PDA

View Full Version : 4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX



Pages : [1] 2

Mike_Lemmer
2007-08-26, 02:26 PM
Just got back from PAX, where I managed to get some more info on 4th edition from one of the playtesters manning the Wizards booth. Note that this info may be inaccurate or subject to change.

Will the online D&D games be user-to-user or run off a central server?

Central server. (So if it crashes, you're out of luck.)

I know you're changing class abilities to be encounter-based instead of day-based, but what about the duration of buffs? Will you still have X min/lvl buffs?

Nope. Buff durations will be drastically modified.

What are you doing about Save or Lose spells?

We're trying to get away from mages that rely primarily on Save or Lose/Die spells. For example, we're basing most things around doing HP damage, then tying conditions to HP loss. We do not want characters dying from a single failed die roll.

Like?

For example, you drop below half HP, you become Bloodied. Then there are abilities you can only use while Bloodied, and abilities you can only use against Bloodied opponents. (Sounds like Fighters can get a Last Stand buff, while Rogues can unleash some nasty attacks against Bloodied enemies.)

So if you go up against a Beholder now, you don't have to make 2-4 saves each round to avoid dying?

Basically. The beholder is still nasty, but it isn't "I dropped your 14th-level fighter from full health to dead because you rolled a 1" nasty.

Do you still have to make a Fort save or Die if you take massive damage?

No. You may have to make a Fort save or suffer penalties for the rest of the day, but you will not die from massive damage unless it drops you to -10.

Dragonmuncher
2007-08-26, 03:04 PM
Interesting. So it looks like they're getting away from the whole "I am in perfect health and effectiveness as long as I have 1 HP" thing.


If they really base a lot of stuff off of this, there's going to be a whole new aspect of twinkage- HP management!

Matthew
2007-08-26, 03:06 PM
Hmmn. Not sure what I think about all that. It sounds interesting, but increasingly like some well loved artifacts of the game are getting the push.

Jack Mann
2007-08-26, 03:08 PM
I hope wizards still get a fair number of non-damage spells.

See, I don't just shy away from fireball and magic missile because they're weak, I keep away from them because they're too blatant. Wizards should have an option for being subtle. I like wizards to have spells that don't directly damage their opponents. To me, that's what being a wizard is all about. A fireball is not subtle. It isn't clever. It's using a hammer when a scalpel would work better.

Morty
2007-08-26, 03:09 PM
Adding some drawbacks for being heavily wounded is clearly good. However, limiting options to just dealing damage doesn't sound too good.

Sulecrist
2007-08-26, 03:37 PM
I hope wizards still get a fair number of non-damage spells.

See, I don't just shy away from fireball and magic missile because they're weak, I keep away from them because they're too blatant. Wizards should have an option for being subtle. I like wizards to have spells that don't directly damage their opponents. To me, that's what being a wizard is all about. A fireball is not subtle. It isn't clever. It's using a hammer when a scalpel would work better.

Whelm is pretty subtle (as far as damage spells go). I'm fond of Whelm.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-08-26, 03:42 PM
I hope wizards still get a fair number of non-damage spells.

I would assume so as well. Remember that I was talking to the guy in the middle of a convention, while he was manning a booth, about a game that isn't coming out for 8 months, in a hurry and without anything to take notes on. There was a severe lack of time to ask for clarification.

Also, he may have been talking specifically about Save or Die spells (Disintegrate, Touch of Death, etc.) when he mentioned emphasizing HP damage, as the original example I brought up were all the insta-death spells past 5th level.

Altair_the_Vexed
2007-08-26, 03:49 PM
Darn.
I liked the "save or die 4 time a round" aspect of beholders.
That's what beholders are for.

Aximili
2007-08-26, 05:56 PM
I hope wizards still get a fair number of non-damage spells.

See, I don't just shy away from fireball and magic missile because they're weak, I keep away from them because they're too blatant. Wizards should have an option for being subtle. I like wizards to have spells that don't directly damage their opponents. To me, that's what being a wizard is all about. A fireball is not subtle. It isn't clever. It's using a hammer when a scalpel would work better.
Well, the guys at wizards seem to think otherwise. To them, "being a wizard is about blasting your opponents with magical energies". The problem was that in 3.x, HP damage really was the hammer, while save-or-loose was the scalpel.

They have already said they're gonna fix that in 4th. The thing is, they can either do that by taking away the scalpel (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif), or by turning the hammer into a scalpel (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif)

Darn.
I liked the "save or die 4 time a round" aspect of beholders.
That's what beholders are for.
Killing half a party of beloved characters in a dull and boring way?

Jack Mann
2007-08-26, 06:10 PM
See, part of the problem with having wizards focus on HP damage is that it puts them in direct competition with fighters and other classes. One of the things that helped the class power disparity in 3rd was that the wizard wasn't really horning into the fighter's territory, the way the cleric or druid were, since he was rarely doing actual damage. Now, granted, I have no problem with not having save-or-lose or save-or-die spells anymore. Those could kill the tension pretty easily. But I want to have general debuffs and battlefield control spells as well. These are things the wizard can do that no one else can. Ideally, the wizard doesn't actually kill things. He just makes it easier for everyone else to do so.

Abstruse
2007-08-26, 06:27 PM
Much as I like the thought of conditions being applied to combatants -- Bloodied, to name the most prominently mentioned -- I've got to admit I'm dubious about the apparent near-abolishment of save-or-debuff spells. I can't help but imagine something like the following...

"The ogre lumbers around the paladin and the goblins, snarling and slapping its enormous club into its free hand."
"Um... oh crap... the fighter's still tied up too?"
"A few more strides and the ogre will be close enough for you to smell its vile breath."
"I cast ray of enfeeblement! Hopefully that'll weaken it enough to--"
"Oh, you must've played 3.5. There's no ray of enfeeblement in 4.0."
"What?!? Crap. Um. Magic missile, then, for... uh... 5."
"The ogre bellows as your spell slams home, but seems otherwise unbothered. It lashes out with its club and hits you for... ouch. 15."
"Well, ****. I'm dead. That was lots of fun..."

Rex Blunder
2007-08-26, 06:40 PM
I think this is really interesting. "Spiral of death" mechanics are much more realistic than the current perfect-health-until-dead mechanics. However, some spiral-of-death mechanics do have problems - for instance, let's say "bloodied" meant -2 on all d20 rolls. Once you were at a disadvantage in a fight, you'd have an increasingly difficult time digging yourself out of the hole you were in.

However, the "bloodied" status described by Mike_Lemmer didn't have a d20 roll penalty attached - the playtester talked about different special abilities, for and against, coming into play. That sounds like a good way to go to me.

Bassetking
2007-08-26, 07:36 PM
Moving to a per-encounter based concept is brilliance. Encouraging party activity and motility, Doubleplusgood.

Introducing a mechanic that creates (No matter what bonuses given) a penalty to progressing at anything other than full hit-points... while more accurate, and realistic... Will only cause the Fighters and Clerics to take the role formerly held by mages, and will demand the party stops for the day whenever they need to recharge HP, rather than spells per day.

*shrugs* At least, that's how I see it playing out. I may be pleasantly surprised, and proven entirely incorrect.

Matthew
2007-08-26, 07:37 PM
It's a problem of their own making, though. By massively increasing Hit Points in 3e and Damage as well, they exaggerated the problems of an already cumbersome, but workable, mechanic. 'Bloodied' sounds suspiciously like a patch up job. Could be fun, though.

Pah, I spit on your per encounter nonesense.

brian c
2007-08-26, 07:41 PM
We do not want characters dying from a single failed die roll.

I take that to mean that there will still be non-damage spells, just that there won't be any save-or-die (Disintegrate, Phantasmal Killer) or Save-or-pretty-much-just-die (shivering touch comes to mind), but there will still be debuffs, and I'm sure with or without extreme twinkage there will be ways to make those debuffs deadly.

Aximili
2007-08-26, 08:14 PM
But I want to have general debuffs and battlefield control spells as well. These are things the wizard can do that no one else can. Ideally, the wizard doesn't actually kill things. He just makes it easier for everyone else to do so.
I'll just pray the guys at wizards have been following your logic for the last couple of years.

Pah, I spit on your per encounter nonesense.
What's so bad with per encounter abilities.
They're stuff you can do at will (which makes much more sense than being able to do it 1/day), only it takes a few seconds of peace in order to focus yourself enough to do it again, which forbids you from doing it more than once per encounter.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-08-26, 08:15 PM
I take that to mean that there will still be non-damage spells, just that there won't be any save-or-die (Disintegrate, Phantasmal Killer) or Save-or-pretty-much-just-die (shivering touch comes to mind), but there will still be debuffs, and I'm sure with or without extreme twinkage there will be ways to make those debuffs deadly.

True, but debuffs can be dispelled easier than raising the dead, even in the middle of a battle.

Behold_the_Void
2007-08-26, 08:39 PM
Oh good, I was hoping I'd hear about this. I couldn't hear a thing so I just left after the Gleemax panel, somewhat disappointed.

I remember that the Wizards were designated as a "Controller" role or somesuch in a party. That says to me that they'll still have plenty of options not revolving around direct damage, but that they won't be able to drop a fully healed, well-rested character with one spell.

Dausuul
2007-08-26, 08:42 PM
Moving to a per-encounter based concept is brilliance. Encouraging party activity and motility, Doubleplusgood.

Introducing a mechanic that creates (No matter what bonuses given) a penalty to progressing at anything other than full hit-points... while more accurate, and realistic... Will only cause the Fighters and Clerics to take the role formerly held by mages, and will demand the party stops for the day whenever they need to recharge HP, rather than spells per day.

*shrugs* At least, that's how I see it playing out. I may be pleasantly surprised, and proven entirely incorrect.

Not necessarily. It really depends on what the effects of being "bloodied" are. It may not even carry a penalty. If it does, melee types will probably have some ability that lets them negate the penalty and perhaps get bonuses instead; WotC has already experimented with mechanics that only kick in when you're at half hit points or less (IIRC, there's a dragon shaman aura that gives you fast healing, but only if you're below half hit points).

Matthew
2007-08-26, 09:09 PM
What's so bad with per encounter abilities.
They're stuff you can do at will (which makes much more sense than being able to do it 1/day), only it takes a few seconds of peace in order to focus yourself enough to do it again, which forbids you from doing it more than once per encounter.

Well, to be honest, I was just taking a lighthearted 'traditionalist' stance. However, I don't use Encounters in a way that would make 'per Encounter' a sensible mechanic for my games (nor have I any need of such a mechanic). I find the whole 'Encounter' paradigm distasteful and anything that fosters that as a method of play I tend to dislike. That's not to say it won't work, just that it's not for me. I have no actual problems with them beyond that, though (i.e. I don't hate it within the context it is presented, I just don't like the context).

Aximili
2007-08-26, 09:33 PM
Well, to be honest, I was just taking a lighthearted 'traditionalist' stance. However, I don't use Encounters in a way that would make 'per Encounter' a sensible mechanic for my games (nor have I any need of such a mechanic). I find the whole 'Encounter' paradigm distasteful and anything that fosters that as a method of play I tend to dislike. That's not to say it won't work, just that it's not for me. I have no actual problems with them beyond that, though (i.e. I don't hate it within the context it is presented, I just don't like the context).

Hm... I see.
Well, I just said that cause it seems that some people regard encounter as a separate dimension with it's own way of handling things(:smallbiggrin:something like final fantasy combats). While it's just really a name to call several consecutive rounds of tension.

Arlanthe
2007-08-27, 02:31 AM
I hope wizards still get a fair number of non-damage spells.

Actually, from everything I’ve heard so far it will be an HP management game.

I liked 3E, but the “utility” spells suffered from 2nd and 1st edition. I hope plenty of utility/role playing spells will be included.

ArqArturo
2007-08-27, 04:27 AM
Hmm, sounds a lot like the Health System White Wolf uses in WoD.

Ikkitosen
2007-08-27, 06:39 AM
I think the whole "bloodied" thing sounds good. I mean, so long as they come up with sufficient advantages to balance the drawbacks.

I can see it now, the rogue leaps from the shadows, slicing at the barbarian's neck with his twin kukri. Bloodied but onbowed, the barbarian seems to get angrier and angrier, and suddenly the rogue wishes he'd stayed hidden...

I'm foreseeing extra rage bonuses once injured, and abilities that allow for desperate win-or-lose maneuvers for your injured fighter. I'm thinking that a rogue would have advantages once they bloodied an opponent too, adding to their decisive initial strike with suprise style of combat.

All speculation of course, but fun speculation!

nagora
2007-08-27, 06:59 AM
I know you're changing class abilities to be encounter-based instead of day-based,


Oh, that's a good idea.

D&D 5th edition rules:

Roll 1d6:
1-5: you have defeated your opponent.
6: roll again.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-27, 07:09 AM
What's so bad with per encounter abilities.

For one, it is purely mechanical and doesn't make any sense from a universe point of view.

As a matter of fact, defining a continuous adventure as a series of discrete "encounters" is also purely mechanical and doesn't make any sense from a universe point of view.

Foolosophy
2007-08-27, 07:24 AM
For one, it is purely mechanical and doesn't make any sense from a universe point of view.



meditating 5 minutes after depleting your "spell slots" makes just about as much sense as resting 8 hours to replenish your "spell slots". And "per encounter" can easily be solved as requiring 5min. of meditation, thus rendering it almost impossible to do within an encounter, while avoiding narcoleptic casters because your "universe" decided to ambush the characters 3 times in the first 3 hours of being awake and everyone decides to rest for the remaining 21 hours because the casters ran out of spells.
Yes, as a DM you could avoid this by spreading out the spell-draining encounters over the day...which doesn't make much sense in many adventure situations, such as invading a hostile city. You are bound to have more than 5 "encounters" per day (including non-combat ones that rely on spellcasting, such as methods of deception and scrying) and quite a few will take place within only 1-2 hours of in-game time.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 07:25 AM
Oh, that's a good idea.

D&D 5th edition rules:

Roll 1d6:
1-5: you have defeated your opponent.
6: roll again.

No, that's 3E rules. Except it's the DM who rolls, it's 1d20, and he's checking to see if the opponent made its saving throw versus Batman.

Reel On, Love
2007-08-27, 07:35 AM
Oh, that's a good idea.

D&D 5th edition rules:

Roll 1d6:
1-5: you have defeated your opponent.
6: roll again.

Because obviously the per-encounter abilities are going to be just as powerful as the per-day abilities were, right? It's not like the fact that you won't be depleting resources over the course of the day could possibly be taken into account when designing classes and challenges.
http://www.techimo.com/images/img2/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Seriously, some classes being on always-on abilities, some being on per-encounter, and some being on per-day is a hassle. It's not particularily good for a game. If everyone's on a "constant and per-encounter" basis, then things are easier to balance and you stop a bunch of problems--like narcoleptic parties.

Per-encounter mechanics generally make for better gameplay than per day. Fights can still be tense, but you can do a lot more per adventure. "Whoops, cleric's outta heals. Better wait for tomorrow" doesn't make for particularily fun gaming.

nagora
2007-08-27, 07:42 AM
Per-encounter mechanics generally make for better gameplay than per day. Fights can still be tense, but you can do a lot more per adventure. "Whoops, cleric's outta heals. Better wait for tomorrow" doesn't make for particularily fun gaming.

Actually "Whoops, cerics outta heals and we're still in the Great Swamp being trailled by 12 trolls." does make for particularly fun gaming. Coping with limits is a huge source of drama. Innane rules such as 4 encounters per day and per-encounter abilities belong in Fantasy Ludo, not in an RPG.

nagora
2007-08-27, 07:46 AM
meditating 5 minutes after depleting your "spell slots" makes just about as much sense as resting 8 hours to replenish your "spell slots". And "per encounter" can easily be solved as requiring 5min. of meditation, thus rendering it almost impossible to do within an encounter, while avoiding narcoleptic casters because your "universe" decided to ambush the characters 3 times in the first 3 hours of being awake and everyone decides to rest for the remaining 21 hours because the casters ran out of spells.


Defending bloody awful rules with bloody awful DMing is not a convincing arguement. In a hostile environment, attacks can come at any time and as often as makes sense in context. If you had 3 encounters in 3hrs, what possible reason would there be for the remaining 21 hours to be peaceful? At the very least, the characters should have no way of knowing that they will be.

Reel On, Love
2007-08-27, 08:02 AM
Actually "Whoops, cerics outta heals and we're still in the Great Swamp being trailled by 12 trolls." does make for particularly fun gaming. Coping with limits is a huge source of drama. Innane rules such as 4 encounters per day and per-encounter abilities belong in Fantasy Ludo, not in an RPG.

If you're still being trailed by 12 trolls, I guess it's still the same encounter. Per-encounter mechanics do coping-with-limits gameplay just fine. It's exactly as inane as "I do this whenever" (at will) or "I can charge mah lazor again at dawn/after 8 hours of sleep" (per-day) or "I fire mah lazor once every X" (cooldown), and it means that you won't have many fights where everyone's out of cool things to do. If Sparky the Magic Man has run out of magic juice, he's not exactly going to be having fun in the next couple of encounters. And if Sparky the Magic Man's magic contributes a lot to the party's not dying, they're not gonna be having that much fun either.
You can still push characters with per-encounter abilities. You just do it in somewhat different ways--generally, that leads to faster-paced, more exciting gameplay. Instead of having two waves of monsters, you have a bigger wave, or have the second wave right on the heels of the first. Or you call the whole scene one encounter (which is why I also prefer "per scene" to "per encounter", really).

There's nothing particularily good about per-day. I mean, hey, why not have Per Week? Even more coping-with-limits drama, AMIRITE?

For the record, 4E's keeping some amount of vancian casting, so you may have, say, some "deploy in dire need" per-day abilities on top of at-will abilities to use round to round and per-encounter abilities to use when appropriate. There are also other approaches--for example, Exalted characters spend Essence both on instant Charms and on scenelong ones (that last, well, a whole scene, which an encounter generally is--although you can have zero or multiple encounters in a scene), and recover it at a regular rate. So spending lots of Essence is still undesirable (especially since Exalted combat tends to be won by the person who maintains higher efficiency), but if you do so, you'll have some back (and still have your considerable mundane skills) by the next fight. What's more, when you stunt (describe fancy in-genre things), you gain some motes of Essence back.
That's a lot better than "I use my extra-action/perfect defense/big counterattack combo and splatter him. Now I'll just wait for tomorrow morning, when I'll suddenly get all my Essence back."
It's also a lot better than "should I cast a spell? No, I might need it later. Okay, I'll cast it. Now I'm out. I'm just gonna sit the next few out. Actually, let's nap."

nagora
2007-08-27, 08:15 AM
If you're still being trailed by 12 trolls, I guess it's still the same encounter.

If all you know is that they're between, say 1 and 12 hrs (good old d12) behind you, it's hardly the same encounter. The point is, you don't even really know if they're going to find you again or not. It's called "suspence".


If Sparky the Magic Man has run out of magic juice, he's not exactly going to be having fun in the next couple of encounters. And if Sparky the Magic Man's magic contributes a lot to the party's not dying, they're not gonna be having that much fun either.

Then Sparky the Magic Man needs to be more careful with his magic juice, or the rest of the party needs to come up with some strategy to keep Sparky safe while he recharges. Oh no! More chances for roleplaying, instead of just pressing the Fireball button again. The humanity!

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 08:28 AM
Defending bloody awful rules with bloody awful DMing is not a convincing arguement. In a hostile environment, attacks can come at any time and as often as makes sense in context. If you had 3 encounters in 3hrs, what possible reason would there be for the remaining 21 hours to be peaceful? At the very least, the characters should have no way of knowing that they will be.

At high levels, the party teleports away and rests some 1,300 miles from the hostile environment. There are ways to force them to fight even then, but it requires considerable magic and it quickly becomes unbelievable if it happens regularly. And if the party is powerful and paranoid enough to start using Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion and mind blank, you pretty much have to resort to DM fiat, since mind blank stops divinations up to and including wish.

Even at lower levels, however, my experience is that parties do what they have to do in order to get their precious rest. If that means they have to spend an hour or so in the ruined castle battling monsters, then get on their horses and ride three hours back to town to rest up, that's what they'll do. It's not bad roleplaying, either--it's eminently logical behavior unless you're under a time limit of some kind. If you're in a hostile environment and you need to rest, you get out of the hostile environment and return to base.

It's always possible to force the PCs to not rest, but game balance should not be predicated on the idea that the DM must force 4 encounters a day any time there's combat. But the only way to avoid that necessity is to remove the per-day mechanic as the main limiting factor on abilities. I want to be able to have scenarios with just a single fight in the course of a day, without the casters utterly dominating it; and I don't want to have to constantly plot ways to stop the PCs from resting prematurely.

(And, of course, there's the flip side, which is what if I want to throw seven or eight encounters at the PCs in rapid succession, with no chance to sleep? What are the casters supposed to do when they run out of spells despite their efforts to conserve them?)

Reel On, Love
2007-08-27, 08:30 AM
If all you know is that they're between, say 1 and 12 hrs (good old d12) behind you, it's hardly the same encounter. The point is, you don't even really know if they're going to find you again or not. It's called "suspence".
Okay, sure. Now, say, these trolls are especially tough in the swamp, so you don't want them to catch you until you can get out of the swamp, despite your per-encounter abilities. Or maybe there are more or tougher trolls with each progressive wave, so you can't fight too many waves or you'll die. Look, suspence! And all without needing to have some silly "five magic missiles a day" rule.
Per-encounter is geared more towards fast-paced action than slogging day-long flight from a bunch of trolls, sure, but not only is that not a bad thing, it can still do the latter.

Again, why not have per-week, per-month, per-year if you're so into suspence? "Day" is just as stupid and arbitrary as "encounter".


Then Sparky the Magic Man needs to be more careful with his magic juice, or the rest of the party needs to come up with some strategy to keep Sparky safe while he recharges. Oh no! More chances for roleplaying, instead of just pressing the Fireball button again. The humanity!
So... strategic resource management is somehow "roleplaying", whereas playing a character using his abilities is "pressing the Fireball button"? Deciding when to use your ability is "roleplaying", but deciding which ability to use and when isn't? Don't fool yourself, "keep Sparky safe" isn't any less a mechanical decision than "cast X spells in Y circumstances".
There's just as much strategy with per-encounter mechanics as with per-day as with per-week as with cooldown.
Being careful with his magic juice often isn't fun for Sparky. It means he sits out the next encounters because he's saving his juice. "I miss him with my crossbow again. Woo."
Say, you know what that crossbow is? It's an at-will mechanic! Give Sparky a magical blast that he can actually hit something with, and suddenly he can be relevant and cool even when he's chargin' his lazor with something that's also an at-will mecanic. Now give him different kinds of magical blasts, with different effects, and he's doing non-repetitive cool stuff and able to use tactics (including group tactics) too. In exchange, he doesn't have a once-per-day I Win button (which he'd need to, to compensate him for sucking the rest of the time). Per-encounter mechanics aren't the things with an "I win" button--it's the per day ones.
And "I'm chargin' mah lazor" is part of what's wrong with per-day abilities. It's like low-level wizards: a win-or-fail duality. You cast Sleep, you end that encounter, and then you run away and shoot your crossbow for the other two. That sucks.
If the party is out of resources and the trolls are chasing them, they can keep going (and get killed by whatever else) or rest and hope the trolls don't catch them. If you have the trolls catch them, they're dead (otherwise, they could just turn and face the trolls); if you have them be able to flee without running into anything else, before they can rest you are allowing them to recover all their resources before their next encounter. "We rest. Wanna kill us, or do you want us to keep playing these characters in this campaign?" That's not suspense.

With encounter or scene-based and at-will mechanics, you have characters whose power is more consistent. This gives you more flexibility: you can throw one encounter at them without the wizard smashing it to bits, and you can throw ten without the resource-exhausted party dying, the wizard having run out of spells on enocounter number eight. It prevents you from having to artificially prevent the party from resting ("the trolls chase you into a swamp, and they might be right behind you, better not rest!"), and it stops the party from being narcoleptics in order to not die. And it prevents them from rocking XY% of the time and sucking 100-XY% of the time. It lets them always be doing something engaging and interesting (which shooting with a crossbow at a miserably low AB isn't).
It acommodates more styles of play, and it's more fun to boot.

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 09:15 AM
If Sparky the Magic Man has run out of magic juice, he's not exactly going to be having fun in the next couple of encounters. And if Sparky the Magic Man's magic contributes a lot to the party's not dying, they're not gonna be having that much fun either.


