D&D General 6-8 encounters (combat?)

[Maxperson]

I've played a barbarian in both those kinds of campaigns too. In a campaign with 6-8 encounters the low-level barbarian is extremely lack luster. Sure, it makes a difference comparing the barbarian from the one campaign to the barbarian from the other. It just doesn't unbalance them wrt the other classes. No one in the campaign with fewer encounters was saying, "wow, your barbarian is too OP". And that campaign was a majority of martial characters.

I feel like you're white rooming a little.

He really isn't. Over in the last couple wizards(spellcasters) are super duper uber all that threads, the side that was saying how overpowered the wizards were were also the ones who were only having a few encounters a day. Those of us who were supplying the 6-8 weren't seeing it like they were. Giving casters a few encounters a day is what makes their spells count for so much more in each of the fights and out of combat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

He really isn't. Over in the last couple wizards(spellcasters) are super duper uber all that threads, the side that was saying how overpowered the wizards were were also the ones who were only having a few encounters a day. Those of us who were supplying the 6-8 weren't seeing it like they were. Giving casters a few encounters a day is what makes their spells count for so much more in each of the fights and out of combat.

I'm responding to the claims being made in this thread.

Those claims are based on white rooming, IMO. The claim is that spiritual guardians is superior in multi-wave encounters.

Which is perfectly true, but you have to assume that the players always know that it's a multi-wave encounter. Cast the spell on an easy no-wave encounter and you just wasted a good resource on a nothing fight. Wait for the second wave to arrive and it's no longer nearly as good because you didn't get the "extra" rounds. It's only if you cast it at the beginning of the encounter and it's a multi-wave fight that it really proves superior. However, assuming that you will always know to do so at the beginning of a multi-wave encounter is absolutely white rooming, because the players shouldn't always have that information at the beginning of the encounter. Plenty of times they won't know that an encounter has waves until the reinforcements arrive.

 

[Blue]

I've played a barbarian in both those kinds of campaigns too. In a campaign with 6-8 encounters the low-level barbarian is extremely lack luster. Sure, it makes a difference comparing the barbarian from the one campaign to the barbarian from the other. It just doesn't unbalance them wrt the other classes.

Your details support my point, I am unsure how you come to a different conclusion. Can we examine?

In one, the barbarian was lack-luster. An at-will, like a rogue, would be the same all of the way through.

In the other, the barbarian was not lackluster. An at-will would be at exactly the same.

So, if in one the barbarian is worse and in one they are better, they absolutely vary compared to the static value of the rogue. So their relative power compared to the rogue varies. They aren't both balanced against the rogue, so it affects balance between classes.

No one in the campaign with fewer encounters was saying, "wow, your barbarian is too OP". And that campaign was a majority of martial characters.

So a 2014 beastmaster ranger is balanced against all other classes and subclasses because no one says it's "too OP"? No, balance has to do both when it's stronger and weaker.

If the barbarian is noticeably weaker, it's out of balance.

I feel like you're white rooming a little.

I am, this is a generic discussion talking about averages. It's somewhat unavoidable when talking about the state of the game as a whole. You are right that there can be individual variations, but looking at the math can give you a big picture feel across a lot of campaigns, and is what you need to design against.

Sure, if there had been a second wave those spells would have been very useful.

Which was my entire point.

You don't necessarily know at the start of an encounter that reinforcements are coming. If you do, sure, casting a spell like spiritual guardians is a great idea. OTOH, if you cast it and it turns out to be a 2 round easy fight with no reinforcements, you've just wasted your elephant round swatting a fly. If you wait a few rounds to see whether reinforcements arrive, then you've wasted a large chunk of the spell's value.

I feel you are getting stuck in the weeds. I talked about a spell you would cast for your average 3-4 round combat, how if you already cast it, you would get extra utility out of it if the combat went longer. By this point, you have already cast it for the encounter you knew about.

And again, duration is the small part of the whole thing. Don't get too hung up on it. It's 20% of the whole presentation.

