Some groups, like my own, get the most enjoyment out of milking every last bit of damage or utility out of their characters
If you aren't designing to the guidlines of lets say 20 rounds of combat (they are doing the adventureing day as number of rounds) then you aren't milking the most damage or utility out of the characters. you are setting up chump fights for them to be able to bowl over no problem. If they don't care about stories then yeah just throw 20 round fights at them. You just said yourself no one cares about there being a story. So don't have any stories make it arena games. Just one long fight after another. bet on a number of rounds you think your monsters will last and then send them at the party. If they botch and it takes longer than the adventuring day then the non vancian's get to shine.
Do you not see how that is bad class design? A class should be balanced irrespective of the DM's encounter design. How well a class performs in an adventure should be directly tied to how well a player plays and how well they improvise.
Vancian spellcasting puts the burden of wrangling the Wizard's power on the DM. The DM can't just open a MM, find an interesting monster and toss it into a game. Currently, DMs are forced to look at how it fits into the overall Adventure Day and judge how many rounds and what sort of firepower our party will likely expend to defeat it. This inherently puts a large amount of undue focus on the players of vancian casters for no other reason than they picked a Wizard.
It is an unnecessary burden on the DM. The Wizard should come pre-wrangled, so to speak. The core mechanics need to be balanced first and foremost on an encounter level. I'm not against the DM putting in work for the sake of his players, I am against putting in work for a fault in class design and balance simply because people like their Wizards to be demi-gods and their Fighters to be XP and Loot sponges.
Take away the ability for them to long rest between encounters until you say it is okay. Also specifically by taking the story repurcussions and story influences you do in fact void more than half the rules and purposes of the game. The math doesn't hold up because you are ignoring half of the games mechanics.
Oh. So we're playing the game wrong? Good on'ya.
Awesome post. You got it exactly right and I agree completely.
If you aren't designing to the guidlines of lets say 20 rounds of combat (they are doing the adventureing day as number of rounds) then you aren't milking the most damage or utility out of the characters. you are setting up chump fights for them to
For me, I can see two problems with this scenario: 1) If the wizard was wrong about their being a tough "end battle" then he didn't really need to be holding back as much as was and he feels bad about that (especially if he felt the DM was being tricky on purpose).
2) That many daily spells spent so quickly could transform what was supposed to be a challenging end battle into a cake-walk, removing any sense of challenge the other members of the party were meant to feel.
In the event of number 1: the player with the wizard learns.
What exactly does he learn? No really, you even talk about how the DM should be tricky and vary how he designs his challenges so the party doesn't always know when the "big" fights are going to come up. So at any time, the wizard could decide that this fight is the super-dangerous one, the one that requires the most spells. And if he guesses wrong, well, hopefully he'll learn for the next time. And if he guesses wrong over and over again, getting more and more frustrated each time, well, that's just too bad for him.
I suppose he could learn that "saving" his spells is a bad idea, but what are his real alternatives? Maybe that player simply decides that instead of "guessing" or trying to outwit the DM, who could change things on the fly no matter what, he'll just nova every encounter or every other encounter and hope for an extended rest. Or maybe, he tries to metagame every fight and uses only the appropriate number of spell power in that fight. Neither of these options are especially appealing (novas or metagaming).
in the event of number 2: the other players had very fun challenging fights already and likely shone through them. The wizard's just been biding his time for a moment to shine, and that is totally cool.
Did they? Was the wizard's non-participation so large an effect that the other players felt happy for the fun challenging fight? Two things to consider is that the wizard is still participating, he'll still be using his at-will spells, and will the rest of the party be "grateful" for the situation, especially if they are sitting there asking their wizard pal to cast some real spells and he just says "no guys, and waiting for a bigger fight". Also, I don't really the idea of the dynamic where the wizard gets to decide and say "hey guys, I'm choosing to hole back so I'll let you all shine here," that just doesn't sit right.
No, to some people daily resources are the fun part of the game. Removing the daily resources alienates those players. Some may stick around, but others won't want to play it at all because there are no daily resources.
Some people may have thought Thaco calculations were a fun part of the game and removing it probably alienated some of those players. Frankly, that's just too bad. The game should have good mechanics that "feel" right to as many people as possible. D&D 5e would have been better served with finding a mechanic that felt like the old Vancian system without having to return to daily resource focused classes.
