So I ran a 6-8 encounter day...

[Ancalagon]

I really think it was a mistake to retain the short rest mechanic from 4E. The older editions functioned so much better without it.

I don't know... it adds problems, but it adds to the game too. How would the warlock work?

Perhaps the 1/encounter power should have been retained too...

 

[Blue]

To me the mindset that a baseline restricts story options is not one I will subscribe to.

I see 6-8 plus 2 shorts and 1 long as just a benchmark, not THE LAW.

I know that I can have sequences where it will skew one way and certain chars will shine. I know other times it can skew other ways and the others will.

I know that as long as I as GM Express a lot of different takes on the baseline that let's me show and spotlight the differences.

So, it's a toolkit for me to use, not a straightjacket.

If they all have sameness then its fewer tools for me to use to differentiate them.

Cool, please let us know about how you are using the toolkit to fit the balance issues. Please don't repeat the myth that "less, more dangerous combats have the same balance point". It's trivially disproven.

You mentioned skewing in both directions - do you do 14-16 encounter days (x2) as often as you do 3-4 encounter days (x1/2)? Or is it something different you do with the toolkit to balance the different resource classes.

I'd love to have more solutions for this I could yoink into my own game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Cool, please let us know about how you are using the toolkit to fit the balance issues. Please don't repeat the myth that "less, more dangerous combats have the same balance point". It's trivially disproven.

The only class theoretically disfavored by the 3-4 trans-deadly-encounter/2-3 short 'day' is the all-at-will Thief/Assassin. Everyone else throws down 1/4-1/3rd their daily resources or all their short-rest resources in every fight and is maximally contributing.

You mentioned skewing in both directions - do you do 14-16 encounter days (x2) as often as you do 3-4 encounter days (x1/2)? Or is it something different you do with the toolkit to balance the different resource classes.

I think it'd be more linear that than that, averaging around 6-8. So you have the occasional 3-4 encounter day, 'balanced' by the equally-occasional 9-12 encounter day. And, the very occasional single-encounter day, balanced, perhaps, by a series of several 10+ encounter days, rather than a single 11-15 encounter day.

I do doubt that anyone actually runs encounters/day over a campaign in any kind of a normal distribution (or any other distribution) around the 6-8 encounter (7 mean, I suppose) 'day.' Every indicator has always pointed towards 6-8 being closer to the upper limit, and single-encounter days not being at all unusual.

I'd love to have more solutions for this I could yoink into my own game.

The other thing that helps with balancing daily-oriented classes is uncertainty. You can't screw prepped casters as hard as you could in 3.5 (let alone the classic game), by giving them misinformation about the day's coming challenges (since they now cast spontaneously), but you can still use uncertainty about day length to box them into reserving some slots for encounters that never materialize.

To me the mindset that a baseline restricts story options is not one I will subscribe to.
I see 6-8 plus 2 shorts and 1 long as just a benchmark, not THE LAW.

It's just that using pacing to approximate class & encounter balance can crowd out using pacing for other 'story options' (like building drama, or creating epic sweep, or a sense of history, or foreshadowing, or character growth, or 'realism'/immersion, or what-have-you).

So it restricts story options in the sense that if you do want a campaign story arc that tends to involve episodic, single-encounter scenarios, then 'balancing' those single encounters will mean dialing them up beyond the usual encounter guidelines (which is fine, but it's no longer 'working'), and it will mean that a few classes may underperform (most classes get slots as daily resources so will do just fine, thankyou). And, if you're open about the intended pacing, players who don't want to play inferior characters for RP reasons can simply avoid them - heck, you could just cut them from the lists of available classes and be done with it, or you could be certain to drop powerful n/day items useable only by the PC who takes the 'wrong' class for the campaign, to put him back in the same league as everyone else.

I know that I can have sequences where it will skew one way and certain chars will shine. I know other times it can skew other ways and the others will.
I know that as long as I as GM Express a lot of different takes on the baseline that let's me show and spotlight the differences.
So, it's a toolkit for me to use, not a straightjacket.

It may be a somewhat flexible straightjacket that you're able to work around with remarkable efficiency, but what you're describing is, indeed, still being limited by the attempt to impose class balance through pacing. It's a more dynamic way of doing it than imposing balance every day with the 'just-right' mix of encounters & rests to give everyone a chance to shine every day, if not every encounter or every round. Instead, balance is experienced over multiple adventuring days, some characters shine and others languish on some days, then swap on others. A balance-of-imbalances, reflective of the classic game, actually, which aimed for such over the even wider period of a whole campaign.

