Ok, maybe that's overselling it, but I had a thought that could actually address the problem with rules rather than the ole "DM fix it yourself".
First combat encounter after resting -20% xp.
Second combat encounter, standard xp reward.
All further encounters, +10% xp.
This does a few things...
It encourages the party to go for as long as they can.
It specifically encourages the powergamer to put off resting (there's a bonus for not resting!)
It addresses the fact that encounters at the beginning of the day are easier than ones at the end of the day (resources get depleted over the course of the day).
It rewards the book suggested amount of xp if the group fights the book suggested number of encounters each day (-20, +0, +10, +10).
Potential cons...
More work for the DM
-rebuttal: It's a trivial amount of extra work.
Could be abused if the group can reliably do well more than the intended 4 encounters a day.
-rebuttal: Some kind of bonus here is a good thing, that's the whole idea. However, if the group can reliably do significantly more than the suggested number of encounters each day, there is a probably a separate, more important, issue.
If the group insists on sticking to the "1 encounter, rest, 1 encounter, rest" they will fall behind the xp curve over the course of a campaign.
-rebuttal: With this system, resting after each encounter would be represent a poor choice and the game penalizes other bad choices so why not this one too?
So....already been suggested? Horrible idea? I'm a frickin genius? Any anyone have any thoughts?
Ha!
I like it!
The whole issue behind a "15 minute adventuring day" is that a spell caster only has X number of spells to cast and then VIOLA...he/she/it has spent it's load.
My DM came to me recently asking "Why weren't you doing anything during that last combat?" I said "I've used all my spells, I have an 11AC, no real weapons, and 29 HP (9th lvl wizard). What would you expect me to do?"
I do *not* see this as an issue of power gaming. This is an issue of holy crap, there's a fight going on...and I have NOTHING to contribute to it!!!!
Horrible idea.
As flynnster noted, it's not an issue of powergaming...it's an issue of having the resources to deal with a level-appropriate encounter. If I'm playing a level 9 wizard and I'm down to 2nd-level spells, I am not pressing on...especially (metagame knowledge) knowing that the big battles usually come at the end of the quest. Heck, it would be a bad idea to press on with 3rd-level spells remaining.
The solution is to give the PCs more resources so they don't have to rest every 15 minutes in order to regain their level-appropriate powers, and/or reward them for pressing on...not punish them for straying from the GM's arbitrary ideal of how many encounters is "the right number."
|
The solution is to give the PCs more resources so they don't have to rest every 15 minutes in order to regain their level-appropriate powers,
Maybe, The issue has always been resource management and players of 3.X have in my opinion fallen into a trap of using all of their resources up in the first few minutes of the combat.Now a game master can do some things such as throw in scrolls and wands as treasure to help with resource management. This also allows the Gm to control what sorts of resources the party has available. And I have often thought this is also a very good way to make sure things are on a even keel for everyone. I have noticed that few seem to think this is the solution, to let the GM support the characters resources. As such many want more direct control for their PC's. While this is not a problem per se, Buffing PC spell users too much is actually a detriment to the game experience. I like some of what has been done with the PFRPG, but I still think that maybe trading out that extra +1 magic sword from the treasure and putting in a scroll or two and a wand or two will help a lot with the so called 15 min. adventuring party tactic.
In ad&d (I didnt play 2e but I assume it was similar)the time to pull out was when the cleric could no longer heal you, and you were below about 1/3 hp. Part of the reason for this was that the encounters were less well designed- less balanced. So you didn't know if you were about to walk in to a room of orcs or a room of giants.
3E use of wands of clw have removed the healing issue, but IMO the reliance on short term buffs has made the issue much more prevalent. This combined with the more formulaic dungeons ( mook, mook, mook, bbeg) are what has entrenched the effect.