In the event of number 1: the player with the wizard learns.[/quote]What exactly does he learn? No really, you even talk about how the DM should be tricky and vary how he designs his challenges so the party doesn't always know when the "big" fights a
IIRC, 4e would have originally had Recharge powers instead of Daily powers, which IMO could have fixed up things nicely.
Don't know if that was initially intended to be, but that's exactly what I'm planning to playtest with my group soon. Here is the idea: 1) Characters start the day with no 'daiily' available. 2) Each round of combat (or anytime there is a dangerous/tense event) they roll a dice to see if they manage to charge up a 'daily'. 3) They can decide to spend the daily immediately or hold it. 4) Charged up unexpended dailies last till the end of the next extended rest, where all falls back to 0.
So you get resources management AND incentive to carry on. And nothing has changed for those who still prefer the vancian method instead.
And when the party rested right before a big boss fight they are screwed because they can't possibly use their best powers. Probably too busy wiping the sleep out of their eyes I suppose.
See, took me less than a minute to find the flaw in your new "rule."
Don't know if that was initially intended to be, but that's exactly what I'm planning to playtest with my group soon. Here is the idea: 1) Characters start the day with no 'daiily' available. 2) Each round of combat (or anytime there is a dangerous/t
Well, there's 300+ posts shooting holes through your beloved Vancian system, so I guess it's only fair that someone give you an easy target.
It's not my system, but it does just so happen to be the system of D&D Next. Given that and 33 years of experience the solution is simple. Choose not to have 5MWDs.
My point is that all "rules" have flaws, loopholes, or can be exploited. Rather than substitute this rule with another that will be just as easily picked apart, why not do the only thing that will work flawlessly? Choose not to have 5MWDs. Talk about it with your group and make sure everybody is on board. It should be easy to do since working 5 minutes, and resting for 32 hours and repeating over and over again is absurd. Most people will realize that and agree. Those that don't can try a non-Vancian caster, or if dissatisfied will move on to find another group, or another game. The only thing that works given that Vancian is in is advice to not fall into the 5MWD trap.
It's not my system, but it does just so happen to be the system of D&D Next. Given that and 33 years of experience the solution is simple. Choose not to have 5MWDs.My point is that all "rules" have flaws, loopholes, or can be exploited. Rather tha
Leave it be swmabie, and let Kalex waddle in his own realm of "THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM". Do instead focus on other people willing and most of all capableof accepting there is a problem.
Circular Argument is Circular.Leave it be swmabie, and let Kalex waddle in his own realm of "THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM". Do instead focus on other people willing and most of all capableof accepting there is a problem
Leave it be swmabie, and let Kalex waddle in his own realm of "THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM". Do instead focus on other people willing and most of all capableof accepting there is a problem.
I think you guys are the ones in denial. Vancian is in. Mike Mearls has said it is non-negotiable. Deal with it, or move on.
I think you guys are the ones in denial. Vancian is in. Mike Mearls has said it is non-negotiable. Deal with it, or move on.
Given that in D&D the rules represent reality, and that reality is the one the character's are working under, it is a completely reasonable course of action.
If I'm going out and fighting monsters every day, I'm damn sure going to want my magical missile launcher fully loaded as often as possible.
This is exactly what any military in a Vancian setting would be doing once they figured out the way their universe worked.
Only in a world which contrivance is common place (i.e. - DM fiated) is such a thing even possible. In a real living, breathing world characters would virtually never be afforded the luxury of time that being at full strength all the time requires. It is therefore far more reasonable to hoard and judiciously expend resources than blow them all at once.
really, its quite the opposite. Only in contrived ADVENTURE 24/7, 365! world do you have to live in constant fear of d6 tarrasques teleporting in while you're on the john on the one day a year you loaded some non-combat spells. Real, organic games have breaks in the action. During those breaks, the casters get to rule with an iron bathrobe, because in those few weeks of downtime, they get to break the laws of reality x times a day, for y days.
Only in a world which contrivance is common place (i.e. - DM fiated) is such a thing even possible. In a real living, breathing world characters would virtually never be afforded the luxury of time that being at full strength all the time requires.
