Reducing Daily Encounters? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Reducing Daily Encounters? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
MerlintheTuna
08-11-06, 12:30 PM I'm in the middle of putting together a new world/campaign to be played in the fairly distant future, and thought I was just about done dicking with mechanical tweaks. But just as I thought I was wrapping up, I realized that I had forgotten one MAJOR problem; the current system is designed with the idea of taking about 4 encounters per day and having maybe a little bit leftover to spare. (Low level spell slots, consumables, and the like). Conversely, in my world I can't forsee having more than 2 meaningful combat encounters in a day except in the most extreme circumstances, and I'd like them to remain just that -- extreme. If the party has to run through a dungeon and fight for their lives 4-5 times over the course of an hour or two, I expect them to be limping and bleeding by the end of it. There might be a speedbump here and there (knock out the pair of Warrior3 guards before assaulting the Wizard9 boss, etc.), but certainly not a mess of equal-or-greater CR challenges as is expected with the current ruleset.

But obviously I can't just tell the PCs "Uh, hey, you know those 4 fireballs you can cast? Yeah, I'd appreciate it if you only used one. Thanks." As a result, spellcasters (and certain other xxx/day classes like the Barbarian) are going to need more fiddling than initially anticipated. I don't think that classes like the Fighter or Rogue will need much in the way of changing simply because their longevity is pretty much determined by the healer's spell reserve. But anyway, since the power of spellcasters is a pretty commonly discussed topic in general, I was wondering if anyone has an existing solution to this kind of problem -- I'd appreciate any precedent that could be contributed.

As it might help to know what else I've been fiddling with, I've included some of my intentions and planned changes below.

Monsters generally do not exist or are rare enough to not be an issue; don't worry about individual CRs since most enemies will be humanoids with class levels, making them easier to balance vs. the PCs.
Spontaneous casters should generally be more powerful than preparatory casters. Inborn talent (and Charisma in general) goes a lot further than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole through study alone. Wizards and Clerics are not intended for PC use, and Druids don't exist. Luckily, reducing spells/day already causes this balance shift. It does seem, however, like the spells known should be trimmed down, which is why I'm not just cutting the number of daily spells in half and calling the change done. Also, Bards become something of an issue.
8th and 9th level spells will not be available for use by anyone without the aid of artifacts. To make this a little more elegant (and because of group/personal preference regarding levels), the level cap will be around 15 or 16 rather than 20. Those 8th level spellslots simply won't exist, Jedi Mind Trick style, though certain classes may have a class feature or two crammed into the top level (Rangers getting Hide in Plain Sight at 15ish instead of 17, etc.) This is somewhat unlikely to matter for the PCs, though it has an effect on the world as a whole.
The following rule variant will be in effect. It’s You, Not Your Gear: Treasure is reduced 10-15% and permanent ability score boosting items are banned. Instead, characters get a stat increase at every even level (instead of every four levels) and a feat at every odd level. This means that Extra Spell and Extra Slot could be halfway acceptable feats, which should factor into the ultimate decision regarding daily spells.
As for Barbarians, I may just reduce the number of daily rages by 1. This does mean that they don't have Rage, their major class feature, until 4th level, but I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. It's a powerful ability, and there's a bit of precedent in that Druids don't pick up Wild Shape until 5th level even though most of their abilities focus around it. It also implies that Rage as we know it is a bit more impressive than usual (since fewer people can do it), which I don't think is a problem at all.
I'm not set on it yet, but I may use existing non-spellcasting variants for the Ranger and Paladin. I'm not entirely sure Paladins will be used in the first place (none of the players like them that much, everyone loves the Knight, and I have enough problems with the class that I'd almost feel compelled to rebuild it from the ground up). Regardless, getting rid of Rang/Pal spellcasting gives more space for the Bard, which I think helps a bit.
Duke
08-11-06, 01:28 PM Some of the x/day abilities can be used on non-combat encounters (maybe the barbarian has to rage to beat the break DC on a door, or the monk has to stunning fist a guard so he doesn't yell for help). Other than that, if you want to challenge them but don't want a large number of encounters in a day, the encounters they do have will have to be higher CR than normal. Parties are capable of taking down things considerably more powerful than their EL if they blow all of their resources in one fight.

fights against humanoids with class levels can actually be more difficult to balance than monsters. And if you're concerned about the party being too tough, why are you increasing the rate that they get ability boosts and feats?
MerlintheTuna
08-11-06, 02:29 PM Some of the x/day abilities can be used on non-combat encounters (maybe the barbarian has to rage to beat the break DC on a door, or the monk has to stunning fist a guard so he doesn't yell for help). Other than that, if you want to challenge them but don't want a large number of encounters in a day, the encounters they do have will have to be higher CR than normal. Parties are capable of taking down things considerably more powerful than their EL if they blow all of their resources in one fight.

fights against humanoids with class levels can actually be more difficult to balance than monsters. And if you're concerned about the party being too tough, why are you increasing the rate that they get ability boosts and feats?

