Why is it so important?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Lowering the benefit of resting can help as long as it is lowered beyond the cost threshold of resting. If the cost of resting is 0, the benefit must also be 0 to resolve the problem.


RC

I am not sure that lowering the cost of not resting is the same as lowering the benefit of resting.

It's a question of ratios, I guess. If not resting means I have 80 % resources less, but resting means I have full resources, the ratio is too much in favour of resting. The drawbacks must be pretty high to not rest (e.g. you are certain a wandering monster will attack and kill you, while pressing on has less risks; or you know the villain will not conveniently stop his ritual of utter destruction)
If the ratio is just 20 % to 100 %, even lesser drawback can balance the scale towards not resting. Reaching from "It feel's stupid to rest just because I expended my Overpowered Fireball and my Mass Fly spell already, let's head on" over "we still have the element of suprise if we don't retreat now" or "the caravan we're supposed to be guarding should move on" to "if we finish this quickly, we can concentrate on proving that the stupid mayor was behind the abductions, who knows what he is doing in the mean time?"

 

[shilsen]

Lowering the benefit of resting can help as long as it is lowered beyond the cost threshold of resting. If the cost of resting is 0, the benefit must also be 0 to resolve the problem.


RC

As the good Archchancellor noted above, that really doesn't relate to my point. And personally, I think lowering the cost of not resting is mechanically much easier to do, which may explain why WotC is taking the approach they seem to be in 4e with unlimited or "per encounter" abilities.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am not sure that lowering the cost of not resting is the same as lowering the benefit of resting.

It's a question of ratios, I guess.

Of course it is.

When you look from 1e or 2e to 3.X, it is clear that each character got more in terms of resources than before. Yet, overall, resource attrition became more of a problem. Why? Because the 3.X monster was capable of using up more of your resources in a given encounter if it was capable of using any of your resources at all.

In 1e trhough 3.5, either a monster encounter is a pushover (resulting in no attrition), or it uses some resources, or it uses all resources (TPK). The range between using some resources and using all resources determines the relative range where a monster can be generally be considered a real challenge by players. This is in part a function of the relative power of monsters to characters, and in part a function of the power curve said characters enjoy. It is, of course, also a function of what resources a monster can potentially use up.

As the range of challenging encounters narrows, the resources used by such encounters increases. 3.X suffered from the fact that, while the characters were given considerably more resources than in earlier editions, they suffered resource attrition at an even greater rate. Of course, here we speak of general trends. In 4.0, the resource attrition is mechanically limited, but this means that the resources used are liable to be even more important to have on hand when facing a "challenging" encounter.

These factors may appear, on the outset, to lower the benefit of resting, but I believe that they do exactly the opposite, for the reasons I outlined earlier in this thread.

In another thread on this site, there is some discussion of Mike Mearls' comments on the CR System, and how it looked good on paper, but was effectively limiting in play. The factors he lists include, using other terminology, the narrowing range of challenging encounters. This seems to me to be much more of the same.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As the good Archchancellor noted above, that really doesn't relate to my point. And personally, I think lowering the cost of not resting is mechanically much easier to do, which may explain why WotC is taking the approach they seem to be in 4e with unlimited or "per encounter" abilities.

Well, if a year after release, the 15-minute adventuring day has gone away, and no one is complaining about how some encounters don't matter, then I'll happily admit that I was wrong.

Very happily, even.

(I wonder whether anyone else will be so honest if the complaints arrive as I predict, though?)


RC

 

[pemerton]

In another thread on this site, there is some discussion of Mike Mearls' comments on the CR System, and how it looked good on paper, but was effectively limiting in play. The factors he lists include, using other terminology, the narrowing range of challenging encounters. This seems to me to be much more of the same.

It is a stated design goal of 4e to increase the range of PC levels in respect of which a given creature will be a challenging encounter.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

(I wonder whether anyone else will be so honest if the complaints arrive as I predict, though?)

It's my thought that we will still see this problem in some groups. It won't go away entirely. As people have said, as long as there is at least ONE per day resource, there is a mechanical reason to rest after every encounter.

However, each group will set the level of risk that is acceptable for them. For some groups, the power level given to them with NO per day resources at all will still be acceptable to continue with and they will keep going until the story gives them a reason to stop.

Some groups will be very, very careful and will rest as soon as they lose any resources.

However, if every last per day resource is used up in 3.5e right now, I don't know any group that would be suicidal enough to continue.

Also, I don't know any encounter that feels significant that doesn't use up at least one spell of some sort in 3.5e. I assume that it is possible to throw an encounter against a party in 4e that feels significant (if possibly still easy) that doesn't use daily resources.

Which means the change can only help the problem, even if it doesn't eliminate it entirely.

 

[Gwathlas]

Very close to my setiments

I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.

I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.

So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?

I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?

I feel very much the same, it almost sounds like you could just call the DM and ask if you had a ggod time. To much talk of everyone doing cool things every round. I like the challange as a player and making the game a challange as a DM.

 

[Gwathlas]

Thats different from now in what way?

The PCs generally win no matter what. They generally overcome whatever challenges presented and/or reach their goals regardless. Thats how the game is built. Yea, characters do even die now and then...but they can be ressurected.

And I think flexibility is part of it, but I think especially when it comes to the Wizard and other primary casting classes BadKarmaboy is right. A lot of it is a time thing. Lets say you encounter a magically sealed door. The Wizard knows the spell to bypass it, so its going to get bypassed. But under the current system, if he doesnt already happen to have it prepared, you have to wait a day. So, its going to get bypassed, its just a matter of when....so why make everyone stop because the wizard has to rest 8 hours and prepare spells?

Likewise with combat encounters. As it is, the Wizards and other spellcasters often run out of spells while many of the other class types are still pretty good to go, which doesnt really seem very fair, to anyone.

So unlimited spells for all my friends! Following your logic there's no need for your group to get together, you can just ask the DM if you had fun and how many monsters you killed.

It's the DM's job to make the adventure a challange and the players to overcome it. There are ways to speed up time flow rather then giving out spells like copper pieces.

 

[IanArgent]

Um, I find it's much easier to challenge players when they don't have to worry about resource management - because you have a much better idea of how the character will perform at any particular time.

I prefer to challenge the players to think than challenge the characters to use resources - it's much more satisfying on both sides that way.

 

[shilsen]

So unlimited spells for all my friends! Following your logic there's no need for your group to get together, you can just ask the DM if you had fun and how many monsters you killed.

It's the DM's job to make the adventure a challange and the players to overcome it. There are ways to speed up time flow rather then giving out spells like copper pieces.

To reverse the hyperbole of your first two sentences, let me point out that you can also increase the challenge for PCs by giving all classes d4 HD and allowing spellcasters to only cast six spells per day. But nobody here is suggesting that. Similarly, it's foolish to say that anyone here is suggesting unlimited spells and that there's clearly no challenge in the "per encounter" paradigm.

Personally, as a DM, I enjoy the challenge of giving the PCs an exciting and challenging encounter when they have all their resources and the enemies are weaker than them. That actually takes some work on my part. Challenging PCs through resource attrition is easy and boring. YMMV, and apparently does.