The 15 min. adventuring day... does 4e solve it?

[Vancian Magic]

I've played and DMed a great deal of D&D over the years, and never had this whole 5-minute work day/15-minute adventuring day. Folks just dealt with it and got on with things... Pretty much every time.

In 4th Ed., especially at low level where the PCs have no daily power magic items, they want to rest often. Worst thing is, as a 4th Ed, player I do too. Simply put, daily powers are too good compared to the rest and I can't really blame anyone for not wanting to go on without them.

So grand scheme of things... No, 4th Ed. is the first time I've really seen the 15-minute adventuring day happen!

 

[AtomicPope]

I've seen the 15 minute work day as far back as 1st edition. It became obvious after my group discovered WHFRP, which uses a points-based magic system. The 15 minute work day is only a problem at lower levels in previous editions. The spell casters (especially healers) have access to less than 5 effective combat spells over the course of an entire day. Furthermore, these spells must share alotted space with utility and support spells. When a players chooses Tenser's Floating Disk it means they have one less Burning Hands, which in turn shortens the work day.

At 1st through 3rd level a cleric will quickly burn through their spells, not because they're stupid (which is always the go-to-answer for the counter argument) but because monsters are much deadlier to lower level characters in 1-3e. PC's need instant healing and clerics are the one place to get it.

4e resolves the about issues concerning the 15 minute work day in a number of ways:
1) Healing Surges - They allow a party to press onward without relying on the ubiquitous Wand of CLW or Draining the resources of a single party member (i.e. cleric).
2) Encounter Powers - Repleneshing medium grade powers allows characters to remain competative after any combat. The replenishment of healing abilities that scale appropriate to the target, rather than the caster, supports this.
3) Utility Powers and Rituals - Separating the Utility powers and other assorted spells keeps the player from sharing their combat pool with "one shot" spells. The most common factor in the 15min work day is when the PC's are faced with a problem and the only solution is rest and memorize a new spell.


I've seen the 15 minute work day end abruptly in 4e after two sessions. The players were still 1st level. They've managed to find what looked like an ancient tomb. The undead guards attacked in full force in a massive battle (they're still 1st level at this point). Dailies were expended, a character had died, and everyone was beat down. I asked the players if they wanted to head back or continue. At first they said they needed to rest up, but after a 5 minute break they got their encounter powers back, spent a few healing surges and were ready to press on. And press on they did. I expected them to go back, but it makes a certain amount of sense to continue. They still have their At Will powers and Encounter powers. The Cleric could still heal and no one was out of surges. A few characters had spent their Dailies but it's not the end of the world. As the guy playing the Wizard said, "Unlike 3rd Edition, I'll never have to use a crossbow again."

 

[delericho]

The 15 minute work day is only a problem at lower levels in previous editions.

Funnily enough, the only times I ever saw it in 3e were at higher (mid-teens) levels.

Furthermore, these spells must share alotted space with utility and support spells. When a players chooses Tenser's Floating Disk it means they have one less Burning Hands, which in turn shortens the work day.

Agreed. Siloing of abilities in 4e is something of an improvement. (There are other ways of solving this problem, of course.)

At 1st through 3rd level a cleric will quickly burn through their spells, not because they're stupid (which is always the go-to-answer for the counter argument) but because monsters are much deadlier to lower level characters in 1-3e. PC's need instant healing and clerics are the one place to get it.

1) Healing Surges - They allow a party to press onward without relying on the ubiquitous Wand of CLW or Draining the resources of a single party member (i.e. cleric).

Agreed. In 3e, I was going to fix the issue with availability of Clerical healing by use of a custom magic item I called a wealstone, which would heal 10 hit points per use, and could be used 10 times per day. (It would only heal the user, and require a mental command, so couldn't be used as an anti-undead weapon or on the unconscious Barbarian.) Unfortunately, our recent campaigns haven't got far enough for me to see what impact this would have had.