But it's not about being a ****. The 5MWD is incredibly reasonable on paper, since doing it vastly improves the groups chances of survival. Someone being a **** would be pishing us to go on while the rest of the party is out of spells, out of healing, and possibly low on health while he's all fine because he's all at-will.
You continually novaing and ruining the game for everyone is the problem. hold the spells for longer. Use them when they are actually necesarry. Don't drop the fireball unless there is a large group of enemies that can't be killed easily (don't blow a daily resource just to clear minions). Don't use a single target killer when your fighting multiple nearly minion level threats. The 5MWD only seems reasonable when there are 0 consequences for your actions. In a world with consequences for actions (or in your case inaction) the 5MWD is not a reasonable solution to anything really.
We take a week off from a dungeon. Or a month to build some holdings. Or live in some non window licking game where its not non-stop action and we rocket to 20 in 2 weeks in-game time on a quest to save the multi-verse. Hope you went before we left the inn, because there's no stopping for potty break on this rail road!
Each day off, the caster "plot novas" with risk free non-com spells. Combat is the least problematic of the 5MWD issues. You can solve that by slapping multi round cast times on daily spells, so its not "FIREBALL! FINGER OF DEATH! BLARGH!" for the first 3 rounds of a battle while the fighter goes "whee! I get to poke it with a stick for d2-1 damage for 3 rounds! If there were eleventy fight rounds in a day, I could actually catch up in theoryland!"
You continually novaing and ruining the game for everyone is the problem. hold the spells for longer. Use them when they are actually necesarry. Don't drop the fireball unless there is a large group of enemies that can't be killed easily (don't bl
Leave it be swmabie, and let Kalex waddle in his own realm of "THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM". Do instead focus on other people willing and most of all capableof accepting there is a problem.
I think you guys are the ones in denial. Vancian is in. Mike Mearls has said it is non-negotiable. Deal with it, or move on.
I have yet to see anyone claim Vancian is not in D&DNext. Where did you even get the idea anyone said so?
We just don't want Vancian to keep the same problems it had in past ediions.
I think you guys are the ones in denial. Vancian is in. Mike Mearls has said it is non-negotiable. Deal with it, or move on.[/quote]I have yet to see anyone claim Vancian is not in D&DNext. Where did you even get the idea anyone said so?We just do
Leave it be swmabie, and let Kalex waddle in his own realm of "THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM". Do instead focus on other people willing and most of all capableof accepting there is a problem.
I think you guys are the ones in denial. Vancian is in. Mike Mearls has said it is non-negotiable. Deal with it, or move on.
I have yet to see anyone claim Vancian is not in D&DNext. Where did you even get the idea anyone said so?
We just don't want Vancian to keep the same problems it had in past ediions.
To be fair a lot of us do want the option to opt out of Vancian entirely because a lot of us feel that the very structure of Vancian casting makes balancing it against at-will classes (like the fighter) inherently problematic.
-Polaris
I think you guys are the ones in denial. Vancian is in. Mike Mearls has said it is non-negotiable. Deal with it, or move on.[/quote]I have yet to see anyone claim Vancian is not in D&DNext. Where did you even get the idea anyone said so?We just do
A simple two-for-one "buy-up" system would help. If a level-5 wizard could convert 4/3/2 into 0/1/4 (trading his four L1s for two L2s, then trading four of his now five L2s for two more L3s), then he could nova four times instead of nova twice, smaller nova thrice, then four Burning Hands, then beg for a rest. Conversely, he could 'buy-down' to 18/0/0 and Burning Hands all damn day (or most of it).
Or it would make things worse. I don't know.
A simple two-for-one "buy-up" system would help.If a level-5 wizard could convert 4/3/2 into 0/1/4 (trading his four L1s for two L2s, then trading four of his now five L2s for two more L3s), then he could nova four times instead of nova twice, smalle
Leave it be swmabie, and let Kalex waddle in his own realm of "THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE IS NO PROBLEM". Do instead focus on other people willing and most of all capableof accepting there is a problem.
I think you guys are the ones in denial. Vancian is in. Mike Mearls has said it is non-negotiable. Deal with it, or move on.
I have yet to see anyone claim Vancian is not in D&DNext. Where did you even get the idea anyone said so?
We just don't want Vancian to keep the same problems it had in past ediions.
