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

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, it looks like you created this example specifically to prove that per-Enc are better But then you can make a similar feat and create an example that "proves" that at will are more fun than per-enc, by removing the chance to rest even a few minutes.

Interestingly, I'd still say that argues for per-encounter abilities. Since most encounters won't be on-the-run from one location to another with no chance to rest in between, those few that do will mix things up a bit, altering your resource management in an ironman sort of way. The variety will add to the fun.

In a no-rest series of encounters, the per-day paladin will have more smites, but he'll still have four smites, like he always does. He can waste two or three of them before he has to worry about whether to use his last ones. The per-encounter paladin will face an interesting resource management challenge. Of course, if every combat is part of a long series of encounters with no resting time between, the per-day paladin will be superior. But that's a pretty big if.

 

[Warbringer]

Its all about recovery and bookkeeping...

In a perfect simulationist system you'd have a formula of recovery based on damage taken vs damage recovery x threat alertness x recovery rate, based on a continuous time interval.... or some such nonsense

In a pnp game you have abstract time interval to represent how quickly you recover powers relative to their strength. This for me is the ground breaking mechanic for 4e... the rest of it, ok, but....


So at will, per encounter, per day; I can live with it. I like it, and to be honest loos a lot like special abilities for demons/devils which I've liked for a long time

 

[Lanefan]

I formalized this in my game. There are four units of resting time:

Quick rest: 1 minute - allows recovery of per-encounter resources
Short rest: 1 hour - allows recovery of bonus spells due to ability scores (among other things)
Full rest: 8 hours
Day's rest: 24 hours

Hmmm...interesting, from various angles regardless of edition. 0-1-2-3e already have 8-hour and 24-hour rest rules in some form. We long ago put a 1e houserule in to the effect that if you took a few minutes to rest after a combat in which you took damage (but did not go below 0) you could recover 1d3 hit points; the flavour explanation being you were salving the cuts, taking a drink of water, catching your breath, etc., and that could easily morph into your "quick rest" idea along with per-encounter resets if such are used.

Your 1-hour short rest might come in very handy for things like poison durations, recovery from 3e-style ability-score drains, item "rebooting" (e.g. after one use a given item will not work again for one hour while it recharges itself), spell reassignment, and so on.

For 4e, as projected, it could work much as you wrote above.

 

[pawsplay]

"Per encounter" is, apart from the name, really not more 'gamey' than "Per day", it is actually a refinement.

I disagree. It's a source for arguments with players, puts a game balance burden on the GM, makes little logical sense, and reduces strategic options. I have played many games, some with per encounter, some not. The concept is hardly new. In many years of gaming, I would have to say I would never intentionally design a game based on "per encounter" anything. I will play them, but I think it's an inferior design.

 

[Ranger REG]

I disagree. It's a source for arguments with players, puts a game balance burden on the GM, makes little logical sense, and reduces strategic options.

If by reducing strategic options, we increase small-unit tactical options, then I'm all for "per encounter."

 

[Blacksmithking]

In many years of gaming, I would have to say I would never intentionally design a game based on "per encounter" anything. I will play them, but I think it's an inferior design.

An ability that can be used once per encounter is roughly the same as an ability that can be used once every 5-10 minutes. In WoW, these are abilities with a "cooldown." Rather than bother tracking seconds and minutes, it's easier to say these abilities can be used once per encounter, since most encounters don't last more than 10 rounds anyway.

For example, the spell duration of bull's strength can be listed as "one encounter" instead of an arbitrary number of rounds. In an encounter model, it doesn't matter if bull's strength lasts 1 minute or ten minutes; you cast it when you need to smack someone or something really hard. After you've killed your enemies or lifted a heavy gate, your super strength isn't useful to you--it helped you through the encounter.

 

[Anthtriel]

It's a source for arguments with players,

Please give an example.

puts a game balance burden on the GM

Please give an example.

makes little logical sense

Please give an example where it makes less sense than per day.

and reduces strategic options

It gives different options. If you run four encounters per day and the players know that fact, per day gives more options, otherwise per encounter gives more. But out of the four points, there is certainly some truth to this one, and it's a matter of perspective and playstyle how true exactly it is. The other three are, as far as I'm concerned, flat-out wrong.

And keep in mind that "per encounter" for the purpose of this thread means "ability that refreshes after x minutes of rest", not "ability that refreshes when the DM says so" (which would be inferior, I agree).

 

[pawsplay]

An ability that can be used once per encounter is roughly the same as an ability that can be used once every 5-10 minutes. In WoW, these are abilities with a "cooldown." Rather than bother tracking seconds and minutes, it's easier to say these abilities can be used once per encounter, since most encounters don't last more than 10 rounds anyway.

It's easier to say it's per five minutes, then play it as though it's per encounter whenever that's convenient for you. That way, if it ever comes up, you know it's really five minutes or so.

 

[pawsplay]

Please give an example.

"This isn't the same encounter."

Please give an example.

"This is so too the same encounter."

Also, whether the GM throws longer encounters or shorter encounters changes how many relative resources are available.

Please give an example where it makes less sense than per day.

Is there an example otherwise? "Can we pick a fight... I'm low on hit points and need to use a per encounter ability."

"Why don't you teleport to the top of the tower?"
"I'm sorry, I can only do that once per encounter."
"But we've been standing here ten minutes, and you just did that twice on the way in!"
"Yes, but those were separate encounters."

It gives different options. If you run four encounters per day and the players know that fact, per day gives more options, otherwise per encounter gives more.

That's just nonsense. Per day means the choice to allocate your resources, per encounter does not (instead, the GM allocates them for you).

 

[hong]

Is there an example otherwise? "Can we pick a fight... I'm low on hit points and need to use a per encounter ability."

Sounds cool to me.

"Why don't you teleport to the top of the tower?"
"I'm sorry, I can only do that once per encounter."
"But we've been standing here ten minutes, and you just did that twice on the way in!"
"Yes, but those were separate encounters."

Let us now assume that groups with silly DMs will quickly settle on the rule of thumb "per encounter means 5 minutes to refresh", instead of silly DMs getting away with silliness. Everyone else can get on just fine without numeric pedantry.

That's just nonsense. Per day means the choice to allocate your resources, per encounter does not (instead, the GM allocates them for you).

Yes. That's the 15-minute workday syndrome.