Finally, no, Hypnotic Pattern is not providing you any more value when the second wave arrives. It CC'd whatever enemies it did from the first wave, and that doesn't change when the second wave arrives. It provides no more value than if you used it in two separate encounters. It has no capacity to hypnotize the second wave, and for you to even attempt hypnotizing the second wave you need to release concentration on the first. Furthermore, if the second wave disrupts your concentration and the first wave is released from the spell, you're getting less value from the spell than if you'd used it in two separate encounters.

Wave 1 has 8 foes. Hyponotic Pattern catches 6 of them, 2 whom are later broken out. 4 foes are killed leaving 2 active before wave 2 appears with 3 more foes.

Case 1: You fight five foes (2+3) at once, with two still caught in Hypnotic Patten to be dealt with later.
Case 2: You believe Hypontic Pattern brings no additional value and drop concentration. You fight seven foes at once.

Not all duration spells bring extended value, but even on the one you insist can't, it can. Case 1 is better than Case 2. It doesn't have to, and maybe it will be best to spend more resources and cast a new concentration spell. But that's more actions and resources, and the apples to apples of just that one casting shows there is still residual value in the Hypnotic Pattern.

And that's one of the least, while the Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon will retain most/all of their value when a second wave comes.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Your details support my point, I am unsure how you come to a different conclusion. Can we examine?

In one, the barbarian was lack-luster. An at-will, like a rogue, would be the same all of the way through.

In the other, the barbarian was not lackluster. An at-will would be at exactly the same.

So, if in one the barbarian is worse and in one they are better, they absolutely vary compared to the static value of the rogue. So their relative power compared to the rogue varies. They aren't both balanced against the rogue, so it affects balance between classes.


So a 2014 beastmaster ranger is balanced against all other classes and subclasses because no one says it's "too OP"? No, balance has to do both when it's stronger and weaker.

If the barbarian is noticeably weaker, it's out of balance.


I am, this is a generic discussion talking about averages. It's somewhat unavoidable when talking about the state of the game as a whole. You are right that there can be individual variations, but looking at the math can give you a big picture feel across a lot of campaigns, and is what you need to design against.


Which was my entire point.


I feel you are getting stuck in the weeds. I talked about a spell you would cast for your average 3-4 round combat, how if you already cast it, you would get extra utility out of it if the combat went longer. By this point, you have already cast it for the encounter you knew about.

And again, duration is the small part of the whole thing. Don't get too hung up on it. It's 20% of the whole presentation.


Wave 1 has 8 foes. Hyponotic Pattern catches 6 of them, 2 whom are later broken out. 4 foes are killed leaving 2 active before wave 2 appears with 3 more foes.

Case 1: You fight five foes (2+3) at once, with two still caught in Hypnotic Patten to be dealt with later.
Case 2: You believe Hypontic Pattern brings no additional value and drop concentration. You fight seven foes at once.

Not all duration spells bring extended value, but even on the one you insist can't, it can. Case 1 is better than Case 2. It doesn't have to, and maybe it will be best to spend more resources and cast a new concentration spell. But that's more actions and resources, and the apples to apples of just that one casting shows there is still residual value in the Hypnotic Pattern.

And that's one of the least, while the Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon will retain most/all of their value when a second wave comes.

If. That's what you're missing. If a second wave comes. Not when. That's the crucial distinction. If you always have perfect knowledge that waves are coming... well, there's the reason I'd say those spells seem as good to you as they do.


I'll try again to explain regarding the barbarian.

Let's pretend for a moment that the Barbarian class never existed. And let's imagine that I create a class called the Commoner with just the stuff the NPC commoner gets. We play it for a while and the feedback I get from the players is (unsurprisingly) that it feels really undertuned. So I go back to the drawing board and create the Revised Commoner, which just happens to be identical to the 5e Barbarian class.

Sure, you could make the claim that the balance changed from the Commoner to the Revised Commoner. It's kind of a misnomer to call it a balance issue. The Commoner had very poor balance and the Revised Commoner has better balance. I haven't unbalanced the game by creating the Revised Commoner. The rogue and the fighter don't suddenly feel overshadowed by the Revised Commoner. If they did, then that would be a balance issue.

Similarly, I don't think giving the Barbarian a rage in every encounter would unbalance the game. Sure, this Revised Barbarian is better than the original, but if I am correct in my assessment that a Barbarian without rage is significantly undertuned, and a Barbarian with rage is not overtuned, then you haven't damaged the balance with this hypothetical Revised Barbarian that rages in every encounter.


