Solutions to the 15 minute adventuring day: carrots and sticks.

[davep123]

Howdy all,

I’m something of a lurker on these forums, and very rarely post, but I thought I’d chip in with the solution to the 15 minute work day that we use in our campaign. The game we play is basically 4e with lots of house rules.

All characters are either priestly sorts who channel their powers through magical focuses, or ‘talenters’ who are like fantasy X-men. That means all classes have magical powers that are either at-will, per encounter, or per encounter but useable only when bloodied (these replace dailies). So, all powers are completely refreshed after each encounter.

We don’t use the usual 4e surge mechanic. Instead, each character has an extra hp stat: ‘max hp’ (as opposed to full hps). Whenever they use a surge, they are healed as normal but their max hp stat drops by a value equal to one tenth of their full hps (rounded down). F’rinstance, if a fighter has 30 full hps, takes 15 damage putting him at 15 current hps, and uses a surge that heals him for 8hp, he’ll have 23 current hp and 27 max hp. If he uses another surge to heal 8hp, both his current and max hp will be 25 with the extra healing wasted. Max hps recover slowly at the rate of a few per day.

So, the sole resource depleted through consecutive encounters is max hp, representing a loss of inner strength (as most healing uses the recipient’s own inner endurance to power the effect).

The mechanic that encourages the characters to continue in the face of diminishing max hps makes use of a variant of action points (i.e. extra actions). With each successive encounter the ‘Heroism Meter’ increases by 1 to a maximum of 6, resetting if they have an extended rest. Here’s the Heroism Meter table:

1: One extra action useable only when the character is below zero hp (which doesn’t necessarily represent helplessness in my game)
2: One extra action useable only when the character is bloodied
3. One extra action useable anytime
4. Two extra actions, one usable anytime and one when the character is below zero hp
5. Two extra actions, one useable anytime and one when the character is bloodied
6. Two extra actions, both useable anytime

So, the more fights the characters have, the more fragile they become but the more kick-arse they become, too. After several encounters, they risk being taken out in only a couple of good hits, but can overwhelm the bad guys very quickly with their barrage of extra actions. In one memorable session, one of the characters had been healed so many times that his max hps were below half his full hps, meaning he started the fight both unwounded and bloodied (which meant he also had access to his bloodied powers at the beginning of the fight).

Anyway, this setup has worked for us in our game. It has made the decision to rest a meaningful choice for the players – do they want to restore their max hp and lose their extra actions, or remain fragile but keep their extra actions? Of course, sometimes the story places time limits on them, which mean resting isn’t always an option. But this way, as DM I’m not forced to constantly impose story-based time limits on the characters to prevent them from resting after every fight.

Of course, none of this would be easily useable in 5e with its Vancian magic, but I thought I’d chip in since the topic was specifically about possible solutions to the problem of the 15 minute workday.


Also, I'd be curious to hear of anyone who's used something similar, or who may have possible criticisms of our system. For example, I know that 'one tenth of max hp per surge' works at low levels, but may have to be adjusted for higher level characters.

 

[Umbran]

... then you can have a (tactical) resource management game without generating the 15 minute day ...

Ah. Definition issue, there. Yes, technically, tactical resource management is resource management. But, among the folks I know, management by encounter just doesn't scratch the itch, and they generally don't use "resource management game" to refer to encounter-by-encounter management. There's usually not enough question about what comes next on this timescale to make it interesting.

You can also have non-rechargeable resources (in RQ that is some forms of spellcasting; in D&D, that would be potions, scrolls etc) which only generate an incentive to run/rest if they can be reliable replaced - and that is more doubtful, and more easily made doubtful as a feature of world and scenario design, than recovering resources via resting.

If they cannot be reliably replaced, they aren't really part of a resource management game, either, the way I mean it. Resource management is really a game of economy - debits and credits, revenue vs expenditure. Resources that are nor used up (like your sword) and resources that cannot be replaced are not "managed" in the same sense.

 

[arscott]

Tony Vargas hit upon my preferred solution: Make Spells no more powerful than swords.

3e already had it half right, at least when it came all those spells that did 1d6/level damage. The difference between fireball and cone of cold did the same amount of damage, even though CoC was higher level. If the power difference in spells was mostly about caster level instead of spell level, then until the wizard actually runs out of spells, there's no such thing as a "nova" -- the difference between casting his high level spells and his low level spells isn't about how powerful they are, it's about which is more tactically useful at the moment.

The second half of that, which 3e failed at, is ensuring that the wizard dishing out his good stuff is roughly equivalent to the non-casters is effectiveness. So if the fighter's attack also did 1d6 per level, just like the wizard's spells.

