Font of Inspiration grants less points than people think

[Ice9]

Do those same questions baffle you when applied to Barbarian rage or Tome of Battle Maneuvers? Skill Tricks must be completely unusable as well.

Does ToB even mention "encounter" as a rules term?  Actual initiator classes don't do anything per-encounter, they have specific amounts of time / actions required to replenish or change their maneuvers.  If you get it from a feat, you have to rest for a certain amount of time - one minute, I think - to recover it. 

Barbarian does mention encounters, and it does lead to some messy situations if you have enemies showing up in waves with gaps between them, but at least it's something that rarely comes up.  And FWIW, I would consider it an improvement if the Barbarian had an actual rules term, like "fatigued for five minutes".

4E has a definition for an encounter (five minutes / until you take a short rest), although IIRC they make it wobbly again with a "but the GM can say otherwise" clause.  But 3E doesn't.

[faeryn]

Encounter does not mean exclusively combat encounters, there are social encounters and varous other miscelaneous encounters. If your in a non-encounter (such as just walking around the town while your party sells stuff) then you have the remainder of your IP from your previous encounter, unless your DM wants to houserule non-encounters to have a conjoined daily total (IE 10 IP at Lv20  throughout the whole day for use in non-encounters).

Performing a single action when an encounter has not begun does not create an encounter for that action. That is a non-encounter. If that action lead to an event that could be considered an encounter then that action would indeed start an encounter. Tell me, why on earth would you allow a player to declair their action of attempting to open a locked chest as an encounter? The only valid answer is if the chest is trapped and will alarm nearby NPCs

You want to wake up in the morning and prepair then cast divinaiton before the first encounter of the day? There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to. You start your day off with a fresh pool of IP via resting for 8 hours (which restores ALL resources, IP and other per-encounter resources are no exception to this). So at the start of the day you have 10 IP you can use as you please before your first encounter, upon entering your first encounter your IP will reset to 10 (it won't add 10 to your remaining IP, you have a MAX on your IP pool defined by your level and the FoI feat). You will NOT stack you iP into 9000. If IP stacked the way you claim it does then the factotum would be absurldy over powered, especially if you misdefined encounters the way you seem to be.


Now to answer your previous questions directly, Assuming Lv20 without FoI for all of these questions:

I mean, by RAW, you rest for 8 hours and then wake up, and prepare divination, how much IP do you have? And if the answer is "It depends on what you did yesterday afternoon" do you see how incredibly dumb that is?

You wake up with a full pool of 10 IP

Next step, you walk up to a locked door, how many IP do you have now by RAW?

Since you already cast Divination and you havn't yet entered an encounter, you've got 9 IP. If opening this door will trigger an encounter then the DM could rule the act of opening the door as the first action of the encounter thus resetting you to 10 before you pick the lock. There are no rules to say if the act of opening the door is the first action in an encounter or merely a trigger. Generally it's accepted as a trigger though meaning if opening this door triggers an encounter you'll return to 10 IP after you opened it.

Next you find another locked door, how many IP?

That depends, did you trigger an encounter upon opening the previous locked door? Based on the pattern of your quesions I'll presume no. Did you spend IP to use Cunning Knowledge for a bonus on your skil check to unlock the previous door? Yes, 8 IP. No, 9 IP still. If you triggered an encounter previously then you have the remainder from that encounter.

Then you leave the town (because you were just wandering around town) and go to a dungeon an the door is locked, IP?

See Above... 7 IP, 8 IP, 9 IP or remainder from prior encounter

Then you run into a monster, IP?

Start combat encounter, roll initiative and reset IP to 10.

Then the monster getting murdered alerts enemies some of whom run through the complex alerting other enemies and some who come straight into the room and fight you, IP?

Your still in the same combat encounter, your IP does NOT reset until you roll initiative for the next combat encounter or enter into another encounter. Combat encounters always begin with rolling initiative so you have no excuse for misinterpreting the rules on this one.

Finally, after murdering everything in the complex, the party rests, and you wake up tomorrow, IP?

Rest for 8hours, all resources are restored, 10 IP.

Could 3rd edition use with a better definition of Encounter? Certainly, but that's no excuse to try and ignore what an encounter is just to claim extra power.

[Kaelik]

If that action lead to an event that could be considered an encounter then that action would indeed start an encounter. Tell me, why on earth would you allow a player to declair their action of attempting to open a locked chest as an encounter? The only valid answer is if the chest is trapped and will alarm nearby NPCs

So is trying to unlock a door that doesn't belong to you in the middle of town where NPCs might not be happy an encounter or not? You just said yes and no.

You want to wake up in the morning and prepair then cast divinaiton before the first encounter of the day? There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to. You start your day off with a fresh pool of IP via resting for 8 hours (which restores ALL resources, IP and other per-encounter resources are no exception to this).

