Why is it so important?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

We've already discussed a number of types of "cost" for resting. You can use story costs (ex., "At noon the X will kill the Y, so we can't rest now", or the poison gas in Secret Shrine of Tomachan [sp?] that kills you if you don't escape the dungeon in X hours). However, constant use of story costs strikes some (including myself) as heavy-handed. You can use mechanical costs (resting more than X times in Y space of time has mechanical disadvantage Z). You can use verisimilitude costs (characters simply are not tired/wandering monsters may come).

I'm sure there are many, many more examples of costs that can be used.



For reasons outlined already I believe that the structure thus far revealed for 4e is going to encourage nova-ing more than 3.X does. Having to rest after 3-4 encounters is not, IMHO, greatly different than having to rest after one.

That's the point where I (quite often now ) disagree with you. Novaing in 3rd edition is _very_ powerful. The difference between the power you require to succeed and the power you can expend to succeed (quickly and deciesive) is big. (in an average encounter, you can expend up to 4 times as much power as expected!)

The range in 4th edition is lower. You can only get 20 % more "oomph" when novaing. The benefits are lower when novaing, and, more importantly, it's also no longer as important as it used to be. The most difficult encounter you can reasonaly engage in can't require you to take more than these extra 20 %. It can't increase its difficulty by 300 %.

If the range is lower, it probably also means that people will have a harder time figuring out if the current encounter requires to expend daily resources or not. Some might waste them to often (and run into the short adventuring day problem), but I suspect most will wait to expend them. (I base that on my experience that most spellcasters don't like to risk high level resources. If your experience differs, this assumption might be wrong. At least for the groups you have experience with). I also think that this makes good tactics and team work more important, because sometimes, they can give you the 20 % extra, instead of your Meteor Swarm...

If you follow the CR/EL guidelines, you should certainly be able to have more than 3-4 encounters, because not every encounter will be of APL or over. I myself am capable of running a game with far more than 3-4 encounters, using unmodified 3.0 or 3.5, that is fun and challenging to my players. Yet, it seems common (and the Interweb may exaggerate how common it is!) that many groups cannot do so.

Why?

Because they eschew the lower-than-APL encounters for the "exciting" APL or higher encounters. This uses up resources quickly. It is, in fact, a "slow nova" effect.

Your reasoning might be quite correct here, and it is in my experience simply because lower than APL encounters don't offer risks (unless the opponents happens to have Save or Die spells). If there is at least two characters in the group that don't rely on magic and are competent in either ranged or melee combat (basically anyone with a BAB of a Rogue), they can deal with it without the help of the real casters. And in my experience, that is not satisfying for the casters (especially those that don't rely on spell). But if they decide to intervene, they not only waste resources, they probably eliminate the fun the others had beating down the mooks attacking them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's the point where I (quite often now ) disagree with you.

And you may be right. As I've said many times, I'd be happy to be wrong.

If the range is lower, it probably also means that people will have a harder time figuring out if the current encounter requires to expend daily resources or not. Some might waste them to often (and run into the short adventuring day problem), but I suspect most will wait to expend them.

I think that, if have a harder time figuring out if the current encounter requires to expend daily resources or not, and there is no reason not to, they will choose to use them more often than not. Better safe than sorry.

Your reasoning might be quite correct here, and it is in my experience simply because lower than APL encounters don't offer risks (unless the opponents happens to have Save or Die spells).

In a paradigm with a lot of smaller encounters, and a few big ones, minor resource attrition can become important. As a result, the focus changes to trying to find ways to tilt the odds in your favor. Rather than simply wade in and fight the ogre, for example, the characters use ranged weapons and mobility.

I ran an encounter in 3e with a horde of goblins vs. 4th level PCs, where the PCs used the terrain to their advantage to prevail with minimum loss. It was important to them to minimize loss, because anything lost now would be gone until they could rest, and they could not be certain how many encounters they might have before they could rest.

No loss has meaning without a context that gives that loss meaning.

