15 Minute Adventuring Day

[Balesir]

Hi,

First off I should, by way of introduction, say that the players I DM for were, before the MM3 damage mods and at high Heroic, muttering that encounters were too easy. This may, in part, be due to the party being 7 characters strong - it is pretty clear to me that large and small parties have a more-than-linear effect on party "power" due to synergies and multi-character tactics. Since the damage increase, however, they seem to be having more fun with really challenging combats.

Now, vis-a-vis extending the "workday":

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

1. A reason to continue,

This is needed, sure. I'm not sure the answer is more in-game resources/rewards, though. That will just skew the balance and generate iterative problems. I'll say more below.

2. The means to continue, i.e., a way to allow combats to be significant while potentially restoring lost resources necessary to continue,

I think healing surges and action points do this OK now. The limit on surges in an encounter is how fast the characters can use the surges during the encounter - it is one aspect of "power creep" that I'm not convinced has been well controlled that there seem more options to cycle these faster than there used to be.

We also still use the "Magic Item Uses per Day", because these are a feature that helped, here, but were taken away with the whole, daft "Magic Item Rarity" thing.

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

This is a big hole, I agree. Some ideas for mechanical support here would be very welcome indeed - except, as I said, I don't think more resources are the answer.

4. The addition of DM-controlled access to an important resource, which essentially allows the DM to reward (and therefore reinforce) bolder play.

Bleh - sorry, but the idea of the DM handing out smarties for in-game goodies to reward "good play" (this being "good" in the DM's eyes, presumably) is not something that lights my pipe. Add to this that I think adding (yet) more in-game resources for the players will produce knock-on problems of balance (power creep, essentially).

I think I would much prefer to see some sort of meta-reward for this. Instead of making the players' characters more powerful (even temporarily) for a longer workday, make the players feel good about their achievement, somehow. Maybe this is where "strongholds" and character status "back in town" come in? Some sort of "scoring method" that doesn't add directly to character power would be useful, I think.

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

That, as ever, is the trick - and I think it would be easier to achieve if there was a "scoring system" separate from character power and resources .

 

[KarinsDad]

You ran a single epic encounter and I ran an entire epic campaign, where players had time (months) to adjust to their powers and abilities - not just a single encounter.

Note the word adjust.

Yes. PCs optimized over a long period of time with the absolute most broken original PHB elements would have an easier time.

This is pretty obvious. The game wasn't necessarily easy, the best broken uber options in the game that should have never seen the light of day made it easy for some select PC builds.

They did not become easy they already were.

If it were so easy, then how come PCs were going unconscious right and left, and some even died, a lot in the early heroic days? There are tons of such posts here in ENWorld, just go look.

Is it just because the players didn't understand the system for the first 6 months?

Is it that DMs refused to use the DMG monster guidelines?


Maybe to some extent, but it's mostly because the later synergies made the game easier.

Most groups got hit pretty hard by IronTooth. Entire parties got TPKed.

Now, IronTooth is a speed bump. A real tough encounter that should be won by most 1st level groups that have PCs that are well designed. Not optimized to the nth degree, just designed with decent options.

Irontooth now is what the designers wanted Irontooth to be in the first place. Irontooth then was a terror because the players didn't have the tools at first level to handle him.

Edit: Now I mention it, a key point is that my party found it very hard at level 16 initially as well. I sort of threw them into the deep end of DnD and insisted "SWIM MY PLAYERS, TRY NOT TO DROWN". But by 4 levels they had figured out this high level play thing and believe me - they didn't struggle anymore and now I was the one in trouble. So honestly, I'm not going to give any credence to a "Well I ran a random one shot encounter at epic" argument. It's irrelevant, because it discounts that a group of PCs develop their tactics over time. My second epic game - for the record - was a maptools game that went from level 1 to level 30. Things were most difficult in heroic tier and got easier as time went on - only MM3 pulled things back. Bearing in mind that party got massacred by a whole host of direct nerfs due to the aggressive errata schedule as well. Much of that errata - hate to say this - on PHB powers and options.

Yup.

Until your party adjusted their abilities and tactics, they got smoked because they didn't yet have the best feats, powers, and items.

