PDA

View Full Version : Per Combat or Per Day?



Altair_the_Vexed
2008-01-20, 05:22 AM
I wonder if anyone has thoughts they'd like to share on this.

Some special abilities can be used X many times per day. Others can be used X many times per combat.

NPCs generally only get to have one combat against the PCs. They are at a large advantage with their "per Day" abilities - they only have this instance to use them. The PCs aren't sure if this combat is the right time to use their own "per Day" abilities.

The "per Combat" abilities takes this advantage from the NPCs and gives it to the PCs. PCs can repeatedly use these abilities, all day. They don't worry about conserving these abilities.

Now - if we house-rule some "per Day" abilities into "per Combat" abilities:
which would break the game?
which would be a good idea?
should any more frequent abilities be reduced to "per Combat"?

shaggz076
2008-01-20, 05:32 AM
"Some special abilities can be used X many times per day. Others can be used X many times per day."

I am guessing you meant per combat for the second sentence...

Either way, I say how it works in the Starwars D20 and it seemed to be fine. The Tome of Battle touches on the per combat style and I don't see how it would give the PCs an advantage since they would be using the same powers as the enemies do (unless the PCs have access to abilities NPCs can't get in your game). That being said, some abilities become rather trivial if they are per combat as opposed to per day, does it mean that you cannot use that ability outside of combat to gain benifits? (Ie. say you have cure light wounds. without a per day cap then damage is pretty much null once the fight is over. Same goes for restoration and remove poision/disease/curse.)

All in all it would be fine to have a per combat type of system in place but be careful what you choose to affect.

Altair_the_Vexed
2008-01-20, 05:36 AM
"Some special abilities can be used X many times per day. Others can be used X many times per day."

I am guessing you meant per combat for the second sentence...

Either way, I say how it works in the Starwars D20 and it seemed to be fine. The Tome of Battle touches on the per combat style and I don't see how it would give the PCs an advantage since they would be using the same powers as the enemies do (unless the PCs have access to abilities NPCs can't get in your game). That being said, some abilities become rather trivial if they are per combat as opposed to per day, does it mean that you cannot use that ability outside of combat to gain benifits? (Ie. say you have cure light wounds. without a per day cap then damage is pretty much null once the fight is over. Same goes for restoration and remove poision/disease/curse.)

All in all it would be fine to have a per combat type of system in place but be careful what you choose to affect.

Oops! Yes: edited it now.

I was meaning the combat-specific abilities, really. Spell casting and what not rather needs to be "per day".
As I recall, SW d20 has abilities that are used "per scene" - which applies well to the cinematic style of a SW game.

Yami
2008-01-20, 05:44 AM
The "per Combat" abilities takes this advantage from the NPCs and gives it to the PCs. PCs can repeatedly use these abilities, all day. They don't worry about conserving these abilities.

Now - if we house-rule some "per Day" abilities into "per Combat" abilities:
which would break the game?
which would be a good idea?
should any more frequent abilities be reduced to "per Combat"?


I would have to rule spellcasting under, break the game.

'Hmm, theres a peasant! let's ruff him up some so I can cast a few more hour/level buffs before we find a real fight.' Or just the fact your casters are alpha striking every damnable battle.

There are some half dragon templates or whatnot that give your a breath weapon x times a day that I could see being easily moved into xtimes a battle, but I'd probably still throw the 1d4 rounds of down time in.

Other than that I can't think of any at the moment.

its_all_ogre
2008-01-20, 06:01 AM
pcs are disadvantaged against npcs with per day powers anyway.
after all pcs do not know how bad an encounter is until their enemies have started unleashing their nastier abilities and by then pcs are normally in a bit of trouble.
the per encounter/fight/scene etc are evens surely, as both have same power.
whats your problem?:smallconfused:

GlordFunkelhand
2008-01-20, 06:38 AM
Well, as always, it depends on the GM.
If a evil cleric/wizard has only combat spells prepared without knowing that there will be a combat, then something went wrong.

