Here, Let Me Fix "Powers Per Day" For You

[Cadfan]

I'm impressed that you manage to make Every. Single. Plotline. You. Ever. Run. Ever. follow a format in which storyline imposed time limits prevent the players from meaningfully manipulating the amount of action per day, and where random encounters as a means of punishing nova-play flow smoothly into your plot instead of acting as an awkward and obvious kludge that breaks believability by making it obvious that the DM is altering reality in order to punish the players instead of just running a believable world.

I don't think I could do that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Daily" powers are a pretty poor mechanic. On the player side, they do give you this resource-management challenge. But, there are so many ways to leverage or circumvent it. If you have a useful daily spell, for instance, that doesn't have some hugely expensive material component, you can cast it systematically any time the DM isn't keeping you busy. A bit of downtime and an AD&D wizard with Dig and Wall of Stone can radically re-shape an area. In 3e it was Fabricate. There are many such 'creative' tricks that are fun when done once, but get out of hand when done systematically - which an arbitrary 'daily' limit leaves the door open to. Similarly, if the party can finagle time to re-charge spells and other dailies, it's a huge advantage, leading to the '15 minute workday' (something that really started with 1st-level early D&D, when your Cleric's very limitted healing couldn't see you through many combat encounters, and there could be 'random' encounters, too, so after a fight or two, you'd need to barricade yourself in a room or go back to town, sometimes for more than one day, until he'd prayed for and cast enough CLWs to get everyone going again). Conversely, daily limits can be very frustrating when you use the wrong spell at the wrong moment...

On the DM side, significant daily resources are a campaign-pacing nightmare. The DM must slave his campaign ideas to challenging a party that can't be allowed to face too many or too few challenges in each and every day being played through. This leads to tons of 'filler' encoutners, and an ever-present threat of 'random' wandering monsters, (that end up painting the world as a place so insanely dangerous that it's a miracle any peasant survives ploughing his fields without being jumped by an ankheg or purple worm). The DM must cajole or coerce his players into 'pressing on' if he hasn't consumed enough of those daily resources yet, or give them some improbable opportunity to 'rest' in the middle of some vital quest or hellishly dangerous dungeon because that last fight turned out to be much tougher than he expected.


While dramatic abilities that can't just be 'spammed' every round are a great idea, tying them to an arbitrary unit of time, like a 'day,' is not such a great idea. A more story-oriented recharge rate would give the DM much more flexibility.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm impressed that you manage to make Every. Single. Plotline. You. Ever. Run. Ever. follow a format in which storyline imposed time limits prevent the players from meaningfully manipulating the amount of action per day, and where random encounters as a means of punishing nova-play flow smoothly into your plot instead of acting as an awkward and obvious kludge that breaks believability by making it obvious that the DM is altering reality in order to punish the players instead of just running a believable world.

I do not suddenly decide to start using random encounters whenever the party wants to stop for a rest. I roll for random encounters every hour of game time. So the claim that I am "punishing" them for poor resource management isn't entirely accurate...it is just one more risk that the party decides to take. I do not forbid them from spending all their resources in a single encounter, and I do not deliberately punish them for doing so--but there are consequences to that decision.

As for time limits, they are not in opposition to a "believable world," but are actually a very important part of it. When the duke sends the party on a mission to, say, deliver supplies to a nearby outpost, he is not going to be pleased if it takes them three weeks to do it...and even less pleased if he learns that they spent most of that time sleeping.

Rescuing a prisoner, recovering a stolen artifact, hunting a dragon, stealing enemy plans, all of these things are time-sensitive. I think one would have to "alter reality" a lot more to allow the party infinite time to accomplish any of these things. The instances when the party is at leisure to take their sweet time in completing a quest should be very few and far between.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

As for time limits, they are not in opposition to a "believable world," but are actually a very important part of it.

I agree that they are important to maintaining that believability. However, there are just as many times (if not more) when the PCs are not time-disadvantaged. I find that alternating between the two gives a natural ebb and flow to different scenarios culminating in a believable world where both the world is palpably active and the PCs decisions assist in shaping that world.

The problem I found in 3.x (but not so much PF and certainly nowhere near as much in 4e) is that as the PCs get higher in level, their capacity to determine when and where they have combat encounters increases. At highest levels, there are very few opportunities where I as DM get to initiate unexpected combat. It is just a result of very powerful magic while trying to keep the world around the PCs believable. If you hit the time pressure button too many times, it really shakes the players out of the believable world you are trying to presen; a case of the DM's curtain being momentarily shaken aside.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Raith5]

I agree with SKyOdin.

I think encounter (or scene or combat) powers allow a greater range of different play styles. But just because you have at will or encounter powers doesnt mean you cant be set upon by wandering monsters or time sensitive events cant occur like a dungeon being reinforced by hobgoblins or traps etc.