The current solution to the problem (IMO) is a combination of magic items that give some spellcasting/buff ability (scrolls, wands, potions) or some recharge (pearls of power). This needs to be combined with a very pro-active dungeon (trap setters, ambush preparers or my favourite- take loot & run), or a time limit (summoning, sacrificing, urgent relief etc). And a mix up dungeon style (like the old G3 - one bbeg in the 3rd room on the 1st level, another somewhere down on the 2nd level then there was something else on the bottom level- plus lots of encounters in between).
The 3e mindset seems to be that unless you are on full hp with at least a few buffs up - pull out. The difference between a buffed party and a non buffed party is far too great IMO and it gest worse at high level. Plus the spellcasters drain themselves early and often- knowing that when they are dry the pull out occurs.
A game mechanic solution might be to limit the number of buff spells you can have up, or make them less important in an encounter (haste is a classic example - reduce the number of people it effects to 1/3 levels - it will still be a good 3rd level spell but not such an all party buff).
Another game mechanic solution is to give spellcasters a certain amount of "recall power" (ie 1 spell level per level, which requires 1 minute/spell level meditation. So your 9th level wizard can get back a 5th and a 4th level spell after 9 minutes)
IMO the desirable spellcaster attitude is one who holds on to their spells until they see what is going on in the dungeon, they are the ones who pull the rabbit out of the hat if it gets too hot to handle- in the meantime the others do most of the work (with a little help) along the way.
|
|
IMO the desirable spellcaster attitude is one who holds on to their spells until they see what is going on in the dungeon, they are the ones who pull the rabbit out of the hat if it gets too hot to handle- in the meantime the others do most of the work (with a little help) along the way.
Elvin Wizard with a bow works wonders for just that type of caster.
First combat encounter after resting -20% xp.
Second combat encounter, standard xp reward.
All further encounters, +10% xp.
Horrible idea... penalizes low-AC characters for not having the ton of HP you'd need to go through a whole day of hack&slash and spellcasters for the simple fact of being spellcasters.
Horrible idea... penalizes low-AC characters for not having the ton of HP you'd need to go through a whole day of hack&slash and spellcasters for the simple fact of being spellcasters.First combat encounter after resting -20% xp.
Second combat encounter, standard xp reward.
All further encounters, +10% xp.
I dont like the fiddly nature of the OP's proposal.
But I dont agree with this critiscism of it you dont need to have whole bunch of hp or a high ac to be part of a party going through multiple encounters (ie elven wizard with longbow at low level, wand at higher)
Ok, this is getting a little old. Generally there are consequences to leaving a dungeon and returning. Unless it's populated with unintelligent creatures the occupants will fortify things, recall scouts and get reinforcements, set traps and in general be more prepared. If they don't think they can survive another attack by the party most likely they will flee, taking whatever the party is looking for with them. Leaving a dungeon and returning should be bad tactic and DMs should make it unpleasant as reasonable. Not to be malicious but because the inhabitants have a survival instinct and generally a brain.
The new at will abilities might help curb the temptation to spam spells
but overall there is some burden on the DM and the players need to use their heads and to run things.
Ah, apparently there isn't really any consensus what the "15 minute adventuring day" problem actually is. That makes any effort at a solution pointless, but I'll throw out some replies to the various people that took the time to contribute to my misguided attempt at a solution.
Flynnster's take - Spellcasters run out of resources early, this penalizes them.
The game is designed around the idea that spellcasters have limited resources. The game fails to govern resting frequency (that's the dm's job say many) so resting after every encounter grants an unfair advantage to spellcasters (the "nova" phenomenon).
Omen's take - More resources is the answer.
You posit that a 9th level wizard that is down to his 3rd level and below spells should rest. So, how many 4th and 5th level spells should a 9th level wizard have? Is there really a large contingent of players that thinks that the spellcasters need to be made MORE powerful?
Texecutioner - But what about the dice?!
Just as this system would penalize a group that suffers bad dice in an early encounter...it would also reward a group that has very good luck in an early encounter. It all evens out over time. That's one of the most basic assumptions of a dice based game.
Dogbert - It's not fair to spellcasters.
The game is designed so that spells are more powerful than hack and slash options but are a limited resource. Multiple encounters between rests are the way that this system is implemented.
