15 Minute Adventuring Day

[Pickles JG]

Granted, this assumes a fairly equal distribution of NAD attacks of different types and that each has a similar level of devastating effects if it hits, but as a general rule of thumb, that can probably be assumed.

I know DMs that pick on characters with low defences. Sometimes "honestly" as the attackers figure it out (or like in 3.5 when you know the cleric will have a rubbish ref save), other times due to ongoing vendettas etc. This makes the specific defences more appealing. Also there is a case for taking more than one of these feats improved defences as well as one other on or even all 3.

 

[S'mon]

The group I'm playing in, we'd think we were doing pretty darn well if we did 4 fights before an extended rest. Although last night we had 3 fights and my Thief took 0 damage the whole night (got attacked once - ranged burst vs my Reflex, which is 2 points higher than my AC, I was the only PC it missed), but we have a low DEX, low AC 2WF Minotaur Ranger with CON 10 who gets chewed up a lot.

But more generally I think the damage upgrade has finally made the game work as intended, with a typical party capable of 4 EL+0 encounters before needing to rest. GMs who still treat EL+2 as the standard are going to see problems and a lot of resting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

With the increase in monster damage last year, I've noticed a trend back towards the "15 minute adventuring day".

The biggest complaint about 4e has consistently been that it's not 3e. So, it's not surprising that it is slowly backsliding towards less balanced characters, harder-hitting monsters, and combats that are swingier and over in fewer rounds (if not less time at the table). Maybe save-or-die effects will even come back at some point.

Power inflation (or 'creep') is a fact of life for RPGs, and 4e's power creep has mostly been around offense. Things like expertise feats boosting attack rolls, and numerous options and combos delivering ever-higher DPR. Re-setting monster damage higher is one way to equalize that, but it's really just gasoline on the fire. Giving monsters more hps so they could stick around longer against the ever-meaner PCs would also have worked, but, it wouldn't have made 4e more like 3e. :shrug:

With combats taking fewer rounds, it makes more sense to unload dailies earlier in a fight rather than later, which means going through them faster in the course of a day. More monster damage may also mean going through surges faster. So, you get an impulse towards shorter (in encounters) adventuring days. The bigger monster damage, 'scaring' the party into unloading and resulting in fights ending in fewer rounds may also make the encounters look 'too easy' to the DM, who responds with higher-level monsters that might stick around for a few rounds, which cause the PCs to ratchet-up their alpha strikes and novas... a sort of campaign 'death spiral' that should be familiar from - you guessed it - 3e.

Essentials added some daililess classes, with more powerful at-will options. Such classes will tend to perform better, relative to conventional classes, the longer fights go and the more combats you have per day. So, there /could/ be some enthusiasm to 'keep going' from anyone playing these classes. (Though, again, the same was true of 3e, and the preponderance of campaigns tended towards the novas and short days, and the fighters and such were simply overshadowed). While the addition of daililess classes may reduce the preasure towards the 5 minute work day, another change introduced in Essentials - the elimination of Item Daily limits & extra item dailies by Milestone - pushes in the opposite direction, removing one of the rewards for reaching another milestone.

Anyway, yes, the way 4e has evolved has provided more and more incentives for PCs to return to the 15-min workday.

Our PCs got so efficient that we would probably average about 7 encounters (give or take depending on how difficult they were)

Early on, that was my experience, as well. We could handle 6+ encounters in a 'day.' Not every day. It was grueling, with PCs entering combats with only 1 surge left, but with Action Points and extra Item Daily uses at each milestone, there were incentives to go one more encounter, even when you were pretty badly battered. But, we had a Warlord and a lot of humans with Action Surge, so Action points were pretty butch, even at Heroic.

 

[Aegeri]

To be honest this isn't really anything to do with power creep and more that paragon/epic monsters have the teeth they have *always* needed to have. They were chronically underpowered from the start - especially solos - and have desperately needed the additional teeth. The fact really is that 4ish encounters in a day was always supposed to be normal. Mulching through EL + 4 encounters without taking a dent was not supposed to be normal. This was BEFORE any splat books - PCs at paragon/epic from the start vastly outclassed the poorly thought out damage scaling (and poor power design) of many paragon/epic monsters.

Now 4 encounters at EL=party level are challenging. 3 encounters and an EL+1 and EL+2 is an exciting, interesting and appropriate capstone encounter. When I was trying to challenge my epic level PCs I need an average EL+4 or higher encounter and really abuse every single monster power/ability I could. This was just to chip away at my PCs enough to maybe bloody the odd character here and there.

