Why is it so important?

[Lonely Tylenol]

It breaks the "suspension of disbelief" when you go in the dungeon, leave, rest for 8 hours, go back in, come back out, rest.

I had a wizard in one of my old groups who liked to "nova". He'd cast as many spells as he could as fast as he could, many of which were buffs cast before combat, and he'd run out very quickly. He knew that the party was hosed without him, so they would need to stop and rest as soon as he ran out of spells. It got fairly tiresome.

On top of this, I like to play monsters at least halfway intelligently. If the party retreats to rest for a day, the monsters should prepare for their return. After three or four forays into the same lair, I get a bit sick of having to work out (and re-work) tactics for the newly-reduced monster populations.

 

[Destil]

At high level tracking spells per day can be a nightmare. There's a reason we see advice that high level spellcasters should have a few "default lists", a 20th level cleric has over 60 spell slots. Sure, it's great that they can totally change gears if they need to, but it takes a LOT of time to choose 60 spells across 10 levels, and usually that happens in play.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Remember also that many people dont want to rely on magic items for various reasons, and that in 4e magic items are to be de-emphasized. Which more or less means character abilities must compensate.

I dont say this in a derogatory way, but it sounds to me as if you are mostly just implying that people who favor per-encounter abilities are in some way lazy or the like.

I'll admit it. I'm lazy. I hate having to track time intervals. I'd rather just say, you get one combat out of it, or two if they're right next to each other. I'd rather not track how many rounds are left on the Haste, Divine Favour, Prayer, Displacement, Globe of Invulnerability, Evard's Black Tentacles, Spiritual Hammer, Holy Sword, three different Summon Monsters, and a room full of Confusions, having to remember who cast which so I can increment the duration on the correct initiative modifier (I'm also not thrilled about players who count rounds to calculate the caster level of my spellcasters). Since combats generally don't last more than 10 rounds anyway, the difference is hardly worth caring about.

Give me per-encounter spells and encounter durations. I am not the obsessive information tracker I was in the heady days of my youth.

 

[Merlion]

I'll admit it. I'm lazy. I hate having to track time intervals. I'd rather just say, you get one combat out of it, or two if they're right next to each other. I'd rather track how many rounds are left on the Haste, Divine Favour, Prayer, Displacement, Globe of Invulnerability, Evard's Black Tentacles, Spiritual Hammer, Holy Sword, three different Summon Monsters, and a room full of Confusions, having to remember who cast which so I can increment the duration on the correct initiative modifier (I'm also not thrilled about players who count rounds to calculate the caster level of my spellcasters).

Give me per-encounter spells and encounter durations. I am not the obsessive information tracker I was in the heady days of my youth.

Well, I do hope that many things will still have round/minute/hour etc durations, and I do worry a little about trying to have a set duration and/or definition for "encounter", but overall it all sounds interesting.

 

[coyote6]

Aside from Vance and D&D (the game, related fiction, and direct ripoffs of same), are there any other RPGs or fiction where powers are commonly limited on a "uses per day" basis?

Fairy tales, maybe; but even then, it seems to me that it's usually more like "once per year" or the like, rather than "once per day" (let alone "once per day, must have 8 hours of rest, followed by 15-60 minutes of prayer/study/meditation before recovery).

There's the Midkemia books, where lesser wizards are so limited -- but they *are* D&D wizards (Midkemia was a group's D&D world), and they quickly get ignored in favor of the greater magic wielders, who don't have that limitation.

Even the Vlad Taltos novels, which are also (very loosely) based on a D&D game, don't have "per day" abilities, IIRC.

IIRC, in the later Amber books, Merlin comes up with a method of "hanging" spells, which works out a lot like D&D-style magic -- but there are plenty of other potent abilities around that don't have that limitation.

Lots of games and fiction have powers & abilities that tire the user, which leads to said abilities not being used often -- once a day, and then done. But the users are then *tired*, and can't continue to merrily tramp along shooting their crossbow. They have to actually rest -- and they generally don't have to wait until the next day, either.

In GURPS, you rest for an hour or so at max, and the spellcasters are good to go. You have to leave & rest when everybody's beat up, and already been healed enough such that the heal spells are likely to fail or critically fail, and maybe it's time to fall back. But that point might never come, if the players are smart and the characters sufficiently skilled/heavily armored.

In other games, you can run out of spell points/mana/whatever -- but a lot of them _don't_ have "recover them all at once, once per day" rules. You get back some amount over time -- so you can just rest the requisite time, and then get back at it. Exalted, for example -- the Dawn caste can blow all her Essence on one fight, then nap for a couple of hours and be semi-functional.

So why is it so important? In one sense, it isn't; it's just a game. In another sense, it is because it doesn't let me play a game that's like anything but D&D fiction.

(And plenty of D&D books don't seem to play by the rules, either. The spellcasters either get physically worn out, or they just never seem to run out of spells until it's dramatically appropriate. Curious, that.)

