So as it turned out, you actually have fine reading competence (I suppose), you just didn't bother to read, with the same result. Very well then, let me sum up:
Any part of the example in the original post
I realized that flavorwise, "per encounter ability" should actually be named "ability that takes two minutes of rest to recover", as opposed to "per day ability", which would be "ability that takes eight hours of rest to recover". "Per encounter" is, apart from the name, really not more 'gamey' than "Per day", it is actually a refinement.
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.
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")
Gloombunny said:
You misunderstand. It's not "each ability refreshes two minutes after it's used". It's "all abilities refresh after you spend two uninterrupted minutes resting". The only "timekeeping" needed is the length of the rest period.
Exen Trik said:
Per encounter makes more sense, since it is just a matter of resting, not using some daily allowance of power. But if they were different in ability, like the per encounter smiter were 15th level and the per day smiter 5th, then it would make sense that the lower level guy would need more rest.
Mercule said:
I won't say I don't have some reservations about them, but I do want to look at your example. It seems to me that this is where it's very important that "per encounter" is shorthand for "short rest".
Doesn't matter, it only matters whether they had x minutes of rest or not. I specifically pointed that out and you just ignored it. That doesn't give you much credibility.
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).
There is one thing in this thread that you just have "to get", to understand. That there could be a text that read "Recharge after x minutes of resting" which would be different from "Recharge after x minutes". If you don't bother to read through the thread, then it's possible to confuse the two and wonder what everyone is talking about, especially as some apparently confused people have posted here, and beyond my example I haven't been very clear (in part because it's impossible not to get it after you read the example). I also acknowledge that I can be pretty unintelligible at times, and my English is nowhere near as good as I would like it to be.
"The point of the thread", i.e. "the point I wanted to make" or "the reason why I wrote all that" is to create an awareness that "per encounter" is very misunderstood, and implies rules that are very different from the rules actually employed. Saga doesn't ever actually say "per encounter", if I'm not mistaken. It's a horrible name, that's why I don't want it in the 4E rules (hence the thread title).
Of course, objectively, the "point of this thread" is that some people in the ENworld forums don't bother to read other posts, not even if they find apparently odd discrepancies. Posting without reading other posts, especially the opening post, is pretty much the worst thing you can do in a forum. That behauvior turns meaningful, linear discussions into a chaotic mess.
Someone who posts without reading others somehow believes others care about his opinion when he doesn't care what they think, or whether he contributed in any meaningful way, or just rehashed what has been discussed dozens of times before.
Well, the good thing is, I can start my ignore list. Should save me some time.