroes camps for the night."
"After the sixth guard post is destroyed, your group can see the exit from the cave. You leave and camp for the night."
"You've killed the lich and taken his stuff. You're feeling rather tired, so you camp for the night."
Simple, isn't it?
Artificial restrictions that, more often than not, have nothing to do with the source material, and furthermore distort the functionality of the ruleset in other ways.
Or, with fewer syllables: and this is a bad thing, why?
And he had to conserve precious daily resources... where?
