Which is better: per encounter or per day?

[philreed]

So if you go shopping and talk to 3 shopkeepers, is that one encounter or three?

I think it would have to be a DM call. For many groups shopping doesn't even happen -- it's something that happens during downtime -- and for such groups it wouldn't be an encounter at all.

How frequently do you rage when buying a sword?

 

[JoeGKushner]

How frequently do you rage when buying a sword?

The scray thing is my players could answer this with a number greater than 0.

 

[gribble]

The scray thing is my players could answer this with a number greater than 0.

You know, I was thinking the same thing...


Just goes to prove, it's not easy to define an "encounter". One minute you're talking to them, the next minute heads are flying left and right.

That'd be two encounters, right? One social, one combat?

 

[Victim]

I like both the tactical and strategic resource systems, but they tend to reward different playing styles - the strategically constrained character will want to rest often to replenish his powers, while the character with per encounter abilities wants to keep going. In a game of strategic resource management, a character with nearly unlimited abilities can be problematic - witness the complaints about the warlock. There are similar problems in the other direction. So the resource system should fit the style of the game.

I don't really see RW's idea as being relevant here. It could work with strategic resources - even a character building up to high value actions needs to be careful about exhausting her powers - another tactical limiter (only so many spells in a short time before local mana is exhausted or something), or by itself with actions as the only currency. What it does is change the tactical model of the game from an alpha strike kind of attack to an escalating one. But there's alot of ways to screw that kind of system up, in my opinion.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

As a player, I dont have to worry about whether the DM is trying to sucker me into using the once/day ability with a mook encounter...

And you think that's a good thing?

 

[Umbran]

Depends upon the pacign of your game, really - how many encoutners are there in a given day?

If a character isn't going to frequently want to use a power multiple times in one encounter, then per-encounter is a pretty useless limit.

 

[Particle_Man]

Per/encounter gives the DM a little more freedom.

Per/day seems to be based on the assumption of "4 encounters per day". But note that often with overland travel that becomes "1 encounter, maximum, per day" which the players are fairly aware of, and so can "blow their wads" as it were. The DM could be sneaky and throw in an extra encounter (often at night) but it is rare to have 4 encounters per day on the way to the "Shrine of Watzit" because the DM and players want to spend most of their time adventuring in the Shrine. Alternatively the DM could make the one overland encounter VERY nasty, but then there is a greater chance of a TPK before the shrine is even reached.

I think "per/encounter" solves this problem. You can have one wandering monster on the way to the shrine, without it being a blowout, and then get down to the Shrine stuff.

 

[Janx]

I would classify it as two. You had dealt with the first encounter and now a second was starting.

If the situation had been one in which the second group were specifically designed as reinforcements for the first -- such as X rounds after the first group enters combat reinforcements arrive -- then I could see it as one encounter. But as you describe it I see it as two.

In our case, we saw the new enemies right as the last guy fell. These weren't reinforcements to the first, they were another faction. Literally, we started our next turn with, you see Lord Whathisname and his trops at the outskirts of the village. His men will be at your current position in 4 rounds. what do you do?

In our case, we opted to have half the party hold position, the other half run around and try to circle in from behind. The barbarian was part of the group that was running.

Note I said run. Narratively speaking, the barbarian just raged, and should be exhausted for a while. By saying it's 2 encounters, per the rules, the barbarian is getting an instant recovery, which makes no sense.


My DM has a tendency to run adventures like the 2nd Pirates of the Carribean (a common comment by us all was our DM must have directed it). He packs on encounters with little breathing room.

From my perspective, I have a problem with using an Encounter as a unit of measurement for duration. Because when they're stacked, the line blurs.

From a DM planning standpoint, they're pretty obvious, kill group A, then bring in Group B. Calculate XP for Group A, then group B.

From an ability duration/limit perspective, they make little sense.

 

[RangerWickett]

The not 'per encounter.' Per hour? If a Barbarian rages, he needs, say, 10 minutes to recover. Would that be better?

 

[zypherillius]

i voted...

i voted on liking to push buttons, well mostly because i do. as far as per encounters or per day use of abilities, ive found when i run, they are almost out of the day abilities. i think per encounter activation would make them a bit over powered, depending on what the ablility youre talking about is.