Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

I'm objecting to predictable encounter frequency, not intensity. I have no problem with the idea that most encounters (that are worth playing out and not just pseudo-handwaving) should be life-or-death.

Per-day resources can easily handle any level of encounter frequency, by varying the intensity of the encounters. Per-encounter resources can easily handle any level of encounter frequency, by varying the intensity of encounters.

Both systems can have an unlimited number of encounters, if all encounters are trivial. The "challenge rating" of per-day trivial encounters is more limited than the "challenge rating" of per-encounter trivial encounters, but the intensity is the same; they are trivial.

Per-day systems can have only a limited number of significant encounters per day, but they have a much wider range of significant encounters than per-encounter systems. True per-encounter systems can have an unlimited number of significant encounters per day (until the dice fail you, and you are defeated).

Hybrid systems, such as that proposed by 4e, can have only a limited number of significant encounters per day due to the inclusion of resource attrition, while narrowing the range of significant encounters due to the "bar" set by per-encounter abilities. The actual result is that of fewer significant encounters per day being possible than with a per-day system (or a pure per-encounter system, obviously).

Did you miss the part about how 'one big encounter per day' plays merry hell with the class balance in the current edition? See 'nova-ing'.

Again, unless that is all you do, it balances out over time.

The problem with the current edition is that the range of significant encounters has been drastically narrowed from earlier editions, coupled with a paradigm in which there is no risk associated with resetting per-day powers.

But, hey, this is nothing that hasn't been said by myself and others dozens of times. Makes sense that you missed it earlier.

See above.

Likewise.

Sure. But the question was 'But will you miss that?'.

Yes. And, from the playtest reports and the WotC blogs, it seems that the designers miss that, too. The difference is, AFAICT, the designers are saying that the change in rules will restore what per-day did well in earlier editions (rather than make it go away), which seems to fly in the face of common sense.

But some of them have been answered badly upthread.

Not that I know of.

But I won't blame you if you're done with this...

Well, we'll see in a couple of years, won't we?

I predict that the short adventuring day problem will resurface within 1 year of the launch of the 3 core books. I also predict that either a 4.5 or 5e will make claims to repair precisely the damage that I am suggesting 4e will cause (much as 3.5 and 4e claimed/claim to repair the damage that 3e caused).

Again, we shall see.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Much more variety than is possible under a per-encounter system where the artificial limit of the 4 average encounters/day, upon which the per-day system was callibtrated by the designers.

The 4 average encounters/day is not a component of the per-day resource system, but rather a component of the synergy of several systems instituted by 3e that narrowed the range of mechanically significant encounters.

Otherwise, yes, you can have any number of encounters in a per-encounter system that may be significant using non-mechanical thresholds of significance. As I said earlier. But mechanical thesholds of significance can be examined using mathematics, and there the numbers are against you.

RC

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Per-day resources can easily handle any level of encounter frequency, by varying the intensity of the encounters.

Yeah, if you want to run 100 encounters in a day, you can do that in a per-day only system of resources ... so long as you're willing to have 99 lame-kobold singleton encounters.

I don't find the argument particularly compelling, even when I don't reduce it absurdly.

 

[Victim]

MnM notes snipped

Mutants and Masterminds might be a bad example. The most important resource subject to depletion is Hero Points, which aren't really per encounter or per day. Instead they're refreshed by in game triggers (set backs and complications) or metagame concerns (roleplaying, extremely in genre actions, sessions, some elements of GM Fiat). On the most basic level, MnM runs on per session resources, not per encounter or per day. So it's another sort of beast entirely from both the types under discussion for 4e.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Whereas in the per-encounter model, each challenge needs to closely match the PCs' resouce allotment. Are you seriously trying to claim that a game in which a series of encounters exists, with various levels of challenge, but where these levels have or have close to a sum of X, is less predictable than a game in which a series of encounters exists, but where each encounter has or has close to a sum of X?

No, but you need to examine it beyond the individual encounters. It will cause nearly no change in the individual encounters. It will change the campaign paradigm, however. Say we rate encounters in percentage of resources used up. The players know that the sum of all the encounters are designed to add up to 100% in order to test them, or below that in order to be safe. The sum of encounters will never add up to more than 100% if their DM knows the D&D system well enough unless he is purposefully killing them. It is likely to be somewhere between 1 and 4 encounters each day or some of the encounters with be "insignificant". In the 4th encounter, PCs can let loose with everything they have.

