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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3825253" data-attributes="member: 42582">It seems clear to me that, in these passages, you are equating "challenging for PCs" with "challenging for players", "powerful PC ability" with "powerful player ability", "loss for the PC" with "loss for the player", etc. In 4e I doubt that these equations will hold.For example, a PC's most powerful ability might be their meteor swarm, but the players most powerful ability will be their knowledge of the action resolution mechanics, and their capacity to optimise a sequence of decisions within that mechanical framework. An encounter that is challenging (and therefore enjoyable) will be one that taxes this player skill. An encounter may do this without being challenging for the PC (in that, if the player plays well, the PC wins with little chance of loss). And, finally, an encounter which is a loss for the player will be one in which they play poorly, and therefore expose their PC to challenges that they need not have. In such circumstances, the PC may or may not lose, depending on how the dice unfold.Action Points are essentially orthogonal to this. They are not a "buffer" which creates a need for more "oomph". They are a buffer, but they are a buffer for when the player plays poorly, and wants to save his/her PC from the consequence. In other words, they don't insure against higher numbers (and thus lead to number inflation), but against misplay of complex abilities.I agree it all comes down to specifics. But I think that, if they are to do their job properly, the per-encounter abilities must make it possible for the players to make their own luck by playing skillfully.</blockquote>

Verification