Now? I just use an EL+2 encounter and I don't need to ring every single HP of damage out of the monsters I use. It works far better and the game is now consistent across all tiers of play. Increasing monster HP would have been the worst idea I've ever heard of incidentally, because that would make combats - that were already boring one sided grind fests where the monsters were no threat - into even LONGER more boring one sided grind fests. Challenging encounters would be entirely based on stunning and dominating PCs for every turn possible.

Really, you think that would be more fun?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Power creep definitely had something to do with it, and the beef-up didn't just affect Paragon & Epic. I was in an Heroic campaign when the DM broke out some Displacer Beasts from the MV, and, *blat* one PC dropped in the firt round (OK, surprise round +1 regular round). I glanced through the MV, and it seemed like they just added a die to everything's damage more or less across the board. :shrug:

Whatever the /reason/, though, higher monster damage will lead to combats ending in fewer, bloodier rounds, as the PCs feel forced to pull out all the stops - or, if they don't, take tons of damage - which means fewer combats/day. Exactly the phenomenon the OP is noticing.

And, not unfamiliar to those of us who remember 3e.


Personally, I don't get the idea that fewer rounds of combat is more fun. I like playing the game, I'd rather play through 6 rounds of combat than 2. Two is barely getting warmed up. One of the great things about 4e was it made the default combat take more rounds and involve more monsters. (The default 3e combat was 1 monster of CR = level; the default 4e combat is 5 standard equal level monsters.) 4e combats were tactically much more engaging. The 'nova' strategy didn't work because monsters had more hps and there were no save-or-dies. So, encounters became tactical exercises, where round-by-round decisions mattered. If you stuck to the old strategy, you did, indeed, have combats where you might anihilate one monster, or bloody a solo or whatever, in a round or few, but you were then left 'grinding' away at the remains of the encounter with your at-wills; if, OTOH, you took a more tactical aproach, you led with at-wills, and used encounters (and maybe dailies) at optimal times. The combat would still take a fair number of rounds, but they'd be interesting rounds. The game supported a different style, initially, and not everyone caught on to it. Now the game supports the styles prevelent in 3e a little more, though, obviously, still not as well as 3e did.

 

[Aegeri]

Power creep definitely had something to do with it, and the beef-up didn't just affect Paragon & Epic.

Heroic monsters actually have much better design as well - power wise. If you think the MV Displacer Beast is bad, you've obviously not seen an encounter with anything that immobilizes and storm shards (MM2). Storm shards do something like 1d6+6 damage and if you fail to move 4 squares on your turn, you take an additional 3d6+6 damage.

Did I mention they are level 4 artillery? Did I mention they are Monster Manual 2 and therefore nowhere near the update?

As for power creep, I can't help but laugh at that because I bet you didn't see a party that was the original (unerrataed) versions of things like the Warlord (Whoring Quickening Order and Relentless Assault), a orb Wizard Bloodmage, a Infernal Warlock multiclass Wizard with... BLOODMAGE, a Cleric whoring Righteous Smite (for the Warlord to hit with Lead the Attack) and a Daggermaster Rogue. I mean that right there is a party that slaughtered Dagon in 2 rounds. Two rounds. Why? Because put simply it couldn't be challenged with monsters at the time, blowing through all encounters with simple at-wills/encounters (minding the Bloodmages were both Archmages, if you know how that ED works you'll know what happened constantly).

That party is more powerful than anything that has come after it. Easily. In fact, that entire party has been nerfed by errata in one way or another in multiple places. There is a good reason for that.

Whatever the /reason/, though, higher monster damage will lead to combats ending in fewer, bloodier rounds, as the PCs feel forced to pull out all the stops - or, if they don't, take tons of damage - which means fewer combats/day. Exactly the phenomenon the OP is noticing.

I am not disagreeing with this, I am just pointing out this is the way things probably should have been. Aggressive fast combats and not huge grinds against monsters that - quite frankly - might as well not have been there in the first place.

Personally, I don't get the idea that fewer rounds of combat is more fun. I like playing the game, I'd rather play through 6 rounds of combat than 2.

I agree, but with the caveat that grinding out ineffectual monsters with a billion HP for six rounds is boring. An intense 3-4 round battle that leaves the PCs badly bloodied and injured - but was exciting from round 1 and didn't lose intensity "EG the cleanup is actually just as quick" is far better.

Believe me, when you need 7+ rounds of combat to scratch PCs into bloodied, you're not having fun.

4e combats were tactically much more engaging.

They still are. I mean I seem to be doing perfectly fine with this if you read the notes from my game.