DeadlyUematsu - Adjust treasure instead.
The problem with that is that it creates a situation where the DM needs to adjust treasure rewards as he is setting up the encounter at the table (rather than during prep). Treasure is a compelling reward for sure, but it's my feeling that your suggestion would be a lot of extra work for the DM and would frequently slow play.
Werecorpse - It's fiddly, but not unfair to spellcasters.
I think there's an elegance to it that you are missing. Each encounter the party gets weaker and weaker, as a result. An encounter of a given level is more challenging later in the day than it is when the party is freshly rested. The CR/EL system is built around the idea that more challenging encounters should be worth more xp...this just extends that concept.
Dennis - This is the DM's job.
Not to start the ole rope trick discussion...but the party frequently doesn't have to leave the dungeon in order to rest. Additionally, most published adventures (yes, even Paizo adventures) assume that the party WILL rest (generally more than once) in the course of exploring a dungeon.
.
The purpose of my suggested system was to make the PLAYERS want to keep going...even the spellcasters. Oh well, to each their own. If even one gaming group has their game improved by my suggestion, I'll consider it a success. Thanks for the responses.
And here I thought it was creating a 10 minute day. Silly me ;D.
Personally I think it just requires showing the players that they aren't going to die if they don't rest after every encounter. If you can get them through 3 fights once, they'll stop resting after every single one, as they realise they don't need to "top off" just because there was an encounter.
I've played a lot in 3.X and I realized that 15 min work day cause came more from the group than from the game.
If the groups works fine and together, if the spellcasters keep their strongest spells for the big fight (or if s~$@ happens), and just cast one or 2 low level spells in minor fights before delaying until the rest of the party deals with the mobs, then there is no 15min adventuring day.
When the gaming group is less cooperative and if every one wants to be "the king of the hill" (aka my-PC-deals-more-damage-than-yours), then you can see spellcasters shooting fireballs to kill a handful of goblins or refusing to keep going because they'have used all their highest-level spells (they can't compete with the others for the rest of the day then).
Personally I think it just requires showing the players that they aren't going to die if they don't rest after every encounter.
Indeed, that pretty much sums up the cause of the 15-minutes adventuring day. That and nuke/buff-o-holism.
|
|
What the OP has pointed out is that there is in fact an issue and he was trying to give an idea as to what could be one possible solution.
That said I not only think it is a diamond in the rough solution it does have its merits.
What other solutions does anyone have that is better?
I did not, I merely pointed out that it was a resource management issue. One I have not seen a lot of because of the play style of my players and in the way I have adjusted treasure, but my solution will not work for everyone.
Pathfinder RPG changed it to give a minor boost to casters to allow them more resources all day and not as much of a tactical nuke option. While this is fine it still doesn't fix all the problems.
WOTC solution was to at first give lots of feats to offer additional resources, but this still causes issues when a caster still has a limit of how many feats they can take. Their second solution, scrap an otherwise working system and redesign it completely. This also didn't fix the issue it created others as well.
SO instead of bashing the OP's option please help by offering other solutions.
If I am coming off ..... grumpy please excuse me....I am on lots of meds right now.
There are several solutions to this kind of problem :
* First talk to the players and show them that going nova is not the best solutions.
* Then show them they are not in a video game where the world is static !! If the Pcs don't go to the mobs then the mobs will come to the PCs. This kind of encounter can show to the party that they can make several encounters per day.
But if you really want to talk about changes in the rules to prevent the 15 mn work day, I think some changes in the buff could do it !!!
Players feel weak as soon as there are no more buff. So a solution could be to allow some longer buffs (in hours per CL), but no more stacking buffs !!!
Forget the buffs types : enhancement, morale, luck, sacred, holy etc ...
Only one type remains : magic !!
Of course, the encounters need some adaptation on AC and attacks of monsters (or not if you are the kind of DM who wants his players to have a hard time).
