Rule of Three 2/28

[keterys]

Or they can just balance around the assumption of what's actually possible, rather than what they hope actually happens. (Well, we'll give them all this power... but no one would ever actually use it, would they?)

So, maybe the wizard daily does _12_ damage instead of 10, instead of 30, in the example I used. It's just that little bit better.

Maybe their at-will option (whether it's a crossbow, magic missile, or whatever) does 8 damage.

Okay, sure, their cool things are 50% cooler than their not cool things, they still get to go "Ooh, I have the perfect solution for this" and bust out something extra some of the time (trolls? I prepared fireball!), but it's not particularly plausible for them to get to an order of magnitude more effective than the (fighter / rogue / warlock / whatever).

And maybe they also have crazy cool rituals that can open gates to other planes and do huge terrain sweeping destruction or whatever... ie, like the rituals in unearthed arcana 3e, call of cthulhu, epic spellcasting, etc.

 

[hanez]

New players learn how to manage their stuff, experienced players joining our games are taught the error of their ways when everyone else is still going forward and they have to resort to throwing things or beating on the monsters with their sticks.

I guess the problem happens when the person who depletes his spells, convinces the rest of the group to rest. This often sets up a pattern where the whole group decides to always use their resources as quick as possible and then rest. Is there a way that this doesn't happen in your game? Short of adventure design and DM arbitration?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Or they can just balance around the assumption of what's actually possible, rather than what they hope actually happens.

The thing is, by using a combination of mechanics and adventure design, they can help to make what they hope to happen, actually happen.

If the problem is that the party novas and then rests, making resting less economical (a mechanical solution) and making them less sensible (a design solution) keeps that problem from occurring.

How do you assure that the latter happens? Well, if the game also includes ways to cram an entire day's worth of encounters into a single encounter, you don't need to. They keep resting? Okay. You keep giving them an onslaught encounter when they wake up. No problem.

 

[Kingreaper]

I guess the problem happens when the person who depletes his spells, convinces the rest of the group to rest. This often sets up a pattern where the whole group decides to always use their resources as quick as possible and then rest. Is there a way that this doesn't happen in your game? Short of adventure design and DM arbitration?

If the rest of the group isn't going to be convinced, that single player has to live with it.

So, in addition to GM arbitration, and adventure design, there's also the other players.

 

[tlantl]

I guess the problem happens when the person who depletes his spells, convinces the rest of the group to rest. This often sets up a pattern where the whole group decides to always use their resources as quick as possible and then rest. Is there a way that this doesn't happen in your game? Short of adventure design and DM arbitration?

I don't have a problem if the players choose this route. I have a couple of strong willed players who usually set the pace. Sometimes I have hard time keeping up. Most of the time the group is in travel mode heading to the next pile of treasure.

I don't like epic anything in my campaigns. There are no world changing events that only the heroes can prevent. In a world where there are leveled player characters there are leveled npcs too. Only a few are in opposition to the players, the rest just live and work there.

If the group finds themselves in a situation where their presence has triggered a response and the group leaves to rest, things become more interesting. If they breach a complex looking for something then leave, the next trip in will not be as easy or their objective will be gone.

Nothing in my world is suicidal, if they are out numbered or badly bloodied they run. If they are defending their homes and families they sacrifice themselves for them if there is no other recourse. A party leaving to rest has given up their advantage and now the monsters can flee, fortify, or follow them.

 

[keterys]

How do you assure that the latter happens? Well, if the game also includes ways to cram an entire day's worth of encounters into a single encounter, you don't need to. They keep resting? Okay. You keep giving them an onslaught encounter when they wake up. No problem

So, all of the combat for the day occurs in a single encounter, favoring the nova folks all the more... and they get more XP for that encounter than a normal one, likely having their awesome daily AoE effects even more effective.

You say that like it's a solution, but it only sounds like you've made the problem worse.

For some clarity, I'm being slightly more critical on this issue than I might normally be, largely due to a couple of responses (starting with WotC's and going downhill).

This is a serious problem for a bunch of groups. This is why 3e was a failure for many people, due to an imbalance between casters and non-casters. It's even why Vancian is a failure for many people, across all editions.

