Rule of Three 2/28

[KesselZero]

If XP is primarily earned through defeating "encounters" then having more of them (due to wandering monsters interrupting rest) is a benefit that just helps the party advance faster.

This. I just ran into this in my game; the PCs camped out mid-dungeon (though I did intend/expect them to at this point) and I made some wandering monster rolls. I kept rolling for Yes Monsters, so I threw a couple encounters at them, thinking I was wearing down their resources and showing them that they couldn't always just take 8 hours off with no consequences. Until my resident power-gamer said "Let's just stay in this room and grind XP!" and I slapped my forehead and realized that because I was playing 4e, my players were dominating random encounters with their encounter powers and were eventually going to get everything back with an extended rest anyway.

What if we went back to not having encounter powers? I realize that 15MAD generally applies to casters' daily powers, and must be combated with the various techniques put forth in this thread, but encounter powers are what make anything but fully-fleshed-out, full-sized combats a cakewalk. Removing encounter powers might bring back wandering monsters as a meaningful threat.

This is a fledgling thought with lots of ramifications I surely haven't thought of and it should be treated gently, like a baby bird.

 

[LostSoul]

There are a few quick solutions for 4E that you can apply.

1. Don't give them a chance to Extended Rest except in specific situations. Make sure they know what these are so they can make choices.

2. When they take an Extended Rest, give them back only 1 Healing Surge.

3. Don't give XP for fighting monsters. Give XP for Quests only.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

I think this is really what you are implying elsewhere in the post, but you really can't remove the problem with mechanics, at the root. What you can do is make the mechanics neutral, so that if the problem arises in an adventure, normal adventure techniques will readily address it.

That's all I was aluding to earlier, that the mechanics should not encourage the party from going the 15MAD. It doesn't have to discourage them--the adventure and situation will do that normally, when it makes sense.

There is nothing wrong with having strategic resources. But as several people have said, getting those resources back should not be easy or automatic.

I'd like to see the "Burnout" and "Jammed" limitations adapated from Hero System for D&D daily magic and items with activated powers. Basically, these are variants on charged items in Hero such that each time you use them, there is a chance that they become temporarily unusable. You then have to take them back to "base" or "the lab" or "your magic source" or whatever is appropriate to recharge or unjam them.

With spells, you'd like this tied to the level of the slot, level of the caster, and using the slot. When a spell is used, make some kind of check based on level (but not ability scores or skills or other variable means, unless tightly controlled), with more powerful slots having an increased chance of "burnout". If the check is failed, make it take increased time and/or resources to get it back.

Alternately, you could use an "ablative" version where each time a slot fails, it drops a level temporarily. That makes it a little less unpredictable over the course of an adventure.

Make the scaling of the modifiers for higher level slots such that losing (or reducing) your top level slots is somewhat likely, but lower levels ones are much less so. Between having fewer of the higher ones and increased chances of losing them, this will encourage the casters to focus on low level casting except when they really need more. Resting becomes increasingly inefficient, because it takes more and more time to recover fully (given foes more time to react).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This. I just ran into this in my game; the PCs camped out mid-dungeon (though I did intend/expect them to at this point) and I made some wandering monster rolls. I kept rolling for Yes Monsters, so I threw a couple encounters at them, thinking I was wearing down their resources and showing them that they couldn't always just take 8 hours off with no consequences. Until my resident power-gamer said "Let's just stay in this room and grind XP!" and I slapped my forehead and realized that because I was playing 4e, my players were dominating random encounters with their encounter powers and were eventually going to get everything back with an extended rest anyway.

The problem isn't contained to 4e or games with encounter powers. I had the same thing happened when the PCs found a portal that would continually dump monsters on them every 5 minutes.

The monsters were easy enough that they didn't have to use any spells to defeat them, the fighters could just attack with their swords until it died. Most of the time, they'd take no damage at all, but when they did they had enough potions and healing spells to keep fighting them for a long, long time. Instead of the logical "Maybe we should get out of here before that things summons more monsters", they said "You know how much XP we can get just sitting here?"

It wasn't until I told them I wouldn't give them any more XP for monsters from this portal that they decided to leave.

Sometimes I wonder if the solution isn't to remove ALL at will powers from the game, including "basic attack" and instead have things like "Attacking with sword" cost Endurance points or something so that even the fighters have to stop and rest for the night after a while.

But that's likely to make the 15MAD even worse....since any resource that runs out encourages people to get it back as quickly as possible.

 

[Hussar]

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.



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).

I think the point you're missing though KM is that so many of the "nova" powers just get so much better with larger numbers to work with. Take something like a summon monster spell. You cast it, and it lasts 1 round/level. If the combat ends and the monster(s) is still alive, then the remainder of that spell is wasted.