To be fair a lot of us do want the option to opt out of Vancian entirely because a lot of us feel that the very structure of Vancian casting makes balancing it against at-will classes (like the fighter) inherently problematic.
-Polaris
Opt out, yes, udnerstandable. I'm just curious where people are claiming Vancian isn't in D&D NExt.
I think you guys are the ones in denial. Vancian is in. Mike Mearls has said it is non-negotiable. Deal with it, or move on.[/quote]I have yet to see anyone claim Vancian is not in D&DNext. Where did you even get the idea anyone said so?We just do
To be fair a lot of us do want the option to opt out of Vancian entirely because a lot of us feel that the very structure of Vancian casting makes balancing it against at-will classes (like the fighter) inherently problematic.
Although class balance is only one of the many problems that have been pointed out throughout this thread. Perhaps it should also be pointed out that we most certainly will have the option to opt out of Vancian - it's called 13th Age. Unless you specifically meant an option that isn't the "nuclear option".
Although class balance is only one of the many problems that have been pointed out throughout this thread. Perhaps it should also be pointed out that we most certainly will have the option to opt out of Vancian - it's called 13th Age. Unless you spec
A simple two-for-one "buy-up" system would help. If a level-5 wizard could convert 4/3/2 into 0/1/4 (trading his four L1s for two L2s, then trading four of his now five L2s for two more L3s), then he could nova four times instead of nova twice, smaller nova thrice, then four Burning Hands, then beg for a rest. Conversely, he could 'buy-down' to 18/0/0 and Burning Hands all damn day (or most of it).
Or it would make things worse. I don't know.
The L&L article said something about this (or something similar); doesn't look like it will apply to -all- spells, just the 'less useful' ones. But...then again, that's why they were 'encounter' powers I suppose.
Excuse me while I go take some Tums.
The L&L article said something about this (or something similar); doesn't look like it will apply to -all- spells, just the 'less useful' ones. But...then again, that's why they were 'encounter' powers I suppose.Excuse me while I go take some Tums.
But...then again, that's why they were 'encounter' powers I suppose.
No, not Encounter Powers. A simple buy-up/down for daily spells-per-level that lets the wizard (or cleric, or whoever) ditch lower-levels for more upper-level spells when something big is obviously coming up, or trade in upper levels when a long-haul delve would be served better by having a crapton low-level spells
No, not Encounter Powers. A simple buy-up/down for daily spells-per-level that lets the wizard (or cleric, or whoever) ditch lower-levels for more upper-level spells when something big is obviously coming up, or trade in upper levels when a long-hau
But...then again, that's why they were 'encounter' powers I suppose.
No, not Encounter Powers. A simple buy-up/down for daily spells-per-level that lets the wizard (or cleric, or whoever) ditch lower-levels for more upper-level spells when something big is obviously coming up, or trade in upper levels when a long-haul delve would be served better by having a crapton low-level spells
Ack! Sorry, I got proposed systems mixed up. My mistake, my apologies.
No, not Encounter Powers. A simple buy-up/down for daily spells-per-level that lets the wizard (or cleric, or whoever) ditch lower-levels for more upper-level spells when something big is obviously coming up, or trade in upper levels when a long-hau
So its agreed at some encounters per day Vancian matches with at-will class. Will call this X.
People who have no problem with vancian- Use Option A- vancian casting a la 3.5
People who have problems- Use Option B- Vancian powers recharge after X encounters.
IF you don't like recharge mechanic, use the other.
NOT DIFFICULT!!!
So its agreed at some encounters per day Vancian matches with at-will class. Will call this X.People who have no problem with vancian- Use Option A- vancian casting a la 3.5People who have problems- Use Option B- Vancian powers recharge after X encou
So its agreed at some encounters per day Vancian matches with at-will class. Will call this X.
People who have no problem with vancian- Use Option A- vancian casting a la 3.5
People who have problems- Use Option B- Vancian powers recharge after X encounters.
IF you don't like recharge mechanic, use the other.
NOT DIFFICULT!!!
Not difficult at all; not very useful either, mind you. What happens if you have only 1 or 2 encounters per day? Recharge mechanics aren't going to solve the problem; if anything they'd make it worse. The inescapable fact is that classes with dailies are going to be significantly overpowered in a low-combat campaign.