So you are making up a houserules because the IP rules are dumb. Okay, and this leads you to claim that no houserules are needed why exactly?

upon entering your first encounter your IP will reset to 10 (it won't add 10 to your remaining IP, you have a MAX on your IP pool defined by your level and the FoI feat). You will NOT stack you iP into 9000. If IP stacked the way you claim it does then the factotum would be absurldy over powered, especially if you misdefined encounters the way you seem to be.

So you are making up a houserules because the IP rules are dumb. Okay, and this leads you to claim that no houserules are needed why exactly? Do you have any rules site that you have a max IP. The factotum rules don't have one.

Though I genuinely question how you can claim I "misdefinined" encounter, since I have so far taken no position on anything at all being an encounter.

You wake up with a full pool of 10 IP

Houserule 1

Since you already cast Divination and you havn't yet entered an encounter, you've got 9 IP. If opening this door will trigger an encounter then the DM could rule the act of opening the door as the first action of the encounter thus resetting you to 10 before you pick the lock. There are no rules to say if the act of opening the door is the first action in an encounter or merely a trigger. Generally it's accepted as a trigger though meaning if opening this door triggers an encounter you'll return to 10 IP after you opened it.

So Whatever the DM wants, yes and no both, and also Houserule 2.

Start combat encounter, roll initiative and reset IP to 10.

So Houserule 2 again.

Then the monster getting murdered alerts enemies some of whom run through the complex alerting other enemies and some who come straight into the room and fight you, IP?

Your still in the same combat encounter, your IP does NOT reset until you roll initiative for the next combat encounter or enter into another encounter. Combat encounters always begin with rolling initiative so you have no excuse for misinterpreting the rules on this one.

So now you are saying that every enemy in the entire dungeon complex is one encounter? Wow, rough on Factotums.

Though once again, your IP doesn't reset, you gain IP. That's what the rule actually says.

So bottom line, you shaft the Factotum over by saying all the enemies alerted by fighting the first enemy, and all the enemies they alert in turn are one big EL 64 encounter instead of a series of encounters, and then you apply two houserules because the Factotum IP rules are dumb, and this is the reason that the IP rules are obvious and simple and you perfectly written and don't need houserules... Yeah, thanks for making my case for me.

[faeryn]

Check again.

First, to adress you absurd misreading about the dungeon complex. If you kill off every enemy that is engaged in combat with you before more reinforcements arive (which odds are you will unless your DM hates you) then you will be rolling initiative again when the next wave of reinforcements find you (which you could potentially avoid by moving to a different location between combat encounters. The act of rolling initiative is done at the begining of each combat encounter. The whole dungeon being alerted will not circumvent this unless you are unlucky enough to have new waves of reinforcements constantly arive before you kill the last enemy (or your DM hates you).

Additionally The ONLY house rule I have outlined in my post, I directly declaired as a house rule.

As for your IP refilling per encounter... this is a RAW vs RAI argument. RAW you add to your remaining pool, RAI you REFILL your pool. If Factotum added IP to their remaining pool at the start of every encounter with no cap, then the class would be banned at nearly every DnD table. Many of the mistakes in RAW have pretty basic common sense RAI corrections. Take some time to browse boards and guides about the Factotum, you'll find that the common sence RAI interpretation is indeed REFILL IP.

Additionally, there is a certain word (or synanomou word/phrase) missing from the RAW that is present in ALL instances of stacking resources in ALL source books, "Additional". Factotum says "gains a number of inspiration points" not "gains an additional number of inspiration points". That small change in the wording may not appear significant, but when you consider that if Factotum's IP did stack per encounter then it would be the only instance where this wording has ever changed, it's pretty clear that something is off.



Starting the day with a full pool of IP is not a houserule, name one resource (besides health) that you do not begin the day with a full pool of after a full 8 hours rest. There are none. Additionally your morning routine can be defined as a Miscelaneous Encounter.

The DM determining if your action counts as triggering an encounter or the first action of an encounter is not a houserule by any stretch of the mind. That is blatently an open rules interpretation, when the rules do not properly define something it is the DMs responsibility to make a call on how to proceed. If you take the time to read you DMG you'll find this is spelled out to you in black and white.

Are you seriously trying to call rolling initiative at the start of a combat encounter a houserule now? How dense can you be to belive that one? When you enter combat, you roll initiative and the encounter begins... look at that an enounter began so YES your IP refills to full. You encountered a monster, you began an encounter at that moment weither the combat started that turn or 2-3 turns later you began the combat encounter when you ENCOUNTERED the foe.

Typically your going to clear the first wave of reinforcements before the next wave arrives. In a properly structured dungeon you will begin a new encounter with each new wave of reinforcements after the first if you managed to alarm the whole dungeon. You should find yourself with on average 2-3 rounds of actions between each wave, which may be enough time to move to a different room, depending on how your party moves you could even extend thhe time between waves or successfully hide from the enemies fooling them into beliving that you may have fled the dungeon. If you find yourself facing seemingly endless waves with no break between them, then you should take the que to flee, in a situation like that the Factotum is not the only one screwed over, ANY CLASS would be screwed over for resources in that situation.

