Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3759460" data-attributes="member: 30001">Any significant degree of "per-day" abilities in the game does not significantly change the fundemental "problem" that Wyatt identified in the quote.Then let your players continue on in the dungeon when they're down to 2 hitpoints!  Why change a fundemental tactical aspect of the game if your players are accustomed to ignoring those anyway?  People may act irrationally, but the world probably continues to be rational.  What you want to do is reward the behavior - change the rational fundementals of the world - essentially make being irrational a rational act (or an act of no consequence).So fix this!   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   I am totally for this, but the rationale behind the "per-encounter" design goes far beyond just balancing out the wizard character class.  The justification suggests that *no* character, under any circumstances should ever suffer any consequences for prolonged exertion - no resource loss, no fatigue, no nothing.  20 Armageddon-level battles per day, as long as you rest a minute between each one.The development of the game world and the logical consequences of the dealing with the "operational" aspects of the game (as Celebrim calls them) go beyond combat and potentially extend to every other aspect of the game (if you're handling these things in the ways that have been suggested).  If a continual light spell were a "per-encounter" ability with no permanent resource cost, the whole town would be lit up all of the time - that's not a "combat only" or "resting only" situation.No.  I'll try to be clear:  it's not this particular change only.  It's the justification for the change.  The expressed set of priorities that 4E seems like it has.  *Those* things are what will change all aspects of the game - if taken to their logical and sensible conclusion ("sensible" from the perspective of the pro-"per-encounter resource" opinion).  They'll get around to every aspect of the game and make sure it has all the same properties as combat.  Why not?  Why would the definition of what's fun and what isn't change between subsystems?  That's a very bold assumption IMO.  First of all, why have a design philosophy and then choose not to apply to one or more aspects of the game?  Perhaps for "backwards compatibility" reasons, but I see 1E DnD as having less and less bearing on future designs.  Secondly, I really don't think you can have more than one play style in terms of resource expenditure because it goes too much to the core of game balance.  If you don't believe me, just let wizards cast whatever spells they want when they want right now in 3E.  You won't do that because the balance aspect of your game will go haywire, because the current spells were designed at a power level appropriate for a resource management style of game.</blockquote>

Verification