Now, you could have a string of encounters in the per encounter model that added up to 500% and not need to worry about killing the players as long as each of them wasn't over 80%. The players might have 1 encounter or 20 encounters before they will find a place to rest. If they have some per day resources, they need to be VERY careful as to when they use them since they don't know how long until they get them back.

Once more, this is true in the per-day paradigm as well. One big encounter uses all resources. Woo hoo!

No, generally one big encounter uses 60-80% or so of a party's resources. Almost never ALL of it. You reach a point where you HAVE resources left, they just aren't powerful enough resources to get you through even the easiest battle. A 14th level party who is reduced to only 1st through 3rd level spells is on their last legs and probably can't survive even an average difficulty battle.

The party doesn't continue because another battle using up even 25% of their resources could kill them.

I believe the crux of the disagreement is that you believe players will not find an encounter that uses up ONLY their per encounter abilities as "significant" or "big". I believe you can have a "big" encounter that uses up none of the per day abilities of a party that has a combination of per encounter and per day.

I think that most players in the new system will see their at will abilities as their standard attacks, their per encounter abilities as their resources and their per day abilities as their last ditch options when all hope is lost.

So encounters are rated as: Easy(didn't have to use any per encounter abilities), Average(used some per encounter powers, but not all), Hard(used almost all per encounter abilities, got close to the point where they might have had to use per day abilities), Overwhelming (had to use per day abilities or they would have died).

I think that most people see numbers coming off their character sheet and a limit where they won't have any numbers any more and they know that the closer they get to that limit the more danger they are in. So, if you have 5 per encounter abilities and you use one each round and you are in round 5 of the encounter and you are now faced with the choice of asking yourself "Have I done enough damage to the enemy that I can finish them off with my weak (at will) abilities or do I have to bring out the big guns in order to win this?"

It's very similar to the reason the LAST encounter in the series of 4 encounters per day is the most exciting one. It's the one where you get to see "Are the resources we have left going to hold up against this combat or not? Maybe, maybe not."

It's a matter of knowing those numbers are coming off more than knowing they won't come back that makes people feel an encounter is hard, IMHO. The players I know will be saying "Wow, I almost ran out of Power Words(or whatever they'll call per encounter resources) that combat, I almost had to use my Super Fireball, which I needed to save for the BBEG at the end. Glad we got out of that one when we did."

We may have been over it before, but you apparently missed the oft-repeated part where there's no difference here between the paradigms. Per-day can do what per-encounter can do here; per-encounter cannot do what per-day does.

I just showed you above how per day cannot have more than a certain number of encounters in a row. That is something per encounter can do that per day cannot.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yeah, if you want to run 100 encounters in a day, you can do that in a per-day only system of resources ... so long as you're willing to have 99 lame-kobold singleton encounters.

Yeah, this is the main problem. In order to make sure you use NO resources at all from the PCs, you have to make sure you don't deal any damage at all to them. You also have to do this without making the enemy look threatening enough that the party might consider using limited use magic items or spells to attack.

This is near impossible as even a CR 1/4 creature still hits on a natural 20. They might not do much, but after the 80th encounter with the kobolds, the PCs likely have used all their cure light wounds and are moving on to cure moderates. Plus, they are likely having no fun at all as they are making a useless exercise in rolling dice with nothing exciting happening in the combat.

If you turn all of these into "average" encounters in the per encounter model, the PCs can still go on as long as they want, but with exciting events happening. Never underestimate the pure thrill of "Did you see how I fireballed all of those orcs and then you whirlwind attacked to finish them all off? They were no match for us!"

The PCs won't be fireballing in the per day model, since they know the enemies are a waste of their time and it makes much more sense to conserve their resources and use a crossbow.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, if you want to run 100 encounters in a day, you can do that in a per-day only system of resources ... so long as you're willing to have 99 lame-kobold singleton encounters.

I don't find the argument particularly compelling, even when I don't reduce it absurdly.

Likewise with per-day/per-encounter hybrid systems, where anything that doesn't use per-day resources are the "99 lame-kobold singletons".

 

[Raven Crowking]

It will cause nearly no change in the individual encounters.

Here we certainly differ in our conclusions. I suggest that we allow time to decide this one.

It will change the campaign paradigm, however. Say we rate encounters in percentage of resources used up. The players know that the sum of all the encounters are designed to add up to 100% in order to test them, or below that in order to be safe. The sum of encounters will never add up to more than 100% if their DM knows the D&D system well enough unless he is purposefully killing them. It is likely to be somewhere between 1 and 4 encounters each day or some of the encounters with be "insignificant". In the 4th encounter, PCs can let loose with everything they have.

Well, then, here's what I've been missing. The 15-minute adventuring day problem doesn't exist in 3e!