RC

 

[Jackelope King]

We've already discussed a number of types of "cost" for resting. You can use story costs (ex., "At noon the X will kill the Y, so we can't rest now", or the poison gas in Secret Shrine of Tomachan [sp?] that kills you if you don't escape the dungeon in X hours). However, constant use of story costs strikes some (including myself) as heavy-handed. You can use mechanical costs (resting more than X times in Y space of time has mechanical disadvantage Z). You can use verisimilitude costs (characters simply are not tired/wandering monsters may come).

I'm sure there are many, many more examples of costs that can be used.

Time is a mechanical resource. You seem to be the only person who argues that it isn't.

For reasons outlined already I believe that the structure thus far revealed for 4e is going to encourage nova-ing more than 3.X does. Having to rest after 3-4 encounters is not, IMHO, greatly different than having to rest after one.

Raven, it's pretty clear that you're not familiar with nova-ing.

A nova character is designed to do something like this:

Swift Action – Extended Temporal Acceleration (augmented to 3 rounds)
Temporal Acceleration Round 1 Standard Action - Greater Metamorphosis (Choker)
Temporal Acceleration Rounds 2 to 6: Standard Action – Delay Energy Ball
Choker Action – Delay Energy Ball
Move Action – Refocus
Swift Action – Hustle
Hustle Action – Refocus
Normal Time Standard Action – Empowered Energy Ball

Which would cost 283 pp (at manifester level 17 for a psion, this is pretty much their whole day's worth of resources) and deal an average of 931.5 damage. The idea is to draw resources which should, presumably, be alloted to a later encounter in the day to maximize the effect (usually damage) that a nova can do in the shortest amount of time. Rather than throw out one effect in a round, or use only 25% of your resources in an encounter, a nova attempts to use as many resources as possible in the space of one round.

Now, as Ridcully has already pointed out, if you simply can't draw upon more than 20% of your "normal" resources in any given encounter, then your "nova" is more like a "firecracker". This character is drawing about 16x what he could normally draw upon in a single round.

Now, just to make sure this is clear, if you don't have the resources to draw upon to fuel your nova, then you cannot go nova. Can't. Cannot. Your nova won't be a bang, but a whimper at best

Since there is no longer as great of a benefit to novaing under the new system (since it's hard to draw upon resources from later encounters when you're not assigned them in the first place), novaing becomes a much weaker option, and yet another point where the system encourages the 9-9:15 resting day goes away.

APL or higher encounters are only more exciting than other encounters if your main determinant of excitement in these encounters is the mechanical one. Otherwise, you can easily have dozens of exciting encounters each day using other thesholds of significance.

If you are only exciting by encounters in 3.x that reach a certain mechanical theshold of significance, what are the odds that you are going to be exciting for long by encounters 4e that fail to reach even that mechanical theshold of significance?

You've already agreed that there are other mechanical thresholds of significance, including conditions. We've agreed that they fulfill both of our definitions of mechanical thresholds of significance. You're backtracking and accomplishing nothing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Time is a mechanical resource. You seem to be the only person who argues that it isn't.

Time is only a resource where the passage of time means something.

Raven, it's pretty clear that you're not familiar with nova-ing.

<snip>

The idea is to draw resources which should, presumably, be alloted to a later encounter in the day to maximize the effect (usually damage) that a nova can do in the shortest amount of time. Rather than throw out one effect in a round, or use only 25% of your resources in an encounter, a nova attempts to use as many resources as possible in the space of one round.

When we discuss the 15-minute adventuring day problem, I assume that we can agree that it is caused (in part) by expenditure of resources that the players deem important faster than verisimilitude allows for. It doesn't necessarily have to be spent in 15 minutes, nor does it necessarily have to be spent in 1 round. It just has to be spent more quickly than is desireable, followed by the PCs resting to recover it.

I am assuming that you are not arguing that using up your resources in 2 rounds isn't a problem, or using up your resources in 4 rounds. It is more than possible to have 4 encounters within 15 game-time minutes. Hence my statement that "Having to rest after 3-4 encounters is not, IMHO, greatly different than having to rest after one."

You seem hung up on both the time frame (1 round or 1 encounter followed by a rest is a problem; 4 rounds or 4 encounters is not) and the effect that causes the rest. The specifics of the time frame, and the specifics of the effect, are not IMHO important.

Now, as Ridcully has already pointed out, if you simply can't draw upon more than 20% of your "normal" resources in any given encounter, then your "nova" is more like a "firecracker". This character is drawing about 16x what he could normally draw upon in a single round.