Just come on with your Hypnotic Pattern comparison. It's a complete strawman. You're literally comparing maintaining the spell versus dropping it for literally no reason. Obviously there is going to be a difference in that case, except that literally no one would ever drop the spell for no reason. You might as well argue that there's a meaningful distinction between the two as long as we assume that the wizard player has been lobotomized.

My point was that Hypnotic Pattern brings no more value in a multi-wave encounter than a single wave (unless you wait until later waves arrive to use it, but that had its own issues). If you incapacitate 4 doods in round 1, and 4 more doods show up in round 2, your spell only incapacitated 4 doods. If we split the waves into entirely separate encounters, your spell would only incapacitate 4 doods.


I've focused on durations in multi-wave encounters because that seemed to be the basis of the argument in your original post that I responded to.

 

[Blue]

If. That's what you're missing. If a second wave comes. Not when. That's the crucial distinction. If you always have perfect knowledge that waves are coming... well, there's the reason I'd say those spells seem as good to you as they do.

Nothing I said ever requires that. All I said was that if the combat goes longer, many spells and effects (like rage) can have more value. You brought in waves, I don't care if it's waves or one big attack. You brought in "I wouldn't have cast it", in which case in my thing then you never cast it, and you've cast something else. And if it had a duration, it might be getting more.

You are trying to put caveats on this that don't exist.

I'll try again to explain regarding the barbarian.

Let's pretend for a moment that the Barbarian class never existed. And let's imagine that I create a class called the Commoner with just the stuff the NPC commoner gets. We play it for a while and the feedback I get from the players is (unsurprisingly) that it feels really undertuned. So I go back to the drawing board and create the Revised Commoner, which just happens to be identical to the 5e Barbarian class.

Sure, you could make the claim that the balance changed from the Commoner to the Revised Commoner. It's kind of a misnomer to call it a balance issue. The Commoner had very poor balance and the Revised Commoner has better balance. I haven't unbalanced the game by creating the Revised Commoner. The rogue and the fighter don't suddenly feel overshadowed by the Revised Commoner. If they did, then that would be a balance issue.

No, I did not make that claim at all. Because I am not comparing the Commoner to the Revised Commoner. I am comparing something to the Actual_Class. So the Commoner vs. Actual_Class wasn't balanced. And perhaps the Revised Commoner vs. Actual_Class is.

Please note what I am comparing. It is very different than what your understanding is.

I put forth, and then you agreed, that a barbarian that could rage all the time played one way, and that one with 6-8 combats felt, as you put it lackluster.

Assign values of power to "always able to rage barbarian" and "lackluster barbarian". I'm going to make up 7 and 4, but it can be anything. Now compare these to an at-will like the rogue. Let's say the rogue is a 6. It can really be any number, it doesn't matter. In this case the lackluster barbarian is poorly balanced against the rogue. It could be the other way - the always raging barbarian might be the one poorly balanced compared to the rogue. Or rogue might be right in the middle and one is too high and one two low. It doesn't matter, except that the ratio between the barbarians and the rogue changes based on the number of encounters - as you move from "always able to rage" to "lack-luster".

Similarly, I don't think giving the Barbarian a rage in every encounter would unbalance the game. Sure, this Revised Barbarian is better than the original, but if I am correct in my assessment that a Barbarian without rage is significantly undertuned, and a Barbarian with rage is not overtuned, then you haven't damaged the balance with this hypothetical Revised Barbarian that rages in every encounter.

I had already mentioned that too weak is also a balance point, and gave an example of the 2014 PHB Beastmaster Ranger. Lackluster Barbarian may be unbalanced as too weak.

Just come on with your Hypnotic Pattern comparison. It's a complete strawman.

You said it held no value. I showed the value in it continuing. YES, to compare it to not continuing but still not spending more actions and resources I needed to pick the frankly stupid value of just dropping it. How else would you have me compare it to it not continuing?

You're literally comparing maintaining the spell versus dropping it for literally no reason. Obviously there is going to be a difference in that case, except that literally no one would ever drop the spell for no reason.