Not difficult at all; not very useful either, mind you. What happens if you have only 1 or 2 encounters per day? Recharge mechanics aren't going to solve the problem; if anything they'd make it worse. The inescapable fact is that classes with dailies
So its agreed at some encounters per day Vancian matches with at-will class. Will call this X.
People who have no problem with vancian- Use Option A- vancian casting a la 3.5
People who have problems- Use Option B- Vancian powers recharge after X encounters.
IF you don't like recharge mechanic, use the other.
NOT DIFFICULT!!!
Not difficult at all; not very useful either, mind you. What happens if you have only 1 or 2 encounters per day? Recharge mechanics aren't going to solve the problem; if anything they'd make it worse. The inescapable fact is that classes with dailies are going to be significantly overpowered in a low-combat campaign.
If you only have 1 or 2 encounters per day.... then you wait until you hit X encounters (lets say X=5) whether it takes 2 or 15 in game days.
Lemme explain.
SO if on day 1 you only have 2 encounters then rest. You rest, but don't regain any daily's or HD's from it. Its not until you hit X encounters that you regain your "daily" resources. Whether or not it takes 1 day to get to X encounters, or 15. No recharge until X encounters down.
Again---
NOT DIFFICULT!!!
EDIT
DID you mean 2 encounters that are supposed to be much more difficult as a "standard" encounter? if so I may have missed your point. Sorry bout that.
IF that's what you meant then adding an if an encounter is harder then the Standard, it can count as 2 or more.
Still, since both the rule I came up with, the more detailed explaination and the ancillitory rule to cover what I think you may have said took me 5 minutes in my armchair to come up with for free, well lets just say that Devs can do better then what we have now and my proposed option. In either case
NOT DIFFICULT!!!
Not difficult at all; not very useful either, mind you. What happens if you have only 1 or 2 encounters per day? Recharge mechanics aren't going to solve the problem; if anything they'd make it worse. The inescapable fact is that classes with dailies
Yes, the lines only cross in one place, but it isn't necessary to achieve perfect balance (nor is it possible without making all classes exactly the same).
Making everything the same isn't perfect balance, nor even balance, it's just a complete lack of choice - there's nothing /to/ balance. But...
Keeping with the math analogy of lines, all that needs to happen is for the slopes of the lines to get closer to 0. In other words, if the daily caster is crazy powerful compared to the non-caster on a day that doesn't have much combat, and the non-caster is crazy powerful on a day that has tons of combat, there is a problem. (This would be a graph with very steep lines).
An interesting way of visualizing it. If you graph the total 'power' (it could be damage output or something less easily quanitified, but just as a visualization or thought experiment, it's doable) on one axis and the round/day on another, you'd see a fairly consistent positive slope for the at-will-only class. Each round he uses an at-will power, and contributes about the same little bit to his total performance, so, the longer the day, the more he contributes. It would start low, and climb slowly.
The all-daily class, OTOH, would have a curve, that starts high, rises rapidly, and levels out, possibly to near 0-slope once all it's dailies have been expened, if it has no meaningful at-wills. That is, over a long enough day, his contribution maxes out at the total contributed by all of his spells.
An AEDU class would start between the other two, rise modestly, and top out with a positive slope, but with a little burst at each new encounter from encounter powers, so a sort of a 'step' pattern.
Now, if you divided total power by the total number of rounds, to get per-round power...
An at-will-only class would have the same contribution per round all day, so would be a flat line.
An encounter-resource-only class would oscilate in a sort of reverse-sawtooth wave with an amplitude based on the number of rounds/encounter, but with the trough never reaching 0.
A all-daily class would be a curve that starts high, drops to an inflection point (when it runs out of spells), and then approach zero asymptotically thereafter.
hm...
Making everything the same isn't perfect balance, nor even balance, it's just a complete lack of choice - there's nothing /to/ balance. But...An interesting way of visualizing it. If you graph the total 'power' (it could be damage output or someth
So the main problem is players that blow their dailies on the first encounter?
I still blame the DM, because he should teach them to save their strength later.
The wizard class is fine. DM can use wizards too, you know? Plus it's not that hard to drop a wizard.
In exchange for poor hit points and low AC, he get to use powerful spells that can change the battlefield.
If you ask me, I think the wizard should only 2 two dailies per battle, 1 if low level. Then the rest should be weaker spells. Any more then it's over kill.
