15 Minute Adventuring Day

[Mengu]

To address the one-day level concern, I don't have a problem with this. I can easily plan a 7 encounter day, and follow it with 7 days of down time or travel time. And the advancement rate I use is closer to 10-12 encounters a level including skill challenges, though it varies, sometimes it's faster, sometimes slower depending on story elements. I don't really care about XP, except for encounter budget. How much XP a character needs for a level has been an irrelevant rules bit for our games, for over 10 years. I try to give levels when I feel the players have explored their current level of abilities and are ready for new ones, and there is a break in the flow of the story to do so.

1. A reason to continue,
2. The means to continue, i.e., a way to allow combats to be significant while potentially restoring lost resources necessary to continue,
3. Tactical decision-making required for extended rests, based on assessment of the risks of continuing versus the risk to said resources by not taking an extended rest, and
4. The addition of DM-controlled access to an important resource, which essentially allows the DM to reward (and therefore reinforce) bolder play.

Good list. I can usually handle 1 and 3 through story. 2 and 4 are the challenging parts.

While I was pondering about this the other night, I thought maybe PC's should be able to borrow resources from the next day. That would certainly be a tool I could use. Say everyone can borrow up to 2 healing surges from the next day, except defenders can borrow up to 4. And maybe after the second milestone, everyone can borrow their lowest level daily attack power from the next day.

Additionally, the artificer's Impart Energy class feature could be made available a bit more commonly, perhaps as a feature for classes that have arcana in their skill training list.

I think I will be experimenting with some of these ideas in my game. I might provide them as temporary boons, to see if I like how they work, and if I don't the boons would dissipate after a while.

Currently, this resource management issue is one of my biggest problems as a 4e DM. I can come up with all sorts of mechanics to handle just about any type of encounter, terrain, scene, or story element. But resource management is a bit of a hard numbers game, and finding a sweet spot for bonus resources without outside feedback is challenging. I like how the encounters are challenging for the players, but I don't like the cost in resources.

 

[KarinsDad]

I have to disagree. I run combats with 6-8 monsters (standards) for my massive party. My turn takes a minute and a half, maybe two minutes if the monster party includes solos or controllers. My secret? Don't roll damage. Use the average damage or randomly pick a nearby amount.

For 6 monsters, that's 15 to 20 seconds per monster.

Your monsters don't roll to hit?

Your monsters don't impart conditions that require some level of bookkeeping?

Your monsters don't move that requires some level of thought and tactics?

Your players don't have OAs, Immediate Interrupts, and Immedate Reactions?

Your monsters don't have encounter powers or auras or other aspects that require the DM to do extra work like reading part of the monster stat block when the DM makes a monster decision?

Your players don't comment on what is happening or ask questions or slow up the DM in any way during the monsters' turns?


I suspect that if one of your players was secretly using a stopwatch at your game and started it on the start of the monsters' turns and ended it at the end of the monsters' turns, that your estimate might be on the low side.

 

[the Jester]

What I am suggesting is something that puts those specific "missing" things into the game:

1. A reason to continue,
2. The means to continue, i.e., a way to allow combats to be significant while potentially restoring lost resources necessary to continue,
3. Tactical decision-making required for extended rests, based on assessment of the risks of continuing versus the risk to said resources by not taking an extended rest, and
4. The addition of DM-controlled access to an important resource, which essentially allows the DM to reward (and therefore reinforce) bolder play.

All this without unduly increasing complexity of scenario design, or actual play.

The DMG2 suggests occasionally having recharge conditions for extended combats; no reason you couldn't do something similar for extended days.

In fact, I've done this from time to time, usually in a sort of goal-oriented way, e.g. "If you guys rescue the prisoner you're after, you can recharge a daily power and regain a healing surge."

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The DMG2 suggests occasionally having recharge conditions for extended combats; no reason you couldn't do something similar for extended days.

In fact, I've done this from time to time, usually in a sort of goal-oriented way, e.g. "If you guys rescue the prisoner you're after, you can recharge a daily power and regain a healing surge."

This works really well. I did this recently in a game I ran. The players had just been through 3 combats and two skill challenges and were running out of steam.

They took the time to explore around and found some old foodstuffs (they were in prison and hadn't been very well fed for weeks), so I had them gain back some surges and recharge by gorging themselves on pickles and stout.