[Samwise]

Just FYI, he wakes up in the morning and prepares Divination because he wants to cast it. So if your answer is "Zero because no encounters yet!" then say that so I can point out how stupid that is. (that that would be the rule, not that that would be your answer, it's as good as the other answers, 10 because he's in the "encounter" of wanting to cast Divination, and 567, because he's been saving up.)

Technically, he wakes up with as many Inspiration Points as he had at the end of his last encounter.
Functionally, the moment he does something that can reasonably be framed as an encounter he gains his full allotment for use.
Is it reasonable to consider that casting a non-combat spell like Divination qualifies as an encounter, allowing a Factotum to have his pool refreshed so he has the Inspiration Point available if he happened to finish his last encounter of the day before with 0 remaining? I'd say so.
More, I'd suggest that angsting over the question is about on the level of DM competence with arranging for every paladin to fall before the second encounter of a new campaign.

Are the Barbarian's Rage mechanics and the ToB mechanics that also poorly written garbage? Sure.

Not really.
About the only real issue with any of the "encounter" powers in D20 is with "dynamic" dungeons/encounters, where multiple rooms worth of reinforcements can be alerted and join a single battle. Part of this is due to inherent design issues with D20 (which were recognized over time resulting in the "Delve Format" for encounters and products) that wasn't really compatible with such "dynamic" set ups.

But at least ToB has the two classes that aren't extra stupid always prepare all their maneuvers well before encounters, such that you could play the entire class ignoring the dumb encounter rules completely and never need them.

Or they really aren't that dumb at all.

At least the Barbarian usually has a Rage last long enough that it doesn't need to address the dumb encounter rules.

No, barbarians just need to worry about spontaneous death because an encounter "ends" at the wrong time:
"Don't finish that guy off until I heal the barbarian!"

Both of those are better than the Factotum which always needs you to decide the start of an encounter (unlike the Barbarian and Warblade and Swordsage) and on top of that needs you to decide if minor things like "wanting to cast Divination right now" and "approaching a door I want to unlock" count as encounters.

Again, if you really have such serious problems with "deciding" the start of an encounter, perhaps you just aren't playing the right game.

I mean, think about the last adventure you DMed,

So . . . last night.

how often would you have told a Barbarian he can't rage again (never)

That depends on how often he raged. As it goes, it didn't come up.

However, I would note that in 16 years of running D20, such a situation has come up precisely once, because of reinforcements.

how often would you tell a swordsage/warblade that their unprepared maneuvers come back (never, maybe if they literally woke up to the sound of an ally being eaten by a monster)

Haven't had anyone run a ToB character yet.

how many times would you would you tell a Factotum that he gains IP (some nonzero number).

There is no Factotum in this story, but there was one in the last story arc.
And the player is intelligent enough that I don't have to actually tell him when he regains his IP allotment.

upon entering your first encounter your IP will reset to 10 (it won't add 10 to your remaining IP, you have a MAX on your IP pool defined by your level and the FoI feat). You will NOT stack you iP into 9000. If IP stacked the way you claim it does then the factotum would be absurldy over powered, especially if you misdefined encounters the way you seem to be.

So you are making up a houserules because the IP rules are dumb. Okay, and this leads you to claim that no houserules are needed why exactly?

No need. That clarification appears in the FAQ.

D&D® Frequently Asked Questions
Version 3.5: Date Updated 3/14/08
page 17

When playing a factotum (Dungeonscape, page 14), what
happens to inspiration points unspent at the end of the
encounter?
Unspent inspiration points are replaced when the factotum
returns to his full number of points once an encounter ends.

Yes, yes, I know that's not RAW in the book, or "official" errata, and what not, but it is actually not "just" someone's houserule, unlike your issues with defining "encounters".

[faeryn]

To give you some rules quotes to mull over... pulling all of these directly out of the Dungeonscape book as well..

DUNGEONS AS SYSTEMS
Many dungeons consist of rooms that exist in isolation. Even if a few chambers are connected by a theme or a group of
monsters, these are separate areas that happen to be near other, unrelated parts of the dungeon.
Treating a dungeon as a system turns this idea on its head. In this model, you consider an entire level, or even the layers of a multilevel dungeon, as one large connected "encounter" with which the PCs interact. They must solve problems presented by different parts of the dungeon to proceed through it.

According to that definition each level of the dungone is 1 encounter. So... enter dungeon/change dungeon level = refill inspiation points.

DUNGEON ROOMS
The most basic features of a dungeon are its passages and, above all, its rooms. After spending so much time making the overall theme of your dungeon exciting and unique, don't forget these basic elements. Not every room needs to offer a combat encounter, but a diverse selection of room types helps to illustrate how the dungeon's inhabitants go about their lives, what they value, and how they might be defeated. Linking rooms logically adds internal consistency to the dungeon environment and helps to bring it alive. Each of the following room types provides a general account of the room's purpose and design, as well as how such rooms differ according to a dungeon's overall function. Some entries have additional rules pertinent to the room's contents.

