Essentials has me hyped about D&D again

[RangerWickett]

I finally bought the two player's books for Essentials today. I'm planning to run some new players through a one-shot, and I figured they'd be handy.

 

[Aegeri]

It sounds like it does for you. But really, is it that hard for your brain to piece this together?

Some of your statements are quite contradictory. You limit damage, yet have more deadly encounters from weaker combats (?). Then state that you increase damage and yet are doing less damage total. It is difficult to determine why you need to do this in the first place. You can just have 3 or 4 EL +1 encounters and achieve the same effect, without requiring any house rules at all.

Really if you could give some examples I would be better able to see where you are coming from, because your idea is interesting. I just don't see why it's required or what it accomplishes specifically (though there is the attrition aspect - but monsters already do that very well!).

This is how I prefer it. With the way I run the game, b/c there is actually less damage total and players are generally closer to their exhausted levels of very few surges, I feel that each potential encounter is more threatening - heck, even each attack that does damage can be more threatening.

This is kind of the way it is now - as anyone who has ever been critically hit by a wraith will attest to. I guess I'm really not seeing the advantage here. If your goal was to limit extended rests and try to force the PCs not to do so in a dungeon, it's certainly an interesting idea.

And that made me hyped and eager to run my games again -- Running seven different campaigns each week for a total of 9 or 10 sessions really threatens to tap my energy/creative resources.

If it works for you it works, I'm just not really getting what the advantage is over using the normal system as it is. Where monsters chew through healing surges like candy and there really isn't any problem with lethality. That is an extremely impressive amount of campaigns though and I thought I was doing well with 4! (Now just 2, with 1 biweekly game starting soon).

 

[buddhafrog]

Some of your statements are quite contradictory. You limit damage, yet have more deadly encounters from weaker combats (?). Then state that you increase damage and yet are doing less damage total. It is difficult to determine why you need to do this in the first place. You can just have 3 or 4 EL +1 encounters and achieve the same effect, without requiring any house rules at all.

Really if you could give some examples I would be better able to see where you are coming from, because your idea is interesting. I just don't see why it's required or what it accomplishes specifically (though there is the attrition aspect - but monsters already do that very well!).



This is kind of the way it is now - as anyone who has ever been critically hit by a wraith will attest to. I guess I'm really not seeing the advantage here. If your goal was to limit extended rests and try to force the PCs not to do so in a dungeon, it's certainly an interesting idea.



If it works for you it works, I'm just not really getting what the advantage is over using the normal system as it is. Where monsters chew through healing surges like candy and there really isn't any problem with lethality. That is an extremely impressive amount of campaigns though and I thought I was doing well with 4! (Now just 2, with 1 biweekly game starting soon).

Dude, you seem pretty argumentative to me. What I'm saying isn't contradictory - it's just different from your system. Maybe you're just curious, and if that is the case, I apologize. I'll try to explain with more detail/examples but I'm not sure how to do so without saying why "mine is better". So, once more, it's just the way I like it.

my system = PC HP - less healing surges - less encounters + slightly more monster damage = near death

your system = PC HP + standard healing surges + standard encounters + standard monster damage = near death.

Mine does work, I promise. The math is simple. But I know yours does too, they just arrive through different means. Maybe your PC's are threatened b/c each battle could kill them, or b/c they know that after all the encounters, they can't heal themselves properly. It works. My PC's are threated b/c each battle could kill them, and b/c they know that after one battle they might not be able to heal themselves fully.

The general difference with what I'm doing is this:

In one day, my PC's might have two or three battles. Yours might have five.
[I like this better b/c I feel I can get more done with the story/plot]

Your monsters bring your PC's down to "near death", but they generally recover by using all of their healing surges. Several times. Me too, except I feel the healing is a little less over-the-top (I still have a little uncomfortableness with the notion of being near death and then *presto-healthy*, especially several times a day). I just allow less surges. I have less combats. I often will bump the monster damage output (this varies). The math may equal the same by the end of the day in that both parties are near death.

With your system, the next day the party is in 100% condition generally. There is almost no real carryover from their previous day. With my system, I feel like the days run together more, there is more carryover of consequences of actions and together, I feel that both of these add more immersion and fun... for me . There is less room for error, there is a little more role-playing debate about what the next step is going to be when each monster hit takes a greater % of your HP/surge value.

The PC's know that even if they can "win" the battle - let's be honest, they generally almost always win - they are more quickly in a threatened state. After that first battle, they're wary. I feel it makes them feel more immersed in the story/setting, it makes them plot more, it makes them consider various options besides only "charge - attack!" Particularly, if they are in a dungeon or in the middle of a more intense part of the story, they will have more than 2-3 encounters per day and then things get really intense. They know that they need to be ruthless, protect each others' backs, and on occasion run away like a little girl. (apologies to all the little girls reading this post)

Importantly, on the flip side, when they are with allies and in safe settings, there is a greater sense among the players that they are happy and with friends. They feel healthy b/c they are at top surge value. IMO, that feeling of waking up in the morning at your friendly local tavern should feel a lot different (in this case, relating to health/energy/healing surge value) than waking up for the fourth morning in a row in a dungeon! With my players, they feel it. They feel celebratory, they act more confident, etc. I see that my players have more variety in their actions and I sense greater immersion b/c consequences (damage and using healing surges) and locations really do matter a lot.