Change "per day" to "per combat" and your casters will never run out of spells again. No need to decide whether or not to use that highest rank spell. No need to prepare/ buy scrolls and wands for emergencies.
You'll also ensure that your non-casters will be extremely weak in comparison. The big plus of a melee is, that he never runs out of spells.

Make this small change, and you've eliminated a lot of interesting decisions from the game.

Xuincherguixe
2008-01-20, 07:01 AM
I like the idea of per combat abilities. Or alternatively, every time they go through so much CR worth of enemies, they regain some of those abilities.

There's an arcana unearthed variant over at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm that lets you recharge spells too.

Reinboom
2008-01-20, 07:38 AM
I prefer the idea of "per combat", since it allows for me, as a GM, to judge and determine how many combats are in a day - rather than a weak set of restraints.
A system built more around that, rather than assuming every GM should do just 4 encounters is preferred.

Patashu
2008-01-20, 07:45 AM
The problem with per combats is that it's rather arbitary and ill-defined; why are a quick duel and a Helms Deep-esque full-on siege counting as the same amount? Does it count as a combat if you attack a rat or frog or level 1 commoner? How about if someone attacks you then flees before a single blow is landed? If you have two consecutive fights do you still have enough time to regenerate the ability between them?

A day, on the other hand, is just a day.

Well, that's just me anyway.

mostlyharmful
2008-01-20, 07:52 AM
Spellcasting breaks the game into little tiny pieces but most other class abilities are ok for per encounter type recharge, particularly monks stunning fist and paladins smite. Turning and Rebuking are dependant on how many divine feats the cleric has hanging off them and Rage really should be per encounter anyway "Oh, sorry, I'm all out of anger guys. Who knew you can just temporarily exhaust your supplies of bile spitting fury. It's not like I'm tired or anything but I promise I'll be good and repressed tomorrow."

Try it out with your players, see if they like it. Some don't since resource management is suppossed to be a fun part of the game. Could never see the fun part myself but there you go.

daggaz
2008-01-20, 08:48 AM
Spellcasting breaks the game into little tiny pieces but most other class abilities are ok for per encounter type recharge, particularly monks stunning fist and paladins smite. Turning and Rebuking are dependant on how many divine feats the cleric has hanging off them and Rage really should be per encounter anyway "Oh, sorry, I'm all out of anger guys. Who knew you can just temporarily exhaust your supplies of bile spitting fury. It's not like I'm tired or anything but I promise I'll be good and repressed tomorrow."

Try it out with your players, see if they like it. Some don't since resource management is suppossed to be a fun part of the game. Could never see the fun part myself but there you go.


Maybe he is tired and everything... not exactly physically, per se... but just you know... spent. Like if you have ever been thru some horrible heartbreaking tragedy, and at some point, you just cannot cry anymore, you just feel sorta... empty. Even if you want to bring up those same, powerful emotions, you just can't, because there is not enough there. Your rational mind, regardless of how much you focus on things, simply cannot bring you into the same state of mind as your wild emotions do.

Anyhow, If you change per day into per combat, you are off the bat upping the powerbar right across the board. And for some things, yeah, this will be broken, or just even more broken. As for DMing NPC's with per day abilities, I often will roll dice or make judgement calls, as to if the NPC has used that power yet today, or not. Its not as if every single NPC is at full power, magically ready to meet the PC's everytime. Same goes with their spell selection.

So yeah, my opinion is its much better to tone down NPC's in the right circumstances, than it is to just heavily empower the PC's. Also because, as mentioned above by somebody else, doing so simply removes a lot of the more difficult decisions in the game. I dont want to play NWN2 here...

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-20, 08:50 AM
I think Per combat is better as it stops you going nova.

kme
2008-01-20, 09:03 AM
The problem with per combat system is that most players would probably always use the same most powerful combo of attacks for their build.

Glyde
2008-01-20, 10:33 AM
I would only do this for a very small amount of abilities. Usually encounters should be balanced towards the NPCs having their abilities and the PCs having a possibility of having them. An encounter shouldn't ever rely on the PCs using everything they have unless it's hinted that they will need to.

