Is the 15 minute adventuring day now the 90 minute adventuring day?
- Thread starter Brown Jenkin
- Start date
As far as I can tell from the info about the pregens, I don't see the 90min day in the same regard as 3e 15 min day. Even if we can't say that much without knowing more about the full class powers progression through levels, I'd say
FOA it is mainly a DM attitude to avoid that sort of problem. Supposing a not-lame and quite experienced group of players should know how much of their resources to spend every encounter, depending on the task they're going to carry on and if they roughly know they kind of threts they're going to face, the DM should be able to lay down his adventure in a way it could span through several encounters without the need for the players to take an extended rest. The wizard/cleric "I need my spell list back" and the fighter's "I'm not going to push on since we have no healing left" issues should be far less frequent in 4e, given the "per encounter" factor and the PC classes generally being able to not relay heavilly on other classes to survive.
Consider a major shift in gameplay style is occuring in 4e.
In 3e players where supposed to deplete a consistent part of their resources to face a balanced encounter, meaning they would usually cast healing, buffs, use magic items and the like, as soon as the need arises. Since the very game mechanics implied this sort of behaviour, it was just like the 3e book said to you "don't expect to survive more than 4 encounters in a row, given you're not fighting crap".
OTHO healing/buffing/supporting is going to be there every encounter in 4e, that not meaning you'll be deplating your resources. Leaders can easilly spread out healing surges/bonuses to defenses or saving throws or attack rolls/other kind of buffs on their comrades, all of this using at-will or per-ecounter powers (wich of course they regain after a short rest). You can foresee a huge boost to your party effectiveness coming from clerics/warlords/bards. Also rogue's are said to gain a lot of combat advantages coming from other party members' powers, bringing much more damage on the battlefield.
If I'm getting it right daily powers, wich would likely be powerfull enought to turn a desperate situation into victory, are not key to stop your adventuring day, leaving this role to surges and other healing tools.
Giving you regain sugers, action points and per-encounter powers after a 5min rest (wich I don't see why the DM should be going to interrupt every time the party tries to take it), an experienced and tactically effective party could easilly take a lot more than 4 encounters. Considering there's not any real reason for the DM to throw every time a tough encounter on his players in a tipical adventure, the encounters-in-a-row level can quickly go up to tens (a balanced dungeon, ie, would feature many encounters below the party level, a bunch of balanced ones, some tough ones and maybe the threting final boss rush).
What I'm courious about is the opposite problem. I think the single encounters are going to be quite fun and easy for a DM to design, but the PCs being always able to relay on the most part of their resources (per-encounter powers, powers coming from MIs wich seem to be per-ecounter too, a reasonablly solid number of surges, buffs) is going to make it hard to predict the general outcome of a series of subsequent encounters.
If you throw many low level encounters at the party (and I mean something like 1 or 2 levels below it), the players are going to make it quickly, without using dailies, maybe using 1 or 2 surges (wich of course they regain when the encounter is over), vitually being able to push on all the day long not only without the need to rest, but even not having to fear the next battle.
Balanced encounters (ie encounter level=party lvl+/-1) will be exciting of course, but here goes the same. Maybe the players are going to use more surges, one or two dailies if it is really needed, but if they know how to effectivelly use Action Points and per-encounter powers they could push on a lot before the need to take the 6h rest.
So, IMO, the only effective way for the DM to put a strain on the party is going to be having it face dangerous threats (higher lvl mobs, elites or solo), wich are going to be the "we are going to camp" or TPK moments of your sessions.
Interestingly, even with all the effort to erase the save-or-die rolls (and I'm using the broader sense of it), go ask Andy Collins (at least I think it was him) about his beloved Im-going-to-kill-you-anyway-high-lvl-solo black dragon. As he wrote, if the wizard hit it with the sleep spell it was quickly taken care of.
