15 Minute Adventuring Day

[Raven Crowking]

version 1.0 of anything is a lot worse than later refinements.

Truth!

Trying to do your own design work is a certain way to gain a lot more sympathy for the pros!


RC

 

[Riastlin]

You are looking at it as black and white percentage of number of books.

First, not all of the PHB errata is about feats, powers, etc.

Some of it is skills and other aspects which are under the control of the players designing a PC.

Of course. But then, not all of the remaining 103 pages of errata not from PHB1 is dealing with player options either. Some of it is dealing with SC's, or with diseases, etc.

Second, you are forgetting about lessons learned.

The designers put together the PHB and the community found gaping holes in it right away. The PHB is version 1.0 of 4E. Sorry, but balance-wise, it sucked in some places. It has a lot of non-obvious on the surface balance bugs.

Why? Because just like software design, version 1.0 of anything is a lot worse than later refinements.


PHB 2 is version 1.5 of 4E. There is a lot fewer errata on PHB 2 because the designers made fewer obviously bad mistakes. They learned from their earlier mistakes.


Martial Power came out in November 2008 and it had a brand spanking new mechanic of Battlerager which totally ignored minion damage and totally unbalanced Fighters with a plethora of free hit points multiple times per round. Opps. Another lesson learned. Another errata. This is only 5 months after the PHB came out and was already on the drawing boards. Such an obviously bad design wasn't caught because the designers hadn't yet learned as much what to do and what to not do.


It takes time for the designers to start getting it right. Heck, the second re-design of the skill challenge table took 2 years to implement. The orignal sucked and was way too hard in some cases. The first re-design was pushed out quickly and still sucked, just in the opposite direction (it still heavily disregarded the math). The third re-design is pretty darn close to the actual math, but it's still too easy (Medium DCs are nearly 100% success for most trained PCs, that's not medium, that's easy), but not as egregious as the second design.

This is exactly our point. Your argument has been that there's a definite power creep due to all these new options, synergies, etc. which is what forced the change in monster damage. And yet, it seems evident that they learned their lessons and made far fewer mistakes as time went on. Those new options were not inherently more powerful and/or too powerful. Rather, they were just right. More options does not have to mean more power. Ideally, more options simply mean more options. A character that chooses to use a hammer instead of a sword for instance should, ideally, be equally effective as the sword user for instance. Just because he has access to a second weapon should not mean that he's more powerful. Same goes for powers, feats, etc. If the later books were showing a clear trend of power creep as you have suggested, then we would be seeing at least as much errata, if not more. Instead though, most of the errata is from the earliest book(s) which would suggest that power creep is not, in fact, a problem.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Good point UngeheuerLich. When the ranger took 114 points of damage from a single monster's first turn (putting her 1 point from death), it was really only because the monster was using the MM3 numbers. The monster was I believe (don't have my notes in front of me) 1 level below the party's. Under the old damage expressions, I'm not even sure the ranger would have been bloodied by the same sequence. Had I been using a monster 2 or 3 levels above the party's level, the ranger would have been well and truly dead. What the ranger learned was that wandering off by yourself in a dungeon that's known to be dangerous is not a particularly bright idea. What I learned was that, as you say, equal level encounters can be just as frightening as level +4 encounters used to be.

I fully expect that if I always throw encounters at the party that are a couple levels above theirs, they'll be wanting to take frequent extended rests. By using equal-level encounters though, they're able to get in a number of encounters before needing to take an extended rest.

And the ranger in turn could have killed the monster by pulling all strings i guess:

Daily ---> action point ----> daily -----> minor action attack.

Which would have most probably not worked if you had put him up against a level+4 monster, that has defenses 5 points higher and more hp. A level -1 monster most probably is hit with everything the ranger uses againt him. (If he is an elf or a human, chances are great)

 

[Riastlin]

And the ranger in turn could have killed the monster by pulling all strings i guess:

Daily ---> action point ----> daily -----> minor action attack.

Which would have most probably not worked if you had put him up against a level+4 monster, that has defenses 5 points higher and more hp. A level -1 monster most probably is hit with everything the ranger uses againt him. (If he is an elf or a human, chances are great)

Indeed. Its not quite an auto-hit for him, but he does hit more often than not to be sure. Point being though, it makes for more entertaining combats in general and much of the grindy feel is going away as each turn seems to be important and there's less of a sense of inevitability.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, so the ranger got all but one-shotted by a monster, but that's OK, because he could pull out all the stops and blat the monster before it did anything, too... and that's where 5 minute work days come from. The monsters are so fearsome you have to take them out /fast/, you do that by going nova. Then you rest. Every bit as undesireable as a 'grind' IMHO.