The wizard job is to give support, not blow it all up. You only need to cast enough spells to tip the favor to your party. If it looks like you are winning, use weaker spells. If you are getting your ass kick, unleash the big guns.
That how a wizard should be played.
So the main problem is players that blow their dailies on the first encounter?I still blame the DM, because he should teach them to save their strength later. The wizard class is fine. DM can use wizards too, you know? Plus it's not that hard to drop
IIRC, 4e would have originally had Recharge powers instead of Daily powers, which IMO could have fixed up things nicely.
Don't know if that was initially intended to be, but that's exactly what I'm planning to playtest with my group soon. Here is the idea: 1) Characters start the day with no 'daiily' available. 2) Each round of combat (or anytime there is a dangerous/tense event) they roll a dice to see if they manage to charge up a 'daily'. 3) They can decide to spend the daily immediately or hold it. 4) Charged up unexpended dailies last till the end of the next extended rest, where all falls back to 0.
So you get resources management AND incentive to carry on. And nothing has changed for those who still prefer the vancian method instead.
And when the party rested right before a big boss fight they are screwed because they can't possibly use their best powers. Probably too busy wiping the sleep out of their eyes I suppose.
See, took me less than a minute to find the flaw in your new "rule."
You are missing some points: a) at the beginning of the day the characters have full HP/HD/Surges... This makes up for their 'low power' level b) they can charge up their powers during the encounter itself (which is likely to be rather long in the case of a boss fight)
See? You have two daily resources: power and stamina. The first tendentially goes up during the day, the second goes down. The tension between the two creates a tactical dilemma for the party between pushing on and resting. I don't expect you to like this system but it is functional and mathematically solid. It's just to show that there are many alternative solutions which do without the 5MWD and problems related to daily resources.
Don't know if that was initially intended to be, but that's exactly what I'm planning to playtest with my group soon. Here is the idea: 1) Characters start the day with no 'daiily' available. 2) Each round of combat (or anytime there is a dangerous/t
I don't see why I should be considered a **** for going with the most reasonable course of action.
Because it isn't the most reasonable course of action. It is the most ridiculous course of action.
If it is the most effective and efficient way of dealing with the threat, at a minimal loss of life and resources it is NOT 'ridiculous', it's the ONLY way to go. And the wizard blowing his wad, then resting for the rest of the day, saves resources, like Hit Points. And Healing Spells.
Vancian spell casting is a hold over from D&D's wargaming roots.
But it's a problem, because it's not always fun for everyone. Not only does it put all the onus on the Wizard, it devalues the game, turning it into the 'Casters and Caddies' that some of us hated. In fact, we hated it so much that when WoTC did surveys as to what we players wanted gone and/or changed for 4e, the Vancian system was near the top of the list!
Maybe that should tell you something?
Because it isn't the most reasonable course of action. It is the most ridiculous course of action.[/quote]If it is the most effective and efficient way of dealing with the threat, at a minimal loss of life and resources it is NOT 'ridiculous', it's
really, its quite the opposite. Only in contrived ADVENTURE 24/7, 365! world do you have to live in constant fear of d6 tarrasques teleporting in while you're on the john on the one day a year you loaded some non-combat spells. Real, organic games have breaks in the action. During those breaks, the casters get to rule with an iron bathrobe, because in those few weeks of downtime, they get to break the laws of reality x times a day, for y days.
Hello straw man, very nice to meet you! I never said this was 24x7x365. Of course there is downtime between dungeon crawls, and some adventures take place in town involving intrigue instead of traditional room by room dungeon crawls. In those instances my adventures are usually event based instead of location based and I design encounters accordingly, knowing the approximate time between events.
Also when characters are in either type of situation it is possible to be disrupted during a rest. In a dungeon setting it is akin to being behind enenmy lines. How many novels about being trapped behind enemy lines does the soldier have a restful, peaceful night's sleep? Never? Rarely? In a town event based scenario things can still happen, albiet rarely, that keep the party from it's rest. Never in my 33 years DMing have I "teleported" tarrasques (a singlular creature by the way) into the john.
Hello straw man, very nice to meet you! I never said this was 24x7x365. Of course there is downtime between dungeon crawls, and some adventures take place in town involving intrigue instead of traditional room by room dungeon crawls. In those inst
I have yet to see anyone claim Vancian is not in D&DNext. Where did you even get the idea anyone said so?