Jack_Simth
2008-01-20, 10:45 AM
(Ie. say you have cure light wounds. without a per day cap then damage is pretty much null once the fight is over. Same goes for restoration and remove poision/disease/curse.)
Do note, that this would effectivly make your HP a "Per Combat" resource... which is basically the plan for the other resources, too, so...

Yakk
2008-01-20, 11:08 AM
Making everything per-combat has the problem that it means that a fight cannot "wear you down".

I'd be all in favor of:
1> Most resources (50% to 60%) are per-combat.
2> Another big chunk (30%ish) take a rest or few to recover.
3> A small amount (10% to 20%) take a week and/or level to recover.

Ie, imagine a system where a spellcaster had a specialty. They get 1 spell per spell level "per combat" from that specialty.

They also get a pool of "spell points" per-combat to spend on any spell.

Then, they have a single spell per spell level memorized at the "per day" level.

Lastly, they have a "metamagic pool" that can be spent on boosting the effectiveness of spells they cast, that recovers very slowly (but completely recovers whenever they gain a level).

...

"per combat" wouldn't be strictly per-combat. It is just a pool that requires an action you wouldn't do in combat (say, spend 1 minute resting, or spending 1 minute pre-casting the spells, or praying for a minute, etc) to recover them. This makes it effectively per-combat, and gets rid of the question "what is a combat" -- a combat is a period in which you don't have the time to safely burn 1 minute staring at your navel. :)

Sleet
2008-01-20, 11:23 AM
The problem with per combats is that it's rather arbitary and ill-defined; why are a quick duel and a Helms Deep-esque full-on siege counting as the same amount?

Who says they have to? I've always interpreted a huge battle to be a series of smallish combats, interrupted by periods of moving around, taking a moment to rest while reenforcements take your place on the wall, etc. If it's hours of constant fighting, you're going to run out of mojo - and perhaps you should.


A day, on the other hand, is just a day.

Is it a 24-hour period? A calendar day? Do you really get your abilities back at 12:00 AM on the nose - thus potentially leading to "Just hold on for two more rounds! It's almost midnight!"

In other words, both systems require the players and GM to exercise a bit of common sense. I like the per combat or per encounter abilities, as it reduces bookkeeping and encourages otherwise miserly players to actually use their abilities.

Douglas
2008-01-20, 11:27 AM
Making everything per-combat has the problem that it means that a fight cannot "wear you down".

I'd be all in favor of:
1> Most resources (50% to 60%) are per-combat.
2> Another big chunk (30%ish) take a rest or few to recover.
3> A small amount (10% to 20%) take a week and/or level to recover.
From what I've heard/read about 4E, this is approximately what WotC is planning to do for all classes. The percentages aren't quite the same (I remember one quote stating wizards down to only per-combat abilities would be at about 80% power), but the general idea is there. Everyone has a number of significantly useful abilities that are always available, so you can always contribute something without worrying too much about preserving resources, but you also have some "big guns" to be saved for when they're truly needed. Personally, this is the single biggest point in favor of 4E that I know of.

valadil
2008-01-20, 11:34 AM
My problem with per day spells and abilities is that they encourage resting after every fight. It just seems dumb to me that you go into a dungeon, get in a fight, then sleep for 8 hours for the caster's sake. Yes a good GM can make sure there are time restraints in place so, but he shouldn't have to.

Also keep in mind that simply shifting the frequency of abilities shouldn't be the only change you make to implement a per combat system. Buffs should have a duration that reflects this. I'd go so far as to say that most buffs will last rounds, a combat, or a day. Maybe even 2 or 3 combats (to keep something like extend useful).

There were some comments about knowing when to save your big spells for a later encounter. I think this will still be part of a per combat system. It just means the GM will have to have the enemies call for reinforcements during the combat. The players will have to gauge whether the big spell can kill the enemy before he calls for reinforcements versus whether he'll need that big spell once the reinforcements arrive. It's the same gameplay dynamic, but it'll take place in a single multi phased combat rather than spread out over several different combats.

