+ Log in or register to post
Results 1 to 10 of 34
Tuesday, 24th July, 2012, 05:53 PM #1
A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)
Day-Based & Encounter-Based: It's Not Balance, It's Playstyle
(tl;dr version: Encounter-based play is something that 5e can't really reject, since it's a personal preference, and that might mean some compromise from folks who prefer a longer term...some compromise I'm kind of cool with)
So 5e's core is being developed with the idea of a system that revolves around the "adventuring day." That means that every time your party rests for the night, they recover all of their resources, and that their resources are meant to and are designed to be spent between the time they wake up and the time they take their next long nap.
There's a lot of really good legacy and gameplay reasons to use the adventuring day as the basis for the game. Arguably, the changes that 3e and 4e made to make the encounter more the basis for the game were the cause of a lot of those systems' problems with both balance and "feel."
But the Encounter-based design has been around for long enough, and is embraced by enough people, that I don't think it can viably be left on the roadside. It creates a playstyle that a chunk of people really love. It's not a "traditional D&D" style, but a lot of people have never really liked traditional resource-management-style D&D and have used D&D to tell their more cinematic narrative tales even since day 1.
I think it's important to note that it's not really a balance issue (it ain't about the math, 'cuz that can work fine), but it is a playstyle issue (it is about how people envision their games and scenes, and how they run their tables). This is, I think why some of the disagreements have a tendency to turn acerbic: people are assuming they're talking about things that can be correct or incorrect, but they are actually talking about matters of personal taste, which are often arbitrary and anyway are closely held.
So. I think any 5e that hopes to unify the game must include within it a way to turn D&D into an encounter-based game. Not because this is "good design" or leads to "better balance," but because some people really personally prefer thinking of their game as a series of scenes rather than as a longer unit. It makes more sense to them, it puts the emphasis where they want it, and it feels more natural to them.
Fortunately, this isn't particularly hard. If you have a 5e that is designed for daily considerations, there's really two major steps you need to take, and two brief corollaries.
STEP 1: Time Shift Your Rests
A while ago, I posted an easy fix on how people who thought "healing all HP with a single night's sleep" was too fast. The trick to this is that it also works in reverse. Rather than an extended rest being at the end of every night, you have an extended rest at the end of every encounter.
This effectively means your "vancian" spells are all encounter powers, and your HP are all encounter-based, and no effects really transcend a single encounter. You can always make exceptions for things you want to bother to track, introducing a longer Daily rest, but, by default, you don't have to track anything.
Where did your short rests, go, then?
Well, in 5e as it currently stands, they can be applied with an action in combat, easily, since all they do is possibly let you spend charges from your healer's kit. You could also herald the return of a Second Wind action that gives you a short rest, to more evenly distribute that.
Now, you might be afraid that this "encourages novas," that a character that can unload everything in one encounter would be SUPER-POWERFUL. But that's not necessarily true:
STEP 2: Your Daily XP Budget = Your Encounter XP Budget
Daily spells are designed to be used over several encounters. If you want to base your game on encounters, you just put all the day's activities into each encounter. The existence of Solos and Elites makes this especially easy to do without necessarily upping the grind too much. That said, you are going to spend more rounds in each encounter in an encounter-based system. This is working as intended: each encounter is a threat, each encounter wants you to use all of your resources, each encounter goes a little slower and a little more detailed than a day-based system would assume.
If you're the 5e designers, and you're making a daily-based game, you need to make it in such a way that it does not rule out an encounter-based game, either. This means that you need to keep the following in mind as you design:
- You need to make encounter-neutralizing effects easily optional. In a game based on an interval longer than an encounter, you can have encounters that are imbalanced, but that still have an effect on the overall day. If you teleport away from an encounter, or you fly past one, or you disintegrate the goblin king or charm the necromancer or use stealth to sneak past the tomb guardian, these can be problems in an encounter-based game in a way they're not in a game based on broader terms. So you need to make these effects either not encounter-neutralizing (like the current spells in the playtest), or clearly optional somehow.
- You need every character to at least opt into being able contribute to every encounter. In a game based on an interval longer than an encounter, you can have a character that sits out an encounter, but that still contributes to the overall day. If your thief hides during the combat, or your bard can't fight worth a dang, these can be problems in an encounter-based game ina way they're not in a game based on broader terms. So you need to make characters who can all contribute to every encounter (like the current playtest characters), or at least enable that as a possibility.