I'm not defending per-day mechanics, but I think that anytime you use the line "is no longer having fun" you're going to run into a problem. "Bob found a magic sword, but John didn't. and now John isn't having fun." What's the solution? Let's give John a magic sword too! Problem solved. I think regardless of per-day, or per-encounter (which it will be interesting to see how they describe an encounter being), that resource management has to be a priority, and players should have options.

If a player wants to use up all their abilities on 1 tough opponent, that's fine, but if they suddenly start complaining that it isn't fun any more because they don't have their good abilities, I think instead of looking at the mechanics as being the problem, you need to look at the player's behavior as the problem.



It's also a lot better than "should I cast a spell? No, I might need it later. Okay, I'll cast it. Now I'm out. I'm just gonna sit the next few out. Actually, let's nap."

But knowing how and when to use your abilities is part of the challenge. If you get a one-use item and decide to use it in the first battle, then that's your choice, a second one-use item shouldn't magically appear because it might be helpful to have.

I guarantee regardless of what 4e does, you'll still have certain players that will whine because there are restrictions. Instead of trying to remove the restricitions, you should try to remove either the whining behavior, or the whining player.

goat
2007-08-27, 09:17 AM
I did see a quote somewhere (I forget where, but I think it was from a 4e designer) that said they were doing away with the 4HP wizard. Maybe that translates to: when Sparky the Magic Man runs out of magic juice he'll be at least capable of doing something useful without it.

Matthew
2007-08-27, 09:20 AM
Yeah, would 'per Encounter' mechanics be better if they were 'per ten minute' mechancis or 'per hour' mechanics or whatever? I don't really, know, per Encounter is just a bit arbitrary for my liking (and hard to mesh with my encounterless Adventure Site design methodology).

Wulfram
2007-08-27, 09:39 AM
Yeah, would 'per Encounter' mechanics be better if they were 'per ten minute' mechancis or 'per hour' mechanics or whatever? I don't really, know, per Encounter is just a bit arbitrary for my liking (and hard to mesh with my encounterless Adventure Site design methodology).

How about having it require a minute or two of concentration? Normally, it would have the same effect as per encounter, since it's rarely going to be worth dropping out of combat for 10 rounds, but it allows more flexibility and is a lot less cumbersome than requiring 8 hours.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-27, 09:49 AM
get on their horses and ride three hours back to town to rest up, that's what they'll do. It's not bad roleplaying, either--it's eminently logical behavior
Actually, this is very much is bad roleplaying, or more specifically metagaming - doing something that doesn't make sense to the character because the player knows there are certain artificial rules.



I want to be able to have scenarios with just a single fight in the course of a day, without the casters utterly dominating it;
This is a flaw of the fact that high-level casters win 3E, and is irrelevant to the method of "power replenishing" used.



(And, of course, there's the flip side, which is what if I want to throw seven or eight encounters at the PCs in rapid succession, with no chance to sleep?
A well-played caster can pull through by economizing. Besides, it's quite okay if the caster has not much to do in the last fight, just like the rogue has not much to do when battling skeletons. Not every PC needs to be able to invoke his full power in every situation.

Rex Blunder
2007-08-27, 09:55 AM
The Factotum from Dungeonscape primarily uses a per-encounter mechanic for its class abilities (as well as some at-will and per-day abilities), and the recovery method for per-encounter abilities is something like resting for 2 or 3 minutes.

I'm playing a factotum right now, and it's fun to play... it does offer interesting resource management decisions. "Should I use my last inspiration point to boost my damage roll, or should I save it in case i need to buff a saving throw next round?"

I'm having fun. But the wizard in my party is having fun too. I don't think it's logically required that if per-encounter abilities are good, than per-day must be bad, or vice versa.

Edit:


Actually, this is very much is bad roleplaying, or more specifically metagaming - doing something that doesn't make sense to the character because the player knows there are certain artificial rules.

Knowing how many spells you have left is information that's unavailable to the characters? Didn't they specifically choose to memorize these spells this morning?

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 10:00 AM
This is a flaw of the fact that high-level casters win 3E, and is irrelevant to the method of "power replenishing" used.

Well puddin, it's also a flaw of the fact that spell casters number of spells per day is balanced on the idea that they'll have four encounters each day.


Yeah, would 'per Encounter' mechanics be better if they were 'per ten minute' mechancis or 'per hour' mechanics or whatever? I don't really, know, per Encounter is just a bit arbitrary for my liking (and hard to mesh with my encounterless Adventure Site design methodology).

Unless I'm totally mistaken in my understanding of the /encounter mechanic from Tome of Battle, 'per Encounter' means you can do it once per combat, OR every 5 minutes if there are no monsters around, so basically once initiative is rolled, it becomes an Encounter. And surely despite your encounterless design, there's combat?

Matthew
2007-08-27, 10:00 AM
Unless I'm totally mistaken in my understanding of the /encounter mechanic from Tome of Battle, 'per Encounter' means you can do it once per combat, OR every 5 minutes if there are no monsters around, so basically once initiative is rolled, it becomes an Encounter. And surely despite your encounterless design, there's combat?

Is it? I don't know. I'll have a look in a bit. I don't mind fixed rate recharges, it's arbitrary Encounter Based recharges that rub me the wrong way. I don't think in terms of combat encounters within the Dungeon Environment or Adventure Site (and don't really want to have to). When the players are in combat, the rest of the dungeon is active, perhaps with the result of reinforcements appearing or whatever. Basically, Adventure Sites are dynamic, rather than passive, which does away with the idea of Encounters (or rather never adopted it).*


How about having it require a minute or two of concentration? Normally, it would have the same effect as per encounter, since it's rarely going to be worth dropping out of combat for 10 rounds, but it allows more flexibility and is a lot less cumbersome than requiring 8 hours.

Yeah, I mean, that works fine for me as well. It's the 'per encounter' that I don't like. The speed at which Abilities refresh is just a preference thing. Whether it's eight hours, 24 Hours, ten minutes or 12 Seconds, it doesn't really make much difference beyond that.

* That said, Wilderness Encounters are often isolated and would probably work fine.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 10:04 AM
Actually, this is very much is bad roleplaying, or more specifically metagaming - doing something that doesn't make sense to the character because the player knows there are certain artificial rules.

What out-of-character knowledge are you talking about? Are you suggesting that casters don't know what spells they have prepared and can't tell when they're running low? Or that they don't know they have to get a good night's sleep before they can recover spells?


This is a flaw of the fact that high-level casters win 3E, and is irrelevant to the method of "power replenishing" used.

Actually, the method of power replenishing is highly relevant. If you have one character who uses a per-encounter or at-will mechanic, and another with per-day mechanics, then the former will gain an advantage when the party faces lots of encounters per day, and the latter will gain an advantage when the party faces only one or two encounters per day.

If a DM has a habit of designing adventures that require only one or two encounters per day, then the classes which rely heavily on per-day mechanics will be overpowered compared to those who don't. Barbarian versus fighter is a good example. Barbarians tend to outperform fighters as long as they have rage uses left. Once they run out of rage, however, the balance swings the other way. It's not nearly as egregious as with casters, since the core barbarian ability (hit stuff) is at-will, but the effect is definitely there.


A well-played caster can pull through by economizing. Besides, it's quite okay if the caster has not much to do in the last fight, just like the rogue has not much to do when battling skeletons. Not every PC needs to be able to invoke his full power in every situation.

...if they know ahead of time that they need to economize enough for 7-8 encounters.

And rogues versus skeletons is another case of bad design. As a DM who loves using undead, I hate the fact that I can't build an undead-centric dungeon without making the rogue effectively sit on the sidelines any time a fight breaks out.

Reinboom
2007-08-27, 10:08 AM
Actually, this is very much is bad roleplaying, or more specifically metagaming - doing something that doesn't make sense to the character because the player knows there are certain artificial rules.

Those rules define how the character's world works.
I can do this X times today. I know I can do this X times today, because, in character, I memorized only X of this. I have used exactly X of this. When I get a good night's sleep and then memorize them again, I can use it again. The most effective way to do this is with these things again... why not?

I can't conceive how that is metagaming, please explain. :smalleek:

I don't like the flavor or aspect of the above (with any fluff applied to it, it just... meh) and its mechanically bleh to me as well. I'm looking forward to not being so paranoid with my abilities. I agree that players do need to be conservative and generally smart with their abilities - but I also think that a GM should be able to throw, say, 7 encounters in a day on an epic endeavor to the players and the casters still being able to do something during the last 3. Of course not at even close to full power, but being able to do anything would be wonderful.

nagora
2007-08-27, 10:53 AM
... I also think that a GM should be able to throw, say, 7 encounters in a day on an epic endeavor to the players and the casters still being able to do something during the last 3. Of course not at even close to full power, but being able to do anything would be wonderful.

If the DM is doing their job right and the players are not playing their characters as idiots, they should be aware that there is a chance that they are going somewhere where the "normal" 4 encounters per day is likely to be breached. At that point it is up to all the players to work out how to cope with that. If they can't cope then they shouldn't go in. There is no reason for the game to make sure the MUs have casting ability in the later encounters just as it is not up to the rules to make sure the fighters have enough hit points. They knew the dangers; it's up to them to plan for them and if they get it wrong then they have to deal with the consequences - the game world does not owe them a living. This is a very basic roleplaying concept.

The problem with per-encounter and x encounters per day rules is that they combine to destroy any sense of reality.

"I studied years to master this ability and finally, I have done it." "Oh? It must be difficult." "Not really, I can do it every five minutes or so. More if I'm under pressure. Piece of cake."

"We were exausted, almost out of spells and in the middle of Mordor. Thank the gods we had that last encounter with a lone orc messenger. Now we know we're safe for the night. Tennis, anyone?"

This is just rubbish role playing gaming.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 11:20 AM
If the DM is doing their job right and the players are not playing their characters as idiots, they should be aware that there is a chance that they are going somewhere where the "normal" 4 encounters per day is likely to be breached.

That doesn't mean they know how many encounters they're going to have. How much do you budget for? 4 encounters? 6? 8? More? If the PCs guess wrong... well, then, the casters get to sit around and stare at the sky for the last few fights.

The comparison with hit points is invalid because you don't voluntarily spend hit points, they're forcibly taken from you. By and large, what happens to party hit points is in the hands of the DM; what happens to party spells is in the hands of the casters. The DM knows how many encounters to plan for. The party doesn't.


"I studied years to master this ability and finally, I have done it." "Oh? It must be difficult." "Not really, I can do it every five minutes or so. More if I'm under pressure. Piece of cake."

So, it's inconceivable that a martial artist might need years to master moves that take seconds to perform?


"We were exausted, almost out of spells and in the middle of Mordor. Thank the gods we had that last encounter with a lone orc messenger. Now we know we're safe for the night. Tennis, anyone?"

This is just rubbish role playing gaming.

That would be a stupid mechanic, indeed, but most of the per-encounter systems I've seen allow you to recharge with 5 minutes' rest.

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 11:25 AM
"We were exausted, almost out of spells and in the middle of Mordor. Thank the gods we had that last encounter with a lone orc messenger. Now we know we're safe for the night. Tennis, anyone?"

This is just rubbish role playing gaming.

That would be a stupid mechanic, indeed, but most of the per-encounter systems I've seen allow you to recharge with 5 minutes' rest. "Per encounter" is just shorthand for "5 minutes of recharge required."[/QUOTE]

While I agree with your opinion on Nagora's comment, I do believe he was referring to 4 encounters per day when he said the thing about tennis.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-27, 11:27 AM
Knowing how many spells you have left is information that's unavailable to the characters? Didn't they specifically choose to memorize these spells this morning?
No, the bad thing I referred to was riding for half a day to get to town and back, every time they needed to rest in the dungeon. Can you imagine anyone in a book or film doing that? :smallbiggrin:

Interesting how three consecutive posters thought I was referring to something else - was my phrasing that unclear? I did specifically quote "get on their horses and ride three hours back to town to rest up".


Well puddin, it's also a flaw of the fact that spell casters number of spells per day is balanced on the idea that they'll have four encounters each day.
Is it? Because spells per day dates back to first edition, and encounters per day does not. I doubt the former is a result of the latter, then.


What I object to is the strictness of design. That one "must" have four encounters per day, and therefore everything can be balanced towards that, is a prime example of circular reasoning. That one "must" have one level-up per 13.5 (or however many) encounters. That one "must" give each character treasure equal to the square of his level minus the hypothenuse of his character class. Et cetera. I'll bloody well decide that for myself when DM'ing, thank you very much, and adjust based on player feedback.

nagora
2007-08-27, 11:35 AM
That doesn't mean they know how many encounters they're going to have. How much do you budget for? 4 encounters? 6? 8? More?

Grow a spine and plan for the unexpected. You're supposed to be adventurers.


The comparison with hit points is invalid because you don't voluntarily spend hit points, they're forcibly taken from you.

Are you suggesting that the casters have the option to stand behind the fighters and do nothing. The fighters may decide to stand behind the casters if that's their attitude.


By and large, what happens to party hit points is in the hands of the DM

What happens to the party's hit points is the result of calculated risks taken on by the players and adjudicated by the DM. Unless you have a very railroady DM. Our group took the decision to play without a cleric for years; that had an impact on the hit points all right, but it wasn't the DM's decision.


what happens to party spells is in the hands of the casters. The DM knows how many encounters to plan for. The party doesn't.


A party that goes into an area with no idea of what they might face is a bunch of cack-handed amateurs and deserve all they get.



So, it's inconceivable that a martial artist might need years to master moves that take seconds to perform?

It is hard to believe that a martial artist might need years to master moves and then go from not being able to do them at all to performing them over and over again as often as they like.



"We were exausted, almost out of spells and in the middle of Mordor. Thank the gods we had that last encounter with a lone orc messenger. Now we know we're safe for the night. Tennis, anyone?"

This is just rubbish role playing gaming.

That would be a stupid mechanic, indeed, but most of the per-encounter systems I've seen allow you to recharge with 5 minutes' rest. "Per encounter" is just shorthand for "5 minutes of recharge required."

That was a reference to x encounters per day, not per encounter abilities.

If you want to not have x uses per day, then you need to change to y% chance of being abile to do it at will, where y increases with level or something. Just changing "per day" to "per encounter" is not achieving anything and in many cases is simply drawing attention to the artificial nature of the rule. Most people can cope with the idea of uses per day and nod aside the fact that its an abstraction, but once you say "per encounter" the obvious thing that springs to mind is that this is an ability that somehow works better the more often you are attacked and that is a laugh-out-loud reality breaker.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 11:41 AM
While I agree with your opinion on Nagora's comment, I do believe he was referring to 4 encounters per day when he said the thing about tennis.

Oh.

Well, in that case, I agree completely. Which is why I applaud the move away from per-day mechanics, which require an assumed number of encounters per day for balance to work properly, and toward mechanics which allow the DM to introduce however many encounters seem appropriate without worrying about making some people useless or overpowered.


No, the bad thing I referred to was riding for half a day to get to town and back, every time they needed to rest in the dungeon. Can you imagine anyone in a book or film doing that? :smallbiggrin:

Okay... but I'm still not clear where the metagaming is. I agree that this is a stupid thing from a narrative standpoint, but it's eminently logical in-character given the way the world works. That's why I want per-day mechanics to go away.


Is it? Because spells per day dates back to first edition, and encounters per day does not. I doubt the former is a result of the latter, then.

No, but once you start taking a real hands-on approach to class balance, you have to come up with some kind of standard if you're going to balance per-day stuff.


What I object to is the strictness of design. That one "must" have four encounters per day, and therefore everything can be balanced towards that, is a prime example of circular reasoning. That one "must" have one level-up per 13.5 (or however many) encounters. That one "must" give each character treasure equal to the square of his level minus the hypothenuse of his character class. Et cetera. I'll bloody well decide that for myself when DM'ing, thank you very much, and adjust based on player feedback.

Again--I agree, and so, it seems, do the designers. At least I have the strong impression that 4E is trying to be more flexible in these areas.

nagora
2007-08-27, 11:49 AM
Oh.

Well, in that case, I agree completely. Which is why I applaud the move away from per-day mechanics, which require an assumed number of encounters per day for balance to work properly, and toward mechanics which allow the DM to introduce however many encounters seem appropriate without worrying about making some people useless or overpowered.


The odd thing is that the 4 enc per day rule is fine as a guideline for a starting DM (if a bit heavy for 1st level characters), but the fact is that a DM with any experience of their players simply shouldn't need any mechanic for balancing encounters. In fact, how can they, really? If Joe plays a 9th level Wizard but is really crap at managing his spell choices and forgets to rebuy material components then what system can possibly judge the level of encounter to throw at a group with him in it other than his DM?

There are too many examples where "should" or "try this and adjust for your group" are handed down as fiat instead.

nagora
2007-08-27, 11:55 AM
Is it? Because spells per day dates back to first edition, and encounters per day does not. I doubt the former is a result of the latter, then.


In fact, the treasure of useful DMing ideas that was the 1e DMG does have a chart for encounters per day by terrain for outdoor travel. It is accompanied by instructions that it is to be ignored in areas where the DM has actually placed the local population (ie, its for "wandering monsters" only), and that the DM should mix it up a bit to "avoid player reliance on information which they should not be privy to".

The number of these random encounters per day varied from 3 to 6, and each was in fact only a chance of an encounter based on the distance from civilisation.

Telonius
2007-08-27, 11:55 AM
I assume the enemies would all have per-encounter abilities as well, would they not? Unless they're "dumb animal" monsters, they'd have to manage their resources just as much as the players would.

Most of the arguments I've been seeing here have been pretty darn situational. If you're alone in the woods behind enemy lines being chased by half of the BBEG's Legions of Terror, it is a vastly different situation than being mugged by a high-level Rogue while walking the streets of Townsville. Which is also different from deliberately entering Trogdor's lair, or stealing the treasure from the ancient temple. You would prepare for (or be surprised by) each one of those situations differently. Some things will still catch you by surprise; but as long as you know the rules beforehand, you can prepare for the situation.

I look at encounters-per-day much like the Pirate's Code - it's more of a guideline. If there's four, I generally know what I (as a DM) am getting my players into. If there's more, or less, I plan for the consequences. As a player, when I'm preparing for my day, I don't take stupid risks (like openly attacking the BBEG's castle if we're behind enemy lines). If I play a wizard, I don't use up all of my best spells on worthless opponents; I conserve resources until I need them. Sometimes I don't need them all. Sometimes I misjudge and use up my last worthwhile spell on the Hezrou only to see his Balor friend walk up behind the still-smoking corpse. When that happens, I get behind the meatshield, pull out my crossbow, and pray. Just like every other mage in the history of D&D. And if I'm in hostile territory, you're darn right we set up watch. Presence or absence of the four-a-day rule has nothing to do with it.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-27, 11:58 AM
Mage: "I studied years to master this ability and finally, I have done it. At first it took hours, and I could only do it once or twice a day."
Other PC: "Oh? It must be difficult."
Mage: "Not really anymore. Now that I've had lots of time to work with it, I can do it every five minutes or so. More if I'm under pressure. Piece of cake."
Other PC: Wow, that's...completely reasonable.


Fixed that for you, at least as I have interpreted Wizard's intentions.

nagora
2007-08-27, 12:04 PM
Fixed that for you, at least as I have interpreted Wizard's intentions.

What makes you think this is the case? Is there anywhere where we can see that what WotC are actually talking about is "per day" abilities which gradually ramp up to "as often as needed" abilities?

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 12:05 PM
That doesn't mean they know how many encounters they're going to have. How much do you budget for? 4 encounters? 6? 8? More? If the PCs guess wrong... well, then, the casters get to sit around and stare at the sky for the last few fights.


There shouldn't be any budgeting at all, there should be a player roleplaying his character. If the wizard character is the kind of person that spends his spell slots all at once, then that's what he should do. If the wizard character is the kind of person that never wants to be without a spell, then he should hold off.

The argument that "it is boring if I decide to not cast a spell and thus I have to plunk away with a crossbow" is an odd one to me. If 4e gives wizard an at will spell that replicates the effects of a crossbow (say as an example, an energy blast ability that is a ranged attack that deals 1d8 damage on a successful hit), would that then make the wizard less boring? If so, then that's no problem, simply give wizards that ability. It will be slightly overpowered at 1st level, but by level 2 or 3 in 3.5 terms it is completely balanced out.

What I am concerned about is the next step. What happens when the wizard player says that it is boring when he can't cast a buff, debuff, or save or X spell every round? Where is the "Tough S***" line?

Gralamin
2007-08-27, 12:06 PM
And rogues versus skeletons is another case of bad design. As a DM who loves using undead, I hate the fact that I can't build an undead-centric dungeon without making the rogue effectively sit on the sidelines any time a fight breaks out.

Greater Truedeath Crystal, MIC page 66. Among other things, this 10,000 gp weapon enhancement crystal allows you to sneak attack and critical hit undead. It also has the effects of the least and lesser form of the crystal.

This thing has done wonders for using undead in my games.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-27, 12:06 PM
What makes you think this is the case? Is there anywhere where we can see that what WotC are actually talking about is "per day" abilities which gradually ramp up to "as often as needed" abilities?

I'll have to admit, I don't recall exactly where I read it. Consider the comment withdrawn until I can back it up.

Aximili
2007-08-27, 12:06 PM
As a matter of fact, defining a continuous adventure as a series of discrete "encounters" is also purely mechanical and doesn't make any sense from a universe point of view.

As I said. You are just looking at encounter the wrong way. As a matter of fact, a continuous adventure is a series of discrete encounters. Of course they may (and probably will) be related, but take place separately and can easily be addressed this way.

An encounter is any sequence of rounds in which the tension is continually high and the actions of one or more characters will define whether he, she, or they will go forward in their "quest" or be set back.

Be it an ambush in the middle of the night, an appointment with the king in which you'll have the chance to convince him to support your cause, or trying to trick the doorman into letting you in that private party (inside which, you'll get a chance of meeting the noble responsible for all your problems).

Usually, it's when the tension is high enough to make a regular person nervous.

You see, just be cause we don't use the term "encounters" in real life, it doesn't mean they're not there.
An important job interview, realising there's a big scary dude aproaching you in the street, and even meeting your in-laws for the first time are all examples of real-life encounters (according to what "encounter" means D&D).

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 12:14 PM
An encounter is any sequence of rounds in which the tension is continually high and the actions of one or more characters will define whether he, she, or they will go forward in their "quest" or be set back.


But if they define it that way it will be really hard to make fluff for those abilities, seeing as each class is supposed to have some. I mean, if combat starts and the rogue hides, and the enemies can't find him, how long does it take before he gets his "per encounter" abilities back? When the enemies stop looking? When the DM says "End scene"?

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 12:14 PM
What makes you think this is the case? Is there anywhere where we can see that what WotC are actually talking about is "per day" abilities which gradually ramp up to "as often as needed" abilities?

Let us look at a few things. It's general opinion that Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic were Wizards idea of a new melee and a new magic system for 4e, and it was their way of stealth testing the waters. Tome of Battle-esque stuff has been confirmed for 4e. Therefore, it's not illogical to assume that Wizards may be based off of something in Tome of Magic.

Wizards being based on shadow casters would be exactly what Psychoticbarber was saying, where as you move on you can do things more often. Although it's sort of the way it is now with 1st level spells, at level 1 you have 1-3 of them, but by time you're level 20 you can have a dozen or so 1st level spells.

Tobaselly
2007-08-27, 12:16 PM
Personally I like the idea of "per encounter" abilities. I think I would like to think of them as "per scene" abilities instead though. The idea behind it is the character just needs a few moments to catch his breathe or mentally still himself after something and then he's ready to do it again. I think that works much better than per day abilities.

If a character is harried, rushed and always in motion he doesn't quite get those few moments to rest up and should be in the same scene, so no recharging his abilities. But once he's out of that scene he should be good to go.

Matthew
2007-08-27, 12:19 PM
I still don't really get why it has to per encounter, instead of per five minutes, or whatever.

Rex Blunder
2007-08-27, 12:22 PM
Probably to avoid another thing to count down - you don't want to be decrementing a number for 50 turns to keep track of the chance to reuse your ability. Some realism is sacrificed for some ease of use. Not a terrible thing.

Matthew
2007-08-27, 12:25 PM
Ah, now there's a reasonable possibility. I have heard they are doing away with most count down effects. They'll probably all be 'per encounter'. More 'simplification for a better game experience' (though I wouldn't agree, I'm fine with multiple count down effects).

psychoticbarber
2007-08-27, 12:25 PM
I'll have to admit, I don't recall exactly where I read it. Consider the comment withdrawn until I can back it up.

Okay, I can't find it, but I know I read something that implied that, and not the work of a raving lunatic (I'm fairly careful about that). I'll just hope Wizards is reading this and really does use such a mechanic, as it makes sense to me.

