[MENTION=83662]eriktheguy[/MENTION]I only checked the 19th level ones, but they looked the same to me.
15 Minute Adventuring Day
- Thread starter KarinsDad
- Start date
[MENTION=83662]eriktheguy[/MENTION]I only checked the 19th level ones, but they looked the same to me.
Other than a small tweak to solos (multiplier is now x4 at all levels, instead of the old x5 at level 11+), the HP's haven't changed. But thankfully we haven't gotten any more insubstantial regenerating weakening travesties.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
3 or 4 encounters is readonable if they are deadly, sorry to say that.
If you want more encounters, make them easier.
7 level+1 encounters are one level. Do you want a pc to gain a level every day? I guess not. I rather have 4 encounters spread over a day, or as you want to call it 15 min adventuring day, instead of having combats trivialized.
If you want more encounters, make them easier.
7 level+1 encounters are one level. Do you want a pc to gain a level every day? I guess not. I rather have 4 encounters spread over a day, or as you want to call it 15 min adventuring day, instead of having combats trivialized.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
risking to repeat myself:
Monsters of the same level still have the same hp. But monsters of the same THREAT level now have less armor and less hp, as they are 1-3 levels lower than they were before.
edit: I have a task for you KD. Since calculating average damage seems to be a hobby, please calculate at which level you need to level down an updated monster to make average damage the same as it was before the update.
Let me give an example:
Lvl 10 made up monster.
Old: +15 (5+lvl) vs AC damage 13 (8+1/2 Lvl)
New: +15 (5 + Lvl) vs AC damage 18 (8+Lvl)
AC on average for a lvl 10 PC is 26 (chain + light shield)
So average damage
from the old monster: 6,5
from the new one: 9
To make the new monster do the average damage again: (2 levels lower maybe)
+13 vs AC damage 16; chance to hit only 40% against AC 26
16*0,4 = 6,4 which is about the same as the old monsters average damage.
So if you want the same threat level (damage wise), All defenses drop by 2 and all hitpoints drop by 16.
xp is reduced by 33% if i am not mistaken.
Last edited:
the Jester
Legend
A couple of related issues to the 15-minute adventuring day (which I will henceforth call the 15MAD) are the one-day level (1DL) and the one-month career (1MC).
If you have approx. 8 encounters/level and you have 8 encounters in a day, you have a level per day.
If your party never slows down, they could finish an adventuring career within 30 days.
Now, most of the time it won't happen like that; but let's assume that on average an adventuring day has 4 encounters and you have one adventuring day per week.
That means you gain a level every two weeks and you finish out your career in a little over a year. Change the assumptions and you slow it down a little or speed it up a little. Adjust your slider to taste.
Many groups simply don't care; it doesn't matter to them. To others, the idea of the world's most powerful wizard having just turned 19 is hard to stomach. 4e has, more than any other edition, really pushed pacing issues towards a focus on the party's combat abilities (since earlier editions didn't silo spells like 4e does into combat and utility slots). I have always been concerned with overall campaign pacing- I run a sweeping campaign that includes multiple groups of pcs over multiple eras- and to me, letting time pass is key to a good campaign; I need years for politics and wars to play out, enough time for the pcs to develop relationships and families, etc. I really like spacing things out with downtime and the like. We recently had a session that played out the winter (there was a chance of some nasty weather-based stuff happening, but no such luck). A while back some pcs played out a siege that lasted for five years. And so forth.
Anyway, I don't mind my party having a 15MAD sometimes, as long as they recognize that they can't always do that. I'm currently running a module, and the party is trying to fight off a multi-pronged monstrous attack on a town. They kept reminding each other not to blow all their dailies, since they have about four more groups of monsters to deal with before the assault is over. Another example would be the party recognizing that sometimes they get attacked when they aren't expecting it.
In the 'old math' days, I had a party fight something like 13 equal level encounters in one day once. I cannot imagine that happening now... but then again, in the 'old math' days the party wasn't too threatened by the monsters. Now it's a lot more fun watching the party work for their xp, and I think it's more fun for them too.
Going back to my point connecting the 15MAD with the 1DL and 1MC, if you try to cram 13 encounters in every adventuring day, you're totally encouraging the party to level fast fast fast. This isn't a bad thing, but be aware of how it affects other aspects of the campaign's scope in time and adjust accordingly, whether by adjusting the xp you award outright, by using lower-level (or higher-level) encounters, or what have you.