With that said, I know the system I run and plan my PC day and encounter levels appropriately. I love the way it works and could never go back to the standard healing surge method. But that's just me....

... and it wasn't even the intent of the OP. The OP intent was that I liked how Essentials gave me some of the feeling that I loved when I recently tried Pathfinder (mind you, I haven't played anything from AD&D until 4e). Essentials in addition to the houserules on healing gave me the feeling I was looking for in my game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Some of your statements are quite contradictory. You limit damage, yet have more deadly encounters from weaker combats (?). Then state that you increase damage and yet are doing less damage total. It is difficult to determine why you need to do this in the first place.

He's just running relatively few encounters per 'day,' and not fully recharging healing surges to make up for it. The 'why,' I'm guessing, is not that unusual. Many DMs come up with story arcs that don't call for hectic multi-combat days. The system isn't firm on what constitutes a 'day,' and one way of dealing with the issue is just to make a 'day' a matter of getting through a leg of the story (typically that includes the usual 4 or so encounters), and not allow the PCs an extended rest until they reach some plot-based milestone. THe OP has come up with a similiar solution: he just doesn't give as many surges back for an extended rest. That way, he can spread a standard 'day' of encounters over a number of days (extened rests). It'll tend to make dailies more important/powerful, since they'll be useable in a higher percentage of encounters, but aside from that, shouldn't have any major impact on his campaign.

 

[Jhaelen]

The OP intent was that I liked how Essentials gave me some of the feeling that I loved when I recently tried Pathfinder (mind you, I haven't played anything from AD&D until 4e). Essentials in addition to the houserules on healing gave me the feeling I was looking for in my game.

How I learned to stop worrying and love Essentials?

I'm glad it's working well for you!

(... I only wished it hadn't killed what _I_ loved about 4e...)

 

[triqui]

Some of your statements are quite contradictory. You limit damage, yet have more deadly encounters from weaker combats (?). Then state that you increase damage and yet are doing less damage total. It is difficult to determine why you need to do this in the first place. You can just have 3 or 4 EL +1 encounters and achieve the same effect, without requiring any house rules at all.

I dont think it's contradictory.
He limits damage, but the encounters are deadlier. An encounter is not deadly becouse of damage, but becouse of the relation between damage and healing. It's obvious in the comparison betweeen lvl 1 and epic lvl combat: at lvl 1, damage is lower. But as the healing is lower too, you are closer to death than in epic lvl. At epic lvl, damage is higher, and conditions are stronger. But your cleric has such amount of +healing items, feats, powers and features, that he can often get you from dying to full health with a single healing surge (or none), or heal the full party from bloodied to full health.

Therefore, you can limit damage, but increase deadliness, if you limit healing more than damage. A 3.5 campaing with high damage and clerics having Heal as a free to use spelllike ability isn't deadlier than a 3.5 campaign with low damge, but clerics not having access to cure spells.

The second argument isn't contradictory either. You can increase a monster damage, but have less damage overall. Overall damage is the result of multiplying Damage per Hit and Number of hits. Your monster might do 10 points in average, while his monsters might do 15 in average. However, if you run 4 encounters, and monsters hit 5 times per encounter, thats 4x5x10=200 damage. While he might be doing 2 encounters, and monsters hitting 5 times per encounter, for 2x5x15=150 damage.

So that's his point: each of his encounters are deadlier (becouse monster hit harder, and players cant heal that much), but he overall has less damage (and less healing) than you. In your (the conventional) style, danger comes from attrition: low damage per hit, and high healing surges mean nobody is in danger until 4th encounter of the day. In his style, nearly every encounter endanger players. The cost of this, is being able to run less encounters per session.

I used to run a urban 4e campaign. Becouse of the sheer amount of time roleplaying, skill challenge and noncombat issues spent, we ussually had only 1 (really hard, ussually lvl +3 or +4) combat encounter per session. It didn work really well (in the combat part), becouse of daily novaing (if everybody knows it's the only daily fight, everybody burns dailies and the combat system becomes flawed). However, Essentials might make it work better, since a lot of Characters dont have daily spells.

 

[Aegeri]

Dude, you seem pretty argumentative to me. What I'm saying isn't contradictory - it's just different from your system.

It does in fact seem that way, but with the more detailed explanation I can see what you're trying to achieve. I just don't think it's required to get the lethality or danger - but it does do an excellent job of solving another issue: PCs wanting extended rests in dungeons (or frequently).

In one day, my PC's might have two or three battles. Yours might have five.

I often have 3-5 encounters per extended rest. Depending on what I'm doing and the point of the story at the time. The time between each battle doesn't have to be very immediate and neither do they have to be in sequence. So I can get plenty of roleplaying in between every encounter without a big issue.

With your system, the next day the party is in 100% condition generally. There is almost no real carryover from their previous day.

