Five-Minute Workday Article

[JamesonCourage]

True, but the HP issue is a fairly simple fix. Just make the PC's more durable/harder to hit.

Side effect: more survivable PCs. I think this will appeal to the majority, but definitely not to all. I think adjusting HP levels is a better "dial" than adjusting AC, since it makes things less swingy. Having people be more survivable than 1e, and less survivable than 4e, may not be a bad starting point, though. Maybe where 4e was at, minus the plethora of healing surges?

AD&D didn't have the HP issue as often simply because it was quite possible to have an entire encounter where PC's didn't lose any HP.

I quite like this approach. I've talked about my RPG's HP split (HP = wounds, THP = dodging, skill, stamina, luck, etc.), and it's made it so that you can lose some hit points (THP), but not contribute to the 15 MWD (THP recovers in a matter of rounds to a few minutes, depending on Con score and THP total).

But, even not counting that, it's very possible to go through a combat and never get hit, even at higher hit die. It's a little more swingy, since it's more reliant upon the dice, but, as I said, I like that dynamic.

And, with the HP recovery mechanics in 4e, lots of people didn't like the result. So, perhaps 5e, with its much flatter math, could look back at how AD&D does it. Monsters can miss regularly again.

Maybe HP = Con score + Racial bonus + Class bonus, but you don't start out with all the healing surges? I mean, that amount of HP sounds too high for my tastes, but it should be easy to adjust (you just get Racial + Class), and I know that a lot of people like pretty survivable characters.

Again, though, I'm down with a high miss chance on monsters, as long as people accept a swingy combat engine when the dice turn against you.

An EL par 3e encounter was supposed to burn 20 (ish) per cent of the party resources. If you drop that to, say, 10 per cent, then you don't have the cleric having such a huge impact on pacing.

Another good point, and one I hadn't thought of. Just set the "number of rounds in a 15 MWD" math to a longer schedule. If this is based on HP, this should be easy enough to account for, even with a dial.

For example, if the base assumption is 20 rounds per day, or 5 combats of 4 rounds, just advise that if you want longer days, maybe you should double HP (Fighters roll 2d10 or take 11). For those that want less, just cut HP. That's a easy dial to move, as long as Con bonus doesn't add at each level. As always, play what you like

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hey, that's my example!

I steal only from the best.
Wait until i tell you about the skill challenge where the Dwarf put his hand in the fire pit to help forging his new sword!

Here are two ideas to deal with Novaing

1) Casting Times. 3E made most combat-relevant spells have a casting time of one standard action, a few a full round action. Change that. Require 3 rounds of casting to cast a fireball (and limit what people can do in the time they cast the spell, so people don't get in "pre-loaded"

2) Sustaining spells does not come free. You can maintain only a limited number of spells. Some sustaining costs actions.

 

[Pickles JG]

I steal only from the best.
Wait until i tell you about the skill challenge where the Dwarf put his hand in the fire pit to help forging his new sword!

Do go on, I don't think I have heard that one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here are two ideas to deal with Novaing

1) Casting Times. 3E made most combat-relevant spells have a casting time of one standard action, a few a full round action. Change that. Require 3 rounds of casting to cast a fireball (and limit what people can do in the time they cast the spell, so people don't get in "pre-loaded"

I have no problem with that...and if you're still concerned with balance, make it easier for spellcaster's efforts to be disrupted, based on the amounts of damage they take in a round.

2) Sustaining spells does not come free. You can maintain only a limited number of spells. Some sustaining costs actions.

Using a mix of 3.5ed language (since I've seen nought of 5Ed) "Make it a Spellcraft check, DC based on spell level (NOTE: I'm not saying what the DC actually is), with a +5 to the DC for each spell after the first, in order of casting."

This makes sustaining spells into a juggling act. Good rolling lets you sustain several spells. Bad rolls, and you might not be able to sustain jack.*






* If this persists more than 4 hours, you WILL need to see a health-care professional.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I have no problem with that...and if you're still concerned with balance, make it easier for spellcaster's efforts to be disrupted, based on the amounts of damage they take in a round.



Using a mix of 3.5ed language (since I've seen nought of 5Ed) "Make it a Spellcraft check, DC based on spell level (NOTE: I'm not saying what the DC actually is), with a +5 to the DC for each spell after the first, in order of casting."

This makes sustaining spells into a juggling act. Good rolling lets you sustain several spells. Bad rolls, and you might not be able to sustain jack.*






* If this persists more than 4 hours, you WILL need to see a health-care professional.