Now, just to make sure this is clear, if you don't have the resources to draw upon to fuel your nova, then you cannot go nova. Can't. Cannot. Your nova won't be a bang, but a whimper at best

So, if I understand correctly, if I need 90% of my resources for an average encounter, and I have only used up 20% of my resources, because this is not going nova, I will not rest?

IMHO, it doesn't matter whether your resources get used up in a bang, a whimper, or a series of whimpers. What matters is whether or not you have no reason to conserve them.

Get past the idea that using your resources in 1 round (or even 1 encounter) is the sum total of the problem, and you'll be better able to respond to the argument I am making (rather than the one you are "hearing").

RC

 

[Jackelope King]

I see where I'm being unclear.

The issue isn't one round of nova-ing or whatnot, as you correctly point out. This issue should be endeavoring to solve the problem of groups who have 4 nice, average encounters but still have to call it a day before noon simply because they're out of resources.

The issue is that in the proposed 4e system, there simply isn't a way to draw from resources which should be used in other encounters to the extent which you can under 3e. Your bag of tricks is only one encounter deep, with a little bit of padding from your few "per-day" resources. Since you have fewer encounters worth of resources to draw upon, nova-ing is less spectacular, and thus less desirable / attractive. You can't go screaming along at four times your normal power by trying to use the resources you were expected by the designers to be saving for encounters 2, 3, and 4 later in the day: at best, you can give yourself a 20% boost by blowing through your tiny handful of per-day abilities.

Nova-ing becomes less attractive and less effective, and thus becomes less of a driving force for characters to rest so often.

Further, if what groups perceive to be essential abilities remain available in every encounter (their meat-and-potatoes), resting will be less needed to recover these abilities which groups feel as though they cannot continue without. If that group's threshold includes anything below 100% full resources as unacceptable to continuing adventuring, then no, 4e's proposed system will not benefit them. If the group's normal threshold is anywhere below 80%, then yes, it will.

And to add to that the fact that no one group will be a resource-outlier, needing to rest more often than the rest of the group due to mechanics, but rather only personal playstyle or the demands of a given day (for example, if a cleric's per-day abilities included his resurrection spells, I could certainly see the cleric asking to rest after the first encounter because the dragon's breath critted the fighter and the rogue and he needed to expend most of his per-day resurrection spells right away). The whole group will be following a similar power progression curve over the course of a day and will not only be better balanced with one another, but they will probably all be following a similar course from encounter to bed, so to speak, needing to rest at a similar time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I see where I'm being unclear.

Then you're wiser than me on most days. I just scratch my head and wonder where I dropped the ball.....

Your bag of tricks is only one encounter deep, with a little bit of padding from your few "per-day" resources.

If this is the case, then the questions become:

(1) How often is it worth your while to draw on that padding?
(2) How often is it necessary to draw on that padding? and
(3) What is the cost of drawing on that padding?

Can we agree that those are the questions WotC has to consider to make this idea work? They are certainly the questions I considered when I moved to a mixed system homebrewed from 3.X. Finding the balance between those factors is, IMHO, a "holy grail" of game design.

RC

 

[Jackelope King]

Then you're wiser than me on most days. I just scratch my head and wonder where I dropped the ball.....

Yeah, that happens to me too pretty often.

If this is the case, then the questions become:

(1) How often is it worth your while to draw on that padding?
(2) How often is it necessary to draw on that padding? and
(3) What is the cost of drawing on that padding?

Can we agree that those are the questions WotC has to consider to make this idea work? They are certainly the questions I considered when I moved to a mixed system homebrewed from 3.X. Finding the balance between those factors is, IMHO, a "holy grail" of game design.

RC

These are indeed important questions to consider. Another important one is "What will that padding include?" In my experience, extremely limited abilities (1/week or whatnot) are usually utility in nature, like being able to resurrect someone with no penalty or cure a disease (spirit shaman and paladin, respectively). I wouldn't be surprised if many per-day abilities followed a similar model.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The other issue that I see in RC's arguments against what we know from Wizards re: at-will / per-encounter / per-day resources is a pretty fundamental assumption he seems to be making.