 

[Aegeri]

And because WotC added so much offensive umph to the PCs, the game became too easy for players and too difficult for DMs to challenge their groups, especially at higher levels

This isn't true and if you think it is, make an encounter for the following PURE PHB party. Feats like wintertouched and lasting frost should be relatively mandatory for most of them, using the better PPs like Pit Fighter (which still counts for the fighters MBAs) and Daggermaster. Something like an Elven Ranger, Dragonborn Warlord, Dwarf Fighter, Halfling Rogue and Eladrin Wizard. A really classic archetype 4E party - but one of the most powerful. Now reset the errata and the Eladrin wizard is a bloodmage and your epic Warlord has figured out what Relentless Assault does. Did I mention the Elven Ranger is using Cascade of Blades?

You'll soon find that party tears things to absolute pieces due to certain powers being utterly broken than anything that came after. In fact it is more true to say that power options since the original PHB have been playing catch up the entire time. The PHB has been slaughtered by errata and it has nothing to do with those powers being broken by later things. They were 100% bonkers right out of the box.

Having actually played with an epic party that mostly only used PHB options, I can really affirm that this "Power creep ruined 4E" thing is not only wrong - it misses the point. The point is that 4E started with epic PCs grossly outmatching monsters. This didn't develop over time, it was inherently in built into the system.

By itself using only PHB, it was balanced. It's the splat books that made it unbalanced and an optimizer king and the reason they nerfed it.

Daggermaster has not been inherently nerfed actually - though it no longer counts on MBAs this was more of a general change (Pitfighter got hit by this as well). Daggermaster was simply clarified that it wouldn't work with a sorcerer casting AoE powers to get the 18-20 crit range. Even in this case, the sorcerer was not imbalanced to say the least in any manner.

 

[eriktheguy]

For 6 monsters, that's 15 to 20 seconds per monster.

Your monsters don't roll to hit?

Usually I do roll. If a player is surrounded by 4 minions I might just say "2 hits, 12 damage", but only if the player won't notice.
I have player Defs written on a board and know what I need to hit. I try to stack multiple monsters on one player, so I can roll 3d20 at a time and immediately say "X hits". It takes maybe 10 seconds for a handful of monsters. More time is spent manipulating the battle-board, rolling, and communicating damage/effects to the player.

Your monsters don't impart conditions that require some level of bookkeeping?

That sort of book keeping is for the players. Sometimes I have to remind them. Sometimes everyone forgets and a condition doesn't get tracked, but I tend to remember things like stunned, unconscious, petrified. I try to avoid overusing those conditions anyways.

Your monsters don't move that requires some level of thought and tactics?

Your monsters don't have encounter powers or auras or other aspects that require the DM to do extra work like reading part of the monster stat block when the DM makes a monster decision?

This is what I'm doing during the players' turns. Sometimes I make stupid rushed decisions or misread an entry and apply an effect wrong. Whatever, that's combat.

Your players don't have OAs, Immediate Interrupts, and Immedate Reactions?

Actually, this can slow up the turn a bit. Good point.

Your players don't comment on what is happening or ask questions or slow up the DM in any way during the monsters' turns?

They can ask questions at any arbitrary time during the fight and slow things down. I don't see why there is any point in tracking this as time taken up by the monsters turn. What we are concerned about is whether adding additional monsters will increase the length of the monster's turn. Sure a 2 minute turn might take 7 minutes if I stop to explain cover to my new players, but it's hardly notable.

I suspect that if one of your players was secretly using a stopwatch at your game and started it on the start of the monsters' turns and ended it at the end of the monsters' turns, that your estimate might be on the low side.

Maybe 2 minutes on average, 3 mins when a player uses a reaction/interrupt or a monster has strange powers.
I should point out that specific turns might take much longer if something interesting is happening. This can artificially drag up the average. It might be better to say 2 minutes is a median.