If they all have sameness then its fewer tools for me to use to differentiate them.

You may think it's unfair to characterize badly balanced classes as limiting your storytelling choices when using pacing to impose balance - I don't, but I do agree that you can keep quite a lot of options open if you impose that balance more dynamically. But, it's even more unfair to mischaracterize the contrasting hypothetical alternative of balanced classes as 'sameness.' Balance is not sameness, or equivalence, it's differences that are meaningful and remain viable. It would be fair to say that building balance into the system limits class-design choices in the same sense that imposing balance through pacing limits storytelling choices. (That is, not terribly fair - it's just the price you pay for trying to design or run a game in which everyone has a fair shot at having fun...)

I don't know... it adds problems, but it adds to the game too. How would the warlock work?

Perhaps the 1/encounter power should have been retained too...

AFAIK, 1/encounter & 1/short rest were the same thing in 4e (it's just that a short rest was only 5 min, so you could usually assume one after every encounter). I think 1/encounter mechanics could have their place in 5e, though. I mean, literally, 1/encounter, as in re-setting when initiative is rolled instead of having anything to do with rests....

 

[Blue]

Balance between classes needs to compare different classes, not a class to itself

The only class theoretically disfavored by the 3-4 trans-deadly-encounter/2-3 short 'day' is the all-at-will Thief/Assassin. Everyone else throws down 1/4-1/3rd their daily resources or all their short-rest resources in every fight and is maximally contributing.

Think of a champion fighter and a mid level wizard.

On one day, they have 12 rounds of combat over 3 encounters. The wizard has 12+ good spells they want to contribute. The champion goes full out for 12 rounds. He has a few short-rest recharge like action surge and second wind, but they aren't his primary output.

On another day, they have 28 rounds of combat over 8 encounters. The champion goes full out the same way. The wizard though peters out of good spells, replying more on cantrips and low level spells to stretch what they do.

In this case the champion "maximumally contributed" in both, but in terms of class balance the champion contributed a heck of a lot less as a share of damage/effort/effectiveness in the first case then in the second.

Because the balance point is that long-rest recovery can contribute MORE in an action when they have good level appropriate spells, but also need to have actions where they contribute LESS in order to balance out to the consistent output of the at-will classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Think of a champion fighter and a mid level wizard.

OK, add Champion to Thief & Assassin as disadvantaged in that scenario.

Warlock should certainly be more than fine on the short-rest-after-each-amped-up encounter schedule, Monks & BMs ok too - everyone else has the daily stuff.

In this case the champion "maximumally contributed" in both, but in terms of class balance the champion contributed a heck of a lot less as a share of damage/effort/effectiveness in the first case then in the second.

Sure, and the same probably applies out of combat, too (but, really, the Champion is the training-wheels fighter).

 

[Blue]

OK, add Champion to Thief & Assassin as disadvantaged in that scenario.

Warlock should certainly be more than fine on the short-rest-after-each-amped-up encounter schedule, Monks & BMs ok too - everyone else has the daily stuff.

Sure, and the same probably applies out of combat, too (but, really, the Champion is the training-wheels fighter).

I really think you're minimizing the impact.

First, there's a lot more classes that have a mostly-consistant effort output and just small boosts with rests. Rogue - if you take away their short & long rest are they a lot less effective? Etc.

Second, condensing long-rest characters into a framework where they always get to use their "better than average Actions" (higher level spells, etc.) becuase there aren't as many actions int he day means they will operate well above the other classes without the other classes even being disadvantaged. Let me give another example of this:

Barton the Barbarian has three rages per day. Is their per-round average higher when they only have three encounters in a day, or when they have six encounters in a day?

It should be pretty obvious that they do more then whey can rage every encounter instead of every other.

 

[5ekyu]

Cool, please let us know about how you are using the toolkit to fit the balance issues. Please don't repeat the myth that "less, more dangerous combats have the same balance point". It's trivially disproven.

You mentioned skewing in both directions - do you do 14-16 encounter days (x2) as often as you do 3-4 encounter days (x1/2)? Or is it something different you do with the toolkit to balance the different resource classes.

I'd love to have more solutions for this I could yoink into my own game.

Whatever you think is proven or disproven is not necessarily any sort of objective truth when it comes to something as subjective as balance. i am amazed that you think there is a "proof" of balance that would be anything more than "at some tables" focused. But hey, never one to argue points of religion - your religion is valid too.

