|
Fascinating story spook. I imagine that 'bosses shouldn't always be in the last room' bit of advice is good for dungeon masters. [I'm more of an Open World Adventures gm instead.]
Well it fits for open story stuff too.
I had a discussion once in the halcyon days of my youth about James Bond.
Specifically the Roger Moore stuff.
If you look at Roger Moore Bond movies, the bad guy's second tends to outlive him and spring on the hero.
Now, strictly speaking, the seconds are a higher CR, but it plays up the ethos of 'I might be played out after dealing with the boss, so I need to watch out.'
Lesser threats become greater threats based on one's resource situation. Resources are what one really measures in games like DnD, and encounters eat it.
Lets assume a Kingmaker style campaign where you rule over a kingdom. Your army just had a climactic battle with the Dark Lord of Fire Ants. his legions broke after a three day battle on an open field, songs will be sung of your heroes exploits, but you and your forces are temporarily depleted (giant fire ants are tough).
And in comes an orc warband. The orc warband is nothing next to the dark lord of fireants, you'd eat them for breakfast normally, but..you're mostly spent, you've got like one army of raw recruits left, your wizard just decanted with a new clone, the cleric's dead (making raising him complicated and costly) and you're all weary.
Now, in this situation I decided to kill the wizard (because it amuses me to have him step out of his clone chamber to screams of Orcs), but it plays up what multiple encounters can provide. Chaos.
A usual complaint of the 40k wargamer optimizer type in the day was armies that had random effects. They couldn't be plotted out, planned for effectively, and they made mathematical prosecution of one's battle difficult.
No optimizer wants the RNG along for the ride, the dude's as likely to hinder as help. Adventurers, as a profession, have to deal with odd events.
This is beneficial since odd events muck up CR expectations and more importantly are memorable.
If the heroes are busy fighting through the catacombs, battling lets say a Priest of Asmodeus and his undead minions and all of a sudden a juggernaut dedicated to Zon-Kuthon Kool-Aid mans through the wall and starts crushing everything. It might be outside of the 'normal CR' progression, but thats also because our juggernaut friend is a hindrance to everybody. And again, memorable. A bit of a non-sequitur in this particular case, but memorable.
I don't think it's possible to balance classes that have vastly different resource pools (or just lack the resource pool in the first place).
I don't think it's possible to balance classes that have vastly different resource pools (or just lack the resource pool in the first place).My experience seems to indicate otherwise, though it is a very delicate balance.
The casters are jealous of the martial's ability to do amazingly badass s&%$ all day long. The martials are jealous of the casters' ability to do all sorts of different awesome s+#! despite their daily limits.
It all works out fairly well. Martials get plentiful stamina AND awesome, Mages get numerous different kinds of awesome with limited stamina.
Which system is that in, kyrt?
Perhaps Zhengar is referring to fights where the GM is suuuper careful to try to avoid rocket tag? Because high level fights in the campaigns i've participated in have usually been over in 2-6 rounds.@ Atarlost - If the game was purely about luck, that would be the case, yes.
And yes, if you throw an actually-challenging encounter at a low level party, you have good odds of killing them all, since low level characters are fragile and easily squished.
At higher levels? Nah. Not if the players know what they're doing. If anything, the main prohibition against running challenging fights at high levels is the time they take, not the threat they pose. If every fight is a life-or-death throwdown, the pace of the game drags down like crazy.
I'll run speed bump fights when I want to just test stuff and keep the game moving forward, while keeping an eye out for running a real fight later.
If the fight is going to be won, but will just take a long time, it's not a life-or-death throwdown. It's just a slog.
An "actually-challenging" encounter is pretty much by definition one where there's a good chance of losing. If your players are skilled and their PCs are optimized and overpowered for their APL, then an epic encounter by CR might not be an actual challenge. OTOH, if your players don't focus on optimization and your GM pulls out all the tricks for the villains an average encounter by CR could be an actual challenge.
Rocket tag can be pretty boring, though there's always exceptions. If rocket tag v. PCs is in play, it's a deliberate feature of the battle.
