I sometimes wonder what led them to make these assumptions... especially the one about 6-8 encounters/day. I have no idea where they came up with that -- it certainly doesn't seem to be based on surveys of how players actually run a game, because from everything I have seen most tables run significantly less per day than this (I think the last I saw was an average of 3-4).
It seems to be historical, they made similar assumptions in 3rd edition (where people didn't actually play that way) and 4th edition (where people didn't actually play that way). 1e/2e didn't seem to concern themselves with what's an appropriate challenge.
There seems to be a general belief that D&D is supposed to be a resource management game. However, the evidence is that (a) players don't want to play resource management games, and (b) the game system doesn't have sufficient limitations to force them to do so.
I sometimes wonder what led them to make these assumptions... especially the one about 6-8 encounters/day. I have no idea where they came up with that -- it certainly doesn't seem to be based on surveys of how players actually run a game, because from everything I have seen most tables run significantly less per day than this (I think the last I saw was an average of 3-4).
It seems to be historical, they made similar assumptions in 3rd edition (where people didn't actually play that way) and 4th edition (where people didn't actually play that way). 1e/2e didn't seem to concern themselves with what's an appropriate challenge.
There seems to be a general belief that D&D is supposed to be a resource management game. However, the evidence is that (a) players don't want to play resource management games, and (b) the game system doesn't have sufficient limitations to force them to do so.
The game is indeed designed to be a resource management game. Ask any low level spell caster, or any level Warlock, that question.
With regard to:
a. I can't say players don't want to play that way. I think some enjoy the challenge.
b. Yes, you are correct. Once players reach mid-level, outside of warlock spell slots, and maybe a few other select things (like Sorcerer metamagic points) resource limitations are not really an issue in-game.
b. Yes, you are correct. Once players reach mid-level, outside of warlock spell slots, and maybe a few other select things (like Sorcerer metamagic points) resource limitations are not really an issue in-game.
An 11th level wizard who gets into 6 encounters per day is going to spend his spells differently than if he gets into 1. My point was that it's hard to force PCs to go through six encounters per day if they don't want to (you can do it, sometimes, but it takes forcing and is weird more often than not).
I answered the fourth option on the poll, and was surprised with how many had voted the same! I like how most basic NPC's are far *below* the average adventurer in CR, representing that adventurers have special and unique skill sets in the world that are uncommon. But humanoid monsters, they should be tough, for where there is no challenge, there is no legend.
I answered the fourth option on the poll, and was surprised with how many had voted the same! I like how most basic NPC's are far *below* the average adventurer in CR, representing that adventurers have special and unique skill sets in the world that are uncommon. But humanoid monsters, they should be tough, for where there is no challenge, there is no legend.
The point is actually that NPCs are more powerful than monsters of nominally equal CR.
I answered the fourth option on the poll, and was surprised with how many had voted the same! I like how most basic NPC's are far *below* the average adventurer in CR, representing that adventurers have special and unique skill sets in the world that are uncommon. But humanoid monsters, they should be tough, for where there is no challenge, there is no legend.
The point is actually that NPCs are more powerful than monsters of nominally equal CR.
And on that thought....
I think it should stay as it is. If the creatures of matching CR didn't overpower the monsters, than the monsters would rule over the world of human civilization unchallenged; but...I can see where this is still good grounds for discussion!
There seems to be a general belief that D&D is supposed to be a resource management game. However, the evidence is that (a) players don't want to play resource management games, and (b) the game system doesn't have sufficient limitations to force them to do so.
We didn't mind it back in the day. But I think many players (and DMs) are so used to video games now, where resources come back in minutes or less, that they have no interest in playing the resource management game.
Heck in City of Heroes, people complained about Endurance, which comes back in between battles, just because they didn't like to manage it in a single battle. They wanted to be able to fire all powers, whenever they wished, as many times as they wished, and not have to think about Endurance. To aid them with this, nearly everyone took Stamina, a pool power that was accessible to all PCs of all origins and archetypes, and then enhanced it with 6 "endurance modification" enhancers to triple the endurance recovery it gave them. This was done by so many people that the devs eventually gave up and just gave stamina to all characters for free, essentially removing the vast majority of within-battle resource management from the game.
So if players can't deal with managing endurance in a battle, there's no question they won't want to have to manage their skills and abilities over a longer time span.
