I have a lot of things that give me pause in 5e

152 posts / 0 new
Last post
And no amount of "just wait it's only a paytest" or "modules will fix it" reassurances from the choir will solve them.

Nor will reassurances from the devs to be quite honest as I am firmly in the "Show Me" camp of customers. I've seen too much of both from both fans of games in development and developers working on games and when the game does come out and does suck in the ways I was worried about during playtesting I wind up having wasted my money in hopes that the cheerleaders and dev's were right.

I know there are others out there with concerns as well  and trying to drown those voices out will not improve the game.  Denying that we have a right to these concerns says a lot more about those cheerleaders who try to drown us out than it does us.
 
Howdy folks,

I'm going to put in a little pre-emptive request here, due to what has happened in other recent threads of this nature.

Expressing concerns and negative feedback is welcome and appreciated.  However, please do so without making personal attacks and insults against other forum users or Wizards of the Coast employees.

Thanks.    

All around helpful simian

And no amount of "just wait it's only a paytest" or "modules will fix it" reassurances from the choir will solve them.

Nor will reassurances from the devs to be quite honest as I am firmly in the "Show Me" camp of customers. I've seen too much of both from both fans of games in development and developers working on games and when the game does come out and does suck in the ways I was worried about during playtesting I wind up having wasted my money in hopes that the cheerleaders and dev's were right.

I know there are others out there with concerns as well  and trying to drown those voices out will not improve the game.  Denying that we have a right to these concerns says a lot more about those cheerleaders who try to drown us out than it does us.
 




I would also like to see some more options.

I hope the next packet is not too far away.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Define what module means in the context of the game, if it is not included in the the standard game, then nothing has changed in referene to the warlord posts. Except they still want an out.
stoloc-
I have concerns as well. I'll give you an example. My play test group liked the latest packet the least. We liked Expertise Dice and wanted it used across multiple classes. They ended up doing that but calling it other names like Skill Tricks and Martial Maneuvers. I prefer the term XD. We felt that simplifing the mechanic was easier for players to grasp rather than reach for varied mechanics that cause unneeded confusion and hurt the possibilty for multiclassing.
What are one of your concerns about Next? Lets use this forum to discuss it and come to an idea that can be used to help the designers make OUR game better for all of us.
I really think they need to form a glossary of terms so we can have a clear understand of the language they're speaking. The word "core" seems to change every edition, for instance. Basically, give us an actual outline of how they're planning this out.

They also need to let us know what we're testing when a packet comes out. At least the stuff they're the most worried about. Also, is it a module? Is it something you can't decide on? It is something Bob came up with at lunch? 
stoloc-
I have concerns as well. I'll give you an example. My play test group liked the latest packet the least. We liked Expertise Dice and wanted it used across multiple classes. They ended up doing that but calling it other names like Skill Tricks and Martial Maneuvers. I prefer the term XD. We felt that simplifing the mechanic was easier for players to grasp rather than reach for varied mechanics that cause unneeded confusion and hurt the possibilty for multiclassing.
What are one of your concerns about Next? Lets use this forum to discuss it and come to an idea that can be used to help the designers make OUR game better for all of us.



While not a huge fan of their whole martial maneuvers as a method of delivering cool stuff for noncasters (prefer the Bo9S or 4e AEDU means of doing so) I can understand and empathize with your concern.

My particular concerns are many and varied - in general what I want is a fairly simple game that is flexible and balanced.  I have no problems with dials and modules that can give others the playstyle they want as long as I get the one I want too.  

So far I have seen no evidence of this from the dev's and am quite concerned about their seemingly not understanding what it is I DO want.

I really think they need to form a glossary of terms so we can have a clear understand of the language they're speaking. The word "core" seems to change every edition, for instance. Basically, give us an actual outline of how they're planning this out.

They also need to let us know what we're testing when a packet comes out. At least the stuff they're the most worried about. Also, is it a module? Is it something you can't decide on? It is something Bob came up with at lunch? 