But, if the monster lasts to the end of the duration, then you got maximum effect for that spell, which makes the spell that much more powerful than it normally would be.

Or take something like Web or really, any "terrain" type spells. The bigger the encounter, the bigger that spell's effect will be. Drop the web on a single encounter when you have three more that day, and it's effects are considerably less than if all four encounters occur at the same time.

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.

But, honestly, that's not really what happens though. We've beaten this horse enough times. Unique mechanics are not required to make unique characters. Just because all classes use the same format does not make them "homogenous".

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sometimes I wonder if the solution isn't to remove ALL at will powers from the game, including "basic attack" and instead have things like "Attacking with sword" cost Endurance points or something so that even the fighters have to stop and rest for the night after a while.

In Basic D&D a combat is assumed to last 1 turn (10 minutes) the extra time being used for cleaning weapons, wound care etc.

A party must rest for 1 turn every hour or suffer penalties on all rolls until they do so.

This rule meant that, yes, even fighters had to have some downtime.

On the subject of powers, anything than can be used " at will" will be seen as limitless and treated as such. There should be an associated energy cost for any sort of power no mater how minor.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the point you're missing though KM is that so many of the "nova" powers just get so much better with larger numbers to work with. Take something like a summon monster spell. You cast it, and it lasts 1 round/level. If the combat ends and the monster(s) is still alive, then the remainder of that spell is wasted.

But, if the monster lasts to the end of the duration, then you got maximum effect for that spell, which makes the spell that much more powerful than it normally would be.

Or take something like Web or really, any "terrain" type spells. The bigger the encounter, the bigger that spell's effect will be. Drop the web on a single encounter when you have three more that day, and it's effects are considerably less than if all four encounters occur at the same time.

There's a terminology mismatch, here. "Nova" effects as I've been using the term refer to "spikes": you deal 20 damage once every 4 rounds, versus 5 damage every round for 4 rounds.

If the effect is persistent, it's not a nova. If you summon a critter to deal 5 points of damage every round for 4 rounds, you're effectively dropping the nova strategy, and trying to deal damage more like your non-nova contemporaries: consistent over time, rather than boom-and-bust.

So it's not that it gets more powerful -- it doesn't. It stays as powerful as your fighter buddies. It might be more powerful than your normal wizard abilities, but that just brings you a rough equality.

But, honestly, that's not really what happens though. We've beaten this horse enough times. Unique mechanics are not required to make unique characters. Just because all classes use the same format does not make them "homogenous".

There's a lot of difference of opinion about this, and it is hardly a settled matter with one right answer. To me, 4e classes for instance (even with all their role difference and mechanical fiddliness) feel way, way too similar. Others think the difference is just fine. If 5e is going to recapture the feel of older editions, they're going to have to allow for much more dramatic difference between playstyles than 4e permitted.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the whole 15-min-day problem happens very rarely because people realize that it sucks to play the game like that, but still it's a problem because they still have in mind the temptation of trying that when an adventure gets tough.

The actual original problem is that a lot of people have a certain ideal of an adventure with MANY encounters. Players are more attracted by the idea of taking on "the world's largest dungeon" than a place with 3-4 battles only. Unless you make most of those encounters mostly unchallenging (which means less fun), there is no way that the D&D rules can allow that kind of scenario.

So if you really want to play like WoW, where you can just endlessly keep fighting with small rests in-between, be honest with yourself and abolish all the limits on spells per day and similarly limited abilities, or alternatively (if you still want the limits during each encounter) just "refresh" them all with 1-minutes rest and move along.

It's simply that D&D was never designed with that type of adventures in mind. Daily-limited resources were apparently considered a fundamental part of the original idea of D&D as a tactical game with encounters on the small scale. I think it is much easier to first design the core rules about such idea, and then suggest additional rules (short rest, refresh, automatic healing...) to stretch the limits as much as you want, rather than trying to cater the endless-encounters scenario with the first shot... just my 2cp.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

There's a terminology mismatch, here. "Nova" effects as I've been using the term refer to "spikes": you deal 20 damage once every 4 rounds, versus 5 damage every round for 4 rounds.

If the effect is persistent, it's not a nova. If you summon a critter to deal 5 points of damage every round for 4 rounds, you're effectively dropping the nova strategy, and trying to deal damage more like your non-nova contemporaries: consistent over time, rather than boom-and-bust.

Most people refer to nova as just meaning "Using all your best spells at once". Sometimes you nova by using your highest level summoning spell, sometimes it's your highest level damage spell. Basically, it's just a "Why use a fireball when you have a meter swarm available?" question.