Like the fight with a 14th level party v. an advanced 17th level necromancer lich that opened with a merciful wail of the banshee, because the lich was there to capture an certain NPC. He kicked the party's ass, kvetched about not being allowed to kill them all yet, and left with his captive. Knowing a rematch with this guy was in their very near future, the PCs did some pretty neat stuff to plan for their later engagement (like a bard UMDing a contingency scroll so that he could have a contingent shadowbard countersong) - both to prevent the lich from casually annihilating them and to take his ass down. And the lich wasn't even the "boss," though the "boss" of that dungeon was honestly weaker (but the party would be facing the "boss" after a long and very rough day). Heh, handily meshing with what Spook's mentioning above. In my game, my party had their throwdown with the lich (and an astradaemon and 6 advanced revenants and 4 juju zombie clerics with their 40 fast zombies (just because they could)) about halfway through the dungeon, and had to navigate the rest down everything they blew just to make it through the mid point. (Including another rematch with the lich, because they didn't kill him during that fight (though they got close and forced him to Dim Door away for healing).)
That battle was an enormous cluster@#$% that could've easily killed the party if they weren't on the ball. It also took all night, because giant life-or-death cluster#$%^.
If being able to use strategy and tactics means a party is effectively higher level, then okay.
It's less "they'll win, it'll just take a while" and more "when every single action counts, turns take a while."
PCs consider their actions very carefully when a poor choice will kill them =P
@ Spook - again, complete agreement, and honestly something I should try to do more often.
@ Petty Alchemy - oh, agreed. Especially considering the power variation you can have between members of the same class, just from their builds.
No, CR isn't an ironclad rule. It's a guideline.
You always had to do something similar, even in systems without such guidelines, it's just that you had to rely only on GM experience to do so.Yeah, not slaughtering the PCs generally violates world verisimilitude. Live with it. TPKs in the name of verisimilitude isn't good thing. You can put stuff the party can't deal with out there, but you've got to give them a way to avoid or escape.
And no, the party shouldn't be fighting actual equals - because they will die far too often. The world and adventures need to be stacked in the parties favor, because they're supposed to win.
I was trained as a DM to believe the party is supposed to be challenged, not always win. If they go in fighting to find every opponent with nerfbats, they have no real victories.
This is skewing a bit off-topic though.
To add to this, and something I stress to new players to my game as well as vets: I am not here to kill you, but I am not going to go out of my way to babysit you either. The world can be a dangerous place, and if you don't take some care you can end up dead.
I do not go out of my way to hunt down a party and kill them with something outside of their abilities, but by the same token I expect a bit of common sense and self-control. Just because you hear of the red dragon lair at first level does not mean you have to attempt the red dragon lair at first level. The world is full of rumors and things that eat little adventurers, and sometimes I am setting the stage for later.
My short answer is yes.
Many of the APs have sections which span many encounters over the full duration of a day - encounters in the early morning, encounters in the afternoon and encounters at night - as events are unfolding at a location.
In addition, with the PCs "on location" and with some looming threat of doom, there's no "crafting time" or detour to town to pick up consumable magic items like specific wands, scrolls and potions (if the nearby town even has them).
This does a few things:
1. For "hour duration" buffs, they aren't available for 100% of the encounters. Without a readily available mage armor wand, and with encounters taking place in hour units but at 3 different times of the day, characters can't have Mage Armor or Barkskin up for every encounter, making mundane armor much more valuable.2. Casters tend to need to be more generalist versus damage-dealers. For games like this, an evoker runs out of spells too quickly to blast every round and at the same time, the party needs utility abilities like glitterdust, calm emotions, fly, protection from evil, etc. Thus the casters don't prepare as many spells to blast or self-buff themselves and instead reserve them for when that utility is really needed.
The game swings heavy towards spell-casters (especially hybrids like an inquisitor or magus) when it only involves "10-12 rounds a day" because those classes can essentially be fully buffed and contributing at peak every round.
I've always found home games/campaigns/APs much more balanced than Organized Play for this reason (barring exceptions of course - like Kingmaker).
