Which is better: per encounter or per day?

[Janx]

It's the exact same problem I have with the X/day system. No matter what, all of these are arbitrary decisions. In my opinion, this type of mechanic should be designed around whatever makes things the most playable.

A fatigue system, in which characters must recover after using abilities, may work.

Iron Heroes token system could model recovery easily. Earn one token per hour. Once you reach max tokens, that's it. Use your special power, burn 1 or more tokens (maybe all of them). Can't use ability again until tokens are maxed. This might be one mechanic where having a low Maximum, would be a good thing. Might want to consider a way to shift the logic so big is good.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

I voted "I like to push buttons" because a) it's true and b) I think that uninformed voters should either 1) get informed or 2) not vote.

Then, I read another thread and I considered the issue a bit, especially in light of my own experience as a player in RttToEE, and I hereby change my vote to

Per Encounter.

Each encounter should be balanced for the party in question: pushover, easy enough if handled thoughtfully, challenging, taxing, climactic, and you'd-be-a-fool-to-try.

Goblins shouldn't be able to off Elminster just because he killed three gods this morning.

A mix of per day and per encounter would be okay if handled correctly, but combat should be a sprint, not a marathon.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Per day, makes PCs value their stuff and make choices about when to use it and if the encounter is worth it. Gives GMs some chance to let players underestimate fights at first and when they realise its tougher then they thought they might still use their stuff or it might not be worth it anymore. In any case, it then made a decent encounter instead of having the PCs go all in every encounter since their stuff is "per encounter" anyway. Which would leave the GM to have to go with multiphased encounters each time he wants to do something wonkey or surprising to have the PCs without all their best stuff.

Imho per day is all good just cause it makes them evaluate threats, their resources and how to spend it. (never good to spend it all in one place!)

I am going to have to parrot this.

Squawk! Per day! Squawk!

 

[Xorial]

I voted per encounter. I absolutely despise that overly complicated token system from Iron Heroes. I dont play D&D to do triginometry during a battle.

 

[ElvishBard]

I voted per encounter. I absolutely despise that overly complicated token system from Iron Heroes. I dont play D&D to do triginometry during a battle.

Then I think you have to come to terms with the fact that you are playing wrong and having "bad fun." Next session try harder to do it right .

 

[Megatron]

I don't like X/whatever.


I strongly prefer a design aproach that curcumvents that type of abilities. Like the token abilities in Iron heroes.

Granted they turn out to be sort of X/encounter, but in a much more interesting way.

I agree completely

 

[Arnwyn]

X/day, as I prefer the resource management aspect of the game.

(And I haven't the foggiest how to define an "encounter".)

 

[CF]

I actually don't like x/whatever. I'd rather have tokens, cool-down and such kind of mechanics.

But if I have to choose between /day and /encounter, I'd take the later.

But that's just because I like my adventures action packed and the /day system always gave me more problems in game than the /encounter.

 

[Mercule]

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

Infinitely.

Personally, I hate all the charge mechanics. It sucks for spells. It sucks for barbarian rage. It sucks for turning undead. It sucks for smiting. It sucks for everything except a few rare, quirky magic items and legendary effects (once every full moon, a year and a day of service, etc.).

I don't care whether it's per day or per encounter. It's a bad mechanic that "shows the wires" and forces metagame thought. Per encounter is a greater offender because, with per day, you at least have the possibility of using something twice back-to-back and then ignoring it for the next encounter and faking verisimilitude.

Per encounter is also tricky because the definition of an "encounter" is so hazy. Don't even go there until you can solidly and unambiguously define when to check for surprise.

 

[Mercule]

My group had been playing Vampire when 3.0 came out and brought us back to D&D. The switch from abilities per scene to per day was pretty odd. The barbarian's rage really stood out to me as the only thing in the entire game that was on a per encounter system. (By the way, the storyteller had the discretion to let some of our abilities refresh in ambiguously contiguous scenes. It worked fine.)

I ran WoD games for a few years. I agree that the "scene" mechanic worked well for it. There are, IMO, two reasons it's okay for Storyteller but not D&D.

1) Storyteller is intentionally footloose. It is designed to enable the telling of stories, not "well-balanced" mechanical play. In otherwords, it's fine if you're playing rules-light and/or willing to let the GM fiat a lot of stuff. D&D is increasingly minimizing the GM. The more they do so (up to the point they ditch any attempt of telling stories), the less well "per encounter" fits.

2) Storyteller had effects with a duration of one scene, not that were usable per scene. There is a difference.