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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jackelope King" data-source="post: 3781522" data-attributes="member: 31454">You haven't shown this, RC. In fact, all you've really done is to use circular logic to argue that:1. Mechanical thresholds of significance are only measurable by how one encounter's resource expenditure informs the next encounter in the day's outcome.2. Per-day resource attrition is the only way to achieve mechanical thresholds of significance as defined in 1.This leads me to conclude once again that your definition of "mechanical significance" is flawed. To claim that what happens within the context of an encounter is "irrelevant" in light of this definition can only lead one to conclude that your definition is not sufficient for the discussion.I would suggest that in its place, mechanical threshold of significance must take into account the fact that it is an encounter in which resources are expended, and whether or not the expenditure of resources within the context of any given encounter has significant mechanical impact upon the outcome of that particular encounter and the PCs' abilities to further continue in it. It's less relevant how an encounter impacts upon subsequent encounters in a given day because those encounters are entirely variable based on playstyle and context.Indeed, a designer can't predict how many encounters a party will face in light of a wide audience such as D&D enjoys. A designer can't assume that a party will face just one or as many as ten encounters. The optimal solution is to assume that within the fundamental unit of the challenge, the encounter itself, the PCs are on equal footing, and that the crux of managing resources makes that encounter fun. It's not a delayed fun that may or may not happen, such as saving your fireball for an encounter that might not even be coming. It's not an unbalancing reward like going nova and then throwing up a rope trick after every encounter so your spellcaster dominates. It maximizes that particular encounter, the only encounter a designer can know a party will have within any given unit of time. It's an invalid assumption to assume that all playstyles will face a similar ratio of resouce-consuming encounters in a given day, and the per-encounter system acknowledges this and instead focuses on the one encounter that a party is garunteed to have: the one they're in right now.This is the ideal I'm describing. I'm well aware that 4e is slated to have elements of both systems. However, it illustrates my point that your definition of mechanical thresholds of significance is simply inadequate. If it concludes that mechanical thresholds of significance are irrelevant in light of the encounter the PCs are currently facing and is only relevant in encounters that they might not even face, then it is indeed flawed and needs revision.</blockquote>

Verification