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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3795751" data-attributes="member: 30001">What you're saying in the "so that the PCs survive the encounter" statement demonstrates to me AFAICT, as has been the case time and time again, that the real fall-back position for this per-encounter design is to really make each encounter have a significant chance of PC death.  The protests against this so far IMO have been highly abstract, and I find again and again when the conversation and examples get more practical and natural (ie. not designed to refute this specific point), we're back to the fatality thing.A mixed model also achieves this (and still retains operational dimension) and this is what I'm advocating.  I agree with your basic idea that fighters need a little help.  I'm much less enthusiastic about fighter powers that are cartoonish in their effect - super whirlwind attacks and that sort of thing.  Yes, I agree that wizard powers (as is historically the case in prior editions) are few and powerful.  And I should be clear that I actually support the idea of wizards getting a mixed bag of per-day and per-encounter.  However, I don't think it will solve the problems that many people on your side of the argument have identified, so I ultimately feel that logically what your reasoning will lead to will be an *all per-encounter resource* situation - the kind that Wyatt is suspicious of.So *some* per-encounter resources and per-day resources among the classes will mitigate the 9-9:15 problem as well as the "wizard nova" problem, but ultimately there will still be per-day management, which leads to the line of reasoning that RC has pursued (though I have differences that are probably minor).I find the limitations on PCs not being able to fight 50 non-trivial encounters in a day to be a comfortable limitation that doesn't interfere with my stories.  PC death, according to *numerous* posts on this board, interferes with story development, and I'm pretty sure that will be the next thing to go if this idea becomes influential since I don't see the difference.There's that basic idea again:  manage your resources well (ie. non-trivial, and thus possibily unsuccessful) or die.As I said, IME my players (and me as a player) wouldn't think much of making these choices Kill the mooks or the bandit leader?  Who really cares how you do it since it's inevitable (the premise that the encounter is not deadly, unless they are trying to escape, in which case they'll bring more insignificant forces, or forces that *can* kill the PCs, and so it really is a potentially deadly encounter after all).  This basic tactical situation already exists in 3E, although I think such mechanics might be more interesting if added to the game, they won't fundementally make things more interesting once their novelty wears off IMO.Depends on what you mean by "key".  He's saying alot of other stuff.  In order of "most concrete" to "most speculative", his most concrete statements are that "button mashing" is the basic experience of playing a warlock-style character in WoW.  He *speculates* that the problem can be solved by what he nebulously says is something more restrictive than per-encounter, and also "strong power design" but then doesn't follow it up with any experience-based evidence.Unanswered by this statement are questions like:  if I'm always asking the question "is this the right round to use this power" then it is highly possible that I will *never* use the given power, in which case we're back to the situation of the "barbarian not having any fun because he's not raging because he waited the whole encounter for the right time and it never came".</blockquote>

Verification