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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3770294" data-attributes="member: 42582">Let's look at it this way - what changes would we have to make to your premises, such that your pessimistic conclusion doesn't follow?*We can suppose that other standards of significance are relevant to encounters besides the "mechanical threshold of significance", which you have defined to depend on resource depletion or acquisition.*We can suppose that the threat of mechanical significance (in your sense of that phrase) is present in encounters.*We can suppose that not all players engage in prudent play (in your sense of that phrase).It seems to me that each of my suppositions is plausible. Wyatt's more recent post confirms what other posters on this thread have indicated, namely, that powers are being designed so that the question of which power to use in a given round in an encounter is a meanginful and engaging one (other features of encounter design, like the "half hit-point" trigger abilities for monsters, will probably enhance this aspect). This introduces a dimension of significance that is not related to resource depletion or acquisition.Furthermore, this scope for meaningful tactical play means that the threat of long-term resource depletion may be present in an encounter even if (in the end) no such depletion occurs (because skilled use of per-encounter abilities obviates it).Finally, if the above two paragraphs are true, then even resource-depleted parties can go on to have interesting and enjoyable encounters without having to rest. Combine this with the oft-mentioned fact that many players do not regard prudence (in your sense) as the only consideration relevant to the question of whether or not to rest, and we can envisage a more flexible approach to play, and to encounter sequencing, emerging from per-encounter abilities.Despite the fact that the 1st ed PHB and DMG did not identify any other metagame priorities, D&D has never been solely about operational play. This is obvious from the most cursory readings of early texts (compare Roger Musson and Lewis Pulsipher's articles in early numbers of White Dwarf, for example). It seems fairly clear that 4e is intended to remove the obstacles to these varieties of play that the current resource-management system imposes. For the reasons given above, I don't think your pessimisim about the likely success of this attempt to be warranted.</blockquote>

Verification