I prefer to make it not _too_ involved in dealing.

Casting Times in Combat
Some spells have a casting time expressed in actions. If the casting time is described as "3 actions", the spell is succesfully cast on the 3rd action and the effect happens. A spellcaster can do only a limited amount of things while working to cast a spell. If his concentration is interrupted, he must make a Caster Check (1d20 + casting ability modifier) against 5 + spell level if it's a small disruption and 10 + spell level if it's a major disruption. If he fails that check, the spell is not expended, but he must start again.
A caster's concentration is disrupted by the following events.

• Voluntary Movement counts a small disruption
• Involuntary Movement counts as major disruption
• Taking damage
  • If the caster is not bloodied after the attack, it is a minor disruption
  • If the caster is bloodied after the attack, it is a major disruption.
• Strong Winds or Currents count as minor disruption

The caster must cast the spell when he has taken the last action for doing so.



Sustaining Spells
Some spells have a duration. Spells require some effort to sustain.
A caster can only sustain a maximum of one spell per sustain category. He can choose to sustain a spell that normally requires a lower sustain category to use a higher category instead.



The following categories exist:


Sustain (Passive):
It doesn't cost any direct effort by the caster to maintain the spell. The spell is maintained even if he drops unconcious or dies.



Sustain (Minor Activity):
It does require only minor effort by the caster to maintain a spell, but if he drops unconcious or dead, the spell ends. If the caster takes damage while bloodied, he must make a Caster Check DC 5 + sustained spell level to maintain the spell.



Sustain (Moderate Activity):
It does require some effort on part of the caster to maintain a spell. It ends if he drops unconcious or dead. If the caster wants to start casting a new spell, he must make a Caster Check DC 10 + sustained spell level. (Note that if a spell takes multiple actions to cast, further actions do not require a check.)

If the check fails, he must choose to either not cast a spell (he doesn't lose his action, but he cannot cast any spells this turn), or end the spell he sustains. If the caster takes damage, he must make a Caster Check DC 5 + sustained spell level to maintain the spell. If he's bloodied while taking damage, the DC increases to 10 + spell level.


Sustain (Strong Activity):
It requires a lot of effort to maintain the spell - the caster must spend his action each round to maintain the effect. If the caster takes damage from an attack while maintaining the spell, he must make a caster check 5 + spell level to keep maintaining the spell. If he is bloodied while taking the damage, the DC increases to 10 + spell level.



Examples Spells

Mage Armor (Level 1 Spell)
Duration: 24 hours (Sustain - No Action)
Effect: The target gains a +4 armor bonus to AC.

Shield (Level 1 Spell)
Duration: 10 rounds (Sustain - Minor Activity)
Effect: The caster gains a +4 shield bonus to AC.

Fireball (Level 3 Spell)
Casting Time: 3 actions.
As you start casting the spell, you form a small bead of fire that you throw at the end of the casting time to inflict 5d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius burst. Targets can make a Dexterity Save for half damage.
Special(optional rule):
Should you fail a caster check to maintain the spell, you can choose to expend the spell anyway to immediately to inflict 5d6 fire damage to yourself and all creatures adjacent to you. You gain no saving throw against this damage, but other targets can make a dexterity save for half damage.

Fly (Level 3 Spell)
Casting Time: 1 action
Duration: 10 minutes (Sustain - Moderate Activity)
You or the target gain 60 ft flight.

...

Optional or Additional Rules could allow sutff like "holding a spell" and "quickening" spells.

 

[Zustiur]

Maybe HP = Con score + Racial bonus + Class bonus, but you don't start out with all the healing surges? I mean, that amount of HP sounds too high for my tastes, but it should be easy to adjust (you just get Racial + Class), and I know that a lot of people like pretty survivable characters.

Too high for my tastes as well, yet I can see benefit to having more than just Hit Die + Con mod. Hence, my current design:
5 (for being and adventurer) + Level * (Hit dice + con mod). Where a 14 con fighter would have 3d10+6+5 total.
Basically it's like having a free toughness feat for everyone.
I don't intend to include healing surges. But I do intend to include a form of 'second wind' which gives you temporary hit points.