I guess they're really two sides of the same coin. There's a player/DM dynamic. When it gets out of whack, it can spiral out of control, and that spiral takes you either to the badder and badder monsters and the bigger and bigger novas and shorter and shorter 'days,' until the DM finally takes it too far and whipes the party; or it goes the other way, with more and more reluctance to use daily resources, longer and grindier encounters and longer and longer days, that end with cool resources un-used. Obviously neither is desireable, and clearly the game can nudge the dynamic one way or the other.

But, ultimately it's a matter of how you play the game, and the DM and players can just go, "y'know, there's an obvious impulse to do /this/, but I'm not going to, I'm going to remember I'm actually trying to get an heroic fantasy feel out of this game, and act accordingly...'

 

[Riastlin]

Yeah, so the ranger got all but one-shotted by a monster, but that's OK, because he could pull out all the stops and blat the monster before it did anything, too... and that's where 5 minute work days come from. The monsters are so fearsome you have to take them out /fast/, you do that by going nova. Then you rest. Every bit as undesireable as a 'grind' IMHO.

To be fair, the ranger ran into an elite that action pointed and was able to land 4 of 5 attacks, including a crit. Not something that is going to come up all that often. Also, this was the party's third encounter of the day and they will have no problem (resource-wise) going through another. The ranger, for instance, had been barely touched prior to this because she had, wisely, stayed in the back lines firing her bow at monsters.

In other words, I really don't see the party needing to Nova every combat in order to survive. They will have to watch their tactics of course, but not necessarily nova. Now I do think that it might prove difficult, at least for a few levels, for them to go say 7 encounters in a day, but 4 or 5 shouldn't be a problem. Throw in a skill challenge and some social interaction and you have a pretty well-paced day in my opinion. Of course, every group has different desires, so your mileage may vary.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is exactly our point. Your argument has been that there's a definite power creep due to all these new options, synergies, etc. which is what forced the change in monster damage. And yet, it seems evident that they learned their lessons and made far fewer mistakes as time went on. Those new options were not inherently more powerful and/or too powerful. Rather, they were just right. More options does not have to mean more power.

More options means more synergies.

Ideally, more options simply mean more options.

No. If I have 1 way to kill you, you only have to defend against one thing. If I have 5 ways to kill you, you have to defend against 5 things and monsters don't have that luxury.

A character that chooses to use a hammer instead of a sword for instance should, ideally, be equally effective as the sword user for instance. Just because he has access to a second weapon should not mean that he's more powerful.

No, it means that he is more versatile. With the sword, he hits more often. With the hammer, he does more damage or knocks foes down.

Increased Versatility = Increased Power.

We must not be playing the same game. In our encounters, the players who have options are more capable than the 3E Fighter who just goes up and swings each round.

Same goes for powers, feats, etc. If the later books were showing a clear trend of power creep as you have suggested, then we would be seeing at least as much errata, if not more. Instead though, most of the errata is from the earliest book(s) which would suggest that power creep is not, in fact, a problem.

I didn't say that the later books were showing a trend of power creep. I actually think (and have said multiple times now) that it isn't the power of the individual feat, item, power, or class feature. Those are reasonably well balanced. It's the synergy of multiple ones being added together, both at the PC level and the party level.

It's better to refer to it as synergy creep, not power creep.


WotC hasn't put out an errata since October. So, the mistakes in the most recent books are relatively unknown.


Arcane Power is 160 pages. PHB is 320 pages.

Arcane Power came out almost 2 years after PHB, but it still has almost 8 pages of errata. Why? Because although the designers learned a lot in those 2 years, they still have a lot of unanticipated synergy creep. 5% additional errata compared to the PHB's 7% additional errata.

That's still a significant amount.

Martial Power 3%. PHB 2 3%

Yes, the earliest releases have the highest percentage of errata. But, it's not because synergy creep doesn't exist. It's because the earliest releases have the most scrutiny by the gaming community and we are now at a saturation point where WotC is hesitant about putting out more errata.

You are basing your assumptions off a false premise. The premise that less errata means a product with less synergy creep.


Do you really think that a Pacifist Cleric is LESS capable of healing than the original Cleric?

Do you really think that more healing in a party makes the party weaker than before???

The synergy and hence group power increase of having stronger healing in a group is HUGE.

 

[Tony Vargas]

More healing also makes encounters seem easier because people aren't spending a lot of time bloodied or making death saves.


Other random points from trying to catch up on the thread:

...

4e did introduce milestones, which grant Action Points and (pre-E) extra uses of your item dailies, so there was definitely a mechanism that rewarded pressing on.

...

I think a lot of the perception of a combat being 'too easy' comes from the expectations built up in 'death spiral' 3.x campaigns. That a 'hard' combat is one in which PCs die if they let a monster stay up for more than a round or two, and that 'hard' combats are won through via nova tactics.