That opens up individual Combat Encounters within the greater Dungeon Encounter. Which in-turn creates 3 possible interpretations of how to handle the Factotum's inspiration between combat encounters. 1) Refill per combat encounter and use remainder outside combat encounters. 2) refill per combat encounter & per return to dungeon encounter. 3) use a seperate pool of IP for combat encounters and dungeon encounter, dungeon encounter refills only upon entering a dungeon level.

ENCOUNTER RANGE
In a wilderness encounter, combat can begin whenever one side becomes aware of the other. Battles between forces that are more than 100 feet apart are common, and long-range spells such as fireball (PH 231) allow engagements to begin at a distance of 600 feet. But in a dungeon, encounters
begin at whatever distance the current room or corridor allows. Low ceilings can prevent adventurers and monsters from flying out of range. Furthermore, the lack of visibility limits the functional range of most encounters. Lanterns throw clear light only 30 feet and shadowy light only 60 feet, and darkvision extends farther only rarely. As a result, most dungeon encounters begin with less than 100 feet between the PCs and their enemies.
This closeness does not mean that ranged attacks are useless; it is always nice to be able to attack from afar. But melee does become far more likely, which places more of a spot light on barbarians, monks, and other classes that might otherwise feel left out when a battle turns into a long-distance sniper fight. In addition, many melee-oriented monsters become viable threats to high-level parties, who normally might fly up and out of range to rain death from above. And as the DM, you gain more control over how the battle begins and how it can (and cannot) proceed.

There's a pretty solid definition for encounters. So if you kill everything in the room you've successfully ended an enounter, if another enemy enters the room after that then you will at that point begin a new encounter.

[Kaelik]

First, to adress you absurd misreading about the dungeon complex. If you kill off every enemy that is engaged in combat with you before more reinforcements arive (which odds are you will unless your DM hates you) then you will be rolling initiative again when the next wave of reinforcements find you (which you could potentially avoid by moving to a different location between combat encounters. The act of rolling initiative is done at the begining of each combat encounter. The whole dungeon being alerted will not circumvent this unless you are unlucky enough to have new waves of reinforcements constantly arive before you kill the last enemy (or your DM hates you).

...

Typically your going to clear the first wave of reinforcements before the next wave arrives. In a properly structured dungeon you will begin a new encounter with each new wave of reinforcements after the first if you managed to alarm the whole dungeon. You should find yourself with on average 2-3 rounds of actions between each wave, which may be enough time to move to a different room, depending on how your party moves you could even extend thhe time between waves or successfully hide from the enemies fooling them into beliving that you may have fled the dungeon. If you find yourself facing seemingly endless waves with no break between them, then you should take the que to flee, in a situation like that the Factotum is not the only one screwed over, ANY CLASS would be screwed over for resources in that situation.

Or you know, if the Dungeon is properly designed, and the enemies are alerted, then whether or not they zerg rush you or build a barricade is their choice, and if they zerg rush you there is no reason to expect you to be able to kill everything before anything else can get there.

But hey, and class would be screwed under those circumstances! Except classes with at will abilities like Rogues, and classes with daily abilities like Wizards and Clerics and Druids and Beguilers and Dread Necros, and classes with encounter abilities that resetable with some kind of action like Warblades and Swordsages... So yeah, just everyone except Barbarians and Factotums is just fine.

As for your IP refilling per encounter... this is a RAW vs RAI argument. RAW you add to your remaining pool, RAI you REFILL your pool. If Factotum added IP to their remaining pool at the start of every encounter with no cap, then the class would be banned at nearly every DnD table. Many of the mistakes in RAW have pretty basic common sense RAI corrections. Take some time to browse boards and guides about the Factotum, you'll find that the common sence RAI interpretation is indeed REFILL IP.

So what you are saying is "The rule is obviously terrible, so obviously terrible that everyone knows you have to houserule it, and that's why it's a perfect rule that doesn't need houseruling!" Well I agree with some of that, specifically everything before the comma. And nothing after it. Again, if the rule is so garbage that it is not functional without houserule, then I'm right when I say that it's garbage you have to houserule.

Starting the day with a full pool of IP is not a houserule, name one resource (besides health) that you do not begin the day with a full pool of after a full 8 hours rest. There are none. Additionally your morning routine can be defined as a Miscelaneous Encounter.

Inspiration Points!

Beginning the day doesn't give you full of any resources except Barbarian Rage and Paladin Remove Disease. You don't have full spells when you wake up, you have the ability to prepare spells under the spell rules for your class. You don't have full Warblade manuevers, you have the ability to prepare manuevers under the Warblade rules. When you wake up in the morning as a Factotum you have the ability to gain IP as per the Factotum Rules, which is to say, when you have an encounter.

Look, I agree that the Factotum would be a much better class if they could just take 3 full round actions to restore their IP to whatever their max was (and their max was some much larger number, and they had any non shit class abilities) but that doesn't mean that they actually can.