Without a glossary I will assume worse case every time.
I never liked the AEDU for martial classes. Thought it ROCKED for Wizards! I figured as a practiced martial artist either you could do it or not, but only once a day I could do a cool spinning attack?!
Which I why I relate better to the XD idea. Say I am a practiced Warrior so I have 4 XD. I can attack one goblin for x5 damage or I can attack 3 goblins for x2 damage, or I can attack 5 goblins at normal damage. Or maybe I spend an XD to ignore cover or defend myself or defend an ally. But since I am trained I can do any of these things all the time, not just every once so often.
I think the play test that we have seen is so far from complete that we can't assume the latest packet is close to what will be released. I hope it is not. But I do think the folks at the top are looking to put out a strong product and have the opportunity to do so. 
I never liked the AEDU for martial classes. Thought it ROCKED for Wizards! I figured as a practiced martial artist either you could do it or not, but only once a day I could do a cool spinning attack?!
Which I why I relate better to the XD idea. Say I am a practiced Warrior so I have 4 XD. I can attack one goblin for x5 damage or I can attack 3 goblins for x2 damage, or I can attack 5 goblins at normal damage. Or maybe I spend an XD to ignore cover or defend myself or defend an ally. But since I am trained I can do any of these things all the time, not just every once so often.
I think the play test that we have seen is so far from complete that we can't assume the latest packet is close to what will be released. I hope it is not. But I do think the folks at the top are looking to put out a strong product and have the opportunity to do so. 



What I'd probably do would be to give martial characters tactical flexibility so they could use x number of encounter powers per encounter in any combination they chose to do and y daily powers in any order they chose to do but I would give some arcane characters strategic flexibility where they would need to memorize their encounter and daily abilities but could choose different ones at each memorization based on what their current needs were.

I liked aedu, but I'm happy they came up with MDD. It seems to impress the grognards while serving the purpose of aedu - allowing the fighter to be cool and have interesting options every turn.

I really hope they can continue that - figure out _why_ something was designed that way, and then take that idea, if not the implementation. I'm just not seeing it a lot in things like warlords, healing, etc
What I'd probably do would be to give martial characters tactical flexibility so they could use x number of encounter powers per encounter in any combination they chose to do and y daily powers in any order they chose to do but I would give some arcane characters strategic flexibility where they would need to memorize their encounter and daily abilities but could choose different ones at each memorization based on what their current needs were.


This is a good post.  For people who are unhappy, posts like this are very helpful.  It clearly expresses what he wants to see, and it does it in a respectful way.  Stoloc, I suggest editing your first post, and replacing what you wrote with this.  Add any other things you would like to see and/or stuff you dislike about the current packet.

Be as detailed and specific as possible.  When you say, "in general what I want is a fairly simple game that is flexible and balanced", you aren't giving nearly enough information.  To me, the current playtest material IS a fairly simple game that is flexible and balanced. 

But your post that I quoted really gives specifics.  You want to see martial characters with bigger powers so they can have a larger impact in combat.  If I understand you right, you would give martial characters a small number of powers (encounter and daily) and they can perform a certain number of each (per encounter and per day).  Arcane characters must prepare in advance, but in exchange have access to a far greater number of powers.

Personally, I found the maneuvers to be very fun to use.  As you gain maneuvers and dice you get a huge increase in potential complexity (with the choices of which maneuvers and how many dice to spend for each).

I never liked the AEDU for martial classes. Thought it ROCKED for Wizards! I figured as a practiced martial artist either you could do it or not, but only once a day I could do a cool spinning attack?!
Which I why I relate better to the XD idea. Say I am a practiced Warrior so I have 4 XD. I can attack one goblin for x5 damage or I can attack 3 goblins for x2 damage, or I can attack 5 goblins at normal damage. Or maybe I spend an XD to ignore cover or defend myself or defend an ally. But since I am trained I can do any of these things all the time, not just every once so often.
I think the play test that we have seen is so far from complete that we can't assume the latest packet is close to what will be released. I hope it is not. But I do think the folks at the top are looking to put out a strong product and have the opportunity to do so. 



What I'd probably do would be to give martial characters tactical flexibility so they could use x number of encounter powers per encounter in any combination they chose to do and y daily powers in any order they chose to do but I would give some arcane characters strategic flexibility where they would need to memorize their encounter and daily abilities but could choose different ones at each memorization based on what their current needs were.




You're going down a road that for me,  would mean I'd pass on 5th edition.  That all sounds like 4th edition,  and I wasn't a fan.

Of course,  you and I are now illustrating my biggest concern with 5th edition.  Two completely different editions are our preference,  they can't be integrated together,  and one of the two of us would walk (I'm guessing).

