Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3780957" data-attributes="member: 18280">Given that (1) You have resources, and (2) that there is no consequence for using those resources, it is always prudent to use your strongest resources first.&nbsp; This is because, whenever there is an analysis of risk vs. reward, an intelligent being tries to minimize risk while maximizing reward.&nbsp; So, yes, you could wait to pull out the big guns, but that increases your risk.&nbsp; If there is no balancing risk involved in pulling out the big guns, it is always prudent to do so.Now, it might be true that WotC designs 4e so that at-will resources are stronger than per-encounter resources, and/or per-encounter resources are stronger than per-day resources, but this seems very unlikely to me.&nbsp; In fact, reading the playtest blogs it seems ver, very unlikely to me.It seems equally unlikely to me that the game's players, generally intelligent people, will somehow fail to understand the risk/reward ratios noted above after playing the game for a while.&nbsp; In other words, as soon as the shiny newness wears off.It seems equally unlikely to me that, once the players begin adopting the best risk/reward ratio built into the game that the DM is unlikely to understand this, and in turn ramp up the danger of encounters so that they are not &quot;too easy&quot;.What part of the reasoning that I have outlined requires that there be &quot;no interesting tactical questions about the deployment of per-encounter resources&quot;?Regardless of the paradigm used, the resources that you have in any given encounter can be considered &quot;per that encounter&quot; resources.&nbsp; Clearly, if you are having an encounter, and have resources in that encounter, the way you use the resources can be tactically interesting.&nbsp; There is no difference in this between the per-encounter and resource attrition paradigm.The only difference occurs when you step outside of any given encounter, and examine the flow of the game from encounter-to-encounter.No wonder you believe that you've &quot;shown there to be errors in [my] reasoning&quot; since you fail both to address it or, by your own admission, quoted above, understand it.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3780957, member: 18280"] Given that (1) You have resources, and (2) that there is no consequence for using those resources, it is always prudent to use your strongest resources first. This is because, whenever there is an analysis of risk vs. reward, an intelligent being tries to minimize risk while maximizing reward. So, yes, you [i]could[/i] wait to pull out the big guns, but that increases your risk. If there is no balancing risk involved in pulling out the big guns, it is [I]always[/I] prudent to do so. Now, it might be true that WotC designs 4e so that at-will resources are stronger than per-encounter resources, and/or per-encounter resources are stronger than per-day resources, but this seems very unlikely to me. In fact, reading the playtest blogs it seems ver, very unlikely to me. It seems equally unlikely to me that the game's players, generally intelligent people, will somehow fail to understand the risk/reward ratios noted above after playing the game for a while. In other words, as soon as the shiny newness wears off. It seems equally unlikely to me that, once the players begin adopting the best risk/reward ratio built into the game that the DM is unlikely to understand this, and in turn ramp up the danger of encounters so that they are not "too easy". What part of the reasoning that I have outlined requires that there be "no interesting tactical questions about the deployment of per-encounter resources"? Regardless of the paradigm used, the resources that you have in any given encounter can be considered "per that encounter" resources. Clearly, if you are having an encounter, and have resources in that encounter, the way you use the resources can be tactically interesting. There is no difference in this between the per-encounter and resource attrition paradigm. The only difference occurs when you step outside of any given encounter, and examine the flow of the game from encounter-to-encounter. No wonder you believe that you've "shown there to be errors in [my] reasoning" since you fail both to address it or, by your own admission, quoted above, understand it. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification