Per-rest vs. Per-encounter

[gkathellar]

It seems to me that, at present, there's no really clear distinction between what sorts of things you can accomplish with per-encounter powers and per-rest powers. For instance, a paladin's Lay Hands ability can heal a bunch of stamina - great! And by contrast, a cleric's healing spells can ... heal a bunch of stamina. A rogue's finishing move deals some extra damage, just like various per-encounter abilities. There's a difference in scale, sure, but not in type.

 

The reason this bothers me is that per-rest abilities function in an essentially different space. Like Health, these are the abilities that pace your whole adventure. It feels as though they shouldn't just be bigger, but different. Not that I necessarily know what that would mean: if a per-encounter ability can restore stamina, should a per-rest ability be able to restore health? I dunno.

 

Among other things, this makes spellcasters kind of frustrating to me at the moment - they have this large and complex selection of abilities, but in order to pace themselves, they have to spend a lot of their time not casting spells. That would be okay, I guess, except that those spells feel, intuitively, as though they could be per-encounter abilities without issue.

 

I'm aware that this is kind of rambling, but ... thoughts.

[Sensuki]

I think per-encounter actually trivializes ability use in general, because if you have more per-encounter things, those things are always going to be more advantageous to use over your normal actions. 

Take the Fighter's Knock Down for instance. You can use it twice per encounter. If you do not use it twice per encounter, that is essentially playing bad/not playing optimally. I don't really like that to be honest. I like having to manage strategical resources rather than being pidgeonholed into using the same stuff over and over again to play optimally.

 

The less per-encounter stuff - the better IMO.

 

Granted I haven't had a real look at class functionality yet, I've been mostly focusing on testing / critiquing the basics, because Obsidian haven't got the basics right yet, I think over the next few months class design and ability design should come under a lot of scrutiny.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Sensuki

[gkathellar]

That's fair - I'm used to per-encounter setups from tabletops and games where ability recovery is cooldown-based, but I can see how someone would have that other feeling about it.

 

But again, if per-encounter and per-rest both stay around (and I expect they will) I feel like they need more proportionality.

[Sensuki]

You're probably right. I do like per-encounter and per-rest, but I think that in order for per-encounter to not trivialize standard actions, they really need to be kept at a minimum so that they can be used tactically, rather than just all spammed at the beginning. Usually it makes most sense to open with per-encounter abilities because that gives you a bigger head start. I find that boring.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Sensuki

[gkathellar]

Maybe per-encounter abilities should be more situational in nature? Just off the top of my head, for instance, a per-encounter AoE or line might be more difficult to arrange due to friendly fire, while a roughly per-rest AoE or line wouldn't.

[Sensuki]

Depends what it is - the cool thing about the Rogue Finishing Blow is that it sucks when you don't use it properly. Fighter's Knock Down isn't like that. I think they get access to the second Knock Down too early in character progression to be honest.

[Shevek]

I actually like the the per encounter stuff. The key is to use it at the right time and in concert with other characters. So, save those knockdowns for when an enemy is casting. Also, when enemy ai is fixed, knockdown could be instrumental in ensuring enemies dont go after weaker party members.

[archangel979]

Giving Per Rest Health restoring abilities to multiple classes would go a long way in fixing short adventuring days and it would link spending per rest abilities along with losing Health. Paladin could have a per rest lay on hand s that restores Health but only at melee range. Cleric could have one but at short range. Cipher could steal Health from a target and give it to a friend next to that target. Monks already restore their own health. Chanter could have a per rest song that restores a small amount to everyone around him. Fighter a per rest that gives himself a small Health buff or restores some lost health. Barbarian could have per rest ability that when activated during Rage gives a small amount of health dependant on damage dealt. Monk could give some of his health to another person and it would count as receiving wounds. And so on.

[PrimeJunta]

It depends on what the per-encounter things are. I think the current ones are pretty good actually. They are things you would want to use in any tougher encounter at least, but they only make a difference if you use them right and combine them with other things. Knockdown for example is fairly useless on its own, and only makes a difference if you follow up by having some other character hit hard or slap on a longer-lasting debilitator. Or the rogue's cripple ability -- kind of crucial if you have no other way to slap a status effect on a target so the rogue can backstab, but a waste of an action otherwise.

 

I.e. I don't see a problem here.

[Sensuki]

I dunno, Knock Down if it hits gives you X seconds where that character is disabled. So I don't think it's required to chain anything with it because while that character/unit is down, they are not helping the rest of their allies at all.

[Captain Shrek]

I think per-encounter actually trivializes ability use in general, because if you have more per-encounter things, those things are always going to be more advantageous to use over your normal actions. 

 

Take the Fighter's Knock Down for instance. You can use it twice per encounter. If you do not use it twice per encounter, that is essentially playing bad/not playing optimally. I don't really like that to be honest. I like having to manage strategical resources rather than being pidgeonholed into using the same stuff over and over again to play optimally.

 

The less per-encounter stuff - the better IMO.

 

Granted I haven't had a real look at class functionality yet, I've been mostly focusing on testing / critiquing the basics, because Obsidian haven't got the basics right yet, I think over the next few months class design and ability design should come under a lot of scrutiny.

 

Then why have a per encounter /per rest ability distinction at all? Lets make them all per rest.. like vancian magic! Also making knowckdown per anything sounds pretty dumb. That makes no sense. 

[Namutree]

Right now per-encounter abilities are simply boring. You use them every fight; because why not? They effectively make every fight more of a process without adding any tactical/strategic depth. You're not making a tactical or strategic decision when you use an ability that there is no reason not to use; you're just going through the motions.

 

Per rest abilities are much more interesting. In every fight you need to consider IF the battle warrants them. Resting has financial consequences so it becomes a strategic decision. 

 

Making abilities more situational would make them more interesting.

[Gfted1]

I like per encounter too. I found myself not using the per rest abilities / spells at all because I was "saving up" for when I would really need it.

[Sensuki]

Right now per-encounter abilities are simply boring. You use them every fight; because why not? They effectively make every fight more of a process without adding any tactical/strategic depth. You're not making a tactical or strategic decision when you use an ability that there is no reason not to use; you're just going through the motions.

I agree, if anything it actually removes some depth, and adds trap choice (not using ability) and repetition. I can totally understand Wizard spells at higher level becoming per-encounter, but that will mean that they will no longer need to use any weapons at all OR the lower level damage spells could actually become obsolete in a sense, because ammunition is unlimited - why not just use a Superior Firearm instead?

 

For other classes, they should be kept extremely limited.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Sensuki

[Captain Shrek]

....

[PrimeJunta]

I dunno, Knock Down if it hits gives you X seconds where that character is disabled. So I don't think it's required to chain anything with it because while that character/unit is down, they are not helping the rest of their allies at all.

True, but the duration is very short. Just mindlessly knocking someone down won't do much by itself. You'll get one extra hit in, and that's about it.

[Sensuki]

Short? It can be pretty long depending on Intellect. 7 seconds is pretty good. You could even attack the guy you knocked down with as many people as possible for maximum effect, due to the reduction in Deflection etc

[PrimeJunta]

It goes to 7 seconds? Wow. Gotta try an Intellect-based fighter at some point. That is pretty powerful.

 

Piling on with the rest of the gang is followup though, and carries an opportunity cost.

[illathid]

Per encounter abilities could be more fun if they were made into a choice. Use X or Y, but not both once per encounter.

[Sensuki]

It goes to 7 seconds? Wow. Gotta try an Intellect-based fighter at some point. That is pretty powerful.

 

Piling on with the rest of the gang is followup though, and carries an opportunity cost.

It's 7 seconds at 8 Int ...

Edited September 19, 2014 by Sensuki

[Namutree]

Per encounter abilities could be more fun if they were made into a choice. Use X or Y, but not both once per encounter.

Yeah. That could work.

 

EDIT: Not being sarcastic. It's a good idea.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Namutree

[Captain Shrek]

Do you guys actually have fun auto attacking all the time? 

[Gfted1]

Fun? No. Easier / more convenient? By far.

 

I only played V1 of the BB so maybe combat is awesome now.

[Shevek]

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring. In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly. It was chess with 2 queens (casters) and 4 pawns (everyone else).

 

I am heavily enjoying fighter knockdown, barb stamina regen, and the like. Yes, you will suck more if you dont use it. Thats good game design.

[Captain Shrek]

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring. In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly. It was chess with 2 queens (casters) and 4 pawns (everyone else).

 

I am heavily enjoying fighter knockdown, barb stamina regen, and the like. Yes, you will suck more if you dont use it. Thats good game design.

FIghters could do TRIP, Knockdown and Power attack in NWN2. just saying. That did not help. At all. I wonder why... :D