With less buffs available but for a longer time, players should feel more inclined to continue after a first encounter. Moreover, with this system, casters need less slots for buffing so that gives them more usable spells, and that will be less calculation for everyone.
Omen's take - More resources is the answer.
You posit that a 9th level wizard that is down to his 3rd level and below spells should rest. So, how many 4th and 5th level spells should a 9th level wizard have? Is there really a large contingent of players that thinks that the spellcasters need to be made MORE powerful?
I'm not advocating more power for spellcasters (God no!). I'm saying that, when a spellcaster has blown through his higher-level (i.e., "level-appropriate") spells, the [u]tactically sound[/u] thing to do is to rest and them. It's neither heroic nor dramatic, and this is a problem, but it's smart.
A 9th-level wizard will be facing things like bone devils, frost giants, vrocks and greater elementals. There's a very good chance he's end up facing things like bebeliths, stone golems, eleven-headed pyrohydras, beholders, glabrezus and death slaadi. He needs potent spells to deal with these dangers; if he's reduced to plinking away with magic missile and scorching ray, he's not only in trouble - the whole party's in trouble.
The OP made a suggestion, and I am shooting it down because I feel it's an unfair solution to punish players for failing to adhere to an arbitrary standard. Personally, I would like some variant on Werecorpse's idea, where spells come back faster than every 24 hours. Obviously this would need to be carefully designed to keep casters feom becoming even more gawdlike than they already are. My personal take (of the top of my head) would be: with a 5 minute rest, a caster regains all the spells he has cast except for one of the highest level. So, if my 9th-level wizard cast 2 5th, 2 4th and a 3rd, I could sit for 5 minutes and regain the 3rd, the 4th, and one of the 5th - I'm down a 5th-level spell for the encounter.
(Note that this is a spur-of-the-moment idea and has NOT been tested in any way)
Also, I hate the idea of modifying treasure. It's equally unfair and arbitrary and it leads to bizarre and counterintuitive results, where the monsters you meet later in the day just *have* more treasure than the earlier ones, for no apparent reason. It's particularly bad for a GM like me, who usually designs all the treasure before the game ever starts.
|
The whole issue behind a "15 minute adventuring day" is that a spell caster only has X number of spells to cast and then VIOLA...he/she/it has spent it's load.
My DM came to me recently asking "Why weren't you doing anything during that last combat?" I said "I've used all my spells, I have an 11AC, no real weapons, and 29 HP (9th lvl wizard). What would you expect me to do?"
I do *not* see this as an issue of power gaming. This is an issue of holy crap, there's a fight going on...and I have NOTHING to contribute to it!!!!
How do you use all your spells?
HOW?!?!?
What do you DO with them?
Are you summoning a fire elemental every time you want to light your pipe?
The whole issue behind a "15 minute adventuring day" is that a spell caster only has X number of spells to cast and then VIOLA...he/she/it has spent it's load.
My DM came to me recently asking "Why weren't you doing anything during that last combat?" I said "I've used all my spells, I have an 11AC, no real weapons, and 29 HP (9th lvl wizard). What would you expect me to do?"
I do *not* see this as an issue of power gaming. This is an issue of holy crap, there's a fight going on...and I have NOTHING to contribute to it!!!!
How do you use all your spells?
HOW?!?!?
What do you DO with them?
Are you summoning a fire elemental every time you want to light your pipe?
Not to mention by this level, a wizard should have scrolls and wands falling out of his arse with every step he takes...
I don't get the idea that only the high level spells are useful for beating level appropriate encounters. Most of my favorite, most effective spells are first or second level. Sure it takes a little creativity to use them to their best effect, but that's the fun of playing a caster. And while I can see a wizard or cleric potentially running out of spells (but where are your scrolls and wands?), I have only ever once used all my spells playing a sorcerer, and that was a marathon 'try to kill the pcs' session. I get that other people have a problem with the 15 minute adventuring day, but I still don't understand it. I've never seen it happen in person. What is creating this phenomenon? Is it really just spells? I'm really against casters regaining them during the same day. That way lies the second edition psion, and much as I love psionics, even I won't try to argue that that was anything other than wildly broken. There's a good reason why that didn't make it into third edition. What else causes groups to have to stop and rest so frequently? I'm honestly just curious.