*Checks to make sure he posted this in the right forum*

Yes, what you're proposing is certainly true; in a normal game setting, it would be necessary to bring in higher CR battles to use up more party resources in a fewer number of battles. But the entire reason I've asked for help here (rather than in, say, "What's a DM to Do?") is because I'd rather address my concern directly rather than finding a workaround in the existing setup. By this I mean I'd rather just cut down on the party's daily/total resources instead of pad every encounter with a few more Warrior1 enemies just for the sake of eating up one more Scorching Ray. Spells, Rage, and Smite are the basic limited-use class features (as well as Bardic Music, but eh, that's not really a concern), so accordingly these would need to be scaled back to make each a slightly more precious commodity.

I agree with you (to an extent) about the humanoids with class levels comment. Humanoids with class levels have a lot more variables involved, making them harder to balance overall, but they're also considerably easier to compare to the PCs directly, and the increased variables makes for more ways to make them unique from each other and from the PCs. It also easier to make minor modifications to them to get them just the way you'd like. This is a setting-related change, however, not one that's been made with balance in mind.

Regarding the feats/abilities hoohah... That's a variant rule that I saw in a Design and Development article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20051216a) a while back that struck me as interesting. I trust the R&D staff enough to give it a shot, and much of our group (myself included) has expressed distaste at how reliant characters are on their items as well as how certain characters hit dead spots when levelling up. (An example being the Fighter and the Cleric turning 7th level; the latter has plenty to be excited about, and the former very little.) This alleviates both issues. Furthermore, it allows for a character concept to come into its own a little more quickly, which we've also yearned for. If this rule proves to be a problem for some reason, we'll simply phase it out. Rule 0 is a wonderful thing.

