« Turn Undead, Part 1: The Problem | Main | Combat Reactions »

Rate this Entry

The Fifteen Minute Adventuring Day

Posted 28th July 2008 at 06:05 PM by Wulf Ratbane

Well since it's come up again I might as well share my thoughts on this topic now.

Here's the text of what I posted a while back on the Pathfinder forums:

Quote:

Originally Posted by maliszew

Put me in the column of people who don't find the so-called 15 minute adventuring day a problem. Indeed, for me, it's a feature of D&D and always has been. More to the point, v.3.5 is structured around it and, unless Paizo didn't really mean it when they said they wanted Pathfinder to be backward compatible, making the changes necessary to "fix" it would be difficult.

I firmly believe that the rules should support the way the game is actually played. In my experience, 3e plays like this:

By second level, the PCs have purchased a wand of cure light wounds.
Given 5 minutes, they can completely empty any wand and bring everyone back to full health.
The PCs do everything possible to enter every fight at full hit points, if not necessarily at full ability.
The cost of the cure wand (of applicable strength for the party level) simply becomes a tax on the PCs wealth.
PCs will stop adventuring rather than continue in a sub-optimal state.
The CR system is most accurate when the party is at their full capacity.
Published adventures almost always go "off script" because the PCs retreat at unexpected times. My options as a DM are to allow it-- which means suddenly accounting for the passage of 1 day-- or to find some excuse to prevent them from retreating.

Here is my fix, which I believe is eminently backwards compatible:

10-minute Rest Period

A “rest period” is 10 minutes of uninterrupted rest, to include no more than conversation and light activity.
All character abilities that were previously granted “per day” are instead granted “per rest.” This includes rage, smite, etc. as well as spellcasting (see below).
All players receive a number of “Reserve Points.” (In our campaign, we use Action Points, but I’ll replace this term here since Action Points come with their own set of baggage.) Set this number as desired: ½ character level, for example. You can also award additional Reserve Points for good play, reaching milestones, etc.

Aside: Although I am still making my way through the current ENworld thread linked above, the latest posts indicate support for some kind of "adventure resource." I think this falls into that category.
You can, instead, use a "Party Reserve Points" pool. All PCs spend from the same pool of Reserve Points, so it becomes a group decision how best to manage those resources.
All abilities are refreshed once every 24 hours, at no cost of Reserve points. (In other words, always at least as often as the current system allows.)

After a successful rest period, at no cost of Reserve Points:

All “per rest” abilities are refreshed.
All characters heal an amount of hit points equal to 50% of their normal hit point total.
All Simple spells are refreshed. (see below).
Any ongoing spell effects on your person are dispelled when your rest is complete, regardless of any duration they may have remaining. (This does not apply to spells with instantaneous or permanent durations.)

After a successful rest period, at a cost of 1 Reserve Point:

A character can recover an additional amount of hit points equal to 50% of their normal hit point total (which will restore any character to full hit points).
All Complex spells are refreshed. (see below).
You may refresh one Exotic spell per Reserve Point spent.

Spellcasting
All spells are designated as Simple, Complex, or Exotic:

Simple spells include:
All 0 level spells.
Any single target spell with a duration of 1 min/level or less.
Complex spells include:
Any area of effect or multiple-target spell.
Any spell with a duration of 10 minutes/level or longer.
Any Conjuration (creation, calling, or teleport).
Exotic spells include:
The big three gamebreakers: Divination/Commune, Raise Dead, Teleport
“Edge case” spells that create permanent goods (water, food, iron) at the DM’s discretion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psion

For me, this was rarely to never a problem. When it was, the solution was to put the players on the clock.

You’ll typically find PCs in one of two cases:

In the first case, the PCs are in a situation where there is no real rationale for pressuring them (such as exploring a largely abandoned tomb full of undead or golem guardians that are not inclined to pursue). If the PCs are able to retreat and rest overnight without being unduly harried, then I would just as soon get them back into the action after a short rest.

In fact I’ve found that most of my players, once they are forced to retreat and rest for a full day, will find all sorts of other things to do with their time besides getting back to the adventure I intended for them.