Which is why I still maintain that WOTC needs to drop Basic/Standard/Advanced and replace it with Basic/Traditional/Tactics,  where Tactics is a 4th edition variant and Traditional is Pre-4th.  The current design means that they're going to have some not insignificant number of people pass.
I liked aedu, but I'm happy they came up with MDD. It seems to impress the grognards while serving the purpose of aedu - allowing the fighter to be cool and have interesting options every turn. I really hope they can continue that - figure out _why_ something was designed that way, and then take that idea, if not the implementation. I'm just not seeing it a lot in things like warlords, healing, etc



 Its not fighters can't have nice stuff but the way they implemented stuff in 4th. No one really cared about the Bo9S classes in 3.5. Hell they could make powers for fighter in 3.5 that you get via the fighter bonus feats. 3.5 needed to be fixed but they took away eveything that was fun in 3.5 and replaced it with D&D chess. They used AEDU across the board and then locked you into roles as well where 3.5 you built your own role the problem being sum classes could do more than one role and outshnie the other classes in their role.
I liked aedu, but I'm happy they came up with MDD. It seems to impress the grognards while serving the purpose of aedu - allowing the fighter to be cool and have interesting options every turn.



I don't like MDD either.  I like it less than AEDU actually, which is why I'm happy to let 4E fans have DDN.  It's prolly easier  to fix 3.75 than to hope for WOTC to meet my design requirement.    

They used AEDU across the board and then locked you into roles as well.

Yes, they did, and I thought that was one of the greatest strengths of 4e. It took the "what am I?" ambiguity out of the equation and let the player focus on the "who am I?" instead. 

And that's exactly the problem: there is no possible solution that will please everyone. In all likelihood, you and I are not both going to play DDN when it releases; one of us will find it pleasing and familiar and the other will find it ugly and alien. Which will be which is anybody's guess at this point.

I have no problems with dials and modules that can give others the playstyle they want as long as I get the one I want too.  

So far I have seen no evidence of this from the dev's and am quite concerned about their seemingly not understanding what it is I DO want.

My fear isn't that the designers will fail to cater to my idea of the perfect D&D (they're failing this for me now, and they failed it for a lot of other people with 4e), but rather that they will let their fear of letting anyone down drive their work and end up letting everyone down.

I don't like MDD either.  I like it less than AEDU actually, which is why I'm happy to let 4E fans have DDN.

The irony here is that many 4e fans I've spoken with have drawn exactly the opposite conclusion from exactly the same opinion: they (and I) like MDD less than AEDU, and are therefore happy to let 3.X fans have DDN.

So if the 4e fans don't want to play the game because it feels too much like 3.X, and the 3.X fans don't like the game because it feels too much like 4e, where does that leave the game?

'Failed', is my guess.
So if the 4e fans don't want to play the game because it feels too much like 3.X, and the 3.X fans don't like the game because it feels too much like 4e, where does that leave the game?

'Failed', is my guess.

This has been my view for quite some time.  D&D Next picks and choses its elements in a way that causes most D&D factions to want to take a pass on it.
 With me my only requirements are not to many elements of 4th ed. Doesn't bother me if they have the 4th ed classes and races included, doesn't both me if they use 4th ed round structure, weapn properties or even if they recycle 1W, 2W, 3W.

 The big ones would be AEDU (AEDU is fine ok on individual classes or class varients), the 4th ed role structure and things like healing surges. They do not have to clone AD&D or 3rd ed to keep me happy. new prolems that may scare me away though.

BA as currently implemented
A bland build you own D&D (needs some default IMHO)
A lack of fluff/interesting stuff
Bland boring classes

 A spell plague era FR will just cause me not to buy FR products. 
What's wrong with surges, it was great not needing to lug around fracking clerics, or being able to dispense with leaders entirely because people could heal their own arses.

Plus surges are the best way to give martial characters "dailies" give the uber cool super moves but those moves are not easy or spammable because they put your body under intense strain, you have to burn a surge to use them.
I have a problem with bounded accuracy the way it is implemented as well.  Actually it's pretty big on my list of disappointment, and the irony is that BA is not that hard to solve.  A very simple fix is to use a larger dice than d20 on roll checks, like say d100 or d20+d10.  You can level up as you have done in the past 1e-4e, but because you are using larger dice rolls, your bonuses to to-hit and skills won't be as impacting as they have been.  Problem solved.  There is no need to bloat damage with MDD.
What's wrong with surges, it was great not needing to lug around fracking clerics, or being able to dispense with leaders entirely because people could heal their own arses.

