How Per Encounter power recharging should work

[BASHMAN]

Your DM is a dumbass if he allows that. In BO9S it even states explicitly that maneuvers can only be performed against something that is actually a real threat.

Well he did allow it, and it made for some fun role-playing situations, and kept the game going as I was the only healer for the entire party (there were no casters at all). Actually, it was basically a houserule similar to this:

When using encounter powers outside combat, a character can use them at will whenever they could, by analogy, take a 10 when using a skill. So, if the rogue is in a situation he could take a 10 to lockpick a door (not being threatened or under serious stress, etc), he could also use his "Roguish Lucky Kick" encounter power every round to knock down the door.
2a- Maybe there will be encounter powers that are only effective in combat, or can only be activated by things that only happen when character are fighting.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Your DM is a dumbass if he allows that.

No name-calling please.

You can state the rules problems involved in such an approach without being rude (and it makes your point better that way too).

Thanks

 

[Walking Dad]

It's boring. Who wants to sit there and do nothing?

The "use full-round action (will there even full-round actions in 4e?) to recover per encounter ability" is exactly the Swordsage mechanic". Didn't they say that they will not an Bo9S mechanic?

What does "rest" mean?
Non- combat?
Only light Walking?
Lay on the ground?

BTW: Action Points

I hope they have a better mechanic than d20 modern. To have to level to replenish a resource is to meta-gamy and no fun for adventure design.
(We will kill just three spiders, and we will be more "action-powered against the BBeG)

 

[DSRilk]

I'm not a fan of action points. Don't like 'em. So that's not an option I'd use. Also, I don't like spending actions doing nothing, which is what recharging with a standard or full round action really boils down to. Here's what I prefer: During any round in which the character does not use a per encounter ability, he may use a move (swift with a feat perhaps) action to to gain one additional use of a per encounter ability (up to the maximum allowable number of times per encounter; e.g. if a power normally allowed 2 uses per encounter and the character hasn't used any yet, he can't gain a 3rd use). This allows the character to do something, but not anything super cool. You could require no per encounter actions for 2 rounds if you wanted. In short, in my opinion, if there's a refresh, it should not eat up a standard action, which is the action used to truly DO anything.

 

[shilsen]

A few levels under his belt? A few *dozen* levels, maybe. But PCs at the usual levels they get played at (1-10 in 1e, 1-whatever in 2e, 1-15 in 3e, and 1-maybe 20 in 4e) haven't achieved that sort of mythical status yet

As Mustrum Ridcully pointed out below, PCs at those levels are easily capable of doing things that only the most mythic of heroes do. In 3e, for example, a 10th level fighter can leap into a 200 ft down gorge (actually he could jump into a mile-deep gorge, since falling damage caps at 20d6, but I'll use the minimum) and walk away. Hell, a raging barbarian with a good Con can do it at 5th lvl. The same 10th lvl guy can survive complete immersion in lava. If he's a focused grappler, he can wrestle a rhino to the ground and kill it with his bare hands. He can swim for hours in rough water while wearing full plate. He can kill a dragon with a non-magical stick.

And I'm not even bringing magic into the picture. Mythic? Hell, yeah!

, or shouldn't have; because if they have then what's left for them to achieve at higher (a.k.a. epic) levels.

Since there's a continuum and different degrees of mythic, that's not a problem. Achilles defeats a Trojan army on his own but can't sack Troy. Hercules sacks Troy on his own. And then you have people who can wrestle the sun, like Vainamoinen.

That, and I prefer it if the game at least somewhat reflects the real world where it can...

You can somewhat reflect the real world and still have PCs with abilities that are completely out of this world. Mythology pulls that off all the time. Achilles and Beowulf are completely out of this world with regard to their abilities, but the world of the Iliad and of Beowulf still strongly resembles ours, which is one of the reasons why readers can take so much out of them. Now if you want PCs whose abilities also reflect the real world, then D&D doesn't do that so well. You can still do it, but you can't play above 5th level or so and need heavy house ruling even from levels 1-5.

 

[Dragonblade]

The "use full-round action (will there even full-round actions in 4e?) to recover per encounter ability" is exactly the Swordsage mechanic". Didn't they say that they will not an Bo9S mechanic?

Thats what prompted this entire thread in the first place. Spending a full round to recharge is exactly the sort of mechanic that should be in the rules.

No matter how you try to spin it, not being able to refresh maneuvers in battle is bad design, IMO. It feels half-finished and arbitrary and in my opinion goes right back to problems in 3.5 such as the paladin only having Smite Evil X times per day.

To offer a different way of looking at where I'm coming from, lets say I turn my D&D session into a narrative story. If the warrior in my story uses some cool attack (for example, 3.5 Smite Evil, or a 4e per encounter power), and it makes sense in the context of the story for them to reasonably want to use that power again, there should be method to do that so that the narrative makes sense.