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 12:26 PM
I still don't really get why it has to per encounter, instead of per five minutes, or whatever.

I can't help but think that you're attaching some terrible meaning to encounter...

Gralamin
2007-08-27, 12:26 PM
I believe another reason is that it is possible that you could do it again within the 5 minute time limit, if enough stress is applied to your character..

nagora
2007-08-27, 12:27 PM
Again, why not have per-week, per-month, per-year if you're so into suspence? "Day" is just as stupid and arbitrary as "encounter".


No it isn't. There are few things more stupid and arbitrary as "per encounter".

Let's go back to when you thought the trolls following meant that the encounter was ongoing - which might be the case if the trolls are careful to keep harrying the PCs. In that case we have this situation:

"I think I see one of the trolls! Quick, do your Slapenhowitzer move and kill it!"

"Sorry, I did that earlier in the encounter."

"What?! But that was ages ago! Yesterday you slaughtered four Ogre Magi in an hour."

"Yeah, but you see, we met the Ogres separately. These same trolls have been trailing us together. So I can only Slapenhowitzer one of them. Unless you can get them to reduce their threat level for at least five minutes I have to pretend I'm tired."

Whereas "per day" is simply a crude way of saying "that takes a lot of energy and you can't keep doing it over and over."

Some realism is sacrificed for some ease of use. Not a terrible thing, as Rex Blunder would say.

Matthew
2007-08-27, 12:28 PM
I can't help but think that you're attaching some terrible meaning to encounter...

Some encounters are more disturbing that others... (isn't there some tagline for Alien encounters, encounters of the fifth kind or something? I don't recall)

Anyway, I would rather not take the count out of en(count)er...:smallbiggrin:

As Rex_Blunder says, though, it's probably part of the overall drive towards simple mechanics for a complex game.

Aximili
2007-08-27, 12:29 PM
What makes you think this is the case? Is there anywhere where we can see that what WotC are actually talking about is "per day" abilities which gradually ramp up to "as often as needed" abilities?
The main objectives of any mechanic are (and should be) fun and balance. Why is "Reasonable explanation" not one of them? Because it's much easier (and a lot faster) for a group of people to think of some assumptions in order to explain some mechanism, than for them to try to fix something that ended up being boring or unbalanced because the game designers prioritized reason.

As an example. Let's say this is not case (and, IMO, it's not going to be).
Than, we may well assume that the character was previously too unsure of his abilities in order to risk performing one of them during combat.

Better explanation:

Let's say you've been practicing your acrobatic skills in order to leap over opponents. After a lot of practice you manage to perform it once or twice during a day's practice. That, however, is completely different from a having a 1/day ability. After all, considering that you have to try it tons of times during practice in order to achieve it a few times, what are the odds that you might actually succeed at it during real combat (and not fall on top of a dangerous and armed foe)?

Realistically, only after you are confident on your ability to perform this maneuver will you go around the battlefield leaping over opponents. And by that time, you already able to use it at will.:smallwink:

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 12:32 PM
No it isn't. There are few things more stupid and arbitrary as "per encounter".

Let's go back to when you thought the trolls following meant that the encounter was ongoing - which might be the case if the trolls are careful to keep harrying the PCs. In that case we have this situation:

"I think I see one of the trolls! Quick, do your Slapenhowitzer move and kill it!"

"Sorry, I did that earlier in the encounter."

"What?! But that was ages ago! Yesterday you slaughtered four Ogre Magi in an hour."

"Yeah, but you see, we met the Ogres separately. These same trolls have been trailing us together. So I can only Slapenhowitzer one of them. Unless you can get them to reduce their threat level for at least five minutes I have to pretend I'm tired."

Whereas "per day" is simply a crude way of saying "that takes a lot of energy and you can't keep doing it over and over."

Is that the argument against prepared casting regurgitated? :smallamused:

psychoticbarber
2007-08-27, 12:34 PM
No it isn't. There are few things more stupid and arbitrary as "per encounter".

Let's go back to when you thought the trolls following meant that the encounter was ongoing - which might be the case if the trolls are careful to keep harrying the PCs. In that case we have this situation:

*snip*

Whereas "per day" is simply a crude way of saying "that takes a lot of energy and you can't keep doing it over and over."

Some realism is sacrificed for some ease of use. Not a terrible thing, as Rex Blunder would say.

Isn't that problem what the Tome of Battle-style "Alternate Ways to Regain Maneuvers" fixes? Honestly I see both per-day and per-encounter as equally abstract, and both work, but I prefer per-encounter because it allows you to run more than four encounters in a day, if you so choose, and only running four encounters in a day, every day, is silly.

Also, "per encounter" is just a crude way of saying "That takes a lot of energy and I can only do it every five minutes or so."

nagora
2007-08-27, 12:38 PM
Is that the argument against prepared casting regurgitated? :smallamused:

I don't think so. Perhaps I misunderstand you.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 12:40 PM
There shouldn't be any budgeting at all, there should be a player roleplaying his character. If the wizard character is the kind of person that spends his spell slots all at once, then that's what he should do. If the wizard character is the kind of person that never wants to be without a spell, then he should hold off.

This is silly. Wizards are supposed to be smart. Smart people don't make all decisions according to some predetermined formula without regard to circumstances; they weigh present needs against what they think they're likely to need in the future.

If I'm a wizard and I know I have a certain amount of magic available today, I'm going to try and estimate how much I need to use in each fight. Of course, some characters may be more reckless than others, and that sort of thing should be roleplayed; but even a reckless wizard is unlikely to blow a 9th-level spell to kill three orcs, and even the stingiest wizard will use a spell when the alternative is death.

If you don't like budgeting, that's one more argument against per-day, because per-day mechanics demand budgeting.


What I am concerned about is the next step. What happens when the wizard player says that it is boring when he can't cast a buff, debuff, or save or X spell every round? Where is the "Tough S***" line?

Exactly where the "Tough" line lies depends on a lot of things, but the objective should be to put it someplace where the wizard always has what most gamers would consider fun and useful options, without making the class overpowered. Plinking away with a crossbow is not a fun or useful option once you get past level 3 or 4.


"I think I see one of the trolls! Quick, do your Slapenhowitzer move and kill it!"

"Sorry, I did that earlier in the encounter."

"What?! But that was ages ago! Yesterday you slaughtered four Ogre Magi in an hour."

"Yeah, but you see, we met the Ogres separately. These same trolls have been trailing us together. So I can only Slapenhowitzer one of them. Unless you can get them to reduce their threat level let us stop and rest for at least five minutes, I have to pretend I'm too tired."

Fixed that for you.

Aximili
2007-08-27, 12:42 PM
But if they define it that way it will be really hard to make fluff for those abilities, seeing as each class is supposed to have some. I mean, if combat starts and the rogue hides, and the enemies can't find him, how long does it take before he gets his "per encounter" abilities back? When the enemies stop looking? When the DM says "End scene"?
That can be very easily addressed, it only depends on WotC capability of doing so.

If they simply say that all per encounter maneuvers need 1 (or 5, or 10, or...) full minute of deep breathing and not having to pay much attention to anything, than the matter is solved. As long as the rogue stays hidden long enough, he should be able to get his act together.

Of course, some might say that the rogue is gonna feel the tension until he knows nobody is looking for him anymore. Others might argue that he is adventurer, not an average person, and should be able to relieve the tension more easily.

So, as I said, they'll have to address some issues. If they don't, my group and I will have to talk this stuff out. But, if they really have become as competent as they want us to believe:smallbiggrin: , that shouldn't be a problem.

nagora
2007-08-27, 12:43 PM
Isn't that problem what the Tome of Battle-style "Alternate Ways to Regain Maneuvers" fixes? Honestly I see both per-day and per-encounter as equally abstract, and both work, but I prefer per-encounter because it allows you to run more than four encounters in a day, if you so choose, and only running four encounters in a day, every day, is silly.

It is, but it has little to do with the per encounter/per day argument. If the DM wants to run more than 4 encounters per day then either s/he can reduce the danger level of each, or s/he can just let the players know that they're going somewhere more dangerous than usual (or, better still, they should make it their business to find out without being spoon-fed); it's up to them to decide how to handle it, if at all.


Also, "per encounter" is just a crude way of saying "That takes a lot of energy and I can only do it every five minutes or so."

There are few things in life which are strenuous enough that putting a limit on the number of performances makes sense and at the same time 5 minutes is enough to recover from. It's just silly.

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 12:46 PM
No it isn't. There are few things more stupid and arbitrary as "per encounter day".

Let's go back to when you thought the trolls following meant that the encounter was ongoing - which might be the case if the trolls are careful to keep harrying the PCs. In that case we have this situation:

"I think I see one of the trolls a door! Quick, do your Slapenhowitzer move cast Open and kill open it!"

"Sorry, I did that earlier in the encounter day."

"What?! But that was ages ago! Yesterday you slaughtered four Ogre Magi cast Knock four times in an hour."

"Yeah, but you see, we met the Ogres separately I prepared it four times yesterday. These same trolls have been trailing us together Today I prepared it once. So I cancould only Slapenhowitzer open one of them. Unless you can get them to reduce their threat level mind waiting for at least five minutes 24 hours I have to pretend I'm tired."

Whereas "per day encounter" is simply a crude way of saying "that takes a lot of energy concentration and you can't keep doing it over and over."

Some realism is sacrificed for some ease of use. Not a terrible thing, as Rex Blunder would say.

There... that's what I meant. :smallwink:

Fax Celestis
2007-08-27, 12:50 PM
I don't think so. Perhaps I misunderstand you.

Let me just get something straight: you're perfectly for an ability being usable an arbitrary number of times per day? And are in favor of such even when offered the ability to more realistically represent how people really are?

That is to say, "per-day" mechanics are an entirely arbitrary designation. "Defensive Roll 2/day", for instance, has always driven me nuts. Why can I only dodge twice a day? It's not like I can't do it again if I tried. I may require a bit of rest to be able to work up the strength to do it again, but not eight hours of it. More like fifteen minutes.

...which, incidentally, is exactly how per-encounter works.

For instance, a rogue's internal monologue under per encounter might be: "Dodge! God, that's tiring. Dodge again! Okay, I need to take this guy out quick, because I'm running out of steam. Stab. Victory. Let me rest for a few minutes so I can get back out there."

Meanwhile, under a per-day system, it'd be closer to: "Dodge! God, that's tiring. Dodge again! Okay, I need to take this guy out quick, because I'm running out of steam. Stab. Victory. Let me rest for eight hours so we can continue on."

I've underlined the important bits.

Let's compare this to sports players. Perhaps a basketball player. A basketball player has a limited repertoire of moves at his disposal. Using each tires him somewhat, but he is effectively capable of using all of them however often he desires. However, after a while, the moves he has stop being effective because his opponent learns how to defend against them and/or he runs out of energy. At this point, he is called back to the bench to rest for a few minutes before going back in, at which point his abilities will become more effective again, since his opponents had to adapt to a different player's style in the interim.

This is remarkably similar to how a per-encounter mechanic works: you are capable of using your abilities as often as you please, but they will fatigue you. Once you are given a moment to catch your breath, you are good to go again and are capable of using all those tricks at your disposal once more.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 12:51 PM
There are few things in life which are strenuous enough that putting a limit on the number of performances makes sense and at the same time 5 minutes is enough to recover from. It's just silly.

And there are also few things in life which are strenuous enough that you can only do them once a day, yet which can be completed in under six seconds.

nagora
2007-08-27, 12:51 PM
There... that's what I meant. :smallwink:

Ah, right. You meant a totally different situation with different rules covering it, and different mechanics and player options, would be totally different. Okay. I agree. *shrugs*

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 12:52 PM
If I'm a wizard and I know I have a certain amount of magic available today, I'm going to try and estimate how much I need to use in each fight. Of course, some characters may be more reckless than others, and that sort of thing should be roleplayed; but even a reckless wizard is unlikely to blow a 9th-level spell to kill three orcs, and even the stingiest wizard will use a spell when the alternative is death.


If you are roleplaying that type of wizard, that's totally fine, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Then again, you might be roleplaying the wide-eyed and crazy pyromaniac wizard who throws a fireball at the direction of anything he makes a spot check against.

If you are trying to conserve your spells, YOU should be the one who picks and chooses how much they are going to conserve. Asking the DM "Hey, how many encounters are we going to have today?" should never be an option.

And though I agree that in a combat-heavy or a resources-tight setting throwing a 9th level spell at 3 orcs would be pretty silly, I think that if a wizard used a 9th level spell as his "signature spell" he might just do that.



Exactly where the "Tough" line lies depends on a lot of things, but the objective should be to put it someplace where the wizard always has what most gamers would consider fun and useful options, without making the class overpowered. Plinking away with a crossbow is not a fun or useful option once you get past level 3 or 4.

So in your opinion, where is that line? As I said above, in my opinion if the wizard just wants to feel like he is being all magicy and stuff, giving him a spell-like ability that functions exactly like firing a crossbow would not be a problem at all to me if I was a DM and it was campaign/setting-appropriate.

The only advantages he is getting is that he doesn't have to purchase a crossbow or bolts, and he doesn't have to have bolts to use the ability. But then he'd also suffer the restrictions of things that are resistant to magic might resist his spell-like-ability, and in AMF zones it wouldn't work, etc. To me it all balances out.



So, as I said, they'll have to address some issues. If they don't, my group and I will have to talk this stuff out. But, if they really have become as competent as they want us to believe , that shouldn't be a problem.


Yeah, that's what I am hoping for too.

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 12:53 PM
Ah, right. You meant a totally different situation with different rules covering it, and different mechanics and player options, would be totally different. Okay. I agree. *shrugs*

No, puddin, what I meant was what you said sounds remarkably similar to the usual argument people use to say that prepared spells is stupid. However, there seems to be some failure in communication between us, and I apologize for confusing you.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-27, 12:55 PM
It's just silly.

It's all silly. It's just about picking which silly you prefer, and I prefer per-encounter silliness.

TheOOB
2007-08-27, 12:56 PM
Whats wrong with "per encounter"? From a game design and flavor standpoint it make perfect sense. From a game design standpoint it's basically you get this ability back when the DM wants you to get it back, which gives the DM a way to control how much power their spellcasters are getting. In a flavor standpoint it mostly means that you need a chance to catch your breath for a moment before you can do it again. Casting magic is difficult, and it stands to reason that you need a bit of time to focus and gather magical energy before you can repeat spells you allready used.

I myself had some time to talk to one of the designers for 4e, and here is what I found out.

Balancing out spellcastings is a major concern, not just by making other classes more powerful, but by requiring the casters to make serious choices about what kinds of abilities they have rather then being able to completely change their class every day. Also he explicitly said that wizards where for battlefield control, and that they will have several ways of controlling the battlefield. When asked how much direct damage would factor into this he talked about how damage is only one of the many ways a wizard will control the battlefield.

Classes, including PrCs are following a more regulated design pattern to help keep one class from getting more powerful then all the others. While prestige classes will probably still be a little more powerful then base classes, a character with a PrC shouldn't be directly better then one without. Also it was mentioned that you should never have to give up an important character resource (such as caster level) to take a PrC).

The game is roughly divided up into levels 1-10(the heroic levels), 11-20(the paragon levels), and 21-30(the epic levels). Prestige classes will likely be primarily available around level 10 for all characters(and they encourage you to take one), and a new set of epic PrCs will be avaible around level 20, so characters should be getting their new classes at around the same time.

They still are not entirely sure what the bard is going to do, though they have no plans on cutting it. It may be that it will still be the class that does not fulfill any of the four party roles and it a "5th member", despite the emphasis on party roles 4e will have.

The D&D insider gametable will allow DMs to fudge rolls.

Designing high level NPCs (and to a lesser extent characters) should not be all that much more difficult then designing low level characters. Instead of gaining progressivly more and more abilities as they level, characters gain more powerful abilities that more or less replace low level abilities, meaning that choosing all but the higher level abilities of that villan is pointless unless they will be a major character.

No more LA

Matthew
2007-08-27, 12:58 PM
*Snip*

Good explanation that. I particularly like the idea of an enemy becoming wary of Maneouvres he has seen you use before. Doesn't really apply to Spell like effects, but it's good as far as it goes.


The argument that "it is boring if I decide to not cast a spell and thus I have to plunk away with a crossbow" is an odd one to me. If 4e gives wizard an at will spell that replicates the effects of a crossbow (say as an example, an energy blast ability that is a ranged attack that deals 1d8 damage on a successful hit), would that then make the wizard less boring? If so, then that's no problem, simply give wizards that ability. It will be slightly overpowered at 1st level, but by level 2 or 3 in 3.5 terms it is completely balanced out.

Hah, hah. That's a really good point and yet it cuts both ways.

Nota Biene
2007-08-27, 12:58 PM
People who were discussing wizards getting spells that move from per day to per encounter to at will: WOTC has said that wizards will not have to worry about being totally out of magic, but nevertheless may "run out of their Mordenkainen's Sword." In addition, they did say somewhere, I am almost positive, that some abilities will be per day, some per encounter, and some at will.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 01:00 PM
So in your opinion, where is that line? As I said above, in my opinion if the wizard just wants to feel like he is being all magicy and stuff, giving him a spell-like ability that functions exactly like firing a crossbow would not be a problem at all to me if I was a DM and it was campaign/setting-appropriate.

Based roughly on 3E as it stands, I'd say combat spells 3 levels below your current maximum should be at will, and 2 levels below your max should be replenished each encounter. So a 9th-level wizard would start every encounter with a few fireballs, and could cast acid arrow all day long.

Obviously this is just a very rough estimate and would require a lot of tweaking (particularly where long-duration spells are concerned), and casters would have to be seriously nerfed to make up for the extra firepower.

Aximili
2007-08-27, 01:05 PM
Let me fix that or you.
First, assuming the trolls have been reaching them every few minutes:

"I think I see one of the trolls! Quick, do your Slapenhowitzer move and kill it!"

"Sorry, I did that earlier in the encounter[B]I'm too tired, I'm not gonna pull it off again."

"What?! But that was agesan hour ago! Yesterday you slaughtered four Ogre Magi in an hour."

"Yeah, but you see, we met the Ogres separately we all had time to rest a little. These same trolls have been trailing us together . We haven't stopped running for almost an hour. So I can only can't Slapenhowitzer one of them in this state. Unless you can get them to reduce their threat level for at least five minutes I have to pretend I'm tired so that we can at least stop running, I'll have to stick with the basic attack routines."


Second, assuming the trolls only reach them once every hour:


"I think I see one of the trolls! Quick, do your Slapenhowitzer move and kill it!"

"Sorry, I did that earlier in the encounter[B]Sure, but don't expect me to do it twice in a row."

"But Yesterday you slaughtered four Ogre Magi in an hour."

"Yeah, but you see, we met the Ogres separately. Do you get more tired based on the number of times you do something tiresome or the frequency you do it?"

"Yeah, that makes sense."

I don't see why he couldn't perform it once against the trolls. If they are reached only every hour or so, they have time to walk and catch their breath. Eventhough the enemy is the same, it is a diferent encounter (as much as the suspense lingers on, a full troll-free hour (without running) should be enough time to relieve the tension).

psychoticbarber
2007-08-27, 01:05 PM
It's also important to figure what "at will" in combat really means.

What's the longest combat, in rounds, that you've ever been in?

Longest one I can think of was about 12-15 rounds, and that included 3-4 rounds of cleanup.

I once ran a sorcerer who had a Ring of Wizardry I (whether or not this is RAW, we ruled it gave him twice as many 1st level spells), which allowed him to cast 12 level 1 spells/day. Essentially for one long encounter he was "at will" with magic missile.

Rex Blunder
2007-08-27, 01:08 PM
What I'm curious about is healing spells. If there are any per-encounter (or per-five minutes) healing spells, then most parties can totally heal up between the majority of encounters. It makes a big difference to the game whether or not hit points are a per-encounter or per-day resource.

That said, just because the 4e developers haven't mentioned this issue doesn't mean they haven't put some reasonably intelligent thought into it.

Edit:

Essentially for one long encounter he was "at will" with magic missile.
That doesn't sound too different from a wand of magic missiles, a relatively cheap item - and not that game-breaking.

nagora
2007-08-27, 01:08 PM
Let me just get something straight: you're perfectly for an ability being usable an arbitrary number of times per day?

As a reality Vs game balance issue, I find it acceptable.


And are in favor of such even when offered the ability to more realistically represent how people really are?

I'm not aware of that being offered as an alternative. A totally silly and unrealistic system (per encounter) has been put forward. I thought that was what we were talking about.


That is to say, "per-day" mechanics are an entirely arbitrary designation.

Are they?


"Defensive Roll 2/day", for instance, has always driven me nuts. Why can I only dodge twice a day?

Maybe you can only do it successfully up to twice a day; as you get better you'll be able to pull it off more. Rather than bog things down with all the failed rolls, the game allows you to pick the times when you want to try hardest to get it right. Once you've tried hard twice in one day we can assume the others fail and not bother rolling.


It's not like I can't do it again if I tried. I may require a bit of rest to be able to work up the strength to do it again, but not eight hours of it. More like fifteen minutes.

This is true but if you need rest, in what way does someone unexpectedly attacking you make up for the lack of that rest?


...which, incidentally, is exactly how per-encounter works.

Which is why it's stupid.


For instance, a rogue's internal monologue under per encounter might be: "Dodge! God, that's tiring. Dodge again! Okay, I need to take this guy out quick, because I'm running out of steam. Stab. Victory. Let me rest for a few minutes so I can get back out there."

Much of the thief's rouge's dodging is in their AC and hit points; Dodge is an extra superhuman effort afforded to him/her through additional special training. Ordinary dodging is in fact something they do with every attack against them - "per blow" as it were.


Meanwhile, under a per-day system, it'd be closer to: "Dodge! God, that's tiring. Dodge again! Okay, I need to take this guy out quick, because I'm running out of steam. Stab. Victory. Let me rest for eight hours so we can continue on."

Well, if s/he feels s/he can't possibly risk going on until well rested then that's his/her choice.


Let's compare this to sports players. Perhaps a basketball player.*snip*

Ask any professional sports person to play at the top of their game twice in a single day and see what sort of look they give you. It's true that D&D is not a perfect simulator, but it's good enough in this case. Per encounter would give an appearance of more reality in the short-term (one day), but would actually end up with characters far fitter than your basketball player over longer runs of a week or so. Playing top-class basketball against your equals every day for a week would cripple most teams with injuries and simple fatigue if they had to field the same team every time.


This is remarkably similar to how a per-encounter mechanic works: you are capable of using your abilities as often as you please, but they will fatigue you. Once you are given a moment to catch your breath, you are good to go again and are capable of using all those tricks at your disposal once more.

A "moment" is far too fast to regain the level of ability represented by most of these abilities.

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 01:13 PM
For instance, a rogue's internal monologue under per encounter might be: "Dodge! God, that's tiring. Dodge again! Okay, I need to take this guy out quick, because I'm running out of steam. Stab. Victory. Let me rest for a few minutes so I can get back out there."

Meanwhile, under a per-day system, it'd be closer to: "Dodge! God, that's tiring. Dodge again! Okay, I need to take this guy out quick, because I'm running out of steam. Stab. Victory. Let me rest for eight hours so we can continue on."


This is what drives me bananas. I understand both of these, but I think a lot of people don't look at the underlying cause. If the game is based around the fact that the rogue can only do this ability 2x/day, then the game assumes that there will be times when the rogue cannot use the ability.

So when the player of the rogue burns both of his "Dodge" abilities for the day and then informs the group that they should be resting because he no longer has the capability to dodge, he is trying to circumvent his vulnerabilities, which is bad gaming IMO. This forces the DM to come up with unrealistic reasons why a random encounter happens when the PCs are trying to rest. It would be the same type of bad gaming I would label someone who tries to take Flaw: Never Going to Come Up in Gameplay.

This was always my argument on psionics as well. Everyone seems to agree that when a psion goes nova, he is incredibly potent. Then they say things like "But the game is based around 4 encounters a day, so that psion will be useless in encounters 2, 3, and 4 if he novas in encounter 1." THEN they say things like "This is not fun, I'm useless in encounters 2, 3, and 4."

I guess to me the answer has always been "Well, duh." And I have never been motivated to try to, for the lack of a better word, idiot-proof the system.



Based roughly on 3E as it stands, I'd say combat spells 3 levels below your current maximum should be at will, and 2 levels below your max should be replenished each encounter. So a 9th-level wizard would start every encounter with a few fireballs, and could cast acid arrow all day long.


Hmm, that would be interesting to play-test (after the nerfs as you said of course).