Plus surges are the best way to give martial characters "dailies" give the uber cool super moves but those moves are not easy or spammable because they put your body under intense strain, you have to burn a surge to use them.



 They were gamey, lead to hit point bloat and were not even that clever. They basically turned everyone into self propelled recharging CLW wands. Also made it difficult to challenge PCs without having to grind through hundreds of hit points. They took a bad idea (CLW wands) in 3.5 and made it worse.
What's wrong with surges, it was great not needing to lug around fracking clerics, or being able to dispense with leaders entirely because people could heal their own arses.

Plus surges are the best way to give martial characters "dailies" give the uber cool super moves but those moves are not easy or spammable because they put your body under intense strain, you have to burn a surge to use them.



 They were gamey,


No... they are cinematic.... potions and healing kits are gamey. ...healing that isnt porportionate is gamey and Unlimited healing is tacky... 

If there are too many surges available or they recover too fast change the time for an extended rest or similar (it will adjust both the offensive and defensive interval of the party) and you may not want as many intense encounters but isnt that what you are after...
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Furthermore they reduced HP bloat. A 4e character doesn't need near as many HP as a 3e or 5e character, because they weren't getting them all at once.

This also allows for combats that aren't the last or second to last encounters in a day to be dramatic and threatening, because the monsters don't have to grind through a huge wall of HP designed to last all day. 
The middle ground most probably only drives extre 3e or 4e fans away... I and most probably many others would be satisfied with a "middle groud" game...

My favourite middle ground is a mix between ADnD and 4e... right now it is shaping up ok... although i was happier with older packets than with the current one...
Furthermore they reduced HP bloat. A 4e character doesn't need near as many HP as a 3e or 5e character, because they weren't getting them all at once.

This also allows for combats that aren't the last or second to last encounters in a day to be dramatic and threatening, because the monsters don't have to grind through a huge wall of HP designed to last all day. 



Exactly. They had to grind through surges. When you consider that you have limited access to surges, it led to some verytense encounters. Even worse were creatures that drained healing surges (wonderful replacement for level and ability drain). An encounter with wights could really throw a wrench into everything. 
Cinematic healing surge (Second Wind) (actually a few of them here if you count the bus):

[video=1519317]
Based on D&D films I would not try and claim D&D is cinematic in the 1st place for starters.
It sounds like you don't really understand how 4e's encounter system works, Zard.

The key to understanding hit points and healing in 4e is to realize that hit points are an encounter resource, but healing surges are a daily resource. Furthermore, the entirety of 4e's encounter construction system is based around healing surges; specifically, that you have a predictable and finite number available per day, and a predictable and finite ability to spend them during an encounter. 

If you break down the numbers, you'll discover that a "standard" encounter in 4e will on average strip about n+2 healing surges worth of hit points from the party, where n is the number of PCs in the party. You'll also discover that an average party in 4e has the ability to spend about n+2 healing surges per encounter. Additonally, you'll discover that n+2 healing surges worth of hit points is roughly equal to the party's sum total HP. Finally, you'll discover that 6(n+2) is just shy of the party's total number of healing surges.

 So, for an average party, around 6 encounters per day will nearly deplete them of healing surges, and thus of their ability to heal. Of course, these are very stripped-down calculations and in "lab" conditions. In actual play, most parties are down to about one healing surge each after around 5 encounters. 

This slow wearing-down of your total daily ability to heal damage sets practical limits on the length of the adventuring day, while the fact that powers and hit points recharge per encounter allows the last encounter of the day to still be challenging and fun without risking a sudden and undesired TPK.

You say 4e's math isn't very clever. I contend, citing the fact that 4e effectively solved the 5MWD problem that every other edition of the game (both those prior to it and the one following it) have struggled with, that 4e's math is quite clever indeed, but also quite cleverly hidden.


Based on D&D films I would not try and claim D&D is cinematic in the 1st place for starters.

It's your own fault for benchmarking anything against the D&D films.

You're telling me this isn't cinematic?





...or this?


 
It sounds like you don't really understand how 4e's encounter system works, Zard.