My techniques for faster combat

• ALWAYS use same or lower level monsters
• Don't roll damage, use an average or quickly select a random number in your head.
• Generally don't use more than 3 stat blocks in a fight. Even if you have 12 monsters on the board it's much easier if there are many copies of the same monster.
• Split the monsters into 2 or maybe 3 initiative groups of similar monsters. Use the passive initiative of the highest initiative monster in the group.
• Write player defenses, initiative, passive perception on a whiteboard
• Also record monster initiative on the whiteboard
• Don't think too much on the monster's turn, make quick decisions
• Give all monsters 1/2 HP, sometimes add more monsters to the fight, but in general stick to 1 standard/player
• Don't roll against non-player controlled targets at all. If monsters are attacking monsters, or monsters are attacking AI, just mark down some damage against each target based on level and role differences
• End the combat when the players have clearly won. Don't wait for them to sweep up all the monsters if they are not in danger.

 

[KarinsDad]

The PHB has been slaughtered by errata and it has nothing to do with those powers being broken by later things. They were 100% bonkers right out of the box.

I don't disagree. Some things were bonkers right out of the box and did need to be errated.

BUT.

The original rules had very little real Beta testing. It's only human nature for the original rules to have a lot of balance bugs in them.

Having designed a game accessory, I know how easy it is to miss something.

Terrifying Insight is the equivalent of +3 to hit. It's really potent right out of the box and has not been errated.

But to say that these really potent elements like Terrifying Insight are not much stronger when the PCs can now add +2 to hit at level 16 for Expertise and +1 to hit for Superior Implement Training Accurate is a bit naive.

A 60% chance to hit with a re-roll is an 84% chance to hit.

A 75% chance to hit with a re-roll is a 93.75% chance to hit.

In just this example (without other ways to boost to hit), this makes most Encounter and Daily vs. Will powers nearly automatic. Not 100%, but close enough. And the Daze penalty is hardly a hiccup.

Having actually played with an epic party that mostly only used PHB options, I can really affirm that this "Power creep ruined 4E" thing is not only wrong - it misses the point. The point is that 4E started with epic PCs grossly outmatching monsters. This didn't develop over time, it was inherently in built into the system.

A lot of it was mistakenly built into the system. To assume that the designers knew 100% what they were doing pre-errata is incredulous.

An obvious example is the difficulty table for Skill Challenges which was drastically changed practically day one (and they went overboard when fixing it).

They had limited testing and had no clue to all of the possibilities of character optimization. It just became more obvious as more time went by, as a much greater number of players analyzed and played the game, and as more options were added to the game.

As another example, they also drastically changed monster damage. Why? Because it was way too low. Their original testing didn't find this.

Daggermaster has not been inherently nerfed actually - though it no longer counts on MBAs this was more of a general change (Pitfighter got hit by this as well). Daggermaster was simply clarified that it wouldn't work with a sorcerer casting AoE powers to get the 18-20 crit range. Even in this case, the sorcerer was not imbalanced to say the least in any manner.

I think that any PC that has 18-20 crits is imbalanced.

I think that any PC that can re-roll D20s or roll two D20s for virtually every attack is imbalanced.

I think that any PC that can add temporary hit points for getting hit is imbalanced. At least this one was errated.

I think that any PC that can do surgeless healing while many other types of healers cannot is potentially imbalanced.

The reason I think these are imbalanced is not because they are imbalanced on the surface. It's because they become imbalanced when combined with certain other feats, powers, items, and abilities.

The best way to prevent balance issues is to prevent certain types of mechanics into the game system in the first place.

WotC should have made certain metagame rules and stuck with them. I opine that the reason that the errata is 123 pages long, nearly the equivalent size of some of the books, is because a lot of cool sounding game mechanics were allowed in without taking into consideration a lot of other game mechanics.


I find that anyone who ignores the increased amount of synergy due to the increased number of options (both at the PC level and the party level) and defends power creep as non-existent is not being objective.

There are over 3000 feats, almost 9000 items, and over 7500 powers. The sheer volume of different combinations means that there is the potential for very strong synergies.

And, this does not even take into account the sheer amount and power of synergies for a party designed to synergize together.

A quick example. Spirit's Shield results in very little surgeless healing. Maybe Will * 2 extra healing per encounter in many circumstances if the PCs are lucky. It seems very balanced.

Combined with Psychic Anomaly, it can suddenly becomes surgeless healing 2 to 4 times per round. It can easily be 10 or more * Will per encounter or maybe 2 or 3 free healing surges per encounter if the PCs work well together.

This only works because surgeless healing exists. Stopping the mechanic from existing in the first place prevents the significantly greater synergy.