I dont think there is any contradiction between mechanical pacing approach of AEDU and these sensible and believable in game events.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

OK, since there are now about 4 different threads explaining why everyone who complains about daily spells should STFU, I'll respond.

Daily spell systems can't exactly be said to be unrealistic or violate verisimilitude, since magic is made up. But they certainly ARE silly. If *I* were a D&D wizard, I sure as hell wouldn't adventure for more than 5 minutes if that's how long it took to use all my spells effectively. Unless, that is, I was in a universe that hates me, and am therefore thrust into a series of adventures that arbitrarily require me to fight, on average, 3-4 times a day.

I note that nobody seems to have a problem with the party retreating from the Caves of Chaos after a few encounters, leaving a dungeon half-full of monsters. But if they retreated after just one battle, well, apparently that's cause for the universe to punish them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm impressed that you manage to make Every. Single. Plotline. You. Ever. Run. Ever. follow a format in which storyline imposed time limits prevent the players from meaningfully manipulating the amount of action per day, and where random encounters as a means of punishing nova-play flow smoothly into your plot instead of acting as an awkward and obvious kludge that breaks believability by making it obvious that the DM is altering reality in order to punish the players instead of just running a believable world.

It's not that impressive. Every. Single. Plotline. Ever. In. Any. Medium. Ever. follows a format. Games follow that same format (introduction, conflict, resolution). The Real World doesn't really follow that format, but the real world ain't exactly a Plotline, either. Us humans tend to over-represent our own special snowflake status.

It's not an unbelievable punishment to have the world continue to function while the party sleeps. If that world is infested with dangerous monsters (as D&D worlds tend to be), they may get attacked, or if the enemies flee, or if the MacGuffin is found by some villain. It's not even a punishment. It's a robust world. It's not an excuse. It's a consequence.

I find it much more unbelievable to have the world stop while the party rests. When you go to sleep tonight, stuff will continue to happen in the world. People will be born. People will die. Critters will feed. The world keeps spinning. It's not a shoehorn or a punishment to apply that to D&D, and I'm really befuddled at how much resistance there is to considering what happens when the party rests. It feels sometimes as if no solution could appease those who oppose powers-per-day, that there are some out there who are dead-set against seeing it in their version of D&D. Since D&D has had them ALWAYS, it seems a bit of an odd position to take.

If *I* were a D&D wizard, I sure as hell wouldn't adventure for more than 5 minutes if that's how long it took to use all my spells effectively. Unless, that is, I was in a universe that hates me, and am therefore thrust into a series of adventures that arbitrarily require me to fight, on average, 3-4 times a day.

I'd say you only NEED to fight those things if you want to get the MacGuffin. If you'd prefer not to get the MacGuffin, you can fight one at a time, and in that way fail to get the MacGuffin.

I note that nobody seems to have a problem with the party retreating from the Caves of Chaos after a few encounters, leaving a dungeon half-full of monsters. But if they retreated after just one battle, well, apparently that's cause for the universe to punish them.

a) There's been a LOT of complaints about how fast an extended rest heals you.
b) Check out the text of the adventure. It says stuff like:

The Caves of Chaos is a living, breathing environment. Large groups of intelligent creatures are not likely to sit in their rooms, waiting for adventurers to kill them. Half or more probably range through the countryside, hunting and foraging, or ambushing travelers on nearby roads. Others might be sent to spy on a rival tribe, trade with others, raid them, negotiate with the cultists of the Shrine of Evil Chaos, and so on. If the PC's wipe out the remaining denizens of one cave, the returning members might stay to replace the lost, form a war party to hunt down the PC's, or wage open war against another tribe in an attempt to seize new territory.
...
Nothing stops you from reducing -- or increasing -- the number of creatures in an area, making it easier or harder to suit the needs of your story.

One way to make the adventure more engrossing and fun is to have things change, or stay the same, depending on the PC's actions. If they kill some of the hobgoblins and then leave, perhaps they encounter a funeral feast when they return. If their assault weakens the orcs enough, the PCs might return to find goblins in the orc caves, celebrating their victory. Character actions might have important and long-lasting effects. Clearing the kobold caves might provide a fine redoubt for other assaults (once the PC's figure out what to do with the corpses) -- or turn the complex into a base for another, tougher group of monsters.

Intelligent monsters adapt their strategy and tactics to observed behavior. For example, if the party uses flaming oil in battle, surviving tribal members might use flaming oil later in a similar way. If adventurers consistently sneak up on the monsters, their targets could respond by setting alarms and traps. If they observe that characters flee from overwhelming numbers, the monsters might shout and make noise to seem numerous. Monsters that have been attacked before are likely to be on high alert, posting extra guards in entrances or sending out scouts to watch for enemy approach.