The DM determining if your action counts as triggering an encounter or the first action of an encounter is not a houserule by any stretch of the mind. That is blatently an open rules interpretation, when the rules do not properly define something it is the DMs responsibility to make a call on how to proceed. If you take the time to read you DMG you'll find this is spelled out to you in black and white.

"also Houserule 2" means both go back to houserule 2, and that it is a different statement separate from the thing before also. I'm not calling DMs deciding what are encounter a houserule, but I am pointing out, (in the first part, before the "also") that if the answer to the question "is this and encounter" is "Yes and No, Both Neither, Whatever the DM decides" that the rules are vague and unhelpful, and you could totally write better rules by just not being an idiot, like this:

"A Factotum can refresh his IP pool to his maximum based on level by spending 3 consecutive full round actions doing nothing else." Then the answer is never yesno, it's just yes or no.

Are you seriously trying to call rolling initiative at the start of a combat encounter a houserule now? How dense can you be to belive that one? When you enter combat, you roll initiative and the encounter begins... look at that an enounter began so YES your IP refills to full. You encountered a monster, you began an encounter at that moment weither the combat started that turn or 2-3 turns later you began the combat encounter when you ENCOUNTERED the foe.

Look, if you can't read, that's really not my fault, take it up with your elementary school teachers. I never claimed that rolling init was a houserule, I said "Houserule 2 again" Which even if the fact that I'm specifically numbering the houserules didn't tell you that I was referring to the same houserule I had already labeled as 2, the part where I said "again" should have triggered some basic level of reading competence to figure out that I was referring to something I had previously called a houserule.

upon entering your first encounter your IP will reset to 10 (it won't add 10 to your remaining IP, you have a MAX on your IP pool defined by your level and the FoI feat). You will NOT stack you iP into 9000. If IP stacked the way you claim it does then the factotum would be absurldy over powered, especially if you misdefined encounters the way you seem to be.

So you are making up a houserules because the IP rules are dumb. Okay, and this leads you to claim that no houserules are needed why exactly?

No need. That clarification appears in the FAQ.

D&D® Frequently Asked Questions
Version 3.5: Date Updated 3/14/08
page 17

When playing a factotum (Dungeonscape, page 14), what
happens to inspiration points unspent at the end of the
encounter?
Unspent inspiration points are replaced when the factotum
returns to his full number of points once an encounter ends.

Yes, yes, I know that's not RAW in the book, or "official" errata, and what not, but it is actually not "just" someone's houserule, unlike your issues with defining "encounters".

So the rules are so bad that the designers had to pretend errata because they refuse to ever correct anything with errata and this means the rules are perfect? Yeah, spoiler alert, that means the rules are garbage and need to be houseruled.

"I can totally go online and find a non rules sources that tells me to ignore all the actual rules and use something else because the rules are ass, therefore the rules are perfect" wasn't true the last 400 times people pulled out WotC dumb attempts at stealth errata in the FAQ to defend the rules in the books, why would it now?

[Samwise]

So the rules are so bad that the designers had to pretend errata because they refuse to ever correct anything with errata and this means the rules are perfect? Yeah, spoiler alert, that means the rules are garbage and need to be houseruled.

No.
It means the writing and editing are so bad, combined with the corporate environment and publishing limits being so bad, that the company has a whole has to pretend errata because they are terrified of an out of control customer with an over-developed sense of entitlement having conniptions because they released too much actual errata.
Yeah, spoiler alert, people have known that about "Dungeons and Dragons" when it was TSR, and they recognized that WotC was continuing the tradition about 4 products into the D20 production line. That is quite different from the rules being garbage and needing to be houseruled for basic play.

"I can totally go online and find a non rules sources that tells me to ignore all the actual rules and use something else because the rules are ass, therefore the rules are perfect" wasn't true the last 400 times people pulled out WotC dumb attempts at stealth errata in the FAQ to defend the rules in the books, why would it now?

See, that might be relevant from someone who wasn't so lost they angsted over houseruling a definition for "encounter".
Of course then it would still only be relevant if someone didn't know how much everyone here loves to get into fantabulous pissing contests over what books, errata, and FAQs from WotC actually count.
Since you fail the first and I don't fail the second, that means it is your complaint about not liking the rules because they hurt your sense of grammar that comes up short.

That is to say:
I'm less impressed by your houserules and your dismissal of WotC's houserules than you are of WotC's rules and houserules.

[faeryn]

"also Houserule 2" means both go back to houserule 2, and that it is a different statement separate from the thing before also. I'm not calling DMs deciding what are encounter a houserule, but I am pointing out, (in the first part, before the "also") that if the answer to the question "is this and encounter" is "Yes and No, Both Neither, Whatever the DM decides" that the rules are vague and unhelpful, and you could totally write better rules by just not being an idiot, like this:

"A Factotum can refresh his IP pool to his maximum based on level by spending 3 consecutive full round actions doing nothing else." Then the answer is never yesno, it's just yes or no.

