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

[Anthtriel]

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.

Yeah, I very much doubt the entries in the Player's Handbook will read "You can reuse this ability whenever your DM says you can."
"Taking five" is the most likely recover mechanic.

 

[Danzauker]

Yeah, I very much doubt the entries in the Player's Handbook will read "You can reuse this ability whenever your DM says you can."
"Taking five" is the most likely recover mechanic.

I surely expect the manuals to give clear indications of what is an encounter and what is not.

But, actually, your DM has ALWAYS determined when an encounter began and when it ended.

The first happens when he says "ok guys, roll for initiative".

The second when he says "ok guys, prepare to update your XP total".

We have been dealing with this for 30 years more or less.

 

[Exen Trik]

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.

Can you do those things as often in a single moment as over, say the breadth of an hour? Otherwise it sounds more like an (gradually shrinking) encounters per day limit.

 

[Mercule]

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.

I'm starting to warm to them, too. May I have some mustard for my crow, please?

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".

If the party is really mounting a sustained attack against that camp, they aren't likely to be able to take five. They will quickly alert the whole camp to their presence and turn it into one big encounter. In fact, since the per-encounter characters tend to have fewer resources at their immediate call than the per-day characters, it might make stealth even more important for the per-encounter folks.

I really suspect that this spill-over effect is why the definition of encounter is being redefined in 4E to encompass more than one room. In doing so, WotC has set the precedent in their modules that flow of action, rather than flow of terrain dictate the division between encounters.

Edit: I find it interesting that two things about 4E with which I've had problems (per-encounter resources and area encounters) turn out to play off each other in a way that indicates a mindset that I think I'm going to like.

 

[Nifft]

in a way that indicates a mindset that I think I'm going to like.

IMHO, this is the best and most important part of 4e -- none of the specific rules, because honestly I haven't seen enough of them to make any kind of useful judgment -- but the mindset behind the rules seems to indicate that they're thinking about the same problems that trouble me.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Philip]

I'd rather just have:
At Will
Per hour*
Per day


* Per Encounter can be interpreted in many different ways. What if you're adventuring in the City of Brass, where you're constantly being hit with heat damage? Since you're taking damage, wouldn't the city itself be considered a continuous encounter?

While you are at it, you might even try to ask yourself how you determine the length of a day in the City of Brass. Or on any world that doesn't shared the assumed Earth default.

 

[Anthtriel]

I surely expect the manuals to give clear indications of what is an encounter and what is not.

It would be very hard to give rules that always work and don't create weird border cases. And you would need to define how often you can use the abilities outside of combat.
"Taking five" doesn't have that problem.

The one flavor problem that "per encounter" has, which it shares with "per day", is to explain why you cannot use one specific ability over and over again, even if you can still do other, more powerful and strenuous ones. But gameplay requires it, so I don't think there is much that can be done about it, without weakening play.

 

[Lanefan]

While you are at it, you might even try to ask yourself how you determine the length of a day in the City of Brass. Or on any world that doesn't shared the assumed Earth default.

Body clocks of the characters, that are accustomed to whatever length of day their home-world has and tend to default to that when day and night are otherwise undefined. (whether that has any bearing on the *real* length of a day is another matter entirely; time can move in mysterious ways...)

Lanefan

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

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

 

[Li Shenron]

There is one thing about "per encounter"-abilities that I hate: The flavor of an ability that is encounter-based is totally off. I believe my very first impression of them, once I stopped looking at it mechanicly, was something like this:

"An ability can only be used during one encounter, no matter how long it takes? And why would you only be able to do it when there is an enemy around? Some sort of magical energy that wells up in you once you see a Goblin and vanishes when you have slain him? Total bollocks!"

Thankfully, that didn't last long. 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.

That is pretty much the same reactions-over-time I had as well. First I really didn't like them, but after a while I accepted them gladly. They can be explained reasonably well in-game and that's the winning thing for me. The only concern I still have about per-enc abilities is that they shouldn't be too many for each PC, otherwise if you have so many that you can pull one (a different one obviously) out every round, then the whole point is lost.

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.

...

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?

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.

I say that per-day are just as fun for a player, because they are a tactical challenge. Just a different level of challenge, that's all.