If they can't use the power again because of a poorly designed game mechanic (i.e. Smite Evil only usable X times per day), then my narrative must awkwardly try to explain this. This game mechanic may make sense from a game balance perspective (though I would disagree even with that assertion), but when looked at from a narrative perspective makes no sense without coming up with a narrative excuse as to why the hero can't do it again. This notion of trying to conform my narrative to the mechanics of the game doesn't sit right with me.

I know I'm off on a tangent here, and I recognize that D&D is more of a game than a storytelling format, but I thought I would present where I'm coming from in a different light.

Here is another example from left field. When I was a kid I watched Voltron a lot. Voltron was basically an older anime series where a group of giant lion shaped mecha were piloted by our young heroes. The lions could merge into a bigger mecha called Voltron. Voltron would struggle and fight against other giant monsters until finally he would form a giant sword (e.g. "Form Blazing Sword!" ) and then would proceed to instantly cut the monster in half. Game over.

As a kid, I always found this extremely dissatisfying. Why doesn't Voltron just form the sword right out of the gate and end the battle? Why wait until he gets his ass kicked before he does it? Clearly this was so that the episode could add tension and drama and still wrap up in 30 minutes. But it was arbitrary and illogical. If this was a D&D game and the Blazing Sword was a Per Encounter power, then it makes sense. But only when viewed in the context of the game. In narrative format, it just simply makes no sense.

And to me good game design should not only offer balanced mechanics, but they should make sense even when a game session is viewed from a narrative perspective.

 

[Toryx]

No matter how you try to spin it, not being able to refresh maneuvers in battle is bad design, IMO. It feels half-finished and arbitrary and in my opinion goes right back to problems in 3.5 such as the paladin only having Smite Evil X times per day.

Given that everything we've heard about 4E states quite definitively that it'll be a at-will, encounter, daily intensive design, I'm thinking that you're not likely to enjoy 4E much at all then.

I understand the general concern about the arbitrary nature of the rules and the loss of realism that comes from an ability with limited uses, but the reality is that most combat rules for any system of D&D are unrealistic. The AC and HP mechanics alone, if you examine it closely, makes no real sense whatsoever. But for the purposes of the game those mechanics contribute to overall gameplay. I know that if I examine the explanation for things like an per encounter mechanic the rationale doesn't work for me. On the other hand, I like the idea of having a bunch of options in combat, and not going to the most powerful/ effective one every single time. I'm hoping that having a cool encounter ability no longer available after I've used it will force me to turn to other options and tactics which ultimately make the combat more satisfying.

We'll see.

 

[Dragonblade]

Given that everything we've heard about 4E states quite definitively that it'll be a at-will, encounter, daily intensive design, I'm thinking that you're not likely to enjoy 4E much at all then.

On the contrary, I like almost everything I have heard about 4e. Per encounter balancing is far superior to the per day vancian casting used now. I can easily house rule the system to meet my needs.

I just don't think that I should have to house rule the system!

 

[Greg K]

Well then, there is your answer. You can't use the same maneuver more than once in an encounter because the opponent(s) won't give you that opening again.

Except that if you watch actual fights, people often do find openings to use maneuvers more than once. Either the attacker sets up an opening or weakens the opponent enough to lower the defender's defenses or concentration, the defender leaves themselves open trying a maneuver of their own, or one opponent is just that much better or experienced.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

On the contrary, I like almost everything I have heard about 4e. Per encounter balancing is far superior to the per day vancian casting used now. I can easily house rule the system to meet my needs.

I just don't think that I should have to house rule the system!

But you don't WANT per-encounter balancing. You want everything to be basically at-will, except after a few rounds you have to start spending half your actions "recharging" powers.

How would this work for "leader" classes? Either WOTC would have to cut out powerful per-encounter healing spells, or else the party could literally keep fighting forever, because the cleric's dishing out a huge heal every other round.

How would it work for controller/"artillery" classes in large-scale battles? A level 10 wizard can just hover over an entire army of orcs and toss out fireballs until every goblinoid is face-down in the mud? (Of course, he might need to have a cleric with him to keep him healed forever.)

Hell, even striker classes would be messed up. With no recharge mechanic, you can give rogues per-encounter abilities that let them vanish, or skitter away from the middle of a melee without taking damage. But if all they have to do is spend a round out to recharge, they can just backstab > vanish > recharge indefinitely.

In other words, you only think in-combat recharges are a good idea because in sources like Bo9S, the classes using maneuvers were the ones who traditionally had limitless resources anyway. A 3e fighter (or warblade) could battle all day and night without losing effectiveness, but he was limited because the cleric would run out of healing spells eventually. In 4e, they want ALL classes to have similar pacing, which means EVERYONE needs limits. Infinite recharges, even if they have an opportunity cost of a round, are broken.