...

Bigger numbers are always the easiest way to answer the complaint that something isn't good enough, or to make something new 'interesting' and 'worthwhile.' Easiest <> Best.

...

Yes, there's been power inflation/creep over the life of 4e. No, fixing broken combos with errata does not mean there's been no power inflation.

...

'bout it... hard to keep up with this thread...

 

[Riastlin]

More options means more synergies.

But more synergies doesn't necessarily equate to more power. Rather, it means you can do one or two things particularly well, but are likely not as good at others. A wizard can become pretty darn good with psychic powers and deal a lot of damage/control. But to get exceedingly good (i.e. maximize synergies) he has to sacrifice other areas and he'll definitely feel that when he comes up against creatures resistant to psychic damage or with high wills.



No. If I have 1 way to kill you, you only have to defend against one thing. If I have 5 ways to kill you, you have to defend against 5 things and monsters don't have that luxury.

No, it means that he is more versatile. With the sword, he hits more often. With the hammer, he does more damage or knocks foes down.

Increased Versatility = Increased Power.

No, it doesn't. Usually in fact, versatility comes with the trade off of not being as powerful in any one facet, but capable in a multitude of areas. versatility is certainly a form of power, but it generally comes with a price. Otherwise, by your definition, everybody should just play a bard and watch the DM cry. After all, no class comes anywhere near to the bard in terms of versatility. A bard can get just about any power, most feats, most paragon paths and epic destinies, etc. So clearly, the bard must be far and away the most powerful class in the game. Don't get me wrong, the 4e bard is a great class that is pretty much perfectly balanced with all the others, but its not far and away the most powerful class. They are the Jacks of All Trades, but the Masters of None. Their versatility makes them as powerful as the rest, not more powerful.

We must not be playing the same game. In our encounters, the players who have options are more capable than the 3E Fighter who just goes up and swings each round.

Evidently we aren't since there are no 3e characters in my 4ed game. And for an equally useless comparison, the modern day marine would kick the 4ed fighter's butt in my opinion.

I will agree though that I would find a 3e fighter incredibly boring to play and that 3e was rather unbalanced. The unbalancing was not so much a factor of the number of spells available to casters though as it was a factor of what those spells could do. Going back to the 4ed Bard example, he's not overpowered despite all those options. But if the bard were to heal like a cleric, control like a wizard, hit like a sorceror, and tank like a fighter, then it would be overpowered.

It's better to refer to it as synergy creep, not power creep.

Again I'll reiterate that synergy makes you better in certain areas, but generally at a price in others.

WotC hasn't put out an errata since October. So, the mistakes in the most recent books are relatively unknown.

A fair point.

Do you really think that a Pacifist Cleric is LESS capable of healing than the original Cleric?

Do you really think that more healing in a party makes the party weaker than before???

The synergy and hence group power increase of having stronger healing in a group is HUGE.

Actually, I believe I already stated that surgeless healing (and hence the pacifist cleric) was the biggest example of creep in the game. And oh by the way, it was also hit with the nerf bat pretty much across the board.

I do think though that perhaps I should clarify. There has been some creep. Its almost impossible to avoid creep altogether after all. However, creep is not what necessitated the change in monster damage. Monsters, particularly at high levels, were easily outclassed from the get go. That has been a constant in the game throughout 4ed. Even my less optimizing players find themselves rarely missing. Its usually a small thing for a party to gain quick control of the situation. This isn't necessarily bad, after all the PCs should usually win, but it got to the point where it was nearly impossible to challenge the party without making the encounter at least 3 or 4 levels above the party's, or by putting in "bad" combos of monsters (like the wraiths of the White Shrine).

Did they go too far? I don't know, only time will tell. Must the party nova every fight in order to survive? No, unless the DM has failed to adjust and is still throwing L +3 or 4 encounters at the party on a regular basis. At the end of the day though, we are finding the fights a lot more entertaining, which is what counts. They are not 5 minute work days, but the players are having to think things through more carefully. Most equal level encounters will still be fairly doable for the party, but they do require the players to play smart. They can't just wade in and start swinging. They can't always save up all their dailies for the final boss fight either, which is also making those fights better. Coincidentally, using dailies earlier can also help extend the work day as it allows the party to use fewer surges.

Edit to add: Kudos btw for being polite in your disagreement. Far too many people would simply go into a rage.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The symptom of a 15 work day is something that was apparent in 2nd edition already. Our DM just told us we are not tired back then. Problem solved.

You just can´t rest. As long as there is any resource that does not come back after each combat you have 15 min work days if you want.

And i don´t call 4 encounters 15 min workday. It is actually quite a lot. Nearly half a level.