If you have approx. 8 encounters/level and you have 8 encounters in a day, you have a level per day.
If your party never slows down, they could finish an adventuring career within 30 days.
Now, most of the time it won't happen like that; but let's assume that on average an adventuring day has 4 encounters and you have one adventuring day per week.
That means you gain a level every two weeks and you finish out your career in a little over a year. Change the assumptions and you slow it down a little or speed it up a little. Adjust your slider to taste.
Many groups simply don't care; it doesn't matter to them. To others, the idea of the world's most powerful wizard having just turned 19 is hard to stomach. 4e has, more than any other edition, really pushed pacing issues towards a focus on the party's combat abilities (since earlier editions didn't silo spells like 4e does into combat and utility slots). I have always been concerned with overall campaign pacing- I run a sweeping campaign that includes multiple groups of pcs over multiple eras- and to me, letting time pass is key to a good campaign; I need years for politics and wars to play out, enough time for the pcs to develop relationships and families, etc. I really like spacing things out with downtime and the like. We recently had a session that played out the winter (there was a chance of some nasty weather-based stuff happening, but no such luck). A while back some pcs played out a siege that lasted for five years. And so forth.
Anyway, I don't mind my party having a 15MAD sometimes, as long as they recognize that they can't always do that. I'm currently running a module, and the party is trying to fight off a multi-pronged monstrous attack on a town. They kept reminding each other not to blow all their dailies, since they have about four more groups of monsters to deal with before the assault is over. Another example would be the party recognizing that sometimes they get attacked when they aren't expecting it.
In the 'old math' days, I had a party fight something like 13 equal level encounters in one day once. I cannot imagine that happening now... but then again, in the 'old math' days the party wasn't too threatened by the monsters. Now it's a lot more fun watching the party work for their xp, and I think it's more fun for them too.
Going back to my point connecting the 15MAD with the 1DL and 1MC, if you try to cram 13 encounters in every adventuring day, you're totally encouraging the party to level fast fast fast. This isn't a bad thing, but be aware of how it affects other aspects of the campaign's scope in time and adjust accordingly, whether by adjusting the xp you award outright, by using lower-level (or higher-level) encounters, or what have you.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Sorry, guys, but this was inherent in the design, and predicted from the designer blogs long before release.
Here's a fix for you that should work:
(1) Buy a deck of cards with cool images. This can be a standard 52-card deck, a tarot deck, whatever you like. Or use poker chips. Whatever floats your boat, so long as you have it, and the players do not.
(2) Tell the players you are experimenting with a "non-renewable resource". I.e., once spent, it is gone forever. This resource can be used to buy healing surges, extra uses of dailies, whatever else you desire.
(3) Come up with a fluff description of what these cards represent in the game world. This fluff description should require that someone specific holds them, but that they can be used by that person, or that said person can spend an Action to use them for another within, say, a 30-foot range. Call 'em "charms" if you like.
(3) Then include limited numbers of these cards, without designating who gets to hold them, and without giving out enough at any one time for every PC to have one, unless they save them up.
(4) When they use them, they return the chip or card to you. When they find one, you deal them out a new card or chip.
The goal is to include some factor that (A) allows the PCs to renew important resources (thus giving them the means to keep going), but (B) is not under the control of the players (so that it is actually exciting/rewarding to find) and (C) is only obtained by interacting with the world (so that the PCs must do something to get them).
Now, here's the kicker (and you need to ensure that your players understand this): Most creatures don't want these charms to fall into enemy hands. Some will use them themselves, others will destroy them if you wait to long. Still more will simply take them and decamp. If you snooze, you lose.
Done properly, this will help lure the players into risking just one more encounter, while giving them the means to not only handle that encounter, but, possibly, just one more.....
Here's a fix for you that should work:
(1) Buy a deck of cards with cool images. This can be a standard 52-card deck, a tarot deck, whatever you like. Or use poker chips. Whatever floats your boat, so long as you have it, and the players do not.
(2) Tell the players you are experimenting with a "non-renewable resource". I.e., once spent, it is gone forever. This resource can be used to buy healing surges, extra uses of dailies, whatever else you desire.
(3) Come up with a fluff description of what these cards represent in the game world. This fluff description should require that someone specific holds them, but that they can be used by that person, or that said person can spend an Action to use them for another within, say, a 30-foot range. Call 'em "charms" if you like.