Fawsto
2008-01-20, 12:52 PM
Paladin Fanboy -> Smite Evils per encounter? Sweet!

But spells per encounter... Totaly different. Too Overpower. I guess this topic is about Class Habilities that work per day, not magic. But I cannot see a Barbarian benefit from this...

hamishspence
2008-01-20, 01:20 PM
4th ed has 3 categories, not 2:
Per day
Per Encounter
At Will

In Sage Advice, an Encounter is defined as ANYTHING where the party have hazard to deal with. A door which might be trapped is an Encounter.

At will spells (weak ones) ensure wizard can always zap things, even if zapping is weaker than a fighters sword swing. Wizard at will powers will be slightly weaker than everyone elses.

Per Encounter spells are the main problem solvers. Most spells will be like this

Per day spells will be the real killers. Meteor Swarm sounds like a Per Day spell. Wizard powers will be slightly stronger than everyone elses.

This ensures that party can go through quite a few encounters, and it will be damage that encourages a break, as much as running out of Per Day powers. And you can get by with Per Encounter ones, it will just be riskier.

Most importantly, ALL classes run on this system. No more of Fighters wanting to go on, while wizards and clerics insist on resting. Now, everyone has powers to use.

Zeful
2008-01-20, 01:39 PM
My problem with per day spells and abilities is that they encourage resting after every fight. It just seems dumb to me that you go into a dungeon, get in a fight, then sleep for 8 hours for the caster's sake. Yes a good GM can make sure there are time restraints in place so, but he shouldn't have to.

Incorrect, casters that rest after every fight have to rest for 16 hours as spells cast in the 8 hours before your 8 resting hours count against spells memorized so your wasting 2/3 of every day to make sure that you can utterly destroy 1 encounter.

Originally posted by SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#recentCastingLimitRestInterruptio ns)
Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions

If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit.

So it becomes prudent, from a strategic standpoint, to simply use your spell slots in a more balanced manner (such as planning for 5-6 encounters) than just going nova.

kamikasei
2008-01-20, 01:52 PM
Incorrect, casters that rest after every fight have to rest for 16 hours as spells cast in the 8 hours before your 8 resting hours count against spells memorized so your wasting 2/3 of every day to make sure that you can utterly destroy 1 encounter.


So it becomes prudent, from a strategic standpoint, to simply use your spell slots in a more balanced manner (such as planning for 5-6 encounters) than just going nova.

The quote doesn't support you. "When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit." So, you have to rest for eight hours, after which time you prepare your spells. If somehow you cast a spell during the eight hours of rest, it's counted against the coming day. However, the eight hours in question are the eight hours before you prepare your spells, not before you turn in for your eight hours' rest.

After all, the interpretation you're putting on it affects all wizards, not just narcoleptic ones. By that approach you'd get up and prepare your spells at 8am, have to have all your casting done by 4pm, refrain from any casting until midnight, then turn in and rest for eight hours.

Zeful
2008-01-20, 02:15 PM
16 hours is the worst case scenario. it's actually 10 hours of rest (1 hour to bump all your spells, 8 hours actual rest (which is not modified by rings of survival) 1 hour to memorize all your spells) which leaves 14 give or take (some DM's could add or subtract hours from the 'day') for spell casting. However that gives the world ten hours to pull a fast one over the PCs which, due to adequate resource budgeting, could have been robbing a crypt, or securing a peace treaty between to powerful nations or so on. Instead they spent that time in a rope trick or a MMM waiting for the wizard to get his spells back.

valadil
2008-01-20, 02:51 PM
8 hours or 16 hours, the point remains that players are often tempted to play this way unless in game circumstances put a limit on how much time they can spend.

