PCs With Recharging Abilities... Why Not?

[AllisterH]

What I think Mearls mentioned was that they intentionally thought about using a B09S recharge style mechanic for the encounter powers but decided that the added benefit wasn't worth the cost of instituting that mechanic.

 

[Pbartender]

Part of it might be the quantity. If you've got 10 different encounter powers, and you're rolling for each one to recharge, that's a lot of extra rolling. In fact, the extra rolling might be all of it -- more rolls does slow down the game. Monsters, in comparison, might only have an ability or two that is recharged, so they're easier to manage.

I don't think that makes a difference...

From what we've seen so far, you roll one d6 for ALL recharge abilities.

So, to use the "Dwarf Warlord" from ThirdWizard's Monster & More pdf as an example...

The Dwarf Warlord has three rechargeable abilities: Hold the line (recharge 6), Drive into Peril (Recharge 5,6), and Rally the Troops (recharge 4,5,6)

Assuming he's used all three recently and none have recharged, the DM rolls a single d6 at the beginning of the dwarf's turn... on a 3 or lower, none recharge, on a 4 Rally recharges, on a 5 Rally and Drive both recharge, and on a 6 all three recharge.

For a typical PC, it'd add maybe one extra die roll every round (and only then, if a recharge ability had been used), and it'd only as much paperwork as is required to check off which abilities need to be recharged (really no more so than checking off when an encounter power or per day power has been used).

 

[Pbartender]

Mearls... Bo9S recharges...

That certainly makes more sense, in context.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

My take on it is that its something like this:

Monsters recharge because it makes running the monster simpler, yet still varied and with an illusion of choice that causes multiple encounters with the same creature to unfold differently. PC's have more options, and having a player roll a die to see if they can do something seems a little off - as Mearls attested to and as alluded above.

 

[Vaeron]

Why hasn't this been applied to PCs?

Because PC's don't need recharge abilities, they have a whole slew of daily, encounter, and at-will powers. NPCs have recharge abilities because they're, well, NPCs. They're supposed to be challenging and keep players on their toes. PC's get daily powers and Second Winds. Monsters don't get class levels. They're two entirely different structures now.

The closest I can think of to a recharge is the Warlocks 'Kill a monster, get a teleport' ability.

 

[Pbartender]

Monsters recharge because it makes running the monster simpler, yet still varied and with an illusion of choice that causes multiple encounters with the same creature to unfold differently.

Okay, that I can understand.

PC's have more options, and having a player roll a die to see if they can do something seems a little off - as Mearls attested to and as alluded above.

This, however, is a fallacious argument for the simple fact that players already roll dice to see if they can do anything and everything from successfully attacking, to dealing damage, to resisting magical effects, to avoiding traps, to climbing walls, to baking a birthday cake.

 

[DandD]

Exactly. And because players already throw tons of dices, it's better to minimize the amount of dice-rolling and keeping tracks of things all the time. You can have the shortened version of D&D, or you can roll hundreds of time, like in The Dark Eye. I prefer systems that make it fast as possible, especially in combat.

 

[Pbartender]

Exactly. And because players already throw tons of dices, it's better to minimize the amount of dice-rolling and keeping tracks of things all the time. You can have the shortened version of D&D, or you can roll hundreds of time, like in The Dark Eye. I prefer systems that make it fast as possible, especially in combat.

My point being that in D&D "we are trying to reduce the number of dice rolls" is a far more valid argument than "rolling dice to see if you can do something* seems a little off", and that if they really wanted to reduce dice rolls, there's a lot of other options (many of which they've already taken) for doing it.

In the context of D&D dice rolling, one six sider once a round (occasionally) seems small to me... But I admit, it could be a bigger problem for others.



*That is, after all, what the game is all about, otherwise we wouldn't have the rulebooks to being with.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

This, however, is a fallacious argument for the simple fact that players already roll dice to see if they can do anything and everything from successfully attacking, to dealing damage, to resisting magical effects, to avoiding traps, to climbing walls, to baking a birthday cake.

I think there's a big difference between "roll a die to see if I succeed" and "roll a die to see if I'm even allowed to try."

 

[I'm A Banana]

In the context of D&D dice rolling, one six sider once a round (occasionally) seems small to me... But I admit, it could be a bigger problem for others.

It seems fine to me, too. Since your re-explanation, definately preferable to "Once Every Five Minutes the opportunity presents itself!"

I think there's a big difference between "roll a die to see if I succeed" and "roll a die to see if I'm even allowed to try."

Yeah, but you are allowed to try once, and the roll is to see if you get to try it again.

Perhaps it has to do with trying to balance an encounter? I could see this being a reason for it: if it's hard to predict if a character will use an ability once, twice, or 10 times during an encounter, it's harder to make an encounter that is really balanced for that character. This is more true the more powerful the ability is. So they limit it to 1/encounter, and then don't have to worry about the chance that it recharges and suddenly swings the battle out of the enemy's control. But for monsters, it's okay, since the PC's are expected to spend more resources than a monster normally has access to anyway?