Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 03:31 PM	Greetings All! D&D is a strange beast. It has abstract rules for gaining power through levelling and conflict. These rules are based off of an assumption that a party of 4 adventurers "encountering" 4 things in a single day that are on average equal to their challenge rating, draining on average 25% of their resources each time, so that at the end of the day they are (for lack of a better word) "pooped". This assumption is what lets a designer "balance" a class. A class is effectively balanced if it can handle itself well through 4 encounters without being completely useless by the last encounter. Some might go further and say a class is balanced if after the 4th encounter it needs to rest or at least it wouldn't be as powerful in a 5th, 6th, or 7th encounter. This assumption is what makes psionics a balanced system also what makes warlocks and ToB balanced as well. A psion is fully capable of outcasting a core caster by "going nova", but doing so would severly hamper them for the 3 other fights that are coming. A warlock can deal more damage over time than a wizard and cast more spells than a sorcerer (even if they're lower level effects), but this is balanced by the assumption that they aren't going to have more than 4 encounters so any additional damage over time is irrelevant. However, I hear tell that people don't play this way. I hear that people are playing with 1 or 2 encounters per day followed by very relaxing, nigh-uninterruptable rest periods, which I'll call nova-napping. Nova-Napping may in fact be the root cause of imbalance seen between various classes. I've seen examples of this in the completely ludicrous class vs class comparisons (fighter 20 vs wizard 20 relying on time-stop + gate + force cage + gate + gate + gate +delayed blast + time stop + delayed blast +. . .). Nova-Napping can also cause other unseen problems. It favors nova-capable classes and makes encounters much easier. So not only are you capable of using 50% of your resources in a fight, going "all-out" makes the people with staying power seem less useful. These are the "per encounter" people, the rogues, fighters, warlocks, and ToB classes, as well as some of the variants in PHB (rage variant Barbarian, etc). They're typically well stocked at the beginning of each encounter and are always allowed to go "all out", but their version of "all out" typically lags behind the casters, again because of the assumed 4 encounter rule. If anything their version of "all out" involves not worrying about taking as much damage. Conversely the endurance and versatility of some of the newer per-encounter classes leads some to believe they're overpowered because they can last just fine through well over 4 encounters (I could see a crusader or warlock easily managing 8, maybe 10+ with wands of vigor). So, Who ignores the 4 encounter per day rule? How many encounters do you have? How do you balance the nova-capable power-houses against the per-encounter work-horses? If you aren't using the system as it is written, what changes need to be made to make a sytem that is going to be used? And my favorite question: If you were going to rework the nova-capable classes and make them per-encounter classes, what changes would you make? This last one is the most important one to me, because I think I'm going to do it. That way it doesn't matter if there are 4 encounters per day, 1 encounter, or 12 and you can focus on storyline or combat as you prefer.
Sunic_Flames 06-23-07, 03:44 PM	So, Who ignores the 4 encounter per day rule? How many encounters do you have? How do you balance the nova-capable power-houses against the per-encounter work-horses? If you aren't using the system as it is written, what changes need to be made to make a sytem that is going to be used? And my favorite question: If you were going to rework the nova-capable classes and make them per-encounter classes, what changes would you make? This last one is the most important one to me, because I think I'm going to do it. That way it doesn't matter if there are 4 encounters per day, 1 encounter, or 12 and you can focus on storyline or combat as you prefer. I ignore it because it's one of those things that contradicts the other things (4 encounters per day at roughly equal CR + 13.33 such encounters to level x 19 levels = level 20 in slightly over 2 months). Number of encounters varies from 1 to at least 6. I don't make it obvious which kind of day it will be, this is a balancing factor as it's unclear as to whether they'll need to deal with 1 easy fight or a long series of progressively more difficult fights. The likely change would be stretching the system out so as to be viable over a larger number of levels without actually becoming any stronger. In other words making it so level 40 = level 20 now, or something. Alternately xp rewards could be dropped through the floor, but higher numbers tend to go over better than lower ones. As for the last question, come back to me on that. But my guess would be a PP like system, and quartered PP per encounter. Or something.