The key to understanding hit points and healing in 4e is to realize that hit points are an encounter resource, but healing surges are a daily resource. Furthermore, the entirety of 4e's encounter construction system is based around healing surges; specifically, that you have a predictable and finite number available per day, and a predictable and finite ability to spend them during an encounter. 

If you break down the numbers, you'll discover that a "standard" encounter in 4e will on average strip about n+2 healing surges worth of hit points from the party, where n is the number of PCs in the party. You'll also discover that an average party in 4e has the ability to spend about n+2 healing surges per encounter. Additonally, you'll discover that n+2 healing surges worth of hit points is roughly equal to the party's sum total HP. Finally, you'll discover that 6(n+2) is just shy of the party's total number of healing surges.

 So, for an average party, around 6 encounters per day will nearly deplete them of healing surges, and thus of their ability to heal. Of course, these are very stripped-down calculations and in "lab" conditions. In actual play, most parties are down to about one healing surge each after around 5 encounters. 

This slow wearing-down of your total daily ability to heal damage sets practical limits on the length of the adventuring day, while the fact that powers and hit points recharge per encounter allows the last encounter of the day to still be challenging and fun without risking a sudden and undesired TPK.

You say 4e's math isn't very clever. I contend, citing the fact that 4e effectively solved the 5MWD problem that every other edition of the game (both those prior to it and the one following it) have struggled with, that 4e's math is quite clever indeed, but also quite cleverly hidden.



Very good post. I would also just like to add that an "encounter" does not necessarily mean combat.

I liked aedu, but I'm happy they came up with MDD. It seems to impress the grognards while serving the purpose of aedu - allowing the fighter to be cool and have interesting options every turn.



I don't like MDD either.  I like it less than AEDU actually, which is why I'm happy to let 4E fans have DDN.  It's prolly easier  to fix 3.75 than to hope for WOTC to meet my design requirement.    



   AEDU and MDD are in some ways the same thing.  They are both limited resources the PC must beware of not using or exhausting.  And both are rather unrealistic since in a real situation, you do not lose your ability to toss a forward pass just because you have already done it.  You can try it play after play {which of course is not wise, but...}.  A more realistic system [no guarantees this is good, or even playable] would be ...
    Defender and attacker both roll.  If attacker rolls higher, he does damage.  Both sides are able to adjust their rolls [in advance], say defender adds to his roll by subtracting from his next attack roll.  And attacker takes a penalty to increase damage, or gets a bonus for reducing damage, or ...  The possible options are pretty wide, but the basic point would be that you can use your "daily" frequently [but probably miss with it most of the time, or suffer some other penalty.]
No 4th ed made the 5MWD even worse by encouraging every class to blow dailies and thenn go back home.

 You do not even need an encounter  system and it is very artifical to even include one. Once again they took a bad idea in 3.5 and made it worse.
The thing was, if you blew through your dailies early, you could still continue on efficiently. You had plenty of encounter powers. Dailies are usually reserved as panic buttons. It's all based on its cinematic value. It's the reason that Daniel doesn't use the Crane Kick in every fight.  

Blowing through your dailies early was actually a poor way to do things. You don't have enough of them to do that, and you have other alternatives for given situations. Why would you blow through a daily like Beacon of Hope when you have more efficient healing abilities at your disposal, for example? Why would a Fighter blow a daily that marks a target for the entire encounter on a group of kobolds that are going to die relatively quickly?  Why would a wizard use sleep on a standard encounter vs. pirates when a strong AoE will widdle them down enough for the strikers to take them out in the next round?

Blowing through your dailies early doesn't really help you much in 4e. You have reliable alternatives to the point that you don't need to do that, and not doing so is usually more efficient. Daily abilities will always mean the 5mwd is possible, but 4e drastically reduced the problem with encounter based resources and using the encounter as the gauge instead of the day.
I would also just like to add that an "encounter" does not necessarily mean combat.



Yes, we have all been aware of that, for many years now.



A lot aren't. Especially in the context of the post I was referring to. 5-6 encounters per day which drain resources. Usually, combat is what drains resources. In 4e, encounters designed around page 42 could also be a resource drain.
No 4th ed made the 5MWD even worse by encouraging every class to blow dailies and thenn go back home.

 You do not even need an encounter  system and it is very artifical to even include one. Once again they took a bad idea in 3.5 and made it worse.