Your entire "I ran an epic campaign" so I am right and you are wrong concept is in error. I didn't run an epic campaign, just a single encounter, but I ran quite a few heroic adventures and paragon adventures pre-Adventure's Vault.

And in both tiers, the PCs were getting their butts handed to them on occasion. It wasn't just an easy walk in the park. Course, maybe you don't challenge your PCs. Since I never saw my players just smoke the opposition day in and day out, it's probably because I ran a more difficult campaign than you did. Or, maybe your players are tactical genuises. The fact is that not everyone has your anecdotal experience.


Players have it easy. They run the same PC session in and session out and they just keep learning more and more about how to run the PC and how to run the group.

The DM has it much harder. The DM has to adapt more. One of the reasons that your players started kicking your butt is because they adapted and got better with the same PCs whereas like most campaigns, you most likely had new monsters most encounters with new abilities which you didn't have time to play tactically the best every time. By the time the DM learns how to better run undead, the PCs aren't fighting undead anymore.

So, maybe the fact that your players got better wasn't totally in the game system.


Your players gamed the most egregious of the original balance flaws and adjusted their tactics accordingly, and it allowed them to be overly successful.

And every time those balance flaws were corrected, your players struggled more again.

Just like players today game the most egregious of synergy bonuses from many sources and it allows them to be overly successful.

The balance field just shifted. For all of the errata that WotC puts in to attempt to maintain balance, they offset that by putting out new material that by itself might be balanced, but via synergy of so many other options can be abused.


Expertise alone proves that.

How much stronger would have your PHB only Epic PCs have been with Expertise in their pockets when they were PHB only?

Obviously, if every PC would have taken it, they would have done 20% to 30% more damage per round on average at Epic with a single feat.

How can you not consider this huge??? 20% to 30% more damage with a single feat.

How can you not consider this one feat as making Paragon and Epic tiers a lot easier?


There are so many examples of this anymore.

Lightning Arc is so much more useful than Scorching Burst. The blast Wizard is no longer pressured as much to take Improved Initiative in order to possibly get lucky early on with SB. Now, he can take other feats.

The masterwork armor boosts in Adventure Vault. The heavy armored PCs don't get toasted as bad in Paragon.

Feats like White Lotus Riposte. If a foe comes in and targets the arcane caster PC, that PC can now do extra damage that he couldn't with core.


The list goes on and on and on and on and on. Most of it is not unbalanced by itself, but there are some strong options which combined with specific other options, becomes extremely potent, hence, making the game easier.


One other note: the game is also now easier because there are entire web pages devoted to optimizing, there are posts all over our gaming community talking about stronger tactics and things to avoid, and players/DMs everywhere are constantly learning.

The game has matured and by definition, that makes it easier too.


Until last summer, one thing that didn't get too significantly bigger, better, badder, and stronger was the monsters. They stayed pretty much the same and the PCs started toasting them easier and easier.

 

[Kerranin]

This is aggravated by the fact that unless the attack targets your strongest defense (and then even in spite of it some times) we never seem to get missed by attacks.


A big problem which can easily occur is if the DM or players neglect defences. If the DM does not constantly give players the ability to upgrade defensive items, or if players do not make sure to upgrade their defenses, it is very easy to fall behind the attack bonuses of the monsters.

On, ending the fight early, I suggest taking a look at a post from http://slyflourish.com/three-examples-for-ending-a-battle-early/

 

[Aegeri]

Note the word adjust.

Yes. PCs optimized over a long period of time with the absolute most broken original PHB elements would have an easier time.

Because the original PHB was very broken. This is the entire point and why your "power creep" argument doesn't actually apply to what happened. In addition to this you aren't actually reading what I wrote fully, because the argument about "adjusting" was that they knew everything their characters could do. They had their thing they would do, they were fully familiar with rules subtleties like immediate reactions/interrupts and similar. In other words they knew what they wanted to do and how they intended to actually do it.

If you take a group of new players, threw them into epic tier - yeah they would struggle simply due to the complexity of epic tier (another common complaint, arguably for another thread though). That's expected. Take the same group of people over months of playing the same character they know inside and out and they perform significantly better. This isn't even my opinion, this is a pure statement of fact that if you do something for longer and are more familiar with it - you do better with it.