In the second (and more common) case, the PCs are engaged in some predicament that is “alive” and “responsive.” But in this case, too, I prefer the 10 minute rest period. It is much easier for me, as a DM, to look to the adventure and determine what the bad guys will do with 10 minutes to prepare—to cast spells, to hunt the PCs down, to organize defenses—than it is for me to lay out their plans given almost an entire day. Again, I’d rather the PCs were harried on a 10-minute clock than on a full day clock.

(As an aside, as a result of this change, I’ve started using Wandering Monsters again, and I’ve simply put the check on a 10 minute timer. The PCs are never sure of getting a 10 minute rest.)

And I'll extend on those prior comments with my response to the thread here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

Even discounting the psychology of some players to "go nova," there were A LOT of Necromancer modules-- indeed, any kind of "status quo" adventure-- where the players, through no fault of their own, were depleted after one or two rooms/encounters, such that continuing would be folly.

And so, they (wisely) retreat and replenish. That's just smart play.

And so when I personally talk about fixing the 15 minute adventuring day, that's primarily what I am talking about. I see no reason to "penalize" the PCs 23 hours for smart play that arises primarily from campaign verisimilitude!

I'd much rather give them some "quick rest" mechanic to get them back into the adventure in a reasonable and realistic way.

It's not about curtailing "go nova" behavior. It's about preserving verisimilitude. To me, it is more damaging to campaign verisimilitude to have the players rest for 23 hours than it would be to just "reset" the clock on their daily powers and let them continue with the story.

Submit "The Fifteen Minute Adventuring Day" to Digg

Submit "The Fifteen Minute Adventuring Day" to del.icio.us

Submit "The Fifteen Minute Adventuring Day" to StumbleUpon

Submit "The Fifteen Minute Adventuring Day" to Google

Posted in

Views 1158 Comments 16

Total Comments 16

Comments

I really like this concept, but what does non-mages use their reserve points for?

Posted 29th July 2008 at 09:31 AM by Angellis_ater

Hmm. I like this solution quite a bit.

In an ENWorld thread on the subject, I argued that a level-appropriate CR encounter wasn't actually that fun when you started out with all of your resources--that the game became much more interesting when you went down-to-the-wire, either by fighting a combat after having expended many of your resources, or by fighting a monster with a higher-than-expected CR.

With a basic rest period, though, characters in your system don't actually get up to tip-top shape--they have to spend limited resources to do so. Hopefully, that means they'll only spend their reserve points when they think they're about to go up against something tough enough to pose a decent threat to a fully healed/spelled party.

I'm a little bit concerned with all non-spell daily powers as changing to per-rest. For some, that's practically useless (rage can't be used more than once per encounter in any case), and for others, it might be overpowered (at level/day, that's a lot of bardsong).

Perhaps they recover only one use with a rest, and have to spend reserve points for the rest?

Posted 29th July 2008 at 11:29 AM by arscott arscott is offline

Quote:

I really like this concept, but what does non-mages use their reserve points for?

Big chunks of healing.

However, in my campaign, I use Action Points as Reserve Points, so that there are other uses-- adding to d20 rolls, confirming or avoiding crits, etc.

Even so, obviously spellcasters use a few more AP/RP than the mundanes. I like the concept of the Party Pool as well to help mitigate this.

Quote:

I'm a little bit concerned with all non-spell daily powers as changing to per-rest. For some, that's practically useless (rage can't be used more than once per encounter in any case), and for others, it might be overpowered (at level/day, that's a lot of bardsong).

The first thing to realize is that there's still no guarantee that the PCs will be able to successfully rest-- in fact I'd posit that it's easier for the DM to disturb a 10-minute rest than it is the normal RAW overnight, 8-hour rest. (In the short rest format, the PCs are much more likely to try to rest in the dungeon or other dangerous environment and try their luck.)

But the most important thing is to adjust your philosophy. Take a breath. Relax. When you find yourself saying, "That seems like an awful lot of XYZ..." ask yourself "Would I be comfortable with the players retreating here for a full day?"