Are you seriously trying to call rolling initiative at the start of a combat encounter a houserule now? How dense can you be to belive that one? When you enter combat, you roll initiative and the encounter begins... look at that an enounter began so YES your IP refills to full. You encountered a monster, you began an encounter at that moment weither the combat started that turn or 2-3 turns later you began the combat encounter when you ENCOUNTERED the foe.

Look, if you can't read, that's really not my fault, take it up with your elementary school teachers. I never claimed that rolling init was a houserule, I said "Houserule 2 again" Which even if the fact that I'm specifically numbering the houserules didn't tell you that I was referring to the same houserule I had already labeled as 2, the part where I said "again" should have triggered some basic level of reading competence to figure out that I was referring to something I had previously called a houserule.

I have just re-read the entire thread and at no point in it did you EVER define a "houserule 1" or a "houserule 2". If I assume you're defining them as the first and second houserules you suggested then that comes back as a reading comprehension problem on your part since your second houserule has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. If you are defining houserules 1 and 2 as what I posted then you are sadly mistaken... and my second statement still stands either way. There is zero houseruling involved in determining the start of a combat encounter.

At this point, i'm done dealing with you, lets agree to disagree

[Kaelik]

There is zero houseruling involved in determining the start of a combat encounter.

And I want to reiterate that blue is an entirely different color than red and why do you keep saying that red and blue are the same color!

Please learn to read sometime in the future, please.

[Jackinthegreen]

Which encounter rules are we going with?  For example, there are these lines on page 22 of the DMG:

STARTING AN ENCOUNTER
An encounter can begin in one of three situations.
• One side becomes aware of the other and thus can act first.
• Both sides become aware of each other at the same time.
• Some, but not all, creatures on one or
both sides become aware of the
other side.

Okay, what defines a "side" then?  Clearly a creature can be a side, but what else?  Looking later through the book, it's quite clear that traps are also given as encounters.

Per DMG page 43 first paragraph:

"A well-honed encounter—whether it’s a monster, a trap, or an NPC who must be reasoned with—can be a thing of beauty."

That lays the foundation for both a trap being an encounter as well as a non-combat encounter.

Here's the fourth paragraph on page 43:

"Adventures are broken down into encounters. Encounters are typically keyed to areas on a map that you have prepared. Encounters can also be designed in the form of if/then statements: “If the PCs wait outside the druid’s grove for more than an hour, then his three trained dire bears attack.” The encounters of an adventure are all linked in some way, whether in theme (all the encounters that occur as they travel from the City of Greyhawk to the Crystalmist Mountains), location (all the encounters in the ruins of Castle Temerity), or events (all the encounters that occur as the PCs attempt to rescue the mayor’s son from Rahurg the ogre king)."

Emphasis mine.  Then there is this paragraph on page 45:

"Different Sorts of Encounters: A good adventure should provide a number of different experiences—attack, defense, problem-solving, roleplaying, and investigation. Make sure you vary the kinds of encounters the adventure provides (see Encounters, page 48)."

Here's the first part of the Encounter section starting on page 48:

"As interesting as it is to talk about adventures (and the stories behind them), the game is really composed of encounters. Each individual encounter is like its own game—with a beginning, a middle, an end, and victory conditions to determine a winner and a loser."

And then it goes on about how to design...  Combat encounters.  Until page 50 that is, and then it finally gets into some pretty meaty stuff that should illuminate this discussion.

Starting on DMG page 50:

"REWARDS AND BEHAVIOR
Encounters, either individually or strung together, reward certain types of behavior whether you are conscious of it or not. Encounters that can or must be won by killing the opponents reward aggression and fighting prowess. If you set up your encounters like this, expect wizards and priests to soon go into every adventure with only combat spells prepared. The PCs will learn to use tactics to find the best way to kill the enemy quickly. By contrast, encounters that can be won by diplomacy encourage the PCs to talk to everyone and everything they meet. Encounters that reward subterfuge and prowling encourage sneakiness. Encounters that reward boldness speed up the game, while those that reward caution slow it down."

Then it has a paragraph about rewards and making sure to offer a variety of encounters, and an example list of encounters:

Combat: Combat encounters can be divided into two groups: attack and defense. Typically, the PCs are on the attack, invading monsters’ lairs and exploring dungeons. A defense encounter, in which the PCs must keep an area, an object, or a person safe from the enemy, can be a nice change of pace.
Negotiation: Although threats can often be involved, a negotiation encounter involves less swordplay and more wordplay. Convincing NPCs to do what the PCs want them to is challenging for both players and DM—quick thinking and good roleplaying are the keys here. Don’t be afraid to play an NPC appropriately (stupid or intelligent, generous or selfish), as long as it fits. But don’t make an NPC so predictable that the PCs can always tell exactly what he or she will do in any given circumstance. Consistent, yes; one-dimensional, no.
Environmental: Weather, earthquakes, landslides, fast-moving rivers, and fires are just some of the environmental conditions that can challenge even mid- to high-level PCs.
Problem-Solving: Mysteries, puzzles, riddles, or anything that requires the players to use logic and reason to try to overcome the challenge counts as a problem-solving encounter.
Judgment Calls: “Do we help the prisoner here in the dungeon, even though it might be a trap?” Rather than depending on logic, these encounters usually involve inclination and gut instinct.
Investigation: This is a long-term sort of encounter involving some negotiation and some problem-solving. An investigation may be called for to solve a mystery or to learn something new.

