I see this stated from time to time, but don't know what the claim is based on. What will go wrong if you use encounters at a wide range of difficulties in a game with encounter powers? (Obviously some will be harder and some easier, but why is that a problem?)
Here, Let Me Fix "Powers Per Day" For You
- Thread starter CleverNickName
- Start date
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Yes, it often is.
When I use rain of blows and it gives me two attacks as a Fighter, that means I can mark two opponents this round. This may give the Wizard, that is stuck between the two foes and cannot shift out from both some breathing room so he may actually risk casting a ranged spell to deal with an artillery foe that is likewise hard to reach in melee and is hammering the Rogue - knowing both enemies may get an Opportunity Attack, but at a -2 penalty, and I'll likely deal at least some damage to one of them as well.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
This thread seems to be drifting away from 5th Edition discussion, and more toward a discussion of general roleplaying methods and styles...
When the party encounters a monster, they shouldn't just assume that combat is going to occur. And they certainly should not assume that if it does, it will be matched to their power level. They should always be wondering whether or not they can take that orc in a fight, or if they should try to sneak past it, or bargain with it, or trick it somehow instead.
Either way, it boils down to an average of 0 to 2 random encounters in any 24-hour period.
The types of encounters vary by location, as well. In a large town, the party is likely to randomly encounter pickpockets, muggers, prostitutes, wandering merchants, thieves trying to sell stolen goods, and so forth. And just because they are called "encounters" doesn't imply that they should result in mortal combat. Instead, they are there to enhance the story and to make the setting feel more "alive."
For example, in one of my last adventures, the fighter caught a 5-year old street urchin trying to pick his pocket. Sure, he could have killed the thief with a flick of his knife, but the local officials would have arrested him for murder. So the player had to role-play that situation out, and I had to do some quick improv to compensate. He chased the kid down the street and into an abandoned building, where he discovered a group of orphans living in squalor. "Where are your parents?" he asked, and discovered that the kids had escaped from a band of slave traders, who had a lair just outside town. Boom, another adventure hook: destroy the slave traders.
They are usually carrying a variety of weapons, after all, so I don't always know what they mean by "I attack." Usually, I ask them to narrate their actions. Nothing too dramatic, just something along the lines of "I attack the closest goblin with my crossbow," or "I throw a vial of alchemist fire at the priest, hoping to interrupt his spell." Even when their usual action isn't possible (like when a character gets disarmed), they call actions like "I shout insults at him while executing total defensive."
S-B-T is problematic for a lot of reasons, and it can be hard to deal with when abused. The best way to handle it, IMO, is to keep the party guessing. By removing the assumptions that every encounter needs to result in battle, and that every battle will be evenly-matched to the party's level, they tend to be a little more cautious.
This might be off-topic, but these problems seem to come from an assumption that all encounters are "balanced" to the party's power level, or lower. And this is not always the case.
When the party encounters a monster, they shouldn't just assume that combat is going to occur. And they certainly should not assume that if it does, it will be matched to their power level. They should always be wondering whether or not they can take that orc in a fight, or if they should try to sneak past it, or bargain with it, or trick it somehow instead.
There are lots of ways to handle random encounters. I use the old-school rules from the BECM days: there is a 5% chance for a random encounter, modified by +/-5% depending on the location and the party's actions. The party is walking through a relatively safe town, keeping a low profile? 0% chance. They are sleeping in a vampire-infested crypt, and the party is building campfires and setting off flare guns (magic missiles)? 10% chance.
Either way, it boils down to an average of 0 to 2 random encounters in any 24-hour period.
The types of encounters vary by location, as well. In a large town, the party is likely to randomly encounter pickpockets, muggers, prostitutes, wandering merchants, thieves trying to sell stolen goods, and so forth. And just because they are called "encounters" doesn't imply that they should result in mortal combat. Instead, they are there to enhance the story and to make the setting feel more "alive."
For example, in one of my last adventures, the fighter caught a 5-year old street urchin trying to pick his pocket. Sure, he could have killed the thief with a flick of his knife, but the local officials would have arrested him for murder. So the player had to role-play that situation out, and I had to do some quick improv to compensate. He chased the kid down the street and into an abandoned building, where he discovered a group of orphans living in squalor. "Where are your parents?" he asked, and discovered that the kids had escaped from a band of slave traders, who had a lair just outside town. Boom, another adventure hook: destroy the slave traders.
I try to remind my players that there are countless possible actions every round, not just the ones listed on their character sheets. Even at low levels, the characters have a lot more options than just saying "I attack" over and over again. And when they do, I ask them to be more specific.