Yep, talk about the most "Vancian" system ever; every (non-Essentials) class has daily spells.



Only they're not spells. They're daily exploits, prayers, evocations, disciplines, spells, etc.

The thing is, none of them were reliant on them to get through the day.
No 4th ed made the 5MWD even worse by encouraging every class to blow dailies and thenn go back home.

If you were trying to convince me that you've never actually played 4e, you've succeeded. 

At least give me enough credit to check my math before you call BS on me. I took the time to think through my response and present some passably developed reasoning behind my claims. I'd appreciate at least that much respect in return.

You do not even need an encounter  system and it is very artifical to even include one. Once again they took a bad idea in 3.5 and made it worse.

Why not go a step further and say that you don't need rules at all? They're artifical too, after all.

But of course, if you don't have rules of some kind, you don't have an RPG. You have improv acting--a noble pursuit in its own right, but only loosely related to what we do.

I would also just like to add that an "encounter" does not necessarily mean combat.



Yes, we have all been aware of that, for many years now.



A lot aren't.




I think that's an assumption, and an insulting one at that, encounters encompass, basically, the entire game, you seem to be loading it to feed your agenda, which I do not approve of.



Wow, you're really pushing accusations here. I am not pushing an agenda, nice straw man.. 4e specifically has non combat encounters designed to drain party resources, and a codified system for doing so if you want. That is my point. An encounter is actually a well defined term in 4e, and doesn't necessarily mean combat. That is all I was saying.

An encounter can be a massive epic final battle against the BBEG, or it could be a friendly negotiation with the king. Or, it could be solving a puzzle. It could even be as simple as gathering information around town. Each can be defined as an "encounter" with rewards codified by the DMG for doing so. The best part is, each of them can involve just as much teamwork as a combat encounter. 
I would also just like to add that an "encounter" does not necessarily mean combat.



Yes, we have all been aware of that, for many years now.


You seem to have a higher opinon of the average gamer than I do.


Wow, you're really pushing accusations here. I am not pushing an agenda. 4e specifically has non combat encounters designed to drain party resources, and a codified system for doing so if you want. That is my point. An encounter is actually a well defined term in 4e, and doesn't necessarily mean combat. That is all I was saying.

Your point is well made, and quite correct. 

I would also add that anyone who treats the concept of an "encounter" as a trait unique and endemic to 4e needs to get out and play more RPGs. As a concept roughly analogoue to a "scene" in theater or film, very nearly every RPG I've ever played has used the concept in some form.


Because it was my comments about 4e encounter structure that sparked this line of conversation, allow me to clarify what when I refer to an "encounter" as a mechanical concept in 4e, I actually am using the term explicitly to mean combat. The overwhelming majority of 4e's math revolves around the combat system (and this is good and correct RPG design, in my opinion), and the parts that don't are almost all far less mathematically structured than those that do.
I wouldn't claim a moral victory there the 2nd ed DMG spelled out what an encounter was, and no it was not all about combat either. A tree could be an encounter.

 Unless you know you have a time limit there is a heavy incentive to blow your dailies. You do not actually know how tough any group of pirates are. Your players may be metagaming and guessing it is an easy encounter but that is another downside of an assumed encounter level. If you are playing my games and I am the DM and some highway men come out and say "stand or deliver" or "hand over the XYZ" you do not know if they are mooks or a goup of NPCs 15 levels higher than you. You do not know if that is the only encounter of the day. You have a situation, you can fight, try to run, try to lie, or try and persuade them and anything else you can think off. All you know is that some group is threatening you. I do not always design my fights to be fair and sometimes I design them that the PCs will lose but I always give them the choice of what to do against an unknown variable. They do not have to fight the kings champion but he may be 20 levels higher than the PCs stupid EL rules be damned. If they pick a fight with him and get creamed oh well they will know better next time, have 4d6.
Unless you know you have a time limit there is a heavy incentive to blow your dailies. You do not actually know how tough any group of pirates are. Your players may be metagaming and guessing it is an easy encounter but that is another downside of an assumed encounter level. If you are playing my games and I am the DM and some highway men come out and say "stand or deliver" or "hand over the XYZ" you do not know if they are mooks or a goup of NPCs 15 levels higher than you. You do not know if that is the only encounter of the day. You have a situation, you can fight, try to run, try to lie, or try and persuade them and anything else you can think off. All you know is that some group is threatening you. I do not always design my fights to be fair and sometimes I design them that the PCs will lose but I always give them the choice of what to do against an unknown variable. They do not have to fight the kings champion but he may be 20 levels higher than the PCs stupid EL rules be damned. If they pick a fight with him and get creamed oh well they will know better next time, have 4d6.