Chronos
2008-01-20, 03:02 PM
"per combat" wouldn't be strictly per-combat. It is just a pool that requires an action you wouldn't do in combat (say, spend 1 minute resting, or spending 1 minute pre-casting the spells, or praying for a minute, etc) to recover them. This makes it effectively per-combat, and gets rid of the question "what is a combat" -- a combat is a period in which you don't have the time to safely burn 1 minute staring at your navel. :)I was going to post something like this, too. I don't like the idea of the game having an inherently distinct "combat mode" and "normal mode", but if it takes ten rounds to recharge your abilities, then you probably don't want to do it in the middle of a fight (though you could, if you really wanted to). Which doesn't address the balance question, but we can't really address that unless we say precisely what abilities we want to work this way, and how many times they can be used before being refreshed.


16 hours is the worst case scenario. it's actually 10 hours of rest (1 hour to bump all your spells, 8 hours actual rest (which is not modified by rings of survival) 1 hour to memorize all your spells)"Bump all your spells"? I don't follow. And the worst-case scenario isn't 16 hours; it's 24. They're spells per day, not spells per rest period. Resting for eight hours is a necessary but not sufficient condition to recover spells.

Miles Invictus
2008-01-20, 03:37 PM
Classes should have a large number of useful per-combat or at-will abilities and a small number of powerful per-day abilities. Then players can be effective in every encounter and still be able to "go nova" when it really, really counts.

Chronicled
2008-01-20, 03:47 PM
Some things should definitely be changed to "Per Encounter", such as:

Smite Evil/Good (Paladin/Blackguard)
Lay on Hands (Paladin)
Curse (Hexblade)
Stunning Fist (Monk)
Abundant Step (Monk)
Purity of Body (Monk)
Shadow Jump (Shadowdancer)

Then there are some things that might be better staying at "Per Day":

Rage (Barbarian) - the Barbarian raging every fight is a bit much.
Domain abilities (Cleric) - likewise with some of the Domain abilities

Spellcasting, Turn undead, and the like really need to stay at "Per Day".

And of course, things with a "Per Week" recharge (such as a Paladin's Remove Disease or a Monk's Quivering Palm) need to be 1/day, if not completely reworked.

Quietus
2008-01-20, 04:26 PM
Some things should definitely be changed to "Per Encounter", such as:

Smite Evil/Good (Paladin/Blackguard)
Lay on Hands (Paladin)
Curse (Hexblade)
Stunning Fist (Monk)
Abundant Step (Monk)
Purity of Body (Monk)
Shadow Jump (Shadowdancer)

Then there are some things that might be better staying at "Per Day":

Rage (Barbarian) - the Barbarian raging every fight is a bit much.
Domain abilities (Cleric) - likewise with some of the Domain abilities

Spellcasting, Turn undead, and the like really need to stay at "Per Day".

And of course, things with a "Per Week" recharge (such as a Paladin's Remove Disease or a Monk's Quivering Palm) need to be 1/day, if not completely reworked.


The trouble with making Rage remain at per day rather than per encounter is it means that while the other classes can operate at full strength every encounter, the barbarian is generally left as a fighter with a couple extra hit points and less feats, until higher levels where he has enough rages for every combat anyway.

Instead, I think Rage could be made per-encounter, but make it a maximum of level+con mod rounds. First level? Sorry, you get winded after a couple rounds of crazed murder. By level 20, you're lasting nearly three minutes before you're tired.

Chronicled
2008-01-20, 04:43 PM
The trouble with making Rage remain at per day rather than per encounter is it means that while the other classes can operate at full strength every encounter, the barbarian is generally left as a fighter with a couple extra hit points and less feats, until higher levels where he has enough rages for every combat anyway.

Instead, I think Rage could be made per-encounter, but make it a maximum of level+con mod rounds. First level? Sorry, you get winded after a couple rounds of crazed murder. By level 20, you're lasting nearly three minutes before you're tired.

Actually, that could be up to 8 rounds at level 1, if you were a Dwarf Barbarian with an 18 Con (putting the 18 in Con is a great idea, even better under your shorter rage idea). 1 (lvl) + 5 (permanent bonus) + 2 (rage bonus). And 8 rounds is (at least in my groups) a very long battle. Even if you weren't so specced for long-lasting rage, you could easily rage throughout entire battles.