Wizard casts sleep -> dragon is hit -> the party attacks en mass -> daily powers -> players using action points to hurt much more -> if the dragon does not save it's doomed -> if the dragon is lucky enought it saves to bring some destruction on the battlefield -> the dragon probably dies in the next few turns anyways. Luck will be a major factor this time around, more than in 3.X.
And we are talking about 1st lvl pregens here. So I sense hard times for the DMs out there, either risking to take a TPK instead of a tough encounter in the effort of giving some hard times to your now-powerfull low level players, or seeing your uber-encounters being quickly wiped out thanks to some lucky roll by the players (or unlucky ones by you). This is far better than save-or-die effects, but at least you usually couldn't use them on opponents higher in level than you (while it seems spells and other effects still retain some meaningfull chance to hit in 4E, regardless of level difference).
Theese are my thoughts, based on the bits of info we have on 4E so far, so I don't really fear the 15min (or 90min) adventuring day issue, since in 4E it will more likely occour because of the DM not designing the encounters/adventures the right way or the players being too carefull/not smart enought to manage their resources the right way. Sorry for the long/confusing post too (I actually hope someone read it #_#)
FOA it is mainly a DM attitude to avoid that sort of problem. Supposing a not-lame and quite experienced group of players should know how much of their resources to spend every encounter, depending on the task they're going to carry on and if they roughly know they kind of threts they're going to face, the DM should be able to lay down his adventure in a way it could span through several encounters without the need for the players to take an extended rest. The wizard/cleric "I need my spell list back" and the fighter's "I'm not going to push on since we have no healing left" issues should be far less frequent in 4e, given the "per encounter" factor and the PC classes generally being able to not relay heavilly on other classes to survive.
Consider a major shift in gameplay style is occuring in 4e.
In 3e players where supposed to deplete a consistent part of their resources to face a balanced encounter, meaning they would usually cast healing, buffs, use magic items and the like, as soon as the need arises. Since the very game mechanics implied this sort of behaviour, it was just like the 3e book said to you "don't expect to survive more than 4 encounters in a row, given you're not fighting crap".
OTHO healing/buffing/supporting is going to be there every encounter in 4e, that not meaning you'll be deplating your resources. Leaders can easilly spread out healing surges/bonuses to defenses or saving throws or attack rolls/other kind of buffs on their comrades, all of this using at-will or per-ecounter powers (wich of course they regain after a short rest). You can foresee a huge boost to your party effectiveness coming from clerics/warlords/bards. Also rogue's are said to gain a lot of combat advantages coming from other party members' powers, bringing much more damage on the battlefield.
If I'm getting it right daily powers, wich would likely be powerfull enought to turn a desperate situation into victory, are not key to stop your adventuring day, leaving this role to surges and other healing tools.
Giving you regain sugers, action points and per-encounter powers after a 5min rest (wich I don't see why the DM should be going to interrupt every time the party tries to take it), an experienced and tactically effective party could easilly take a lot more than 4 encounters. Considering there's not any real reason for the DM to throw every time a tough encounter on his players in a tipical adventure, the encounters-in-a-row level can quickly go up to tens (a balanced dungeon, ie, would feature many encounters below the party level, a bunch of balanced ones, some tough ones and maybe the threting final boss rush).
What I'm courious about is the opposite problem. I think the single encounters are going to be quite fun and easy for a DM to design, but the PCs being always able to relay on the most part of their resources (per-encounter powers, powers coming from MIs wich seem to be per-ecounter too, a reasonablly solid number of surges, buffs) is going to make it hard to predict the general outcome of a series of subsequent encounters.
If you throw many low level encounters at the party (and I mean something like 1 or 2 levels below it), the players are going to make it quickly, without using dailies, maybe using 1 or 2 surges (wich of course they regain when the encounter is over), vitually being able to push on all the day long not only without the need to rest, but even not having to fear the next battle.
Balanced encounters (ie encounter level=party lvl+/-1) will be exciting of course, but here goes the same. Maybe the players are going to use more surges, one or two dailies if it is really needed, but if they know how to effectivelly use Action Points and per-encounter powers they could push on a lot before the need to take the 6h rest.