Such success might bring fame to the tribe, increasing its numbers by 2d6 in addition to growing its wealth. The tribe might be extra alert for 1d4 weeks afterward, in case the adventurers return to take revenge (or some other party comes to seize the loot).
...
When PC's clear all monsters out of a cave complex, it remains deserted for a time; 1d4 weeks is a typical interval. If the party does not enter the lair again before the end of that period, it might be repopulated. Perhaps the surviving former inhabitants return or another monster moves in...

There aren't many heavy-handed explicit mechanics dealing with it (though I'd personally enjoy some!), and the time scale is a bit wonky (1d4 weeks is largely meaningless with how fast PC's recover, but that's a bug that can be fixed with slower PC recovery), but that right there is fundamentally exactly what I and others have been saying: a reactive environment. The Caves of Chaos absolutely encourages you to have a reactive environment. It does not want you to simply attrition it away.

 

[Cadfan]

It's not that impressive. Every. Single. Plotline. Ever. In. Any. Medium. Ever. follows a format. Games follow that same format (introduction, conflict, resolution). The Real World doesn't really follow that format, but the real world ain't exactly a Plotline, either.

It's not an unbelievable punishment to have the world continue to function while the party sleeps. If that world is infested with dangerous monsters (as D&D worlds tend to be), they may get attacked, or if the enemies flee, or if the MacGuffin is found by some villain. It's not even a punishment. It's a robust world. It's not an excuse. It's a consequence.

I find it much more unbelievable to have the world stop while the party rests. When you go to sleep tonight, stuff will continue to happen in the world. People will be born. People will die. Critters will feed. The world keeps spinning. It's not a shoehorn or a punishment to apply that to D&D, and I'm really befuddled at how much resistance there is to considering what happens when the party rests. It feels sometimes as if no solution could appease those who oppose powers-per-day, that there are some out there who are dead-set against seeing it in their version of D&D. Since D&D has had them ALWAYS, it seems a bit of an odd position to take.

You know, if I had phrased the opposing position like this:

"If you don't have 3 to 4 fights per day, EVERY DAY OF ADVENTURING EVER, you must be stopping the world whenever the PCs sleep. There are ONLY TWO OPTIONS! You are either having 3 to 4 fights per day, EVERY DAY OF ADVENTURING EVER, or you're resisting the very idea of considering what happens when the PCs rest!"

people would accuse me of a straw man argument.

 

[BobTheNob]

There aren't many heavy-handed explicit mechanics dealing with it (though I'd personally enjoy some!), and the time scale is a bit wonky (1d4 weeks is largely meaningless with how fast PC's recover, but that's a bug that can be fixed with slower PC recovery), but that right there is fundamentally exactly what I and others have been saying: a reactive environment. The Caves of Chaos absolutely encourages you to have a reactive environment. It does not want you to simply attrition it away.

This is a good point. After [MENTION=40961]Cadfan[/MENTION]'s curiously aggressive response, this is a good way to look at it.

Its not "artificial" that the party was "jumped" by wandering monsters when they were sleeping. Frankly, they made so much damn noise in the last fight that they attracted scouts from another area which waited till they were resting before ambushing them. Thats not an artifical mechanic designed to force extended days, that a perfectly reasonable response.

And what about if word started to "get around" the a bunch of adventurers slaughtering everything that got in their way. The kobold cheif gets word of it, picks up his treasure and leas his followers out to safer pastures.

These are both perfectly reasonable natural flows of logic that dictate that resting every 15 minutes is going to see the world around you shift and flow. That sometimes the better course of action is actually to push forward.

At the end of the day, does the 15 minute day need to be enforced through unnatural mechanisms? If we play out logic that things will happen while you rest, then players get an understanding "Hey, if we rest, we will give that Kobold cheif time to get away" and they will figure it out for themselves.

[MENTION=40961]Cadfan[/MENTION]. It that a bit more of a palatable interpretation?

 

[I'm A Banana]

You know, if I had phrased the opposing position like this:

"If you don't have 3 to 4 fights per day, EVERY DAY OF ADVENTURING EVER, you must be stopping the world whenever the PCs sleep. There are ONLY TWO OPTIONS! You are either having 3 to 4 fights per day, EVERY DAY OF ADVENTURING EVER, or you're resisting the very idea of considering what happens when the PCs rest!"

people would accuse me of a straw man argument.

True, all you said was that it was an artificial awkward kludge.

But it's not an artificial awkward kludge.

It is an outgrowth of thinking about the world as a reactive place.

If you imagine that when the PC's recover, the opposition has time in which to act, does that help you see how it is not an artificial awkward kludge, or is there some other aspect of it that you see as artificial or awkward or a kludge?

It's worth reading those blurbs in the Caves of Chaos. That is the 5e design team explaining it probably much more carefully than any ENWorld poster. There's not much in the way of reinforcing mechanics, but arguably that's a strength: it's advice over rules, DM education over DM hand-holding. But it boils down to the same idea.