4th Ed: Tidbits from PAX

[nagora]

meditating 5 minutes after depleting your "spell slots" makes just about as much sense as resting 8 hours to replenish your "spell slots". And "per encounter" can easily be solved as requiring 5min. of meditation, thus rendering it almost impossible to do within an encounter, while avoiding narcoleptic casters because your "universe" decided to ambush the characters 3 times in the first 3 hours of being awake and everyone decides to rest for the remaining 21 hours because the casters ran out of spells.

Defending bloody awful rules with bloody awful DMing is not a convincing arguement. In a hostile environment, attacks can come at any time and as often as makes sense in context. If you had 3 encounters in 3hrs, what possible reason would there be for the remaining 21 hours to be peaceful? At the very least, the characters should have no way of knowing that they will be.

[Reel On, Love]

Actually "Whoops, cerics outta heals and we're still in the Great Swamp being trailled by 12 trolls." does make for particularly fun gaming. Coping with limits is a huge source of drama. Innane rules such as 4 encounters per day and per-encounter abilities belong in Fantasy Ludo, not in an RPG.

If you're still being trailed by 12 trolls, I guess it's still the same encounter. Per-encounter mechanics do coping-with-limits gameplay just fine. It's exactly as inane as "I do this whenever" (at will) or "I can charge mah lazor again at dawn/after 8 hours of sleep" (per-day) or "I fire mah lazor once every X" (cooldown), and it means that you won't have many fights where everyone's out of cool things to do. If Sparky the Magic Man has run out of magic juice, he's not exactly going to be having fun in the next couple of encounters. And if Sparky the Magic Man's magic contributes a lot to the party's not dying, they're not gonna be having that much fun either.
You can still push characters with per-encounter abilities. You just do it in somewhat different ways--generally, that leads to faster-paced, more exciting gameplay. Instead of having two waves of monsters, you have a bigger wave, or have the second wave right on the heels of the first. Or you call the whole scene one encounter (which is why I also prefer "per scene" to "per encounter", really).

There's nothing particularily good about per-day. I mean, hey, why not have Per Week? Even more coping-with-limits drama, AMIRITE?

For the record, 4E's keeping some amount of vancian casting, so you may have, say, some "deploy in dire need" per-day abilities on top of at-will abilities to use round to round and per-encounter abilities to use when appropriate. There are also other approaches--for example, Exalted characters spend Essence both on instant Charms and on scenelong ones (that last, well, a whole scene, which an encounter generally is--although you can have zero or multiple encounters in a scene), and recover it at a regular rate. So spending lots of Essence is still undesirable (especially since Exalted combat tends to be won by the person who maintains higher efficiency), but if you do so, you'll have some back (and still have your considerable mundane skills) by the next fight. What's more, when you stunt (describe fancy in-genre things), you gain some motes of Essence back.
That's a lot better than "I use my extra-action/perfect defense/big counterattack combo and splatter him. Now I'll just wait for tomorrow morning, when I'll suddenly get all my Essence back."
It's also a lot better than "should I cast a spell? No, I might need it later. Okay, I'll cast it. Now I'm out. I'm just gonna sit the next few out. Actually, let's nap."

[nagora]

If you're still being trailed by 12 trolls, I guess it's still the same encounter.

If all you know is that they're between, say 1 and 12 hrs (good old d12) behind you, it's hardly the same encounter. The point is, you don't even really know if they're going to find you again or not. It's called "suspence".

If Sparky the Magic Man has run out of magic juice, he's not exactly going to be having fun in the next couple of encounters. And if Sparky the Magic Man's magic contributes a lot to the party's not dying, they're not gonna be having that much fun either.

Then Sparky the Magic Man needs to be more careful with his magic juice, or the rest of the party needs to come up with some strategy to keep Sparky safe while he recharges. Oh no! More chances for roleplaying, instead of just pressing the Fireball button again. The humanity!

[Dausuul]

Defending bloody awful rules with bloody awful DMing is not a convincing arguement. In a hostile environment, attacks can come at any time and as often as makes sense in context. If you had 3 encounters in 3hrs, what possible reason would there be for the remaining 21 hours to be peaceful? At the very least, the characters should have no way of knowing that they will be.

At high levels, the party teleports away and rests some 1,300 miles from the hostile environment. There are ways to force them to fight even then, but it requires considerable magic and it quickly becomes unbelievable if it happens regularly. And if the party is powerful and paranoid enough to start using Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion and mind blank, you pretty much have to resort to DM fiat, since mind blank stops divinations up to and including wish.

Even at lower levels, however, my experience is that parties do what they have to do in order to get their precious rest. If that means they have to spend an hour or so in the ruined castle battling monsters, then get on their horses and ride three hours back to town to rest up, that's what they'll do. It's not bad roleplaying, either--it's eminently logical behavior unless you're under a time limit of some kind. If you're in a hostile environment and you need to rest, you get out of the hostile environment and return to base.

It's always possible to force the PCs to not rest, but game balance should not be predicated on the idea that the DM must force 4 encounters a day any time there's combat. But the only way to avoid that necessity is to remove the per-day mechanic as the main limiting factor on abilities. I want to be able to have scenarios with just a single fight in the course of a day, without the casters utterly dominating it; and I don't want to have to constantly plot ways to stop the PCs from resting prematurely.

(And, of course, there's the flip side, which is what if I want to throw seven or eight encounters at the PCs in rapid succession, with no chance to sleep? What are the casters supposed to do when they run out of spells despite their efforts to conserve them?)

[Reel On, Love]

If all you know is that they're between, say 1 and 12 hrs (good old d12) behind you, it's hardly the same encounter. The point is, you don't even really know if they're going to find you again or not. It's called "suspence".

Okay, sure. Now, say, these trolls are especially tough in the swamp, so you don't want them to catch you until you can get out of the swamp, despite your per-encounter abilities. Or maybe there are more or tougher trolls with each progressive wave, so you can't fight too many waves or you'll die. Look, suspence! And all without needing to have some silly "five magic missiles a day" rule.
Per-encounter is geared more towards fast-paced action than slogging day-long flight from a bunch of trolls, sure, but not only is that not a bad thing, it can still do the latter.

Again, why not have per-week, per-month, per-year if you're so into suspence? "Day" is just as stupid and arbitrary as "encounter".

Then Sparky the Magic Man needs to be more careful with his magic juice, or the rest of the party needs to come up with some strategy to keep Sparky safe while he recharges. Oh no! More chances for roleplaying, instead of just pressing the Fireball button again. The humanity!

So... strategic resource management is somehow "roleplaying", whereas playing a character using his abilities is "pressing the Fireball button"? Deciding when to use your ability is "roleplaying", but deciding which ability to use and when isn't? Don't fool yourself, "keep Sparky safe" isn't any less a mechanical decision than "cast X spells in Y circumstances".
There's just as much strategy with per-encounter mechanics as with per-day as with per-week as with cooldown.
Being careful with his magic juice often isn't fun for Sparky. It means he sits out the next encounters because he's saving his juice. "I miss him with my crossbow again. Woo."
Say, you know what that crossbow is? It's an at-will mechanic! Give Sparky a magical blast that he can actually hit something with, and suddenly he can be relevant and cool even when he's chargin' his lazor with something that's also an at-will mecanic. Now give him different kinds of magical blasts, with different effects, and he's doing non-repetitive cool stuff and able to use tactics (including group tactics) too. In exchange, he doesn't have a once-per-day I Win button (which he'd need to, to compensate him for sucking the rest of the time). Per-encounter mechanics aren't the things with an "I win" button--it's the per day ones.
And "I'm chargin' mah lazor" is part of what's wrong with per-day abilities. It's like low-level wizards: a win-or-fail duality. You cast Sleep, you end that encounter, and then you run away and shoot your crossbow for the other two. That sucks.
If the party is out of resources and the trolls are chasing them, they can keep going (and get killed by whatever else) or rest and hope the trolls don't catch them. If you have the trolls catch them, they're dead (otherwise, they could just turn and face the trolls); if you have them be able to flee without running into anything else, before they can rest you are allowing them to recover all their resources before their next encounter. "We rest. Wanna kill us, or do you want us to keep playing these characters in this campaign?" That's not suspense.

With encounter or scene-based and at-will mechanics, you have characters whose power is more consistent. This gives you more flexibility: you can throw one encounter at them without the wizard smashing it to bits, and you can throw ten without the resource-exhausted party dying, the wizard having run out of spells on enocounter number eight. It prevents you from having to artificially prevent the party from resting ("the trolls chase you into a swamp, and they might be right behind you, better not rest!"), and it stops the party from being narcoleptics in order to not die. And it prevents them from rocking XY% of the time and sucking 100-XY% of the time. It lets them always be doing something engaging and interesting (which shooting with a crossbow at a miserably low AB isn't).
It acommodates more styles of play, and it's more fun to boot.

[Tormsskull]

If Sparky the Magic Man has run out of magic juice, he's not exactly going to be having fun in the next couple of encounters. And if Sparky the Magic Man's magic contributes a lot to the party's not dying, they're not gonna be having that much fun either.

I'm not defending per-day mechanics, but I think that anytime you use the line "is no longer having fun" you're going to run into a problem. "Bob found a magic sword, but John didn't. and now John isn't having fun." What's the solution? Let's give John a magic sword too! Problem solved. I think regardless of per-day, or per-encounter (which it will be interesting to see how they describe an encounter being), that resource management has to be a priority, and players should have options.

If a player wants to use up all their abilities on 1 tough opponent, that's fine, but if they suddenly start complaining that it isn't fun any more because they don't have their good abilities, I think instead of looking at the mechanics as being the problem, you need to look at the player's behavior as the problem.

It's also a lot better than "should I cast a spell? No, I might need it later. Okay, I'll cast it. Now I'm out. I'm just gonna sit the next few out. Actually, let's nap."

But knowing how and when to use your abilities is part of the challenge. If you get a one-use item and decide to use it in the first battle, then that's your choice, a second one-use item shouldn't magically appear because it might be helpful to have.

I guarantee regardless of what 4e does, you'll still have certain players that will whine because there are restrictions. Instead of trying to remove the restricitions, you should try to remove either the whining behavior, or the whining player.

[goat]

I did see a quote somewhere (I forget where, but I think it was from a 4e designer) that said they were doing away with the 4HP wizard. Maybe that translates to: when Sparky the Magic Man runs out of magic juice he'll be at least capable of doing something useful without it.

[Matthew]

Yeah, would 'per Encounter' mechanics be better if they were 'per ten minute' mechancis or 'per hour' mechanics or whatever? I don't really, know, per Encounter is just a bit arbitrary for my liking (and hard to mesh with my encounterless Adventure Site design methodology).

[Wulfram]

Yeah, would 'per Encounter' mechanics be better if they were 'per ten minute' mechancis or 'per hour' mechanics or whatever? I don't really, know, per Encounter is just a bit arbitrary for my liking (and hard to mesh with my encounterless Adventure Site design methodology).

How about having it require a minute or two of concentration? Normally, it would have the same effect as per encounter, since it's rarely going to be worth dropping out of combat for 10 rounds, but it allows more flexibility and is a lot less cumbersome than requiring 8 hours.

[Kurald Galain]

get on their horses and ride three hours back to town to rest up, that's what they'll do. It's not bad roleplaying, either--it's eminently logical behavior

Actually, this is very much is bad roleplaying, or more specifically metagaming - doing something that doesn't make sense to the character because the player knows there are certain artificial rules.

I want to be able to have scenarios with just a single fight in the course of a day, without the casters utterly dominating it;

This is a flaw of the fact that high-level casters win 3E, and is irrelevant to the method of "power replenishing" used.

(And, of course, there's the flip side, which is what if I want to throw seven or eight encounters at the PCs in rapid succession, with no chance to sleep?

A well-played caster can pull through by economizing. Besides, it's quite okay if the caster has not much to do in the last fight, just like the rogue has not much to do when battling skeletons. Not every PC needs to be able to invoke his full power in every situation.

[Rex Blunder]

The Factotum from Dungeonscape primarily uses a per-encounter mechanic for its class abilities (as well as some at-will and per-day abilities), and the recovery method for per-encounter abilities is something like resting for 2 or 3 minutes.

I'm playing a factotum right now, and it's fun to play... it does offer interesting resource management decisions. "Should I use my last inspiration point to boost my damage roll, or should I save it in case i need to buff a saving throw next round?"

I'm having fun. But the wizard in my party is having fun too. I don't think it's logically required that if per-encounter abilities are good, than per-day must be bad, or vice versa.

Edit:

Actually, this is very much is bad roleplaying, or more specifically metagaming - doing something that doesn't make sense to the character because the player knows there are certain artificial rules.

Knowing how many spells you have left is information that's unavailable to the characters? Didn't they specifically choose to memorize these spells this morning?

[Starsinger]

This is a flaw of the fact that high-level casters win 3E, and is irrelevant to the method of "power replenishing" used.

Well puddin, it's also a flaw of the fact that spell casters number of spells per day is balanced on the idea that they'll have four encounters each day.

Yeah, would 'per Encounter' mechanics be better if they were 'per ten minute' mechancis or 'per hour' mechanics or whatever? I don't really, know, per Encounter is just a bit arbitrary for my liking (and hard to mesh with my encounterless Adventure Site design methodology).

Unless I'm totally mistaken in my understanding of the /encounter mechanic from Tome of Battle, 'per Encounter' means you can do it once per combat, OR every 5 minutes if there are no monsters around, so basically once initiative is rolled, it becomes an Encounter. And surely despite your encounterless design, there's combat?

[Matthew]

Unless I'm totally mistaken in my understanding of the /encounter mechanic from Tome of Battle, 'per Encounter' means you can do it once per combat, OR every 5 minutes if there are no monsters around, so basically once initiative is rolled, it becomes an Encounter. And surely despite your encounterless design, there's combat?

Is it? I don't know. I'll have a look in a bit. I don't mind fixed rate recharges, it's arbitrary Encounter Based recharges that rub me the wrong way. I don't think in terms of combat encounters within the Dungeon Environment or Adventure Site (and don't really want to have to). When the players are in combat, the rest of the dungeon is active, perhaps with the result of reinforcements appearing or whatever. Basically, Adventure Sites are dynamic, rather than passive, which does away with the idea of Encounters (or rather never adopted it).*

How about having it require a minute or two of concentration? Normally, it would have the same effect as per encounter, since it's rarely going to be worth dropping out of combat for 10 rounds, but it allows more flexibility and is a lot less cumbersome than requiring 8 hours.

Yeah, I mean, that works fine for me as well. It's the 'per encounter' that I don't like. The speed at which Abilities refresh is just a preference thing. Whether it's eight hours, 24 Hours, ten minutes or 12 Seconds, it doesn't really make much difference beyond that.

* That said, Wilderness Encounters are often isolated and would probably work fine.

[Dausuul]

Actually, this is very much is bad roleplaying, or more specifically metagaming - doing something that doesn't make sense to the character because the player knows there are certain artificial rules.

What out-of-character knowledge are you talking about? Are you suggesting that casters don't know what spells they have prepared and can't tell when they're running low? Or that they don't know they have to get a good night's sleep before they can recover spells?

This is a flaw of the fact that high-level casters win 3E, and is irrelevant to the method of "power replenishing" used.

Actually, the method of power replenishing is highly relevant. If you have one character who uses a per-encounter or at-will mechanic, and another with per-day mechanics, then the former will gain an advantage when the party faces lots of encounters per day, and the latter will gain an advantage when the party faces only one or two encounters per day.

If a DM has a habit of designing adventures that require only one or two encounters per day, then the classes which rely heavily on per-day mechanics will be overpowered compared to those who don't. Barbarian versus fighter is a good example. Barbarians tend to outperform fighters as long as they have rage uses left. Once they run out of rage, however, the balance swings the other way. It's not nearly as egregious as with casters, since the core barbarian ability (hit stuff) is at-will, but the effect is definitely there.

A well-played caster can pull through by economizing. Besides, it's quite okay if the caster has not much to do in the last fight, just like the rogue has not much to do when battling skeletons. Not every PC needs to be able to invoke his full power in every situation.

...if they know ahead of time that they need to economize enough for 7-8 encounters.

And rogues versus skeletons is another case of bad design. As a DM who loves using undead, I hate the fact that I can't build an undead-centric dungeon without making the rogue effectively sit on the sidelines any time a fight breaks out.

[Reinboom]

Actually, this is very much is bad roleplaying, or more specifically metagaming - doing something that doesn't make sense to the character because the player knows there are certain artificial rules.

Those rules define how the character's world works.
I can do this X times today. I know I can do this X times today, because, in character, I memorized only X of this. I have used exactly X of this. When I get a good night's sleep and then memorize them again, I can use it again. The most effective way to do this is with these things again... why not?

I can't conceive how that is metagaming, please explain.

I don't like the flavor or aspect of the above (with any fluff applied to it, it just... meh) and its mechanically bleh to me as well. I'm looking forward to not being so paranoid with my abilities. I agree that players do need to be conservative and generally smart with their abilities - but I also think that a GM should be able to throw, say, 7 encounters in a day on an epic endeavor to the players and the casters still being able to do something during the last 3. Of course not at even close to full power, but being able to do anything would be wonderful.

[nagora]

... I also think that a GM should be able to throw, say, 7 encounters in a day on an epic endeavor to the players and the casters still being able to do something during the last 3. Of course not at even close to full power, but being able to do anything would be wonderful.

If the DM is doing their job right and the players are not playing their characters as idiots, they should be aware that there is a chance that they are going somewhere where the "normal" 4 encounters per day is likely to be breached. At that point it is up to all the players to work out how to cope with that. If they can't cope then they shouldn't go in. There is no reason for the game to make sure the MUs have casting ability in the later encounters just as it is not up to the rules to make sure the fighters have enough hit points. They knew the dangers; it's up to them to plan for them and if they get it wrong then they have to deal with the consequences - the game world does not owe them a living. This is a very basic roleplaying concept.

The problem with per-encounter and x encounters per day rules is that they combine to destroy any sense of reality.

"I studied years to master this ability and finally, I have done it." "Oh? It must be difficult." "Not really, I can do it every five minutes or so. More if I'm under pressure. Piece of cake."

"We were exausted, almost out of spells and in the middle of Mordor. Thank the gods we had that last encounter with a lone orc messenger. Now we know we're safe for the night. Tennis, anyone?"

This is just rubbish role playing gaming.

[Dausuul]

If the DM is doing their job right and the players are not playing their characters as idiots, they should be aware that there is a chance that they are going somewhere where the "normal" 4 encounters per day is likely to be breached.

That doesn't mean they know how many encounters they're going to have. How much do you budget for? 4 encounters? 6? 8? More? If the PCs guess wrong... well, then, the casters get to sit around and stare at the sky for the last few fights.

The comparison with hit points is invalid because you don't voluntarily spend hit points, they're forcibly taken from you. By and large, what happens to party hit points is in the hands of the DM; what happens to party spells is in the hands of the casters. The DM knows how many encounters to plan for. The party doesn't.

"I studied years to master this ability and finally, I have done it." "Oh? It must be difficult." "Not really, I can do it every five minutes or so. More if I'm under pressure. Piece of cake."

So, it's inconceivable that a martial artist might need years to master moves that take seconds to perform?

"We were exausted, almost out of spells and in the middle of Mordor. Thank the gods we had that last encounter with a lone orc messenger. Now we know we're safe for the night. Tennis, anyone?"

This is just rubbish role playing gaming.

That would be a stupid mechanic, indeed, but most of the per-encounter systems I've seen allow you to recharge with 5 minutes' rest.

[Starsinger]

"We were exausted, almost out of spells and in the middle of Mordor. Thank the gods we had that last encounter with a lone orc messenger. Now we know we're safe for the night. Tennis, anyone?"

This is just rubbish role playing gaming.

That would be a stupid mechanic, indeed, but most of the per-encounter systems I've seen allow you to recharge with 5 minutes' rest. "Per encounter" is just shorthand for "5 minutes of recharge required."[/QUOTE]

While I agree with your opinion on Nagora's comment, I do believe he was referring to 4 encounters per day when he said the thing about tennis.

[Kurald Galain]

Knowing how many spells you have left is information that's unavailable to the characters? Didn't they specifically choose to memorize these spells this morning?

No, the bad thing I referred to was riding for half a day to get to town and back, every time they needed to rest in the dungeon. Can you imagine anyone in a book or film doing that?

Interesting how three consecutive posters thought I was referring to something else - was my phrasing that unclear? I did specifically quote "get on their horses and ride three hours back to town to rest up".

Well puddin, it's also a flaw of the fact that spell casters number of spells per day is balanced on the idea that they'll have four encounters each day.

Is it? Because spells per day dates back to first edition, and encounters per day does not. I doubt the former is a result of the latter, then.


What I object to is the strictness of design. That one "must" have four encounters per day, and therefore everything can be balanced towards that, is a prime example of circular reasoning. That one "must" have one level-up per 13.5 (or however many) encounters. That one "must" give each character treasure equal to the square of his level minus the hypothenuse of his character class. Et cetera. I'll bloody well decide that for myself when DM'ing, thank you very much, and adjust based on player feedback.

[nagora]

That doesn't mean they know how many encounters they're going to have. How much do you budget for? 4 encounters? 6? 8? More?

Grow a spine and plan for the unexpected. You're supposed to be adventurers.

The comparison with hit points is invalid because you don't voluntarily spend hit points, they're forcibly taken from you.

Are you suggesting that the casters have the option to stand behind the fighters and do nothing. The fighters may decide to stand behind the casters if that's their attitude.

By and large, what happens to party hit points is in the hands of the DM

What happens to the party's hit points is the result of calculated risks taken on by the players and adjudicated by the DM. Unless you have a very railroady DM. Our group took the decision to play without a cleric for years; that had an impact on the hit points all right, but it wasn't the DM's decision.

what happens to party spells is in the hands of the casters. The DM knows how many encounters to plan for. The party doesn't.

A party that goes into an area with no idea of what they might face is a bunch of cack-handed amateurs and deserve all they get.

So, it's inconceivable that a martial artist might need years to master moves that take seconds to perform?

It is hard to believe that a martial artist might need years to master moves and then go from not being able to do them at all to performing them over and over again as often as they like.

"We were exausted, almost out of spells and in the middle of Mordor. Thank the gods we had that last encounter with a lone orc messenger. Now we know we're safe for the night. Tennis, anyone?"

This is just rubbish role playing gaming.

That would be a stupid mechanic, indeed, but most of the per-encounter systems I've seen allow you to recharge with 5 minutes' rest. "Per encounter" is just shorthand for "5 minutes of recharge required."

That was a reference to x encounters per day, not per encounter abilities.

If you want to not have x uses per day, then you need to change to y% chance of being abile to do it at will, where y increases with level or something. Just changing "per day" to "per encounter" is not achieving anything and in many cases is simply drawing attention to the artificial nature of the rule. Most people can cope with the idea of uses per day and nod aside the fact that its an abstraction, but once you say "per encounter" the obvious thing that springs to mind is that this is an ability that somehow works better the more often you are attacked and that is a laugh-out-loud reality breaker.

