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

[JiffyPopTart]

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

I hereby nominate this suggestion as the official rule in my game.

Except by "Take 5" I am going to stick with the informal short break definition. Basically the "Take 5" time is long enough for the party to wipe off their weapons, catch their breath, loot the bodies, and get prepared to head back out again. This resets the Barbarians rage ability, the paladins smite, the halflings grovel like a little girl, or what have you. When everyone in the group gives a consensual nod to "Lets get this show back on the road" a new encounter has started.

DS

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Shrug.

Per encounter IMO is easy. it's from when I say "roll for initiative" until I say "you're out of combat rounds." Anything else and "per encounter" abiliites get treated as "at will". Seldom is the encounter period longer than 10 rounds -- 1 whole minute. The single time I've seen an extra-long encounter was 30 rounds, and that's because the party kept tripping new encounters by entering new rooms in combat.

As for resting up, I use the old 1E rule of thumb that combat, plus follow-on rest, recovery, etc, takes 1 turn or 10 minutes. That works pretty well given spell durations, etc.

And while I expect they'll allow some during-encounter options to refressh per encounter abilities per Bo9S, I'm not sure if that is wise. The warblade in my current game doesn't play much penalty at all to refresh his abilities (a swift action and a melee attack? Good grief, big sacrifice!) so he's basically using an ability every combat round -- he just can't use the same one in back-to-back rounds. At the moment that feels a bit too generous.

 

[Gloombunny]

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.

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.

And while I expect they'll allow some during-encounter options to refressh per encounter abilities per Bo9S, I'm not sure if that is wise. The warblade in my current game doesn't play much penalty at all to refresh his abilities (a swift action and a melee attack? Good grief, big sacrifice!) so he's basically using an ability every combat round -- he just can't use the same one in back-to-back rounds. At the moment that feels a bit too generous.

He shouldn't be able to use an ability more than once every two combat rounds, once he's used up his initial allotment of readied maneuvers. A warblade can't initiate a maneuver in the same round that he refreshes maneuvers.

 

[Ahglock]

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.

What would not makes sense is if there were multiple per day uses of an ability, instead of per encounter. Why should he be able to smite two, three, or four times in a row, and not again for the rest of the day? You can use the idea of being blessed only for so many uses by his god or a some kind vancian rationale, but that's just another way of saying 'because it's magic'. And there would be no excuse for purely martial powers, which should be balanced with magic types across however many encounters come up.

So what I expect we'll see is a few 1/day abilities, more per encounter abilities, and high levels providing what was per day as per encounter.

I don't know I can think of an action i can do 2-3 times then I need a long period of time before I can do it again. Maybe not a day, but its getting closer and closer to a day as I get older.

 

[Henry]

He shouldn't be able to use an ability more than once every two combat rounds, once he's used up his initial allotment of readied maneuvers. A warblade can't initiate a maneuver in the same round that he refreshes maneuvers.

As it is, a Warblade doesn't have "once per encounter" abilities, he has "several times per encounter" abilities, with the ability to pick and choose them. Even the crusader has to wait at least five rounds before he can get a specific one of his maneuvers back that he's used. To me, that class is a little too tough, but that's been argued back and forth for a long time now.

I'll admit, per encounter is starting to grow on me the more I use it. I do like the combination of the slot-like choice, with the re-usability like a feat. The one thing I don't like is the implications it has for time-limited adventures, and for attrition or stealth style adventures; if the PCs are at full strength all the time, they're far more likely to solve all problems with their strongest spells, their most powerful maneuvers, and a heavy hand as opposed to conserving their strength and looking for other ways to succeed. I've seen it first-hand, with a game two weeks ago. All of us except the caster had essentially per-encounter abilities, so we ploughed through a campsite full of wizards and fighters like a Kamikaze, using all our top guns in every single encounter, and shut the enemy down with all brute force. It was fun, but it was kind of predictable in the end.

 

[Gloombunny]

I'll admit, per encounter is starting to grow on me the more I use it. I do like the combination of the slot-like choice, with the re-usability like a feat. The one thing I don't like is the implications it has for time-limited adventures, and for attrition or stealth style adventures; if the PCs are at full strength all the time, they're far more likely to solve all problems with their strongest spells, their most powerful maneuvers, and a heavy hand as opposed to conserving their strength and looking for other ways to succeed. I've seen it first-hand, with a game two weeks ago. All of us except the caster had essentially per-encounter abilities, so we ploughed through a campsite full of wizards and fighters like a Kamikaze, using all our top guns in every single encounter, and shut the enemy down with all brute force. It was fun, but it was kind of predictable in the end.