That ought to be enough to chew on for a while.

In the context of a Factotum, the investigation type of encounter doesn't seem like it'd work out so well because there are bound to be many other encounters within that investigation.  To have the class actually be functional would require the IP pool be refreshed at the beginning of each of those encounters.

[faeryn]

Then you run into a monster, IP?

Start combat encounter, roll initiative and reset IP to 10.

So Houserule 2 again.

Red indeed does not equal blue... but what you replied to as "so houserule 2 again" is black and white start of combat encounter. Stop trying to strawman me, when you were the one who made this blatant error. Perhaps you meant to quote a different part of my post, if so you may wish you may wish to try to correct that mistake. In what way does "so houserule 2 again" have any baring on the FACT that you began an encounter and thus regain your IP? (seriously, answer this question)

You asked "Then you run into a monster, IP?" the answer is black and white, you encountered a monster thus an encounter began so you do indeed get your IP refreshed. And Jack so kindly provided the rules quote from the DMG that backs me on this one as well:

For example, there are these lines on page 22 of the DMG:

STARTING AN ENCOUNTER
An encounter can begin in one of three situations.
• One side becomes aware of the other and thus can act first.
• Both sides become aware of each other at the same time.
• Some, but not all, creatures on one or
both sides become aware of the
other side.

You ran into a monster, atleast one (you or the monster) is at this point aware of the other, thus the conditions to begin a combat encounter are met. If you were not arguing against this then either A) correct your mistake or B) properly explain your standing on the quote in question. As it stands you are making an argument where there was none and attempting to strawman your way out of it upon being corrected.

[Jackinthegreen]

The only thing that might be house-ruling I can see is if one takes this part of the Factotum's Inspiration ability as gaining IP on top of what was already there instead of resetting it to that number or having the IP reset to 0 between encounters then gaining that number when an encounter starts.

Dungeonscape page 16, bottom left:
"At the beginning of each encounter, he gains a number of inspiration points determined by his level (see Table 1–1)."

So at 1st level if the Factotum got into an encounter but didn't use any IP, then got into a second encounter, they would have 4 IP.

That way of going about it is nonsensical in practice because it incentivizes the player to get the character into as many encounters as possible while using as little of the IP in order to eventually pool it up to whatever arbitrary amount they want.  It's also a pain in the ass to track including the possibility of being lied to about how many IP the character currently has.

Hm, an idea I just had while thinking about the Factotum:  Make each of the abilities a card, and then have a deck of IP cards equal to the IP they "gain" at the start of each encounter.  Spending the IP is then easily tracked through using said cards.

[Kaelik]

Red indeed does not equal blue... but what you replied to as "so houserule 2 again" is black and white start of combat encounter. Stop trying to strawman me, when you were the one who made this blatant error. Perhaps you meant to quote a different part of my post, if so you may wish you may wish to try to correct that mistake. In what way does "so houserule 2 again" have any baring on the FACT that you began an encounter and thus regain your IP? (seriously, answer this question)

You are a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot.

You are the one sitting here strawmanning me over and over, you can't possibly be this dumb? Are you? Are you really this dumb? Oh my god, please tell me you aren't really this dumb. I pointed out as a houserule like 18 times and you are now telling me you can't see what I was talking about? Please please tell me this is an elaborate troll, I'd rather believe malice than this intense level of stupidity.

upon entering your first encounter your IP will reset to 10 (it won't add 10 to your remaining IP, you have a MAX on your IP pool defined by your level and the FoI feat). You will NOT stack you iP into 9000. If IP stacked the way you claim it does then the factotum would be absurldy over powered, especially if you misdefined encounters the way you seem to be.

So you are making up a houserules because the IP rules are dumb. Okay, and this leads you to claim that no houserules are needed why exactly? Do you have any rules site that you have a max IP. The factotum rules don't have one.

Since you already cast Divination and you havn't yet entered an encounter, you've got 9 IP. If opening this door will trigger an encounter then the DM could rule the act of opening the door as the first action of the encounter thus resetting you to 10 before you pick the lock. There are no rules to say if the act of opening the door is the first action in an encounter or merely a trigger. Generally it's accepted as a trigger though meaning if opening this door triggers an encounter you'll return to 10 IP after you opened it.

So Whatever the DM wants, yes and no both, and also Houserule 2.

Start combat encounter, roll initiative and reset IP to 10.

So Houserule 2 again.

