Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Five-Minute Workday Article
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5972014" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Which is why, in the post you quoted, I said this:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There are non-4e ways to deal with the issue. What about a milestone mechanic for unlocking wizard spells, for example?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I personally haven't seen anything in L&L for a long time that demonstrates understanding of what is attractrive and powerful in 4e's design. And I'm not sure why I should be on board an approach that lacks the tools I currently have.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As thecasualoblivion says, the difference is that if I depart from the expected XP budget, I will upset the balance between classes in the party. </p><p></p><p>Mearls says expressly that departing from the XP budget will upset intraparty balance. Here are the relevant words (I've bolded some for emphasis):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, <strong>casters grow stronger</strong>. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, <strong>the fighter and rogue grow stronger</strong>.</p><p></p><p>I think that's pretty unambigous.</p><p></p><p>The comparison that you and KM are making to 4e is inapt, in my view.</p><p></p><p>In 4e, I can design an encounter at a given XP budget with 1 monster or 20 or more, or anything in between (by mixing solos, elites, standards, and minions of various levels). I can vary their roles so as to change the dynamics of the combat. And I can boost or lower the XP budget while holding the balance of monsters (near-enough to) constant.</p><p></p><p>So it's no doubt true that I can design encounters, at a given budget, that will favour controllers over melee strikers over ranged strikers, etc. But nothing in the game dictates that I use a certain XP budget to maintain intraparty balance.</p><p></p><p>So, suppose I'm running a game in which there is one EL+5 encounter per day (maybe the PCs are doing a series of hits on prison cells in Carceri). I can design different encounters, that will have different dynamics and let different PCs shine. The XP budget that I'm using is irrelevant to that.</p><p></p><p>Suppose that I'm running a game in which there are 7 EL or EL+1 enconters per day (maybe the PCs are fighting their way through a series of outposts on Carceri). I can design encounter that will have different dynamics and let different PCs shine. The XP budget I'm using is irrelevant to that.</p><p></p><p><strong>Nothing in the (pre-Essentials) 4e PC rules makes the use of any particular XP budget relevant to intraparty balance.</strong></p><p></p><p>Mearls himself, in the bit I quote above, states that D&Dnext is going to be different in that respect. Increase your daily XP budget, fighters and rogues will shine. Decrease it, and casters will shine. For me, <em>that is a problem</em>. It's a backwards step from what I've got, because it requires me to use a particular XP budget (presumably a level-dependent one) in order to preserve intraparty balance.</p><p></p><p>I have other concerns also - given the current trajectory, I don't really trust the designers to refrain from giving wizards and clerics spells that let <em>them</em> set the daily XP budget (via teleport, rope trick etc). Whereas (i) 4e doesnt have so many of those spells, and (ii) if the players rather than the GM start setting the XP budget, it doesn't affect intraparty balance (though it can perhaps give rise to other play issues more tangential to this thread).</p><p></p><p>But even before I get to this further concern, there is the basic fact - stated by Mearls - that intrparty balance of effectiveness is tethered to a particular XP budget.</p><p></p><p>I agree that this is an issue, but with proper power design I think it is more easily worked around. In Rolemaster, for example, even if the nova-PCs are going to nuke the single weak encounter with their spells, their can still be interesting play in making choices about which spells, and how, etc. I've seen similar play in 4e, where an encounter is foregone but the way it unfolds is still interesting and worth resolving.</p><p></p><p>But I'll happily concede there is a fine line between what I'm describing, and needless grind. And it does depend on details of the design of action resolution. If the nova just takes the form of "We fireball them", it's quick and non-grindy, but hardly very interesting or satifying to play out.</p><p></p><p>I'm hesitant to completely buy into your generalisation - there are a lot of different approaches out there! But I do share your frustration at this repeated insistence that what is needed to fix the 15 minute adventuring day, for those who don't like it or its effect on intraparty balance, is better education of the player base.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5972014, member: 42582"] Which is why, in the post you quoted, I said this: There are non-4e ways to deal with the issue. What about a milestone mechanic for unlocking wizard spells, for example? I personally haven't seen anything in L&L for a long time that demonstrates understanding of what is attractrive and powerful in 4e's design. And I'm not sure why I should be on board an approach that lacks the tools I currently have. As thecasualoblivion says, the difference is that if I depart from the expected XP budget, I will upset the balance between classes in the party. Mearls says expressly that departing from the XP budget will upset intraparty balance. Here are the relevant words (I've bolded some for emphasis): [indent]DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, [B]casters grow stronger[/B]. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, [B]the fighter and rogue grow stronger[/B].[/indent] I think that's pretty unambigous. The comparison that you and KM are making to 4e is inapt, in my view. In 4e, I can design an encounter at a given XP budget with 1 monster or 20 or more, or anything in between (by mixing solos, elites, standards, and minions of various levels). I can vary their roles so as to change the dynamics of the combat. And I can boost or lower the XP budget while holding the balance of monsters (near-enough to) constant. So it's no doubt true that I can design encounters, at a given budget, that will favour controllers over melee strikers over ranged strikers, etc. But nothing in the game dictates that I use a certain XP budget to maintain intraparty balance. So, suppose I'm running a game in which there is one EL+5 encounter per day (maybe the PCs are doing a series of hits on prison cells in Carceri). I can design different encounters, that will have different dynamics and let different PCs shine. The XP budget that I'm using is irrelevant to that. Suppose that I'm running a game in which there are 7 EL or EL+1 enconters per day (maybe the PCs are fighting their way through a series of outposts on Carceri). I can design encounter that will have different dynamics and let different PCs shine. The XP budget I'm using is irrelevant to that. [B]Nothing in the (pre-Essentials) 4e PC rules makes the use of any particular XP budget relevant to intraparty balance.[/B] Mearls himself, in the bit I quote above, states that D&Dnext is going to be different in that respect. Increase your daily XP budget, fighters and rogues will shine. Decrease it, and casters will shine. For me, [I]that is a problem[/I]. It's a backwards step from what I've got, because it requires me to use a particular XP budget (presumably a level-dependent one) in order to preserve intraparty balance. I have other concerns also - given the current trajectory, I don't really trust the designers to refrain from giving wizards and clerics spells that let [I]them[/I] set the daily XP budget (via teleport, rope trick etc). Whereas (i) 4e doesnt have so many of those spells, and (ii) if the players rather than the GM start setting the XP budget, it doesn't affect intraparty balance (though it can perhaps give rise to other play issues more tangential to this thread). But even before I get to this further concern, there is the basic fact - stated by Mearls - that intrparty balance of effectiveness is tethered to a particular XP budget. I agree that this is an issue, but with proper power design I think it is more easily worked around. In Rolemaster, for example, even if the nova-PCs are going to nuke the single weak encounter with their spells, their can still be interesting play in making choices about which spells, and how, etc. I've seen similar play in 4e, where an encounter is foregone but the way it unfolds is still interesting and worth resolving. But I'll happily concede there is a fine line between what I'm describing, and needless grind. And it does depend on details of the design of action resolution. If the nova just takes the form of "We fireball them", it's quick and non-grindy, but hardly very interesting or satifying to play out. I'm hesitant to completely buy into your generalisation - there are a lot of different approaches out there! But I do share your frustration at this repeated insistence that what is needed to fix the 15 minute adventuring day, for those who don't like it or its effect on intraparty balance, is better education of the player base. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Five-Minute Workday Article
Top