Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3778002" data-attributes="member: 42582">In my post <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3770294&postcount=874" target="_blank">#874</a>, I suggested that if it is the threat, but not the actuality, of mechanical significance (in your sense) that is at stake, then a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources might not (as you had concluded) fail to be a solution to the 15 minute adventuring day.You replied, at post <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3771292&postcount=886" target="_blank">#886</a>, that "Win/lose encounters (in this case, those with the threat of mechanical significance, where anly loss of mechanical resources is perforce a significant one) make the problem worse, not better."I asked you why you think that the threat makes things worse than the actuality - which seemed to be the implication of your sentence in quotation marks above. Apparently I've misunderstood you - it seems that you do not draw any distinction between an encounter which threatens long term resource depletion, and one which actually produces long term resource depletion. As my examples have tried to demonstrate, and as other posters have asserted, (i) I think that distinction is crucial if per-encounter abilities are to change the dynamics of play for many groups, and (ii) I think the distinction is a real one, and therefore has a real chance of changing the dynamics of play for many groups, away from the 15 minute adventuring dayThat seems fairly obvious. I thought it was understood by all the participants in this conversation that what 4e will involve is a mix of per-day and per-encounter resources. I thought that you were contending that this will not solve the 15 minute problem, because an encounter in which long term (ie per day) resources are not consumed will be insignicant. I have suggested that the threat of such consumption may be sufficient to generate signficance of an interesting tactical sort, and have posted an imagined scenario (at <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3775131&postcount=1001" target="_blank">#1001</a>) which tries to show how this sort of tactical interest can be generated without it always being rational simply to (as you put it) "use whatever big guns you have" first.Perhaps. The example I gave in post <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3775131&postcount=1001" target="_blank">#1001</a> depended upon the game containing per-encounter resources. In core rules 3.5 the only way I could see to set up the same sort of tactical options would be for a spell-casting character, with the choice being "which spell to cast". And currently, as all spells are per-day, there is no way to set up those sorts of choices without actually depeleting long term resources.</blockquote>

Verification