Not that I am saying that surgeless healing shouldn't exist, I'm saying that the more different cool new mechanics that get added to the game increases the number of unexpected powerful synergies that can creep in.

 

[Aegeri]

None of your arguments or points has any relevance to the fact power creep has done zero to combat difficulty - otherwise why on earth does this thread exist in the first place? PCs were wiping the absolute floor with monsters in paragon/epic from the start. That PCs were wiping the floor with monsters several years later has nothing to do with power creep and everything to do with poor paragon/epic monster design. Now monsters are competitive completely with PCs - despite this so called "Power creep". There is no issue with challenging characters with current MM3 monsters, which is pretty much the experience of everyone who has played epic with MM3 creatures has said.

The only logical conclusion is that the problem was never PC power creep - it was the fact monsters sucked at paragon and epic.

WotC should have made certain metagame rules and stuck with them. I opine that the reason that the errata is 123 pages long, nearly the equivalent size of some of the books, is because a lot of cool sounding game mechanics were allowed in without taking into consideration a lot of other game mechanics.

And the vast majority of it is errata to the original players handbook. It's because the most broken stuff in 4E was right in the first book. Personally not a single thing you wrote as imbalanced bothers me one bit. Bloodmages that could end encounters instantly? That bothered me. Close burst 20 stun on hit/daze on miss powers? That bothered me. Being able to grant infinite attacks? Oh yeah that bothered me. The original 3 attack + mods rain of blows? That bothered me. Destructive Salutation combined with spamming it with Archmage? That still bothers me. The Eternal Trickster ED (which is just absurd)? That still bothers me.

I mean I could go on, but half the things that provide major problems in 4E still are all in that original PHB. The original PHB got massacred by errata because it had the highest amount of broken stuff. Other things have been errata'ed as well, but nowhere near the extent of the original PHB and bear in mind - I had to deal with all that absurd nonsense before errata. If you haven't played epic with current errata + MM3 vs. experience playing with NO errata pre-MM3 I have to be honest: You just haven't any idea how bad epic 4E got originally. I'm really not trying to be offensive, it's just a statement of fact that the game has gone down in absurdity and overpowered crap - not up.

If you have that experience of dealing with all the majorly absurd pre-errata nonsense like bloodmages - I really really hate the pre-errata bloodmage if my sheer level of absolute hatred doesn't clearly come through in my posts - compared to now, it's night and day. Current PCs are very accurate and have some great powers, but there isn't the sheer "I end this encounter round 1, progress with 4 rounds of just whacking things to death while taking no damage" that existed before.

Quite frankly the original PHB has stuff so much better than what has come out later, including a guaranteed way of basically ensuring CA every round with extra damage (Lasting Frost/Wintertouched) - I can't believe we're having a power creep argument. Expertise feats fix a hole within the games maths and recent ones provide an extra benefit onto your "Feat tax". They really fix something that should have been fixed at the beginning. But I don't think current PCs are significantly more powerful at all compared to that original party. They are actually less absurd because the amount of truly 100% broken stuff is gone in 4E because of errata - it's actually more the case later stuff is underpowered compared with many PHB options.

I mean right now you asked me if I would take a party of level 30 characters built with all options now vs. MM3 monsters.

Or a group of level 30 characters built with options from the PHB on release vs. MM1 monsters.

My answer is going to be really obvious.

 

[eriktheguy]

Not that I am saying that surgeless healing shouldn't exist, I'm saying that the more different cool new mechanics that get added to the game increases the number of unexpected powerful synergies that can creep in.

I agree with this way of thinking. Power-creep results from an increased number of options for sure. It also results from introduction of new mechanics that were previously not allowed. Mechanics that are abuseable. I think this is an actual fault of the designers, not an unavoidable trend in RPGs in general.

But as far as RPGs (or games in general go), the amount of power creep has been kept under control considering the number of new options that have been introduced.

 

[KarinsDad]

I agree with this way of thinking. Power-creep results from an increased number of options for sure. It also results from introduction of new mechanics that were previously not allowed. Mechanics that are abuseable. I think this is an actual fault of the designers, not an unavoidable trend in RPGs in general.

But as far as RPGs (or games in general go), the amount of power creep has been kept under control considering the number of new options that have been introduced.

In 4E, it's kept under control because of a 123 page errata document.