And it's totally possible to address it, as long as we don't say that people have the ability to cast every single spell they prepare on the fly then reprepare them by resting for a few hours. Limit them by some other game unit, limit how quickly they can come out, or limit their inherent effectiveness, limit them in any number of ways, and it's totally viable.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair Hanez (and others), I do agree with you. Adventure design is a solution to the problem. However, IMO, it's not the best solution since you're allowing the mechanics to dictate playstyle. Why not change the mechanics and then you can choose the playstyle you want?

See, if the solution to 15 MAD is to design every adventure to take that into account, then the mechanics are defining, at least in part, adventure design. That's a bit too heavy handed for my taste to be honest. I want adventure design to be based on what I feel (and the group hopefully agrees with) to be the most exciting adventure I can make.

Sometimes that's racing the ticking clock. Sometimes that's surviving the gauntlet of waves of rabid badgers. Sometimes that's carefully Greyhawking the entire dungeon.

What I don't want is for one option to be pretty much off the table, or be forced by the mechanics to design "nova" encounters.

Instead, I'd rather the mechanics largely stay out of adventure design. The "Tracking Resources" mechanics tend to push very strongly in a particular direction. By removing some of those tracking issues (particularly 3e healing IMO - wizards were never the problem for MAD), I gain the freedom to design how I want, rather than how the system wants me to.

Yes, you can solve 15 MAD through adventure design. I freely admit that. But, to me, that's a band aid solution. You're not really addressing the issue - just covering it over. I'd much rather a mechanical solution which removes the problem at the root.

 

[pemerton]

The ideal is that if the players spend 6 hours resting in the middle of the dungeon, ridiculously, and that sets them back 2 days, then ideally the villain's plan should be 2 days farther along than it otherwise would be.

I've found that 90% or more of the adventures I've run don't have a hard and fast time limit on them. Partially because it's more fun for me if the PCs arrive in the nick of time to stop the villain so I don't set hard and fast times for things.

I'm very much with Majoru Oakheart on this issue. I think that ideal is that the PCs find themselves in dramatic situations (in which they may or may not win) - not that they lose due to the dramatic events happening "off screen".

Having XP based on the strength of monsters killed leads to some odd incentives. From a metagame perspective, the 15-minute workday is incentivized, because if you run 15-minute workdays you can consistently take on tougher encounters, and so in terms of real-world time you level faster. Meanwhile, if accomplishing goals or foiling evil plots gives no XP, there is little metagame incentive to do so unless the players are all really into the story. I don't have a solution, and I don't really want monster-based xp to go away, but I acknowledge the point.

One solution might be to go [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s route and drop (whether de facto or de jure) daily powers - so there is no mechanical reason for the 15 MAD.

Another solution might be to change the mechanics so that all PCs are roughly balanced in daily power terms, and hence the 15 MAD doesn't cause any balance problems between PCs/players.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, all of the combat for the day occurs in a single encounter, favoring the nova folks all the more...

If all the HP and damage expected in a single day are crammed into one big monster (or a hoarde) I don't see how it "favors" nova folks. They blow their load, and there's still hundreds of HPs to go. They get no edge in that encounter, since they can't space it out.

and they get more XP for that encounter than a normal one, likely having their awesome daily AoE effects even more effective.

I don't follow the logic here. They get one "day's" worth of XP, just like they would in a normal adventuring day, and the AoE effects aren't necessarily better (big encounters can be with a handful of solos as much as it can be with a squad of minions).

This is a serious problem for a bunch of groups. This is why 3e was a failure for many people, due to an imbalance between casters and non-casters. It's even why Vancian is a failure for many people, across all editions.

And it's totally possible to address it, as long as we don't say that people have the ability to cast every single spell they prepare on the fly then reprepare them by resting for a few hours. Limit them by some other game unit, limit how quickly they can come out, or limit their inherent effectiveness, limit them in any number of ways, and it's totally viable.

If the only way in your mind to solve the problem is to homogenize what character classes can do, I think that's a non-starter for a lot of groups. There's other ways, I believe, to address the issue.

 

[keterys]

If the only way in your mind to solve the problem is to homogenize what character classes can do, I think that's a non-starter for a lot of groups. There's other ways, I believe, to address the issue.

Indeed - that's why I never even mentioned homogenizing what classes can do. It's odd that you bring it up?

I do want someone wanting to play a 3e style warlock (few at-will spells) to compare to a 3e style wizard (big tree full of dailies), whether they're doing 1 big 8-round encounter or 5 separate 4-round encounters... or 10 small encounters throughout a dungeon complex that each last 1 to 3 rounds.

So, it's an interesting challenge