AllisterH 06-23-07, 04:19 PM	Like I said before, it really is the players who control how many encounters they face in a day. The most a DM could do would be to have time-sensitive missions but such a mission is kinda rare to begin with (when I mean time-sensitive, I mean, "must be completed that day" not time sensitive as in "we only have a week/month to clear out this dungeon" which do allow for nova classes to shine). The system of spells itself encourages players to think like this. I mean, if you're a 13th level wizard and all you have left is 4th level spells, it makes more tactical sense to stop and regroup since spells like Rope Trick make it easy.
RadicalTaoist 06-23-07, 04:19 PM	Ahem. Not 4 per day flat. 4 of Equal CR per day, with some scaling to allow for lower and higher CRs. So you can have 4 encounters of standard strength (CR=Effective Party Level), or two encounters of significant strength (CR=EPL+2), or eight encounters of weaker strength (CR=EPL-2). You can even mix it up, if you wish: a good daily routine for a party of mixed per-encounter and per-day balanced classes would be four weak (CR=EPL-2) encounters followed up by a miniboss (CR=EPL+2). The dirty rule of thumb is this: the more of their daily resources the PCs are expected/required to leverage upon an encounter, the higher the CR of that encounter should be. Player resources drained per encounter should be inversely proportional to encounter frequency. Determine the encounters per day accordingly with your party's abilities in mind.
Kobold Paladin 06-23-07, 04:52 PM	I don't go by 4 ECL per day because I don't use random encounters. In the dungeon they attract as much attention as they do by entering area/causing noise that draws defenders to them. In the feild it makes no sense than things that want to harm you are so common so I script ahead of time any given fights (less than one per day) during overland travel. Players can take as much time as they want baring any time limit they have placed.
JohnOSpencer 06-23-07, 05:14 PM	I don't hold to the 4 encounter equivalents per day. I just scale it so that if there is only one encounter, it is a monster, and if there are several, they are a bit lower. I've been know to have my PCs in 19 encounters between resting, of course a couple of those were a breeze, like 4 CR2 bandits at lvl 5, but the volume of encounters makes up for the ease. You just got to feel your way through it. Don't hesitate to plan for a lot of encounters and then take some away as you realize your PCs won't be able to take that many.
aotrscommander 06-23-07, 05:39 PM	I've never paid any real attention to the per day encounters, or the designed level of the characters. It was important for it to be included as a design base, of course, but there my concern with it ends. For a kick off, our average group has always been and will always be six characters, which whacks the EL system out there and then. Secondly, we play with far better stats than the Elite array. So I merely use CR as "amount of XP gained" (and for many encounters, I halve that reward as well). I balance by eye my encounters, taking into account the PC's capabilities (roughly). Indeed, since learning early on that EL has no real effect on XP, I have never bothered with calculating it again(occasionally, under-equipped enemies get a decrease to effect CR, but that's it.) That said, in general encounters fall into one of two categories: chaff and BBEG fights in most of our games. In chaff encounters. the spellcasters will often mutter something about demarkation, and sit back on their asses, maybe chucking the odd low-level spell. So, it's quite likely, since most of what would be equal EL encounters would constitue chaff encounters, even with four a day, the nova classes would still nova. . BBEG encounters, moreover, are designed usually such that they practically require the parties' full resources to tackle. Novaing isn't usually a problem, thus, since it's now at the stage where the PCs pretty much have to nova in those circumstances; since the opposition will damn be novaing back! I did go through a period in a couple of my first 3.x campaigns where the BBEGs got shredded quite quickly (my first response to Energy Missile (pre-'errata') was one of surprise; but having learnt from that, I don't bother to use single monsters as BBEGs any more. Given all that then, 'per encounter' is a lot better balance for me, since it would allow the casters to be prepared to do something other than stand at the back conserving their spells in most encounters and moreover I can run more interesting encounters (i.e. higher stakes), since the PCs have a steady supply of resources. Plus, as has been pointed out by others of the boards (though not much used by our groups, ironically), with easy access to wands in 3.x (not to mention some of the newer options), out-of-combat healing has become pretty much automatic anyway. I am actually working towards a little more 'per encounter' overall (though nto completely, since that would make it very hard to press the PCs endurance); my modifications to the magic system will put a little more 'per encounter' in the hands of the spellcasters. Basically, all this really (theoretically) does is reduce the amount of rest periods required; rest periods don't generally add anything to the game at all, really (indeed I find they detract from it). But not, I hasten to add, allow too many unlimited resources, as that would break the world/story if not the game mechanics.