- The game assumes no daily resources. You can add them back in, if you'd like. In particular, it'd be easy to add in effects resembling healing surges and milestones. Adding in powerful "daily effects" might take a bit more work for an individual DM, but are entirely possible (and would make an excellent module). HP in this model is always almost entirely fate.
- Each encounter takes up more time. This is generally a desirable result for an encounter-based game(even a "longer" 5e encounter is going to be lickety-split by 4e standards!), but if the encounter takes up TOO MUCH time (leading to grind), it makes things like encounter diversity and HP adjustments more important. Various anti-grind strategies that people have developed in 4e may become useful. The existence of elites and solos can go a long way to helping this.
After seeing this as a playstyle thing we must accept as an inclusive game rather than a mechanical balance thing that can be mechanically solved for everyone by the mechanics, it becomes more apparent to me that encounter-based gaming is something that needs to be enabled. Not for balance reasons, but for personal preference reasons: some folks want to play that way because it fits their style better.
I don't think it needs to be the default. I think the "core D&D experience" is very much a longer term kind of thing. Daily magic recharging and counting encumbrance and returning to town to rest are very in-genre. But since not everyone plays this game the same way (and some people have probably NEVER played that sort of D&D), it can't ignore the other ways. It must be at least an easy add on. And that may mean that encounter-neutralizing abilities by default aren't quite so powerful, and that classes can't so much be binary contributors.
And y'know what? I'm fine with that. I'm a big advocate for a longer term D&D core experience, but this is a big tent, and there's no reason the folks who dig the encounter-based play should have to give that up (though I think there might be less confusion if everyone dropped the "UNBALANCED!!!!!" canard ). They need to be supported, too. Even if that means an old-school "thief that sucks at combat" is an option I need to opt into, rather than part of what the game presumes. It's a price I'm willing to pay if that keeps a chunk of the 4e diehards on board, even if I don't ever really D&D play in that style.
Last edited by Morrus; Tuesday, 24th July, 2012 at 09:18 PM.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Tuesday, 24th July, 2012, 07:10 PM #2
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
I can't easily disagree.
I think it would be very tricky to do a game that did both. But it's not impossible to have a module that enables something close to balanced encounter-based play. It would be a very complex set of optional rules, likely not for the faint of heart. As it changes so many options it would require a lot of fine tuning and exclusion of some abilities.
The payoff for the time invested might make it impractical.
My gaming Webcomic 5 Minute Workday at www.5mwd.com
Tuesday, 24th July, 2012, 07:30 PM #3
Magsman (Lvl 14)
It is also a balance issue, no matter how you space the rest phases, if only one part of the party has significant expendable resources. If Wizard spells are only as strong as Fighter attacks, then it's not a problem. but they have never been that. A Fireball deals 5d6 in a 20 ft radius is better than a Fighter dealing 1d8+10 to a single enemy.
That's why I say that we don't need to worry about having a 15 minute adventuring day - we need to worry about asymmetric class resources that make resting more beneficial for one class then another.
Mustrum "Gummibńrchen helfen auch" Ridcully
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World
- containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Tuesday, 24th July, 2012, 08:05 PM #4
A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)
I think you can do it with a time-shift, and some attention to ensuring it's not easy to bork an encounter.Originally Posted by Jester Canuck
Mathematically, by the numbers, that's not really true. That wizard puts out ~18 points of damage, spread around maybe an average of 3 monsters, for a total of 54 points of damage once per day, and if that fighter that deals ~15 points of damage hits 3 or 4 times before the day ends, they've put out very nearly the same amount of damage.Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
But that's kind of irrelevant. Some folks dig encounter-based design as a matter of personal preference, regardless of the logic behind it. Putting a whole day's XP into each encounter and keeping the rest after each encounter helps fix that, since it makes the party chew through everything all at once, without even an illusory option for stopping halfway through.
Tuesday, 24th July, 2012, 08:58 PM #5
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
If your going to time shift to an encounter-based system, I could see high level play being troublesome for the sheer number of abilities that would be expected to be spent in a single encounter. To that, there may be consideration to cutting down the number of abilities in this sort of playstyle to thwart overly long encounters. Perhaps a "pick X of your Y abilities for this encounter" or, when you hit X uses of "daily" abilities, your out for the encounter (same idea, one requires forethought, the other is "on the fly").
Other than that, seems like a nifty idea.
