Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

My appologies.

No worries. The funny thing is that the post I wrote that in had screwed up formatting, forcing me to go back & edit it!

And you still have yet to demonstrate that there is no cost to spend your more powerful per-day abilities.

As I have said, there are many ways to introduce cost to the use of resources. I see no sign that WotC is going this route, and hence my concern. If I am wrong, and there is inherent cost, then I'll be much happier. Remember, going back to the beginning, I argued that Wyatt's claim was wrong because without addressing cost for the use of resources, you cannot resolve the 15-minute adventuring day problem.

Indeed, from a game-mechanics point of view, if you argued that a resource which you could regain by resting for eight hours had no cost, since they can be reset so easily, then per-encounter resources must have even less of a cost, since they are reset even more easily.

Correct, just as swinging a sword has less of a cost in 3e than casting magic missile in 3.x.

And if you enter an encounter unsure of the difficulty and then proceed to rely solely upon your most powerful, most limited in supply abilities, you're skipping the entire decision-making process which you also profess to the "greatest source of fun in the game".

Which is why the 15-minute adventuring day is described as a problem, rather than as the Woo-Hoo Fun Goodtime by those who experience it. Of course, some prefer to make one big fight using all per-day resources essentially as one giant per-encounter resource. While I can see that this would sometimes be fun, I wouldn't care to do it all of the time, because it would be narrowing the decision-making process considerable (IMHO).

But you have argued that from a mechanical point of view, the particular per-encounter system proposed by 4e encourages an all-or-nothing win / lose (die). But if there are conditions which can negatively impact upon a character's mechanical performance in subsequent challenges, then it isn't as binary as you claim on the mechanical side.

Indeed, there are game mechanics whereby the "characters can indeed be victorious but suffer attrition" -- every edition of D&D thus far has had them. However, the fact that the designers are intentionally removing the conditions whereby characters suffered attrition in previous editions makes me a lot less hopeful as to how the new edition will play. Moreover, if the conditions imposed by combat can be rested away, and there is no cost for resting, then it will be exactly as though the conditions were not imposed in the first place.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I guess that those of us who can't do logic, reading comprehension or game design have to make do with what we can get.

And, as long as others respond to you, you will at least get something.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, I know you were complaining on antoher thread about the necessity for wealth-per-level. Why do you support a rule system that requires a certain # of encounters per rest period, and missing on either side unbalances the game?

Can you reword this question? I am not sure what you are trying to ask me.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

3rd ed is explicitly balanced around the 4-encounters/adventuring day paradigm in character design. (That's not my opinion, that's the designers statements in the DMGs and other places).

This is only true if each of those encounters is of a EL equal to APL.

It also assumes that creatures are, in some ways, optimized against the party. For example, an encounter in which the PCs have a distinct advantage is going to be a lower EL.

It also assumes combat, as creatures that the PCs can talk to might not use resources in the same way as creatures that the PCs have to fight.

It also assumes that encounters are fairly static. If the PCs are facing a tough group of orcs, then the entire melee is set upon by dire boars (so that the orcs and PCs have to work together to survive), how the encounter affects resources can be very different from what a straight CR to EL might indicate.

It also assumes that any difficult encounter is not really a "difficult unless handled properly" encounter. IMHO, and IME, most encounters can be approached in ways that diminish their difficulty considerably.

It also assumes that resources are not increased over the course of the adventure, because if PCs gain resources, they can use them against further encounters.


RC

 

[hong]

Indeed, there are game mechanics whereby the "characters can indeed be victorious but suffer attrition" -- every edition of D&D thus far has had them.

You say this like it's a positive thing.

 

[hong]

And, as long as others respond to you, you will at least get something.

Well, that's one way to handle cognitive dissonance, I guess.

 

[hong]

This is only true if each of those encounters is of a EL equal to APL.

Psst. 4 encounters/day paradigm > 4 encounters/day.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Given that I have personal experience with a system in which all abilities are essentially at will, and that I find it easier to challenge players in it than in D&D; I would expect per-encounter abilities to make the DMs life easier, and not so much resolve the question of the 9:00-9:15 adventuring day as to make it an irrelevant question.

Given that I have personal experience with 3.x, and I find it easy to avoid the 9:00-9:15 adventuring day problem, I must therefore conclude that this problem doesn't exist in 3.x?

 

[Reynard]

You say this like it's a positive thing.

I am more convinced every day that "hong" is not actually a person, but a self aware program that rose from snark and contrarianism on message boards.

 

[Driddle]

While many are fine with it, many people have had a problem with the "Vancian" magic system for some time, either mechanically, conceptually or both. ... (I)t's not a very good fit when compared to the workings of magic in most fantasy and mythology.

Depends on what fantasy and mythology you've been exposed to. It's a mistake to generalize "most" in this case.

The old/current system is still valid, and enjoyable for all the reasons initially posted at the top of this thread.