Starbuck_II
2007-08-27, 01:15 PM
The odd thing is that the 4 enc per day rule is fine as a guideline for a starting DM (if a bit heavy for 1st level characters), but the fact is that a DM with any experience of their players simply shouldn't need any mechanic for balancing encounters. In fact, how can they, really? If Joe plays a 9th level Wizard but is really crap at managing his spell choices and forgets to rebuy material components then what system can possibly judge the level of encounter to throw at a group with him in it other than his DM?

There are too many examples where "should" or "try this and adjust for your group" are handed down as fiat instead.

Did he forget a spell pouch: it makes infinite components that are not costly.

nagora
2007-08-27, 01:19 PM
Let me fix that or you.
First, assuming the trolls have been reaching them every few minutes:

And what if they're holed up in a cave with a barricade with the trolls mounting attacks every couple of minutes. The Slapenhowitzer PC has not now been "running for hours" (which was not in my original scenario anyway) yet, because it's one long encounter s/he can only use the ability once in the time s/he used it four times the day before. Why?

The MU sitting quietly at the back of the cave hoping the fighters can hold the barricade untill she regains her spells through rest and meditation makes far more sense than any of this "per encounter" drivel.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 01:22 PM
This is true but if you need rest, in what way does someone unexpectedly attacking you make up for the lack of that rest?

It doesn't. If you're attacked before you have a chance to get the full 15 minutes' rest (or 10, or 5, or whatever), your per-encounter abilities don't recharge.

At least, that's how I read what 4E is doing. And if WotC doesn't put in such a rule, it's the easiest thing in the world to house-rule it... which is not the case with per-day. Believe me, I've spent years trying to find good ways to house-rule the per-day mechanic out of existence.

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 01:23 PM
The MU sitting quietly at the back of the cave hoping the fighters can hold the barricade untill she regains her spells through rest and meditation makes far more sense than any of this "per encounter" drivel.

So the Swordsage sitting behind the fighter waiting for a full round to restore his maneuvers? But that's per encounter drivel! Oh noes! Per encounter could give you what you just said you want...

nagora
2007-08-27, 01:26 PM
So the Swordsage sitting behind the fighter waiting for a full round to restore his maneuvers? But that's per encounter drivel! Oh noes! Per encounter could give you what you just said you want...

In what way is waiting a round "per encounter"?

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 01:30 PM
In what way is waiting a round "per encounter"?

Your ignorance is showing a little... Tome of Battle characters, who exist for Per Encounter all have ways to recharge their per encounter abilities in combat. Swordsages can wait a full-round to restore a single maneuver.

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 01:30 PM
In what way is waiting a round "per encounter"?

From what I have been able to gather on here, the Tome of Battle classes are able to spend a full-round action taking a deep breath and regaining all of their 'per encounter' abilities that they couldn't use because they were too tired.

Aximili
2007-08-27, 01:31 PM
This is true but if you need rest, in what way does someone unexpectedly attacking you make up for the lack of that rest?
It doesn't, it's the time you had to rest before the attack that regains you your maneuvers. If you had really no time to rest, i.e. you were attack one or two rounds after you drop the last foe, than, indeed, your maneuvers will not be recovered.:smallwink:

The tome of battle, for instance, says you start combat with all your readied maneuvers. Later, however, it goes on to say that you need a full minute (or was it 5?) without attacking or being attack in order to be ready when the next encounter comes.


Ask any professional sports person to play at the top of their game twice in a single day and see what sort of look they give you.
Dude, professional sports people get exhausted after one or two games because games go from one and a half to over 5 hours.
Any d&d character who fights for that long should be rolling some serious exhaustion checks.

Actual combat encounters rarely take more than a minute. Now ask a tennis player how many times per day he can send his fastest, strongest, and most curved ball. He probably won't bother to answer, 'cause he can pull it off every other point. You see, every point (or maybe two or three) is a short encounter.

nagora
2007-08-27, 01:31 PM
It doesn't. If you're attacked before you have a chance to get the full 15 minutes' rest (or 10, or 5, or whatever), your per-encounter abilities don't recharge.

Then the rule is not "per encounter at all", and is actually just "per day" with "day" shortened to whatever period satisfies the munchkins. The obvous endpoint of that route is "per desire".


At least, that's how I read what 4E is doing. And if WotC doesn't put in such a rule, it's the easiest thing in the world to house-rule it... which is not the case with per-day. Believe me, I've spent years trying to find good ways to house-rule the per-day mechanic out of existence.

To no obvious utility, as far as I can see.

Grug
2007-08-27, 01:35 PM
Nagora seems to be confused on exactly what "Per encounter" is. After her (his?) example with the Orcs in Mordor, she has to understand that per encounter means whenever you get a bit of rest and aren't fighting. It's not that the sudden act of fighting (or running, or doding) gives your powers back, it's that they've come back on their own time.

Matthew
2007-08-27, 01:40 PM
Nagora is a "he" as can be observed by simply looking at his profile next to every post. :smallwink:

The problem I have with 'per encounter' is when Encounters meld into one another. As discrete entities they are a fine mechanic, but few of my Adventure Sites seem to work like that in practice. I would have a hard time drawing a line between some of them and I would have to be fairly arbitrary about how I did it.

That said, this is obviously simpler than a 'Count Down' mechanic, so I can see why they're doing it. It's not going to be suitable for my games, so I suspect I will be House Ruling on a 'Count Down' mechanic should I ever have the opportunity to run a 4e Adventure where it comes up.

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 01:41 PM
That said, this is obviously simpler than a 'Count Down' mechanic, so I can see why they're doing it. It's not going to be suitable for my games, so I suspect I will be House Ruling on a 'Count Down' mechanic should I ever have the opportunity to run a 4e Adventure where it comes up.

Why Matthew, with the online tabletop thingy, I'd be more than interested in playing in a 4e adventure if you desire to run one, I'm curious as to this uhh.. Dynamic Dungeon thingy.. or whatever, the name left my head and I don't feel like searching for it. :smallsigh:

nagora
2007-08-27, 01:46 PM
Nogora is a "he" as can be observed by simply looking at his profile next to every post. :smallwink:


I actually spent from late level 7 to early level 9 as a woman thanks to the old Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity trick.

Thankfully, that was before I got married.

Aximili
2007-08-27, 01:48 PM
And what if they're holed up in a cave with a barricade with the trolls mounting attacks every couple of minutes. The Slapenhowitzer PC has not now been "running for hours" (which was not in my original scenario anyway) yet, because it's one long encounter s/he can only use the ability once in the time s/he used it four times the day before. Why?Well, if the rules say that it takes 5 minutes of peace in order to regain your abilities, than there's your answer. Because he hasn't been able to stop and breath steady yet.

You are saying that it makes no sense that you can hit an opponent with all your strength 4 times with 15 minutes intervals, while only being able to do it once if you are under constant pressure.

Try running 100 meters as fast as you can. Than again 15 minutes later, and 2 more times after that.

The next day try it once, than run a little slower for a couple of minutes, have 1 minute of rest, and then try dashing 100 meters again. Tell me if you see a difference in your performance.

Better yet. Dash once, than run and walk in intervals of 2 minutes each for a total of 1 hour. After that, dash again. It's the same situation: you dashed 4 times in the same hour without much trouble, you should be able to make two good dashes 1 hour apart even though you've been doing something else for that hour, right?


The MU sitting quietly at the back of the cave hoping the fighters can hold the barricade untill she regains her spells through rest and meditation makes far more sense than any of this "per encounter" drivel.
¬¬If that makes sense to you, than what doesn't make sense about the warrior doing the same as the magic user? Only instead of hours of rest or meditation, he only needs a few minutes of rest.

nagora
2007-08-27, 01:54 PM
As an interesting aside:



Robilar brought the dead body of the fighter to Mordenkainen and dropped him at his feet. Mordenkainen smirked, for this summoned memories of a time in Greyhawk Castle where they'd fought an even tougher battle and barely survived. Robilar had guarded the mage for hours after Mordenkainen's spells had been exhausted, withstanding charge after charge of orcs and their ogre leaders. Robilar had piled their foes all about them until a hill of dead flesh existed and the remaining orcs had run away shrieking.

Aximili
2007-08-27, 01:55 PM
Then the rule is not "per encounter at all", and is actually just "per day" with "day" shortened to whatever period satisfies the munchkins.
Finally you get it!
Only, replace that last part with: ""day" shortened to an amount of time common to all classes, in order to make it easy to balance and enjoy, and in order to make all the numbers fit right."

And why is per day the less munchkin option?

nagora
2007-08-27, 02:03 PM
¬¬If that makes sense to you, than what doesn't make sense about the warrior doing the same as the magic user? Only instead of hours of rest or meditation, he only needs a few minutes of rest.

Well, firstly, the time difference is germane. As I said in a previous post, I see many of these abilities as being akin to a very fit athlete pulling out a special effort which comes close to their personal best. That rarely happens twice a day.

But, secondly, it seems that many here are reading the words "per encounter" as "per time period" - a totally different concept.

If this is actually what WotC are suggesting (and I know of no reason to think it is, in the face of the term they have used) then it's just a matter of taste what time period is chosen - a day, an hour whatever. There's no difference in substance and it is simply a case of bad nomenclature by WotC and I have no objection to it unless it further inflates the game towards PCs-as-superheroes.

Foolosophy
2007-08-27, 02:08 PM
nagora as long as you plan on outdoing yourself in trying to come up with the most ridiculous definitions of "encounter" Ithink it's best to just ignore your opinion on "per encounter"-mechanics altogether...


edit: since some more posts appeared after I clicked on the reply button: the same goes for arguing nomenclature...if you refuse to acknowledge the "per encounter" concept used in ToB and the Factotum in Dungeonscape my conclusion applies aswell...

nagora
2007-08-27, 02:09 PM
nagora as long as you plan on outdoing yourself in trying to come up with the most ridiculous definitions of "encounter" Ithink it's best to just ignore your opinion on "per encounter"-mechanics altogether...

And your definition is...?

Reinboom
2007-08-27, 02:10 PM
Well, firstly, the time difference is germane. As I said in a previous post, I see many of these abilities as being akin to a very fit athlete pulling out a special effort which comes close to their personal best. That rarely happens twice a day.

The athletes aren't doing their 'best' more often under this system... mind the main batch of information for this system is that wizards will still "run out of their mordenkainen's sword".
A professional athlete can be exhausted and not do their best for the day, sure. They are still an athlete however - they can still throw the ball, dribble down the court, and perform as a subpar player overall - but still perform as a player and still be better than the untrained.

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 02:12 PM
And your definition is...?

en·coun·ter (ěn-koun'tər) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A meeting, especially one that is unplanned, unexpected, or brief: a chance encounter in the park.
2. a. A hostile or adversarial confrontation; a contest: a tense naval encounter.
b. An often violent meeting; a clash.


Personally though, I'd say if you can't take 20, you're probably in an encounter.

Foolosophy
2007-08-27, 02:13 PM
And your definition is...?

see ToB for my definition of "per encounter"-abilities as opposed to the DM planning term "encounter" used to help structure campaigns under the 3.5 ruleset. Your Ogre (Magi= example was pure bull and, in my not very humbe opinion, carefully constructed to find a way to criticise something that you haven't understood, yet. (Not that anyone can accurately tell how it is going to be, but others have been so sensible to look at past clues such as the Factotum or ToB)

Starsinger has dug up a nice definition.

Matthew
2007-08-27, 02:15 PM
Why Matthew, with the online tabletop thingy, I'd be more than interested in playing in a 4e adventure if you desire to run one, I'm curious as to this uhh.. Dynamic Dungeon thingy.. or whatever, the name left my head and I don't feel like searching for it. :smallsigh:

I have to admit, I have never run an Online Game, all my experience as a Dungeon Master and Player has been face to face. I don't know whether I will be subscribing to Wizards (somehow, I doubt it, but you never know), but I would certainly be happy to have you as a Player if I do get the opportunity.
Incidently, I have been considering starting a Recruitment Thread for an AD&D Game in a couple of months (too many work commitments at the moment), which would probably feature a 'Dynamic Adventure Site' (a term I have only had to adopt/coin today after reading that article, having never really ran an Adventure Site with Discrete Encounters). If you'd be interested in joining that, I'll PM you when the Recruitment Thread goes up (all things going to plan).


I actually spent from late level 7 to early level 9 as a woman thanks to the old Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity trick.

Thankfully, that was before I got married.

Hmmn, I never really considered the potential of that Girdle for Gender Adventures until you just put the thought into my head.

nagora
2007-08-27, 02:17 PM
The athletes aren't doing their 'best' more often under this system... mind the main batch of information for this system is that wizards will still "run out of their mordenkainen's sword".
A professional athlete can be exhausted and not do their best for the day, sure. They are still an athlete however - they can still throw the ball, dribble down the court, and perform as a subpar player overall - but still perform as a player and still be better than the untrained.

Absolutely. Just as the thief rogue who has used her Dodges up will still probably have more hit points and a better armour class than a normal person and be able to do many things they can't. She will simply not be quite able to pull that extra special effort out of the bag again for a while.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-27, 02:19 PM
Absolutely. Just as the thief rogue who has used her Dodges up will still probably have more hit points and a better armour class than a normal person and be able to do many things they can't. She will simply not be quite able to pull that extra special effort out of the bag again for a while.

And, pray tell, what is wrong with "for a while" being "fifteen minutes" instead of "tomorrow"?

nagora
2007-08-27, 02:20 PM
en·coun·ter (ěn-koun'tər) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A meeting, especially one that is unplanned, unexpected, or brief: a chance encounter in the park.
2. a. A hostile or adversarial confrontation; a contest: a tense naval encounter.
b. An often violent meeting; a clash.


Thanks for that - sense 2 is the one I'm using (although perhaps not so much the naval part).


Personally though, I'd say if you can't take 20, you're probably in an encounter.

A good rule of thumb.

Thinker
2007-08-27, 02:21 PM
Well, firstly, the time difference is germane. As I said in a previous post, I see many of these abilities as being akin to a very fit athlete pulling out a special effort which comes close to their personal best. That rarely happens twice a day.


They're called double headers in baseball. In track and field meets many athletes participate in multiple events in the same day. Unfortunately comparing them to professional athletes is a bit troubling when you consider that many of their activities span for several hours instead of the minute to minute and a half of combat.

hamlet
2007-08-27, 02:23 PM
In fact, the treasure of useful DMing ideas that was the 1e DMG does have a chart for encounters per day by terrain for outdoor travel. It is accompanied by instructions that it is to be ignored in areas where the DM has actually placed the local population (ie, its for "wandering monsters" only), and that the DM should mix it up a bit to "avoid player reliance on information which they should not be privy to".

The number of these random encounters per day varied from 3 to 6, and each was in fact only a chance of an encounter based on the distance from civilisation.

Point of order, that was actually a time of day check chart for randomly generated encounters (i.e., on your way to the dungeon (rolls dice) a group of goblins attacks you. they're obviously andits looking for coins) and not a chart on how many encounters per day the DM plans on when creating adventures.

Then, as it should have been now, the number of encounters per day faced by the PC's was not determined by some rule or nebulous "best fit" dictated by the books, but by the judgement of the DM and what he felt was best for the adventure and what his players could handle.

Some of the best adventures I can remember involved dozens of encounters per game day and, even though the wizard character cast his one and ONLY spell in the first round of the first encounter, he still managed to make meaningful and fun contributions to the 11 subsequent encounters till the party retreated for the night because the sun was setting, not because they were running out of stuff. (Honestly, I will never understand this "once the 1st level wizard casts his one and only spell for the day he's done for the day" meme that seems so popular, even among game designers. If you can't think of something for your character to do after he's used his magic, then you're a bad player.)

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 02:25 PM
And, pray tell, what is wrong with "for a while" being "fifteen minutes" instead of "tomorrow"?

But is that the question we should be asking? Changing from per-day to per-encounter changes the immediate issue of players not being able to use their abilities as often as they like. But, once again, why aren't we looking at the root. Why aren't we addressing "are the players being reasonable in wanting to use their abilities every encounter"?

Because I guarantee as soon as per-encounter abilities go in, you're going to have people that want twice per encounter abilities. Then 1/round abilities.

I'd rather just nip the issue in the bud.

nagora
2007-08-27, 02:26 PM
And, pray tell, what is wrong with "for a while" being "fifteen minutes" instead of "tomorrow"?

I discussed this above, but if the discussion is just about what time period to pick then there is wide latitude to select from and make a case for - for instance, what is wrong with "tomorrow" instead of "fifteen minutes"?

However, the goal posts have been moved - the "per encounter" idea has magically altered into "a set time period appropriate to the ability and circumstances in question" which is surely something no one could argue with.

Ah, the adaptability of language!

Starbuck_II
2007-08-27, 02:27 PM
From what I have been able to gather on here, the Tome of Battle classes are able to spend a full-round action taking a deep breath and regaining all of their 'per encounter' abilities that they couldn't use because they were too tired.

No, Swordsage recovers one with full round (unless has Adaptive Style feat). Warblade recovers 1 with single standard.

Crusader: he hopes to God they return (literally).\


Tormsskull:


Because I guarantee as soon as per-encounter abilities go in, you're going to have people that want twice per encounter abilities. Then 1/round abilities.

That is how per encounter works in T of B.
You can get your ability back, but how youi do it is determined by class.
Exception: if you are not a martial adept: you cannot get it back till encounter over.

Douglas
2007-08-27, 02:43 PM
However, the goal posts have been moved - the "per encounter" idea has magically altered into "a set time period appropriate to the ability and circumstances in question" which is surely something no one could argue with.
No, it hasn't "magically altered", we've just used the exact definition provided in Tome of Battle, which is almost certainly at least very close to the definition that will be used in 4E. From page 40 of ToB:

End of the Encounter: When an encounter ends, a martial adept automatically recovers all expended maneuvers. Even a few moments out of combat is sufficient to refresh all maneuvers expended in the previous battle. In the case of a long, drawn-out series of fights, or if an adept is out of combat entirely, assume that if a character makes no attacks of any kind, initiates no new maneuvers, and is not targeted by any enemy attacks for 1 full minute, he can recover all expended maneuvers. If a character can't avoid attacking or being attacked for 1 minute, he can't automatically recover his maneuvers and must use special actions to do so instead.

Each of the martial adept classes also has an alternative way to regain maneuvers in combat, generally at the expense of taking some time to concentrate on that rather than fighting.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 02:47 PM
I discussed this above, but if the discussion is just about what time period to pick then there is wide latitude to select from and make a case for - for instance, what is wrong with "tomorrow" instead of "fifteen minutes"?

Because:

1) It's much more disruptive to the storyline for the PCs to have to stop and rest an entire day.
2) It creates balance issues when the DM wants more or less than the Recommended Daily Allowance of encounters.


However, the goal posts have been moved - the "per encounter" idea has magically altered into "a set time period appropriate to the ability and circumstances in question" which is surely something no one could argue with.

Ah, the adaptability of language!

As far as I can tell, for those of us arguing the per-encounter side, that's where the goal posts were from the beginning. I said as much back on page 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3101574#post3101574).

nagora
2007-08-27, 02:58 PM
No, it hasn't "magically altered", we've just used the exact definition provided in Tome of Battle, which is almost certainly at least very close to the definition that will be used in 4E. From page 40 of ToB:

Each of the martial adept classes also has an alternative way to regain maneuvers in combat, generally at the expense of taking some time to concentrate on that rather than fighting.

So, basically "per encounter" is actually "as often as one desires" for all practical purposes.

Silly me.:smallconfused:



As far as I can tell, for those of us arguing the per-encounter side, that's where the goal posts were from the beginning. I said as much back on page 2.

Back on page two you made an observation about "most of the per-encounter systems I've seen". I didn't realise you were making a canonical description of the 4e system. Silly me again.

So, in short, the objection to "per day" really boils down to "my character can't do leet stuff often enough, let's change it to 'at will'. Hey girls, look at the size of my numbers!".

We don't know how the rule will actually pan out in the end, but if that is the case then the game will have degenerated even further from the mess that is 3e.

The problem with combat is that hit points and casters have been greatly increased over 1ed and 2ed. Only casters can really deal out the levels of damage needed for high level encounters and the other classes become overshadowed.

Well, the solution is not to increase the fighters and strain the system even further. Nor is it to make combat even more complex and number bound. Reel in the casters, cut back on the hit points, and stop trying to create superheroes out of guys with swords.

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 03:03 PM
No, Swordsage recovers one with full round (unless has Adaptive Style feat). Warblade recovers 1 with single standard.


I guess I'm just kind of curious then how 4e is going to rationalize this. If they say "Using a per-encounter ability is tiring, so you can only do it 1x/encounter unless you spend a standard action to no longer be tired" then I think its going to open a whole can of worms.



So, basically "per encounter" is actually "as often as one desires" for all practical purposes.


Yeah, that's what scares me.

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 03:04 PM
Well, the solution is not to increase the fighters and strain the system even further. Nor is it to make combat even more complex and number bound. Reel in the casters, cut back on the hit points, and stop trying to create superheroes out of guys with swords.

You do know that this is Dungeons and Dragons right? An epic fantasy game about groups of Heroes who run around and fight evil monsters, save the world, stuff like that. This is not Swords and Plowshares, a game about a group of peasants who defend their farm from a rabid wolf and shear sheep to make home made blankets... Why should everyone be so mundane in an epic fantasy game?

nagora
2007-08-27, 03:05 PM
Because:

1) It's much more disruptive to the storyline for the PCs to have to stop and rest an entire day.

What you need there is a new DM.


2) It creates balance issues when the DM wants more or less than the Recommended Daily Allowance of encounters.

See above.

Foolosophy
2007-08-27, 03:06 PM
stop trying to create superheroes out of guys with swords.

because, as we all know, d&d has always been about recreating realistic medieval interaction and warfare

edit: nagora, please stop using "you're doing it wrong" as a retort to everything

psychoticbarber
2007-08-27, 03:08 PM
Well, the solution is not to increase the fighters and strain the system even further. Nor is it to make combat even more complex and number bound. Reel in the casters, cut back on the hit points, and stop trying to create superheroes out of guys with swords.

My only problem with this is that I don't play D&D to play gritty characters. I can play them, and I have, but I prefer to do it in other systems. D&D has always been a bastion of ridiculous fantasy effects, and that's part of why I play it.

It's not as much fun, for me, to play a guy who can't do ridiculous things in the D&D ruleset. My favourite class is Bard, and what's sillier, a guy who can do impressive (yet ridiculous) things with a weapon, or a guy who sings to make you better at climbing a wall?

D&D is silly. Per-day mechanics are silly. Per-encounter mechanics are silly. As I've said before, it's all silly. And that's why I love it.

Douglas
2007-08-27, 03:09 PM
So, basically "per encounter" is actually "as often as one desires" for all practical purposes.
Out of combat, pretty much yes. In combat, once only unless you spend some of your oh-so-valuable combat actions to recover them. And we have no idea how much of the in combat recovery mechanism made it into 4E or how much it was altered.

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 03:11 PM
You do know that this is Dungeons and Dragons right? An epic fantasy game about groups of Heroes who run around and fight evil monsters, save the world, stuff like that.

See, this is actually really good. I always thought that some players viewed D&D in this way, but a lot of people seemed not to want to come out and say that they did.

When I learned to play D&D there was much less emphasis placed on the PCs as the world-saving heroes as there is in 3e, and I think that D&D is moving farther and farther away from the heroes by necessity/choice model to the heroes by divine mandate model.

So to some of us, we're still viewing adventurers in D&D, especially low-level ones, as essentially normal people who decided to be adventurers.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 03:13 PM
What you need there is a new DM.

What I need is a system that doesn't require the DM to maintain pressure on the PCs 24-7 during adventures.


See above.

So, DMs should always give out the Recommended Daily Allowance of encounters? Thought you were against that. Or are you saying that true DMs possess a Magic Balance Wand that fixes all such issues?

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 03:15 PM
So, DMs should always give out the Recommended Daily Allowance of encounters? Thought you were against that. Or are you saying that true DMs possess a Magic Balance Wand that fixes all such issues?

That's how it was back in the golden days of 1E you see, but us young whipper-snappers nowadays with our +3 magic weapons and base attack bonus wouldn't understand. :smallsigh:

nagora
2007-08-27, 03:18 PM
You do know that this is Dungeons and Dragons right? An epic fantasy game about groups of Heroes who run around and fight evil monsters, save the world, stuff like that. This is not Swords and Plowshares, a game about a group of peasants who defend their farm from a rabid wolf and shear sheep to make home made blankets... Why should everyone be so mundane in an epic fantasy game?

You do know this is Dungeons and Dragons, right? An epic fantasy game which used to work well and provide thousands of players a chance to be any one of many classes embarking on epic fantasy adventures wherein they would fight monsters, save the world, deal with demons and occassionally the gods themselves all without worrying that the 25th level Wizard would get all the fun and glory?