And finally, I should've made this clear in the first place, but it's NOT the character's strength that I'm concerned about. We all know full well that if a DM sets his heart on it, the PCs die. ("Oh, you defeated the ogre? Okay, let's try 12 ogres.") The problem is longevity and endurance. I don't want the party (or the baddies) to be able to completely go nova in every battle without the fear of getting caught with their pants down afterwards. If I leave the system as is, the options are to either LET them go crazy-go-nuts with all of their spells for the 2 battles or arbitrarily pad the strength and numbers of the enemy. Neither of those is an acceptable solution for me. So in short, I don't mind that a 6th level Sorcerer can cast Fireball. My problem is that with 16 Charisma, he can do it 4 times in a single day, and that's something that presents both a flavor and a balance problem in this case.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MerlintheTuna 08-11-06, 12:30 PM	I'm in the middle of putting together a new world/campaign to be played in the fairly distant future, and thought I was just about done dicking with mechanical tweaks. But just as I thought I was wrapping up, I realized that I had forgotten one MAJOR problem; the current system is designed with the idea of taking about 4 encounters per day and having maybe a little bit leftover to spare. (Low level spell slots, consumables, and the like). Conversely, in my world I can't forsee having more than 2 meaningful combat encounters in a day except in the most extreme circumstances, and I'd like them to remain just that -- extreme. If the party has to run through a dungeon and fight for their lives 4-5 times over the course of an hour or two, I expect them to be limping and bleeding by the end of it. There might be a speedbump here and there (knock out the pair of Warrior3 guards before assaulting the Wizard9 boss, etc.), but certainly not a mess of equal-or-greater CR challenges as is expected with the current ruleset. But obviously I can't just tell the PCs "Uh, hey, you know those 4 fireballs you can cast? Yeah, I'd appreciate it if you only used one. Thanks." As a result, spellcasters (and certain other xxx/day classes like the Barbarian) are going to need more fiddling than initially anticipated. I don't think that classes like the Fighter or Rogue will need much in the way of changing simply because their longevity is pretty much determined by the healer's spell reserve. But anyway, since the power of spellcasters is a pretty commonly discussed topic in general, I was wondering if anyone has an existing solution to this kind of problem -- I'd appreciate any precedent that could be contributed. As it might help to know what else I've been fiddling with, I've included some of my intentions and planned changes below. Monsters generally do not exist or are rare enough to not be an issue; don't worry about individual CRs since most enemies will be humanoids with class levels, making them easier to balance vs. the PCs. Spontaneous casters should generally be more powerful than preparatory casters. Inborn talent (and Charisma in general) goes a lot further than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole through study alone. Wizards and Clerics are not intended for PC use, and Druids don't exist. Luckily, reducing spells/day already causes this balance shift. It does seem, however, like the spells known should be trimmed down, which is why I'm not just cutting the number of daily spells in half and calling the change done. Also, Bards become something of an issue. 8th and 9th level spells will not be available for use by anyone without the aid of artifacts. To make this a little more elegant (and because of group/personal preference regarding levels), the level cap will be around 15 or 16 rather than 20. Those 8th level spellslots simply won't exist, Jedi Mind Trick style, though certain classes may have a class feature or two crammed into the top level (Rangers getting Hide in Plain Sight at 15ish instead of 17, etc.) This is somewhat unlikely to matter for the PCs, though it has an effect on the world as a whole. The following rule variant will be in effect. It’s You, Not Your Gear: Treasure is reduced 10-15% and permanent ability score boosting items are banned. Instead, characters get a stat increase at every even level (instead of every four levels) and a feat at every odd level. This means that Extra Spell and Extra Slot could be halfway acceptable feats, which should factor into the ultimate decision regarding daily spells. As for Barbarians, I may just reduce the number of daily rages by 1. This does mean that they don't have Rage, their major class feature, until 4th level, but I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. It's a powerful ability, and there's a bit of precedent in that Druids don't pick up Wild Shape until 5th level even though most of their abilities focus around it. It also implies that Rage as we know it is a bit more impressive than usual (since fewer people can do it), which I don't think is a problem at all. I'm not set on it yet, but I may use existing non-spellcasting variants for the Ranger and Paladin. I'm not entirely sure Paladins will be used in the first place (none of the players like them that much, everyone loves the Knight, and I have enough problems with the class that I'd almost feel compelled to rebuild it from the ground up). Regardless, getting rid of Rang/Pal spellcasting gives more space for the Bard, which I think helps a bit.
Duke 08-11-06, 01:28 PM	Some of the x/day abilities can be used on non-combat encounters (maybe the barbarian has to rage to beat the break DC on a door, or the monk has to stunning fist a guard so he doesn't yell for help). Other than that, if you want to challenge them but don't want a large number of encounters in a day, the encounters they do have will have to be higher CR than normal. Parties are capable of taking down things considerably more powerful than their EL if they blow all of their resources in one fight. fights against humanoids with class levels can actually be more difficult to balance than monsters. And if you're concerned about the party being too tough, why are you increasing the rate that they get ability boosts and feats?
MerlintheTuna 08-11-06, 02:29 PM	Some of the x/day abilities can be used on non-combat encounters (maybe the barbarian has to rage to beat the break DC on a door, or the monk has to stunning fist a guard so he doesn't yell for help). Other than that, if you want to challenge them but don't want a large number of encounters in a day, the encounters they do have will have to be higher CR than normal. Parties are capable of taking down things considerably more powerful than their EL if they blow all of their resources in one fight. fights against humanoids with class levels can actually be more difficult to balance than monsters. And if you're concerned about the party being too tough, why are you increasing the rate that they get ability boosts and feats? Checks to make sure he posted this in the right forum Yes, what you're proposing is certainly true; in a normal game setting, it would be necessary to bring in higher CR battles to use up more party resources in a fewer number of battles. But the entire reason I've asked for help here (rather than in, say, "What's a DM to Do?") is because I'd rather address my concern directly rather than finding a workaround in the existing setup. By this I mean I'd rather just cut down on the party's daily/total resources instead of pad every encounter with a few more Warrior1 enemies just for the sake of eating up one more Scorching Ray. Spells, Rage, and Smite are the basic limited-use class features (as well as Bardic Music, but eh, that's not really a concern), so accordingly these would need to be scaled back to make each a slightly more precious commodity. I agree with you (to an extent) about the humanoids with class levels comment. Humanoids with class levels have a lot more variables involved, making them harder to balance overall, but they're also considerably easier to compare to the PCs directly, and the increased variables makes for more ways to make them unique from each other and from the PCs. It also easier to make minor modifications to them to get them just the way you'd like. This is a setting-related change, however, not one that's been made with balance in mind. Regarding the feats/abilities hoohah... That's a variant rule that I saw in a Design and Development article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20051216a) a while back that struck me as interesting. I trust the R&D staff enough to give it a shot, and much of our group (myself included) has expressed distaste at how reliant characters are on their items as well as how certain characters hit dead spots when levelling up. (An example being the Fighter and the Cleric turning 7th level; the latter has plenty to be excited about, and the former very little.) This alleviates both issues. Furthermore, it allows for a character concept to come into its own a little more quickly, which we've also yearned for. If this rule proves to be a problem for some reason, we'll simply phase it out. Rule 0 is a wonderful thing. And finally, I should've made this clear in the first place, but it's NOT the character's strength that I'm concerned about. We all know full well that if a DM sets his heart on it, the PCs die. ("Oh, you defeated the ogre? Okay, let's try 12 ogres.") The problem is longevity and endurance. I don't want the party (or the baddies) to be able to completely go nova in every battle without the fear of getting caught with their pants down afterwards. If I leave the system as is, the options are to either LET them go crazy-go-nuts with all of their spells for the 2 battles or arbitrarily pad the strength and numbers of the enemy. Neither of those is an acceptable solution for me. So in short, I don't mind that a 6th level Sorcerer can cast Fireball. My problem is that with 16 Charisma, he can do it 4 times in a single day, and that's something that presents both a flavor and a balance problem in this case.