Confusion

[am181d]

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.

Hmm. I also don't understand your position. The argument against "per encounter" abilities is that it IS difficult to estimate time between encounters. If you don't think it will be difficult, it's not clear to me where you think the negative in 4E's implementation is. Sounds like there's no down side.

If your point is that you have no problem tracking when (say) mage armor ends in 3E... Well, that's not the main point of employing "per encounter" abilities. It's just one of several benefits. Others being the increase in encounters per day, wizards being able to rely on spells more than crossbows, more interesting combat options for fighters, etc.

So, to recap: (1) lots of benefits; (2) no down side. Sounds like a win. Time to declare victory and depart the field...

 

[Deverash]

I was just reading R&C and there was a comment that the wizard Power Words(their per encounter powers) could be reused after a minute of rest. Since that matches up with what I remember from ToB, that may define when it's a new encounter and when it's not. If there are at least 10 rounds between the end of one fight and the beginning of the other, then it's the same encounter.

 

[Nikosandros]

Hmm. I also don't understand your position. The argument against "per encounter" abilities is that it IS difficult to estimate time between encounters. If you don't think it will be difficult, it's not clear to me where you think the negative in 4E's implementation is. Sounds like there's no down side.

If your point is that you have no problem tracking when (say) mage armor ends in 3E... Well, that's not the main point of employing "per encounter" abilities. It's just one of several benefits. Others being the increase in encounters per day, wizards being able to rely on spells more than crossbows, more interesting combat options for fighters, etc.

So, to recap: (1) lots of benefits; (2) no down side. Sounds like a win. Time to declare victory and depart the field...

I think that the point is that it's easier (or not more difficult) to calculate how much time elapses between two encounters (as in 3 minutes and 4 rounds have gone by since we stopped fighting the orcs) rather than knowing exactly when a single encounter is over.

I don't agree however. In my opinion the bookkeeping is greatly reduced by not having to track explicit durations.

 

[Hussar]

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).

*snip*

I'm not sure that's accurate. After all, "CR appropriate" certainly isn't. The DMG specifically states that a certain percentage of encounters should be overwhelming (EL +5 or more) for example. Also, a number of encounters are also hazards, which have no fixed time frame.

How long does a forest fire last for example? Or a tornado? Or a dust storm in the desert?

All of these have a CR rating, yet they all last far longer than rounds.

If anything, the term "encounter" has been expanded during 3e. Previously, encounter meant combat. Full stop. Now, encounter can be a number of things, as you mentioned. A trap for example. How long does a trap last? It will really depend on the trap. Yes, once the trap is overcome (in whatever manner), the encounter is over. But, it doesn't necessarily get measured in rounds.

Social encounters are not generally measured in rounds either since there is no initiative roll. And, unless you rush, every diplomacy check takes at least a minute. Bluff has no set "casting time" to use the wrong term.

In fact, only combat is measured in rounds. Many encounters in 3e are not measured in rounds at all. So, it's not terribly difficult to expand on that to have a floating definition of encounter. We already have one.

 

[med stud]

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.

I don't understand what you mean here, really. What I get from your post (I edited some stuff out that wasn't relevant for the discussion) is (1) that you are capable of determining when an encounter ends and how much time that passes between encounters and (2) that WOTC will force you to substitute one judgement call for another if you change the rules.

Well, that seems logical. I don't see what it has to do with the quoted part of my post about getting on the same page as the players, though.

 

[Silvergriffon]

I was just reading R&C and there was a comment that the wizard Power Words(their per encounter powers) could be reused after a minute of rest. Since that matches up with what I remember from ToB, that may define when it's a new encounter and when it's not. If there are at least 10 rounds between the end of one fight and the beginning of the other, then it's the same encounter.

Yes, it does say, "With a minute of rest...", but since that passage, like the rest of the book, is more fluff than crunch I think it was written in more of a conversational tone than a statistical one. That is to say, I think they were using the word "minute" in the sense that it is used in common conversation. Often meaning a short period of time, or a moment, rather than a literal time period of 60 seconds. This opinion is informed by the fact that the book is more of a look at the feel of the concepts and design process behind 4E rather than a book of rules.

So, while I can definitely see the possibility that you are correct, I will not be convinced until I see the final books or a preview that is both declared as game rules and that confirms a 60 second between encounters rule. And even then, I will probably end up house ruling it out so that I decide when encounter powers reset. As a DM, I am very excited about the prospect of an additional and very powerful tool for controlling the pace of the action. Now that I envision the inherent usefulness of such a thing, I will be hard pressed to abandon the idea.

Ideally, I would like to see them go with a more free-form approach that gives the DM direct control over when these powers reset and perhaps give the 1 minute rule as a baseline for beginning DMs or those who prefer a more rigidly defined system.

 

[Lackhand]

Ideally, I would like to see them go with a more free-form approach that gives the DM direct control over when these powers reset and perhaps give the 1 minute rule as a baseline for beginning DMs or those who prefer a more rigidly defined system.

Easy fix:

Refresh isn't 1 minute in my campaign, it's 4+2*(1d6) rounds, and 6's cascade (roll a 6 = add 10 and roll again, continue doing so until you stop rolling sixes).

Roll behind a screen.

Why? Because if you don't care about round-by-round resolution, whether it's a minute or 5 minutes makes no difference. So you only need this houserule when you're still at the round scale, but want to deny a player her powers-back. And sometimes this houserule benefits the players.

 

[Nikosandros]

Ideally, I would like to see them go with a more free-form approach that gives the DM direct control over when these powers reset and perhaps give the 1 minute rule as a baseline for beginning DMs or those who prefer a more rigidly defined system.

I'm doubtful that they'll go with a free form approach a basic rule. The one minute reset time makes sense... it's used in SWSE and it's mentioned in R&C.

 

[jester47]

A problem I see is what if the Elf is firing arrows against fruits in a tree, in order to get some food. How often can he use the Elven Accuracy power in this situation?

What if "per encounter" powers can be used all the time, but in an encounter, they can only be used once?

An encounter starts when characters roll for Initiative. It ends when the initiative order doesn't matter anymore. What about that?

While encountering the fruit (collecting it) the elf can use it once.
Cause in D&D sometimes fruit can be alive and might try to kill you.

 

[SteveC]

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.

I think this is an excellent post. As a GM you're in control over how and when encounters start and end. When you run an encounter, you can create a lot of tension by having a follow-up already planned. Just when our heroes think they've defeated their enemies, they find out that there was really something more going on than they originally anticipated!

The thing is, you're ultimately in control of how that works when you're running the game. Has enough time gone by to reset your per encounter abilities Consider:

• What makes sense in the context of the situation. Did the combat make a lot of noise and would that logically attract more enemies who would arrive before a minute has gone by?

• What makes the game more interesting. Do you have a more interesting opponent planned to strike at the group now? What was that ominous rumbling sound the group has been hearing throughout the combat?

• What serves to keep the players challenged and on their toes. Are your players always using all of their "per encounter" abilities right away? Here's a way to challenge that behavior!

Take all of those things together and you have your answer.