A bit unnecessarily vindictive, perhaps, but I think your basic assertions are all recognized traits of a good DM.

Remember, though, that all of this is also firmly in DM fiat territory. 4e takes what I think is the correct approach: it provides you with a mathematically sound baseline which you can benchmark against, and then frees you to vary from that baseline as you see fit while retaining a good idea of where you are in relation to it.

One of the things that worries me about Next is that, so far at least, the designers are going out of their way to avoid providing this kind of benchmark, leaving it entirely in the DM's hands to figure out what a fair fight is. I rather hated 3rd edition's EL system but it at least provided some semblance of a guideline; Next doesn't even have that so far.

I wouldn't claim a moral victory there the 2nd ed DMG spelled out what an encounter was, and no it was not all about combat either. A tree could be an encounter.

 Unless you know you have a time limit there is a heavy incentive to blow your dailies. You do not actually know how tough any group of pirates are. Your players may be metagaming and guessing it is an easy encounter but that is another downside of an assumed encounter level. If you are playing my games and I am the DM and some highway men come out and say "stand or deliver" or "hand over the XYZ" you do not know if they are mooks or a goup of NPCs 15 levels higher than you. You do not know if that is the only encounter of the day. You have a situation, you can fight, try to run, try to lie, or try and persuade them and anything else you can think off. All you know is that some group is threatening you. I do not always design my fights to be fair and sometimes I design them that the PCs will lose but I always give them the choice of what to do against an unknown variable. They do not have to fight the kings champion but he may be 20 levels higher than the PCs stupid EL rules be damned. If they pick a fight with him and get creamed oh well they will know better next time, have 4d6.



No, you really don't have the incentive to blow your dailies. Dailies tend to be more situational. You know that you don't need them, and they're really not going to speed things up compared to encounter powers. You pull them out when the situation calls for it. That is their cinematic value. The Cleric uses Beacon of Hope when the dragon's breath weapon badly damages the entire party and things are looking sour, for example. It heals each character a bit, increases the value of healing for the rest of the encounter, and puts penalties on the enemies caught in it. 

Blowing through stuff like that early on doesn't have a huge benefit. Encounter powers can carry you through your day. Daily powers are best kept in reserve for when the situation arises. So, yes, the potential for the 5mwd is there, but the likelihood is far less. You simply have alternatives that were never present before. No one is entirely reliant on daily abilities.

The only problem dailies can represent are with classes like the Ranger going Nova, but there are ways around that problem, as well.

I would never throw an unfair encounter at the PC's without making that knowledge available to them through a simple knowledge check. Just throwing something at them they can't handle is out of the question. That is a DM vs. PC's attitude that I won't ever use.  


No, you really don't have the incentive to blow your dailies. Dailies tend to be more situational. You know that you don't need them, and they're really not going to speed things up compared to encounter powers. You pull them out when the situation calls for it. That is their cinematic value. The Cleric uses Beacon of Hope when the dragon's breath weapon badly damages the entire party and things are looking sour, for example. It heals each character a bit, increases the value of healing for the rest of the encounter, and puts penalties on the enemies caught in it. 

Blowing through stuff like that early on doesn't have a huge benefit. Encounter powers can carry you through your day. Daily powers are best kept in reserve for when the situation arises. So, yes, the potential for the 5mwd is there, but the likelihood is far less. You simply have alternatives that were never present before. No one is entirely reliant on daily abilities.


The prevailing practice for Dailies at my table has tended to be "at the first reasonably good opportunity".

In other words, don't waste them (so don't pop Brute Strike on a target only to then discover it was a Minion and you just did 63 damage to a 1 HP creature), but don't hoard them waiting for a perfect opportunity that might never appear either.



The only problem dailies can represent are with classes like the Ranger going Nova, but there are ways around that problem, as well.

 Less of a problem than is popularly percieved. The Ranger's status as the king of the alpha strike has very little to do with any of his Dailies, and much more to do with Twin Strike and Minor-action Encounter powers.