Nagora retired shortly after a prolonged adventure in the Abyss, where he and his comrades had been shipwrecked when Pazzuzu tricked us as we crossed the Sucking Pit itself in Moradin's Magical Airship. The resulting journey took us to the home of Fraz Urb'Luu where, despite many of our magical items falling prey to his home plane's disjunction field, were were able through cunning and force to play the lord of the plane off against Orcus the Fat. In the ensuing confusion, we slipped through a Gate and made it home in time to pack and make a run for it across the dimensions to another reality where we had long before prepared a bolt-hole should things on Greyhawk ever become too hot.

He lives there now, in a marble palace of moderate size, aged 72 with his wife, children, grandchildren and passes the time on their collection of Pinball tables stolen from an arcade in Denver Colorado and powered by a lightning quasi-elemental. He has not had to protect his lands from wolves nor made his own blanket since before he began adventuring at the age of 16. But, he could if he had to.

Sound mundane to you?

Fax Celestis
2007-08-27, 03:19 PM
See, this is actually really good. I always thought that some players viewed D&D in this way, but a lot of people seemed not to want to come out and say that they did.

When I learned to play D&D there was much less emphasis placed on the PCs as the world-saving heroes as there is in 3e, and I think that D&D is moving farther and farther away from the heroes by necessity/choice model to the heroes by divine mandate model.

So to some of us, we're still viewing adventurers in D&D, especially low-level ones, as essentially normal people who decided to be adventurers.

And, really, there's no reason you can't continue to play D&D in that way, even in 4th edition. You just level cap at 5th level or something, instead of 30.

Tiki Snakes
2007-08-27, 03:20 PM
{Scrubbed}

mudbunny
2007-08-27, 03:21 PM
See, this is actually really good. I always thought that some players viewed D&D in this way, but a lot of people seemed not to want to come out and say that they did.

When I learned to play D&D there was much less emphasis placed on the PCs as the world-saving heroes as there is in 3e, and I think that D&D is moving farther and farther away from the heroes by necessity/choice model to the heroes by divine mandate model.

So to some of us, we're still viewing adventurers in D&D, especially low-level ones, as essentially normal people who decided to be adventurers.

Why can't it be both?? The ideas aren't mutually exclusive. It is quite reasonable that one could go from one (normal people) to the other (heroes) over the course of a campaign/series of adventures.

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 03:21 PM
You do know this is Dungeons and Dragons, right? An epic fantasy game which used to work well and provide thousands of players a chance to be any one of many classes embarking on epic fantasy adventures wherein they would fight monsters, save the world, deal with demons and occassionally the gods themselves all without worrying that the 25th level Wizard would get all the fun and glory?

Nagora retired shortly after a prolonged adventure in the Abyss, where he and his comrades had been shipwrecked when Pazzuzu tricked us as we crossed the Sucking Pit itself in Moradin's Magical Airship. The resulting journey took us to the home of Fraz Urb'Luu where, despite many of our magical items falling prey to his home plane's disjunction field, were were able through cunning and force to play the lord of the plane off against Orcus the Fat. In the ensuing confusion, we slipped through a Gate and made it home in time to pack and make a run for it across the dimensions to another reality where we had long before prepared a bolt-hole should things on Greyhawk ever become too hot.

He lives there now, in a marble palace of moderate size, aged 72 with his wife, children, grandchildren and passes the time on their collection of Pinball tables stolen from an arcade in Denver Colorado and powered by a lightning quasi-elemental. He has not had to protect his lands from wolves nor made his own blanket since before he began adventuring at the age of 16. But, he could if he had to.

Sound mundane to you?

Sounds like batman or any other number of super heroes who don't shoot lasers from their face, etc. but are super heroes none-the-less. Outside of Forgotten Realms, people with multiple PC levels aren't "regular" humans anymore. You're super heroes, whether like super man or batman, you're not a normal person.

mudbunny
2007-08-27, 03:22 PM
You do know this is Dungeons and Dragons, right? An epic fantasy game which used to work well and provide thousands of players a chance to be any one of many classes embarking on epic fantasy adventures wherein they would fight monsters, save the world, deal with demons and occassionally the gods themselves all without worrying that the 25th level Wizard would get all the fun and glory?

Still does. If your 25th level wizard is stealing all the glory, you need to get a new DM, and a new player for the wizard who realizes that D&D is about fun for the whole group. Not just one player.

nagora
2007-08-27, 03:33 PM
Sounds like batman or any other number of super heroes who don't shoot lasers from their face, etc. but are super heroes none-the-less. Outside of Forgotten Realms, people with multiple PC levels aren't "regular" humans anymore. You're super heroes, whether like super man or batman, you're not a normal person.

The point is that 1ed was perfectly capable of providing very high fantasy at high levels. But if every iteration of the system inflates damage, inflates hit points, inflates power levels at every point, it eventually becomes impossible to play anything OTHER than superheroes.

We were superheroes - I never said we weren't or that high-level characters should not be. We did save the world once or twice. But the party was balanced even when the (12th level) magic user was with us, and we never had to face the question of how to make a scenario a challenge for a character who could Time Stop, because we were never going to make it to a level where we could use the spell. Combat was quick and simple while giving a feel for what was happening; the characters were dictated by the players, not by huge swaithes of numbers.

Regardless - constantly upping the power level each edition is not working and it's not going to suddenly start working by upping the power of fighters to match that of Wizards, which is really what we were talking about here.

Inflation makes millionaires out of everyone but somehow everyone still ends up poor.

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 03:39 PM
Why can't it be both?? The ideas aren't mutually exclusive. It is quite reasonable that one could go from one (normal people) to the other (heroes) over the course of a campaign/series of adventures.

It can, and should be, which is why it will be interesting to see how the desginers of 4e decide to do it. If 1st level fighters are able to use incredible per-encounter abilities though, then it moves them away further from normal people from the get go. Unless even regular people like blacksmiths, farmers, and tailors get per-encounter abilities also :smalleek:

I'm all for PCs starting off mundane and then gaining experience and becoming heroes, I just don't think they should start of as heroes out-of-the-box so to speak.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-27, 03:41 PM
Nagora, I totally understand and respect that opinion, but I can't agree. D&D (2nd Ed., at least, I'm too young to have played 1st Ed.) at low levels has characteristically been extremely dangerous and gritty, but that's not what I want. I usually start games around 9th level in 3.5 because one die-roll in the wrong direction could kill PCs (please don't tell me I'm "doing it wrong", I don't like to fudge dice anymore than necessary).

It's hard to be heroic and exciting when a 1st level party could be killed at any moment. I don't think we have to make everyone millionaires, but it would be nice if the first three or levels of D&D weren't living below the poverty line.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 03:45 PM
Regardless - constantly upping the power level each edition is not working and it's not going to suddenly start working by upping the power of fighters to match that of Wizards, which is really what we were talking about here.

When did we start talking about that? Last I heard, we were talking about per-day and per-encounter (or per-5-minute-recharge-time, if you prefer) mechanics.

Considering that the closest thing 3E has to a per-encounter wizard is the warlock, I'm not seeing the power inflation.

nagora
2007-08-27, 03:51 PM
Nagora, I totally understand and respect that opinion, but I can't agree. D&D (2nd Ed., at least, I'm too young to have played 1st Ed.) at low levels has characteristically been extremely dangerous and gritty, but that's not what I want. I usually start games around 9th level in 3.5 because one die-roll in the wrong direction could kill PCs (please don't tell me I'm "doing it wrong", I don't like to fudge dice anymore than necessary).

I'm not going to say that there's anything wrong with what you're doing in starting at 9th level. If that's what's good for you, then go for it. I would find it limiting but the point is that a system that lets me start as Nagora the Orphaned Boy with a sword and a few gold pieces, and you as PsychoticBarber the renowned beater of Ettins, is better than one which does not give me the option.


It's hard to be heroic and exciting when a 1st level party could be killed at any moment. I don't think we have to make everyone millionaires, but it would be nice if the first three or levels of D&D weren't living below the poverty line.

It helped when NPCs were mostly 0th level. It made the 1st levelers stand out more. But a few house rules on minimum hit points did help too.

I've never started a character or D&D party above 1st but it's fairly obvious that many experienced players remember their first few levels as dreadful (literally). I remember them as good times when encountering a pair of orcs was as likely to end up in a cautious conversation than in a fight. Kobolds, on the other hand, were cheerfully butchered, to use a phrase from Chainmail.

tainsouvra
2007-08-27, 03:53 PM
However, the goal posts have been moved - the "per encounter" idea has magically altered into "a set time period appropriate to the ability and circumstances in question" which is surely something no one could argue with.

Ah, the adaptability of language! Actually, they were using encounter mechanics as defined in a WotC rulebook that is currently available. What you perceive as "moving the goalposts" was actually them trying to explain what a D&D encounter is and what "per encounter" means in D&D. They didn't move the goalposts, you just didn't know where they were. Everyone who already knew what "per encounter" meant has been here wondering what you were doing, because your definition of the term has nothing to do with how D&D has been using it for a while now, and it's very clear that you keep trying to redefine the term in a way that will let you avoid admitting you made a mistake. It's exceptionally disingenuous for you to claim they are being inconsistent or deceitful just to get out of admitting that you didn't know how per-encounter mechanics work.

Once again, your way or your view is not automatically right while everyone else's is automatically wrong, and you are just as capable of misunderstanding D&D as any of the rest of us. Please stop pretending anything else is the case, it ruins perfectly-good discussions.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-27, 03:53 PM
I'm not going to say that there's anything wrong with what you're doing in starting at 9th level. If that's what's good for you, then go for it. I would find it limiting but the point is that a system that lets me start as Nagora the Orphaned Boy with a sword and a few gold pieces, and you as PsychoticBarber the renowned beater of Ettins, is better than one which does not give me the option.

I just haven't seen anything from Wizards that says this won't be the case. I don't think they're increasing the first level power much, just the manner in which spells are cast and regained. This would be a power increase, but only if the spells themselves aren't changed, and Wizards has already fessed up to the fact that the spells themselves are going to be nerfed.

nagora
2007-08-27, 03:58 PM
When did we start talking about that? Last I heard, we were talking about per-day and per-encounter (or per-5-minute-recharge-time, if you prefer) mechanics.
.

Well, the charitable interpretation of the quote at the start of this thread is that WotC are looking to "per encounter" abilities to boost the fighter as per ToB. I suppose that it's possible that they only want to boost the spell-casters, or simply maintain the current "balance" between the two.

tainsouvra
2007-08-27, 04:01 PM
Well, the charitable interpretation of the quote at the start of this thread is that WotC are looking to "per encounter" abilities to boost the fighter as per ToB. I suppose that it's possible that they only want to boost the spell-casters, or simply maintain the current "balance" between the two. Or they're using per-encounter abilities to nerf spellcasters on the big scale without making them useless at any given encounter, which is a conclusion directly supported by the quotes you're referencing.

Roland St. Jude
2007-08-27, 04:08 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread has been teetering on the line between acceptable discussion and flaming for several pages now. Please try to treat each other with a bit more respect. Thanks.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-27, 04:10 PM
I'm all for PCs starting off mundane and then gaining experience and becoming heroes, I just don't think they should start of as heroes out-of-the-box so to speak.I think you may be overestimating the potency of a lot of these abilities. I was frustrated initially, too, when I approached it from the angle of "This is an ability that is (supposedly) balanced on a per-day basis, now available basically at will." After seeing the material, this changed to "This is an ability that is more or less at will, with an extra restriction or three." Really, the closest pre-ToB analogue for per-encounter abilities is not spellcasting -- it's a breath weapon. Usable at will, but not spammable every round. Also not notoriously powerful, in most cases. Taken further, it's Eldritch Blast with a slight beef-up and a timer on it.

If switching to a per-encounter method were actually so simple as "You know that stuff you did daily? Yeah, you can do all of that once per fight," it would be completely ridiculous. What has actually happened has been that weaker abilities have been granted with greater frequency -- it's a trade off that makes plenty of sense. A brief illustration... The 5th level Tiger Claw maneuver "Dancing Mongoose" allows an additional attack with each weapon you're holding for a single round. It's comparable to Haste, except that it doesn't grant speed, AC, or Reflex bonuses, applies to a single person (specifically, you), and lasts a single round. Higher level ability, more frequent use, less oomph. In the same vein, the only Save or Die in the book is a ninth level; in the SRD, Phantasmal Killer is 4th, and Slay Living is 5th. That's not the sort of thing that screams "Power Creep," nor does it scream "Superhero."

It's largely a matter of playability; the per-day system is often clunky, as Fax has pointed out, and it also leads to large spikes in character effectiveness, which is problematic for the DM. Having weaker abilities near-constantly available stabilizes gameplay so that the DM never has to watch a battle he spent a long time putting together get obliterated in one round of spellcasting. And finally, players like having nice things. Can you get by with just attacking? Certainly. But would it not be more interesting to have actual choices to make every now and again?

Then there's the issue of overall campaign flow. With per-day abilities, the group is very much encouraged to sack in for the night when the Wizard or Cleric is running out of gas, not when the group is actually in critical condition. Per-encounter abilities mean that when the group goes to bed, it's because they're bleeding and have been through hell.

I'm still not going to say that everything should be per-encounter -- recharging everything means the group can become an unstoppable killing machine that never rests. Luckily, the designers have confirmed that there will be per-day, per-encounter, and at-will abilities for all classes, which means that it will be possible to drive your group to the point of needing to sack in for the night; it will just be easier to prep encounters to get them to that point rather than being somewhat forced into the "~4 encounters of appropriate CR each day" model. For someone that would rather have a game of courtly intrigue and largely city-based brawling than a game of let's-go-raid-a-goblin-metropolis, that's a change I greatly appreciate.

nagora
2007-08-27, 04:17 PM
Actually, they were using encounter mechanics as defined in a WotC rulebook that is currently available.

Core book? In the absence of the book in question I foolishly fell back on reading the English words used - "Per encounter". Sorry. I have now consulted portions of it and understand that WotC means by "per encounter" is closer to "not more than once per round. Probably".


What you perceive as "moving the goalposts" was actually them trying to explain what a D&D encounter is and what "per encounter" means in D&D.

Actually doubt and uncertainty as to whether WotC meant that or not were expressed by several of the main posters.


They didn't move the goalposts, you just didn't know where they were.

Actually, until 4e comes out no one knows.


It's exceptionally disingenuous for you to claim they are being inconsistent or deceitful just to get out of admitting that you didn't know how per-encounter mechanics work.

I feel that they were inconsistant but not deceitful. In the course of the discussion doubt as to exactly what WotC meant hardened into a conviction that it will be the same as ToB. That may or may not yet be true.


Once again, your way or your view is not automatically right while everyone else's is automatically wrong, and you are just as capable of misunderstanding D&D as any of the rest of us. Please stop pretending anything else is the case, it ruins perfectly-good discussions.

Well this was a perfectly good discussion, actually. The purpose of discussion is to persuade and inform, is it not? I have been persuaded that "per encounter" may not be anything more than a tinkering with "per day", and informed of how it is used in ToB. As I said, the change seems inflationary to me and the difference almost meaningless in terms of principle.

But I am aware that it is not the change I thought it was when I read the original quote.

In the flurry of posts I missed a particularly useful one from Starsinger, which prolonged my misunderstanding, I have to say.

We also covered the dangers of overly-rigid rules on encounters per day and several people voiced concerns about how hard it is to DM high-level wizards. What more do you want from a discussion?

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-27, 04:19 PM
And finally, players like having nice things. Can you get by with just attacking? Certainly. But would it not be more interesting to have actual choices to make every now and again?As an aside, this is what I like to call the Euchre Model of gameplay. Euchre's an amusing enough game, but the fact of the matter is that the deck is so small (24 cards, 4 players, 5 cards in a hand) that almost all of the strategy is contained in picking the trump suit. During actual gameplay, there's very frequently only one card that is both legal to play, and not stupid to play. That makes actual gameplay not terribly exciting. I'm not sure exactly where I'm ripping this quote from (Mike Mearls's or Monte Cook's livejournals, maybe?), but I'd rather not go with D&D over another system if it's described as "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours."

psychoticbarber
2007-08-27, 04:23 PM
As an aside, this is what I like to call the Euchre Model of gameplay. Euchre's an amusing enough game, but the fact of the matter is that the deck is so small (24 cards, 4 players, 5 cards in a hand) that almost all of the strategy is contained in picking the trump suit. During actual gameplay, there's very frequently only one card that is both legal to play, and not stupid to play. That makes actual gameplay not terribly exciting. I'm not sure exactly where I'm ripping this quote from (Mike Mearls's or Monte Cook's livejournals, maybe?), but I'd rather not go with D&D over another system if it's described as "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours."

I love Euchre, but I love it because I can play it while hanging out with my friends. Now that I've played for about 10 years, I don't even have to think anymore.

Matthew
2007-08-27, 04:29 PM
Wow, this Thread is going round and round.

Anyway, I would just like to mention that 4e is apparently going to be emphasising grim and gritty adventuring at levels 1-10 (maybe higher).

nagora
2007-08-27, 04:29 PM
Or they're using per-encounter abilities to nerf spellcasters on the big scale without making them useless at any given encounter, which is a conclusion directly supported by the quotes you're referencing.

The only part that supports that is the stuff about saving or lose throws (stuff which is long overdue and a very welcome sign that something in 4e may actually be an improvement over 1e), but it's a long way from saying that they're nurfing spell casters on the big scale as a general principle.

Aximili
2007-08-27, 04:50 PM
Well, firstly, the time difference is germane. As I said in a previous post, I see many of these abilities as being akin to a very fit athlete pulling out a special effort which comes close to their personal best. That rarely happens twice a day. An athlete pulls out his personal best lots of times per day. Each game is the equivalent of loads od encounters. Each game is not equivalent to a special maneuver usable once per day.


But, secondly, it seems that many here are reading the words "per encounter" as "per time period" - a totally different concept."Per encounter" includes both the restrictions of "encounters" and "time periods".
It's how people read it, because it's how it's written in ToB.


(and I know of no reason to think it is, in the face of the term they have used)It is like that in ToB, which 4e has strong bases in. (it is not proof, of course, but it is a strong reason to think that way).

then it's just a matter of taste what time period is chosen - a day, an hour whatever. There's no difference in substance and it is simply a case of bad nomenclature by WotC and I have no objection to it unless it further inflates the game towards PCs-as-superheroes.
Actually, not a matter of taste, but a matter of math. The math inside the game goes way beyond most people imagine.
For players and DM, it's just a matter of comparing the right CRs, adding modifiers to rolls, ACs, and HPs values.

For the designers, however, it takes loads of planning. And the ammount of time it will take for each class' ability to recover goes right into that acccount. If they are X/day there is no way of perfectly predicting how much influence they'll have in combats.
If they are X/encounter, you can easily estimate how much each ability will help each character at each level against each monster. So, you now have a way of balancing everything on top of a each encounter separately, and not on top of a pile of 4 idealistic encounters.

Matthew
2007-08-27, 04:55 PM
Wait, wait... are we arguing that the designers actually do have a grasp of how the Maths should work? Because I haven't seen much evidence of that in 3e. It may be the case in 4e, as they are saying that they have succeeded in 'getting the Maths right', but we cannot possibly argue that for 3e. They admitted that it was pure chance that the Maths worked out at certain levels.

Moreover, the design teams are so mutable, that it really is only going to be the case that Mearls has a grasp of the Maths and the opportunity to apply it uniformly.

nagora
2007-08-27, 05:02 PM
An athlete pulls out his personal best lots of times per day.

Not here they don't! I was watching some athletics today and they made a big deal about a girl who made her personal best but were worried that she'd done it too early as it would be hard for her to match in the final later that day, what with being tired from such an effort.



Actually, not a matter of taste, but a matter of math. The math inside the game goes way beyond most people imagine.
...
For the designers, however, it takes loads of planning. And the ammount of time it will take for each class' ability to recover goes right into that acccount. If they are X/day there is no way of perfectly predicting how much influence they'll have in combats.
If they are X/encounter, you can easily estimate how much each ability will help each character at each level against each monster. So, you now have a way of balancing everything on top of a each encounter separately, and not on top of a pile of 4 idealistic encounters.

I think the extra effect of being able to use abilities more often will add up to a chaotic combination of possible options which will make balancing the game a nightmare for WotC. Complexity breads imblanance in all sorts of game.

tainsouvra
2007-08-27, 05:18 PM
I have now consulted portions of it and understand that WotC means by "per encounter" is closer to "not more than once per round. Probably". Per-encounter doesn't even imply "not more than once per round, probably", the strongest statement one who understood the rules could reasonably make is "once per encounter, except under limited and very tactically questionable conditions where you can do it a second time"...you don't need to exaggerate here. We know the rules already, you're not going to convince anyone that it works the way you're describing when the rules directly say otherwise.
As I said, the change seems inflationary to me and the difference almost meaningless in terms of principle. I'm not a fan of the per-encounter system, but it's far from meaningless in principle. It allows the game to be balanced based on a given encounter rather than a given day, which avoids some very common exploits of the per-day system and means that whether you fight once a day or eleven times a day the balance does not shift. From a design standpoint, that's huge.

On a bit of a tangent, I strongly suspect that we haven't seen the end of per-day mechanics. Based on statements in a previous thread, I'm of the opinion that there will be a mix of per-round, per-encounter, and per-day abilities in proportion to how strong the ability in question is supposed to be--to put it in terms of existing spells, which naturally isn't likely to be how it works, I believe we'll see something like "Meteor Swarm once per day, Fireball once per encounter, Ray of Frost once per round" as the balancing metric.
The only part that supports that is the stuff about saving or lose throws (stuff which is long overdue and a very welcome sign that something in 4e may actually be an improvement over 1e), but it's a long way from saying that they're nurfing spell casters on the big scale as a general principle. That's not the only part. A massive change to the way buffs work (mentioned in those quotes) has a profound effects on the benchmark CoDzilla powerhouse build.

If save-or-lose and buffs are both significantly nerfed (as stated), that leaves only non-buffing utility, summoning, and direct damage as even possibly staying the same. Other than infinite-gate-cheese, it sounds like they've already redesigned the most powerful tools in batman/codzilla's belt. This is, to put it lightly, a nontrivial adjustment to class balance--before we even consider a single change to nonspellcasters.
What more do you want from a discussion? A polite give-and-take in which others' opinions are treated as valid even when they differ from one's own. No more or less.

Beleriphon
2007-08-27, 05:26 PM
I think the extra effect of being able to use abilities more often will add up to a chaotic combination of possible options which will make balancing the game a nightmare for WotC. Complexity breads imblanance in all sorts of game.

You haven't seen Star Wars Saga have you? The way Force Powers work there seems to be the model of per encounter abilities. In effect Force Powers operate on the premise that you can use them once per encounter (barring certain other options), but to get them back you need at least one minute of quite contemplation to recharge your batteries. So blasting a guy with some Force mojo and then running like hell away from his hordes of faceless minions doesn't let you get that moment of rest needed to recharge your powers. I can forsee 4E working the same way. Without that moment of rest your used abilities are used, at least until you can charge them back up again.

Does this work the same way as narcoleptic wizards? Sure, but the time span is much shorter and it gives a way to better control any given encounter in the game from a DM perspective. If you know that the party is fighting the BBEG then you know exactly what they are brining to the table in that fight because if they take a minute or two of prepare themselves they have all of their abilities. The BBEG is of course in the same boat.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 05:26 PM
I think the extra effect of being able to use abilities more often will add up to a chaotic combination of possible options which will make balancing the game a nightmare for WotC. Complexity breads imblanance in all sorts of game.

What complexity?

Which is more complex, an ability which can be used once in every combat, or an ability which might be usable three times, one time, or no times in a combat depending on how many encounters the player is expecting and/or has already been through?

Per-encounter is easier to balance than per-day because it's predictable. If a 5th-level wizard gets one third-level spell per encounter, then you know that in any 5th-level encounter against a typical party, you can expect to face one third-level wizard spell. Compare that to a 3E 5th-level wizard, who with Int bonus and specialization is apt to have three third-level spells a day. How many of those spells will get used on this encounter? Who knows? If the party is confident in their ability to rest before they face any more opponents, you could expect two of those spells to come out and perhaps even all three (depending on how cagey the wizard is). If the party is expecting a tough fight later on, or if they've already been through a gruelling series of battles and burned up most of their resources, you might not see any third-level spells at all.

nagora
2007-08-27, 05:34 PM
What complexity?

Which is more complex, an ability which can be used once in every combat, or an ability which might be usable three times, one time, or no times in a combat depending on how many encounters the player is expecting and/or has already been through?