There is another problem though... one thing some players complain about is that D&D battles that seem like a hard or even deadly fight are often "too easy." Well, that is a consequence of not wanting to play the resource management game. If you can do an alpha strike in every battle, there is no way a "matched enemy" can survive even a couple of rounds. It's like playing a video game on the "easy" setting.
BTW this was an issue in COH as well -- the game became too easy. They had to give people the option to bump the difficulty up just to keep it challenging.
BTW this was an issue in COH as well -- the game became too easy. They had to give people the option to bump the difficulty up just to keep it challenging.
I find it entertaining that people ***** and moan about a problem, then when the problem is "fixed" to their satisfaction, the game becomes too easy.
There is another problem though... one thing some players complain about is that D&D battles that seem like a hard or even deadly fight are often "too easy." Well, that is a consequence of not wanting to play the resource management game. If you can do an alpha strike in every battle, there is no way a "matched enemy" can survive even a couple of rounds. It's like playing a video game on the "easy" setting.
There's an easy change for that: rather than a fairly large pool of resources that refresh daily, have a much smaller pool of resources that refresh faster. Basically turn all spellcasters into warlocks (or some other similar model).
BTW this was an issue in COH as well -- the game became too easy. They had to give people the option to bump the difficulty up just to keep it challenging.
I find it entertaining that people ***** and moan about a problem, then when the problem is "fixed" to their satisfaction, the game becomes too easy.
And then they complain about that!
This^^^
That’s exactly why I do various things specifically to make the game harder. Combat is already almost too easy in 5e. I know how dissatisfied I get as a player when the risk and difficulty is taken out of a game. I know can take steps to add tension and drama back to combat so players don’t feel like it’s easy mode.
I find it entertaining that people ***** and moan about a problem, then when the problem is "fixed" to their satisfaction, the game becomes too easy.
And then they complain about that!
Yup.
I have a friend who wants "challenging fights" in RPGs and applauds when they happen. "More fights should be like this," he'd say.
Then he's the first one to whip out the save-or-suck mechanic like Banishment against the BBEG.
"I want hard fights" and "I will grab every advantage I can get to win" are consistent beliefs -- it means someone who is interested in system mastery, and wants to prove their mastery against the hardest stuff.
"I want hard fights" and "I will grab every advantage I can get to win" are consistent beliefs -- it means someone who is interested in system mastery, and wants to prove their mastery against the hardest stuff.
Sure but if the save-or-suck against the single boss monster works, and the battle is over in one round... it's not very challenging. I mean, it is for 10 seconds while he decides to use the uber-attack, but as soon as the BBEG fails the save and is now held for the duration while the team pounds on him for 3 rounds until his hp hit zero, what is hard about that?
I'm not convinced that what is essentially an "I win!" button indicates "system mastery." Unless you consider "knowing when to press the 'I win!' button" to be mastery of something. That's like saying I was "good at playing Doom II" because I knew when to use the "IDBeholdYou" god-mode cheat to avoid the things I couldn't beat any other way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Reading these posts I am reminded of when Innigo was explaining to Vizzini why he had to start off left handed in his upcoming duel against the Man in Black so it wouldn’t be over to quickly.
"I want hard fights" and "I will grab every advantage I can get to win" are consistent beliefs -- it means someone who is interested in system mastery, and wants to prove their mastery against the hardest stuff.
Sure but if the save-or-suck against the single boss monster works, and the battle is over in one round... it's not very challenging. I mean, it is for 10 seconds while he decides to use the uber-attack, but as soon as the BBEG fails the save and is now held for the duration while the team pounds on him for 3 rounds until his hp hit zero, what is hard about that?
Banishment isn't save or suck. It's temporarily remove an enemy from combat. You can't attack a banished target.
Fine pick another save-or-suck spell. I just was reading someone talking about how banishment wrecks battles for other reasons and it was the first spell that came to my mind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
b. Yes, you are correct. Once players reach mid-level, outside of warlock spell slots, and maybe a few other select things (like Sorcerer metamagic points) resource limitations are not really an issue in-game.
An 11th level wizard who gets into 6 encounters per day is going to spend his spells differently than if he gets into 1. My point was that it's hard to force PCs to go through six encounters per day if they don't want to (you can do it, sometimes, but it takes forcing and is weird more often than not).
I think we are in agreement. IF a wizard truly was facing the "recommended" 6-8 encounters a day, then yes, said wizard would indeed be facing resource issues. But like you said, you have to do some serious railroading to get 6-8 encounters in a day, and that almost always means Short Rests are never completed before a wandering monster shows up.