We just don't want Vancian to keep the same problems it had in past ediions.
Several people are talking like they can convince the devs to drop it. Isn't going to happen, though I do note that the default now (with packet two) seems to be 4e's AEDU with the introduction of spells recoverable with a short rest. So we have at-wills, encounter spells, daily spells, and rituals.
Several people are talking like they can convince the devs to drop it. Isn't going to happen, though I do note that the default now (with packet two) seems to be 4e's AEDU with the introduction of spells recoverable with a short rest. So we have at
You are missing some points: a) at the beginning of the day the characters have full HP/HD/Surges... This makes up for their 'low power' level b) they can charge up their powers during the encounter itself (which is likely to be rather long in the case of a boss fight)
See? You have two daily resources: power and stamina. The first tendentially goes up during the day, the second goes down. The tension between the two creates a tactical dilemma for the party between pushing on and resting. I don't expect you to like this system but it is functional and mathematically solid. It's just to show that there are many alternative solutions which do without the 5MWD and problems related to daily resources.
No, it still doesn't make any sense unless you are in a Dragonball Z universe. So when the party is refreshed, and just ate their Wheaties, they can't do anything powerful until they charge their mystic ki batteries through combat. Sounds far more stupid than memorizing fire and forget spells.
No, it just shows that all rules have flaws and one is no better than the other. In each situation you have to have the same sit down conversation with you players. In one you all agree not to do 5MWDs, in the other you find out who is playing Goku and who is playing Vegeta and you explain that they can't do anything powerful even when full rested and refreshed.
No, it still doesn't make any sense unless you are in a Dragonball Z universe. So when the party is refreshed, and just ate their Wheaties, they can't do anything powerful until they charge their mystic ki batteries through combat. Sounds far more
If it is the most effective and efficient way of dealing with the threat, at a minimal loss of life and resources it is NOT 'ridiculous', it's the ONLY way to go. And the wizard blowing his wad, then resting for the rest of the day, saves resources, like Hit Points. And Healing Spells.
Vancian spell casting is a hold over from D&D's wargaming roots.
But it's a problem, because it's not always fun for everyone. Not only does it put all the onus on the Wizard, it devalues the game, turning it into the 'Casters and Caddies' that some of us hated. In fact, we hated it so much that when WoTC did surveys as to what we players wanted gone and/or changed for 4e, the Vancian system was near the top of the list!
Maybe that should tell you something?
Except it isn't saving resources it is blowing them all at once. Hoarding them, and judiciously only using what is absolutely necessary to defeat challenges is exactly the ONLY way to go. Thanks for making my point for me.
Yeah I was just thinking how cool it was that Hanabal's elephant riders could cast fire and forget spells. Vancian casting is a hold over from D&D for 40 years. It never appeared in wargaming. LOL
So play a different game. Seriously have you been playing a game you hate for 40 years?? I think that is the definition of insane.
Except it isn't saving resources it is blowing them all at once. Hoarding them, and judiciously only using what is absolutely necessary to defeat challenges is exactly the ONLY way to go. Thanks for making my point for me.Yeah I was just thinking h
No, it still doesn't make any sense unless you are in a Dragonball Z universe. So when the party is refreshed, and just ate their Wheaties, they can't do anything powerful until they charge their mystic ki batteries through combat. Sounds far more stupid than memorizing fire and forget spells.
No, it just shows that all rules have flaws and one is no better than the other. In each situation you have to have the same sit down conversation with you players. In one you all agree not to do 5MWDs, in the other you find out who is playing Goku and who is playing Vegeta and you explain that they can't do anything powerful even when full rested and refreshed.
So basically you just don't like it very much. I'm fine with that, you don't have to use it.
And by the way the characters can still do cool stuff with at-wills and encounters. But for the amazing stuff they'll have to sweat a bit more.
Edit: there is a fundamental difference between asking people to agree on a rule and asking them to agree on a bahaviour to keep.
So basically you just don't like it very much. I'm fine with that, you don't have to use it.And by the way the characters can still do cool stuff with at-wills and encounters. But for the amazing stuff they'll have to sweat a bit more. Edit: there i
So play a different game. Seriously have you been playing a game you hate for 40 years?? I think that is the definition of insane.
