Why is it so important?

[Treebore]

I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.

I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.

So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?

I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?

 

[Merlion]

I think your misinterpreting.


Chances are, at least some of the per day/encounter abilities will also have to be chosen beforehand anyway...either on their own, or I have a feeling that some of them may in fact be tied to your selection of prepared spells.


Nextly...basically, while many are fine with it, many people have had a problem with the "Vancian" magic system for some time, either mechanically, conceptually or both. One of the big ones being that for Wizards, magic is all the have, and in the current system they can run out of "prepared spells" and become very nearly useless in terms of combat etc. Concetptually, its not a very good fit when compared to the workings of magic in most fantasy and mythology. No one is interested in doing away with the challenges of forethought that you speak of, but it is possible to remove some of the limitations of the Vancian system, without removing that element of challenge.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

I'd say it's due to the lag time after encounters. Who wants to wait a day between each big encounter? It leads spell casters to "over husband" spells too. I know I do it sometimes with my cleric.

I think having a system that allows for a few big per day abilities and some mild to moderately useful per encounter abilities would be good. Keeps the flow of the game up better.

Just my two cents.

 

[whydirt]

While I agree somewhat with what you're saying, I think any benefit from the level of strategy provided by managing "per day" resources is outweighed by the hindrance of dealing with the 9:00 -> 9:05 adventuring hours problem.

 

[Jared Rascher]

I don't know. I can understand having a "little" more flexibility, but I'm concerned that this per encounter/at will/per day structure is "idiot proofing" PCs to the point to where what decision they may isn't that big a deal. Should you use mage blast or one of your spells? Eh, in the end, if you make the wrong choice, you have more choices, and you won't really be "wrong," you just may have to fight something for 8 rounds instead of three.

 

[Andre]

I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.

While I can't speak for anyone else, an incident at a game session right after my group started using "per encounter" magic vs. vancian may sum it up nicely:

The party had just finished their third encounter in the caves, a real tough one in which a couple characters almost dropped and a lot of spells were cast. One of the players looks around and states, "Well, I guess we better pull out and rest." The other player and I look at her and ask simultaneously "Why?"

She was so used to having to stop in the middle of adventures and rest to recover spells that it was a habit. A bad habit. One we've broken nicely.

That said, from what little we know, 4E may have found a nice middle ground, mixing "per encounter" and "per day" abilities to keep some of the resource management aspects (which I like) and still get rid of the infamous "fight a couple encounters and rest" syndrome (which I hate).

YMMV

 

[Victim]

I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.

I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.

So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?

I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?

Your first 2 challenges don't change with per encounter abilities.

Long run attrition challenges aren't interesting to me since the early encounters are easy. What's at issue isn't whether or not the characters win, it's how much they have to pay to do it. I'd rather have 2 big monster battles that use up lots of resources even if the group has to rest than 6 fights in a row that only present a threat in conjunction since the party is running low on resources.

Also, if the group can easily withdraw or otherwise recharge as needed, then resources might as well be per encounter anyway.

 

[Gimby]

It allows for easier balancing of encounters and pacing of adventures.

With per-encounter balancing you have a good idea ahead of time what the capabilities of a party will be at any point in the future. You can have the numbers of encounters per day dictated by the requirements of the game's plot rather than by the 4-per-day balance assumption and not worry that this will leave some players feeling useless. You are not forced to apply a time pressure to prevent the players from simply nova-ing one encounter and then resting back to full.

As it stands, some classes are already per-encounter based (fighter, rouge, warlock and so on) and other are not (any primary caster really). This makes it more difficult to balance between classes- the durability that is supposedly the strength of the per-encounter classes is rarely seen as the per-day classes will want to rest as soon as they have spent their resources. By putting everyone on the same playing field you can ensure that the classes are balanced against each other.

 

[Merlion]

I don't know. I can understand having a "little" more flexibility, but I'm concerned that this per encounter/at will/per day structure is "idiot proofing" PCs to the point to where what decision they may isn't that big a deal. Should you use mage blast or one of your spells? Eh, in the end, if you make the wrong choice, you have more choices, and you won't really be "wrong," you just may have to fight something for 8 rounds instead of three.

Thats different from now in what way?

The PCs generally win no matter what. They generally overcome whatever challenges presented and/or reach their goals regardless. Thats how the game is built. Yea, characters do even die now and then...but they can be ressurected.

And I think flexibility is part of it, but I think especially when it comes to the Wizard and other primary casting classes BadKarmaboy is right. A lot of it is a time thing. Lets say you encounter a magically sealed door. The Wizard knows the spell to bypass it, so its going to get bypassed. But under the current system, if he doesnt already happen to have it prepared, you have to wait a day. So, its going to get bypassed, its just a matter of when....so why make everyone stop because the wizard has to rest 8 hours and prepare spells?

Likewise with combat encounters. As it is, the Wizards and other spellcasters often run out of spells while many of the other class types are still pretty good to go, which doesnt really seem very fair, to anyone.

 

[Glyfair]

I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.

I'm in favor of "per encounter" abilities because of the reduction in bookkeeping.

What are they replacing? Most of them would be abilities that last about a single combat, or last a single round and "recharge" in about that time. When they overrun that combat it often becomes an exercise in tedium trying to figure out exactly how much time is taking place outside of combat.

How long were you talking to the NPC? How long did it take to search the bodies? How long did walking down the hallway carefully take?

In my opinion, keeping track of these things is boring. Trying to "wing it" on the fly, on the other hand, tends to lead to a very inconsistent game where things vary based on the mood of the DM at the time).

How about things that are "per encounter" that would previously had limited uses per day? Those things that are changed to that format would have had so many that you almost never ran out of them. Moving to "per encounter" reduces the number of things you have to track.

Sure, there are certain things you need to track. Every additional thing you deal with in this fashion reduces the focus on the game, in my experience. You don't really have to keep track of "once per encounter" abilities, most players/DMs will remember when they were used during the encounter. Spread it out over a day with multiple uses and that always isn't practical.