As for adding 6-8 encounters having any sort of equivalency to dropping 2-4, i cant fathom any experienced analysis that would see that as more than a wild guess that is not gonna hold up for an experienced, savvy analysis.

But the simple mechanic tools that a GM needs are these:
Know your party: The specific composition is key. How do short or long rests matter to them and their performance. in fact, how do their specific focuses apply to that particular aspect of challenges - sustain vs nova? Knowing that will give you some good ideas that apply to inform your varying "rations" of long day vs short day vs either way types of challenges.
Know your challenges: Simply and straightforward, the types of enemies and challenges can drastic impact a character's performance even when the pacing aspect favors or disfavors them. Be aware of whether your enemy choices sync with or work against the pacing push... enemies that favor the nova characters in the middle of a short nova pacing gives them double joy and pushes down a more on the others. meanwhile, challenges not so nova prone in the same one push the balance back towards the middle a bit and a long day of non-nova friendly foes shoves the spotlight the other way.
Know your alternatives: The non-resource aspects of the characters are also amazingly key. background elements that tie into the plot, relevant skills, relevant contacts etc can give a character working against pacing just as much spotlight time and impact. For example, even with lots of rests easy and little time pressure, if a story point requires a duel between fighters to say earn admission or requires sneak thieving or requires high social skills etc etc to give the group advantage going forward (not logjam but serious help) then hey, guess what, that fighter (rogue, bard) just scored big for the party and the pacing thing did not hamper that at all.
Know your history: Knowing how things have played so far in various challenges and recently helps you gauge these and see when and where to dial in the right challenges that fit the story so far and the story developing, fit the situation, fit with the party choices etc. etc. If you last couple of major events were mostly long days type pacing, then its likely time for some short day nova-friendlies and some non-resource challenges too.
Know Your Mystery: Always keep them guessing. Let the pacing flow out of the choices and the story but also let it have surprises and not be predictable. if they *believe* the boss encounter may be in the next 5mins or they *think* the enemies might run for it with the macguffin... they have choices to make that are not easy and not always going to be right. You really only need one "we eased off the gas and the key thing got away? crap!! Why did we think they would sit here and wait for us?" scenario result to make them think twice in the future about letting the foot off the gas.

Those five tools right there are very strong ones to manage most any of the pacing balance issues a typical game can encounter - certainly any ones driving from something as simple and rather moderate as the short and long rest mechanics.

 

[Blue]

...

Everything non-mechanical chopped. I didn't find anything left.

Ah, I was looking for mechanical solutions within the toolkit of the system. While you had some great points, they are all outside the mechanics and I can already balance outside the system. My point was that the stories that I can tell are impacted by trying to also balance the mechanics of the system.

Thanks anyway.

 

[5ekyu]

The only class theoretically disfavored by the 3-4 trans-deadly-encounter/2-3 short 'day' is the all-at-will Thief/Assassin. Everyone else throws down 1/4-1/3rd their daily resources or all their short-rest resources in every fight and is maximally contributing.

I think it'd be more linear that than that, averaging around 6-8. So you have the occasional 3-4 encounter day, 'balanced' by the equally-occasional 9-12 encounter day. And, the very occasional single-encounter day, balanced, perhaps, by a series of several 10+ encounter days, rather than a single 11-15 encounter day.

I do doubt that anyone actually runs encounters/day over a campaign in any kind of a normal distribution (or any other distribution) around the 6-8 encounter (7 mean, I suppose) 'day.' Every indicator has always pointed towards 6-8 being closer to the upper limit, and single-encounter days not being at all unusual.

The other thing that helps with balancing daily-oriented classes is uncertainty. You can't screw prepped casters as hard as you could in 3.5 (let alone the classic game), by giving them misinformation about the day's coming challenges (since they now cast spontaneously), but you can still use uncertainty about day length to box them into reserving some slots for encounters that never materialize.


It's just that using pacing to approximate class & encounter balance can crowd out using pacing for other 'story options' (like building drama, or creating epic sweep, or a sense of history, or foreshadowing, or character growth, or 'realism'/immersion, or what-have-you).

So it restricts story options in the sense that if you do want a campaign story arc that tends to involve episodic, single-encounter scenarios, then 'balancing' those single encounters will mean dialing them up beyond the usual encounter guidelines (which is fine, but it's no longer 'working'), and it will mean that a few classes may underperform (most classes get slots as daily resources so will do just fine, thankyou). And, if you're open about the intended pacing, players who don't want to play inferior characters for RP reasons can simply avoid them - heck, you could just cut them from the lists of available classes and be done with it, or you could be certain to drop powerful n/day items useable only by the PC who takes the 'wrong' class for the campaign, to put him back in the same league as everyone else.

