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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3826686" data-attributes="member: 18280">Exactly my point, going back Lo these many pages.If you want players to engage in a cost/benefit analysis of using particular resources, there must be a cost associated.  In 3.X, the designers imagined that the cost would be loss of the resource for future encounters, because that was the paradigm that had worked in previous editions.  However, at the same time, they removed nearly all of the cost associated with resting to regain that resource, and activley (via articles on the WotC site) solicited DMs to ignore/not use other costs (such as the chance of wandering monsters, deemed "unfun" in one particular article).If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used.I don't think so.  For example:Now, given what pemerton was responding to, what are A and B in this context?  I discuss players choosing to use resources, so the choice involved must be A.  Presumably, then, A represents the non-use of a resource.Now, as B is proposed as the cause of A, what do I claim is the causing players to avoid using that resource?   Because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource.Pemerton therefore argues that the conclusion (it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible) is only true if there is no other mitigating factor.Clear and sensible, right?Also a repetition of a previous poster (emphasis unchanged):If I know that I have a significant chance of losing in any given encounter, and no other factor presents itself, I would be an idiot not to use my best abilities to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to use them. I am merely encouraged to use them. If I know that the everage encounter includes a significant chance of losing, and no other factor presents itself, I would be an idiot not to ensure that I have my best abilities available to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to have them. I am merely encouraged to have them.Any idea who that poster was?And, having made the same point many times in the past, do you honestly think that this (or any other) conversation would be well served by pedantically inserting every caveat into every post?  I am already accused of making my responses too long.So, no, I don't think these side trips are worthwhile.Yes.  And, I would also say that modification of a resource that limits what you can do with a resource is a loss, even if only a temporary one.  Loss doesn't need to be permanent to be loss.RC</blockquote>

Verification