At that point, what a wizard brings to the table is versatility: If he plans carefully, he's go the right tool for the job. Contrast him to the fighter, who is less flexible but more durable.

 

[Empath Negative]

Tony Vargas hit upon my preferred solution: Make Spells no more powerful than swords.

3e already had it half right, at least when it came all those spells that did 1d6/level damage. The difference between fireball and cone of cold did the same amount of damage, even though CoC was higher level. If the power difference in spells was mostly about caster level instead of spell level, then until the wizard actually runs out of spells, there's no such thing as a "nova" -- the difference between casting his high level spells and his low level spells isn't about how powerful they are, it's about which is more tactically useful at the moment.

The second half of that, which 3e failed at, is ensuring that the wizard dishing out his good stuff is roughly equivalent to the non-casters is effectiveness. So if the fighter's attack also did 1d6 per level, just like the wizard's spells.

At that point, what a wizard brings to the table is versatility: If he plans carefully, he's go the right tool for the job. Contrast him to the fighter, who is less flexible but more durable.

Wizards should have crap damage.


Cone of Cold should do Dex and Con damage. Fireball should do Con Damage.

Delayed blast fireball should do moar con damage.


Sorta like this...

Fireball should do 1d10 con damage per application. Cone of Cold would do 1d8 Con damage and 1d8 dex damage.


Blah blah blah. Give nonliving creatures and objects "integrity" scores to replace constitution, or just use DR/* as a replacement, DR 10/Bludgeoning for skeletons.


But hitpoint damage should be the sole province of fighters, paladins, rangers, barbarians and so forth.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think there is only going to be one solution to this issue.

Take the two classes of 'Wizard' and 'Sorcerer' and rename them 'Wizard Sorcerer' and 'Sorcerer Wizard'.

Because I'll bet my bottom dollar that what is going to happen is that WotC will continue following the path they are on with having the wizard be a Vancian style spellcasting class. They will then create mechanics for the sorcerer to function as a non-Vancian spellcasting class. Which in theory would solve the problem... except for the fact we'll get people complaining (in the same way they did in 4E with regards to the archery-focused 'ranger'/'fighter' issue) that they don't WANT to play 'sorcerers'... they want to play 'wizards'. Or more to the point, play a class that has the NAME 'wizard', with the mechanics of the sorcerer.

However, when the idea is offered to just play a sorcerer and CALL it a 'wizard'... they'll say that they shouldn't have to do that, and that the fluff for the sorcerer is ALL WRONG for the character they want to play.

Which means the only answer is to have both spellcasting classes have virtually the same name, so that they can have Vancian and non-Vancian wizards and Vancian and non-Vancian sorcerers at the same time. And maybe THEN they'll stop complaining about it.

But of course, not really.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1 in 6. Pretty much the standard for 1e.

So, if you venture out of your house you can expect to be attacked, on average, about twice a day, and crypts that have remained sealed and untouched for centuries have creatures wandering around them on an hourly basis.

However familiar that may have become to you, it's always struck me as a little silly. Salting encounter tables with very minor encounters - other travelers going the other direction, wild animals that just run away, etc outdoors; rats or funny-looking fungi or cobwebs or other 'dungeon dressing' underground - helped calm the implied world down a bit, for me, but it is ultimately a style thing. If you wanted that style going in, I see no problem with it, if the game needs something like that to tone down some PCs powers relative to others, or make an adventure challenging, not so much...

 

[JRRNeiklot]

So, if you venture out of your house you can expect to be attacked, on average, about twice a day, and crypts that have remained sealed and untouched for centuries have creatures wandering around them on an hourly basis.

However familiar that may have become to you, it's always struck me as a little silly. Salting encounter tables with very minor encounters - other travelers going the other direction, wild animals that just run away, etc outdoors; rats or funny-looking fungi or cobwebs or other 'dungeon dressing' underground - helped calm the implied world down a bit, for me, but it is ultimately a style thing. If you wanted that style going in, I see no problem with it, if the game needs something like that to tone down some PCs powers relative to others, or make an adventure challenging, not so much...

Yes, an encounter is not necessarily a monster, it could be, as you say, a traveler or a lost cow, or whatever. And city encounters are almost always inhabitants. Maybe a cutpurse or two, but really shouldn't end in combat most of the time. Patrolled roads have fewer encounters, etc. It's not about balance, it's about the much maligned LBW. Static adventures are boring.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, an encounter is not necessarily a monster, it could be, as you say, a traveler or a lost cow, or whatever. ... It's not about balance, it's about the much maligned LBW. Static adventures are boring.

LBW? Living...B?... World?

If it's not about balance, then it's not really a solution to an issue of mechanical balance, but a simple matter of a preferred play style - one with which the game should be useable without modification (or perhaps with a 'dial' or some such), along with many others.