The more I think about this, the game mechanics/ resources have to be dramatically altered to ensure resource management actually centred on 3-4 encounters a day. For starters, imagine telling all your full casters "uh, folks, cut your spell slots in half, or more." If and when Covid ends, I am seriously tempted to set up a campaign that gametests such dramatic changes.
You know it would be interesting to try a rule that says, rather than you can only take one long rest per day, that you can't take a long rest until you have gone through at least 6 encounters. I'm not sure how exactly one would realize that in-game (as you'd get into issues like, do we count the trap that the rogue disarmed as an encounter?), and I am not sure how you would explain it in-character. But it would certainly solve the problem, assuming we think there is one. (And I do.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I find it entertaining that people ***** and moan about a problem, then when the problem is "fixed" to their satisfaction, the game becomes too easy.
And then they complain about that!
Yup.
I have a friend who wants "challenging fights" in RPGs and applauds when they happen. "More fights should be like this," he'd say.
Then he's the first one to whip out the save-or-suck mechanic like Banishment against the BBEG.
Well then, no time like the present to equip the BBEG with Counterspell or legendary resistance :)
You can have BBEGs without legendary actions (replace with minions) or lair actions (likewise) but no legendary resistance = no true BBEG fight.
I mean - I kinda understand it. I want challenging fights as well but I also want all the best tools at my disposal to fight them. I don't want to gimp myself unnecessarily but I also don't want the BBEG to roll over and die like a whimp. I want to be able to land a dominate monster or hold monster or feeblemind on the BBEG but I want to coordinate with my team to burn through their legendary saves and I expect some minions to try to break my concentration in case I manage to land something. In my case launching a save or suck spell would be like, dunno, Neo doing the "come at me" gesture in Matrix.
After all, to paraphrase Xykon from Order of the Stick: "power is something you are, not something you put on like a mantle. If you can lose it by blowing a single save then you never had power in the first place".
It seems to be historical, they made similar assumptions in 3rd edition (where people didn't actually play that way) and 4th edition (where people didn't actually play that way). 1e/2e didn't seem to concern themselves with what's an appropriate challenge.
There seems to be a general belief that D&D is supposed to be a resource management game. However, the evidence is that (a) players don't want to play resource management games, and (b) the game system doesn't have sufficient limitations to force them to do so.
The game is indeed designed to be a resource management game. Ask any low level spell caster, or any level Warlock, that question.
With regard to:
a. I can't say players don't want to play that way. I think some enjoy the challenge.
b. Yes, you are correct. Once players reach mid-level, outside of warlock spell slots, and maybe a few other select things (like Sorcerer metamagic points) resource limitations are not really an issue in-game.
An 11th level wizard who gets into 6 encounters per day is going to spend his spells differently than if he gets into 1. My point was that it's hard to force PCs to go through six encounters per day if they don't want to (you can do it, sometimes, but it takes forcing and is weird more often than not).
I answered the fourth option on the poll, and was surprised with how many had voted the same! I like how most basic NPC's are far *below* the average adventurer in CR, representing that adventurers have special and unique skill sets in the world that are uncommon. But humanoid monsters, they should be tough, for where there is no challenge, there is no legend.
💙🤍~*Ravenclaw*~ 🔮
The point is actually that NPCs are more powerful than monsters of nominally equal CR.
And on that thought....
I think it should stay as it is. If the creatures of matching CR didn't overpower the monsters, than the monsters would rule over the world of human civilization unchallenged; but...I can see where this is still good grounds for discussion!
💙🤍~*Ravenclaw*~ 🔮
We didn't mind it back in the day. But I think many players (and DMs) are so used to video games now, where resources come back in minutes or less, that they have no interest in playing the resource management game.
Heck in City of Heroes, people complained about Endurance, which comes back in between battles, just because they didn't like to manage it in a single battle. They wanted to be able to fire all powers, whenever they wished, as many times as they wished, and not have to think about Endurance. To aid them with this, nearly everyone took Stamina, a pool power that was accessible to all PCs of all origins and archetypes, and then enhanced it with 6 "endurance modification" enhancers to triple the endurance recovery it gave them. This was done by so many people that the devs eventually gave up and just gave stamina to all characters for free, essentially removing the vast majority of within-battle resource management from the game.
So if players can't deal with managing endurance in a battle, there's no question they won't want to have to manage their skills and abilities over a longer time span.
There is another problem though... one thing some players complain about is that D&D battles that seem like a hard or even deadly fight are often "too easy." Well, that is a consequence of not wanting to play the resource management game. If you can do an alpha strike in every battle, there is no way a "matched enemy" can survive even a couple of rounds. It's like playing a video game on the "easy" setting.
BTW this was an issue in COH as well -- the game became too easy. They had to give people the option to bump the difficulty up just to keep it challenging.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I find it entertaining that people ***** and moan about a problem, then when the problem is "fixed" to their satisfaction, the game becomes too easy.
And then they complain about that!
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
There's an easy change for that: rather than a fairly large pool of resources that refresh daily, have a much smaller pool of resources that refresh faster. Basically turn all spellcasters into warlocks (or some other similar model).
This^^^
That’s exactly why I do various things specifically to make the game harder. Combat is already
almosttoo easy in 5e. I know how dissatisfied I get as a player when the risk and difficulty is taken out of a game. I know can take steps to add tension and drama back to combat so players don’t feel like it’s easy mode.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yup.
I have a friend who wants "challenging fights" in RPGs and applauds when they happen. "More fights should be like this," he'd say.
Then he's the first one to whip out the save-or-suck mechanic like Banishment against the BBEG.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
"I want hard fights" and "I will grab every advantage I can get to win" are consistent beliefs -- it means someone who is interested in system mastery, and wants to prove their mastery against the hardest stuff.
Sure but if the save-or-suck against the single boss monster works, and the battle is over in one round... it's not very challenging. I mean, it is for 10 seconds while he decides to use the uber-attack, but as soon as the BBEG fails the save and is now held for the duration while the team pounds on him for 3 rounds until his hp hit zero, what is hard about that?
I'm not convinced that what is essentially an "I win!" button indicates "system mastery." Unless you consider "knowing when to press the 'I win!' button" to be mastery of something. That's like saying I was "good at playing Doom II" because I knew when to use the "IDBeholdYou" god-mode cheat to avoid the things I couldn't beat any other way.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Reading these posts I am reminded of when Innigo was explaining to Vizzini why he had to start off left handed in his upcoming duel against the Man in Black so it wouldn’t be over to quickly.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But Banishment doesn't kill or immobilize anything.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Banishment isn't save or suck. It's temporarily remove an enemy from combat. You can't attack a banished target.
Fine pick another save-or-suck spell. I just was reading someone talking about how banishment wrecks battles for other reasons and it was the first spell that came to my mind.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think we are in agreement. IF a wizard truly was facing the "recommended" 6-8 encounters a day, then yes, said wizard would indeed be facing resource issues. But like you said, you have to do some serious railroading to get 6-8 encounters in a day, and that almost always means Short Rests are never completed before a wandering monster shows up.
The more I think about this, the game mechanics/ resources have to be dramatically altered to ensure resource management actually centred on 3-4 encounters a day. For starters, imagine telling all your full casters "uh, folks, cut your spell slots in half, or more." If and when Covid ends, I am seriously tempted to set up a campaign that gametests such dramatic changes.
You know it would be interesting to try a rule that says, rather than you can only take one long rest per day, that you can't take a long rest until you have gone through at least 6 encounters. I'm not sure how exactly one would realize that in-game (as you'd get into issues like, do we count the trap that the rogue disarmed as an encounter?), and I am not sure how you would explain it in-character. But it would certainly solve the problem, assuming we think there is one. (And I do.)
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Well then, no time like the present to equip the BBEG with Counterspell or legendary resistance :)
You can have BBEGs without legendary actions (replace with minions) or lair actions (likewise) but no legendary resistance = no true BBEG fight.
I mean - I kinda understand it. I want challenging fights as well but I also want all the best tools at my disposal to fight them. I don't want to gimp myself unnecessarily but I also don't want the BBEG to roll over and die like a whimp. I want to be able to land a dominate monster or hold monster or feeblemind on the BBEG but I want to coordinate with my team to burn through their legendary saves and I expect some minions to try to break my concentration in case I manage to land something. In my case launching a save or suck spell would be like, dunno, Neo doing the "come at me" gesture in Matrix.
After all, to paraphrase Xykon from Order of the Stick: "power is something you are, not something you put on like a mantle. If you can lose it by blowing a single save then you never had power in the first place".