2) Encounter Powers - Repleneshing medium grade powers allows characters to remain competative after any combat. The replenishment of healing abilities that scale appropriate to the target, rather than the caster, supports this.

I do like per-encounter balancing (with 'an encounter' being defined as the time between two short rests). I'm not at all a fan of mixing per-encounter with per-day balancing.

For the 'big gun' powers, I would have done the following:

1) Allow Wizards (and Clerics, etc) to prepare any six spells at any time. This selection could be swapped during a short rest.
2) Switch to a mana-pool system. (Yes, I know, the notion of D&D going to a mana system is almost heretical.) At the start of an encounter, characters would begin with their mana pool at half of maximum.
3) Allow a Concentration check (or equivalent) standard action for characters to replenish/expand their current mana.

The 'big gun' spells (and powers) would thus have bigger mana costs, meaning that the Wizard has the tactical choice of either firing off a relatively small spell every round, or spending some time hedging his resources before ending the encounter with his 'big gun'. (Of course, this hits the problem that the character might spend all his time charging up, only to find the encounter is over too soon, or his big gun isn't appropriate.)

The undead guards attacked in full force in a massive battle (they're still 1st level at this point). Dailies were expended, a character had died, and everyone was beat down. I asked the players if they wanted to head back or continue. At first they said they needed to rest up, but after a 5 minute break they got their encounter powers back, spent a few healing surges and were ready to press on.

There's not question that my players would have definately retreated at this point. They might even not have returned to that dungeon.

As the guy playing the Wizard said, "Unlike 3rd Edition, I'll never have to use a crossbow again."

Is the Wizard using his crossbow really that horrible a notion? I mean, I get that people play the Wizard because they want to be the spell-casting master of arcane lore... but at 1st level they're not there yet, in just the same way that the 1st level Fighter really isn't the legendary weapon-master that his player wants to be playing.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I have to admit I was a little surprised that 4E didn't tackle the 15-minute day problem by means of the XP-carrot. (E.g., if the PCs complete one or two encounters between rests, they get 50 percent of normal XP. Three gets them 75 percent. Four gets them 100 percent, and five or more gets them 110 percent.) The milestone mechanic is all about trying to motivate players to keep seeking encounters, so how did they miss the greatest player-motivator of all: XP?

In my experience with 3.5, the 15-minute day problem only occurs with certain players (either the extremely cautious, or the extravagant spellcaster) or when an encounter, for whatever reason, turns out to be really, really tough. In the former case, those players will respond to the XP-carrot, or at the very least bow to peer pressure. In the latter case, I don't really have a problem with the 15-minute day.

As a player, I have one extravagant spellcaster in one game, and a combination cautious player/extravagant spellcaster in another game. In both cases, I use my PC's impatience, and my own influence as a player, to continually push those players to either be wiser or get over it. So far it's working okay, and both have improved.

As a DM, I'm lucky enough to have neither type of player. Both primary spellcaster and artificer are wise with spells/infusions, and in general it's more of an issue to get the group to let game time pass than it is to keep them on the clock.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Funnily enough, the only times I ever saw it in 3e were at higher (mid-teens) levels.



Agreed. Siloing of abilities in 4e is something of an improvement. (There are other ways of solving this problem, of course.)



Agreed. In 3e, I was going to fix the issue with availability of Clerical healing by use of a custom magic item I called a wealstone, which would heal 10 hit points per use, and could be used 10 times per day. (It would only heal the user, and require a mental command, so couldn't be used as an anti-undead weapon or on the unconscious Barbarian.) Unfortunately, our recent campaigns haven't got far enough for me to see what impact this would have had.



I do like per-encounter balancing (with 'an encounter' being defined as the time between two short rests). I'm not at all a fan of mixing per-encounter with per-day balancing.