I agree that it'd need to be reworked. I'm just saying that giving a Barbarian the ability to effectively rage whenever fighting would be too strong.

Zeful
2008-01-20, 04:52 PM
"Bump all your spells"? I don't follow. And the worst-case scenario isn't 16 hours; it's 24. They're spells per day, not spells per rest period. Resting for eight hours is a necessary but not sufficient condition to recover spells.

Bumping has a variety of uses, like on this board bumping a thread moves it to the top of the list and sends out notices to everyone subscribed on the thread. In the sense I meant it as the point in time in which spells no longer count against the 8-hour recent spell rule I quoted. Because a DM wanting to discourage nova/narcolepsy tactics can find all manner of strict interpretations of the raw resulting in anywhere from a 16 hour to no spell recharge, (it's spells per day, the planet doesn't spin (either any more or ever) resulting in no night, as such you are still on the same day, thus no more spells, budget accordingly.)

Also whether it's spells per day/hour/combat/scene/mountain dew. It is still dependent on the DM saying the appropriate conditions have passed and you get them back. If the DM decided that the conditions haven't been met then you don't get your abilities back either way. I don't see the point in having per encounter abilities.

Altair_the_Vexed
2008-01-20, 06:46 PM
Wow - there's a lot of discussion here. Thanks for debating!

To clarify: I never suggested SPELLS should be per combat. That would suck. I kind of assumed it was so obvious as to not need mentioning.
Also, right now I care little what 4th Ed is going to do - though it's certainly interesting to read about - because I'm contemplating issues in our 3.x game...

Anyway - without re-writing lots of abilities to re-balance them, what should be "per encounter"*?
Suggestions so far (for classes supported by the SRD):

Rage
Smite "whatever"
Lay on Hands
Stunning Fist
Purity of Body

What would need to happen to these to balance them out if they were "per encounter"?


*Let's call it "per Encounter", as that's already defined elsewhere, and doesn't encourage silly attacks on insects to allow ability activations.

Yakk
2008-01-20, 09:25 PM
Per Encounter Spell Patch:
Every pure caster class gets half, rounded down, as many spells per level. Bonus spells (due to specialization) are still added.

Every caster class has a "Central Spell Set".
Wizards/Sorcerers: 1 school of specialization
Clerics: Heals and 1 Domain
Druids: Summons

Every caster gets 1 "Per Encounter" spell per spell level, picked from their Central Spell Set. This spell may not be a persistent create effect.

This spell casts at 1/2 caster level, with -4 DC and a -4 to hit roll, but can be refreshed with a minute of prayer/concentration/study (depending on the class). The spell may not be refreshed in this manner if it has a duration that has not yet run out.

If it has a duration of at least 1 minute, it can be maintained indefinitely in exchange for never refreshing the spell slot. Only one spell can be maintained in this manner at one time.

...

That does boost the power of casters, but not in any fundamentally broken way.

Chronos
2008-01-20, 11:11 PM
Some things should definitely be changed to "Per Encounter", such as:

...
Lay on Hands (Paladin)
...
Abundant Step (Monk)
Purity of Body (Monk)
Shadow Jump (Shadowdancer)I'm not sure how any of those could be changed to per encounter, since they're all things that are most useful when you're not in an encounter at all. Allowing Shadow Jump and Abundant Step to be refreshed means unlimited teleportation, and allowing Lay on Hands and Purity of Body means unlimited healing. I would think very carefully before introducing either of those into a game.


Bumping has a variety of uses, like on this board bumping a thread moves it to the top of the list and sends out notices to everyone subscribed on the thread. In the sense I meant it as the point in time in which spells no longer count against the 8-hour recent spell rule I quoted.I still don't get what you're saying. When you're spending an hour bumping your spells, what are you doing? I don't think you mean you're bringing all of your spells back up to the top of the forum list... Yes, there's a point of time when your spells stop counting against the 8-hour limit. That point of time is the point when you start resting. What do you need the extra hour for?

