D&D 4E 4e Special Ability PER Encounter stinks...

[Henry]

Abilities with potentially unlimited uses (as opposed to abilities with finite uses such as ammunition or a charged wand) may actually be overpowered in games where the DM primarily runs resource attrition challenges. Not everybody runs games in this manner, but for those who do, it could be a problem.

Having played a bonder for about 3 levels before giving up on him, that's the ONLY way I can see Binders as overpowered. My Binder had about the utility level of a bard in actual play, but only toward me, rather than the rest of the group.

 

[Henry]

Speaking of "per-encounter" mechanics, this tidbit jumped out at me from Mike Mearls' blog:

The really nice thing is that there isn't much of a sense of an XP grind in 4e. You can pretty much tackle the encounters in almost any order, though if you hit tougher ones first you'd better consider heading back to the surface to rest rather than press on.

This, by itself, is actually pretty reassuring to me.

 

[Gort]

Abilities with potentially unlimited uses (as opposed to abilities with finite uses such as ammunition or a charged wand) may actually be overpowered in games where the DM primarily runs resource attrition challenges. Not everybody runs games in this manner, but for those who do, it could be a problem.

Well, I remember a link to a blog post by one of the designers that said the old "four encounters then you rest" idea was going to go, because all it meant was you got three easy/boring encounters and then the fourth one was difficult. It also said very few people actually follow the "four encounters and rest" idea - their GM would throw ECLs quite a bit higher than the party level at the party, so they'd have one challenging/exciting fight and then rest, which led to some imbalances where wizards would blow all their best spells immediately because they don't usually have to worry about several encounters.

I think the idea in 4e is that every battle should be life-or-death, so it makes sense for the players to have resources ready for all of them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I remember a link to a blog post by one of the designers that said the old "four encounters then you rest" idea was going to go, because all it meant was you got three easy/boring encounters and then the fourth one was difficult. It also said very few people actually follow the "four encounters and rest" idea - their GM would throw ECLs quite a bit higher than the party level at the party, so they'd have one challenging/exciting fight and then rest, which led to some imbalances where wizards would blow all their best spells immediately because they don't usually have to worry about several encounters.

I think the idea in 4e is that every battle should be life-or-death, so it makes sense for the players to have resources ready for all of them.

I am not sure that every encounter actually has to be life-or-death, but the goal might more to that all encounters are exciting because you fight multiple foes that have a chance to hit and damage you (even if they actually have no real change to win), and that you can drop in "the" life-or-death" encounter at any time, without fearing that the group is far to exhausted to get alive out of it.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Wow.

I'm glad I didn't wade into. . .

Oh.

Uh, I don't really have a problem with the concept of "per encounter" abilities. I'm liking the Bo9S atm, for example - with some mods. I wouldn't like everyone to have them, however. . .

 

[Stone Dog]

I wouldn't like everyone to have them, however. . .

You may not be happy with 4e then. Everybody is going to have some abilities at each of the at will, per encounter and per day options.

Now I don't think that everybody will have the same number of them. I think strikers will have the edge on the per encounter abilities, defenders will focus on "at will," controllers will be primed for "per day" goodness and leaders will have a nice average range of them.

 

[Kesh]

Yup. Was perhaps not the best example to use a paladin's at-will-detect-evil-ability here. What i wanted to show, is the application of some outside-combat ability in combination with non-combat encounters. Essentially, using abilities with an annotation of X/encounter boils down to:

- is use X/encounter meant to be "use X times then do Z for y round to regain your ability" and if not...(so if merely exploring a room, is this a situation a charcater can regain his ability)

Yes, that's what people have been saying. If WotC sticks to what they did with Star Wars: Saga Edition, then "per encounter" abilities are use X times, then spend 1 minute outside of combat resting to regain or use a special ability to regain, even inside combat. In SWSE, you could spend a Force point to re-use such an ability during an encounter.