First combat encounter after resting -20% xp.
Second combat encounter, standard xp reward.
All further encounters, +10% xp.
No.
It's more complicated than the standard rule. But it's not really more accurate. Why doesn't the 4th encounter get even more XP? And the 5th?
And you can abuse this:
1. Kill a goblin.
2. Kill a goblin.
3. Start adventuring with a 10% bonus on everything.
Sure, it sounds ridiculous, but we're talking about a counter-measure against powergamers.
The game should not be changed to foil every exploit. That way, we get a game regular people don't like because there are a lot of rules that don't really add anything to the game.
I think that in most cases, if the adventure calls for all those encounters, just going for a credible* approach to world-building will foil the whole thing: Go into the castle, kill the guards in the first room, withdraw, rest 8 hours, come back and find them ready for you, all of them at once because they know that when you have a break-in like that, it's powergaming adventurers, one of the most common things in the gaming world.
In other words: Make all NPCs and monsters immune to genre blindness, and the problem will take care of itself.
*I don't say realistic because all of the unrealistic magic stuff, but the world should have some inherent consistency and logic, or pseudo-realistic lack of logic. In other words: No plot holes.
|
I don't get the idea that only the high level spells are useful for beating level appropriate encounters. Most of my favorite, most effective spells are first or second level. Sure it takes a little creativity to use them to their best effect, but that's the fun of playing a caster. And while I can see a wizard or cleric potentially running out of spells (but where are your scrolls and wands?), I have only ever once used all my spells playing a sorcerer, and that was a marathon 'try to kill the pcs' session. I get that other people have a problem with the 15 minute adventuring day, but I still don't understand it. I've never seen it happen in person. What is creating this phenomenon? Is it really just spells? I'm really against casters regaining them during the same day. That way lies the second edition psion, and much as I love psionics, even I won't try to argue that that was anything other than wildly broken. There's a good reason why that didn't make it into third edition. What else causes groups to have to stop and rest so frequently? I'm honestly just curious.
Low level adventuring sees more of the 15 minute day than high level IMO, when you use two spells or one smite and that's all you've got for the day the temptation to rest is paramount.
I think this is a real issue, and while plot and DM work can sometimes fix it, it would be nice to have something in the rule book to address this.
Rather then apply % adjustment, why not just alter the EL:
First encounter: EL -1
Second encounter EL -1
Third and all additional encounters that day: EL +1
For those unfamiliar, I think the "15 min adventure day" is a problem because a mid-to-high level caster can beat one or even two encounters all by himself, but is then almost useless in future encounters, while a fighters power is basically the same in every encounter. If you are only doing one or two encounters per day, the casters have a HUGE edge. If you do 6-8 encounters a day, the fighters would have that edge (assuming healing is accessible - wand of clw.)
Elvin Wizard with a bow works wonders for just that type of caster.
IMO the desirable spellcaster attitude is one who holds on to their spells until they see what is going on in the dungeon, they are the ones who pull the rabbit out of the hat if it gets too hot to handle- in the meantime the others do most of the work (with a little help) along the way.
Surely you jest, Jester?
I am not particulary fond of rules, either existing or proposed, that pigeonhole anyone into playing an optimum build or suffer the consequences of being useless.
While I agree that elvin wizards with their longbow, but low BAB, can someitmes do small damage in fights when they choose, or must, not cast any spells, I don't think it's a good idea to create a game mechanic that almost forces all wizards to be elves.
I for one would like to see an end to the 15-minute adventuring day that allows spellcasters to play any race they would like, and not have to fall back on using bows, or crossbows, or thrown daggers, half of the day.
Just a quick comment on the original post.
Sometimes the game isn't broken down into discrete encounters. If there is a long running encounter then how do you adjudicate this?