If the answer is yes, or if they'd be able to do it anyway unless you pulled some egregious crap out of your ass to deny it, then just move along. Let the players have their toys.

If the answer is no, honestly no, then just put some pressure on them-- just as you would if they were abusing the RAW 15-minute adventuring day.

You may see the above and wonder why, if that's the case, there needs to be a distinction between Simple/Complex spells, ultimately the answer is: There doesn't. It's somewhat arbitrary. I could see myself saying, "Well if the bard gets all his songs back, the wizard gets all his fireballs back."

But splitting the spells where I have does mitigate the "go nova" effect considerably. Even though the wizard can be reasonably sure he's going to get his spells back, the distinction does affect his spell selection choices and casting strategies.

I do see my barbarian player "go nova" and rage at the slightest provocation. I consider this desired behavior.

I don't see my wizard preparing nothing but Complex spells and/or using them with the same carefree attitude that the barbarian shows with her rage.

Now having said all that-- I like your "One free, one for one" proposition very much!

Posted 29th July 2008 at 01:13 PM by Wulf Ratbane Wulf Ratbane is offline

	One more comment re: bardsong specifically. At low levels, the cost of bardsong is its limited use. Before very long, however, the primary cost of bardsong becomes the action used to activate it.
	Posted 29th July 2008 at 01:16 PM by Wulf Ratbane

Quote:

I firmly believe that the rules should support the way the game is actually played.

That's kind of circular, isn't it? The initial design has to set the way the game will be played, then further rules should support that initial assumption.

For myself, I don't use a lot of published modules, and I do tend to put the PC's on the clock a bit, or use encounters that ramp up - initial contact, then something else joins the fray, then something else might happen. The players may get the chance to go Nova, but not all that often.

I do, however, like the idea of using AP/RP to power the recovery of spells and heal during a rest - I think I'd be more likely to require 1 AP during a rest to do what you suggest allowing for free... My goal would be to let my players feel like they have enough oomph to continue, but not to feel completely refreshed...

Posted 30th July 2008 at 04:14 PM by Kid Charlemagne Kid Charlemagne is offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by KidC

That's kind of circular, isn't it? The initial design has to set the way the game will be played, then further rules should support that initial assumption.

I don't think so. What I mean is that sometimes, certain behaviors arise from the way that the rules are structured, that warrant taking another look at the rules to see if they should be modified to accommodate the way the players have adapted their "default behavior" to the rules.

Passive Perception checks is a good example. Don't make the players tell you that they are being observant at all times and making Spot/Listen/Search checks. Assume the behavior, and roll it into the rules.

Same thing with the Wand of CLW. If my players are going to stop and heal up to full hit points after every fight (assuming they have 5 miutes or so to do it) then the net effect of the mere existence of Wands of Cure Light Wounds is this:

1) The PCs enter every fight with all their hit points
2) The PCs have to spend 750 gp every time they go back to town.

I can get exactly the same effect by:

a) Removing wands of CLW from my game, and letting the PCs get all their hit points back from a brief rest;

b) Giving them 750 gp less treasure than I did before.

The second case creates a game with a completely different "feel" than the first, but the same effect in play.

Posted 30th July 2008 at 04:27 PM by Wulf Ratbane Wulf Ratbane is offline

This has been a concern of mine for quite some time, although largely in the abstract. IME, it's largely a player (or rather, group) dynamic. The people I typically play with are not at all risk-averse, and the fight/rest/fight or 15-minute day issue has rarely ever come up. (I wonder if the fact that most of the party group were non-MMO players has some bearing on this -- that fight/rest/fight mindset was foreign to me until I started seeing it become de rigeur in MMOs.)

I've been monkeying with 4e a bit to try and do a lower-powered version, and one thing I think I'll adopt is that healing surges become the new hit-points. In other words, healing surges will trickle back over days (say, x/day for heroic, 2x/day paragon, 3x/day epic) rather than all or nothing. This will let me emulate the slow whittling down of a party (the classic D1/D2/D3 syndrome) without having to tweak too much. I think.

