4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX

[Thinker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[nagora]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[nagora]

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]

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]

{Scrubbed}

[mudbunny]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.