Okay, I can see it happening at first level. Or even second. Every character is inherently squishable at that point. I just don't really understand what causes it at mid to high levels. Especially high levels. Our campaigns always seem to die at tenth level, so I don't know what high level play is really like. I've never seen it as an issue for levels 3-10. I'm 90% of the time playing the caster and I just don't run out of spells. I'm curious what causes this for others. Is it because of the types of encounters?
Ok, maybe that's overselling it, but I had a thought that could actually address the problem with rules rather than the ole "DM fix it yourself".
First combat encounter after resting -20% xp.
Second combat encounter, standard xp reward.
All further encounters, +10% xp.This does a few things...
It encourages the party to go for as long as they can.
There are many ways to do this without imposing penalties.
It specifically encourages the powergamer to put off resting (there's a bonus for not resting!)
Or, the powergamer just realizes that the DM will give them more encounters to make up for the missing XP, because they need to be certain levels to meet specific campaign milestones. Then he realizes that these extra encounters means the campaign will take longer to reach the final chapter, much like a novel with too much "filler" text that only wastes the reader's time. Then the powergamer will resent the rule that wastes his time.
It addresses the fact that encounters at the beginning of the day are easier than ones at the end of the day (resources get depleted over the course of the day).
But it forgets the fact that often the final encounters are bosses and sub-bosses of the story line. They are often more powerful than the fluff encounters earlier in the day, which means they are worth more XP. The powergamer in my above response might learn to like this rule instead of resenting it when he realizes that the XP lost from -20% on a CR8 encounter is less than the XP gained on +10% of a CR12 boss.
It rewards the book suggested amount of xp if the group fights the book suggested number of encounters each day (-20, +0, +10, +10).
Quite true, if all 4 encounters are the same CR. Not true if otherwise.
Potential cons...
More work for the DM
-rebuttal: It's a trivial amount of extra work.
Not entirely trivial, especially when a single day in the lives of the PCs might be spread out over weeks of play at some game table - remembering how many encounters we've had over the last few weeks becomes extra record keeping that is currently not needed.
Could be abused if the group can reliably do well more than the intended 4 encounters a day.
-rebuttal: Some kind of bonus here is a good thing, that's the whole idea. However, if the group can reliably do significantly more than the suggested number of encounters each day, there is a probably a separate, more important, issue.
Or, the DM just had a story in mind, for (a simplified) example, rescuing the maiden from the hungry troglodytes who will eat her when the moon is high in the night sky - tonight. So he sets up 7 or 8 fluff encounters, then the boss, all of which are a few CRs below the party's level, but he wants them to hack through all the encounters and fell heroic (as opposed to the usual never-ending condition that D&D characters usually experience, namely, that it doesn't matter much whether they are a level 1 group fighting kobolds or a level 20 group fighting dragons, every fight their entire career is a life-or-death struggle against relatively even foes - sometimes it's nice to feel like a hero and squash something that, when you were younger, would have squashed you).
If the group insists on sticking to the "1 encounter, rest, 1 encounter, rest" they will fall behind the xp curve over the course of a campaign.
-rebuttal: With this system, resting after each encounter would be represent a poor choice and the game penalizes other bad choices so why not this one too?
Except it's not much of a punishment, unless the DM is really willing to let them "fall behind the xp curve" to the point that they will fail the campaign. Otherwise, they know the DM will sneak in some extra random encounters to offset the loss. How many DMs are willing to allow the campaign to fail, after all their work, just because the PCs made a questionable choice in the light of a known penalty?
So....already been suggested? Horrible idea? I'm a frickin genius? Any anyone have any thoughts?
Well, those are my thoughts.
For the reasons I've described above, I would not advocate this as a rule at my game table, either when I'm DMing or playing.
What I do advocate is the DM setting reasons for the group to hurry.