AN ability is not the issue. With abilities generally more common there will be more times when multiple ones are running and interacting. That's where I see the complexity arising.


Per-encounter is easier to balance than per-day because it's predictable. If a 5th-level wizard gets one third-level spell per encounter, then you know that in any 5th-level encounter against a typical party, you can expect to face one third-level wizard spell.

I don't think that's how it's going to work out somehow. Frankly, we don't know, and we doubly don't know about how the "per encounter" changes generally will apply to casters specificially.


Compare that to a 3E 5th-level wizard, who with Int bonus and specialization is apt to have three third-level spells a day. How many of those spells will get used on this encounter? Who knows?

But if wizards can recharge by sitting out for a round, what does anyone know about the total of things they will be able to cast in the new system?

nagora
2007-08-27, 05:49 PM
Per-encounter doesn't even imply "not more than once per round, probably", the strongest statement one who understood the rules could reasonably make is "once per encounter, except under limited and very tactically questionable conditions where you can do it a second time"...you don't need to exaggerate here. We know the rules already, you're not going to convince anyone that it works the way you're describing when the rules directly say otherwise.

Sorry, I missed this post.

As I understand it, the ToB rules basically mean that an ability can be used by a Martial Adept on any round at any point in an "encounter" after only a single round of stepping back from the action. This seems to me to "limit" the ability to any arbitrary set of rounds, but not normally consecutive ones. The difference between this and "every round" is slim to say the least. I assume there are ways to perform a given action on consecutive rounds too under some circumstances. I'd guess that that is the actual limit, but I'm not sure - hence "probably".

Perhaps I am confused, as I only glanced over a friend's copy and don't have it to hand. Is this not a basic outline of ToB ability usage?

Aximili
2007-08-27, 06:07 PM
Not here they don't! I was watching some athletics today and they made a big deal about a girl who made her personal best but were worried that she'd done it too early as it would be hard for her to match in the final later that day, what with being tired from such an effort.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
A professional athlete pulls out he's personal best shot lots of times per day. You can't compare an ability used x/day with an athletes performance along an entire game. On takes seconds, the other takes hours.
When they said that the girl made her personal best, they meant that she made her best shot/block/throw/whatever many times during the game. And those were 1/encounter abilities.



I think the extra effect of being able to use abilities more often will add up to a chaotic combination of possible options which will make balancing the game a nightmare for WotC. Complexity breads imbalance in all sorts of game.
I see your point, but the combination turns out to be many times more chaotic when both the variety and number of abilities left depend both on the previous encounters and the player's choices during these previous encounters.
And even more chaotic when you have to decide how much you should tune up that class that only has x/day abilities compared to the class that only has at will abilities (and we all know how they screwed up this one).

If you adopt the x/encounter abilities, you are making your life easier. That's because you can create each monster knowing that the PCs will be at around 80-100% of their fighting capacity (baring HP).
The PC will be able to combine abilities more frequently, but it's ok: because these combinations already existed with x/day abilities, only now you don't have to estimate whether they'll still have uses of these 2 abilities left at the beginning of the encounter, you know they will.

Shisumo
2007-08-27, 06:14 PM
It seems to me that per-encounter abilities will do much to equalize NPC/monster CRs (or whatever they are) with PC abilities - the DMG and MM make a big deal out of the difference between a PC who can access abilities all campaign long and a monster who will only be there for the next 3-8 combat rounds, but with an encounter-based model, there's no real difference between the two.

To me, that's all to the good...

Deepblue706
2007-08-27, 06:33 PM
I don't quite like the Per Day mechanic, but honestly, I think Per Encounter could get a little ridiculous. Of course, I have no idea of how they'll implement it, but I get all sorts of bad thoughts about how terrible it could be. I really have no faith in WotC, so I'm actually considering running a betting pool for "How many times I slap my forehead when reading the core rulebooks".

Really, I think there should be something like Fatigue Points, which are usable for numerous things, including abilities normally dubbed "Per Encounter / Per Day / Etc"...but then, I also think D&D should just be GURPS.

Ebberon has some Action Points, or somethin', right? Has anyone gotten word about that being thrown in? I think some abilities shouldn't be statically limited, but there has to be some restrictions, and I get this nagging feeling that 4ed won't have too many restrictions because it'll be "less fun".

nagora
2007-08-27, 06:40 PM
If you adopt the x/encounter abilities, you are making your life easier. That's because you can create each monster knowing that the PCs will be at around 80-100% of their fighting capacity (baring HP).
The PC will be able to combine abilities more frequently, but it's ok: because these combinations already existed with x/day abilities, only now you don't have to estimate whether they'll still have uses of these 2 abilities left at the beginning of the encounter, you know they will.

Isn't that going to make overall stories repetative? At the moment (in 1e - I don't DM 3ed) I set up a geographical areas with the plot running in it. There are NPCs and various monsters each with their own goals. No single encounter area is unbeatable by the group as it stands at the start, except the "boss" level. I assume that the players will find a way to deal with that after the game starts - I generally have no idea how they will go about doing it. They gradually work their way through the story while the various NPCs and monsters work their way though theirs. The encounters vary wildly and the distance into the danger area the PCs need to go increases so that they generally weaken as they near the resolution. Consequently they have combats and other interactions at wildly varying levels of health and danger. Sometimes they have to run, sometimes parley, sometimes make a desperate fight depending on their state. Occassionally, for example, a tribe of Orcs become something to worry about when normally they would sweep them aside.

But if everyone's always at 80-100% of health etc, where's the varity? That tribe of Orcs will always be a non-threat, every NPC group they find opposing them will always be the same sort of power level, as will every other encounter.

And with attrition automatically healed, the environment can no longer be part of the threat.

Of course it helps that 1ed teleport is much more limited and dangerous, so running home is rarely an option.

horseboy
2007-08-27, 06:57 PM
Well, I truly never understood this "4 encounters per day" business. It reminded me WAY too much of FF. You know, you walk three steps, have to kill something. Take 3 steps more have to kill something again. Get up to pee, come back, you're being attacked again. All I want to do is get somewhere and this crap won't leave me alone. I really hate that.

Since I started reading this thread and I've been trying really hard to think of a time when, in 12 years of playing non-D&D and we've had more than one "encounter." I can't remember. Granted, we loath and despise "Dungeon Crawls", so that might be the problem.

Balancing it to a per encounter and shifting it to not rely on "Dungeon" style play would really help the games playability.

Bassetking
2007-08-27, 08:02 PM
Ok. Running with the Athletic model...

A Gymnast performing a floor routine uses a 1/encounter ability "Double Backflip". It requires a 10' run to initiate, and its success is based off of a d20 + Dex mod.

That "Personal Best" they were discussing? Critical Success. She rolled a 20.

That period in-between her first floor exercise, and her second? That time in which she was consuming electrolytes, controlling her breathing to re-oxygenate her blood, and burning off the excess clouding adrenaline? That's the five minutes downtime between encounters.

She gets up, And then performs another floor routine, this time again, using her "Double Backflip" ability.

"Aha!" I can hear the rebuttal. "But there's only three set floor routines per Gymnast per competition! It's a per/day mechanic! Not Per encounter!"

Bet you twenty dollars that our little Gymnast could pull that Double off six times a day, if she had to? Bet you Fifty that our little Gymnast has practiced that Double so many times there's a groove in the floor of her gym from her butt hitting the floor?

A Per/encounter Mechanic isn't about a restriction of personal choice, or an obviation of classical roles, they're about an increase of per-combat choice and malleability. From where I stand, More choice is a good thing.

TheOOB
2007-08-27, 11:34 PM
To paraphrase the lead designer about the per encounter abilities-In 3rd edition, when the wizard ran out of spells they either had to convince their fighter is was a good idea to leave the dungeon and rest 8 hours, our pull out their dagger and hope for the best. Now they still can run out of their powerful spells throughout the day, they will never entirely run out of magic so they can still be of use to the party even after adventuring for hours.

A spellcaster will still run low on gas if they throw their spells around for too long, but they can still do something other then fireing a crossbow and waiting for a natural 20.

Sebastian
2007-08-28, 03:26 AM
At high levels, the party teleports away and rests some 1,300 miles from the hostile environment. There are ways to force them to fight even then, but it requires considerable magic and it quickly becomes unbelievable if it happens regularly. And if the party is powerful and paranoid enough to start using Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion and mind blank, you pretty much have to resort to DM fiat, since mind blank stops divinations up to and including wish.
Teleport have a chance of misplacing , or worse, at least when you are teleporting back to the dungeon (and it is a 4th level spell that you can't use in another way).
and, hey! if you can afford to use a 7th and 4 8th level spells (one for each party members, not counting companions) just to fell safe, more power to you.


Even at lower levels, however, my experience is that parties do what they have to do in order to get their precious rest. If that means they have to spend an hour or so in the ruined castle battling monsters, then get on their horses and ride three hours back to town to rest up, that's what they'll do. It's not bad roleplaying, either--it's eminently logical behavior unless you're under a time limit of some kind. If you're in a hostile environment and you need to rest, you get out of the hostile environment and return to base.



IMHO that is bad game mastering more than bad rolepalying, for a series of reasons
1- unless we are talking 0-2 int monsters are they just sitting there waiting for the adventurers to come back the day after? if they are intelligent monsters then either they prepare for when they return building traps or preparing ambushes, or seeking reinforcement or they just pick up and leave, with treasures and everything.
2- what about costs? I suppose the adventurers sleep into a inn or tavern, this cost how much? 5 gp/night at person? More? after all everyone know that adventurers get special prices in towns ;) if they use this hit and run tactics like this they could need even a month to clean up the dungeon, that's 150 gp at person, more or less, not cheap for a low level party.
3- reputation. what kind of mighty heroes fight 1 hour at day, just to run away and go back to rest? At the very least I'd make some of the citizen mocks them for that, maybe even some bard write comics songs about the heroes that run away to fight another day, and another, and another, and another.... They could find this come up even much later in their carrer.

D&D is not a videogame, you can't save and rest after evey combat, unless you GM is only smart as the average CPU. :)

Culwch
2007-08-28, 03:55 AM
Personally I like the idea of "per encounter" abilities. I think I would like to think of them as "per scene" abilities instead though. The idea behind it is the character just needs a few moments to catch his breathe or mentally still himself after something and then he's ready to do it again. I think that works much better than per day abilities.

If a character is harried, rushed and always in motion he doesn't quite get those few moments to rest up and should be in the same scene, so no recharging his abilities. But once he's out of that scene he should be good to go.

I agree completely. I have no trouble imagining the 'per encounter' abilities - all it takes to recharge is a couple of minutes of peace and quiet to catch breath/compose mind/have one's hands stop shaking. I have no objection about the 'per day' or 'per time (in general)' abilities as well, if it can be reasonably explained. The dragon has to gather enough of its napalm-spit for it to be incinerated into a fire-cone, and its spit glands produce only so much in 6 seconds time? Fine with me. The Sun Goddess will let the Paladin channel her most holy power and scare away the undead but only twice a day? Dodgy, but still can be done. Once the gnomish electro-gank-supra-gizmo-charger fires its charge, it will take 24 hours for the hamsters inside to build the charge again? Nothing wrong with that.

If the hero used their 'once per encounter' ability up and the party is still pursued by the monsters - then it's the same encounter. Sorry, the ability will stay spent. If the monsters are slain and the hero can replenish their strength or regain mental focus - no problem.

Nor do I see a problem with introducing a feat (chain), such as "Superior Focus", allowing one, at the cost of becoming helpless, to shut the outside world and regain the use of a 'per encounter' ability after a couple of rounds in combat.

nagora
2007-08-28, 04:03 AM
IMHO that is bad game mastering more than bad rolepalying,

I agree. The players are simply doing what people would do if they lived in a clockwork world that was so predictable and dull. Whether teleporting or using horses the obvious word is "ambush", and in strength too if the opposition has any sense.

The 3e rules seem to encourage a very static game - set number of encounters per day, set level of difficulty, set number of adventures per level-up. The PCs might well become the most important people in the world, but they're not the only people in the world.

The whole idea that the problem with Wizards is that their limitations are too inflexible seems counter-intuitive to me. The comment about material components from a pouch was another classic - material components should be a major limiting factor on magic users "in the field" but the rules themselves say that unless they have a substantial value the caster can pull them out of their ass lucky dip bag!

The problem with wizards is not that their limitations are illogical or difficult to rationalise, it's that they are non-existant when the DM allows the sort of reality-abuse that spell pouches, encounters per day, and totally safe travel create. Giving them even more flexibility does not seem to me to be the correct solution unless you're the sort of person that throws petrol on a fire to "burn it up faster".

Kurald Galain
2007-08-28, 04:21 AM
What I don't like about "per encounter" is that it uses an abstraction where one isn't needed. I think "replenish by meditating for 15 minutes" sounds a lot better than the artificial "replenish every encounter". As an added advantage, the character knows when he is able to meditate, and the character has no idea when the encounter is considered "over" (although the player does).

Aside from that - how often can you use "per encounter" abilities if you're not in an encounter? If you can cast a fireball once per encounter, how often can you do it if you're just standing on a grassy field alone? How often can you do it if your first use starts an encounter (because people notice it, consider you hostile, and attack)?



The D&D insider gametable will allow DMs to fudge rolls.
Wait, they have a table for fudging rolls? How is that not an oxymoron?



If you can't think of something for your character to do after he's used his magic, then you're a bad player.
QFT. Whether or not to go nova is a tactical decision.

Beleriphon
2007-08-28, 04:27 AM
What I don't like about "per encounter" is that it uses an abstraction where one isn't needed. I think "replenish by meditating for 15 minutes" sounds a lot better than the artificial "replenish every encounter". As an added advantage, the character knows when he is able to meditate, and the character has no idea when the encounter is considered "over" (although the player does).

As a metagame concept it doesn't really matter that much.


Aside from that - how often can you use "per encounter" abilities if you're not in an encounter? If you can cast a fireball once per encounter, how often can you do it if you're just standing on a grassy field alone? How often can you do it if your first use starts an encounter (because people notice it, consider you hostile, and attack)?

I'm assuming they'll follow the same track as Star Wars Saga Edition Force Powers, which require a minimum of one minute of quiet contemplation to replenish your battery.




Wait, they have a table for fudging rolls? How is that not an oxymoron?

The game table is an online gaming table. Like a thing you can play with people online. It sounds like it will include an option to show "fudged" rolls rather than the true roll that most online gaming options use.

Sebastian
2007-08-28, 04:49 AM
The problem with wizards is not that their limitations are illogical or difficult to rationalise, it's that they are non-existant when the DM allows the sort of reality-abuse that spell pouches, encounters per day, and totally safe travel create. Giving them even more flexibility does not seem to me to be the correct solution unless you're the sort of person that throws petrol on a fire to "burn it up faster".

And don't ever try to go to the WotC boards and try to suggest that someone could try to destroy/steal the wizard's spellbook.

What I don't like of the by-encounter balance (even if I'd like to know more details before to fully comment) is that you had to throw harder and harder monsters to challenge a party, I mean, in 2nd editon for a 20th level party a group of, let's say, 20 kobolds were an annoyance, in 3rd edition (base kobolds, i mean) they are a bump, in 4th edition they will not even that, the encounter will go something like this "GM: you meet 20 kobolds, you defeat them, let's go on" if he mention them at all, now many could be fine with it but I don't like it, it is "kobolds at 1st level, dragons at 20th" all over again only worse and I hate that thing in D&D.
I'm also worried about what does imply in a world building perspective (what could mean for a world a cleric than can Create Food at will? or a wizard that can dimension door at will, per example?), but it is a little too soon to consider that.

Orzel
2007-08-28, 04:52 AM
Being a "I use what I got" kind of man, the per day/encounter thing doesn't phase me.

The Bloodied thing intrigues me. Sounds great for party strategy. Defender stop the enemy, Strikers bloody them, Controller kill the bloodied guys, Leader stope your guys from getting bloodied.

nagora
2007-08-28, 04:54 AM
As a metagame concept it doesn't really matter that much.


How do you mean? Metagaming is always a bad thing (though unavoidable to some extent) in an RPG so how can it not matter?

Matthew
2007-08-28, 05:03 AM
How do you mean? Metagaming is always a bad thing (though unavoidable to some extent) in an RPG so how can it not matter?

I think that he just means that in the context of the 4e version the game it probably won't matter that they measure by encounters rather than game time. I don't necessarily agree in an absolute sense, but he may well be right in context.

Zincorium
2007-08-28, 05:08 AM
How do you mean? Metagaming is always a bad thing (though unavoidable to some extent) in an RPG so how can it not matter?

You're misinterpreting, as a metagame concept it means that the characters aren't aware of it, it exists outside the game, and thus won't impinge on the immersion. And your rabid aversion to metagaming is kind of pointless, none of us like the overdoing of it but it is integral to D&D as a functional game.


Personally per-encounter abilities make the heroic adventures easier, there is no timetable for your dungeon crawl or plane walk other than one determined by the plot. As a DM, it's almost irresponsible to force players onwards when the game has determined that they have no resources. Even if they can make it through the encounters, all the interesting stuff they can normally perform goes away and it turns from a race to a death march, just trying to slog through without ending up dead at the bottom of a spiked pit.

Fast paced, high content adventures require a great deal of endurance in character design, not outright power. Wotc seems to be reducing the brunt of the PC's charge without gimping the battle afterwards.

Matthew
2007-08-28, 05:12 AM
I don't really get this idea of 'forcing players onwards'. Generally, Players make their own decisions about whether to proceed or not, it's up to them to manage their resources - that's the whole substance of the problem with Wizards.

Since it sounds as though the most powerful abilities will be 'per day', this problem is still going to exist, as far as I can see.

nagora
2007-08-28, 05:38 AM
You're misinterpreting, as a metagame concept it means that the characters aren't aware of it, it exists outside the game, and thus won't impinge on the immersion.

No, as a metagame concept it means that the characters aren't aware of it yet it affects how they act - it impinges from "outside". Such things can't be totally avoided in a game - they are after all most of the "game" component in an RPG - but they are almost never good for immersion.



And your rabid aversion to metagaming is kind of pointless, none of us like the overdoing of it but it is integral to D&D as a functional game.

I agree, I just don't think that saying something is a metagaming concept and threfore is unimportant makes sense in the context of trying not to overdo it.



Personally per-encounter abilities make the heroic adventures easier, there is no timetable for your dungeon crawl or plane walk other than one determined by the plot. As a DM, it's almost irresponsible to force players onwards when the game has determined that they have no resources.

Yeah, well that's one way to look at it. Another is that when they're going into danger the PCs should have to plan ahead to maximise their chances. If they fail to then they have to deal with the consequences. It's not the DM's job to hold their little hands, nor to crush them like beetles.



Even if they can make it through the encounters, all the interesting stuff they can normally perform goes away and it turns from a race to a death march, just trying to slog through without ending up dead at the bottom of a spiked pit.

If that's the only type of story your DM can serve up it's time to get a new one.


Fast paced, high content adventures require a great deal of endurance in character design, not outright power. Wotc seems to be reducing the brunt of the PC's charge without gimping the battle afterwards.

Fast paced, high content adventures that consist of the same abilities being repeated over and over again with everyone returned to a state of full rest and recovery after each encounter sounds a bit dull to me. Actually, very dull indeed.

Tormsskull
2007-08-28, 05:45 AM
I don't really get this idea of 'forcing players onwards'. Generally, Players make their own decisions about whether to proceed or not, it's up to them to manage their resources - that's the whole substance of the problem with Wizards.


Me either. It must be different perspectives, I guess. Yes, resource management should be up to the players. This is one of the things that always was a clear division between console RPGs and D&D. Most console RPGs (like Final Fantasy) allow your party to carry around potions, tents, cabins, what have you. You can literally carry around enough potions to heal your party up 100 times over. And if for some reason that's not enough you can just step outside into the wilderness somewhere, drop down your tent/cabin and recover most/all of your HP/MP.

That's not D&D. It never has been, and I hope never will be.



Since it sounds as though the most powerful abilities will be 'per day', this problem is still going to exist, as far as I can see.

Yup. That's why I have been saying that instead of continually reworking the mechanics, we need to address the root of the problem.

nagora
2007-08-28, 05:49 AM
Yup. That's why I have been saying that instead of continually reworking the mechanics, we need to address the root of the problem.

I have been thinking about just how big an impact it had on the game when spell casting in combat became so much easier. However, that's a different thread since it's unlikely that WotC are going to address that.

Skyserpent
2007-08-28, 07:43 AM
I don't think that they actually plan on removing all utility/subtle spells from the game, but the idea of the "Save/die" is being removed, I'm for that, but I hope they keep the "Save/Suck" and other similar alternative combat methods. I think the playtester was talking primarily about the blaster-caster who relies heavily on disintegrate and such.

or at least I hope that's the case.

nagora
2007-08-28, 08:09 AM
Ok. Running with the Athletic model...
*snip*


Well, I guess you and I are living in different planets. Where I live sports commentators and trainers use the phrase "peaked too soon" so often it's a cliche, rugby players become prone to injury when they train too hard for too long, tennis players and entire football teams complain if they have too many matches scheduled in a week because it puts them at a disadvantage, and even chess and snooker tournaments try to keep the finals on separate days from the semi's.

My personal experience from swordfighting with metal weapons is that even once you are in condition the effects of a long, hard fight last for hours.

hamlet
2007-08-28, 08:42 AM
Teleport have a chance of misplacing , or worse, at least when you are teleporting back to the dungeon (and it is a 4th level spell that you can't use in another way).
and, hey! if you can afford to use a 7th and 4 8th level spells (one for each party members, not counting companions) just to fell safe, more power to you.



IMHO that is bad game mastering more than bad rolepalying, for a series of reasons
1- unless we are talking 0-2 int monsters are they just sitting there waiting for the adventurers to come back the day after? if they are intelligent monsters then either they prepare for when they return building traps or preparing ambushes, or seeking reinforcement or they just pick up and leave, with treasures and everything.
2- what about costs? I suppose the adventurers sleep into a inn or tavern, this cost how much? 5 gp/night at person? More? after all everyone know that adventurers get special prices in towns ;) if they use this hit and run tactics like this they could need even a month to clean up the dungeon, that's 150 gp at person, more or less, not cheap for a low level party.
3- reputation. what kind of mighty heroes fight 1 hour at day, just to run away and go back to rest? At the very least I'd make some of the citizen mocks them for that, maybe even some bard write comics songs about the heroes that run away to fight another day, and another, and another, and another.... They could find this come up even much later in their carrer.

D&D is not a videogame, you can't save and rest after evey combat, unless you GM is only smart as the average CPU. :)

I fail to see the point to what you are saying above. Are you saying that per day abilities (i.e., spells per day) are bad because they lead to this?

If that's what your saying, then I honestly think you're missing a huge point. The players aren't heroes because they're "best qualified" to get the job done. That makes them into little more than the Roto Router men of the world. "Intimidating forest clogged up with monsters? No problem! Just dial 1-800-ADVENTURE and we'll take care of the problem, satisfaction gauranteed!" No, they're heroes because they're otherwise normal people who stand up in the face of overwhelming odds and triumph because of courage, what skills they do have, tactics, and a good deal of luck.

Truwar
2007-08-28, 09:29 AM
My personal experience from swordfighting with metal weapons is that even once you are in condition the effects of a long, hard fight last for hours.

How about a 30 second (5 round) swordfight? Real sword fights would usually be a bit more like D&D length fights; you can't keep a sword away from you forever. In fact you can't keep it away from you for very long at all, the key is to hit with it before the other guy hits you.

Don't get me wrong, I wrestled for over 12 years and have experience with Judo as well, three-five minutes can really wear you out but that is the equivalent of a 30-50 round fight and it only lasts that long because nobody is gouging anyone’s throat or carrying a knife.

I like the idea of recovering hitpoints quickly; it keeps the game moving and is a better representation of what hitpoints really are. Having 100 hit points does not mean that someone can jam a sword through your gut and you just laugh it off and it does not mean arrows bounce off of your skin. Hitpoints represent the ability to keep that sword off of you long enough for you to be able to get your sword into the other guy.

Matthew
2007-08-28, 09:38 AM
I like the idea of recovering hitpoints quickly; it keeps the game moving and is a better representation of what hitpoints really are. Having 100 hit points does not mean that someone can jam a sword through your gut and you just laugh it off and it does not mean arrows bounce off of your skin. Hitpoints represent the ability to keep that sword off of you long enough for you to be able to get your sword into the other guy.

That is not all they represent, though. They also represent Luck and Divine Favour. Hit Points are a tricky business, and their precise representation differs from case to case and person to person.