Re-spellcasting time and sustain; I'm thinking along the lines of each spell level having an initiative delay factor. (I think this is vaguely like 1E)
Wizard has initiative 16. On his turn he moves, then begins casting fireball (a 3rd level spell). On initiative 13 (16-3) the spell completes and he picks the target location. His actual initiative score remains unaltered. If he takes damage during those initiative steps he may lose the spell.
What I'm not sure of is how to handle casting first and then moving. Possibly you just get to chose where you move to after the spell fires.

I'm also thinking in terms of any spell duration requiring maintenance ala 4E's "sustain minor". Some effects might only last for a round, but any significant save-or-suck effect like Hold Person would require maintenance from the cleric or wizard that cast the spell. This way the wizard is partly removing himself from the battle at the same time as he removes the NPC/monster.

 

[pemerton]

To me, the 15 MWD has always been more of a pacing issue than a balance issue.

Fair enough.

My own view is that once the balance issue is ironed out, the we can probably start to look at a whole range of techniques for dealing with the pacing - from wandering monsters, to timed scenarios, to a more general attempt to embed the PCs in the "reality" of the gameworld, to such metagame techniques as appeals to the players' courage and honour! My thought is that this variety and range, from which different groups might pick and choose as whim and fancy take them, becomes a lot easier when it only has to handle the pacing issue, without balance considerations also lurking in the background.

Does that make sense?

 

[pemerton]

So, perhaps 5e, with its much flatter math, could look back at how AD&D does it. Monsters can miss regularly again.

My issue with that is it can be a bit boring. Encounters become all about attrition now for some dramatic payoff later (when the attrition actually catches up with you).

That's not meant as a fatal objection. But equally I think we need to remember where the pressure came from to go the 3E/4e route.

I quite like this approach. I've talked about my RPG's HP split (HP = wounds, THP = dodging, skill, stamina, luck, etc.), and it's made it so that you can lose some hit points (THP), but not contribute to the 15 MWD (THP recovers in a matter of rounds to a few minutes, depending on Con score and THP total).

I can't remember the details of your RPG, but I assume it has some sort of wound or longer-term recovery mechanic when the THP have all been hacked away. Nevertheless, considered in rough-and-ready functional terms, this seems pretty similar to 4e: you start each encounter with a pool of hp which the encounter can fully (or near-fully) deplete, and then you get them all back before the next encounter. So each encounter raises a genuine prospect of suffering badly, and hence is exciting in a way that pure attrition systems of the AD&D variety can tend not to be.

Here are two ideas to deal with Novaing

1) Casting Times. 3E made most combat-relevant spells have a casting time of one standard action, a few a full round action. Change that. Require 3 rounds of casting to cast a fireball (and limit what people can do in the time they cast the spell, so people don't get in "pre-loaded"

2) Sustaining spells does not come free. You can maintain only a limited number of spells. Some sustaining costs actions.

I like 2. I'm a bit dubious about 1 - it can make life boring for the player of the caster, which in turn creates pressure to liberalise the timing rules, which in turn undoes the balance that was meant to be in place. Is there a way of doing preparation that makes it active in some fashion for the player - perhaps even some sort of active defence, rather than simply relying on Concentration checks if they get hit?

I steal only from the best.
Wait until i tell you about the skill challenge where the Dwarf put his hand in the fire pit to help forging his new sword!

I have run more than 3 sessions in my 4e campaign! Even more than 3 memorable ones! It's just that only some of them lend themselves nicely to explaining things on the internet.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Too high for my tastes as well, yet I can see benefit to having more than just Hit Die + Con mod. Hence, my current design:
5 (for being and adventurer) + Level * (Hit dice + con mod). Where a 14 con fighter would have 3d10+6+5 total.

I can see the benefit to this, but after divorcing free Con bonus each level from my RPG, I'm glad I did. It makes different characters a lot closer in HP spread, which is something I've come to prefer. Though, my system is point-buy, so you can still end up with a hit die 20 with 5 hit points, or a hit die 1 with 16 hit points. So, I'm obviously okay with some variance.

I don't intend to include healing surges. But I do intend to include a form of 'second wind' which gives you temporary hit points.

I also like this idea.

Fair enough.

My own view is that once the balance issue is ironed out, the we can probably start to look at a whole range of techniques for dealing with the pacing - from wandering monsters, to timed scenarios, to a more general attempt to embed the PCs in the "reality" of the gameworld, to such metagame techniques as appeals to the players' courage and honour! My thought is that this variety and range, from which different groups might pick and choose as whim and fancy take them, becomes a lot easier when it only has to handle the pacing issue, without balance considerations also lurking in the background.