Well, it looks like in 4e the strongest abilities will still be per-day, so there'll be some measure of power-conserving in those sorts of adventures.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As it is, a Warblade doesn't have "once per encounter" abilities, he has "several times per encounter" abilities, with the ability to pick and choose them. Even the crusader has to wait at least five rounds before he can get a specific one of his maneuvers back that he's used. To me, that class is a little too tough, but that's been argued back and forth for a long time now.

I'll admit, per encounter is starting to grow on me the more I use it. I do like the combination of the slot-like choice, with the re-usability like a feat. The one thing I don't like is the implications it has for time-limited adventures, and for attrition or stealth style adventures; if the PCs are at full strength all the time, they're far more likely to solve all problems with their strongest spells, their most powerful maneuvers, and a heavy hand as opposed to conserving their strength and looking for other ways to succeed. I've seen it first-hand, with a game two weeks ago. All of us except the caster had essentially per-encounter abilities, so we ploughed through a campsite full of wizards and fighters like a Kamikaze, using all our top guns in every single encounter, and shut the enemy down with all brute force. It was fun, but it was kind of predictable in the end.

There might be a way to migate this, though I am not sure if 4th edition will support this per default:
Conditional Special Abilities: Your powerful abilities can only be used under special conditions - Sneak Attack is such an ability (only while flanking or when target is flat-footed), token based abilities from Iron Heroes are another approach (collect enough tokens to pay for your ability). There is a wide room between this, and it depends on the complexity and abstraction you desire which one might be most suitable.

If 4th edition doesn't offer enough in this way, I think this is the first route to house-rule territory (and material for additonal supplements, too).

 

[Danzauker]

I admit at first, when I first read about per encounter abilities, I was more on the "no way!" side of things.

But afrer a lot of considerations, I came to the conclusion that I REALLY love the concept!

Because the concept is NARRATIVE. And D&D is a STORYTELLING game, after all.

So, I like that the DM has this level of control. What a DM says is an encounter, is an encounter (good sense is always a requirement when roleplaying, of course).

Like in books, we just focus on the relevant parts, not on the inbetweens. So, in D&D combat. Who cares if a paladin can smite evil when there's no fight around? For game balance, I think it's enough to know how many times he can do it in a fight.

That is, the "basic" element of story progression, moves from the day, to the encounter. This mean time flows freely in a D&D adventure. Just like in narrative. You can have a fast paced adventure with tend of encounters, or a slow paced one with just one a day.

And they both work the same with a per encounter power management system.

That's good in my book.

A lot of people like to complain that D&D is getting too videogamey or WoW like, but IMHO moving from a fixed time management system, where you must wait for the "mana gauge" to refill, to a free-form one, where resources depend largely on the needs of story development, is a move in the exact opposite direction...

 

[Quantarum]

A lot of people like to complain that D&D is getting too videogamey or WoW like, but IMHO moving from a fixed time management system, where you must wait for the "mana gauge" to refill, to a free-form one, where resources depend largely on the needs of story development, is a move in the exact opposite direction...

I'm not so sure the definition of an encounter is going to be so arbitrary. Imagine what players would think if a DM altered his definition of an encounter from one to the next to fit his story…
Player: I’m gonna smite the giant!
DM: Sorry, you used your last smite just a few rounds ago.
Player: But that was against a hellhound in the hall 100’ back!
DM: Yes, but escaping from here is just one big encounter, dramatic ain’t it? Didn’t you wonder why we kept the same initiative?
Player: …

-Q.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not so sure the definition of an encounter is going to be so arbitrary. Imagine what players would think if a DM altered his definition of an encounter from one to the next to fit his story…
Player: I’m gonna smite the giant!
DM: Sorry, you used your last smite just a few rounds ago.
Player: But that was against a hellhound in the hall 100’ back!
DM: Yes, but escaping from here is just one big encounter, dramatic ain’t it? Didn’t you wonder why we kept the same initiative?
Player: …

-Q.

It probably depends how much variable definitions of encounters are supported by the rules (aside from the possibility that the group as a whole agrees to use such definitions).

In Torg, there are regular encounters and Dramatic encounters. The Drama Deck favours the PCs in regular encounters, usually allowing them to take down mooks easily. But if it's a dramatic encounter, the Drama Deck suddenly favours the NPCs. The game per default supports to definitions of an enounter (not related to length, but to difficulty).