- how is/will an encounter defined (start with "sighting of the scene, i.e. the DM describes a more or less important scene, and and with the conclusion of said scene as described as say in the adventure module) This still leaves the "problem", that a charcater can use his special ability X times in a 1-minute encounter and still x-times in a 30-minute encounter (regardless of the fact what the character is doing: strenous activity or not.), which I find somewhat unfair and unrealistic.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to give me an example of a 30 minute encounter. In any game I've played where they use "encounters" as a delimiter, it's analogous to a scene change in a movie. For D&D, this is mostly going to apply to combat encounters, and I've never seen a 300 round combat in 3e!

It still seems to me, that X/day seems just simpler for me, because time can be tracked according to what the charcaters do and you know when the day begins and ends. As far as it stand now I do not now when an encounter begins or ends and in addition to this encounters can have a variable length of time (which a day has not)

I think I understand your hang-up, but it's not as big a deal as you make of it. It doesn't matter that encounters are variable. Let's throw a wild example out.

Assume that magic missile is a 1/encounter ability for wizards. The (low level) party is trying to sneak into an encampment, but there's a guard on duty. The wizard casts magic missile and kills the guard. Assuming that does not attract any further attention, the encounter is over. After a minute of rest, the magic missile is ready to use again.

Now, if another soldier had seen the attack, suddenly you're under attack by half-a-dozen guards. It's still the same encounter, because the action didn't stop. The wizard either has to go through the combat without magic missile or use a feat/class ability to refresh it.

An encounter is basically from the point the action starts to the point where it stops, even if it's just for a breather. In my example, there was never even a combat round unless another guard saw the attack.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Now I don't think that everybody will have the same number of them. I think strikers will have the edge on the per encounter abilities, defenders will focus on "at will," controllers will be primed for "per day" goodness and leaders will have a nice average range of them.

That sounds plausible. And, despite myself, I want to know.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Assume that magic missile is a 1/encounter ability for wizards. The (low level) party is trying to sneak into an encampment, but there's a guard on duty. The wizard casts magic missile and kills the guard. Assuming that does not attract any further attention, the encounter is over. After a minute of rest, the magic missile is ready to use again.

Now, if another soldier had seen the attack, suddenly you're under attack by half-a-dozen guards. It's still the same encounter, because the action didn't stop. The wizard either has to go through the combat without magic missile or use a feat/class ability to refresh it.

An encounter is basically from the point the action starts to the point where it stops, even if it's just for a breather. In my example, there was never even a combat round unless another guard saw the attack.

The party is sneaking past a number of guards, not all of whom can see each other because of the darkness. However, all the figures are on the board, and the party is aware of all of them. One of the guards is in a location where the wizard decides he can magic missile him without the other guards being aware. He does so, then rests a minute while the other party members try to determine how to deal with the remainder of the encounter.

If the ability requires 1 minute of rest, it is reset. If it is per encounter, it is not. The PCs are still dealing with the encounter (defined as X number of guards) but the wizard PC has rested 1 minute.

A "rest & reset" time makes sense within this context, where "per encounter" doesn't.

ALTERNATE:

In a 36 round battle, the cleric is sorely wounded. He crawls into a tiny area, while the battle rages around him, and waits 1 minute for his healing to reset. Or does he?



RC

 

[hong]

The party is sneaking past a number of guards, not all of whom can see each other because of the darkness. However, all the figures are on the board, and the party is aware of all of them. One of the guards is in a location where the wizard decides he can magic missile him without the other guards being aware. He does so, then rests a minute while the other party members try to determine how to deal with the remainder of the encounter.

If the ability requires 1 minute of rest, it is reset. If it is per encounter, it is not. The PCs are still dealing with the encounter (defined as X number of guards) but the wizard PC has rested 1 minute.

There is absolutely no reason to think that an "encounter" has to be defined as "all the figures on the board". In this case, it's just as easy to think of the encounter as being the wiz zapping the one guard. The fact that nobody else is doing any actual fighting or, indeed, any interaction with the environment at all, should be a clue.

A "rest & reset" time makes sense within this context, where "per encounter" doesn't.

They both make sense.

In a 36 round battle, the cleric is sorely wounded. He crawls into a tiny area, while the battle rages around him, and waits 1 minute for his healing to reset. Or does he?

See, you wouldn't have this problem if you didn't have 36 round battles.