D&D 5E The Math for the Building a Stronghold Downtime Action is... odd

[Davinshe]

Has anyone noticed the rules for building a stronghold seem off? Specifically, the rules state that for every day you take off, 3 days are added to the total building time, apparently to represent the idea that work progresses much slower when the player isn't present. However, if one examines the math, it turns out that negative work is actually taking place. That is, left to their own devices, your builders apparently begin destroying the castle outright and tearing down work previously completed.

A simple example will suffice. Say one is building a guildhall (60 day construction time). After 10 days, your character needs a break, and takes a day off. If absolutely no work happened on that day, the total building time would be set back by 1 day, for a 61 day construction time. Instead, the total construction time increases to 63 days. Thus you left off work with 50 days remaining, and returned with 53 remaining. I get what they were going for, but the rules as written make no sense. Perhaps they should have written "Work progresses slowly while you are away. For every 4 days the character is absent, 1 day of construction is completed". That would seem roughly equivalent to the intended rule (that a project takes 4 times as long when the character isn't present).

 

[doctorhook]

Has anyone noticed the rules for building a stronghold seem off? Specifically, the rules state that for every day you take off, 3 days are added to the total building time, apparently to represent the idea that work progresses much slower when the player isn't present. However, if one examines the math, it turns out that negative work is actually taking place. That is, left to their own devices, your builders apparently begin destroying the castle outright and tearing down work previously completed.

A simple example will suffice. Say one is building a guildhall (60 day construction time). After 10 days, your character needs a break, and takes a day off. If absolutely no work happened on that day, the total building time would be set back by 1 day, for a 61 day construction time. Instead, the total construction time increases to 63 days. Thus you left off work with 50 days remaining, and returned with 53 remaining. I get what they were going for, but the rules as written make no sense. Perhaps they should have written "Work progresses slowly while you are away. For every 4 days the character is absent, 1 day of construction is completed". That would seem roughly equivalent to the intended rule (that a project takes 4 times as long when the character isn't present).

I don't have my book with me at the moment, but I think your ruling seems reasonable. I'm gonna use it in my game.

Also, I have this weird recollection of having read a discussion about this a long while back, so I suspect someone else did discuss it at some point. No harm in revisiting it every once in a while though.

 

[delericho]

That is, left to their own devices, your builders apparently begin destroying the castle outright and tearing down work previously completed.

Of course. They need to start undoing the boneheaded mistakes of the Pointy-Haired PC.

A simple example will suffice. Say one is building a guildhall (60 day construction time). After 10 days, your character needs a break, and takes a day off. If absolutely no work happened on that day, the total building time would be set back by 1 day, for a 61 day construction time.

Except that I don't think the DMG actually allows you to just stop the construction - whether you have your team working in your absence or not, the construction time increases by 3 days.

And that's not as absurd as it may sound: if you just give everyone the day off then the work does indeed start to go in reverse, as structures that aren't complete start to break down again, as bandits move in and start stealing the unattended materials, or similar. Yes, a single-day break probably won't have a huge impact, but the system is intentionally simplistic and so the single-day break is an odd corner case.

Perhaps they should have written "Work progresses slowly while you are away. For every 4 days the character is absent, 1 day of construction is completed". That would seem roughly equivalent to the intended rule (that a project takes 4 times as long when the character isn't present).

Without the option to simply pause the work, they amount to the same thing.

 

[aramis erak]

Without the option to simply pause the work, they amount to the same thing.

As written, if you're not there, the crew are accomplishing nothing and partying on your dime...

 

[wedgeski]

Yes, this has been noted as an oddity before. It kind of works if you look at construction as a sunk cost where you anticipate how many days your character will be available to supervise across the entire construction time ("Let's assume we're available 50% of the time over the next six months"), but fails if the construction takes place in "real" time and the PC's are leaving unexpectedly.

I dumped the rule altogether. IMO, once a stronghold is designed, the only resource required of the PC's is their gold.

 

[Davinshe]

Allowing a stronghold to be build without the players actually being there seems fair to me. Four years is a long time to wait for a castle in game time, even if it is pretty generous by actual historical standards. I'm also considering a rule to allow the group to pay triple the gold to have the time cut in half or ten times the gold to cut the time to one quarter. The former represents hiring exotic labor (such as master dwarven architects assisted by stone giants and a golem) while the latter represents the use of expensive magic (like wizards raising walls of stone and using fabricate to speed the construction along with a bard using a "lyre of building").

 

[jgsugden]

You're undercutting the laborers guild here. Speaking from experience, there is nothing unrealistic about one day of unsupervised labor setting a project back many days.

I'd just have it go this way:
* Each unsupervised day of labor sets the project back 3 days.
* Each day the PC supervises makes 1 day of progress.
* They can hire supervisors that will keep the project moving at a rate between no progress (very cheap apprentice that can't keep the workers in line) to 2 days progress per day (a master that can get more out of the men than the PCs). As in reality, the more money you put in, the faster it gets done... unless you're getting ripped off.

 

[jamesmylercook]

The times from the DMG are if the PCs spend all of their downtime at the building site.
Just take the build times from the DMG and x3, this is how long things take to build without the PCs, if the PCs are there, for every 1 day of work, 3 days work gets done. The PCs will likely have useful magic items that construction workers don't have.
The Fighter uses his strength and magical sword to cut the stone and wood faster.
The Barbarian uses his strength to carry things and hammer nails etc.
The Rogue uses his contacts to get building materials delivered faster for less money/"free".
The Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard cast their spells.
The Monk is also there.

 

[goldenskull]

Sorry for the massive thread necro, but in case anyone else lands on this page like I did:

I'm 99% sure this is a typo. Speaking as a writer, I would bet you anything that "per day" was supposed to be "per week". This is exactly the kind of mistake you can easily make - switching up two words measuring the same thing in the same sentence - when you're writing professionally all day and all the stuff you write starts to blend together.

It also makes sense: a 43% drop in productivity when the boss isn't there as opposed to a 400% drop-to-reversal. Most downtime stuff is measured per week anyway.

 

[Davinshe]

wow, threadcromancy indeed! I'd like to think you're correct about it being a mistake, since having things take a little less than 50% additional time seems far more reasonable. But I have to point out that errata for the DMG does exist and never changed this -- likewise the rules are the same in electronic formats like D&D beyond. I suppose in the new revised rules they'll be replaced with those (hopefully improved) bastion rules.