souldragon_420 06-23-07, 06:56 PM	Yeah and like i said in the other thread most the campaigns i play in we only have 2 or 3 encounters a day but also we pretty much never face anything at or below our EL in fact most everything we fight in the games i play in are 1-3 lvls above our EL and due to that have to rest more often but i just like to play under DMs that like to maximize all there monsters and encounters. Adds more risk and excitement as all combat encounters can quickly result in a player death if things go wrong or we make a crucial mistake. Also all our BBEG encounters have a very real possibility of TPK.
itwasntme 06-23-07, 07:30 PM	Simply Put ... Yes A Battle for the players should normoly happin 4 times a day when there travoling (No need to have it allways happin) Sometimes less sometimes more However the thing people get wrong and misunderstand is Wizard and how they have a fight happin to the players Example 10% of all battles should be above the players CR by 1-4 points (Mostly 1-2) While 5% is a battle players should run away from 50% of the battles should be with monsters LOWER then the Party CR (Ie where level 3 characters fighting normol kobolts) 15% of the battle should be with monsters of the same CR The rest (20%) is a battle that easyoly taken care of if the players handle right (IE dont charge down the hallway IE dont cast Light spell IE ... so on so forth) besides this its a CR lower then the groups CR The main problem with this is low level Level 1 groups There is on a majority 4 battles a day on adverage for all the people put together and compared with Most people who do not do 4 battles a day and only do 1-2 battles are being friendly to the players and do not understand how the CR system agest a party should work sure 1-2 battles can happin only (However a harder battle like a Mini Boss monster or something like that or maybe the Main Boss Monster or w/e) this way character will have at least 1 death (Good chance) No matter the level Level 1-3 is useoly the expection to the rule for thoughs of you who know a level 1 fighter could take on 10 kobolts ... sure he will need healing after words but point is he won the battle alone and the kobolts where even getting lucky and its not a beefy fighter its just a run of the mill fighter sure there is a good chance he will die but its been pointed out and shown how it can happin the problem is thats the fighters only battle for the day now if he had 3 other characters for backup (The normol 4 person party but these days its more like 5) he would/should be able to take on a few more battles 4 player 1 characters should have 2-3 battles that are CR 1/5 1/4 1/3 or 1/2 no greater and the other 1 battle should possibly be the CR 1/2 or 1 So yes 4 battles a day on adverage works and is useoly done by a majority of the people (Most of which do not speek on these boards they just play) So a level 1 wizard can still be handy sure he dosnt have a great amount of spells he can cast sure he can be knocked out right off the bat but thats normol game play players are normoly used to "We will win no matter the cost" type of play or at least somewhat friendly in there favor the level 1 wizard should do what my party wizard allways dos I HAVE A BOW! or a CrossBow more then likly possible 1-10 damage better then any 1st level spell sure i have to make an attack roll but the only monsters i have to worrie about more then half the time are monsters wearing heavy armor (Orcs kobolts zombies and most level 1 monsters are out of the questions there AC is low enough for the wizard to hit about 50/60% of the time with a reasble Dex score) So by all means if you know WHAT they mean by 4 battles a day then yes 4 battles a day on adverage tho sometimes more sometimes less
StevenO 06-23-07, 07:55 PM	At lower levels I'd expect fewer encounters as ALL of them can potentially go poorly very fast. As pure luck ruins fewer encounters then I'd move towards that four ECL equivalents per day but vary how they come up. At higher levels I'd deliberately throw lower ECL encounters at the player to bait out those "NOVA" characters but allow those grind stone characters to shine. If a fresh 20th level fighter and 20th level wizard each encounter 20 10th level orcs the wizard should definitely have the advantage if they all come at once (especially if he knows they're coming) but if they are staggered such that they can only be dealt with a couple at a time the Fighter is probably more likely to come out alive. A fighter at half hp is better equiped to deal with a steady stream of orcs than a wizard a half hp without many spell left.