Crow
2007-08-28, 09:41 AM
How about a 30 second (5 round) swordfight? Real sword fights would usually be a bit more like D&D length fights; you can't keep a sword away from you forever. In fact you can't keep it away from you for very long at all, the key is to hit with it before the other guy hits you.

Don't get me wrong, I wrestled for over 12 years and have experience with Judo as well, three-five minutes can really wear you out but that is the equivalent of a 30-50 round fight and it only lasts that long because nobody is gouging anyone’s throat or carrying a knife.

I like the idea of recovering hitpoints quickly; it keeps the game moving and is a better representation of what hitpoints really are. Having 100 hit points does not mean that someone can jam a sword through your gut and you just laugh it off and it does not mean arrows bounce off of your skin. Hitpoints represent the ability to keep that sword off of you long enough for you to be able to get your sword into the other guy.

You gentlemen sound as if you may be interested in Crossfit (http://www.crossfit.com).

Dausuul
2007-08-28, 10:02 AM
That is not all they represent, though. They also represent Luck and Divine Favour. Hit Points are a tricky business, and their precise representation differs from case to case and person to person.

Yeah, hit points are a pain. The fluff claims they reflect fighting skill as well as raw toughness, yet the mechanics all imply raw toughness and nothing else. Otherwise your hit points ought to drop if you get paralyzed or knocked unconscious, and it ought not take more cure light wounds spells to heal a high-level fighter than a low-level one (or, at least, the number required should not scale linearly with hit points).

I interpret hit points as a combination of cinematic fortitude (see the "Diehard" movies, or General Kael in "Willow") and a certain element of good fortune that keeps you from taking instantly fatal or crippling wounds--that is, you never get stabbed through the heart or decapitated as long as you have hit points left. So the high-level fighter can get mauled repeatedly by a bear, stabbed five or six times, and shot so full of arrows he looks like a pincushion, but none of the wounds hits a vital spot, and he can keep on going because he's Just That Tough.

With the new system, it sounds as if part of hit point loss may also represent shock and fatigue, with that part being recovered after battle when you have a chance to rest a bit.

nagora
2007-08-28, 10:28 AM
How about a 30 second (5 round) swordfight? Real sword fights would usually be a bit more like D&D length fights; you can't keep a sword away from you forever. In fact you can't keep it away from you for very long at all, the key is to hit with it before the other guy hits you.

With armour fights last longer; with equal skill levels fights last longer. As a rule of thumb, the old 1 minute rounds were closer to reality IME. Combats are ridiculously short in 3ed. I've seen gunfights that took longer than a 3ed dual with sowrds.


Don't get me wrong, I wrestled for over 12 years and have experience with Judo as well, three-five minutes can really wear you out but that is the equivalent of a 30-50 round fight and it only lasts that long because nobody is gouging anyone’s throat or carrying a knife.

Believe me, when you both have 4' blades (ours were sharp too) you lose the urge to charge in and just see what happens. You do, as the DMG used to say, spend a lot of time making feints and testing the opponent's guard. In a mass combat things are different but you rarely fight the same opponent from moment to moment and the gaps between add up; once again 30 seconds for an entire battle is laughable. It is strange that so much effort is spent in 3ed to model something so badly.


I like the idea of recovering hitpoints quickly; it keeps the game moving and is a better representation of what hitpoints really are. Having 100 hit points does not mean that someone can jam a sword through your gut and you just laugh it off and it does not mean arrows bounce off of your skin. Hitpoints represent the ability to keep that sword off of you long enough for you to be able to get your sword into the other guy.

Partly, sure. But drastically increasing the recovery rate makes a huge difference to the style of the game and moves even further towards video game territory.

Hit points are a great abstraction and like all abstractions they break down in places. In 1ed we had rules to cover some of these but the weakest spot was always "save or die". While I am happy for Medusa's gaze or other legendary creatures' effects to be save or stoned as special cases, in general there is no obvious reason why your divine blessing/luck/toughness that fends off a deadly blow with a halbard should not also do likewise to a Disintegrate.

On the other hand, I'd drop all "save for half damage" rolls too - there's plenty of HP in 3ed to let characters suck it up.

Starbuck_II
2007-08-28, 10:30 AM
Aside from that - how often can you use "per encounter" abilities if you're not in an encounter?

Not unril you rest X/time. If You really like 15 minutes than we can go with that.
If ToB than 1 minute. Granted, no one has fireball in ToB.


If you can cast a fireball once per encounter, how often can you do it if you're just standing on a grassy field alone?

I just said above.


How often can you do it if your first use starts an encounter (because people notice it, consider you hostile, and attack)?
.

If you have a full minute of no one attacking you: you might be able to refresh it (big if, crossbows are simple weapons so commoners could use them).
If not? You don't get it back. You started the encounter: you face the consequences.

Crow
2007-08-28, 10:33 AM
As somebody already said, the whole "per day", "per encounter" thing is an unneccessary abtraction.

We need to use "real time".

Dausuul
2007-08-28, 10:47 AM
Believe me, when you both have 4' blades (ours were sharp too) you lose the urge to charge in and just see what happens. You do, as the DMG used to say, spend a lot of time making feints and testing the opponent's guard. In a mass combat things are different but you rarely fight the same opponent from moment to moment and the gaps between add up; once again 30 seconds for an entire battle is laughable. It is strange that so much effort is spent in 3ed to model something so badly.

So, you and your friend were fighting with sharp swords but (I assume) trying not to hurt each other. That sounds to me like a recipe for a very long contest. Sorry, but unless you've been in a fight where you were actually trying to kill somebody before they killed you, I don't buy this as an example of how long a real combat would take.

By all accounts I've been able to find, real, lethal combat tends to be fast, messy, and ugly. Especially when you consider that in D&D, half the time you're not even fighting a human being--you're fighting a gigantic dragon or a ravening undead.

Matthew
2007-08-28, 10:49 AM
Real fighting tends to be lengthy periods of eyeing one another up, punctuated by short and bloody periods of activity, or so I am led to believe. AD&D represented that one way, 3e represents it another. All preferential, to be sure.

Roderick_BR
2007-08-28, 10:51 AM
The HP mechanic is interesting. I bet a lot of new spell effects will change according to how "bloodied" an enemy is.
Yeah, I hope they can change the "save-or-die/suck" into something workable, without nerfing too much casters, and that direct damage spells work better for those that like to play blasters. I mean, ca'mon, debuffing, charming, and making illusions are cool... But I want to blow sh*t up sometimes, and don't die because of it.

nagora
2007-08-28, 11:04 AM
So, you and your friend were fighting with sharp swords but (I assume) trying not to hurt each other. That sounds to me like a recipe for a very long contest. Sorry, but unless you've been in a fight where you were actually trying to kill somebody before they killed you, I don't buy this as an example of how long a real combat would take.

Well, put it this way, we had to knock the dents out of the armour at night as well as bandaging the occassional (very light) wound. Obviously we were not trying to kill each other, but I'm judging it on time to the first blow hitting home past the shield rather than to the point where we stopped. I'd repeat that having someone come at you with a huge knife is great incentive to prevent them making contact at all! Diagrams in old combat manuals represent a very static ideal not found in real running around a field combat of the sort PCs tend to engage in (ie, no nice neat formations and number-sequenced manoeuvres).

Also, a person who survived a battle in real life could well be out on the field for hours even if individual duals were short. Even the bitter melee after an infantry charge lasted far longer than most 1ed combats, and some people at least survived through the whole event.


By all accounts I've been able to find, real, lethal combat tends to be fast, messy, and ugly. Especially when you consider that in D&D, half the time you're not even fighting a human being--you're fighting a gigantic dragon or a ravening undead.

If you're going to argue that D&D isn't real life and doesn't have to be realistic that's fine, I just don't see the point of introducing a complex system in place of a simpler, more abstract one if the end result is no more realistic or exciting.

Deepblue706
2007-08-28, 11:50 AM
I don't believe real one-on-one combat is something over in a matter of seconds, though I suppose in the chaos of a full-on battle could lead to many quick deaths. The only way a duel would end very quickly is if it is highly one-sided, or if idiocy on a grand scale was introduced.

I once had a fencing match that lasted 3 minutes before the first touch - this was against one of the best fencers in my county at my level, at the time (He wasn't a chump, nor was I, is what I'm illustrating).

I've participated in a handful of SCA bouts that lasted similar lengths of time. Even though you may want to be rid of a threat immediately, sometimes you have to take your time, and plan some depth to your attacks. Combat shouldn't be how it is in D&D all the time - and defensive maneuvers should definitely be a viable option for martial characters.

Also, people tire, and exhaust during fights. And that fatigue stays with you unless you get sudden bursts. I've gotten them, sure - but eventually after so many bursts, you become uncoordinated, begin to vomit, and you could possibly collapse.

Dausuul
2007-08-28, 12:27 PM
I don't believe real one-on-one combat is something over in a matter of seconds, though I suppose in the chaos of a full-on battle could lead to many quick deaths. The only way a duel would end very quickly is if it is highly one-sided, or if idiocy on a grand scale was introduced.

When was the last time your character fought a duel in D&D?

D&D combat isn't a formal duel or anything like it; it usually starts with an ambush and involves a savage melee in which absolutely anything goes. It's the party kicking in a door and rushing a gang of orcish thugs, or the same gang of thugs leaping from hiding and trying to murder the PCs. In a fight like that, you want to end the guy in front of you and do it fast, before he pulls a poisoned knife you didn't know he had and gets it past your guard, or his buddy comes up behind you and stabs you in the back. And the guy in front of you has exactly the same attitude. A minute would be a long fight under such conditions... which is what I meant by "real combat," since that's the way real-world combat usually happens.

Crow
2007-08-28, 12:32 PM
I've been in quite a few fights in my day and I'll add this;

Throwing a barstool at a guy is a great way to open him up so you can move in and finish him off. There's not much "probing" going on there. Just violence of action and quick thinking.

Also, don't underestimate nailing a guy from behind while your buddy's brawling with him. Things like this aren't represented in most duels, which is why they make a poor comparison.

nagora
2007-08-28, 12:53 PM
I've been in quite a few fights in my day and I'll add this;

Throwing a barstool at a guy is a great way to open him up so you can move in and finish him off. There's not much "probing" going on there. Just violence of action and quick thinking.

That's fair enough at low levels (ah, the old tavern brawl - how many characters' careers did it launch?), but D&D is supposed to be a bit higher fantasy than that and simply dispatching the Black Knight with a bar stool isn't going to win any drama awards for a 9th level Fighter :smallwink:.


Also, don't underestimate nailing a guy from behind while your buddy's brawling with him. Things like this aren't represented in most duels, which is why they make a poor comparison.

The old 1ed "Backstab" rule. Yes, that tended to bring fights to a quicker conclusion.

Crow
2007-08-28, 12:57 PM
That's fair enough at low levels (ah, the old tavern brawl - how many characters' careers did it launch?), but D&D is supposed to be a bit higher fantasy than that and simply dispatching the Black Knight with a bar stool isn't going to win any drama awards for a 9th level Fighter :smallwink:.

Maybe if it was a +1 Barstool of faint beer odor...?

nagora
2007-08-28, 01:11 PM
When was the last time your character fought a duel in D&D?

Last Tuesday.


D&D combat isn't a formal duel or anything like it;

Well, it can be a formal duel, and it can be an informal one where two characters simply duke it out because, well, they're the two having the fight.


it usually starts with an ambush and involves a savage melee in which absolutely anything goes.

Ah, well. Surprise is another thing. 1ed switched to 6 second rounds for that specifically because a surprised opponent might be dispatched quickly before they can get their guard up.


It's the party kicking in a door and rushing a gang of orcish thugs, or the same gang of thugs leaping from hiding and trying to murder the PCs. In a fight like that, you want to end the guy in front of you and do it fast, before he pulls a poisoned knife you didn't know he had and gets it past your guard, or his buddy comes up behind you and stabs you in the back.

Yes, and your party is trying the same thing. If you're all good and experienced and not overwelmed by ambush, then a 30 second scramble is not going to result. Watch riot police advancing in a group; they're probably armoured and probably armed too. They use discipline and training to counter charges and even missile weapons. A party of high level fighters in full armour are more likely to resemble that than an bunch of screaming orcs.

Obviously, if your fighters have no sense of combat discipline then they may well have a life expectancy of 30 seconds, but I think we all agree that our fighters might be a bit mad, but the high level ones are not generally stupid.


And the guy in front of you has exactly the same attitude. A minute would be a long fight under such conditions... which is what I meant by "real combat," since that's the way real-world combat usually happens.

As I said before, though, real life battles in chain and plate armour involving thousands of people did happen, and they did not take a few minutes to resolve as each front row fell in 30 seconds or so of wild combat. Tactics were used, armour was used, experienced combatants avoided those who could pose a serious threat to them.

And that's with no magic healing or defenses and probably nobody above 4th level!

I'm not arguing for a gritty reality, just that there's no real argument for picking up the pace of combat even further and certainly not the "realism" one that's been suggested for "per encounter" abilities.

Does it matter? Not much, but there are cases where people hold opponents off while some other activity (such as fleeing) is done. Since fleeing is not done at a "Benny Hill" speeds there is a balance issue between the game reality and the world reality.

Hopeless
2007-08-28, 02:58 PM
Adding some drawbacks for being heavily wounded is clearly good. However, limiting options to just dealing damage doesn't sound too good.

Oh I don't know would these effects slow them down for example?
Would it allow say the unarmoured wizard to outrun a monstrous foe who would otherwise turn its antimagic eyeball at him so it could slowly devour him... yet this time he could actually effect it so he could say pull off the rincewind maneuver and actually expect to pull it off?

Hopeless
2007-08-28, 03:18 PM
Much as I like the thought of conditions being applied to combatants -- Bloodied, to name the most prominently mentioned -- I've got to admit I'm dubious about the apparent near-abolishment of save-or-debuff spells. I can't help but imagine something like the following...

"The ogre lumbers around the paladin and the goblins, snarling and slapping its enormous club into its free hand."
"Um... oh crap... the fighter's still tied up too?"
"A few more strides and the ogre will be close enough for you to smell its vile breath."
"I cast ray of enfeeblement! Hopefully that'll weaken it enough to--"
"Oh, you must've played 3.5. There's no ray of enfeeblement in 4.0."
"What?!? Crap. Um. Magic missile, then, for... uh... 5."
"The ogre bellows as your spell slams home, but seems otherwise unbothered. It lashes out with its club and hits you for... ouch. 15."
"Well, ****. I'm dead. That was lots of fun..."

1) Ogre lumbers into view...
2) Turns to go around paladin and goblins...
3) By this point if you're still here you're certainly dead but if you're from the very large community of people familar with this tactic please remember that it takes the ogre one round to notice you and another round before he can even attack you, thats two rounds spent using the Rincewind maneuver which has been duplicated in the b5 universe by a certain minbari as getting the **** out of here! maneuver.

Yes its cowardly but you are;
a) low on hp,
b) not a melee combatant by choice and
c) facing an ogre because your teammates have chosen to pick a fight with a group of weaker enemies instead of letting them come to them (with you standing behind) so you can colour spray them unconscious... or grease them... or sleep them... perhaps summon a monster to distract them so they can deal with the real threat after all a 10' reach is a threat now isn't it?!

Answer to above if ogre gets initative...
"Like **** I'm standing here whilst its approaching I've already fled!"
"But its not your initative!"
"In case you haven't noticed the time it would take to avoid them and get to me isn't enough to reach me if all i'm doing is retreating!"
"But you're running and under 4.0 rules..."
"This is a roleplaying game! I'm roleplaying there's a ****** big monster with a big club coming after me, I'm roleplaying fright inspired flight and I'm not staying where he can get me!"
"But..."
"His initiative is walk into cavern or opening, sees party fighting goblins, sees me and decides to avoid rest of party plus goblins to go after me... my attack of opportunity on seeing the ground quake as it moves towards me is to run like ****! okay and my movement is quadrupled since I'm not encumbered and not wearing armour and I know the way out and I'm not staying anywhere where that thing is going and in case you hadn't noticed intiative doesn't mean I cn't react to something thats hppening in front of me and attacks of opprtunity don't just mean attacks but also reacting to something that happens in my vicinity like a freakingogre coming straight at me!"
"But 4th edition..."
"Is supposed to be streamlined to deal with this, I take it thts not the case then?"
Sorry caught me in an imaginative mood, please let me know if this is how you'd handle being on the receiving end whether dm or player please.

PS: This reply wasn't intended to offend, its just that this is the first sign I've seen of anyone actually discussing the implications that I'm afraid I got a little carried away.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-08-28, 03:35 PM
Much as I like the thought of conditions being applied to combatants -- Bloodied, to name the most prominently mentioned -- I've got to admit I'm dubious about the apparent near-abolishment of save-or-debuff spells. I can't help but imagine something like the following...

"The ogre lumbers around the paladin and the goblins, snarling and slapping its enormous club into its free hand."
"Um... oh crap... the fighter's still tied up too?"
"A few more strides and the ogre will be close enough for you to smell its vile breath."
"I cast ray of enfeeblement! Hopefully that'll weaken it enough to--"
"Oh, you must've played 3.5. There's no ray of enfeeblement in 4.0."
"What?!? Crap. Um. Magic missile, then, for... uh... 5."
"The ogre bellows as your spell slams home, but seems otherwise unbothered. It lashes out with its club and hits you for... ouch. 15."
"Well, ****. I'm dead. That was lots of fun..."

I'm not sure about anyone else, but if I were the DM, I'd make sure my players knew the BASICS of their classes before they picked them. This wizard apparently didn't even look at the 4th ed. spell list, assuming that all 3.5 spells were copied and pasted over and not modified at all... Not a good example.


Anyways, it seems like alot of people are expecting the worst from the new system. We don't know how healing will be affected by 'per encounter' mechanics so there's not reason to assume that the players will always be at 100% max HP at the start of every fight. I also hope that they'd have the wisdom to put down a balanced 'recharge rate' for the /encounter abilities (rest/meditate for 15 minutes, etc...). If the game designers haven't thought any of this through (as the majority of posters seem to think), then, well, they need new game designers and playtesters.

erudite
2007-08-28, 04:12 PM
As far as healing goes with 3.5, it had progressed to the point that Binders, Dragon Shamans, and even a Fighter with the Draconic Aura feat had started to make the Cleric-As-Healer less necessary. I'd like to see that continue.

As far as avoiding 100% hp recovery between encounters, maybe leader-role characters will be able to generate extra hit point recovery (as per SW Saga), which gives an extra 1/4 hp back, but limited to only 1/day per character. If they use the Saga mechanic, that means one recovery from the character, and another recovery from the leader-type, and a possible third recovery from a feat or talent.

tainsouvra
2007-08-28, 04:12 PM
As far as playtesters go, I think there's good reason to be concerned. It seems the playtesters are primarily concerned with making sure that the game can be run, and is entertaining, when played the way the designer's envisioned...not necessarily the way the written rules imply, or the way a typical player is likely to interpret things, or the way a min-maxer is likely to build his character, or any of a dozen things that should be part of testing. They basically just test to see if the game can work as envisioned, not to find the flaws.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-08-28, 04:32 PM
As far as healing goes with 3.5, it had progressed to the point that Binders, Dragon Shamans, and even a Fighter with the Draconic Aura feat had started to make the Cleric-As-Healer less necessary. I'd like to see that continue.

As far as avoiding 100% hp recovery between encounters, maybe leader-role characters will be able to generate extra hit point recovery (as per SW Saga), which gives an extra 1/4 hp back, but limited to only 1/day per character. If they use the Saga mechanic, that means one recovery from the character, and another recovery from the leader-type, and a possible third recovery from a feat or talent.

Yeah, I really liked the 'Second Wind' (I think that's what it is) mechanic in Star Wars. It gives off a more 'heroic' feel (I.E. the down and out hero suddenly gets the courage to keep pushing just a little longer, etc...). I've never heard of a binder, though. Is that 3.5 D&D?


As far as playtesters go, I think there's good reason to be concerned. It seems the playtesters are primarily concerned with making sure that the game can be run, and is entertaining, when played the way the designer's envisioned...not necessarily the way the written rules imply, or the way a typical player is likely to interpret things, or the way a min-maxer is likely to build his character, or any of a dozen things that should be part of testing. They basically just test to see if the game can work as envisioned, not to find the flaws.

Good lord, I really hope you're wrong (though a small part of me feels that this makes sense from a 'company about to release a huge product' point of view). It really pissed me off that beta testers were chosen from people that attended that conference a few weeks ago... I just hope that there's some diversity in their beta tester group.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-28, 04:34 PM
but D&D is supposed to be a bit higher fantasy than that and simply dispatching the Black Knight with a bar stool isn't going to win any drama awards for a 9th level Fighter :smallwink:.Maybe, maybe not. Over the course of a fairly serious campaign, one of the players in my group managed to crit other PCs with wooden spoons fired from his composite longbow 3 times. And by the second or third one, the ammunition rules dictate that it was a +1 Holy wooden spoon.

Aximili
2007-08-28, 05:11 PM
But if everyone's always at 80-100% of health etc, where's the varity?
I haven't had time to keep on with this argument, but I wanna get something clear as to not spread a false rumor around.

You got it totally wrong. I said "80% of their fighting capacity (baring HP)". As far as I know, "baring HP" means "except for HP" or "excluding HP" (I'm not being ironic, english is not my first language, correct me if I got it wrong).

So, what I meant is that characters are always gonna have at least 80% of their abilities available (including those continuous and those use-activated).
But their HP will go down as usual.

I get this information from a quote I read in enworld:

"a wizard who casts all his memorized per day spells should be at about 80% of power."
Yes, I generalized it, and made some assumptions.:smallbiggrin:

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-28, 05:21 PM
You got it totally wrong. I said "80% of their fighting capacity (baring HP)". As far as I know, "baring HP" means "except for HP" or "excluding HP" (I'm not being ironic, english is not my first language, correct me if I got it wrong).You're mostly right. The word you're actually looking for is "barring," meaning excluding or excepting. "Baring" comes from the verb "bare" meaning to expose.

Deepblue706
2007-08-28, 05:32 PM
When was the last time your character fought a duel in D&D?

D&D combat isn't a formal duel or anything like it; it usually starts with an ambush and involves a savage melee in which absolutely anything goes. It's the party kicking in a door and rushing a gang of orcish thugs, or the same gang of thugs leaping from hiding and trying to murder the PCs. In a fight like that, you want to end the guy in front of you and do it fast, before he pulls a poisoned knife you didn't know he had and gets it past your guard, or his buddy comes up behind you and stabs you in the back. And the guy in front of you has exactly the same attitude. A minute would be a long fight under such conditions... which is what I meant by "real combat," since that's the way real-world combat usually happens.

I think Nagora answered this already quite similarly to how I would.

But, I'd like to add: I did acknowledge there are moments when combat isn't likely to be drawn out - but that doesn't mean all combat is done within a minute. Why? Because trying to "end the guy in front of you and do it fast" isn't easy if the fight isn't already one-sided to begin with. You have no idea of how to measure the combat capability of an enemy, unless you take the time to assess them. They have a knife and I have a sword? Alright, I think I'll try to hit him. If we both have knives? Uhmmm....I think I want to catch him off his guard.

But yes, while I made mention of very lengthy fencing bouts I've made, I've also beaten someone (made 5 touches) in 30 seconds.

I never said taking a full minute to guess their abilities is always the way to do it, but what I mean is that making nothing but mindless attacks isn't a good idea in a fight. Yet, in D&D, it's the most effective way of winning. Fighting defensively is almost never a viable tactic, using combat expertise isn't very useful unless you have absurdly high AC bonuses already, feinting is only good at first level, unless you're a rogue. When the greatest plan a fighter can have is to use a two-handed sword in conjunction with Leap Attack and Heedless Charge, something seems wrong to me. Sure, two-handers were good if you had plenty of armor, but, I'd really like to see other effective ways of dealing with an enemy.

Aximili
2007-08-28, 05:37 PM
You're mostly right. The word you're actually looking for is "barring," meaning excluding or excepting. "Baring" comes from the verb "bare" meaning to expose.
Hm, so that's why the browser's dictionary didn't pick it up.^^
Thanks.

Fhaolan
2007-08-28, 05:50 PM
I never said taking a full minute to guess their abilities is always the way to do it, but what I mean is that making nothing but mindless attacks isn't a good idea in a fight. Yet, in D&D, it's the most effective way of winning. Fighting defensively is almost never a viable tactic, using combat expertise isn't very useful unless you have absurdly high AC bonuses already, feinting is only good at first level, unless you're a rogue. When the greatest plan a fighter can have is to use a two-handed sword in conjunction with Leap Attack and Heedless Charge, something seems wrong to me. Sure, two-handers were good if you had plenty of armor, but, I'd really like to see other effective ways of dealing with an enemy.