They are usually carrying a variety of weapons, after all, so I don't always know what they mean by "I attack." Usually, I ask them to narrate their actions. Nothing too dramatic, just something along the lines of "I attack the closest goblin with my crossbow," or "I throw a vial of alchemist fire at the priest, hoping to interrupt his spell." Even when their usual action isn't possible (like when a character gets disarmed), they call actions like "I shout insults at him while executing total defensive."
S-B-T is problematic for a lot of reasons, and it can be hard to deal with when abused. The best way to handle it, IMO, is to keep the party guessing. By removing the assumptions that every encounter needs to result in battle, and that every battle will be evenly-matched to the party's level, they tend to be a little more cautious.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
I don't think it was ever mandated in any rulebook; I think it just sort of evolved through the years.
A while ago, a group of 1st level characters encountered an ogre in a cave. I had told them earlier that ogres were notoriously stupid, so I expected them to try to hoodwink the ogre into letting them pass. But no, they drew swords and attacked. The resulting battle killed two of the characters. Then the players got angry with me because I didn't give them a balanced encounter.
"We are only first level!" they cried. "Why are you making us fight ogres at first level?"
My response: a facepalm.
I did not "make" them attack the ogre. To the contrary, I had given them more than enough hints about how to handle the situation. But as soon as they saw the ogre, everyone's eyes went to their character sheets and they started planning an ambush. I guess for some players, "monster" always means "combat."
I believe other editions allow multiple attacks but not once an encounter...wait for it...every round!
This is true but with a caveat just because some people have an issue with a game design does not mean the majority does and fixing it only creates more problems.
Why do so many people feel the need to look at everything in the extremes?
You don't have to do it for every plot but if you do it enough your players learn that if they want to succeed they need to manage their resources.
If you allow your players to nova and then rest every single time then you have taught them that this okay with you and there is no consequence in doing it.
But if you don't always allow it, if you make it difficult for them and they learn that you are more than willing to TPK the party if they choose to play that way then they know if the want to live they need to be more careful with their resources.
It really is not that hard and it does not have to be done in every plot or every session just enough so that the players don't know if it is going to happen.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
And how often can the previous edition Fighter that attacks twice every round mark a foe and attack enemies for attacking his allies?
It's not just about power. It's about the options it brings with it - normally you make only one attack, but occasionally you can do more than one. And, being a Fighter in this case, making more than one attack can allow you to mark multiple foes in a round which you normally can't. But you can do that only once per combat! Do you find the optimum time when to use this power, do you use it just for some extra damage this round, or can you eek out something extra, like reducing the pressure on one of your allies? You only get one shot in t his combat, so you want to make this power count.
How effective this power is is not used based on its own merits, but on the tactical situation. Maybe you use Rain of Blows when only one opponent is even in reach - and he dies on the first attack, basically wasting the entire power. Or you manage to mark two foes which leads to one miss, one successful opportunity attack against an enemy, and gives the group's wizard enough freedom to take down a bunch of minions that were shooting arrows at the Rogue the entire time.
Sure, attacking twice each round is powerful - but do bigger numbers alone make the game more interesting to you? For me options and smart use of limited abilities is more interesting than just getting another +x bonus to damage.
That's also why I really dislike +x magic items. Boring boredom of bore. Give me a weapon that shoot lightning once a day or combat or whatever over a +3 weapon - except, of course, I can do some basic math, and guesstimate that +3 weapon is probably better than that lightning, so I say "ah, well, this could have been fun, lightning weapon, but you're inferior in power and I am not gonna risk letting my friends die because you are cool."
I just want to add that one major cause (for me) of the 15-minute day is not "going nova" it running out of healing (especially at low level).
This is what's been happening for us in the Caves of Chaos. We'd like to keep going, but when the clerics are out of spells, we've all used our hit dice, and party members are on hit away from losing consciousness, we have to go back and rest. (And the threat of wandering monsters would likely force us to shorten our day even more).
This is what's been happening for us in the Caves of Chaos. We'd like to keep going, but when the clerics are out of spells, we've all used our hit dice, and party members are on hit away from losing consciousness, we have to go back and rest. (And the threat of wandering monsters would likely force us to shorten our day even more).
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Yeah, we've run into this a couple of times. Sometimes, no matter how well you manage your resources, you can run out of luck. Sometimes you have no other choice but to turn back and get more supplies.
I think a good DM would try to work with them when this happens--give them the opportunity to flee from combat if they encounter anything along the way, or swap out a healing potion for an equivalent value of coins in a treasure trove, that sort of thing.
Bad luck shouldn't be punished. But if the party is consistently and predictably having to return back home after only one battle, I don't think bad luck is the problem.
Similar Threads