Drag0nUL 06-24-07, 02:12 AM	I for one don not use the 4 enocunter per day rule. I try to create a world as realistic as possible (or rather plausible, sicne it's rather hard to talk about realism in D&D) in which everybody has their own agenda and things are where they are (what I mean by this is: if you go into Red Dragon Cave of Certain Doom, you will encounter the same Great Wyrm Red Dragon, regardless if you go there at level 1 or level 1342; I was a great fan of Gothic in this respect). This means the number of encounters per day will vary with he circumstances. If theya re travelling down the fairly well guarded King's Road for example there will be at most 1-2 pretty weak encounters per day; but if they are assaulting the BBEG's fortress they should expect a lot of firepower going their way (I think the most we've gone is 17 encounters without rest; the party was to assasinate an enemy general of a besieged city and used an all out assault on the city walls as cover to go in, find the general and kill him) I make no significant effort to balance the nova vs. long-run classes; I think (and none of my players has experessed any concerns so far) that, at least for my style of DM-ing they balance themseslves out in the course of the campaign . One day the nova casters will be in the spot light, while the next oen they would own their lives to the endurance of a warblade or crusader. If I were going to rework the nova classes (I don't think it is a good idea, one of the most fun things I find when playign spellcasters is deciding what to use and when, but everybody is entitled to their own opinion) I would go for a psionic-like power point system (but power points per encounter and not per day). However I think this system would require extensive playtesting, to determine the number of points which class has available.
bonethug0108 06-24-07, 03:39 AM	It's late so I only read the first post, but hit points is what makes everyone have to rest at some point. Most of those work horses have more hit points, sure, but they are also the ones usually taking the most hits. This is also why it is prefered to give a fighter a heal over a wizard who has useless or no spells left. If a wizard is set up to use spell points, a set amount of spells at each level(less than now), etc. per encounter instead of per day, it would help to make them more valuable over time, but perhaps not more powerful as you limit their spellcasting a certain way.(usually by decreased spells per encounter) I argued for the per encounter in another thread, but I will say this about it hear: it gives you options of what you can use in any given situation. Options = flexibility = good. Say a sorceror uses fireball because it is his best spell in one encounter. So now lets say in the next encounter, he runs into something vulnerable to fire, but he has run out of that level spell needed to cast fireball. If he is set up per encounter, he would be able to use it lets say once in each encounter. Now let's say the next encounter relies on something other than killing. Let's say the sorceror has a good spell to help, but it is at the same level as fireball. If you use per day, you're screwed. If you use per encounter, than he can help. And this doesn't take away from pc's making difficult choices. Let's say that last encounter actually had the enemy and an obstacle. He can chose to cast fireball or clear the obstacle, but not both. Maybe the rogue has a skill that can clear that obstacle, or the fighter can take care of the enemy. It makes everyone more flexible in what they can do by giving spellcasters more flexibility. Two points I should make: 1)This was probably a poor example due to my lack of sleep. 2)I actually hate spellcasters, so I am not trying to advocate for making them more powerful. I actually believe that by balancing everyone around a per encounter would put everyone on the same level in each encounter and the whole team would be more flexible and ready to take on a greater number and diversity of challenges. But what of challenges becoming to easy, you ask? Up the encounter level. Not to hard. Add a twist in the encounter to make it harder. Throw in some extra baddies. Per encounter does not mean invincible pc's by a long shot. You must remember hit points. This would actually make clerics more important as healers than as anything else, as hit points would be the determinant of if the party keeps going, instead of spells per day. And what about clerics regaining spells so they can heal out of encounter? Couldn't they heal infinitely? You don't gain the spells back out of the encounter, you regain them once you enter a new encounter. And this goes for all per encounter abilities. This will also have players thinking whether they should save some for an "out of encounter" challenge. When out of an encounter, you don't get infinite uses of per encounter abilities. You only get what you had left from in the last encounter. This prevents player abuse of what would be powerful abilities if they were allowed to be infinite. Getting back to the cleric, perhaps he doesn't spontaneously heal. Or maybe he does. I don't know. This all will lead to more and more questions and I am pretty tired at the moment so all I can say is you would have to rebuild from the ground up on each class. Which brings us to 4th edition. Now everybody run away because I said a scary thing. Now I'm going to sleep. Good night.
scienceman47 06-24-07, 04:09 AM	I think you misunderstand. If you want wizards to keeps from going nova every encounter, or other classes that have the potential to go nova from constantly going nova, you need not actually consistantly have four encounters per day. What you need is to keep the possibility of the day going longer. That is, run about 3-5 encounters per day, and the threat of the day going on longer than expected keeps the wizards and the like playing a bit more conservative. You should also vary your encounters, and even have the players meet a challenge that they CANNOT handle in a fight. As in +5 above CR. This forces the players to innovate and not approach every problem with a hammer.