For the 'big gun' powers, I would have done the following:

1) Allow Wizards (and Clerics, etc) to prepare any six spells at any time. This selection could be swapped during a short rest.
2) Switch to a mana-pool system. (Yes, I know, the notion of D&D going to a mana system is almost heretical.) At the start of an encounter, characters would begin with their mana pool at half of maximum.
3) Allow a Concentration check (or equivalent) standard action for characters to replenish/expand their current mana.

The 'big gun' spells (and powers) would thus have bigger mana costs, meaning that the Wizard has the tactical choice of either firing off a relatively small spell every round, or spending some time hedging his resources before ending the encounter with his 'big gun'. (Of course, this hits the problem that the character might spend all his time charging up, only to find the encounter is over too soon, or his big gun isn't appropriate.)

This might work, but I see this problem:
- Any round you are "charging up", what are you contributing to the fight? Will you really fire off a "big gun" at the end, or will the fact that you didn't do anything in between compensate all advantages you might have from the "big gun"? That is a delicate balancing problem - and if the "big gun" really is most advantageous to use, why not do it every combat, meaning that all combats look very much alike - everyone dispatches to engage the enemies and protects you while you are casting your biggest and baddest spell. How will the "defenders" feel compared to you? How will playing the Wizard feel like being tactically interesting?

I am not saying that these questions can't be answered in a way favorable, but I will say that I need to see an actual example system that addresses every issue before I will really believe it can be done. (That's becoming my general stance - you say it can be done better or differently? Don't tell, show me. Unless I see the implementation myself clear as day, I am not convinced that it can be done, and that the current way to do things is inferior.)

Is the Wizard using his crossbow really that horrible a notion? I mean, I get that people play the Wizard because they want to be the spell-casting master of arcane lore... but at 1st level they're not there yet, in just the same way that the 1st level Fighter really isn't the legendary weapon-master that his player wants to be playing.

Yes, I think it is, often enough at least. My namesake might prefer the crossbow over a fireball spell (though actually, I think he loves both - and he can kick us with either, unlike a D&D Wizard), but if I am playing a wizard, I don't want to play a (very bad) crossbow archer. Firing Magic Missile At-Will might be very similar to just firing Crossbows, but it feels more "in-character".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In my experience with 3.5, the 15-minute day problem only occurs with certain players (either the extremely cautious, or the extravagant spellcaster) or when an encounter, for whatever reason, turns out to be really, really tough. In the former case, those players will respond to the XP-carrot, or at the very least bow to peer pressure. In the latter case, I don't really have a problem with the 15-minute day.

I think my group had mostly experience with the latter case, and the former more breeding from the latter.

Again - we played a lot of published modules, and especially the Adventure Paths from Dungeon.

But my experience was also that the Dungeon adventures were a lot of fun. Insanely difficult fights sometimes, but those that were ... easier, just weren't that enjoyable. Okay from time to time to show off what the characters can do and how they can "rule" about their opposition, but ultimately, more a kind of "filler" that leaves to be desired. Of course, the really big and overpowered encounters also had a chance to become annoying. We struggled through the entire Age of Worms adventure path, and didn't really enjoy it as much as we'd like (since according to others, it is the best of the 3 Dungeon paths...) - and eventually stopped playing it after a TPK (that we willingly got into, as the encounter appeared unfair and overpowered...)

 

[pemerton]

What about published adventures? With the exception of the really short ones like Kobold Hall and the RPGA 4-hour modules, running any kind of published dungeon is going to be practically impossible without running afoul of this problem, changing the modules a lot, or contriving completely absurd rationales all the time.

That's why I'm hoping more 4e modules will be like Heathen in Dungeon 155(? I think - last month, anyway) or B10 Night's Dark Terror, both of which remind me much more of classic RM modules and less of traditional dungeon crawls that produce the problem you are talking about. The reward system in 4e - quest XPs, skill challenges, treasure parcels - really facilitates an alternative approach to adventure design.