So, IMO, the only effective way for the DM to put a strain on the party is going to be having it face dangerous threats (higher lvl mobs, elites or solo), wich are going to be the "we are going to camp" or TPK moments of your sessions.
Interestingly, even with all the effort to erase the save-or-die rolls (and I'm using the broader sense of it), go ask Andy Collins (at least I think it was him) about his beloved Im-going-to-kill-you-anyway-high-lvl-solo black dragon. As he wrote, if the wizard hit it with the sleep spell it was quickly taken care of.
Wizard casts sleep -> dragon is hit -> the party attacks en mass -> daily powers -> players using action points to hurt much more -> if the dragon does not save it's doomed -> if the dragon is lucky enought it saves to bring some destruction on the battlefield -> the dragon probably dies in the next few turns anyways. Luck will be a major factor this time around, more than in 3.X.
And we are talking about 1st lvl pregens here. So I sense hard times for the DMs out there, either risking to take a TPK instead of a tough encounter in the effort of giving some hard times to your now-powerfull low level players, or seeing your uber-encounters being quickly wiped out thanks to some lucky roll by the players (or unlucky ones by you). This is far better than save-or-die effects, but at least you usually couldn't use them on opponents higher in level than you (while it seems spells and other effects still retain some meaningfull chance to hit in 4E, regardless of level difference).
Theese are my thoughts, based on the bits of info we have on 4E so far, so I don't really fear the 15min (or 90min) adventuring day issue, since in 4E it will more likely occour because of the DM not designing the encounters/adventures the right way or the players being too carefull/not smart enought to manage their resources the right way. Sorry for the long/confusing post too (I actually hope someone read it #_#)
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Note that surges do not regain after an encounter. Any per encounter healing ability does - like Second Wind or healing spells. But your surges are per day.Bandreus said:
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Also, you don't "regain" AP with a short rest.
You start the day with 1 AP, then you build them when you meet some "milestones" in the adventure (I read that it should be one milestone every 2 encounters, but I guess the DM has complete power in determining what a milestone is).
If you use an AP, it's gone. If you take an extended rest all unused AP are gone and you start again with just one.
Although I know this kind of approach is "videogamey" (you finish the "chapter" - you get an AP, you finish the "level" - you "save" and start again fully healed), it's "videogamey" in a positive way.
I.e., they stole from videogames an idea that helps propelling the players to keep adventuring until they get to the climax of the story, providing mechanicam motivations on top of roleplaying and story motivations.
Let's admit it, it's cool to end your final boss with a "fatality", and this kind of approach hits the target without being unbalanced, since you can go through the preparatory encounters saving the best daily powers for the end, and you also can build AP during the way.
Wednesday Boy
The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
Sammael said:
Even though I know it happens, I've never experienced it either. I'm pretty sure if our group tried that any of my GMs would use it as an opportunity for stuff to come after us instead of us coming to it.
FourthBear
First Post
I was wondering if the milestone mechanic for Action Points could be used for house rules for those tables that wished to encourage more encounters per day and less resting. Perhaps upon each milestone (2 encounters), PCs would gain healing surges and a chance to recharge per day abilities. Not sure I'd want to do it myself, since I do like some per day resource management. I wouldn't be too surprised if a section in the DMG discussed ways in which to house rule for such things. I'm thinking that you would have to couple this with an actual in game reason why resting would be detrimental:
1) Timed events in the adventure. If you don't act to prevent X in so many days, bad thing Y happens.
2) Bad guys respond well to incursions. The PCs actions on day 1 cause the enemies to organize and call for reinforcements on day 2. The bad guys have resources they can call on every day that makes the situation tougher for the PCs as days go on, not easier. Absolute attrition battles don't favor the PCs.
3) No safe resting place. The environment and situation makes resting highly difficult, if not impossible. No magical ways to find/create a convenient resting spot, no friendly occupied areas nearby to retreat to. Resting attempts are frequently interrupted by hostile forces.