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

This is one of the many things we've heard about 4e that I'm just not sure about...one way or the other.

On the one hand, I like the strategy involved in selecting spells and knowing they'll be gone afterwards. It makes them (more) special and really puts some weight on the decision.

On the other hand, it can be utterly painful, especially at lower levels.

 

[JVisgaitis]

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

Because in every campaign I have played in since I started playing D&D (oh 20+ years ago), you always have the group that uses all their spells, rages, what have you and they spike the door shut and sleep in the dungeon for 8 hours.

Hell, I did the same thing when I played Oblivion. Oh my magic is all drained and my hit points are low? Guess I'll just wait for an hour. Problem solved.

Couple that with the fact that when a character has utilized all of his abilities, he's pretty much worthless. A wizard without spells is like a gun without ammo. Yeah, I can bludgeon someone with it, but its hardly effective.

Balancing per encounter addresses those issues as well as makes balance of the game for designers a lot easier. If I create a monster and know that its going to get hit with abilities x, y, and z that's removing a lot of the guesswork and making the game easier to balance.

Balance per encounter is a win win in my eyes.

 

[Vigilance]

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?

Per encounter abilities in no way affect the fact that you'll have to plan your resources and occasionally retreat or risk becoming over-extended.

I mean, hit points are still a resource to be managed, and I'm fairly certain unlimited healing won't be available.

What I like about "per encounter abilities", especially as it pertains to the spellcasting classes, is that spells available was such a ludicrously limited resource in the Vancian magic system.

The idea that a spellcaster would have 10 *ROUNDS* of uptime per day is just silly.

And yes, I consider a Wizard firing a crossbow to be downtime. He's just hoarding his 10 rounds of glory until later.

In other words, per encounter abilities might allow the party to continue adventuring longer before they need to rest.

This doesn't mean resource management will be gone. It just means it won't necessarily be as common an occurance.

 

[FireLance]

"Per encounter" abilities might refer to abilities that are explicitly defined to refresh at the start of each encounter, but they might also refer to any of the following:

1. Abilities with a fairly short recharge time that nonetheless will last more than a typical encounter, say 1 or more minutes. 3e dragon breath is a similar mechanic, although the recharge time was measured in rounds.

2. Abilities that require some time to ready, and which are either difficult or impossible to ready in combat. 3.5e psionic focus is an example of such an ability. At lower levels, at least, it is generally difficult to regain your psionic focus in the middle of a fight, but regaining it is almost automatic between encounters.

Changing spell preparation (for some spells, at least) to remove the need for eight hours' rest and to simply require one or two minutes of meditation, prayer, or studying spellbooks effectively turns such spells into per encounter abilities without explicitly defining them as such.

 

[Treebore]

I have to admit if they can give a "good logic" explanation behind how and why its done it will make it much easier for me to accept.

Still, I can't help but think most fo the "problems" mentioned with Vancian magic have more to do with DM's throwing too much at a group.

I mean at low levels you know the mage only has one, maybe two first level spells, and if he is lucky and imaginative, he can even make zero level spells effective. Still, the DM knows those spells will be gone after one encounter. So why throw any more at the party that day?

This same basic fact remains for many levels. I find, as a general rule of thumb, that a mage is good for one encounter for every two levels they have. Granted, that does vary dependent upon the circumstances of the encounter, such as saves made and saves failed affect the number of spells that end up being cast. IE the longer the enemy stays standing the longer you throw spells.

So as far as the problems I have seen mentioned go, I wonder if they would be perceived as problems if better DM decisions took spell reserves into "proper" account. Meaning I wonder how many DM's really understand and take into consideration the number of spells mages can throw for how many combat rounds.

Then do they have a good sense of how long combats will last? For instance, most combats last 2 to 5 rounds. At higher levels, like around 8th, you'll start seeing battles lasting 6 to 10 rounds, depending on difficulty, resistances, DR, and immunities. Then around 15th level you'll see combats last 10 to 15 rounds, again depending on immunities, resistance, DR, and difficulty (difficulty being a combination of AC and HP's).

After that, in my experience only, combats actually became shorter. I don't think I ever saw a combat last more that 10 rounds after that, except in situations where we essentially went from fighting one group to another without a break. Then in the Epic level games I played in (I've never DMed Epic) the combats often lasted 2 or 3 rounds. Especially in the two games that went above 30th (one lasted to 48th, and the other lasted until 63rd). This is with wizards becoming practically useless because so many opponents at those levels are Highly resistant or totally immune to so many spell effects. The fighter types were that devastating.

So I have to ask, maybe this "shortcoming" of Vancian magic would be better taken care of by better teaching of the DM's. To give them strong guidelines on "guesstimating" how long combats will take, and how long, and for how many encounters, spellcasters will remain potent.

Then plan out their game accordingly.

Still, if they give a good premise, this new way of handling encounters could be very cool. Depending on how they justify how fast mages recover. Like Coyote 6 mentions, there is a lot of literary sources to pull from for ideas to turn into the "magic mechanic".