Confusion

[McBard]

Star Wars Saga Edition allows Jedi to regain Force powers after 1 minute's rest (in addition to several other in-combat ways). Nowhere in the section detailing the regaining of these powers does the rulebook use the phrase "per encounter", and I'd imagine the 4E rules might work and word it similarly.

"Per Encounter" will not be left vague, and there's perhaps a slight chance that the actual phrase "per encounter" will not even be used. I doubt it, but they could get by with just saying "after 1 minute's rest".

 

[LostSoul]

I think that encounters and per-encounter abilities will make more sense if you don't look at the rules as "the physics of the game world" and instead a resolution system for the players at the table.

An encounter that takes hours (or days, weeks, months, even years!) of in-game time might only be one or two rolls!

The definition of an encounter might be something like, "A single challenge you get XP for." The DM's job is to define that challenge. I think that will make defining encounters very simple, even for new DMs.

"What do you want the challenge to be? That is your encounter."

The players might not like how the DM is defining encounters - which is to say, they might not like the challenges they are facing - but this makes things transparent, and the group can talk about things.

 

[med stud]

When dealing with encounters, when they start and when they end, it's important that the DM and the players get on the same page from the beginning. If the players trust the DM then the DM can have some leeway in it. If they don't you could set a time limit; one minute after the last combat roll was made, the encounter ends.

I also don't think players should say "I try to regain my abilities", especially not as a way of seeing if enemies are close. If the enemies are close but passive, then I don't see that as an encounter.

My take on the two situations (the displacer beast and the invisible mastermind) is as follows:

Displacer beast: The bandits are slain, the heroes have won the battle, and when the last bandit falls the displacer beast charges in. As the DM you can't be surprised by a situation like that, the displacer beast is there because you want it to be and therefore you should know from the beginning if you meant for it to be a new encounter or a continuation of the old. If the players argue differently, see the beginning of the post about getting on the same page as the players. If a player still argues, then explain the meta-game reason; "I planned for you not to have your per encounter abilities since I think the displacer beast would be too easy otherwise and I wanted you to feel under pressure." If he still doesn't buy it, per encounter abilities aren't your problem as much as a player that doesn't agree with how you run the game.

Invisible mastermind: Again, you must have a plan with his behaviour. If he, for some strange reason, wait until the last of his minions fall before breaking invisibility and attacks, he has made a crappy tactical decision but still acts in the same combat. If he, OTOH, hangs around for a good opportunity to strike then I would consider the encounter to be over.

 

[Nikosandros]

Getting back to the perception bonus to allies, I don't understand why they choose to specify such a short range which will create some weird clustering among PCs... IMHO it would have been better just to grant the bonus to all the allies that are "close" to the elf.

I realized that I had misread the elf write-up... I was still thinking about feet, so I read the range as 5 feet instead of five squares.

 

[Irda Ranger]

An encounter that takes hours (or days, weeks, months, even years!) of in-game time might only be one or two rolls!

The definition of an encounter might be something like, "A single challenge you get XP for." The DM's job is to define that challenge. I think that will make defining encounters very simple, even for new DMs.

"What do you want the challenge to be? That is your encounter."

There are games that work like that. D&D isn't one of them. Although not specifically defined in 2E or earlier, an "encounter" in 3E was a "CR appropriate encounter", meaning an encounter with monsters, a trap or (more rarely) a social situation that is level appropriate. Once the difficulty is surpassed, the encounter is over. It's measured in rounds (i.e., lasts less than a minute).

I just got Burning Wheel for Christmas (a very neat game) and it has encounters like you describe. One linked "Orienteering + Stealth" check works for sneaking across hundreds of miles of open moor, past scout patrols, and into and out of the enemy encampment. You just don't roll again until the circumstances change a lot. That's an interesting mechanic. But it's not how D&D works in the RAW (at least, not how I've ever played).

 

[Rechan]

I just got Burning Wheel for Christmas (a very neat game) and it has encounters like you describe. One linked "Orienteering + Stealth" check works for sneaking across hundreds of miles of open moor, past scout patrols, and into and out of the enemy encampment. You just don't roll again until the circumstances change a lot. That's an interesting mechanic. But it's not how D&D works in the RAW (at least, not how I've ever played).

Except how you know, it's described in Bo9S and such.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

There are also systems that use both. For example, WoD they have scene-by-scene actions, round-by-round actions and such.

So a car-chase would have rolls for each round, but sneaking across a field would simply have one roll for each character, for the whole sequence.

 

[Jayouzts]

Who needs 4E?

When dealing with encounters, when they start and when they end, it's important that the DM and the players get on the same page from the beginning. If the players trust the DM then the DM can have some leeway in it. If they don't you could set a time limit; one minute after the last combat roll was made, the encounter ends.

This discussion succinctly sums up my misgivings about 4E. It changes the rules, but does not make the game better.

As a DM I am perfectly capable of determining how much time passes between encounters. I am also perfectly capable of determining when an encounter begins and ends. By changing the rules, WOTC forces the me to substitute one judgment call for another. But the game is no better for it. It may not be worse, but it is not better. And I am not paying money to switch if 4E is not better.

This change fixes something that is not broken. Sadly, most of 4E seems to be in the "fixing what ain't broken" category.

 

[Nikosandros]

This discussion succinctly sums up my misgivings about 4E. It changes the rules, but does not make the game better.

As a DM I am perfectly capable of determining how much time passes between encounters. I am also perfectly capable of determining when an encounter begins and ends. By changing the rules, WOTC forces the me to substitute one judgment call for another. But the game is no better for it. It may not be worse, but it is not better. And I am not paying money to switch if 4E is not better.

This change fixes something that is not broken. Sadly, most of 4E seems to be in the "fixing what ain't broken" category.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here... which judgment call are you talking about?

 

[Jayouzts]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here... which judgment call are you talking about?

There was a debate earlier in the thread as to how much time must elapse from the end of combat for a subsequent combat to be a new encounter or an extension of the first.

In some situations this is obvious. But in the situation in which you have waves and waves of attacking orcs (some perhaps responding to the noise of combat in earlier rounds) this gets a little less obvious and may require a judgment call by the DM for purposes of determining whether once-per-encounter powers reset.

Some have expressed an opinion that this is a small price to pay for no longer having to keep track of spell durations that longer than a single combat (for example - mage armor which can last for a few hours).

My point is that to me estimating the passage of time between encounters is not so drastically difficult that 4E's implementation of once-per-encounter powers improves the game.