D&D (2024) What do you want to see excised?

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I want to remove DMs needing to run more than 1-3 encounters per day if they don't want to while still keeping the at-will and long-rest-recovery classes balanced against each other.

I like the thought, but it isn’t a problem in our 5e games now, so I am not sure what or how to excise something to make it work.

 

[Reynard]

I like the thought, but it isn’t a problem in our 5e games now, so I am not sure what or how to excise something to make it work.

Maybe rests should be milestone based? That presumes an adventure with a plot, usually, but I think it would be possible to figure out a workable method for more sandboxy games. But instead of basing resource recovery on in fiction time -- the passage of which is going to vary depending on the kind of things happening in play -- maybe base them on game states. I know lots of folks won't like that because it is too "meta" but it is a possible solution.

 

[Cadence]

Maybe rests should be milestone based? That presumes an adventure with a plot, usually, but I think it would be possible to figure out a workable method for more sandboxy games. But instead of basing resource recovery on in fiction time -- the passage of which is going to vary depending on the kind of things happening in play -- maybe base them on game states. I know lots of folks won't like that because it is too "meta" but it is a possible solution.

That might be my least favorite thing in 13th Age.... :-/

 

[Blue]

I like the thought, but it isn’t a problem in our 5e games now, so I am not sure what or how to excise something to make it work.

Respectfully, there are two very different aspects that need to be met by number of encounters per day, and if you are focused on one you might miss the other.

One of them is challenge. And yes, you can have fewer, deadlier encounters and reach your goals for this. This isn't really debated, and it's the primary - and sometimes only - one that most people think about.

The other one is balance between the at-will classes like rogue or the EB-focused warlock, and the long-rest recovery classes like full casters plus hybrids like the barbarian or the paladin.

If you took your average full caster and took away all slots, they would be less effective on average than at-will classes like the rogue. At-will > cantrip. (This doesn't include EB boosted with invocations.)

On the other hand, if you gave casters unlimited of their highest level slots, they would do more than at-will characters. A fireball with multiple opponents, etc. Slots of the highest few levels > at-will.

Putting them together, we get, in generic terms for the average character:

Slots of the highest few levels > at-will > cantrip

So in order to balance these, we need some number of spells cast using highest level slots, and some cantrips or low-impact spells (like 1st level offensive spells in T2+). Some above and some below will average out to the same as an at-will.

Let's examine that. If you run a few encounters and run the party's casters all the way out of spells - you are STILL not balancing the classes unless you also are forcing them to have a good number of rounds at less than at-will effectiveness.

An easy way to work this out is average effectiveness per action, over the course of the adventuring day.

Ah, so if you have fewer encounters, as long as the last as long as more encounters we're good, right?

Well, no. It's moving in the right direction, but duration is a thing. If an encounter is 3-4 rounds and you can a spell lasting 1 minute, you only get 3-4 rounds of it at most. But if the combat lasts 9 rounds, then you are getting 2-3 times the effect from the same slot and the same action. It's more powerful. So you need to offset it with even more rounds of lower than at-will efficiency.

A easy way to see this is the barbarian. Say you've got 3 rages per day. Assuming the encounters total to the same deadliness, is there any case where you are worse off if you can rage for every encounter instead of half of them? That's one of the things that decreasing the number of encounters does - allows duration effects to be even more powerful.

To sum up:

1. Can balance danger and challenge in fewer encounters by having tougher encounters.

2. Need to have more total rounds fighting in fewer encounters that all of the more encounters in order to maintain balance between classes.

And that second one does not often get met. Fewer encounters per day is usually fewer total rounds then if we did all of the encounters per day, and that definitely is mathematically biased in terms of the long-rest-recovery classes like casters as well as a big boost for hybrids like the barbarian and the paladin.

 

[HammerMan]

And the division between what's "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing" is pretty handwavy and weird. What is a bludgeoning weapon if not an oversized piercing weapon (why cannons deal bludgeoning but guns do piercing)? Thunder damage has a similar problem. Both Bludgeoning and Thunder damage are "physical vibrational" damage, with Thunder just being air vibrations whereas Bludgeoning is solid, I guess.

And what sword can’t be both slash and pierce.

 

[Reynard]

And what sword can’t be both slash and pierce.

Machete style chopping swords.

 

[Cadence]

And what sword can’t be both slash and pierce.

Machete like on one side, Estoc like on the other?

(1/2 Ninja's by @Reynard )

 

[Aldarc]

• Six Saves
• BIFTs
• Orientalism from the Monk
• Shield spell

 

[Lanefan]

Yet it had the opposite effect IME.

Requiring more XP at those "fun levels" delays the gratification many players feel when they actually get to, you know, level.

The side effect is that slog in those "fun levels" turns off a lot of groups and by the time they finally get through those levels, they've had enough and begin a new game with 1st level (or whatever) characters again.

If levelling is the main reason why people play this will always be a problem.

If players can somehow be made to see that levelling is merely a pleasant, occasional, and variably-timed side effect of the play they're otherwise enjoying anyway, it then doesn't matter how long it takes to get through any given level.

Not quite sure how to excise this idea that levelling is the primary goal of play, though.

 

[billd91]

Fine, but if - as is IME very often the case - it's one character (or a few among several) pulling the group along in those group activities, that character IMO deserves more reward than those others who are just along for the ride. For example, hearing and verifying rumours while chatting with the locals might be something the party's Rogue and Wizard see to while the Cleric and Fighter stay put in the hotel room: why should the C and F get any xp for something they didn't do?

In my experience, if this happens it’s because certain players are generally more active and willing to jump in than others and it happens no matter who/what their PCs are. In these cases, I’d reward the player with a beer or something.

So ultimately I’d excise using in-game mechanics to encourage/discourage out of game or personality-based dynamics.