Succinctly, that your resources will end up looking like:

At-Will: Magic Missile
Per-Encounter: Fireball
Per-Day: Meteor Swarm

... or, more generalized:

At-Will: Weak Attack
Per-Encounter: Strong Attack
Per-Day: Devastating Attack

Accordingly, expending your per-day resources may have a meaningful impact on your ability to fight your next fight.

Do the issues you bring up continue to apply if the resources look more like:

At-Will: Weak Attack
Per-Encounter: Strong Attack
Per-Day: Knock / Phantom Steed / Spider Climb / Etc.?

 

[pemerton]

The other issue that I see in RC's arguments against what we know from Wizards re: at-will / per-encounter / per-day resources is a pretty fundamental assumption he seems to be making.

Succinctly, that your resources will end up looking like:

At-Will: Magic Missile
Per-Encounter: Fireball
Per-Day: Meteor Swarm

... or, more generalized:

At-Will: Weak Attack
Per-Encounter: Strong Attack
Per-Day: Devastating Attack

Accordingly, expending your per-day resources may have a meaningful impact on your ability to fight your next fight.

Do the issues you bring up continue to apply if the resources look more like:

At-Will: Weak Attack
Per-Encounter: Strong Attack
Per-Day: Knock / Phantom Steed / Spider Climb / Etc.?

Treating your question as rhetorical, I agree, and have been suggesting since about post #1000 that this is the sort of consideration that Wyatt has in mind when he refers to "sound power design". For example (at post #1075):

I'm mostly interested in your opinion of the example I sketched in my post. The point of that example was to try to indicate how per-day resources can both be useful, but not necessarily the most rational first response to an encounter. For example, a "second wind" ability is very useful, but one would not use it at the start of an encounter, because one would still be at or near full hit points at that point. Likewise, a "teleport the party" or "heal all allies" ability is not one with which one would open.

<snip>

I have tried to give examples in which per-encounter and per-day resources are both available, and even though the encounter is challenging it is not rational to lead with one's per-day resources. The examples depend on the details (both in consequence, and activation cost) of the resources in question.

You continue to assert, at a purely general level, "In a dangerous situation rational players will always lead with their characters' most powerful (ie typically per-day) abilities" without considering, in detail, for particular suites of abilities, whether this is likely to be true or not.

RC's response was to suggest that a 1x/day "pick your nose" ability was not very exciting. I don't regard that as a very illuminating response.

If there is at least two characters in the group that don't rely on magic and are competent in either ranged or melee combat (basically anyone with a BAB of a Rogue), they can deal with it without the help of the real casters. And in my experience, that is not satisfying for the casters (especially those that don't rely on spell). But if they decide to intervene, they not only waste resources, they probably eliminate the fun the others had beating down the mooks attacking them.

This is a good point, which I think explains that the unsatisfactoriness of mook-encounters in 3E is in part a function of the way caster abilities currently work. It reinforces the point that the current design is an obstacle to certain sorts of play, and also suggests that designing suites of powers that produce mechanically interesting encounters for all classes, without necessitating the use of per-day resources, may not be as challenging as it seems at first.

 

[Raven Crowking]

These are indeed important questions to consider. Another important one is "What will that padding include?" In my experience, extremely limited abilities (1/week or whatnot) are usually utility in nature, like being able to resurrect someone with no penalty or cure a disease (spirit shaman and paladin, respectively). I wouldn't be surprised if many per-day abilities followed a similar model.

In one of the playtest blogs, something is mentioned specifically as a per-day ability, and it is a strong combat ability. If most of these resources are not strong combat abilities, I doubt they would mention it specifically as an example of a per-day ability.....but I could obviously be wrong about that.

My first post on this thread was kudos for Mustrum_Ridcully's theoretical design, and to express that, from the design blogs, I think that his design was superior to what 4e is going to deliver. So, to answer Patryn of Elvenshae's question, I will readily agree that any per-day ability that has no relevance to most encounters in the game need not be considered in terms of the 15-minute adventuring day problem.....whether my stalker finds that response illuminating or not!

EDIT: The one mention of a per-day ability that I am aware of is "my once-per-day scorch, a powerful fire attack" (mentioned here).