Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3778939" data-attributes="member: 18280">It cannot; but a resource-attrition system doesn't have to be based on X number of encounters, as 1e and 2e demonstrated amply.  3.x is designed on an X number of encounters model because of changes made to the mechanical threshold of significance of encounters.  Because a wider range of encounters could either not affect the party, or would result in an instant TPK, the range of effects that an encounter could have on a party's resources shrank by a very large factor.  One result of this was the need for the CR/EL system, to tell you what % of resources an encounter should use.  It also meant creating encounters that seemed more tactically challenging than were needed before, resulting in the high death rate in 3.X compared to earlier editions......while at the same time, the reduced need for cleverness to save resources and use them effectively made the game seem simpler.  Being able to die more easily due to bad luck on die rolls doesn't make a game more challenging.This, in turn, created the "15 minute adventuring day" problem, where parties would use significant resources on every encounter, rest, rinse, and repeat.  It was the simplest way to hedge against bad die rolls.  The arrival of Action Points was another hedge against bad die rolls, an attempt to put a patch on the proble created when a reduced range of encounters became significant.That the system is designed around X number of encounters is a relic of the same changes that led to the 9-9:15 adventuring day -- namely, numbers bloat.  In 1e, for example, there was a limit on AC.  No AC could be better than -10.  Using the THAC0 system, one can determine that AC -10 is equivilent to AC 30 now.  It is easy enough to imagine how capping AC at 30 would suddenly make many low-level threats significant at higher levels.In addition, hit point acquisition was, while not capped, greatly reduced after name level.  Again, although monsters did less damage overall, they were doing that damage against a smaller number of hit points.  Couple this with the ability to hit more often, and it is easy to see how a 10th level fighter in 1e could see a threat as significant, where the same threat wouldn't be significant to a 6th level fighter in 3e.So, the problem you ascribe to resource attrition isn't really a problem of that model.  It is, rather, a problem with the way resources are handled in 3e.  In fact, as one of the stated merits of 4e will be a flattening of the number-creep curve, and another is that a threat will remain viable over a larger range of levels, it seems that the designers are well aware of the source of this problem.What I have yet to see, however, is any sign of a solution that seems reasonably likely to work.YMMV......And time will tell.RC</blockquote>

Verification