If they have some per day resources, they need to be VERY careful as to when they use them since they don't know how long until they get them back.

Exactly. If they have some risk involved with using per-day abilities, this problem disappears. For example, if there is a risk associated with simply resting and resetting. However, if this was true, the 15-minute adventuring day problem wouldn't exist in 3e either.

IOW, this is a problem caused by how resources reset, not when resources reset.

I believe the crux of the disagreement is that you believe players will not find an encounter that uses up ONLY their per encounter abilities as "significant" or "big". I believe you can have a "big" encounter that uses up none of the per day abilities of a party that has a combination of per encounter and per day.

That is correct, although I don't believe that it is universally true. I think that any group that has the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem now will continue to have it once those same players who rest after each encounter begin to do so in the same system. For these groups, the proposed changes in 4e would make the problem worse, not better.

Again, time will tell.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, this is the main problem. In order to make sure you use NO resources at all from the PCs, you have to make sure you don't deal any damage at all to them. You also have to do this without making the enemy look threatening enough that the party might consider using limited use magic items or spells to attack.

I could paraphrase that to read "per-day resources" instead of damage, you know.

EDIT: Yeah, this is the main problem. In order to make sure you use NO per-day resources at all from the PCs, you have to make sure you don't deal any long-term damage at all to them. You also have to do this without making the enemy look threatening enough that the party might consider using limited use magic items or spells to attack.

This is near impossible as even a CR 1/4 creature still hits on a natural 20.

You are greatly mistaken if you believe that 3.x's CR model is the sole -- or pinnacle -- example of a resource attrition model. I'd go so far as to say that 3.x presents a piss-poor attrition model compared to earlier editions, which is why so many problems related to it cropped up in this edition that require "fixing" in 4.0.

I will also note that many of the "fixes" in 4.0 related to these problems look an awful lot like 1e, IMHO at least. Action Points and per-encounter abilities are the exceptions. Action Points, I think, do work to help solve this problem, but per-encounter abilities do not. (Which is not to say that they aren't useful or good for other reasons.)


RC

 

[Jackelope King]

The 4 average encounters/day is not a component of the per-day resource system, but rather a component of the synergy of several systems instituted by 3e that narrowed the range of mechanically significant encounters.

Otherwise, yes, you can have any number of encounters in a per-encounter system that may be significant using non-mechanical thresholds of significance. As I said earlier. But mechanical thesholds of significance can be examined using mathematics, and there the numbers are against you.

RC

You haven't shown this, RC. In fact, all you've really done is to use circular logic to argue that:

1. Mechanical thresholds of significance are only measurable by how one encounter's resource expenditure informs the next encounter in the day's outcome.

2. Per-day resource attrition is the only way to achieve mechanical thresholds of significance as defined in 1.

This leads me to conclude once again that your definition of "mechanical significance" is flawed. To claim that what happens within the context of an encounter is "irrelevant" in light of this definition can only lead one to conclude that your definition is not sufficient for the discussion.

I would suggest that in its place, mechanical threshold of significance must take into account the fact that it is an encounter in which resources are expended, and whether or not the expenditure of resources within the context of any given encounter has significant mechanical impact upon the outcome of that particular encounter and the PCs' abilities to further continue in it. It's less relevant how an encounter impacts upon subsequent encounters in a given day because those encounters are entirely variable based on playstyle and context.

Indeed, a designer can't predict how many encounters a party will face in light of a wide audience such as D&D enjoys. A designer can't assume that a party will face just one or as many as ten encounters. The optimal solution is to assume that within the fundamental unit of the challenge, the encounter itself, the PCs are on equal footing, and that the crux of managing resources makes that encounter fun. It's not a delayed fun that may or may not happen, such as saving your fireball for an encounter that might not even be coming. It's not an unbalancing reward like going nova and then throwing up a rope trick after every encounter so your spellcaster dominates. It maximizes that particular encounter, the only encounter a designer can know a party will have within any given unit of time. It's an invalid assumption to assume that all playstyles will face a similar ratio of resouce-consuming encounters in a given day, and the per-encounter system acknowledges this and instead focuses on the one encounter that a party is garunteed to have: the one they're in right now.

This is the ideal I'm describing. I'm well aware that 4e is slated to have elements of both systems. However, it illustrates my point that your definition of mechanical thresholds of significance is simply inadequate. If it concludes that mechanical thresholds of significance are irrelevant in light of the encounter the PCs are currently facing and is only relevant in encounters that they might not even face, then it is indeed flawed and needs revision.