Seriously, please learn how to read. Please, pretty please. I only said like 47 goddam times that reseting IP was a houserule, I don't know how I could have possibly made that more clear. How could you possibly be so stupid as to think that I was saying that something you said for the first time was houserule 2, even though I had already called something else houserule 2? How is it even possible to make that mistake?

You asked "Then you run into a monster, IP?" the answer is black and white, you encountered a monster thus an encounter began so you do indeed get your IP refreshed.

Except for the whole thing were your IP doesn't refresh, you gain IP, and the part, where that was a set up question that was required for the later question about how the entire dungeon complex gets alerted, and could be between 0 and 468 encounters depending on how you use the 8 different definitions of encounter.

If you were not arguing against this then either A) correct your mistake or B) properly explain your standing on the quote in question. As it stands you are making an argument where there was none and attempting to strawman your way out of it upon being corrected.

I choose option C) You learn how to read.

That way of going about it is nonsensical in practice because it incentivizes the player to get the character into as many encounters as possible while using as little of the IP in order to eventually pool it up to whatever arbitrary amount they want.  It's also a pain in the ass to track including the possibility of being lied to about how many IP the character currently has.

Yeah, almost like it's a bad rule that incentivizes dumb behavior and also creates different results based on differently equally valid claims about what an encounter is, and that it would be much better if it was houseruled to almost anything else... or you know, the explicit thing I've been arguing.

Wholly shit, it's 2016, I thought we were done with this crap in 2002. Why are people still arguing the rules are great because you can ignore them and make up your own rules?

[Libertad]

Friendly reminder that the only time I've ever seen Kaelik come to post here is to act abusively to others, and that it's a pattern.

[Kaelik]

Friendly reminder that the only time I've ever seen Kaelik come to post here is to act abusively to others.

Friendly reminder that I wasn't acting abusively to anyone until they started abusing my sanity by trolling me by pretending they can't read so they could accuse me of strawmanning while strawmanning, and you were explicitly warned by a mod to stop doing this last time you did it you troll.

[faeryn]

I have not been trolling you and as I and others have already said multiple times now, Resetting IP is not a houserule it is RAI.

[Libertad]

Friendly reminder that I wasn't acting abusively to anyone until they started abusing my sanity by trolling me by pretending they can't read so they could accuse me of strawmanning while strawmanning, and you were explicitly warned by a mod to stop doing this last time you did it you troll.

And yet it's a pattern that keeps on happening, and Gaming Den regulars have a proven track record of phrasing things in the most inflammatory manner possible just to get on people's cases, and you do it infrequently enough with different posters by rarely posting for weeks at a time so that you can repeat the cycle so it can gradually fade away from recent memory.  Considering that back in the day I've seen you, Frank Trollman, and others ruin threads time and time again in so many places I don't see what's wrong with warning others.

And while it's old and unrelated news, the mods of Min-Max Boards' "rule lightly" operandi hasn't always been the best case for addressing abusive posters here in other circumstances.  So you're pretty much exploiting a loophole in the system/forum culture.

[Agita]

Kaelik: Stop. Right now. I do not give a fuck who started trolling who. You're not in kindergarten. If you think someone is trolling, acting worse than them is not the answer.

Libertad: Posting for the sole purpose of calling someone out for being an asshat is not the answer, either.

I am not in the mood for arguing who is the worse shitposter here. Moderation on this board is largely private; if we think you crossed a line, you're going to get a message about it. If you can get valuable discussion out of this thread yet, do so; otherwise, I'm going to lock it if this shit starts again.

[Kaelik]

I have not been trolling you and as I and others have already said multiple times now, Resetting IP is not a houserule it is RAI.

The Color Red isn't a Color, it's a Colour. How many legs does a cow have if you call a tail a leg?

So, let's try one more time, when I said "So Houserule 2 Again" what was I calling a houserule, and how wrong/arguing against a strawman on scale from 1-10 does that make your "arguments" against me:

The DM determining if your action counts as triggering an encounter or the first action of an encounter is not a houserule by any stretch of the mind. That is blatently an open rules interpretation, when the rules do not properly define something it is the DMs responsibility to make a call on how to proceed. If you take the time to read you DMG you'll find this is spelled out to you in black and white.

Are you seriously trying to call rolling initiative at the start of a combat encounter a houserule now? How dense can you be to belive that one? When you enter combat, you roll initiative and the encounter begins... look at that an enounter began so YES your IP refills to full. You encountered a monster, you began an encounter at that moment weither the combat started that turn or 2-3 turns later you began the combat encounter when you ENCOUNTERED the foe.

There is zero houseruling involved in determining the start of a combat encounter.

but what you replied to as "so houserule 2 again" is black and white start of combat encounter. Stop trying to strawman me, when you were the one who made this blatant error. Perhaps you meant to quote a different part of my post, if so you may wish you may wish to try to correct that mistake. In what way does "so houserule 2 again" have any baring on the FACT that you began an encounter and thus regain your IP?