It may be a somewhat flexible straightjacket that you're able to work around with remarkable efficiency, but what you're describing is, indeed, still being limited by the attempt to impose class balance through pacing. It's a more dynamic way of doing it than imposing balance every day with the 'just-right' mix of encounters & rests to give everyone a chance to shine every day, if not every encounter or every round. Instead, balance is experienced over multiple adventuring days, some characters shine and others languish on some days, then swap on others. A balance-of-imbalances, reflective of the classic game, actually, which aimed for such over the even wider period of a whole campaign.

You may think it's unfair to characterize badly balanced classes as limiting your storytelling choices when using pacing to impose balance - I don't, but I do agree that you can keep quite a lot of options open if you impose that balance more dynamically. But, it's even more unfair to mischaracterize the contrasting hypothetical alternative of balanced classes as 'sameness.' Balance is not sameness, or equivalence, it's differences that are meaningful and remain viable. It would be fair to say that building balance into the system limits class-design choices in the same sense that imposing balance through pacing limits storytelling choices. (That is, not terribly fair - it's just the price you pay for trying to design or run a game in which everyone has a fair shot at having fun...)

AFAIK, 1/encounter & 1/short rest were the same thing in 4e (it's just that a short rest was only 5 min, so you could usually assume one after every encounter). I think 1/encounter mechanics could have their place in 5e, though. I mean, literally, 1/encounter, as in re-setting when initiative is rolled instead of having anything to do with rests....

RE the bolded portion...

We disagree at least perhaps in a few regards.

Even if one limits your balancing toolkits to "pacing shifts" there is nothing at all preventing or making wrong for play having epic singles or chase longs in whatever order you want... and for a short period of play one can be the focus and for another the other can. balance in most any RPG sense has not ever to my knowledge been defined as our sought as "every character contributes the same amount every scene." Since its inception, RPGS have been mostly focused balance-wise of alternating spotlights, not sameness.

So, no, nothing is restricted by anything other than a Gm desire and his/her player's desire to have "balance" to whatever degree. Balance can be obtained with the right choices, not a straightjacket. balance can also be blown by the wrong choices, not a problem, just a reality in most any game which has mechanics beyond indie-style screen time points.

Now, if one expands his toolkit beyond just pacing choices, then the types of challenges gives another key balancing element even if they want to throw a pro-longed pacing skew. Adversaries not so nova-able help serve even a short pace and vice versa. Challnges which spotlight non-resource capabilities also provide other tools.

heck, in our last big combat, my sorcerer had two big bads who were magic proof and where only magic weapons mattered after minions were done. Well, among other things i recovered the magic dagger when the rogue got feared and brought it back to the monster, i called the cleric over from where she was distracted and i used help actions for distraction to give her advantage and (with us being the two most fear resistant of the group) we finished off the beast.

Should i have sued the Gm for not giving me a solid magic attackable key to victory under the "must balance every encounter for every character" instead of being a key element to winning the fight that we were losing?

My Gm didn't think so judging by the after action stuff... neither did my fellow PCs.

matter of fact, the two "crit rolls on fire bolt - followed by no effect whatsoever" gave my character an option to reveal the fancy singer dropping her facade and going back to her street rat enraged guttersnipe language which was quite the roleplaying reveal.

Did my Gm expect it? I dont know, but the opportunity was definitely there for me to sieze and my character's resistance to fear made it very strong as a potential good choice and needed choice. If it had been me as a GM, i would see adding in the fear effects as a chance for that ability to shine - and it did.

a Gm is as limited as they choose to be when it comes to balance.

***

As for not using the encounter guidelines being "wrong" or "not using it" right? those were not a script. those were not a rule that you have to follow. those were a baseline, at most guidelines not a requirement. So, no, i do not agree that having different encounter strengths and rates and ferequencies or whatever is in anyway "no longer working" any more than having more orcs encounters than goblin encounters is or that having more wands than maces or shields is. Those guidelines were not put in as a limit on your campaign any more than a recipe that tells you to add 3 tsp of curry is telling you that more or less curry is wrong.

Some may disagree but again, to me each Gm/group chooses their own limits.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Even if one limits your balancing toolkits to "pacing shifts" there is nothing at all preventing or making wrong for play having epic singles or chase longs in whatever order you want... and for a short period of play one can be the focus and for another the other can.