The game wasn't necessarily easy, the best broken uber options in the game that should have never seen the light of day made it easy for some select PC builds.

And yet on CharOp on the official forums time and time again new stuff is constantly still compared to options in the original PHB.

You should ponder that.

If it were so easy, then how come PCs were going unconscious right and left, and some even died, a lot in the early heroic days?

What relevance does early heroic have to do with paragon and epic play?

Because it doesn't.

Now, IronTooth is a speed bump.

You are aware that they re-released Keep on the Shadowfell with a free PDF that heavily tones him down right? That the same original encounter is still actually dangerous to PCs with current rules. This is why the encounter is nowhere near as absurd, because they have provided errata via the free web release.

Until your party adjusted their abilities and tactics, they got smoked because they didn't yet have the best feats, powers, and items.

Which isn't actually the case at all.

Your entire "I ran an epic campaign" so I am right and you are wrong concept is in error. I didn't run an epic campaign, just a single encounter

Which doesn't matter in this argument because of the argument I already made before. Give PCs a consistent time in epic tier to sort out how their characters work and the experience is entirely different. If I throw a bunch of people who don't know how to swim into the deepest part of the pool do I declare the pool dangerous? Or is the fact they didn't know how to swim yet the more important point?

Quite frankly, my experience in running 2 entire epic campaigns matters a lot more in this argument than a random one shot encounter in terms of consistency.

Answer me honestly: What do you think a random one shot epic encounter actually means in this argument? Compared with months of play, with varied levels across a whole tier, with many more monsters and hours more playtime? Because my experience with epic tier problems and how ineffective monsters at that time wasn't just my own.

but I ran quite a few heroic adventures and paragon adventures pre-Adventure's Vault.

Heroic adventures have very little relevance to the debate here - early paragon is the same. When you get to around mid paragon and then epic, that's when PCs started to really pull ahead of monsters easily. Especially because most of the PHB EDs especially are actually some of the best in the game and still are.

Course, maybe you don't challenge your PCs.

I have actually already addressed this and already stated what I did.

Since I never saw my players just smoke the opposition day in and day out, it's probably because I ran a more difficult campaign than you did. Or, maybe your players are tactical genuises. The fact is that not everyone has your anecdotal experience.

Wow, so let's summarise:

Your ONE epic encounter experience CLEARLY proves that there was no problem. Clearly months of play with the same players building their characters over time and getting very used to how the tier of play works is ENTIRELY not more valid than one random epic tier encounter.

Apparently I don't know how to make epic tier combats challenging - despite handing out widely regarded advice on precisely how to do so. Whoops! Actually I can make epic combats challenging - what I got out of completely terrible monsters to challenge the most ridiculously char Oped style party by the end of that campaign was not easy. But this argument pretty much fails spectacularly so let's continue.

Are my PCs tactical geniuses? No, they aren't but they had very solid tactics and employed them. But this is because pre-MM3 simple tactics would effectively win you a combat quite often. You didn't need to be a tactical genius to know come and get it would lock down most creatures next to the fighter, then just hit them with AoE powers that hit enemies only (or let you deliberately avoid the fighter).

Considering other DMs have similar experiences to me, posted in the thread I linked and there are certainly other examples - you are quite literally one of the only people I've seen claim monsters pre-splat books were somehow better. No, they really weren't. They were terribly designed at paragon/epic from day 1 and there is no point in being in denial over this.

And every time those balance flaws were corrected, your players struggled more again.

This isn't actually true if you read what I wrote. I said that the party finally got pulled back by MM3 - but they were also hit by the errata. Yet time and time again I've pointed out the new monster design of MM3 and beyond was the key difference.

If the errata fixed the broken elements - yet the game did not become harder - what does that tell you? It tells me the stuff that got errata'ed wasn't the true problem. Of course it's easy to say that now but back then, all I was hoping for was more errata. It's worth noting that it is still important to mention. I didn't have a warlord at the time, but other parties with warlords got hit by the nerf to lead the attack massively. But again, the Warlord - PHB class. Lead the Attack... where is that? Oh! The PLAYERS HAND BOOK.

In some ways, I actually think some of the errata isn't so needed anymore (but that's another argument entirely).

How much stronger would have your PHB only Epic PCs have been with Expertise in their pockets when they were PHB only?