In concept, I like the Trailblazer approach; my quibbles are largely with the specifics. I think the players get a little too much for free during the short rests -- the healing seems a bit much, for example. And I'd have to sit down with the spell lists and see if anything falls through the cracks, since they obviously weren't designed to accomodate this. I'm sure there will be some that are clearly superior to others due to a quirk of the spell parameters (eg, Disintegrate is 'Simple'?)

Part of the problem is using canned adventures as the benchmark. It seems to me that they are designed too often to expect a full-strength party for most encounters and don't provide sufficient DM guidance to adjust up or down as needed. This creates a feedback loop with the party, who come to expect to *have* to be at full strength every time. Then less-than-extreme encounters seem too easy, so they get buffed up, and the cycle repeats.

Ultimately, though, I'm not sure there is a solution to this. I've already noticed the 15-minute day creeping into 4e in terms of daily abilities used, surges spent, and so forth. There is a class of player that is just extremely risk averse, and no amount of mechanics are going to address that.

Posted 30th July 2008 at 06:22 PM by Rodrigo Istalindir Rodrigo Istalindir is offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodrigo

(eg, Disintegrate is 'Simple'?)

Yes, this spell came up when I was discussing this with GlassJaw.

In fact it's both Simple and not subject to "Save or Die/Save or Suck" mitigation, either. It might indeed fall through the cracks and become the "go to" spell for gunslinger wizards. (As if it weren't already.)

I hate to keep prying open cracks in supposedly hard and fast rules, and building up new piles of exceptions, but if Disintegrate proves problematic, I believe you'd get see a reasonable response if you change it so that the target's equipment IS affected.

Posted 30th July 2008 at 07:16 PM by Wulf Ratbane Wulf Ratbane is offline

Of course you can always rule that all spells of 5th level and above are Complex...

Posted 30th July 2008 at 07:17 PM by Wulf Ratbane

	Simple Spells = Maximum Spell Level -2 or Simple Spells = (Your Character Level / 2) -2. (for multiclass characters) Cantrips are always simple.
	Posted 30th July 2008 at 09:14 PM by Mustrum_Ridcully

	That limits low level casters too much. I want low level wizards to have easy access to certain spells. Because God forbid they watch, analyze, or (gasp) shoot a crossbow...
	Posted 30th July 2008 at 09:53 PM by Wulf Ratbane

	This is off on a tangent, but I wish there were more spells that weren't fire and forget. Supplementing the blasting and utility spells with ones that required/rewarded ongoing effort would help offset the 'blow my wad' mentality some spellcasters seem to have.
	Posted 1st August 2008 at 05:08 PM by Rodrigo Istalindir

One of the spell ideas I liked was a "Magic Missile with duration" - similar to say, Flame Blade or Produce Flames, allowing you to throw one magic missile per round. (Of course, the spell must be balanced and stuff... But maybe 1 round per level, 1d4+1 damage per round, wouldn't be that bad... The wizard is occupied for most of the combat, but is not overshadowing the rest, and doesn't need to expend much spell slots...

Posted 1st August 2008 at 07:55 PM by Mustrum_Ridcully Mustrum_Ridcully is online now

There really is no reason to design against the "15 minute adventuring day". Groups either let it happen or they don't. The laws of the dungeon apply to the whole world. If you think you can fight and kill some enemies and then sleep without worry of consequences, more power to you. That's a good way to wage war, if you can get away with it. This doesn't happen in the real world unless you're good enough to pull it off. And presuming every group is good enough to pull this off whenever wherever and then that it is a system problem, is just wrongheaded in my opinion.

Posted 2nd August 2008 at 09:58 PM by howandwhy99 howandwhy99 is offline

	Quote: Originally Posted by 99 There really is no reason to design against the "15 minute adventuring day". I'm not designing against it. I'm designing in concert with it.
	Posted 3rd August 2008 at 02:48 AM by Wulf Ratbane

I like this option.

Posted 16th January 2009 at 08:00 AM by joela

Total Trackbacks 0

Trackbacks

No other blogs currently reference this blog entry

Trackback Link