Tuesday, 24th July, 2012, 10:23 PM #6
Gallant (Lvl 3)
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
° Ignore dammitbiscuit
Tuesday, 24th July, 2012, 11:15 PM #7
Superhero (Lvl 15)
If the fighter deals his damage 3 times more each encounter (day is irrelevant with your proposed spell recovery), the wizards has to have less than 3 spells. And this doesn't include the wizard's spells ability to hit multiple enemies at a time.
Saying that encounter recovery doesn't result in balance issues under D&D basic till 3.5 shows a lack of understanding.
Reducing the amount of spells for each encounter could work.
Wednesday, 25th July, 2012, 12:01 AM #8
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Minneapolis, MN
° Ignore MatthewJHanson
I think it's important to address encounter-based design and I think this is a good start. There are some potential difficulties i could for see (like so much in D&D I'm nervous it will break down at high levels), but overall I approve.
Cavemen, wizards, sky pirates, and cyborgs unite to stop an evil that threatens to destroy time itself. The Kronocalypse is now funding on Kickstarter!
Wednesday, 25th July, 2012, 12:19 AM #9
Furthermore, with that much packed into each encounter, there should be plenty for each character to do without feeling overshadowed by any other player.
My main concern with this style of play would be the same as I had with 4e: there really ought to be some morale rules to use when the tide of battle has irrevocably turned in the PCs' favor, without expecting the players to go through the grind of finishing their foes off (of course, if all resources are replenished after the encounter, this can be pretty easily hand-waved).
Wednesday, 25th July, 2012, 03:02 AM #10
A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)
It scales. If the wizard can do it three or four times per day, the fighter might need another six or twelve hits to "catch up," but you can peg it at whatever you need with the knowledge that each additional spell/day means an extra few rounds of fighter output. An average 4e adventuring day of 3 encounters is about 18 hits, so using that as a metric, our 1d8+10 fighter deals 270 damage, and our 5d6 wizard needs about 5 fireballs (or fireball-equivalents made of lower-level spells) per day to keep pace.Originally Posted by Walking Dad
Personally, I'd even encourage fighters to have a slight edge on raw damage output to encourage wizards to use their spells very tactically. Rather than 1d8+10 (pfft. That's peasant damage), I'd like to see 5th level fighters with, I dunno, 5d8+5. Extra actions, extra attacks, and extra damage can all blow that up even further: Fighters are SUPPOSED to be the reliable class! Meanwhile, if that wizard blows that fireball on a lone kobold, they may fry it, but then their total damage for the day is going to be lower than a fighter's. Meanwhile, if they manage to bunch all the kobolds together in a ten-by-ten room, maybe the wizard has earned his slight damage spike over the fighter by being super effective. And I'd also encourage spells per day to be low, so to encourage that "running out of resources" vibe, and just to make things cleaner overall.
Now, 1d8+10 damage doesn't compare to, say, Fly, but that's a bit of a problem with pillars (combat vs. exploration) and not a problem with the maths. And I could live with a nerfed fly (say, something that requires an action to keep active) as a default, if it means a more inclusive game!
Originally Posted by StormonuThis mostly depends on how unweildy high level magic gets. Like in any edition of D&D, it might turn into the Options Hydra that paralyzes everyone. And those who aren't paralyzed might leverage obscure low-level spells to twink the game. But balancing lower-level spells with high-level use in mind is part of what I think is the designers' job, and I think 5e's "flat curve" can help ameliorate this: we don't need to see high level casters with 50 spells per day. I'd be content if a high level wizard could cast 10. There might be a more choice middle ground. Maybe 28, if the wizard tops out at 4/day of each spell level and there's 7 basic spell levels? As long as you keep them roughly equal in output to a fighter over the course of a day, making every encounter a day's worth of XP works clean and nice.Originally Posted by MatthewJHanson
Sure, that works!Originally Posted by Rune
Also, if you're finding combat too long, you might space out the recovery a bit more. Maybe every milestone (so each encounter is half a day!) or every 3 encounters (so you can get the three-act structure!) or whatever you feel comfortable with. Since it's mostly about playstyle, you can set it at whatever point you need (whatever "makes sense to you" or gets the players to act as you desire) without worrying too much about the numbers involved in output. Time shifting your rests is CRAZY flexible like that.
Last edited by Kamikaze Midget; Wednesday, 25th July, 2012 at 03:48 AM.