(3) Then include limited numbers of these cards, without designating who gets to hold them, and without giving out enough at any one time for every PC to have one, unless they save them up.
(4) When they use them, they return the chip or card to you. When they find one, you deal them out a new card or chip.
The goal is to include some factor that (A) allows the PCs to renew important resources (thus giving them the means to keep going), but (B) is not under the control of the players (so that it is actually exciting/rewarding to find) and (C) is only obtained by interacting with the world (so that the PCs must do something to get them).
Now, here's the kicker (and you need to ensure that your players understand this): Most creatures don't want these charms to fall into enemy hands. Some will use them themselves, others will destroy them if you wait to long. Still more will simply take them and decamp. If you snooze, you lose.
Done properly, this will help lure the players into risking just one more encounter, while giving them the means to not only handle that encounter, but, possibly, just one more.....
Raven Crowking
First Post
Reduce XP, or change the progression to require steeper exponential growth, and you eliminate this problem (if it is a problem for you).
I didn't say that all such sources of offensive increases came post-PHB. I did say that a lot of new ones did. And, many of them stack whereas some PHB ones did not. For example, Weapon Focus is a feat bonus. It doesn't stack with any other other PHB feat damage bonuses like Astral Fire or Burning Blizzard or Dark Fury.
Offensive bonuses from later sources started stacking more often. For example, Superior Implement Accurate is not a feat bonus.
And some new defensive feats also stack with everything like Epic Fortitude.
In PHB, Shield Specialization and Armor Specialization and Combat Anticipation do not stack.
That changed post-PHB a lot more.
Battle Staff, Tome of Striking Lightning, Unforgettable Cudgel.
The list goes on and on.
Daggermaster was fairly lame for most classes except Rogues because using a dagger as a weapon was fairly weak. It was the equivalent of +2 to hit with a smaller weapon and giving up a decent Paragon Path to get that. It's not until the splat books came out that it became worthwhile for non-melee PCs, both with increased crit worth and for use with implements and multiple targets.
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.
So, your argument is that because they had balance bugs in powers and feats and Paragon Paths in early 4E products (some builds that the vast majority of players did not play or necessarily even know about), that additional power creep is acceptable and even desired?
The DM can do so. It just takes longer to level now because of less XP per encounter. For some DMs, that might be better. Going back to 10 encounters per level instead of 7 or 8.
Raven Crowking
First Post
I wanted to elaborate on this, because that was not intended as snark, and might be taken as such. There are two factors involved.
1: IMHO, and IME, players go nova when they believe that it is tactically sound to do so. Providing healing surges (i.e., the potential means to go on) is not enough to prevent this from occurring, once the players have mastered the system to a degree where the optimal tactics are obvious.
There must be some tangible cost to going nova and/or some tangible benefit to not doing so, to eliminate the 15-minute adventuring day.
2: There is a problem with the creation of battles that are balanced on a knife's edge. For a battle to be exciting, there has to be a reasonable chance for measurable loss. In older editions, this meant loss of resources, which could trickle away through combat, but, equally important, could potentially be replaced through successes.
This creates a sort of dynamic tension in which every encounter is potentially significant, without it necessarily being life-or-death. At the end of the encounter, the party might be in better condition (due to resource aquisition), worse condition, or roughly the same.
Encounters that leave you in better condition might be the least common, but they are common enough that, like slot machines, one wishes to take just that extra chance for a payout.
By largely removing this sort of resource, the ruleset reinforces "rest to reset" play. By largely removing the sort of minor resource attrition that occurred in older editions, the ruleset removed the ability of the DM to present combats that were both significant in game terms, but not so significant that the players feel a need to stop and rest.
Compounding both (1) and (2) is the observation that, in a system where battles take a long time, it is generally considered bad practice to use a string of non-important battles. Thus, the DM is not encouraged to use wandering monsters to prevent extend rests (or make them an actual tactical choice due to the chance of interuption), and the DM is likewise encouraged to make each encounter "significant" in a system wherein the only "significance" is measured by use of resources that are recoverable only by an extended rest.
This is a topic that saw a lot of discussion based on the design blogs, prior to 4e's release, and there were a number of possible ways suggested that the system could both impliment the 4e design goals are avoid the 15-minute adventuring day (and I was the author of none of those excellent, unused, suggestions).
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.
RC
eriktheguy
First Post
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.
Similar Threads