Lead the Attack + Deadly Trickster.

Enjoy having three (four if you're an elf) rerolls a day and never missing with Lead the Attack - then just never missing anyway making sure every solo battle is 100% trivially. Did I mention that same build will get lead the attack twice a day as well? I didn't? Consider it mentioned.

How can you not consider this huge??? 20% to 30% more damage with a single feat.

How does that compare with infinite damage and attacks? Or a bloodmage + bloodpulse?

How is that not "huge" with a single power you can basically use all day, every day? It's like you don't truly appreciate just how broken the PHB actually was and are viewing it through the rose tinted glasses of all this stuff having the snot beaten out of it by errata.

How can you not consider this one feat as making Paragon and Epic tiers a lot easier?

Because it doesn't compare to doing hundreds of points of damage easily with bloodpulse, stunning every monster (or dazing them) in a close burst 20 and granting infinite attacks.

And this is why I dismiss your argument because there is quite literally nothing like that in the game now. But there was on release and plenty of it. In one book.

Again, there is a REALLY good reason so much errata is in the PHB. Not to mention that because there was only one book with major player options - then later the PHB2 and martial power (IIRC) most of the PCs picked things from the PHB (as they all had this). So most of those broken options came up very frequently, which when PCs only have one book to source from is what you'd expect.

One other note: the game is also now easier because there are entire web pages devoted to optimizing, there are posts all over our gaming community talking about stronger tactics and things to avoid, and players/DMs everywhere are constantly learning.

You are aware that Character Optimization at the official boards before 4E was even released figured out how to one shot Orcus - the games first level 30+ creature - a ridiculously high percentage of the time with a simple Elven Ranger build don't you?

They did that only with the PHB. They did this, before 4Es wider release. Something to think about.

They stayed pretty much the same and the PCs started toasting them easier and easier.

This doesn't change the fact that the original characters straight out of the PHB were so powerful they would wipe the floor with them then. I again point to Orcus being trivially one shot by an Elven Ranger by himself. If they had not been errata'ed, they could still probably wipe the floor with the current lot better than everything now with power creep.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hi

Hi, and thanks for the response. I was just throwing it out there as something that might be helpful, but there is no need to agree with me on any of it!

"One size fits all" does not apply to rpgs!


RC

 

[Neonchameleon]

If it were so easy, then how come PCs were going unconscious right and left, and some even died, a lot in the early heroic days? There are tons of such posts here in ENWorld, just go look.

The monster math has been changed by half a point of damage per level. At level 1 this is an average of ... half a point of damage. The change is trivial at low levels. And some low level MM1 monsters are incredibly scary and actually got nerfed for Monster Vault. See Needlefang Drake Swarms, Wraiths, and Goblin Hexers for details.

Most groups got hit pretty hard by IronTooth. Entire parties got TPKed.

Now, IronTooth is a speed bump. A real tough encounter that should be won by most 1st level groups that have PCs that are well designed. Not optimized to the nth degree, just designed with decent options.

As I understand it, Irontooth isn't just Irontooth. He comes at the end of a short rest and that it's the second fight rolled into the first that kills PCs. Also we're talking first level here - the math change is trivial at this point.

Players have it easy. They run the same PC session in and session out and they just keep learning more and more about how to run the PC and how to run the group.

Yes. Which is why a campaign is the true measure of power. If you're just talking about single encounters, you have PCs played by players who do not know what they are doing.

Expertise alone proves that.

Expertise is the one real boost to PCs, granted.

There are so many examples of this anymore.

Sure. There's light blade expertise, axe expertise, orb expertise, staff expertise... Other than the expertise family of feats it's not so bad. (Arguably, there are the NAD boosters).

Lightning Arc is so much more useful than Scorching Burst. The blast Wizard is no longer pressured as much to take Improved Initiative in order to possibly get lucky early on with SB. Now, he can take other feats.

Scorching Burst is weak. I didn't realise that was in dispute.

Feats like White Lotus Riposte. If a foe comes in and targets the arcane caster PC, that PC can now do extra damage that he couldn't with core.

You mean the swordmage-boost? I've yet to see a wizard benefit from that.