Again, how do I show an residual value without showing a "with" and a "without"? And you've agreed with me with the "obviously..." bit that it has residual value vs. it not continuing for no reason.

Keeping this apples to apples, no additional actions or resources spent, please show me how you would like me to present "continue" vs. "not continue" for it.

My point was that Hypnotic Pattern brings no more value in a multi-wave encounter than a single wave (unless you wait until later waves arrive to use it, but that had its own issues). If you incapacitate 4 doods in round 1, and 4 more doods show up in round 2, your spell only incapacitated 4 doods. If we split the waves into entirely separate encounters, your spell would only incapacitate 4 doods.

OH, but this is the wrong metric. If I prevented 12 actions (4 "doods" x 3 rounds) or prevented 20 actions (4 "doods" x 5 rounds), that's a big deal. If I broke the foes into waves of 4, 3, and 2 instead of waves of 4 and 5, so we had less of them to deal with at any one time, that absolutely is a big deal.

I've focused on durations in multi-wave encounters because that seemed to be the basis of the argument in your original post that I responded to.

Please go back and reread the original presentation. Duration is only the last two paragraphs before the summation, it's a minor part of the whole thing. The majority is about the average effectiveness per action, with long-rest-recovery classes often having some that are well above the static value for an at-will class, so needing to balance with low-value action as well.

 

[Flamestrike]

24 hours minus 8 hour long rest is 16 hours awake


Jack the Rogue: So we use up all our magic and stamina killing all the monsters then meet those dudes at the entrance. I got a better idea. We wait for them.

That works - see how the players have agnency and their actions matter?

The NPC adventurers are significantly more powerful by the way, and everyone that agrees to waylay and murder the NPCs has their alignment shifted toward Evil by the way (murder is kind of... you know... evil).

Jack the Rogue: Your priest is with his master, mate. If youve come to us, too much time has passed. He's chow.

Hey look, a player that refuses to enagage with adventure hooks.

We seem to have a bigger problem on our hands, one that can be fixed by taking to Jacks player about not being a dick, and if that doesnt work, uninviting Jacks player to the game.

That's multiple adventuring day then.

An adventuring day is an arbitrary period of time between long rest resource recharges.

Not necessarily a day.

 

[Minigiant]

That works - see how the players have agnency and their actions matter?

The NPC adventurers are significantly more powerful by the way, and everyone that agrees to waylay and murder the NPCs has their alignment shifted toward Evil by the way (murder is kind of... you know... evil).

The NPCs will be tired and drained.

Hey look, a player that refuses to enagage with adventure hooks.

We seem to have a bigger problem on our hands, one that can be fixed by taking to Jacks player about not being a dick, and if that doesnt work, uninviting Jacks player to the game.

The Player and PC aren't engaging in a single adventure hook.

That's the issue with doom clocks. The PCs and players have to be invested in them and te PCs have to think the goal is winnable an or survivable. That's why D&D originally reliedon greed, wreath, or self improvement as the the carrot. Usually its the reward that pushes the adventurers forward. To go as far as they can and quit if they must.

But it still misses the point. 6-8 hard or medium encounters with 2 spots of safety with 1 hour of safety and arest pot of 8 hours of safety is hard to craft logically.

So if you don't metagame it, you run out of logical ways to do it. 5e is the first edition with all of:

1. 8 hour long rest
2. 1 hour short rest
3. Spontaneous casting for all casters
4. A base magic stamina for 6-8 encounters
5. Every class having different pillar strength

Individually not bad. Together, Restrictive

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is a really weird thing to say about a storytelling game.

"Must you have 6-8 combats per day?" would be a really weird question to ask about a storytelling game.

 

[Maxperson]

Please go back and reread the original presentation. Duration is only the last two paragraphs before the summation, it's a minor part of the whole thing. The majority is about the average effectiveness per action, with long-rest-recovery classes often having some that are well above the static value for an at-will class, so needing to balance with low-value action as well.

Not only that, but in the original post you mention durations in general, not just the one spell that she has picked out for this discussion.

 

[Flamestrike]

The Player and PC aren't engaging in a single adventure hook.

Then we have bigger problems dont we?