Citizen Joe
2008-01-20, 11:37 PM
A modern equivalent might be a revolver or automatic shotgun as a per combat device. You get 6 shots and then you have to prepare the gun again. Now, we've got speed loaders and such, but you don't really want to get caught in the middle of a gun fight reloading.

Going back to DND, I think blasty stuff should be moved into the per round actions and do damage comparable to any other class of the same level. Some prepared spells would be per encounter (these would probably not be blasty stuff), and then rituals would be daily.

horseboy
2008-01-21, 12:37 AM
I prefer the idea of "per combat", since it allows for me, as a GM, to judge and determine how many combats are in a day - rather than a weak set of restraints.
A system built more around that, rather than assuming every GM should do just 4 encounters is preferred.
Exactly. I usually have three or four combats in a story arch that will take 1 to 2 weeks of game time. Having to quadruple the fighting with empty puff just to make the freaking game system to work... :smallfurious:

Zeful
2008-01-21, 01:37 AM
I'm not sure how any of those could be changed to per encounter, since they're all things that are most useful when you're not in an encounter at all. Allowing Shadow Jump and Abundant Step to be refreshed means unlimited teleportation, and allowing Lay on Hands and Purity of Body means unlimited healing. I would think very carefully before introducing either of those into a game.

I still don't get what you're saying. When you're spending an hour bumping your spells, what are you doing? I don't think you mean you're bringing all of your spells back up to the top of the forum list... Yes, there's a point of time when your spells stop counting against the 8-hour limit. That point of time is the point when you start resting. What do you need the extra hour for?

I'll try this differently, apparently I'm not making sense.

Okay when you cast a spell, you can't use that spell slot unless 8 hours has passed before you start preparing your spells. Preparing your spells is a one hour event that takes place after 8 hours of rest (ie sitting still, jogging, forum browsing foreplay, etc). Now a strict DM (like myself) could interpret these events as three separate events that needed to be completed independently of each other.

You cast a spell, the slot is spent and begins the eight hour 'cooldown'. After that period you may spend nine hours resting and preparing the slot again priming it for use again. This is a 17 hour process.

Now the 10 hour is a less strict interpretation of the same rule. You cast a spell and it starts it's 'cooldown'. You wait an hour casting the rest of your spells, then you begin resting, most of the time spent resting is concurrent with the spell slot's 'cooldown' period. So when you begin preparing spells there are none in the 'cooldown' phase and you can prepare them all.

Am I starting to make sense now?

Altair_the_Vexed
2008-01-21, 02:45 AM
I'll try this differently, apparently I'm not making sense.

Okay when you cast a spell, you can't use that spell slot unless 8 hours has passed before you start preparing your spells. Preparing your spells is a one hour event that takes place after 8 hours of rest (ie sitting still, jogging, forum browsing foreplay, etc). Now a strict DM (like myself) could interpret these events as three separate events that needed to be completed independently of each other.

You cast a spell, the slot is spent and begins the eight hour 'cooldown'. After that period you may spend nine hours resting and preparing the slot again priming it for use again. This is a 17 hour process.

Now the 10 hour is a less strict interpretation of the same rule. You cast a spell and it starts it's 'cooldown'. You wait an hour casting the rest of your spells, then you begin resting, most of the time spent resting is concurrent with the spell slot's 'cooldown' period. So when you begin preparing spells there are none in the 'cooldown' phase and you can prepare them all.

Am I starting to make sense now?

To me, certainly.

However, I'd never heard of anyone applying such an interpretation of the 8 hours' rest rule. I wouldn't call it "strict", I'd call it "wrong".

from the SRD:
Rest

To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.

Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions

If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit.

"When she prepares spells" is the key point. The 8 hours mentioned for recent casting is measured from the time she starts preparing spells, not from the time she starts resting.

Yakk
2008-01-21, 03:52 AM
D&D has effectively unlimited out of combat healing as written.

The price of healing wands is so low that for a relatively small fraction of your wealth from encounters, you can heal the entire party up from 0 HP after every fight.