Until last summer, one thing that didn't get too significantly bigger, better, badder, and stronger was the monsters. They stayed pretty much the same and the PCs started toasting them easier and easier.

Compare the MM1 to the MM2. The math is the same, but there's a massive design improvement.

This is aggravated by the fact that unless the attack targets your strongest defense (and then even in spite of it some times) we never seem to get missed by attacks.

It's probably the biggest bug in the 4e maths - the PC NADs are low.

At level 1 I expect a 1st level PC to have an average AC of 17 (something like chain and a light shield - many have better and most of those who have worse aren't on the melee line).

A PC with a wide stat spread (i.e. good NADs) is likely to have a primary stat of 18, a secondary of 16, and a tertiary of 14. On average, including a light shield for classes that can, you get +3 spread among your NADs (2 from the class, 1 from the shield's reflex bonus or something like Two Weapon Defence) or an average of +1/NAD. This gives a character with a wide-ish stat spread and therefore good NADs an average NAD of 14, or three behind their AC.

Things get worse; your NADs are going to be lower if you have a 20 in your primary stat. Or if you're doubling stats on a NAD (the ever popular Str/Con being a favourite). Your NADs are also going to spread out as you level. And with class design, for instance the rogue gains +2 to reflex from his class - when Reflex is the rogue's good defence anyway leaving two poor ones. Or the fighter gains +2 fort. Not that a str/con fighter lacked in fort in the first place. But the other two defences were lacking, and it only got worse.

And as for getting missed by attacks, about half of you were getting missed each time by that dragonbreath. Not that it really mattered given you took half damage anyway and were all in the target zone... But the dragon missed more than he hit with his claws unless attacking Katrina (the mage for those of you playing along at home). And hit Vlad (the fighter) on about one attack in three.

 

[Riastlin]

I would hardly call 20% of the errata being in one book as a drop in the bucket. Its actually probably a little over 20% given the amount of padding in the errata document (each book starting on a fresh page). I think the 20% figure is particularly noteworthy given the "dozens" of new books argument.

To be sure, there is plenty of errata in the newer books, but the percentage coming from PHB is certainly the greatest. PCs started out being much better at Epic than the monsters were (keep in mind that Aegeri's arguments were not with heroic, but with epic). PCs don't really flex their muscles until they are in paragon (and particularly mid-paragon).

Irontooth was a brutal encounter, not a brutal monster. The encounter was brutal because it was really two encounters at once. That is almost always going to give the PCs a run for the money. Its the same problem many groups had with the White Shrine encounter in Shadowrift of Umbraforge. Granted, insubstantial-weakening-regenerating wraiths didn't help (and wraiths were one of the bigger design mishaps around, particularly if the DM put a bunch of them together), but the real killer was if the encounter triggered before the previous one ended (which happened quite a bit).

Ironically, the White Shrine encounter actually became more difficult with the release of more books and options. With PHB 1 only, roughly 1 in 4 characters would have good access to radiant attacks. As primal, and psionic classes were introduced to the game, it became a lot more likely that a party might not have radiant attacks in their arsenal (and radiant attacks make White Shrine a fairly easy encounter).

Now, to be fair, I do think that one area of power creep that exists is in the area of surgeless healing. Certainly it became much more widespread (particularly if somebody played a pacifist cleric) and that was a definite boost. Ironic though that its a defensive boost and not an offensive one though, and as such things like expertise are not really influencing it that much. I'd be curious to see how much of the errata is devoted to surgeless healing as my suspiscion is that its likely several pages by the time you look at all the different feats, powers, features, and items that were hit by it. Even then, it usually wasn't a problem but for one specific build (and a build that many soon found uninteresting at that).

At any rate, in the short term, my players are definitely feeling the change to MM3 numbers and its definitely having an effect. However, I also think that they will adjust. Note, that's not saying that new abilities will come out that cause power creep. Rather, they'll just learn how to use what they already have better. Whereas before, tactics only somewhat mattered, now they definitely matter. Sometimes the avenger needs to just use his bow and basic ranged attack rather than risk a dirt nap. Focusing fire is even more important now to a large extent. Placement and defenses definitely need to be considered, etc. My guess is that within a level or two they'll have figured it out. It won't be because of the new feats/utilities so much as realizing "Hey, if we just do this."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Optimizing increases grind.

Monsters that challenge players need to be higher level ---> hp increase ---> grind, as hitting becomes harder.

Increasing the damage is the same as reducing hp and AC. (And reducing xp to allow for more encounters in a level)
So many things written here are just plain not really true. The DM just has to keep in mind, that a Monster of MM3 counts as a monster some levels higher when desgning an encounter. It does not shorten the adventuring day.

Even if a MM3 monster only gets a single hit in, it is noticeable. A crit can now bloody a character. This invokes fear without costing more surges all in all. But when a single hit can possibly take you out, you start getting more cautious, and running into a bunch of monsters gets exiting, as two lucky hits, and you may be close to down. Where with monsters of old design you can more easily calculate how much damage you receive, as hit chance is higher but damage is lower.

So IMHO increasing damage is a good solution, it makes combats a bit more swingy and thus less predictable and more exiting.

Also, even if some people disagree, AC buffing powers become more useful, as beeing hit on a 10 or 8 does not have an great impact on yur feeling of safety. If you suddenly reduce the chances of you beeing hit from 18+ to 20, you now feel invincible. (And a hit series that drops you usually does not occur, but a crit will make you fear for your life.)

A lot of the fun comes not from the EV but from spikes. Even if the expected damage is lower, increased damage from lower level monsters makes the game more fun. And less frustrating.

Edit: I also believe expertise increases the grind. As to hit chance increases with no back up from damage. The DM has to use higher level monsters, those have more hp. With the old Damage expressions, increasing monster level does not really increase the damage output considerably. Hit chance increases, but with already very high hitchances, this is also not noticeable on an encounter scale.

 

[Riastlin]

Good point UngeheuerLich. When the ranger took 114 points of damage from a single monster's first turn (putting her 1 point from death), it was really only because the monster was using the MM3 numbers. The monster was I believe (don't have my notes in front of me) 1 level below the party's. Under the old damage expressions, I'm not even sure the ranger would have been bloodied by the same sequence. Had I been using a monster 2 or 3 levels above the party's level, the ranger would have been well and truly dead. What the ranger learned was that wandering off by yourself in a dungeon that's known to be dangerous is not a particularly bright idea. What I learned was that, as you say, equal level encounters can be just as frightening as level +4 encounters used to be.

I fully expect that if I always throw encounters at the party that are a couple levels above theirs, they'll be wanting to take frequent extended rests. By using equal-level encounters though, they're able to get in a number of encounters before needing to take an extended rest.

 

[KarinsDad]

I would hardly call 20% of the errata being in one book as a drop in the bucket. Its actually probably a little over 20% given the amount of padding in the errata document (each book starting on a fresh page). I think the 20% figure is particularly noteworthy given the "dozens" of new books argument.

You are looking at it as black and white percentage of number of books.

First, not all of the PHB errata is about feats, powers, etc.

Some of it is skills and other aspects which are under the control of the players designing a PC.


Second, you are forgetting about lessons learned.

The designers put together the PHB and the community found gaping holes in it right away. The PHB is version 1.0 of 4E. Sorry, but balance-wise, it sucked in some places. It has a lot of non-obvious on the surface balance bugs.

Why? Because just like software design, version 1.0 of anything is a lot worse than later refinements.


PHB 2 is version 1.5 of 4E. There is a lot fewer errata on PHB 2 because the designers made fewer obviously bad mistakes. They learned from their earlier mistakes.


Martial Power came out in November 2008 and it had a brand spanking new mechanic of Battlerager which totally ignored minion damage and totally unbalanced Fighters with a plethora of free hit points multiple times per round. Opps. Another lesson learned. Another errata. This is only 5 months after the PHB came out and was already on the drawing boards. Such an obviously bad design wasn't caught because the designers hadn't yet learned as much what to do and what to not do.


It takes time for the designers to start getting it right. Heck, the second re-design of the skill challenge table took 2 years to implement. The orignal sucked and was way too hard in some cases. The first re-design was pushed out quickly and still sucked, just in the opposite direction (it still heavily disregarded the math). The third re-design is pretty darn close to the actual math, but it's still too easy (Medium DCs are nearly 100% success for most trained PCs, that's not medium, that's easy), but not as egregious as the second design.