Ongorth 06-24-07, 08:51 AM	Remember, though the CR system is supposed to drain ~25% of resources from a 25 point buy, horribly designed and tactially inept inconic party. My group isn't filled with ultrapowergamers, aren't tactical geniuses and self-enforces balances with character choices and we still find the usual amount of encounters entirely underwhelming for a party. I've found that at minimum you need a progression like CR, CR, CR+2, CR+2 to even begin to drain a party's resources. With that said, the entire per day paradigm is dumb. Days are not a mechanically relevant factor to the pacing of an adventure. Encounters are. You could have 4 challenging encounters over the course of a week doing overland travel or over the course of an hour during a big battle of a war. If you use the per/day paradigm, the first is a complete cakewalk because you get to rest after each one and in the second everyone is dead because the battle is going to rage on for a few more hours. The best advice I can give is to have powers reset when it makes the game most interesting, either through plot importance or to make challenges more interesting. I mean, my group is pretty good at making up reasons the party can never, ever rest in between fights (and on the verso, why the party's resources get reset in the between battles), but why should you have to do that all the time?
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 09:23 AM	I think you misunderstand. If you want wizards to keeps from going nova every encounter, or other classes that have the potential to go nova from constantly going nova, you need not actually consistantly have four encounters per day.I don't misunderstand, but thanks! I have a full grasp of how to keep my players on their toes and it doesn't always involve 4 set encounters per day. My point, however, was this "if no one is using the system as it is currently set up, what changes need to be made so that it gets used?" If CR is dependent on 4 encounters for 4 man groups consisting of nova-capable classes mixed with non-nova-capable classes with 25 point buy / elite array stats and everyone is playing 36 point buy with 6 man groups consisting of all nova-capable characters napping after each fight then we are not playing D&D the way it is written. DMs should be reworking how XP is granted, on the fly, to adjust for "overpowered" parties (that is parties more powerful than the assumed party) killing everything with much less trouble than a "balanced party". My point is that D&D should be per-encounter-based and that XP should be dependant on something other than CR, because CR is obsolete in actual play because it is based on something that isn't real.
Sunic_Flames 06-24-07, 11:14 AM	Remember, though the CR system is supposed to drain ~25% of resources from a 25 point buy, horribly designed and tactially inept inconic party. My group isn't filled with ultrapowergamers, aren't tactical geniuses and self-enforces balances with character choices and we still find the usual amount of encounters entirely underwhelming for a party. I've found that at minimum you need a progression like CR, CR, CR+2, CR+2 to even begin to drain a party's resources. Thank you kindly sir, you saved me the trouble of stating and proving it. *passes :cookie:* If the nova classes were to be evened out it'd likely be a spell point/power point system with a quarter the normal pool or something similar but per encounter. Of course this raises the question of how to balance spells and powers used out of combat, can anyone say mass buffing spells? Really though such a sweeping change would have a heavily unforeseen ripple effect that if my past experience with balancing game mechanics is any indication, will break at least 10 things for every one it fixes if done properly. This is not due to a lack of ability, but due to the fact everything is interwoven together, modular changes simply don't work out. And if you're gonna revise the entire system you're better off trying to market it than using it for your own personal use. So I'd prefer to just leave it be and allow it to balance itself. As for the balancing XP, as Ongorth has kindly saved me the trouble of illustrating the bar is set very low. As a result, far more are above it than below it... After all, while 25 PB is sometimes done, and core only as well it is not often also fused with ineptness at character design and sound tactics as well as failing to utilize multiclassing as needed. Pure classed core only 25 PB crap characters is not a valid baseline even if you play 25 PB and core only. As for what is? Well that's one of those things you'll have to look at your group and see for yourself. Me? I could throw a CR 14 encounter at an EPL 8 group, and the PCs would win with moderate resource depletion and only minor risk of death. Yes, I actually ran a mock combat to prove it. They lasted 6 rounds and did about 60 damage the entire fight. Ironic thing about all this? Said CR 14 encounter is Jozan, Lidda, Mialee, and Regdar at level 10... the 4 iconics. :rolleyes:
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 01:49 PM	I just wanted to say that my last session I had 4 encounters. The party is 6 ECL 5 characters. The fights were: 1) Ogre + 4 level 2 hobgoblin fighters with good positioning (EL7ish) 2) Lazy but mean hill giant (EL 9) 3) Skittish Winter wolf (EL 5) ran after getting hit with a single empowered scorching ray on the surprise round. 4) Goblin Ninja5/Beguiler6 with good equipment and 5 rounds of buffing (EL 11+). This is going to kill at least one member of my party (so he can take time off from playing and play something else when he gets back). We're "paused" in the middle of the fight, but they've almost killed her twice (she's ran off and healed to full with wands twice). Just wanted to point out that I don't really stick to the CR per encounter rules.