There are not many AP's with a full day of fighting, and by the time you get to hour/level spells the casters are covered once they hit level 8. Actually they are covered before that unless the GM waves time away to force them to use resources. Also since caster that use mage armor are not as likely to use mundane armor I dont see how it makes the other less or more valuable.
Wakedown still hasn't responded to the issues I raised with his post on page 1, so I wouldn't hold out hope of a response wraithstrike.
Note that this is largely rhetorical, but a thought occurred to me. What if, instead of adventuring days being longer, casters just took twice as long to replenish spells? They'd have to budget over two days instead of one.
|
Note that this is largely rhetorical, but a thought occurred to me. What if, instead of adventuring days being longer, casters just took twice as long to replenish spells? They'd have to budget over two days instead of one.Or they'd still nova in 15 minutes, then rest two days.
If the GM gives them the chance. But - the core system seems to assume that you have said chance.
Along the same vein - I read one system where casters had considerably fewer resources (more of a mana style system) but a few minutes after each fight they got back half of what they had just used. It spread their nova potential out without totally gimping them should they run into trouble after they thought they were done for the day.
Note that this is largely rhetorical, but a thought occurred to me. What if, instead of adventuring days being longer, casters just took twice as long to replenish spells? They'd have to budget over two days instead of one.Or they'd still nova in 15 minutes, then rest two days.
I once was working on a 3.X mod that switched casters to either spells per 7 day week or spells per 5 day "pentad" (depending on class).
They all also had vastly different spell lists, but it was an interesting idea that I sadly never got to see fully implemented. Did have much higher spells amount-- 7 1st levels at 1st level for instance, but the "specialization"/domain spell and bonus spells were the same and only added 1 per week respectively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the best way to balance out the wizard is to tone down a few of the specific problem spells and trim their versatility back. After all, the biggest advantage of the wizard is that unless access to new spells/scrolls is heavily limited, they're always one rest period away from having the perfect spell at their fingertips.
Note that this is largely rhetorical, but a thought occurred to me. What if, instead of adventuring days being longer, casters just took twice as long to replenish spells? They'd have to budget over two days instead of one.Or they'd still nova in 15 minutes, then rest two days.I once was working on a 3.X mod that switched casters to either spells per 7 day week or spells per 5 day "pentad" (depending on class).
They all also had vastly different spell lists, but it was an interesting idea that I sadly never got to see fully implemented. Did have much higher spells amount-- 7 1st levels at 1st level for instance, but the "specialization"/domain spell and bonus spells were the same and only added 1 per week respectively.
That would reduce the 15 minute workday effect in that the wizard would walk into the dungeon with almost a full week of spells and mid-dungeon rests wouldn't benefit him much (though the bard, barbarian, and positive energy channeling cleric would still want them) but it wouldn't improve balance.
To fix balance you need to do the exact opposite. Make the time to refresh spells short enough that he becomes per encounter since encounters are what CR is measured for and is closer to the balance of the at will classes.
Like I said it was a very different spell list for the setting in theory. I don't think it would work with the Wizard and Cleric spell lists.
I abhor the idea of "per encounter" spells. . . one of the worst features of 4th edition in my opinion.
|
|
To the OP:
Absolutely! the big boom spells are usually gone after two or three encounters. At low levels, the wizard is tapped, and might have to use his staff to aid another. At high levels, he'll have to switch to a wand, scroll, school power or some other fairly weak tactic that will not outshine the martials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He specifically said a CR equivalent encounter.
If your party is using more than 25% of their resources against an encounter with a CR equal to the party's level, then the party is underpowered.
That underpowered might be having too few PCs, it might be poor build decisions or poor tactical acumen, or at mid-levels and higher it might mean they're undergeared.
I'm really late to this party, but here are some givens I've used.
In an "extended" roleplaying day, we are saying it's the ENTIRE adventure.
In this we mean at least 16 encounters, possibly upwards to 50 to 100 encounters.
The wizard does NOT get a recharge. They do NOT get time to rememorize really. This is the dungeon, and in this dungeon you simply don't leave and come back...and if you rest in the dungeon...EVERY denizen will track you down and KILL you (or at least every one will gang up on you all at once which will make a CR encounter WAAY higher than what you think you might want to face).
Why?
Ever walked into a High school. How long do you think a band of adventurers could hide in there?
How about a warehouse?
Even with lots of rooms.
Do you think they could sleep away 8 hours and expect NO ONE to find them, especially if they have a trail of dead bodies already?
Even more, once those dead bodies are found, how long until you think that hotel/warehouse/school is on high alert and even more dangerous for an intruder than before?
So, yep, clear out the dungeon on the long haul or not at all.
How is this possible?
Well, wands are definitely game changers here, and a LOT of potions can also be helpful. CLW are definitely things that keep the martial going. IN fact, with CLW...they can almost keep going indefinitely.
ON the counter of this, you'd need the casters to have wands...a LOT of wands...
AS for their spells though..if they only used their spells they could memorize, most casters will be about par with the martial IME...even in this scenario...at high levels. With wands, it depends on what they use and what they bring. IT cheaper to have wands with lower level spells...and as such they still are somewhat on par with the martials. If they blow their load and spend all their money (Which means they won't have it for the next adventure)...they will be superior to the martials...but only for THAT ONE ADVENTURE. In this case they'll have all sorts of high level spells and such in scrolls and wands..but it is temporary.
IF they are not SMART casters, this will result in a TPK. AS has already been pointed out, there are some things that you really do need a caster with certain abilities and flexibilities to deal with. IF you have a caster that is conservative, mostly uses their wands and saves their good spells for when they absolutely need it...The party will usually be able to survive.
So...in a REALLY extended dungeon...the martial/caster disparity (unless the caster spends all of their money on one adventure, in which case it's self regulating, the next one they might not even have money for the lower level wands to keep them relavant) actually is about par...but ONLY if the martials have ways to heal themselves (if not, then just like if the caster is stupid and goes nova...the party will usually get a TPK since the martials will all be dead rather shortly [relatively speaking for a dungeon that is 16+ encounters long with no rests] as well, and the casters are sure to follow suit thereafter.
It is possible to have an ALL caster party in this scenario as well and no martials, but they would still need to act conservatively and utilize wands and scrolls effectively so it doesn't eventually become a TPK for the party.
Do you think they could sleep away 8 hours and expect NO ONE to find them, especially if they have a trail of dead bodies already?
Even more, once those dead bodies are found, how long until you think that hotel/warehouse/school is on high alert and even more dangerous for an intruder than before?
So, yep, clear out the dungeon on the long haul or not at all.
In a typical Pathfinder dungeon, the PCs get one chance to attack with the advantage of surprise. When they get tired and decide to retreat, they can. Obviously, they'll want to spend around four hours retreating to a safe distance and finding a suitable hiding spot before resting. Then they return. The enemies will be more organised by this time and things will be more dangerous (assuming the GM plays the enemies as intelligent), but this is balanced by the ability to nuke them with all your best spells whenever you want.
I abhor the idea of "per encounter" spells. . . one of the worst features of 4th edition in my opinion.Just curious here, is it indeed the very 'idea of "per encounter" spells" or simply the idea of an otherwise Vancian caster incorporating 'per encounter' spells?
A Vancian Wizard having spells that range from Daily to Encounter to At Will does strike me as very, very odd. However, I see nothing wrong with having a more limited type of spellcasting class who recovers spells with a short rest [5 minutes-ish?] Nor would I have a problem with the two different types of casters co-existing in the same game or the same party.
No I really, really hate the idea of it. Its meta-gamey in a way that annoys me, I don't care for the balance implications of it, it completely removes managing resources and turns spellcasters in world of warcraft characters.
Instead of deciding how many fireballs to memorize and when to use them, with the option to use three in a row if the situation is right the spell caster becomes reduced to a "rotation".
Oh, new fight, I have to cast Fireball first, then Ice Storm, then Scorching Ray, then Magic Missiles till the end of the fight.
Ok, that monster is dead . . . next monster! Alright, I have to cast Fireball, then Ice Storm, then Scorching Ray, and now its magic missile time!
Ok, fight three of the day! Fireball, ice storm, scorching ray, magic missile. . .
Wow, fight 5-- guess what guys? FIreball, Ice Storm, Scorching Ray, Magic missile. . . eh, with this little choice why am I not just playing a fighter>?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actualy, the actual spell system is lame and old, we have played this spell system over a 40 years!! it is time to try something else.
Head over to Runescape, Savage Worlds, GURPs, or the countless other systems. They try something else all the time. The DnD/Pathfinder ethos is built on the Vancian magic system.
Also 'old' is not a sufficient reason to require a change.
Old is not intrinsically bad. New is not intrinsically good.
Well, Pathfinder already has at-will powers as cantrips.
Maybe Pathfinder could steal the idea from 5th ed and give casters better combat cantrips.
Want to cast spells but don't want to nova? Use turns to throw few firebolts then.
Well, Pathfinder already has at-will powers as cantrips.
Maybe Pathfinder could steal the idea from 5th ed and give casters better combat cantrips.
Want to cast spells but don't want to nova? Use turns to throw few firebolts then.
Yeah, I think the real problem Pathfinder has is that casters don't get enough good spells.
|
|
Well, Pathfinder already has at-will powers as cantrips.
Maybe Pathfinder could steal the idea from 5th ed and give casters better combat cantrips.
Want to cast spells but don't want to nova? Use turns to throw few firebolts then.
I loathe the idea of Pathfinder stealing any ideas from 5th ed. It would be like stealing ideas from your own brain, in a sense (I'm being vague on purpose here, for those who follow me... ;) )
|
|
The wizard is fine. Leave him alone. It's not the wizard's fault that some cool looking Robert D. Junior type "investigators" showed up and got all the attention from the ladies for a while... (i.e. until real problems occurred and had the authorities run to the nearest wizard tower for help... ;) )
Yeah, I think the real problem Pathfinder has is that casters don't get enough good spells.Well, Pathfinder already has at-will powers as cantrips.
Maybe Pathfinder could steal the idea from 5th ed and give casters better combat cantrips.
Want to cast spells but don't want to nova? Use turns to throw few firebolts then.
Hey, checks and balances.
Giving them something only creates space so that you can take away something from them.More than they gain if you want to get really progressive.
Old is not intrinsically bad. New is not intrinsically good.
I'll agree to this as long as you agree that old is not intrinsically good and new is not intrinsically bad.
That being said... WHY!? why on earth is your caster using all blasting spells with only a single partial battlefield control? I also question why he only has a single spell of each spell level he can cast...I would probably default to granting such a character one new spell for every character level [and most likely have him on the Bard spell level progression chart.]
I used a blaster spell rotation because its easy to illustrate how easy it is to fall into that kind of "rotation".
Yes, I was assuming that like in 4th ed (which had this kind of system that I hated) you got 1 Fireball per encounter. Then you could cast your 1 Ice Storm, ect then your at will magic missiles.
If you didn't give a per encounter mage an at will ability you either have to give them a ton of per encounter abilities or expect them to default down to staff/crossbow eventually. . . I don't really care for either of those options as good design.
Sorcerer still gets his spells PER DAY. Same as Wizard. He can cast three fireballs in a row, or one per encounter, or whatever balance he chooses. Just because he casts spontaneously doesn't mean he has any need to use his spell slots in any given way casting spells in a rotation-- sure he could, but he doesn't by default have to because there is still choice and reward for choosing correctly for both saving and spending resources which per encounter lacks.
As for the meta-game complaint-- I guess it depends on the length of the rest. If you have to rest four hours, sure. An hour maybe.
But when you say "per encounter" I envision the Mage kicking down the door, killing it all, waiting one round, then kicking down door number 2 with full spells back.
Idk, its just not a mechanic that interests me. If they made a class that used it I wouldn't be tempted to play it, and if the entire game suddenly shifted to that paradigm I'd be out.
Yeah, I'm all for options. I liked encounter powers in Book of Nine Swords, because it was something new, fun, and different. when 4th made everything into encounter powers, I didn't like it.
Meta-wise, it doesn't bother too much as long as it's fluffed as "enough time to catch your breath from the previous fight."