I have to agree with this. Having been in fights in RL, with and without weapons (and I don't mean stage combats or training bouts, I mean *he's trying to kill me* kind of fights), I can honestly say that rushing in attacking wildly is a good way to get yourself killed.

So, I would like that defensive fighting was modelled more effectively in D&D. Not necessarily longer fights, but ones where there's more to it than "I bash the giant", "I'm going to Power Attack, and bash the giant harder this round", "Lookit, I use another feat and *bash*"

I personally think that 3.x is a balanced a bit too far on the bash, to the detriment of the dodge. At it's base though, I think it's really a problem with the hp system in general, not just fighters in specific. I've always like whole Passive Defence/Active Defence thing in GURPS, but I don't think it would translate into D&D very well without loosing the D&D flavor.

Matthew
2007-08-28, 05:57 PM
At it's base though, I think it's really a problem with the hp system in general, not just fighters in specific. I've always like whole Passive Defence/Active Defence thing in GURPS, but I don't think it would translate into D&D very well without loosing the D&D flavor.

It translated quite well for me. :smallwink:

Dausuul
2007-08-28, 06:34 PM
I have to agree with this. Having been in fights in RL, with and without weapons (and I don't mean stage combats or training bouts, I mean *he's trying to kill me* kind of fights), I can honestly say that rushing in attacking wildly is a good way to get yourself killed.

So, I would like that defensive fighting was modelled more effectively in D&D. Not necessarily longer fights, but ones where there's more to it than "I bash the giant", "I'm going to Power Attack, and bash the giant harder this round", "Lookit, I use another feat and *bash*"

With that I'll agree. D&D tries to present a variety of tactical options, but the mechanics heavily favor the "berserker charge" approach, if only because defensive tactics usually result in the enemy going after your squishier friends. I'm not saying there's no such thing as tactics or self-defense in a real, lethal fight; just that I don't see those tactics resulting in fights that go on for 5-10 minutes.

Forgive me if this question is too personal, but how long would you say the fights you were in generally took?

Bassetking
2007-08-28, 06:35 PM
Well, I guess you and I are living in different planets. Where I live sports commentators and trainers use the phrase "peaked too soon" so often it's a cliche, rugby players become prone to injury when they train too hard for too long, tennis players and entire football teams complain if they have too many matches scheduled in a week because it puts them at a disadvantage, and even chess and snooker tournaments try to keep the finals on separate days from the semi's.

My personal experience from swordfighting with metal weapons is that even once you are in condition the effects of a long, hard fight last for hours.

The key term there being, Nagora, a "Good long fight"

I've been playing since 2nd ed, and can count the number of times I've seen combat go beyond twenty rounds on one hand. Beyond thirty on one finger.

That whole combat? In Game? Two to Three Minutes.

Training too hard for too long? TWO OR THREE MINUTES?

Yes, exhaustive training regimens will promote muscle fatigue, and dangerous levels of un-recovered damage in professional athletes.

The length of time involved in most encounters is less than one Boxing round. It's less than four downs, in american football. Less time than one batter is up at any given at-bat in baseball.

Never mind that the most singularly gifted and potent athletes that have EVER LIVED come in somewhere around a level 5 on the D&D Level scale.

The overwhelming majority of all of the combat I've seen in over a decade of gaming CERTAINLY lasted less in-game time than an inning of Baseball, a quarter of Football, or a period of Hockey.

Yes, after prolonged, extensive rigorous activity, it can take some time to recover.

Most D&D Combat encounters don't come anywhere near comparing to the length of the activities that would exhaust one for an entire day.

TheOOB
2007-08-28, 07:02 PM
I know this discussion have deviated pretty far from 4th edition info from PAX, but here is a piece I found out there anyways.

New base classes will only be found in players handbooks, so you only have to look through a limited number of books to find a class for your character. PrCs will still be found in other books.

Fhaolan
2007-08-28, 07:10 PM
Forgive me if this question is too personal, but how long would you say the fights you were in generally took?

Unfortunately, there were a lot of variables in those, so I'm not sure how helpful those kinds of statistics would be. It's rare for me to be real fight against just one person in blank terrain unless it's a duel-like situation with a ring of people around. Usually it's a group against a group, with lots of junk nearby to toss at and dodge around. Sometimes somebody prematurely ends the fight by shooting someone. Or the police show up, either way.

The duel-like situations I've been in, with people making a circle around you and you going at it with knives, are a bit different. Those were more about intimidation and dominance than really trying to kill. They all ended in first blood, usually. If it went beyond that it got ended by the spectators.

Of course, this was all *years* ago, back when I was... sixteen? Eighteen? Something like that. All that garbage seemed important then, somehow.

Deepblue706
2007-08-28, 07:13 PM
With that I'll agree. D&D tries to present a variety of tactical options, but the mechanics heavily favor the "berserker charge" approach, if only because defensive tactics usually result in the enemy going after your squishier friends.

Well, there's that, and the fact that using other tactics when the enemy IS going for you rarely work in the first place.



I'm not saying there's no such thing as tactics or self-defense in a real, lethal fight; just that I don't see those tactics resulting in fights that go on for 5-10 minutes.

Whoa whoa, I never said 5-10 minutes. I said I went 3 minutes before a touch was scored in a fencing bout, and a few SCA matches. They were very good matches.

I think that was just slightly too much of an exaggeration.

Cartographer
2007-08-28, 07:17 PM
Fast paced, high content adventures that consist of the same abilities being repeated over and over again with everyone returned to a state of full rest and recovery after each encounter sounds a bit dull to me. Actually, very dull indeed.

Yes. If only someone could find a way to give characters heroic moves above and beyond their normal abilities, without having them repeated over and over every round. Perhaps a once-per-encounter system would work?

As I see it, if I'm playing a fighter of massive strength, I want to be able to use that massive strength in ways no-one else can. If you're happy with 'add a slightly larger number than other people do', then stick with first edition. If you think that any restrictions on fighter's ability use are a crime, then give the fighter double damage on every attack and watch balance go out of a different window to the old ones.

If, on the other hand, you think that having the big blow available when it really matters is a valid stylistic move and an interesting choice of timing for the fighter to make - as I do - then can you think of a better method than per-encounter?

TheOOB
2007-08-28, 07:26 PM
Well characters tend to change very little between encounters anyways. If you fight five orcs five times in a row, every battle will be the same, as you'll use the same abilities and tactics. The trick is to vary encounters enough where the players will be forced to rethink their battle stratagy instead of relying on the same tactics.

Douglas
2007-08-28, 07:35 PM
So, I would like that defensive fighting was modelled more effectively in D&D. Not necessarily longer fights, but ones where there's more to it than "I bash the giant", "I'm going to Power Attack, and bash the giant harder this round", "Lookit, I use another feat and *bash*"
Speaking from personal experience from a recent arena match I played, Tome of Battle has added quite a bit in the way of defensive fighting. My character had a very powerful offense, but my opponent kept throwing counters at me which, combined with the Pearl of Black Doubt stance, brought my hit rate waaaaaaay down. Now consider that ToB appears to have been the testbed for 4E melee. :smallwink:

Dausuul
2007-08-28, 07:37 PM
Whoa whoa, I never said 5-10 minutes. I said I went 3 minutes before a touch was scored in a fencing bout, and a few SCA matches. They were very good matches.

I think that was just slightly too much of an exaggeration.

I wasn't talking about your fencing matches specifically; this debate got started over the question of which is more realistic, the 6-second 3E (and presumably 4E) combat round, or the 60-second 1E/2E combat round. D&D combats typically take about 5 rounds, 10 at the outside, so it's a question of 30-60 seconds versus 5-10 minutes.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-28, 07:39 PM
I wasn't talking about your fencing matches specifically; this debate got started over the question of which is more realistic, the 6-second 3E (and presumably 4E) combat round, or the 60-second 1E/2E combat round. D&D combats typically take 5 rounds, 10 at the outside, so it's a question of 30-60 seconds versus 5-10 minutes.

You ever seen a sabre-duel? Each "round" lasts about three seconds, tops.

TSGames
2007-08-28, 07:56 PM
I'm not sure about anyone else, but if I were the DM, I'd make sure my players knew the BASICS of their classes before they picked them.


Knowing may be half the battle, but not knowing is half the fun!

Jack Mann
2007-08-28, 08:27 PM
Right, let's talk about a few things.

First off, four encounters in a day? Largely a myth. I'll acknowledge that. It's a recommendation, but it's often wrong, as many DMs have noticed. Parties may be able to go through more or fewer of these, depending on what exactly they're up against, what level they are, what tactics they're using, and how lucky they are. At low levels, the number tends to be fewer than four. Set the party four encounters in a day, and they're liable to die (and might die anyway, if they suffer any bad luck; a single good hit can kill just about any low level character). At higher levels, they can take more.

But there is still generally a point where the characters don't have anything left they can throw at the enemy. The casters have run out of spells, the barbarian can't rage, and HP is low all around. They can still fight, but they're not going to be nearly as effective (lack of buffs and offensive abilities). Take it far enough, and you reach the point where if they aren't allowed to rest, they will die. Grind them further, and you may be looking at a TPK. A good DM will be know approximately where this is, but if the players are unlucky (or misinterpret the situation), they might reach that point a lot sooner than the DM planned. At that point, the DM can either hold off on the plot he designed, or risk killing the party. Conversely, they might not reach that point when you plan them to, and you need to think fast to make sure they still have a challenge.

With what I've seen so far from 4th edition, it seems that you'll have a much better idea of what they're going into each fight with. They might be low on HP, but they can still fight fairly well, so that while there's a greater element of risk, they've still got a chance of making their way through the battle. They can still take on a tough opponent, even if they'd prefer to rest and get healed up first.

And per encounter is basically an umbrella term. All it really means in practice is that whatever recharge you need for your abilities, it's impractical in combat. ToB classes aren't really per encounter, since they can recharge in mid-fight. Someone who takes a maneuver without a ToB class does have a per encounter ability, since he has to go a full minute without fighting to use it again. Same with skill tricks. You don't need to define what an encounter is for this to work. You just have to make sure the player can't do it over and over again in the middle of a fight.

Starbuck_II
2007-08-28, 09:26 PM
And per encounter is basically an umbrella term. All it really means in practice is that whatever recharge you need for your abilities, it's impractical in combat. ToB classes aren't really per encounter, since they can recharge in mid-fight. Someone who takes a maneuver without a ToB class does have a per encounter ability, since he has to go a full minute without fighting to use it again. Same with skill tricks. You don't need to define what an encounter is for this to work. You just have to make sure the player can't do it over and over again in the middle of a fight.

True, but recharging means using no special moves (need swift action and says you can't) and if Swordsage give up turn. If Crusader, pray to god they return (literally).

I mean, if a particular technique is very good against these guys I can see trying to recharge it, but otherwise it is best to use all your available abilities first.

Jack Mann
2007-08-28, 09:42 PM
True. The point is just that it's possible for them to get them back in a fight if you really want to, whereas most per-encounter abilities it's rarely practical, unless one of your buddies can hold off the enemy for ten or more rounds. But as you say, for warblade or especially swordsage, it might not be worthwhile. Granted, just about any swordsage will get adaptive style (I think part of the balancing factor on swordsage builds is that they effectively have one fewer feat from the need for that 'un), but it's still a round spent doing nothing else.

Crusaders, despite the divine intervention fluff, are best off, since they don't need to spend an action to get them back. It happens automatically. They're right back in the fray with their abilities, even if they're not sure just which ones they'll have from round to round.

Deepblue706
2007-08-28, 09:45 PM
I wasn't talking about your fencing matches specifically; this debate got started over the question of which is more realistic, the 6-second 3E (and presumably 4E) combat round, or the 60-second 1E/2E combat round. D&D combats typically take about 5 rounds, 10 at the outside, so it's a question of 30-60 seconds versus 5-10 minutes.

I wasn't talking about my fencing matches NOT being 5-10 minutes long, I was using that as an example of how sometimes, combat can be lengthy (but generally not too long). D&D 3.x can't really...ever model an extended fight unless you have two fighters at level 1 using Combat Expertise and fighting defensively while using shields and wearing heavy armor. That shouldn't be only instance where things should be drawn out, IMO.

I have no strong opinions about 6 seconds, but 60 seconds does seem too long. I just think less should happen in 6 seconds that what already does. There's a large gap between 30-60 seconds and 5-10 minutes. I think it should rest somewhere between both range limits.

TheOOB
2007-08-28, 09:52 PM
I think the idea that a round is a preset length of time is rather silly. The amount of time a round is should be however long it takes everyone to act. In some situations that may be a couple seconds (a quick volly of arrows exchanged between two groups.) to a minute or more.(an epic duel on the rigging of a ship).

Like many things in D&D, pacing is really something that should be adjusted to fit the moment.

Xan
2007-08-29, 12:09 AM
The problem I see with switching over to mostly per encounter abilities is that the characters are going to be able to go on for far too long. There should be a point when the characters are just exhausted and need to sleep. With casters, I've always interpreted it to be that casting a spell is a physically demanding experience, and so after casting a certain number per day they are simply too tire to cast any more. This is something that I've thought for a while should be applied to non-casters as well. Even if you only get 80% of your capability back after each encounter with the per encounter set-up, what is to stop a party from going at 80% for five days straight only taking fifteen to twenty minutes to rest? As for things like the Rogue's Defensive Roll, it makes sense to me that something that physically demanding takes a lot out of you, more than you can get back after only pausing for fifteen minutes. As for combat length, I have always thought that a six second round was a little short. As someone else pointed out, you're not rolling every swing of a sword, you're rolling the ones that matter where you are really trying to hit someone, not all of the feinting that goes on in between. I've always thought a fifteen-twenty second round was a lot more reasonable. That makes most fights last about a minute, with the big fights lasting up to five. I think that's pretty reasonable.

Xan
2007-08-29, 12:14 AM
And I definately disagree that making caster spells per encounter makes it more fair for them. If a caster is out of spells after only two or three encounters, they they're not playing their character right. Every primary caster should have at least a couple of wands to fill out their spell output each day. Just like fighters have to spend money on better weapons, casters have to shell out money to buy themselves the equipment to make themselves effective for a full day of adventuring. I've never had a DM who stuck to only four encounters per day. And you know what, our casters have been fine. I'm playing a caster now, and honestly I'm rarely the first party member who wants to rest, and that's with me casting something, either of my own or with a wand, almost every round of combat. If a player is complaining demanding the whole party sleep after only two or three encounters to get his spells back, that's too bad for him. He should learn to plan ahead better.

Jack Mann
2007-08-29, 12:21 AM
For one thing, we don't know if they'll be able to recover hit points that easily. Being out of healing abilities will still keep them from sallying forth. And there may also be rules for sleeping. Going five days without rest isn't good in the real world. Some good exhaustion rules should help with that.

And the problem is that the spells-per-day constraints don't work consistently across levels, and also create an irritating limit on the adventures you can run. No matter how good the player is, eventually they're going to run out of spells if you throw enough encounters at them. If they constantly have to supplement their spells per day with scrolls and wands, that's going become very expensive, especially with the higher level spells.

horseboy
2007-08-29, 01:06 AM
Good lord, I really hope you're wrong (though a small part of me feels that this makes sense from a 'company about to release a huge product' point of view). It really pissed me off that beta testers were chosen from people that attended that conference a few weeks ago... I just hope that there's some diversity in their beta tester group.
That's what happened in 3rd.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49378

nagora
2007-08-29, 03:45 AM
If, on the other hand, you think that having the big blow available when it really matters is a valid stylistic move and an interesting choice of timing for the fighter to make - as I do - then can you think of a better method than per-encounter?

Yes: per day. If the "big blow when it really matters" can be pulled out every few minutes it doesn't sound like something special to me. If you have to think carefully about when to use it because you won't be able to do it again for quite a while, then its more special and more dramatic.

It's not like a high-level fighter in D&D is some weedly little accountant guy, is it? S/he is already a superhuman capable of going into combat with monsters and dealing damage that would cause an enraged elephant to think twice. The "big blow" should be an extra boost on top of their already incredible abilities.

The problem is, I think, that many players have become jaded with their characters and are constantly looking for new power-ups to keep their interest. Part of this is how easy it is to go up levels in 3ed, and part of it is that feats are not special - everyone has feats and plenty of them. Feats have taken on the feel of a collectable card game, IMHO.

<thinking out loud about fighters>
It would be better if feats were restricted to PCs and each PC had to choose which feat to maintain - perhaps two at high level. Then the character would become identified with that feat. The DM would only allow other PCs to take a duplicate feat if the original PC was dead or willing to teach it.

This would emphasise the fact that "normal" combat is already quite special for these guys. But would it? Is it too late and the entire culture of D&D is one where high HP and AC are no longer seen as things normal people can only dream about? Has the mundane already seemed in too far?

Still, a small number (in play, need lots to choose from - bigger balance issues) of feats which mark characters out might be a lot of fun.

Am I just saying "go play Stafford & Law's Heroquest"? Hmmm:smallconfused:
</thinking out loud about fighters>

Anyway - per day for those occassions where your "normal" superhuman abilities of fantastic Hit Points and Saving Throws and Damage and AC are not enough and you really have to pull something special out seems much more reasonable and dramatic and fun to me.

hamlet
2007-08-29, 07:23 AM
You ever seen a sabre-duel? Each "round" lasts about three seconds, tops.

I've been in Sabre duels. Hundreds of them. And you can't make any claim about "rounds" since the sport specifically and artificially divides up the action when something happens.

Yes, action is extremely fast, but saying "each round lasts like three seconds" is a meaningless statement since there's no such thing as a round. That's a game mechanic that doesn't apply to the sport. Add onto that that, very often, "rounds" could last for minutes at a time and you really don't have a leg to stand on there.

Khanderas
2007-08-29, 08:08 AM
Per encounter to me means that the Wizard manages to refresh his spell from his spellbook, taking a minute or two per spell and level (or so). If he is running he cannot do that. If a goblin is stabbing him in the face he cannot do that.
That is per encounter. Not quite the same as an automatic downtime of a spell (or cooldown) that refreshes after 2 minutes (or whatever) no matter what you are doing.

Sorcerers reqiure meditation to recharge spellslots that are used for whatever spell he knows in that spellslot, but technically it is the same as for a wizard insofar he can't do that while being stabbed in the face.

Non-magical (Ex) abilities that are limited in the /day /hour or the like... Chemestry. The dodge mentioned a few times (something about being able to dodge 2 times / day). To use this extraordinary dodging the rogue burns an adrenaline like substance that makes things clearer for a moment, and speeds up the rogue slightly so he can dodge better. In a world with magic, that somone can gain such an ability isn't by comparason implausable.

Healing lies in the realm of the Gods, and quite frankly they do take offense to needy children so when they say you got an alotted amount of d6's to heal you gotta deal with it. Stretch the limits and deal with the consequences. Basically whatever the Gods say about healing goes because they say so.

EDIT: Oh and some things at-will: because you are a level 15 wizard, you darn well can make magic missiles at will.
Some things /day: Because you need a fresh mind as today for the newer spells that are that much more complex and powerful.

nagora
2007-08-29, 08:20 AM
Per encounter to me means that the Wizard manages to refresh his spell from his spellbook, taking a minute or two per spell and level (or so). If he is running he cannot do that. If a goblin is stabbing him in the face he cannot do that.
That is per encounter. Not quite the same as an automatic downtime of a spell (or cooldown) that refreshes after 2 minutes (or whatever) no matter what you are doing.

Sorcerers reqiure meditation to recharge spellslots that are used for whatever spell he knows in that spellslot, but technically it is the same as for a wizard insofar he can't do that while being stabbed in the face.



If that's what WotC are suggesting (and I don't think it is) then casters become walking Nukes unless every offensive spell from Magic Missle up is nurfed big time.


Non-magical (Ex) abilities that are limited in the /day /hour or the like... Chemestry. The dodge mentioned a few times (something about being able to dodge 2 times / day). To use this extraordinary dodging the rogue burns an adrenaline like substance that makes things clearer for a moment, and speeds up the rogue slightly so he can dodge better. In a world with magic, that somone can gain such an ability isn't by comparason implausable.

Yeah, right. In a world with magic my character being immunde to physical harm isn't implausable. Magic is not a cure-all excuse for making characters into unbelievable mannequins.


Healing lies in the realm of the Gods, and quite frankly they do take offense to needy children so when they say you got an alotted amount of d6's to heal you gotta deal with it. Stretch the limits and deal with the consequences. Basically whatever the Gods say about healing goes because they say so.

This idea that all gods are interested in healing is banal and tedious. I want gods to be interested in their sphere of control and that's it. If that's healing, well and good. If it's death or the Sea or any number of things, there's no obvious reason for their clerics to heal anyone with the possible exception of themseves and devout worshippers. I'm really sick of the "Cleric=healer" trope; it was weak in 1ed and it's not got any better since with the "spontaneous castings" all being more bloody heal spells!

Khanderas
2007-08-29, 08:38 AM
If that's what WotC are suggesting (and I don't think it is) then casters become walking Nukes unless every offensive spell from Magic Missle up is nurfed big time.



Yeah, right. In a world with magic my character being immunde to physical harm isn't implausable. Magic is not a cure-all excuse for making characters into unbelievable mannequins.



This idea that all gods are interested in healing is banal and tedious. I want gods to be interested in their sphere of control and that's it. If that's healing, well and good. If it's death or the Sea or any number of things, there's no obvious reason for their clerics to heal anyone with the possible exception of themseves and devout worshippers. I'm really sick of the "Cleric=healer" trope; it was weak in 1ed and it's not got any better since with the "spontaneous castings" all being more bloody heal spells!
Well there will be some nerfing spellwise, if nothing else to get rid of Casters win every time spells that many say exist (no expert here, I just read this board) but the idea is that instead of being able to memorize Magic missile 5 times at level whatever with whatever amount of bonus spells per day, you can use it twice, but can recharge between encounters instead of casting it 5 times, then hide behind fighters the rest of the day OR make sure the party runs off and hides to rest.
The point seems to be to make the wizards power more even as opposed to BAM I WIN! then do nothing the rest of the day.

Why healing would have a special ruling would be because if Cure Light Wounds are free, a cleric enabled party would always be at full hitpoints since it would quite soon be an "at will" ability. Problebly lots of spells that should never be at will but healing is a simple one that is easy to point at.

Jack Mann
2007-08-29, 09:29 AM
If that's what WotC are suggesting (and I don't think it is) then casters become walking Nukes unless every offensive spell from Magic Missle up is nurfed big time.

Magic missile and other damage spells are already nerfed in 3.5. In 3.5, they're among the weakest spells in the wizard's repertoire. Nine times out of ten, a wizard has something better to be doing with his action. Understand this. Wizards just aren't good at damage. Sorcerers are only slightly better. If you want to play a blaster caster, you'll want a psion.

Now, I'd be upset if wizards were more focused on damage spells, but it would hardly overpower them. Quite the opposite. Unless they actually increase the power of magic missile et al.

Jack Mann
2007-08-29, 09:31 AM
If that's what WotC are suggesting (and I don't think it is) then casters become walking Nukes unless every offensive spell from Magic Missle up is nurfed big time.

Magic missile and other damage spells are already nerfed in 3.5. In 3.5, they're among the weakest spells in the wizard's repertoire. Nine times out of ten, a wizard has something better to be doing with his action. Understand this. Wizards just aren't good at damage. Sorcerers are only slightly better. If you want to play a blaster caster, you'll want a psion.

Now, I'd be upset if wizards were more focused on damage spells, but it would hardly overpower them. Quite the opposite. Unless they actually increase the power of magic missile et al.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-29, 10:50 AM
Even if you only get 80% of your capability back after each encounter with the per encounter set-up, what is to stop a party from going at 80% for five days straight only taking fifteen to twenty minutes to rest?
An interesting idea would be that at the end of the encounter, you got back 80% of the capability at the beginning of the encounter.

Thus after the second encounter, you replenish to 64%, after the third, to 51%, and so forth (make it 80, 60, 50 for easier math). You still get exhausted, only less so.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-08-29, 11:26 AM
I think the idea that a round is a preset length of time is rather silly. The amount of time a round is should be however long it takes everyone to act. In some situations that may be a couple seconds (a quick volly of arrows exchanged between two groups.) to a minute or more.(an epic duel on the rigging of a ship).

Like many things in D&D, pacing is really something that should be adjusted to fit the moment.

Did you ever play Chaosium Call of Cthulhu? I think the quote from the book is: a round lasts long enough for everyone to do one or two insteresting things. It's a neat abstract round system.


That's what happened in 3rd.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49378

:smallfrown: