The Problem: The 5-minute workday is a frequently discussed issue that tends to tip the scales of power towards full casters, namely Wizards, Sorcerers, Witches, Clerics, Druids, and Oracles. The generally accepted solution is for events to conspire against the PCs in such a way as to prevent this from happening. This solution promotes an adversariel relationship between the GM and players, and is not always conducive to the story line, ruining versimilitude.
Solution: In previous versions of D&D, this problem was mitigated through lengthy memorization times. I believe it took a high level caster days to restore their full complement of spells. This was unsatisfactory from a gamist point of view, because Wizards had no more (fewer?) spells, but those spells were substantially more powerful than in recent editions.
What about reverting the system back to the old memorization times (or similar), but granting casters more spells? What if it took multiple days, instead of an hour, to restore a full complement of spells? I'm thinking something along the lines of a caster regaining two or three spells per day under normal adventuring circumstances.
The difficult part here is finding a balance between preserving the Wizards flexibility, versus eliminating the need for artificial reasons that casters are unable to take a break. It's much easier, from a storyline perspective, to explain why a week long break is too long to still proceed, versus an 8-12 hour break.
Is this an idea worth pursuing? Do others have better solution ideas/implementations, that don't drift too far from the general D&D/Vancian spellcasting system?
It's an interesting idea, but let's parse the unintended consequences.
One big problem with the so-called 15-minute workday is that the non-casters feel like they are waiting around for the casters to get back to work. Lengthening prep time will exacerbate that, not solve it.
One approach is to implement advantages to martial characters that require the same prep time. That way, even if you still have a short workday, at least everyone is on the same schedule. For example, I wrote a feat called Battle Adaptation that lets martial characters re-spec a few combat feats with a night's rest and an hour of preparation. It definitely lends some parity to the pacing of the martial and caster PCs.
In the end, though, the best thing you can do is include timers and an enemy caster.
Timers (soft or hard) encourage a caster to utilize martial allies and keep powerful spells in reserve. The game works really well in these conditions, and they usually don't feel too crude to players. Some objectives should have no timer, but expect casters to breeze through and nap a lot...
Enemy caster response means keeping at least one clever enemy caster alive. He should be known to the players, but their information should be incomplete. The players should notice the scry sensor now and then. Any smart caster PC is going to have to hold spells in reserve to deal with this.
That's what's in my toolbox to combat the 15-minute workday, I hope it is helpful to you.
Evil Lincoln wrote: It's an interesting idea, but let's parse the unintended consequences.
One big problem with the so-called 15-minute workday is that the non-casters feel like they are waiting around for the casters to get back to work. Lengthening prep time will exacerbate that, not solve it.
My goal was to lengthen it so much that resting after every other fight was not a reasonable option, ever. Right now, casters push for 15-minute workdays because the downtime is frequently a non-issue story-wise. It begins to feel forced and repetitive, if every adventure has a 'timer' on it. I'd rather that most adventures did not have a timer, and that using a timer was a part of the plot, and not a power-balancing mechanism.
Quote: One approach is to implement advantages to martial characters that require the same prep time. That way, even if you still have a short workday, at least everyone is on the same schedule. For example, I wrote a feat called Battle Adaptation that lets martial characters re-spec a few combat feats with a night's rest and an hour of preparation. It definitely lends some parity to the pacing of the martial and caster PCs. I like the idea, and I'll take a look at that, but I'd rather not institute a feat tax on the non-casters for what amounts to a balance adjustment.
Reducing the amount of healing resources available, while increasing natural healing, would also shift the pacing such that martial characters were more in line with casters. But this does nothing to fix the 15-minute workday, and, most likely, would only exacerbate the problem.
The only solution to the problem that I see is to eliminate the usefulness/need of a single night of rest. Right now martial characters get virtually nothing, while casters get everything. If casters got a lot less (took a long time to memorize one spell), this would get us closer. Not sure if there's any way to keep the existing system in any recognizable form while removing the need for resting entirely.
Quote: Enemy caster response means keeping at least one clever enemy caster alive. He should be known to the players, but their information should be incomplete. The players should notice the scry sensor now and then. Any smart caster PC is going to have to hold spells in reserve to deal with this.
That's what's in my toolbox to combat the 15-minute workday, I hope it is helpful to you.
These things just prompt casters to want to rest earlier and earlier, in my experience. If the caster has to have something in reserve, they just want to stop fighting after the first battle, instead of the second.
Ultimately, the GM can do whatever he wants to enable or disable the 15-minute workday, but I'd rather eliminate it entirely.
Adam Ormond wrote: Evil Lincoln wrote: It's an interesting idea, but let's parse the unintended consequences.
One big problem with the so-called 15-minute workday is that the non-casters feel like they are waiting around for the casters to get back to work. Lengthening prep time will exacerbate that, not solve it.
My goal was to lengthen it so much that resting after every other fight was not a reasonable option, ever. Right now, casters push for 15-minute workdays because the downtime is frequently a non-issue story-wise. It begins to feel forced and repetitive, if every adventure has a 'timer' on it. I'd rather that most adventures did not have a timer, and that using a timer was a part of the plot, and not a power-balancing mechanism.
The problem is you would have to give casters ALOT of spells or a fair amount of new abilities for them to not have to fall into the old ADnD role of casting a spell once or twice a session. That was rather balanced, but it was not alot of fun mechanically. No one likes to sit around and do nothing for a large portion of the time. That was the problem with early casters, you spent alot of the game a frail old man.
It might even make the problem worse. If you give a wizard enough spells to reasonably last most adventures they have a greater capacity (potentially) to go nova, and throw off any single adventure, which leads them right back to the 15 minute work day.
If you want to combat the 15 minute work day you should actually shorten spell recovery time not increase it. Reduce the number of spells per day a caster has access to, but then have slots recharge in a handful of minutes instead of having to rest for a full day. This limits a caster's ability to nova (with fewer resources available at any one time) and it means they can keep going as long as is needed because in a few minutes their spells will recharge.
To be entirely honest, I've found that the best way to eliminate the problem of casters who Nova and then require the party to rest is to talk to the players about the issue (and if necessary, reinforce the need to retain some spells for later in the day by having random encounters, opponents who run away a lot and then come back, or if necessary design a spellblight (new casters-only disease/curses in Ultimate Magic) that can crop up in casters who Nova that prevents them from getting a restful sleep, deals nonlethal damage when memorizing spells if every spell slot was expended, or some other disadvantageous effect).
Usually I only need to talk to the players, though, and remind them that just because they think that *this fight* is the Big Fight of the Day, it might not be, and they could get themselves killed by Nova-ing the way that they have in the past. (This is easy enough to support with reports from passers-by of dragon/giant/demon/drow/necromancer sightings nearby. Or an encounter that consists of a Huge or larger dragon of evil coloration wafting into sight from behind trees/hills/mountains/whatever. It might be half a mile away, but it's coming in the party's direction.....)
Let me see if I understand this:
Some are having trouble with players handling full casters unloading their best spells on minor encounters and then demanding the party rest in order to "catch up"?
Necromancer wrote: Let me see if I understand this:
Some are having trouble with players handling full casters unloading their best spells on minor encounters and then demanding the party rest in order to "catch up"?
That's basically the problem. The Game is designed for the party to go into a dungeon where the next resting area is 4-6 encounters away and failing to get through it causes everything to respawn in one way or another. GMing advice for Pathfinder usually revolves around some kind of GM acrobatics that force that same dynamic into everything else, by either attacking the party directly and repeatedly that the players themselves have no choice but to play right, or by forcing them to act against a timer so that they won't rest. Some even suggest occasionally wiping a party out as retribution for performing a nova.
I totally respect the quest for finding a way to balance it. In my games, I tend to only have one or two encounters per week, but the bad guys try their best to win by killing the group. If the party has a sorcerer, then they will be sure to bring enough guys to soak up her spells when she novas while someone tries to take her down.
I'm working on an alternate wizard class with spell like abilities used in combat, much reduced spells per day, and the ability to cast additional spells by spending minutes or hours casting. This way, they always can take actions in combat, they can nova (slightly) on a single encounter, and they still have lots of out of combat utility.
cranewings wrote: Necromancer wrote: Let me see if I understand this:
Some are having trouble with players handling full casters unloading their best spells on minor encounters and then demanding the party rest in order to "catch up"?
That's basically the problem. The Game is designed for the party to go into a dungeon where the next resting area is 4-6 encounters away and failing to get through it causes everything to respawn in one way or another. GMing advice for Pathfinder usually revolves around some kind of GM acrobatics that force that same dynamic into everything else, by either attacking the party directly and repeatedly that the players themselves have no choice but to play right, or by forcing them to act against a timer so that they won't rest. Some even suggest occasionally wiping a party out as retribution for performing a nova.
I totally respect the quest for finding a way to balance it. In my games, I tend to only have one or two encounters per week, but the bad guys try their best to win by killing the group. If the party has a sorcerer, then they will be sure to bring enough guys to soak up her spells when she novas while someone tries to take her down.
I'm working on an alternate wizard class with spell like abilities used in combat, much reduced spells per day, and the ability to cast additional spells by spending minutes or hours casting. This way, they always can take actions in combat, they can nova (slightly) on a single encounter, and they still have lots of out of combat utility. This has never been a persistent problem in my games; I encourage the players early on to conserve their energy for more lethal surprises to come. Any of my players running spellcasters never empty their load at the sight of two goblin pyros. Usually my players defeat the easy encounters without using any "per-day" abilities by making use of their enviroment and nearby NPCs. On the other hand, if my players want a hack/slash session, I'll just switch to the spell recharge system.
I stress early on that this isn't NWN where your cleric can take five every room and be fully prepared for the next encounter. I keep combat irregular and give the players the feeling that they should be deciding when combat is necessary. I also take care to make sure the players know when to retreat and are able to retreat in mostly one piece.
Necromancer wrote: This has never been a persistent problem in my games; I encourage the players early on to conserve their energy for more lethal surprises to come....
....I keep combat irregular and give the players the feeling that they should be deciding when combat is necessary. I also take care to make sure the players know when to retreat and are able to retreat in mostly one piece.
Of course this only works if you're good at pulling that off.
I've never understood how people can plan battles in such a way that they can be sure they press the characters' resources without cutting off the chance of winning. Or put enough battles in succession without it feeling contrived. And then sometimes maybe you don't want to have enough battles or encounters in the whole adventure to press the characters. Heck, maybe you just don't want the players to be cautious while at the same time not giving them enough resources to just blow through things.
What do you do if you don't want to follow this style of "make cautious"?
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote: Necromancer wrote: This has never been a persistent problem in my games; I encourage the players early on to conserve their energy for more lethal surprises to come....
....I keep combat irregular and give the players the feeling that they should be deciding when combat is necessary. I also take care to make sure the players know when to retreat and are able to retreat in mostly one piece.
Of course this only works if you're good at pulling that off.
I've never understood how people can plan battles in such a way that they can be sure they press the characters' resources without cutting off the chance of winning. Or put enough battles in succession without it feeling contrived. And then sometimes maybe you don't want to have enough battles or encounters in the whole adventure to press the characters. Heck, maybe you just don't want the players to be cautious while at the same time not giving them enough resources to just blow through things.
What do you do if you don't want to follow this style of "make cautious"? Silvercat, that is basically what I was addressing. My players dont feel that they have to be cautious all the time. If they know there is only one or two fights coming, the come at the bad guys hard. No one saves a bunch of spells for black swan events.
When I want to structure a knock down, drag out fight, I don't use the CR system directly. I design components that each individual character should be able to beat.
For example, for a third level party of fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue, I might feed them a 4th level fighter the wizard can put to sleep, three CR 1 guys that the cleric and rogue can chew up as a team, and a 4th danger that the fighter can counter, such as a fast monster that is going to try to run up to the wizard. All together this is a massive CR fight for a 3rd level party, but I would feel confident that they can come out on top with a little tactics.
The CR system is a handy guide, but we all know that 8 or 9 goblins are no where near as difficult for a 3rd level party as a 6th level paladin would be.
Necromancer wrote: cranewings wrote: Necromancer wrote: Let me see if I understand this:
Some are having trouble with players handling full casters unloading their best spells on minor encounters and then demanding the party rest in order to "catch up"?
That's basically the problem. The Game is designed for the party to go into a dungeon where the next resting area is 4-6 encounters away and failing to get through it causes everything to respawn in one way or another. GMing advice for Pathfinder usually revolves around some kind of GM acrobatics that force that same dynamic into everything else, by either attacking the party directly and repeatedly that the players themselves have no choice but to play right, or by forcing them to act against a timer so that they won't rest. Some even suggest occasionally wiping a party out as retribution for performing a nova.
I totally respect the quest for finding a way to balance it. In my games, I tend to only have one or two encounters per week, but the bad guys try their best to win by killing the group. If the party has a sorcerer, then they will be sure to bring enough guys to soak up her spells when she novas while someone tries to take her down.
I'm working on an alternate wizard class with spell like abilities used in combat, much reduced spells per day, and the ability to cast additional spells by spending minutes or hours casting. This way, they always can take actions in combat, they can nova (slightly) on a single encounter, and they still have lots of out of combat utility. This has never been a persistent problem in my games; I encourage the players early on to conserve their energy for more lethal surprises to come. Any of my players running spellcasters never empty their load at the sight of two goblin pyros. Usually my players defeat the easy encounters without using any "per-day" abilities by making use of their enviroment and nearby NPCs. On the other hand, if my players want a hack/slash session, I'll just switch to the spell... Your method is probably pretty good for a certain type of game. Mine, and I imagine the OP, probably aren't running the same kind of thing. Some styles of games will have fewer encounters. Mysteries, for example, or bounty hunting. High body counts all the time can get a little silly. Usually, there is just one battle for the day.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote: Necromancer wrote: This has never been a persistent problem in my games; I encourage the players early on to conserve their energy for more lethal surprises to come....
....I keep combat irregular and give the players the feeling that they should be deciding when combat is necessary. I also take care to make sure the players know when to retreat and are able to retreat in mostly one piece.
Of course this only works if you're good at pulling that off.
I've never understood how people can plan battles in such a way that they can be sure they press the characters' resources without cutting off the chance of winning. Or put enough battles in succession without it feeling contrived. And then sometimes maybe you don't want to have enough battles or encounters in the whole adventure to press the characters. Heck, maybe you just don't want the players to be cautious while at the same time not giving them enough resources to just blow through things.
What do you do if you don't want to follow this style of "make cautious"? As I mentioned earlier, if the players want a balls-to-the-wall campaign with breakneck pacing I use the recharge magic variant (with very flexible recharge times). I've never had problems with that system.
cranewings wrote: Your method is probably pretty good for a certain type of game. Mine, and I imagine the OP, probably aren't running the same kind of thing. Some styles of games will have fewer encounters. Mysteries, for example, or bounty hunting. High body counts all the time can get a little silly. Usually, there is just one battle for the day. Typically, most of my sessions have very little combat and huge battle sequences are quite rare. Skill checks, magic, and roleplay make up a large chunk of my (typical) campaigns; several sessions might pass before the players physically engage an enemy. How do your sessions usually run (skill vs. magic vs. combat)?
Necromancer wrote: cranewings wrote: Your method is probably pretty good for a certain type of game. Mine, and I imagine the OP, probably aren't running the same kind of thing. Some styles of games will have fewer encounters. Mysteries, for example, or bounty hunting. High body counts all the time can get a little silly. Usually, there is just one battle for the day. Typically, most of my sessions have very little combat and huge battle sequences are quite rare. Skill checks, magic, and roleplay make up a large chunk of my (typical) campaigns; several sessions might pass before the players physically engage an enemy. How do your sessions usually run (skill vs. magic vs. combat)? Usually, I have at least one or two fights every game, though the fights are often days or weeks apart game time. Most of the beginning of the game is talking to NPCs and making plans. The next third is exploring / investigating / talking and the last third revolves around the lead up to some kind of climax and its conclusion. I'm pretty predictable and episodic in that sense.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