[Dausuul]

While I agree with your opinion on Nagora's comment, I do believe he was referring to 4 encounters per day when he said the thing about tennis.

Oh.

Well, in that case, I agree completely. Which is why I applaud the move away from per-day mechanics, which require an assumed number of encounters per day for balance to work properly, and toward mechanics which allow the DM to introduce however many encounters seem appropriate without worrying about making some people useless or overpowered.

No, the bad thing I referred to was riding for half a day to get to town and back, every time they needed to rest in the dungeon. Can you imagine anyone in a book or film doing that?

Okay... but I'm still not clear where the metagaming is. I agree that this is a stupid thing from a narrative standpoint, but it's eminently logical in-character given the way the world works. That's why I want per-day mechanics to go away.

Is it? Because spells per day dates back to first edition, and encounters per day does not. I doubt the former is a result of the latter, then.

No, but once you start taking a real hands-on approach to class balance, you have to come up with some kind of standard if you're going to balance per-day stuff.

What I object to is the strictness of design. That one "must" have four encounters per day, and therefore everything can be balanced towards that, is a prime example of circular reasoning. That one "must" have one level-up per 13.5 (or however many) encounters. That one "must" give each character treasure equal to the square of his level minus the hypothenuse of his character class. Et cetera. I'll bloody well decide that for myself when DM'ing, thank you very much, and adjust based on player feedback.

Again--I agree, and so, it seems, do the designers. At least I have the strong impression that 4E is trying to be more flexible in these areas.

[nagora]

Oh.

Well, in that case, I agree completely. Which is why I applaud the move away from per-day mechanics, which require an assumed number of encounters per day for balance to work properly, and toward mechanics which allow the DM to introduce however many encounters seem appropriate without worrying about making some people useless or overpowered.

The odd thing is that the 4 enc per day rule is fine as a guideline for a starting DM (if a bit heavy for 1st level characters), but the fact is that a DM with any experience of their players simply shouldn't need any mechanic for balancing encounters. In fact, how can they, really? If Joe plays a 9th level Wizard but is really crap at managing his spell choices and forgets to rebuy material components then what system can possibly judge the level of encounter to throw at a group with him in it other than his DM?

There are too many examples where "should" or "try this and adjust for your group" are handed down as fiat instead.

[nagora]

Is it? Because spells per day dates back to first edition, and encounters per day does not. I doubt the former is a result of the latter, then.

In fact, the treasure of useful DMing ideas that was the 1e DMG does have a chart for encounters per day by terrain for outdoor travel. It is accompanied by instructions that it is to be ignored in areas where the DM has actually placed the local population (ie, its for "wandering monsters" only), and that the DM should mix it up a bit to "avoid player reliance on information which they should not be privy to".

The number of these random encounters per day varied from 3 to 6, and each was in fact only a chance of an encounter based on the distance from civilisation.

[Telonius]

I assume the enemies would all have per-encounter abilities as well, would they not? Unless they're "dumb animal" monsters, they'd have to manage their resources just as much as the players would.

Most of the arguments I've been seeing here have been pretty darn situational. If you're alone in the woods behind enemy lines being chased by half of the BBEG's Legions of Terror, it is a vastly different situation than being mugged by a high-level Rogue while walking the streets of Townsville. Which is also different from deliberately entering Trogdor's lair, or stealing the treasure from the ancient temple. You would prepare for (or be surprised by) each one of those situations differently. Some things will still catch you by surprise; but as long as you know the rules beforehand, you can prepare for the situation.

I look at encounters-per-day much like the Pirate's Code - it's more of a guideline. If there's four, I generally know what I (as a DM) am getting my players into. If there's more, or less, I plan for the consequences. As a player, when I'm preparing for my day, I don't take stupid risks (like openly attacking the BBEG's castle if we're behind enemy lines). If I play a wizard, I don't use up all of my best spells on worthless opponents; I conserve resources until I need them. Sometimes I don't need them all. Sometimes I misjudge and use up my last worthwhile spell on the Hezrou only to see his Balor friend walk up behind the still-smoking corpse. When that happens, I get behind the meatshield, pull out my crossbow, and pray. Just like every other mage in the history of D&D. And if I'm in hostile territory, you're darn right we set up watch. Presence or absence of the four-a-day rule has nothing to do with it.

[psychoticbarber]

Mage: "I studied years to master this ability and finally, I have done it. At first it took hours, and I could only do it once or twice a day."
Other PC: "Oh? It must be difficult."
Mage: "Not really anymore. Now that I've had lots of time to work with it, I can do it every five minutes or so. More if I'm under pressure. Piece of cake."
Other PC: Wow, that's...completely reasonable.

Fixed that for you, at least as I have interpreted Wizard's intentions.

[nagora]

Fixed that for you, at least as I have interpreted Wizard's intentions.

What makes you think this is the case? Is there anywhere where we can see that what WotC are actually talking about is "per day" abilities which gradually ramp up to "as often as needed" abilities?

[Tormsskull]

That doesn't mean they know how many encounters they're going to have. How much do you budget for? 4 encounters? 6? 8? More? If the PCs guess wrong... well, then, the casters get to sit around and stare at the sky for the last few fights.

There shouldn't be any budgeting at all, there should be a player roleplaying his character. If the wizard character is the kind of person that spends his spell slots all at once, then that's what he should do. If the wizard character is the kind of person that never wants to be without a spell, then he should hold off.

The argument that "it is boring if I decide to not cast a spell and thus I have to plunk away with a crossbow" is an odd one to me. If 4e gives wizard an at will spell that replicates the effects of a crossbow (say as an example, an energy blast ability that is a ranged attack that deals 1d8 damage on a successful hit), would that then make the wizard less boring? If so, then that's no problem, simply give wizards that ability. It will be slightly overpowered at 1st level, but by level 2 or 3 in 3.5 terms it is completely balanced out.

What I am concerned about is the next step. What happens when the wizard player says that it is boring when he can't cast a buff, debuff, or save or X spell every round? Where is the "Tough S***" line?

[Gralamin]

And rogues versus skeletons is another case of bad design. As a DM who loves using undead, I hate the fact that I can't build an undead-centric dungeon without making the rogue effectively sit on the sidelines any time a fight breaks out.

Greater Truedeath Crystal, MIC page 66. Among other things, this 10,000 gp weapon enhancement crystal allows you to sneak attack and critical hit undead. It also has the effects of the least and lesser form of the crystal.

This thing has done wonders for using undead in my games.

[psychoticbarber]

What makes you think this is the case? Is there anywhere where we can see that what WotC are actually talking about is "per day" abilities which gradually ramp up to "as often as needed" abilities?

I'll have to admit, I don't recall exactly where I read it. Consider the comment withdrawn until I can back it up.

[Aximili]

As a matter of fact, defining a continuous adventure as a series of discrete "encounters" is also purely mechanical and doesn't make any sense from a universe point of view.

As I said. You are just looking at encounter the wrong way. As a matter of fact, a continuous adventure is a series of discrete encounters. Of course they may (and probably will) be related, but take place separately and can easily be addressed this way.

An encounter is any sequence of rounds in which the tension is continually high and the actions of one or more characters will define whether he, she, or they will go forward in their "quest" or be set back.

Be it an ambush in the middle of the night, an appointment with the king in which you'll have the chance to convince him to support your cause, or trying to trick the doorman into letting you in that private party (inside which, you'll get a chance of meeting the noble responsible for all your problems).

Usually, it's when the tension is high enough to make a regular person nervous.

You see, just be cause we don't use the term "encounters" in real life, it doesn't mean they're not there.
An important job interview, realising there's a big scary dude aproaching you in the street, and even meeting your in-laws for the first time are all examples of real-life encounters (according to what "encounter" means D&D).