So, encounters became tactical exercises, where round-by-round decisions mattered.

I 100% firmly disagree with this statement. There is no "tactical excercise" in engaging a group of creatures that will simply not be able to do *anything* to you whatsoever. The reason combats needed to go seven rounds was because the monsters would have no chance of bloodying an epic level PC without it. You had to artificially extend combat by abusing stun and dominate powers. Have you noticed with the increased damage the amount of abuse that paragon/epic monsters do with stun/dominate has disappeared? It's simply no longer required to make challenging fun combats.

in a round or few, but you were then left 'grinding' away at the remains of the encounter with your at-wills

No offense, but you sound like you didn't play a lot of epic pre-MM3. PCs would grind away with their at-wills ANYWAY because monsters weren't enough of a threat to bother using dailies on in the first place.

Believe me, if I got my PCs to spend dailies I was pleased. It meant they were actually threatened for once.

I basically disagree with everything you wrote. I don't know how much epic pre-MM3 you played, but it was full of boring grinding combats that required immense preparation time and - hell I'll outright say it - just abusing monsters ability to chain stun/daze/dominate to be challenging. Having to deny a player their turn consistently every round so the monsters had enough time to scratch down their HP was absolutely horrible.

Nothing tactical about it either, because the PCs had won from the get go and no matter what damage was done - nothing ever felt like it mattered. Epic combat felt like a boring grindy thing you just did to get to the next level. To fight more of the same ineffectual enemies full of HP.

I've wrote about my experiences with epic tier both pre and post MM3. I would never ever go back to pre-MM3 damage/power design if you paid me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The thing for me is about the pacing.

I don't have time in one session to run through 7-10 encounters. Cramming all that narratively into one day is also challenging. Usually there's only 3-5 encounters between narrative (and, thus, party) "rest periods." I want those 3-5 encounters to be able to threaten the party with death towards the end of them, to make the characters seem weathered and beaten back. Lower damage wasn't helping, since they'd end the "day" still nearly full of surges and yawning about it (especially if they were ranged combatants).

I grok that not everyone has this pacing, but higher damage helps me hit that pace better.

A fix, if you'd like, is to use lower-level enemies more often. It's harder for those of us craving damage to use higher-level enemies since the scaling defenses turn the thing into a grindfest pretty quick. Low-level enemies might be hit more often -- and killed faster -- but that's part of what will keep the pace nice and slow, letting you get in more encounters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As for power creep, I can't help but laugh at that because I bet you didn't see a party that was the original (unerrataed) versions of things like...

Happilly I was in better run campaigns than that, early on - between DM vigilance and player restraint, the early broken combos didn't much impact us.

There is a world of difference between corner cases like broken combos (which get errata'd, eventually - hopefully), and power inflation, which is broader and more general, and really only goes away when the rev rolls (if then).

Broken combos got nerfed. Monsters weren't beefed up to deal with them. Monsters are beefed up to deal with PCs that keep getting beefier.

The reason combats needed to go seven rounds was because the monsters would have no chance of bloodying an epic level PC without it.

I really have little interest in Epic. I've tried it, it didn't seem as badly broken as high-level 3e, but it didn't exactly leave me wanting more. Heroic and Paragon has been plenty, so far. I'm sure some campaign I'm in will eventually wander into Epic levels, but not for a couple of years, in all likelihood.

 

[Aegeri]

Given that you haven't seen much epic and I would also bet high paragon by extension, I don't think you've truly seen the worst that 4E got to. Let me assure you it was pretty bad.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Meh, I started hearing the 'grind' and 'padded sumo' complaints pretty early, in regards to Heroic. Mechanically, the 4e treadmill doesn't change that much from low level to very high, so I'd be surprised if there weren't similar factors behind the complaints at both ends.

What I noticed was that the early modules kept the 3e convention of using a much higher level monster as a 'serious' challenge. In 4e, that made the monster too frustrating to hit, resulting in long, boring, 'grinds' ... that could as easily end with a TPK as a PC victory. And, of course, what I already mentioned about the consequences of going nova too early in a 4e combat.

I think there was also a basic misconception about what constituted a 'challenge.' In the past, a 'challenge' was a heartbeat thing - if you weren't fearing for your PC's life, there was no challenge. In 4e, the tactical challenges weren't as often about simply surviving, but in winning through with enough resources intact to handle the rest of the adventure. Same-level encounters were designed to be 'speedbumps,' and I think that threw a lot of more experienced DMs who had been through the 3e death-spiral a few times.