Generally speaking, that is because 3-4 encounters is pretty much one important part of the adventure - not just a random days adventuring. I also make sure all 4 encounters are interesting and aren't just throw away "This stuff just happens" encounters - but all of them can (in the right circumstances) threaten PCs considerably. In many ways I am unconcerned about this aspect in the first place - though I do manage to see similar effects (but not directly with surges) as I'll describe below.

With my system, I feel like the days run together more, there is more carryover of consequences of actions and together, I feel that both of these add more immersion and fun... for me . There is less room for error, there is a little more role-playing debate about what the next step is going to be when each monster hit takes a greater % of your HP/surge value.

Personally my experience is that I already am seeing that - because one individual encounter can ruin you so badly if it goes wrong. My players tactics and even basic item choices are becoming much more defensive. Things I've never seen PCs use before like woundpatches, silverdust and even hoarding potions of healing like precious gold are becoming important aspects in a post-MM3 campaign. Maintaining this items has the same kind of flow on factor from day to day. If they can get through 4 encounters today while expending less resources - physical resources like potions - it makes those genuinely hard encounters so much more bearable.

So I don't see any advantage there to be honest, but where I do see a major advantage in the way you are doing things is in mitigating extended rests. Personally I really hate extended rests for numerous reasons - partly because of the effect they have on disrupting the flow of a story. It also adds numerous logical issues, like "How do these PCs manage to spend 8 hours in the dank dark dungeon of doom?". What I like about the way you are doing things is that it puts more onus on continuing to adventure on whatever limited resources you have, instead of trying to "dump and rest".

I think now you've described your full ideas on the matter I can definitely see the considerable advantages of your approach. What I disagree with you on is that it's required to add more tension or deadliness to combat - it really doesn't with the way good ole monsters are designed now. But in terms of ongoing effects in improving the whole "Extended rest" dilemma I dislike so much, your ideas are quite an inspiring on fixing that.

After that first battle, they're wary.

I see the same thing to be honest, just with standard design. What I do like is that there is definitely an aspect of "An extended rest" cannot save us. That is an interesting decision and one I might think about myself. In the end though thank you for making your concepts more clear and I can see where you're going. It's certainly an interesting idea with penalizing extended rests in the middle of a dungeon (for example) but giving a reward for resting in a much safer environment.

I am thinking of having a similar representation in my own games, except that I wouldn't really turn it into such extreme penalties as you are - but rather grant a bonus to total surges when resting in a safe environment. Given I am demolishing my PCs surges so much that after 1 encounter I often find the Rogue has 1 (or 0!) surges remaining, the concept you have is fascinating as a way of improving the situation. While also eliminating a problem I have of trying to rest in the middle of dangerous dungeons/terrain (unless no other option is clearly available).

 

[Kaiyanwang]

It's worth noting that Essentials and APG-Pathfinder are both extraordinarily closer together then a lot of people take them to be. Though Essentials is wrapped in the 4e shell and APG-Pathfinder is wrapped in the 3.x shell, the philosophies behind both and the "problems" that both set out to solve - as well as the answers they use - are dramatically similar.

What do you mean here prof? Genuinely curious.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I am glad for anything that brings more players to 4E. I teach ESL here in Japan, but have never done D&D with my students.

Do you do it after school, in a club, or actually in class?

 

[buddhafrog]

I am glad for anything that brings more players to 4E. I teach ESL here in Japan, but have never done D&D with my students.

Do you do it after school, in a club, or actually in class?

I do it as a tutor out of my house with classes of b/t 2~4 students. We play D&D once or twice a week and the other days are spent with traditional ESL communication classes. I started playing D&D with one advanced class but soon the other kids were understandably in awe of that crazy thing I was doing with that first class. They would stand at the classroom door, look at all the minis and maps and dice and maybe a gargantuan dragon or two and just marvel at what the hell was going on.

Since then I've started games with each of my classes, even one quite low level elementary school class. I tailor it a lot to meet their English level, but they all "get" it. And they love it beyond anything I've seen with ESL before.

I used to do a lot of custom work for the students - making my own magic cards to pass out, creating all of my own Power Cards with more accessible language, write up the character sheets using my customization of Shado's custom Character sheets (great design), took cool photos of their minis to add to their character sheets, etc. It was pretty awesome, but now that I have so many classes going, I'm streamlining it more and just trying to keep the games alive and engaging for the students. I still use my customization of Shado's, but the others I've generally stopped. Of course, the students still love the game.

Japan is similar to Korea in that students are a little too worried about making mistakes and too self-conscious - but Korea is a little worse. It really limits ESL students communication skills. Practice - including being willing to make mistakes - is key. D&D provides that environment better than anything else I've seen. In addition, all manner of grammar and situations are discussed and players want to communicate their ideas and be a part of the story. I also use D&D as part of their homework assignments and try to make it more part of the class lessons.

90% of my students here in Korea, the world's computer game mecca, will say they'd much rather play D&D than another video game. I had one student who got his "entire class" to play an rpg during their free time using d6's and characters such as "businessman." Awesomeness.

If I ever got back into private school ESL teaching, with my experience here I'm confident I could convince the director to use D&D as an advance and/or reward class. I've thought about ways to make this work... even thinking about opening that school myself.

Let me know if you have any questions. Good luck gaming.