bonethug0108 06-24-07, 02:35 PM	My point is that D&D should be per-encounter-based and that XP should be dependant on something other than CR, because CR is obsolete in actual play because it is based on something that isn't real. That's why my group doesn't even use xp. We level up a certain points in the plot, which changes depending on how the story goes and how tough the fights have been. No matter who is dm'ing, we found this to be the best way because it: 1)Cuts down on time taken to figure out xp. 2)Keeps random encounters(which we have few of anyway) from really adding to leveling. 3)Adds more realism as we often level at one of the hardest fights we've had instead of some random point(like killing 2 goblins). 4)Makes the dm's job easier as he doesn't have to constantly change encounters every time we unexpectedly level up, though it still happens when we don't fight a certain fight before a certain point. 5)The players like not knowing the exact point at which they will level because it actually feels like you're getting rewarded when it does happen. And the dm's never make you want until eternity, we are all fair about it.
Crimson_Concerto 06-24-07, 02:37 PM	I vary my sessions between 1 and 5 encounters. That way, I don't have to do 4 encouters every day to maintain balance and prevent novas, because the PCs never quite know how many battles are going to be up. Sure, sometimes it's easy to infer there may be more or fewer battles depending on how much else is going on during the session, but it's impossible to guess just right, so they make sure not to expend all of their resources just in case. On a side note dealing with XP and leveling up, I just have my PCs level up whenever I feel like it, and the PCs can generally expect to level up every 3-4 sessions. My group's too ADD to stay at the same level that long.
bonethug0108 06-24-07, 02:49 PM	Depending on session length, 3-5 seeions sounds about right for leveling up. It gives you time to get familiar with your new powers and then really get a chance to showcase them before you gain even better ones.
scienceman47 06-25-07, 03:39 PM	I just realized that my post made me sound like a complete DICK! Srry bout that.
Empiro 06-25-07, 08:43 PM	With respect to the comments that 4 equal EL encounters a day being too easy, I have to say that it really depends on the situation. As a DM, you should expect that HP is mostly healed up between encounters -- almost all parties have a collection of CLW wands or Lesser Vigor wands to heal everyone up cheaply between battles. It also depdends on how you (the DM) play the monsters. If you play the monsters intelligently (or with cunning, for hunters tha have low Int), then players will have a much more difficult time. I've found that forgetting special abilities (SLAs, attack options, etc), or defenses (SR, defensive SLAs, etc) are the most common causes of monsters appearing to be too easy. Another reason is that not all monsters in the MM are created equal. Compare the Tendriculous with the Shambling Mound. Both are CR 6 plant creatures, but one is an appropriate challenge, and the other is likely to kill multiple PCs (of level 6). Now, to answer the original question: as a DM, I wouldn't mind if D&D was more of /encounter instead of a /day system. It would allow me to tailor encounters to fit the story, instead of the other way around. However, having everything be tied to individual encounters does remove an element from the game. You'd no longer need to bother conserving resources, and you'd have no incentive to not go "all out" for even the most trivial of encounters. On the flip side, there's no way for PCs to "step up" when facing a boss encounter several ELs higher. Fortunately, that last issue can be solved somewhat with something like Action Points. If you only have so many action points per level, then you'd still need to conserve those action points for when you really need them.
