Encounter power buffs outside of combat

[Lizard]

Why would the fictional universe you're creating know something that you don't want it to know?

Because the people who live in that universe know 'the rules' -- they can observe them -- and I expect them to apply that knowledge in their daily life and act appropriately.

That's why a wizard spend 100K gold on a golem to guard his treasure, instead of 20 gold on elite soldiers -- because he knows that a band of four unlikely heroes can make short work of any mercenaries.

If you have abilities which 'work' when you're fighting something, and not when you don't, everyone in the world knows this -- they might not know WHY, they might not CARE, but they know it's true, and they'll take advantage of it. If only "PC" dwarves get the dwarven ability to heal as a minor action, young dwarves will be forced into brutal tests and their ability to recover timed -- the ones who recover fast will be marked as potential clan heroes and given further training.

Whatever the definition of an 'encounter' might be, it will, given the age of civilization in most gaming worlds, be discovered, defined, and exploited. If the players know they can keep an 'encounter' buff going by continually fighting, so will the people in the world, and they'll act accordingly.

 

[Imban]

Thus the reason for me posting this here thread.

When WotC touted that buff/open door/repeat was gone, I was very glad. In 3.5 I house ruled out several times using different ways the buffing aspect of the game. But I was thinking outloud about how can this be applied given what we know about the current rules, without it seeming contrived on verissimilitude and suspension of disbeleif from the players.

I guess it works out, even given what little we know.

The easiest way, and the one it seems like they've chosen, is just to reduce the amount of buffs people are putting on in the first place. Making buffs easier to cast in combat is another one that can go along with the former, such as minor-action buffs, but a lot of those are going to be precast if possible. "Not an action since the fight hasn't started yet" is still 'cheaper' than "minor action" even if the latter means you aren't blowing a whole round because you were caught with your pants down.

 

[Imban]

Because the people who live in that universe know 'the rules' -- they can observe them -- and I expect them to apply that knowledge in their daily life and act appropriately.

That's why a wizard spend 100K gold on a golem to guard his treasure, instead of 20 gold on elite soldiers -- because he knows that a band of four unlikely heroes can make short work of any mercenaries.

If you have abilities which 'work' when you're fighting something, and not when you don't, everyone in the world knows this -- they might not know WHY, they might not CARE, but they know it's true, and they'll take advantage of it. If only "PC" dwarves get the dwarven ability to heal as a minor action, young dwarves will be forced into brutal tests and their ability to recover timed -- the ones who recover fast will be marked as potential clan heroes and given further training.

Whatever the definition of an 'encounter' might be, it will, given the age of civilization in most gaming worlds, be discovered, defined, and exploited. If the players know they can keep an 'encounter' buff going by continually fighting, so will the people in the world, and they'll act accordingly.

Well, no. The alternative, which I don't like much either, is that they don't know this, and in fact your characters theoretically can do it at any time, but your characters will never choose to buff before an encounter because they are forced by the rules into being action movie protagonists and cannot act like real people who make decisions based on what is tactically sound.

 

[LostSoul]

More loosely defined, perhaps an Encounter is any combat, puzzle, or social interaction that might require skill checks or rolls of any kind.

I have a feeling encounters will be defined by risk & reward. Take some risk, get some XP & treasure.

 

[Lizard]

They've said they're considering many things other than just combat to be Encounters. My understanding is that DDE they ran an entire scenario that was skill-based only. More loosely defined, perhaps an Encounter is any combat, puzzle, or social interaction that might require skill checks or rolls of any kind. That would prevent the following ridiculous situation:

"I want to use my Fey Step to teleport to the next platform and see if I can find a lever for the bridge there."

"Sorry, you can only use your Fey Step when you're fighting something."

"I thought it was an Eladrin racial power?"

"Well, yeah, but it's an encounter-only."

"How does that make sense?"

"Well, otherwise you could just teleport 30 feet at a time whenever you wanted... Even climb a cliff. Teleport 30 feet up, start to fall, teleport 30 feet up, start to fall..."

"But I'm only trying to do it ONCE! Why can't this chasm be an encounter?"

"Hmm, I dunno."

I think, if we look at it from that perspective, where anything that challenges a PC is an encounter, it helps solve this particular problem. I believe I'll House Rule it that way if the DMG doesn't.

Out of combat, "per encounter" means "Every 5 minutes".

So, for cliff climbing...not so much.

Even if it were 'at will', you can still do it only once every 6 seconds, and that means you'll fall the full 15 feet LONG before you get to do it again.

At Will: Once every 6 seconds.
PE: Once every five minutes.
Daily: Once every 6-hour rest period but no more than once per 24 hours.

Other than the VERY rare case of an encounter lasting longer than 50 rounds(!), this provides a good basis for working out the effects and impacts of abilities. A wizard can use his at-will powers 600 times an hour, for example. Depending on what kind of powers there are, this can be pretty world-changing.

 

[D'karr]

because they are forced by the rules into being action movie protagonists and cannot act like real people who make decisions based on what is tactically sound.

Bravo, I see that it is still DC 10 for a successful jump to conclusions roll.

 

[LostSoul]

Because the people who live in that universe know 'the rules' -- they can observe them -- and I expect them to apply that knowledge in their daily life and act appropriately.

Not to get all hongian on you here, but that's a decision you're making. They don't have to know "the rules" if you don't want them to.

"Encounters" can remain a purely at-the-table distinction.

 

[hong]

If you have abilities which 'work' when you're fighting something, and not when you don't, everyone in the world knows this -- they might not know WHY, they might not CARE, but they know it's true, and they'll take advantage of it. If only "PC" dwarves get the dwarven ability to heal as a minor action, young dwarves will be forced into brutal tests and their ability to recover timed -- the ones who recover fast will be marked as potential clan heroes and given further training.

The ones who recover fast will be the ones who are PCs. Furthermore, because there are only 5-6 PCs in the world, the vast majority of people in the world will never notice any difference. Funny how that works out, doesn't it?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Whatever the definition of an 'encounter' might be, it will, given the age of civilization in most gaming worlds, be discovered, defined, and exploited. If the players know they can keep an 'encounter' buff going by continually fighting, so will the people in the world, and they'll act accordingly.

Only if the game world physics directly maps from the rules, which of course is unsatisfying to me and the majority of the target audience.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Whatever the definition of an 'encounter' might be, it will, given the age of civilization in most gaming worlds, be discovered, defined, and exploited. If the players know they can keep an 'encounter' buff going by continually fighting, so will the people in the world, and they'll act accordingly.

I know there has been tons of runaround about simulationist worlds and stuff, but this is really blowing my mind. People will keep fighting each other and risk dying so they can maintain a buff that might help them when they are not fighting, which they cannot benefit from because they never stop fighting?

Or are you saying people will keep fighting in order to maintain a buff that helps them when they are fighting, therefore they will continue to risk life and limb so they don't lose the buff when they stop fighting because somehow losing that buff after a fight is over will put them at more risk than continuing to fight with it?

Your logic seems incredibly flawed.

[sarcasm] I guess we now know how civilization collapsed into a Points of Light setting - they figured out the rules of the world and killed each other off maintaining their buffs.[/sarcasm]