In our current campaign, a new one recently started, our 2nd level characters were in a tavern, wondering what to do next, when another adventuring group walked in and started throwing around loot and identifying magic items right there in the common room. Of course, we wanted to find out where they got it, especially when their drunken barbarian started running off at the mouth about how easy it was to get and how much more there must be. A few listen checks (perception) after they quieted down and we found out approximately where they had been, and that they were going to go back there in a couple days.
Now we have to race them to their happy place and get as much adventuring and looting done as we can, before they show up.
This is just one example of a roleplaying method to motivate the players.
No, I don't suggest doing this all the time or it would be tedious. Sometimes, it's OK if the players want to rest after every encounter. Forcing them, or penalizing them, into one mode of play is just another form of railroading.
|
|
Surely you jest, Jester?
I never Jest and don't call me Surely! :)
I didn't mean to imply that you must have optimal build for everything. I meant to imply that you should think about these things when you build a character in the first place. Just what will you do when you are out of spells and thinking about camp and get ambushed by a bunch of goblins? One option is a Elvin Wizard with a bow. Another is a wizard with a staff, cheap easy to get and a double weapon. Does it really help? Probably not but you don't have to always spend your big spells that way either. Or you get a wand of magic missiles at first opportunity and blast what ever you can with it. This is of course assuming low level combat. I would hope that this issue was not as prevalent in higher levels.
I am with justin...I do 2 things use 3.0 buff times and tell the party tough...and i put more monster back...add traps... and so on.
Its not wow there is no vacuum, things can tell you have been there when bob the troll does not come back.
There was an issue, I don't see it now with the game itself. This is a horrible idea unless your players are not being wise and/or overly careful.
I never Jest and don't call me Surely! :)
Hm... you might be in the wrong line of business.
Let me guess: You hate red, don't you?
While I agree that elvin wizards with their longbow, but low BAB, can someitmes do small damage in fights when they choose, or must, not cast any spells, I don't think it's a good idea to create a game mechanic that almost forces all wizards to be elves.
The longbow is a suboptimal choice. I'd rather have the evokers' blast. Or a crossbow, really, since that one doesn't mind that my wizard's a weakling.
I think this is a real issue, and while plot and DM work can sometimes fix it, it would be nice to have something in the rule book to address this.
And pigeonhole GMs who don't want to be killed by their players into the type of campaign where you always have several fights per day. Because if the GM thinks about having a single random encounter during an otherwise quiet travel day, they are going to lynch him.
And if you do this, I think there will be a huge upsurge in slavery, because adventurers are going to have multiple slaves so they can arm and then kill two of them after breakfast, 5 minutes apart from each other so they basically count as an encounter.
Or they just go and kill 2 random people or creatures or something else.
And then the GM has to do his own rules again, since he has to make rulings preventing people from abusing the new ruling.
So we are were we started: GMs having to arbitrate things, except that now we have another rule that is basically necessary.
I'm not for a rules light game - otherwise, I wouldn't play D&D or Pathfinder - but there is such a thing as too many rules. The good thing about P&P RPGs is that it's not a computer game. There is an actual person calling the shots, so you don't need to adjudicate every last detail and don't have to release patch after patch after patch to nerf the overpowered killer-combos. God, I love P&P RPGs!
The whole issue behind a "15 minute adventuring day" is that a spell caster only has X number of spells to cast and then VIOLA...he/she/it has spent it's load.
My DM came to me recently asking "Why weren't you doing anything during that last combat?" I said "I've used all my spells, I have an 11AC, no real weapons, and 29 HP (9th lvl wizard). What would you expect me to do?"
I do *not* see this as an issue of power gaming. This is an issue of holy crap, there's a fight going on...and I have NOTHING to contribute to it!!!!
How do you use all your spells?
HOW?!?!?
What do you DO with them?
Are you summoning a fire elemental every time you want to light your pipe?
Myopic a little bit ?
Not to mention by this level, a wizard should have scrolls and wands falling out of his arse with every step he takes...The whole issue behind a "15 minute adventuring day" is that a spell caster only has X number of spells to cast and then VIOLA...he/she/it has spent it's load.