That's the idea, yes. You can achieve balance over a long term, by balancing short-term imbalances. It's, well, a balancing act. You have a massive single encounter where sort of character shines, you 'balance' it with a long slog where that same sort languishes.

Imposing that kind of balance does "limit" how the campaign can be run - a better way of putting it is that it makes establishing and maintaining balance a constant consideration for the GM, that has to be, well, ahem, balanced with other considerations in plotting his campaign...

So, no, nothing is restricted by anything other than a Gm desire and his/her player's desire to have "balance" to whatever degree. Balance can be obtained with the right choices, not a straightjacket. balance can also be blown by the wrong choices, not a problem, just a reality in most any game which has mechanics beyond indie-style screen time points.

What constitutes a 'right' or 'wrong' choice in terms of balance depends on the PoV and objectives of the ones making the choice. A 'right choice' in optimizing a party to defeat enemies in 3.0, for instance, was scry/buff/teleport, it's radically imbalanced, but it achieves the objective. 'CaW' style play gravitates towards badly-balanced systems for that reason. In-game and meta-game decisions can create wild swings in effectiveness relative to the challenges presented, raising the significance of 'player skill' in gaming the system.

As for not using the encounter guidelines being "wrong" or "not using it" right?

They're just guidelines, and they work over a limited range. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't operate outside that range, just that the guidelines stop being very helpful when you do. Considering how long many of us designed & ran encounters with no guidelines at all, that's obviously an issue that can be dealt with. But, if you do want to be able to 'trust' encounter design guidelines, if you do want to impose some rough balance on classes without micromanaging challenges to give each PC is ration of spotlight time more or less arbitrarily, then you can run the game at the pacing it's calibrated to. Either of those options limit you as a 'storyteller.' You can use such limitations as a source of inspiration, of course - a blank page with no assumptions can be a downright intimidating place to start, anyway.

balance in most any RPG sense has not ever to my knowledge been defined as our sought as "every character contributes the same amount every scene." Since its inception, RPGS have been mostly focused balance-wise of alternating spotlights, not sameness.

Again, "sameness" is not a synonym for 'balance.' Indeed, it's arguably antithetical, since, in the absence of choice, there is nothing to balance. You can differentiate two choices by means other than making one superior to the other.

And, yes, since D&D was the first RPG, and was 'balanced' over the whole campaign (and probably many characters played by each player in the process), that's a foundational way of providing balance. That doesn't make it the only, or best, or adequate, or even a good way of achieving balance. But, it is a method of imposing balance that requires the GM to make decisions about the campaign with the purpose of making balance happen.

More robust balancing mechanisms can reduce or all but remove imposing or maintaining intraparty (class in D&D) balance as a consideration the GM has to work into his campaign. That's what makes using spotlight or pacing to impose balance seem 'limiting.'

I really think you're minimizing the impact.

Yes, I am. There's no question there's an impact, but minimizing it isn't going much beyond what DMs do just as a matter of course running the game, in the first place.

First, there's a lot more classes that have a mostly-consistant effort output and just small boosts with rests. Rogue - if you take away their short & long rest are they a lot less effective? Etc.

All 5e classes cast spells, and most of them cast spells as a daily resource, so you're really down to sub-classes. Roughly:

Short-Rest-heavy: Warlock, Monk, BM.

Long-Rest-Heavy: Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard

At-will heavy: Thief, Assassin, Champion.

At-will & long-rest heavy: Paladin, EK, AT, Ranger, Barbarian.

Second, condensing long-rest characters into a framework where they always get to use their "better than average Actions" (higher level spells, etc.) becuase there aren't as many actions int he day means they will operate well above the other classes without the other classes even being disadvantaged.

Nod, that includes all the primary casters, the half/third casters who can stack their long-rest abilities with their solid at-will baseline, and the Barbarian (which does likewise in a big way with Rage). That's Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, & Wizard plus EK & AT - /most/ of the classes in the PH. It would be no effort or hardship, at all, to have a party made up entirely of members of those classes (and sub-classes). The Warlock also does just fine in the scenario, since it's short-rest resources /are/ the same spells as the other's long-rest slots, and it gets to recharge them after every encounter, and the Monk & Battlemaster aren't far behind for the sane reasons.

So, really, it's the Champion, Thief & Assassin out in the cold. Just drop them from campaigns that are going to use the 3-4 trans-deadly encounter/2-3 short rest 'day' as the average. No big loss.