1) Timed events in the adventure. If you don't act to prevent X in so many days, bad thing Y happens.
2) Bad guys respond well to incursions. The PCs actions on day 1 cause the enemies to organize and call for reinforcements on day 2. The bad guys have resources they can call on every day that makes the situation tougher for the PCs as days go on, not easier. Absolute attrition battles don't favor the PCs.
3) No safe resting place. The environment and situation makes resting highly difficult, if not impossible. No magical ways to find/create a convenient resting spot, no friendly occupied areas nearby to retreat to. Resting attempts are frequently interrupted by hostile forces.
Last edited:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Are there actually video-games with a similar mechanic? Can things be videogamey (regardless of positive or negative) if they haven't actually been in videogames?Danzauker said:
MerakSpielman
First Post
I've seen the "15-minute adventuring day" in practice. Fight, rest until dawn, fight, rest until dawn.
It's 75% the DM's problem and 25% the player's problem. (yeah, I made those numbers up.)
The DM is obviously setting up encounters that are too difficult. If the idea is to have the players make more progress than that during a day, why is he setting up encounters that take so many resources to overcome? Also, apparently the DM has designed a dungeon where you actually can rest for 24 hours reasonably undisturbed, with a reasonable expectation of getting your hit points and spells back. What a boring place! A "dungeon" should be a dynamic, living thing that reacts realistically (with all the proper caveats that accompany that term in a fantasy world) to the PC's presence. Resting, especially at 1st level when there isn't access to ameliorating magic, should be a risky venture.
But it is partly the player's fault too. They should be more cautious, not blow through as many resources, try to use stealth and negotiation to get through encounters unscathed, run away if necessary, and so on. The mentality of "if it's here, we should fight it" and "the DM wouldn't put something in the dungeon he didn't know we could defeat" are sad little delusions. Your characters shouldn't metagame! Even if the dungeon is designed so that these assumptions are true (and I'm not saying I do that when I design a dungeon), the players should role-play their characters, and their characters should worry that they don't know whether or not they're tough enough to get through this place alive. C'mon, live like you might die guys! A bit of paranoia isn't a bad thing - it keeps you alive!
It's 75% the DM's problem and 25% the player's problem. (yeah, I made those numbers up.)
The DM is obviously setting up encounters that are too difficult. If the idea is to have the players make more progress than that during a day, why is he setting up encounters that take so many resources to overcome? Also, apparently the DM has designed a dungeon where you actually can rest for 24 hours reasonably undisturbed, with a reasonable expectation of getting your hit points and spells back. What a boring place! A "dungeon" should be a dynamic, living thing that reacts realistically (with all the proper caveats that accompany that term in a fantasy world) to the PC's presence. Resting, especially at 1st level when there isn't access to ameliorating magic, should be a risky venture.
But it is partly the player's fault too. They should be more cautious, not blow through as many resources, try to use stealth and negotiation to get through encounters unscathed, run away if necessary, and so on. The mentality of "if it's here, we should fight it" and "the DM wouldn't put something in the dungeon he didn't know we could defeat" are sad little delusions. Your characters shouldn't metagame! Even if the dungeon is designed so that these assumptions are true (and I'm not saying I do that when I design a dungeon), the players should role-play their characters, and their characters should worry that they don't know whether or not they're tough enough to get through this place alive. C'mon, live like you might die guys! A bit of paranoia isn't a bad thing - it keeps you alive!
Mustrum_Ridcully said:Are there actually video-games with a similar mechanic? Can things be videogamey (regardless of positive or negative) if they haven't actually been in videogames?
In most 2 player fighter games you build "power" for each successful hit agains an opponent, which you can use to power specail moves.
In the Super Robot Wars series of strategical games for each hit you build "spirit" points. Some of the most powerful attacks (usually the finishing moves) can't be used if you are under a certain threshold.
And these are just the first two examples that came into my mind, so I guess this kind of mechanic is well represented in videogames.
Similar Threads
- Locked