If you expect to have to fight multiple encounters, you might open up with a magic missile to see if that kills the enemy...maybe they are weak, maybe they have protection up or something and you don't want to waste your good spells on weak enemies when there will be harder ones later. Maybe you even spend your first round delaying and waiting to see if the fighters kill it first.

If you know you are going to rest as soon as possible, you open up with a small, a quickened spell, and a swift action spell in the same round. The more enemies you can hit with those spells, the more effective the strategy is.

So it's not that it gets more powerful -- it doesn't. It stays as powerful as your fighter buddies. It might be more powerful than your normal wizard abilities, but that just brings you a rough equality.

It gets more useful. If a summon spell does 200 damage instead of 50 damage, then you've killed the enemy with less expenditure of resources. Which means the battle was easier and you are more able to handle more, if you have to.

The thing with summons is that you can summon them and do as much damage as the fighter buddies in addition to the other spells you cast...making you twice as good.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Most people refer to nova as just meaning "Using all your best spells at once". Sometimes you nova by using your highest level summoning spell, sometimes it's your highest level damage spell. Basically, it's just a "Why use a fireball when you have a meter swarm available?" question.

Well, using all your best spells at once is what causes the "spike." But if your best spells don't actually spike anything -- if they are long-term effects, rather than one-time effects -- there's no sudden increase in output. Just a modest bump that brings you in line with what the others are doing on a regular basis.

It gets more useful. If a summon spell does 200 damage instead of 50 damage, then you've killed the enemy with less expenditure of resources. Which means the battle was easier and you are more able to handle more, if you have to.

If a summon deals 200 damage over 4 rounds, then a "spike" deals 200 damage at once. The output over a given number of rounds is equal. The fighter is dealing 200 damage over 4 rounds, too. The worry about the nova is usually that they can do that 200 damage that is supposed to be once every 4 rounds, and make it EVERY round, by ending the encounter early and then recharging it. But if the game takes this into account by being capable of having encounters that are a full day in one, then the encounter doesn't end early -- it keeps going.

Maybe an example would help. We'll keep it simple and abstract. Fighter deals 5 points of damage every round. Wizard deals 50 points of damage for their "nova" effect (fireball!), and otherwise can't actually deal any damage -- weak wizarding arms y'know. Monsters have on average 50 hp. In a "normal adventuring day", this party of two fights two monsters: the wizard nukes one, and then the fighter chops away at the other.

The wizard then gets the genius idea for a 15MAD, so that the wizard can kill all the monsters all by herself: kill one monster, rest & recharge, then come back and kill the other.

The party goes out and has the wizard kill one monster, and then take a rest. Only, when they come back, they find that they must fight TWO monsters at once -- the DM has employed the system's ability to cram a whole day's worth of encounters into one encounter, and so the Wizard has lost the ability to exploit resting mechanics to always be at full power. The wizard still kills one monster, and the fighter still kills the other.

The wizard can still ask to rest after that one big fight, but the challenge has remained the same, the fighter still got to kill their monster, and the wizard still ran out of resources, so there's no balance issues. There might be a subtle pacing issue if the DM isn't comfortable with one big cinematic fight per day, but maybe the party will go back to stretching out their day instead, so they can pick off the monsters one at a time again.

So, what if the wizard summons something instead of using a fireball? Well, the wizard has just gained the miraculous ability to deal 5 points of damage every round instead of 50 points of damage at once. The wizard now equals the fighter.

So, what if the fighter employs 4e style daily abilities instead of just swinging their sword? Well, the fighter has just gained the miraculous ability to deal 50 points of damage once per day, instead of 5 points of damage every round. The fighter now equals the wizard.

The thing with summons is that you can summon them and do as much damage as the fighter buddies in addition to the other spells you cast...making you twice as good.

Oh, now the wizard has two spells? One that deals 50 damage, AND one that deals 5 damage per round?

Well, what's the fighter been doing this whole time the wizard has been getting another spell? Clearly, not just sitting at 5 damage per round like he was back when the wizard only knew one spell. Now, he's doing 10 damage per round (perhaps he has multiple attacks now!). Of course, our monsters now have about 100 hp, so it's not like it's much different, all told. The wizard still kills one (half it's HP in one fireball, half of it from the summon), and the fighter still kills one (all of it from attacks). Well, the fractions realistically get a little messy (maybe Fighter and Wizard each kill 1/2 of each monster; whatever), but the principle remains the same: a nova gives no real advantage.

Now, there can still be kind of genre issues with the 15MAD (one big combat feels a lot different than several smaller ones), but there's no longer gameplay issues with it -- it offers no tactical advantage, so there's no incentive to try to game the system like that.

It would be especially potent if combined with some requirements for rest -- say, resting consumes food, components, and other "upkeep" items. And extra-savvy in combo with adventure design that helps limit it (time limits, dangerous environments, etc.).