DarkNick 06-25-07, 09:21 PM	Don't you find it....mechanical? The 4 encounter rule to me is a bit like saying "Fun will occur in 20 seconds...please stand by" Personally I don't even think about it. It all takes a back seat to the story. If the encounters are relevant to the story then I will have as many as needed to tell the story. As a DM I never think "this fight will be really tough, I should put in an opportunity to rest afterwards.......". Balance seems to be a non-issue for me and my group - as long as everything is fair then they are happy i.e. it is fair enough that if the players want to keep going after a tough fight or don't take some sort of action to remedy the situation then they could get in over their heads. Not that I don't consider the power when looking at one encounter in relation to another, I just don't have a formal approach to it. In practice you can't really replace good judgement with the rules. There are too many variables to consider, such as group dynamics or player habbits. But they do provide a guideline if you need it, which is really all they are supposed to do.I think variety is the key to balance.... Just thinking about it now is there an actual 4 encounter a day rule?
souldragon_420 06-25-07, 09:46 PM	This is a bit off topic but just Darknick's post reminded me of an encounter that happened towards the end of one of my last campaign where we managed to fight and kill a corrupted titan pretty easily due to his anger getting the best of him. Here's the deal we were 16th lvl and going through the Labyrinth of Madness updated to 3.5(think my DM might of even posted his updated version on here at the time). Well anyway there was this big corrupted titan that was suppose to be one of the last and harder fights in there as normally you have to fight him in a big room of his choosing. Well we were about half-way through the Labyrinth and had been doing pretty well. So the titan created an arcane eye or something and started following us with it and insulting us and what not. Well me being the Crazy Feral shifter barbarian i was i started cussing him back and what not without really knowing who or what it was on the other end i was insulting. Well after awhile i was getting fed up with him and he was starting to get a little ****** at me too so I just give him one last "F-U" and turn and drop my pants and moon the eye complete with ass slapping. Well that was the final straw and he went ahead and teleported in a fought us then and there well the thing was the room we were in at the time was quite small for him so he couldn't really move much or take advantage of his reach. # or 4 rounds later we had nuked him to death but he had also killed our warmage our abjurer dropped my barbarian to exactly 0 HP but our cleric was luckily able to finish him off with one last flame strike before he got the TPK. Was a very interesting and fun encounter.
cerberuspuppy 06-25-07, 09:52 PM	I have never played in a game that followed the 4 Encounters Per Day rule.
Stormonu 06-25-07, 11:13 PM	I don't pay attention to the 4-per-day. I simply design an interesting adventure/story, try to gauge whether I want encounters to be difficult or easy, and just roll from there. I assume the party will stop when they're winded, and try to build a couple of reasonable stopping points between encounters so the party can "hole up" to protect themselves - if they're careful and smart. I always calculate for random (planned) encounters that I can always throw at the players if they get too cocky or if I want to move things along when they slow down before exhausting themselves. In my opinion, if the classes were to be redesigned as per-encounter classes, then most of the magical abilities of 4th level spells and higher need to have negative consequences or be removed from player's ability to access. This would inhibit "I win/I novaed" encounters - especially if novaing had a backlash or negative cost of some sort, as in the older editions of D&D.
Steely_Dan 06-26-07, 04:48 AM	In my opinion, if the classes were to be redesigned as per-encounter classes, then most of the magical abilities of 4th level spells and higher need to have negative consequences or be removed from player's ability to access. This would inhibit "I win/I novaed" encounters Totally – the antiquated holdover that is the D&D magic system needs a complete facelift. Almost every other aspect of the game has evolved and moved on. I would love to see a per encounter based magic system, ala ToB. I don't want spell slots or spell points. The assumed 4 encounters a day malarkey has got to go.
Escef 06-26-07, 10:24 AM	...draining on average 25% of their resources each time... 20% is the stated goal of the system, not 25. Four encounters per day that drain 25% of the party's resources each would mean that the goal of the system is a daily TPK. By giving that little bit of leeway with the 20% goal it means you could theoretically toss in an EL+1 or +2 every now and again. Of course, CRs and ELs are an art, not a science. What is a TPK for one group is a cake-walk for another.
Escef 06-26-07, 10:49 AM	For those wishing to limit a caster's ability to "Nova", I recommend implementing the memorization and spell slot combining rules from Monty Cook's Arcana Unearthed* (I think they were reprinted in Arcana Evolved) and chopping out a bunch of spell slots from what the caster has available. Just have them regenerate slots at a swift rate between battles. Of course, this also means that most battles will also be entered with full hps. *Casters can prepare more spells than they can cast. A prepared spell can be cast out of any spell slot high enough level for it. Spell slots can be combined to form a higher level spell slot, 3 slots of the same level combining to form one slot of that level+1 (e.g.: three 1st level spell slots form a single second level spell slot). Spell slots can be broken down for more lower level slots, a spell slot breaks down into 2 slots of one level lower (e.g.: a single 2nd level spell slot breaks down into two 1st level slots).