 

[delericho]

I am not saying that these questions can't be answered in a way favorable, but I will say that I need to see an actual example system that addresses every issue before I will really believe it can be done. (That's becoming my general stance - you say it can be done better or differently? Don't tell, show me. Unless I see the implementation myself clear as day, I am not convinced that it can be done, and that the current way to do things is inferior.)

Fair enough. I don't have an alternative system to share. Besides, even if I did, I lack the hubris to claim that an amateur designer could outdo a team comprised of the very best designers in the world.

if I am playing a wizard, I don't want to play a (very bad) crossbow archer.

I will note that the Wizard resorting to a crossbow appears to be a low-level thing (at mid to high levels, by the time the Wizard is out, the rest of the party generally wants to rest anyway). At least, that has been my experience, which is of course not a universal indicator.

Anyway, at low levels, the Wizard really isn't that far behind the Fighter, unless the Fighter is optimised for missile use. Indeed, at first level it may well be the case that the Wizard outdoes the Fighter, as the difference in BAB is only +1, and the Wizard might well have a better Dex bonus.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Fair enough. I don't have an alternative system to share. Besides, even if I did, I lack the hubris to claim that an amateur designer could outdo a team comprised of the very best designers in the world.

That's, of course, a problem - most people that don't like X and suggest Y lack the skills to "prove" it. But then, I don't feel like your idea was that far out so it should have occured to the many good game designers out there, including those at WotC. How often has such a system been implemented? Who knows if someone at WotC played around with it, ultimiately deciding that it just wouldn't work that well.
Of course, you can't prove that it's impossible either (I at least don't know a way). It definitely seems to be hard to make it work...

I will note that the Wizard resorting to a crossbow appears to be a low-level thing (at mid to high levels, by the time the Wizard is out, the rest of the party generally wants to rest anyway). At least, that has been my experience, which is of course not a universal indicator.

My experience mostly fits too mine - but this led me to not playing many low-level wizards at all.

At higher levels, another problem I didn't address often comes into view - you might cast some spells, but they don't really matter. Wand of Magic Missile or Acid Arrow are a nice way to appear "contributing", while others are way more effective. So, while you get to play a wizard, you still aren't important. (Until the time where they need your big spells or utility spells, when you're king again... )

Anyway, at low levels, the Wizard really isn't that far behind the Fighter, unless the Fighter is optimised for missile use. Indeed, at first level it may well be the case that the Wizard outdoes the Fighter, as the difference in BAB is only +1, and the Wizard might well have a better Dex bonus.

He isn't much worse then the Fighter in Archery, but the Fighter doesn't have to rely on Archery. He doesn't have to use a fallback at all, he can use his "shtick" (or stick ) all the time.

 

[delericho]

Who knows if someone at WotC played around with it, ultimiately deciding that it just wouldn't work that well.

Possible, but I actually doubt it was rejected on those grounds. The system I suggested, if considered, would probably have been rejected first for two other reasons:

1) It would almost certainly make the game more complex to play. The impression I get from 4e is that they've taken some deliberate steps to make the game simpler. (That's not intended as a criticism of 4e, by the way.)

2) The 'recharge' action I suggested would almost certainly fail the "everyone must do something interesting every round" requirement.

He isn't much worse then the Fighter in Archery, but the Fighter doesn't have to rely on Archery. He doesn't have to use a fallback at all, he can use his "shtick" (or stick ) all the time.

While that's technically true, I think it rather overestimates the resilience of the low-level Fighter. At first level, his probable 12 hit points mean that he can take 2 or maybe 3 hits. Granted, the Cleric can boost this by becoming the healbot, but it's still not really true that the Fighter can just fight for hours at this level - fairly soon, he's going to have to retreat to rest.

Besides, the notion of the Wizard (or similar) who has exhausted his ability to use magic for the day, and really has to rest, is not that uncommon. (Although very often, it is followed by a dramatic "one last spell" moment.) So, I come back to the question: is it really that bad a thing that the low-level Wizard sometimes has to fall back on his crossbow?