"Per Encounter"-Ability: Hopefully not in the rules

[FadedC]

It's unclear at this point exactly how per encounter abilities will be worded, but it seems like it would be easy to change "per encounter" to "requires x amount of rest" as a house rule without having any of the usual ripple effect that other house rules tend to cause.

 

[Anthtriel]

May I gently advise against this sort of thing?

The line is thin between "provocative" and "trolling", when it's there at all.

Cheers, -- N

You have a point, but I believe to qualify as trolling, the actual post needs to be provocative. From my point of view, what I did is just what newspapers (especially bad newspapers, though) tend to do: Provocative title, not provocative content. Unless people don't get past the title, there is no flame potential. And I'll say openly that I don't care much for people who believe they need to contribute to a thread despite not even reading the opening post.

Actually, without being a total smartass - I did read your post. However, I disagree with the inordinant amount of timekeeping it would take to track two minutes for each abilities' usage. An hour is more general and easier to track both as a player and a DM.

Kudos to you for your reaction. Honestly.

And I will change my opinion, but only slightly: I believe you read the first few paragraphs, but not the (admittedly long-winded) example. It makes perfect sense in that case.
Recharge after every two minutes would be horrible, I agree. That's why I made it a point (only in the example though, I think), to make it two minutes of actual rest. That's extremely easy to track of, even easier than per day.

Essentially if you roll initiative again, it should count as a new encounter regardless of how much game time has actually passed.

I disagree, I believe there should be an actual benefit for resting (a relatively small amount of time). Look at the example for details. (Well granted, it probably comes off as "taking a nap", though I rather think of "catching breath")

 

[Anthtriel]

Accidental double post.

 

[Nifft]

You have a point, but I believe to qualify as trolling, the actual post needs to be provocative. From my point of view, what I did is just what newspapers (especially bad newspapers, though) tend to do: Provocative title, not provocative content.

Trolling is a fuzzy area. It's not wise to rely on technicalities. But I'm not calling you a troll, I'm just cautioning against ... excessive provocation.

- - -

I'm more a fan of the time spans Combat Actions vs. 5 minutes vs. all night, as seen in ToB. The ability to rest for 50 rounds seems clearly out of combat and out of most combat spell durations (where as 20 rounds is within, say, an Extended hold person at caster level 10).

Cheers, -- N

 

[WayneLigon]

Now what do you think? Take a guess, who had more fun, the player of Dayguy, or the player of Encguy? And who worked better in flavor?

I think part of whether or not I like per-encounter depends on how an encounter is defined. To me, once you fall out of keeping track of rounds, that encounter is over; in other words, like a scene in a movie. In tehe example above, to me, once the goblins flee that encounter is over and Encguy's powers reset regardless if he has time to 'rest' or not. Same thing after the door battle; lean on your sword for a full round, ping, your per-encounter abilities refresh.

 

[Anthtriel]

Trolling is a fuzzy area. It's not wise to rely on technicalities. But I'm not calling you a troll, I'm just cautioning against ... excessive provocation.

And I think I'll heed that advice. Turns out it was just confusing and probably didn't do anything.

I'm more a fan of the time spans Combat Actions vs. 5 minutes vs. all night, as seen in ToB. The ability to rest for 50 rounds seems clearly out of combat and out of most combat spell durations (where as 20 rounds is within, say, an Extended hold person at caster level 10).

Cheers, -- N

Yeah, I wondered what the time span described by ToB was, and remembered (incorrectly) two minutes. In fact, I'd like more than that, ten minutes or even twenty minutes maybe. Short enough to make sure the heroes don't sleep in the dungeon, but long enough to make it feel like actual rest, and to have some of that "worn out" feeling. Of course DMs should be encouraged to fiddle with that time as they see fit. Survival horror would probably benefit from longer times, whereas pure hack&slay probably doesn't.

I think part of whether or not I like per-encounter depends on how an encounter is defined. To me, once you fall out of keeping track of rounds, that encounter is over; in other words, like a scene in a movie. In tehe example above, to me, once the goblins flee that encounter is over and Encguy's powers reset regardless if he has time to 'rest' or not. Same thing after the door battle; lean on your sword for a full round, ping, your per-encounter abilities refresh.

Well, that feels too gamey to me. I do like heroes falling back and setting up camp, I just don't want it to last eight hours.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Per encounter could be changed to 1/minute or 1/5 minutes and it'd work out to the same thing 90 percent of the time.
In fact by 'per encounter' I wouldn't be surprised if they meant 1/X minutes.

 

[Anthtriel]

Per encounter could be changed to 1/minute or 1/5 minutes and it'd work out to the same thing 90 percent of the time.
In fact by 'per encounter' I wouldn't be surprised if they meant 1/X minutes.

Except for the problem of tracking it, that is. Which is a gigantic problem.
Plus, "per x amount of time" is really gamey and doesn't always make a lot of sense. A Paladin in a dark prison can count the days by concentrating on when his "Smite Evil" recharges.
"Ah, splendid, it's 0:00 again, my ability just recharged!" or worse "Oh, that clock needs some adjusting, my 1/minute ability recharges faster than the minute hand moves."

Granted, "Oh, it's already 5 minutes after we started resting? My ability just recharged!" isn't that much better, but at least it doesn't happen during combat.

 

[Ranger REG]

Let take an example: Paladin Dayguy, who can smite evil four times per day, and Paladin Encguy, who can smite once per encounter. Per 3.5 assumptions, those abilities are roughly equal.

That's what I don't like about "per day" abilities. The fact that you have to decide whether you only cast once in an encounter when you may or may not later have 3 more encounters before you can call it a day.

The same would apply to [1st-level] spellcaster who will be limited to one spell per encounter. After casting that one spell, what the hell they're going to do for the rest of the encounter? They can't do much.

I hope we don't try to use that rough assumption formula you mentioned above to determine "per encounter" rate. I think they should do more "per encounter" than they already do "per day." At higher level, we may have to temper the rate down, particularly for spellcasters with higher spell levels.

 

[Nifft]

Yeah, I wondered what the time span described by ToB was, and remembered (incorrectly) two minutes. In fact, I'd like more than that, ten minutes or even twenty minutes maybe. Short enough to make sure the heroes don't sleep in the dungeon, but long enough to make it feel like actual rest, and to have some of that "worn out" feeling. Of course DMs should be encouraged to fiddle with that time as they see fit. Survival horror would probably benefit from longer times, whereas pure hack&slay probably doesn't.

I hadn't ever thought about the specific span of time until now -- I'd just used 5 minutes from ToB -- but in retrospect, it seems to have been a well-chosen number.

It's past what a 20th level character can guarantee (via combat magic), but it's not past what a 1st level character can expect (via Hide checks or whatnot). 10 minutes would also be fine; 2 minutes is treading on round-limited durations.

I'm going to stick with 5 minutes, because "taking 5" should be easy to remember, and it's just barely long enough to be out of range of combat spells.

Cheers, -- N