My DM came to me recently asking "Why weren't you doing anything during that last combat?" I said "I've used all my spells, I have an 11AC, no real weapons, and 29 HP (9th lvl wizard). What would you expect me to do?"
I do *not* see this as an issue of power gaming. This is an issue of holy crap, there's a fight going on...and I have NOTHING to contribute to it!!!!
How do you use all your spells?
HOW?!?!?
What do you DO with them?
Are you summoning a fire elemental every time you want to light your pipe?
I don't disagree with you...however, My DM does...
EDIT - Also keep in mind, not every wizard (of a nice level like nine) will always have a cornucopia of wands and scrolls available at all times...depends on the situation...and in the above situation, I had none available...
You know Bob too?! Awesome! How is he?I am with justin...I do 2 things use 3.0 buff times and tell the party tough...and i put more monster back...add traps... and so on.
Its not wow there is no vacuum, things can tell you have been there when bob the troll does not come back.
He has been doing ok, he has a limp now thanks to that flamestrike outhouse thing last summer
I think this is a real issue, and while plot and DM work can sometimes fix it, it would be nice to have something in the rule book to address this.
Rather then apply % adjustment, why not just alter the EL:
First encounter: EL -1
Second encounter EL -1
Third and all additional encounters that day: EL +1
Unfortunately, this would more likely encourage the "15-minute" workday. Why would I willingly continue when I know future encounters are going to be MORE deadly?
Awarding bonus XP and/or treasure for additional on the surface seems good, but is likely to lead to characters advancing too quickly or having too much treasure with which to face their opposition.
Some sort of momentum mechanic would be nice, something like action points (starting at 0, instead of 4E's "1"), something that goes away (completely) when you stop to take an extended rest - or perhaps you can exchange for a "safe rest" (say 4 points to "guarantee" the party an uninterrupted rest or reset of abilities as the characters take a moment to regain their composure.
Fergie: "Rather then apply % adjustment, why not just alter the EL:"
Stephen Klauk: "Why would I willingly continue when I know future encounters are going to be MORE deadly?"
Opps! My intention was to increase the EL when awarding XP ONLY, not make the encounters more difficult.
I have found that facing a long series of encounters without resting causes the party to use up more consumable items such as potions, scrolls, and wand charges that are used as memorized spells run low. It also forces the party to use resources immediately, rather then resting and praying for the right spell the next day.
I know adjusting XP isn't an ideal solution, but it is quick, easy, and doesn't require altering the game universe depending on what the adventures did that morning.
The action point idea seems like it could work well, but would be different then the system of action points that I had used in the past. I would like to know more.
I would be open to other ideas...
I have to say this idea actually appeals to me on several levels. I think a fair amount of people are going to dislike it, in specific, the caster type who greets that first group of skeletons with an empowered fireball and then wonders why he's out of spells in the BBEG encounter.
I think it is up to the DM to decide what constitutes an "encounter" in these cases and any party who willingly toted slaves around for sacrifice to "buff up" their xp gain would be getting a hefty xp bonus when they faced the solar or planetar riding the ancient gold dragon who had heard that there were a couple of heavily armed schmucks running around offing people they supposedly own, for breakfast.
Yes, it could lead to greater complexity but in this situation, I don't really mind because I think it really would suit my group to use a system like this. For this reason I don't think it is THE solution for everyone, but I like it and may adapt a version of this for future campaigns.
EDIT: I also like Stephen K's idea of action points. I would be interested in seeing that fleshed out more.
I've never seen this issue of resting after every fight. I've played D&D from the basic red box edition up to 4th edition and all in between and the issue has never occurred. I'm not sure why it doesn't happen. Maybe it's because the fighters in the group push forward eager for battle and the rogues greed driving him forward all the expense of the spell casters who are begging for a break. It tends to be in my game the followers of the group often play spell casters, people who like to be told what to do. The fighting classes and rogues tend be leader types and don't want to stop every other encounter.
So maybe all it take to fix this problem is group dynamic that doesn't want to stop game play every 15 minutes so they can rest.