What is worse is having large chunks of your allies expendable power being used for nothing other than keeping the rest of the party's HP pools full. It is a bad design, as it reduces the fun of playing a cleric (you don't own your spell slots, the party does...)

If you want to have some kind of resource that cannot be easily renewed, you need to make it not exchangeable for a low-cost resource (such as small amounts of gold, or in some cases spells).

Jack Zander
2008-01-21, 04:37 AM
Per combat is terribly ill-defined. I'd suggest using per-minute, per-ten minutes, and per-hour abilities instead.

Healing is no longer infinite either. Unless you can rest for a few hours in between each encounter.

Chronos
2008-01-21, 02:04 PM
Now the 10 hour is a less strict interpretation of the same rule. You cast a spell and it starts it's 'cooldown'. You wait an hour casting the rest of your spells, then you begin resting, most of the time spent resting is concurrent with the spell slot's 'cooldown' period. So when you begin preparing spells there are none in the 'cooldown' phase and you can prepare them all.First of all, there's no reason you have to cast all of your spells in the first place. If you want to prepare the same spells again tomorrow, you'll actually be better off not casting your leftover spells, since that way you can reduce the preparation time you need. And even if you want to replace the spells with something else, you can do that at time of preparation without having to cast the old spells first. Second of all, even if you do decide to use up all of your spells, why would it take an hour to do so? If all you have are standard action casting time spells, it would take one round per spell (a few minutes, tops), and if you have a lot of spells with long casting times (like, say, 10 minutes), it might take a lot longer than an hour.

And, as Altair mentioned, the 8-hour recent casting limit is generally the same 8 hours that you spend resting (unless you're ambushed in the middle of the night and have to cast some spells, or something).

Altair_the_Vexed
2008-01-21, 04:12 PM
Per combat is terribly ill-defined. I'd suggest using per-minute, per-ten minutes, and per-hour abilities instead.

Healing is no longer infinite either. Unless you can rest for a few hours in between each encounter.

I switched to "per Encounter", which is defined, a few posts ago.

Of course, seeing as we're talking about house rules here, nothing need be included in the "per Encounter" refresh slot, so if we don't want to, we don't have to have infinite anything.

Zeful
2008-01-21, 06:03 PM
To me, certainly.

However, I'd never heard of anyone applying such an interpretation of the 8 hours' rest rule. I wouldn't call it "strict", I'd call it "wrong".

"When she prepares spells" is the key point. The 8 hours mentioned for recent casting is measured from the time she starts preparing spells, not from the time she starts resting.

As is the common interpretation of the rule, but not the only one.

For example, when forumites here explain the batman wizards invincibility, they have him/her hide in a MMM or a Rope trick for 16 hours despite there being no mechanical reason for such and action. Despite it saying 'Spells per Day' there is no definition within the rules as to a 'day'. That lack of an internal definition, makes the term 'day' mean nothing within the rules so it's no longer RAW when you limit casters to their level appropriate spell slots based on the personal interpretation of the term 'day' instead of every nine hours.

My presented interpretation of the resting mechanics is not the one I'd use because I prefer the common interpretation. However skewed it may be doesn't make it wrong, however. That would be like saying toe*may*toe (tomato) is right when toe*ma*toe (tomato again) is a valid pronunciation.

Thank you for your time.

kamikasei
2008-01-21, 06:13 PM
My presented interpretation of the resting mechanics is not the one I'd use because I prefer the common interpretation. However skewed it may be doesn't make it wrong, however. That would be like saying toe*may*toe (tomato) is right when toe*ma*toe (tomato again) is a valid pronunciation.

Uhm. The rules say: a) you need 8 hours' rest before preparing your spells (with additional rules for interruptions) and b) when you prepare your spells, if you have cast any spells in the previous 8 hours, they count against the spells you can prepare.

Arguing from this that you need to have not cast anything for sixteen hours before you prepare your spells is wrong. It's not a matter of taste, preference or interpretation. It simply does not follow from the premises.