Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3775131" data-attributes="member: 42582">Not of the particular point you made, namely, that the threat of mechanical significance (ie resource addition or depletion) is worse than the actuality of mechanical significance.With respect, it is nothing to do with burden of proof. It is to do with a detaild analysis of the claims being made, and their plausibility.For example: it does not follow, from the fact that the players are not confident in any given round that they will win using per-encounter resources, that they will switch to per-day resources. This depends entirely on what the per-day resources are.Suppose, for example, that a Figher's main per-day resource is a "second wind", which allows her to regain all her lost hit points via a swift action. Suppose also that a Fighter has an at-will ability, to use a swift action to add her level to her damage on a successful hit. Then as long as the player believes that the PC has enough hits left to survive another round's combat, and given that it is crucial to deliver as much damage per round as possible, that player will not use the "second wind". It is quite conceivable that this state of affairs can continue all the way to the end of the combat. What we then have is an exciting combat, which was significant because meaningful choices about resource deployment had to be made in every round, but no per-day resource was consumed.Similar sorts of possibilities exist for a Wizard. Suppose the per-day resource is teleport, for example: then, until the Fighter has used her "second wind", the Wizard does not have to open the escape hatch because victory is still posible. But the Wizards still knows that this might be needed. And suppose, furthermore, that the teleport can be used as an immediate action - in any given round, the Wizard's player has to decide whether to use a swift action on his turn, thus ruling out the possibility of an immediate action until his next turn but making it less likely that it will be needed, because less likely that the Fighter will have to use her second wind (I may have mucked up the action sequencing rules there, but I think the general point still makes sense).Or, suppose that the Wizard's per-day resource is a big area attack spell. Using this effectively requires the Fighter and Rogue to withdraw from the combat, thus (let's say) exposing the Wizard herself to attack. In any given round it may not make the most tactical sense to deploy that spell,  because the martial characters might be (barely) holding their own, and the Cleric still has a per-day "heal all allies" ability left. But the Wizard, while making non-per-day attacks, might be manoeuvring into a position where, if the big gun does have to be used, it effectiveness will be maximised, the risk to him will be minimised and the possibility of safe withdrawal by the martial characters will be achieved.What all of these examples have in common is (i) that the acquisition of relevant infomration about the encounter by the players is dynamic - in the sense that it occurs over time during the encounter - and (ii) that the interaction of each PC's abilities, and of the abilities of each with the abilities of the others, means that knowledge of a genuine risk to the party does not make the deployment of per-day resources the automatic solution.It is because of these sorts of possibilities, which seem very close to what the designers are suggesting through their various posts and leaked titbits, that I don't understand why you say that the threat of mechanical signficance can not produce meaningful play that does not deplete resources.</blockquote>

Verification