Does that make sense?

That does make sense, yes. And, I do agree that balancing classes regardless of pacing makes dealing with pacing issues easier.

I can't remember the details of your RPG, but I assume it has some sort of wound or longer-term recovery mechanic when the THP have all been hacked away.

Yep. You lose THP (returns over rounds), and then you start to lose HP (returns over days).

Nevertheless, considered in rough-and-ready functional terms, this seems pretty similar to 4e: you start each encounter with a pool of hp which the encounter can fully (or near-fully) deplete, and then you get them all back before the next encounter. So each encounter raises a genuine prospect of suffering badly, and hence is exciting in a way that pure attrition systems of the AD&D variety can tend not to be.

Well, yes, in a way it is similar. The HP mechanic (not THP) means that any damage returns over one or more days, not overnight, so there's some difference right there. But, the "quick recovery HP" (THP) definitely adds to the game, especially since it effectively negates most "rider" effects. So, if an attack deals 18 damage and has a chance of dazing the victim, and it only deals THP damage, the victim has no chance of being dazed. This means that having your THP consumed feels good, because you've not only avoided long term injury (which might have rider effects of its own in my RPG), but any special effect that may have happened (knockback, prone, etc.).

For me, combat is a chance for interesting things to happen, both short term and long term. If a creature is knocked back, it can be interesting (I had a player knock a powerful earth elemental off of a cliff with a knockback maneuver, which finished it off after a very tough fight); if a creature gets wounded and now is limping around for the next few weeks, that can be interesting (I've had this happen to a PC [multiple times], and it's led to various results, including them becoming very attached to their horse, waiting to rest up, or limping around the battlefield).

Wrapping this around to the start of our conversation, I'm not sure how much short term and long term effects are going to come into play from 5e's combat system (or out of combat systems), but I'm hoping that it's there, and the 15 MWD is just one aspect of this. They definitely need to attempt to lessen the effects of the 15 MWD, and class balance definitely makes dealing with pacing issues easier, from my personal amateur game design experience. As always, play what you like

 

[Pickles JG]

I think everyone is seeing this far too black & white from their entrenched positions. I think that Mr Mearls has recognised that there will have to be classes with largely daily resources & others with almost none. This is what defines D&D to a lot of people & has never been absent even in the lovely 4th edition.

Given that constraint it follows that some classes will be stronger in a shorter adventuring day & some will be better in a longer one. That is the same sort of thing as saying some classes will be better when you are attacked by a load of fliers or in very difficult terrain (underwater :O) or by eg fire resistant monsters if you are a Flame mage or Skeletons is you are a 3e archer. Someone else made this point sarcastically earlier but it is valid in its own right.
The thing is to recognise that it may be a problem & to mix things up, which is what Mr M has done. He has made mechanical changes to make it less of an issue – the relative power of Wizards at will abilities have increased compared to their daily resources which makes them less nova dependent. There is still the opportunity to power down the hugely effective strategic spells as well.

I do take issue with balancing the game around a number of XP per day. There is obviously no comparison between fighting 20 ogres one at a time & all at once & yet on the face of it Mearls is saying they would provide exactly the same challenge. Given the patent absurdity of this I assume he is holding something back.
4es encounter balance rules work because the power level of PCs in a given encounter is pretty well constrained, with just a few daily powers in reserve to vary it. Attrition in 4e was mostly in terms of Surges & Dailies. As surges do not effect your combat power, until you run very low, encounter balance was very good.
3e more or less worked in the same way though their default encounters were often a bit trivial & the logarithmic EL system was needlessly confusing.

FWIW I hate the suggestion of Hussar’s that encounters should take up 10% of the party’s resources. These type of encounter offer nothing of interest to me, as did most of 3es 20% type encounters. This whole trend to lots of small non threatening encounters that gradually attrite your HP? Dailies? leaves me cold. (Though I am told it is a trend back to AD&D style – I can’t really remember as I played it around 30 years ago but stopped as it did not fit my tastes ie I thought it was dumb.)

As a player I hate the 5mwd aesthetically & try not to abuse it, as a DM it is always the in the background & I try to make it so that it is not the default play style. Most of the people I play with share my sentiments but at least one of them would rest every fight if he could get away with it – peer & plot pressure prevent it. I am not one for huge dungeons that demand repeated incursions they really strain my credulity so this may be less of an issue for me – I tend to try to design dungeons you can clear on the bounce with very significant consequences for retreating.