D&D is defined by more than just Vancian casting and it is a feature that I and others do not especially like and would like to see changed.
At this point, I think the biggest issue is daily resource based classes being only a subset of classes, instead of all classes being daily resource based or no classes being daily resource based.
D&D is defined by more than just Vancian casting and it is a feature that I and others do not especially like and would like to see changed.At this point, I think the biggest issue is daily resource based classes being only a subset of classes, inste
Vancian spellcasting puts the burden of wrangling the Wizard's power on the DM. The DM can't just open a MM, find an interesting monster and toss it into a game.
I was going to rag on you for basically saying the game should work even if you design half of it, the story and the encounters, to not work correctly. Because that makes no sense in the slightest.
Are you intentionally being obtuse? Do you not see how, even in story heavy games, the shared narrative of the group will occasionally require a single encounter adventure day? In fact, some narratives and groups will be dominated by those types of adventure days. All I was saying was that in my specific group, the concern over novas isn't one of narration. We are concerned about the encounter by encounter balance.
And as a DM, being tied to the Adventure day is extremely limiting in how I can approach session design.
Instead I'm going to just hit this piece right here. That is entirely How I DM'd my Play Test I looked in the beastiary saw monsters that worked then threw them at the party. I had to do like 5-8 seconds of math in my head then threw the monsters at the party. No fuss no muss the encounters were challenging and there was no 5MWD issues.
Lets see how the next round goes.
At low levels, certainly. But once your Wizard has upwards of 20 spell slots, come back again and tell me how that panned out.
PS: I'm really beginning to wonder how much time Vancian advocates have spent playing in the level 15 to 20 zone in 3.X.
I was going to rag on you for basically saying the game should work even if you design half of it, the story and the encounters, to not work correctly. Because that makes no sense in the slightest.[/quote]Are you intentionally being obtuse? Do you n
So play a different game. Seriously have you been playing a game you hate for 40 years?? I think that is the definition of insane.
D&D is defined by more than just Vancian casting and it is a feature that I and others do not especially like and would like to see changed.
At this point, I think the biggest issue is daily resource based classes being only a subset of classes, instead of all classes being daily resource based or no classes being daily resource based.
This.
I also have a problem with Wizards being a key that fits every lock, but that is more of a spell list problem.
D&D is defined by more than just Vancian casting and it is a feature that I and others do not especially like and would like to see changed.At this point, I think the biggest issue is daily resource based classes being only a subset of classes, inste
So play a different game. Seriously have you been playing a game you hate for 40 years?? I think that is the definition of insane.
D&D is defined by more than just Vancian casting and it is a feature that I and others do not especially like and would like to see changed.
At this point, I think the biggest issue is daily resource based classes being only a subset of classes, instead of all classes being daily resource based or no classes being daily resource based.
If all are daily resource based you have 4e. No reason for Next. If none do, you still loose the very people WotC is trying to bring back into the fold. Daily Vancian is the deal breaker for a large, even perhaps a mjaority of the people WotC is trying to reclaim with Next. Mike's own words in this week's L&L about healing being the biggest issue they are seeing seems to prove that Vancian casting and daily resources is not as big an issue as you seem to think. I don't see that changing significantly over the development cycle.
BTW, I am not a AD&D grognard, or a 4evenger. I've played every edition of D&D since 1979 and enjoyed them. I have pretty much never encountered the seemingly all consuming problem of the 5MWD in spite of playing with dozens of different groups over the years precisely because I identified it early and created a culture at my table where it was unacceptable. With guidelines for DMs on how to do this very thing in Next that same feat can be accomplished by anyone who might pick up the rule books without significantly changing the game.
D&D is defined by more than just Vancian casting and it is a feature that I and others do not especially like and would like to see changed.At this point, I think the biggest issue is daily resource based classes being only a subset of classes, inste
Edit: there is a fundamental difference between asking people to agree on a rule and asking them to agree on a bahaviour to keep.
Not really, and if it makes you feel better frame it as a rule.
It's like playing tennis with a net in the middle of the court or without it, but with the gentlemen's agreement between players of 'let's not hit the ball too low'. I prefer having the net so I can focus on playing the game, but if someone else finds it unpleasant they can just take it off.
Not really, and if it makes you feel better frame it as a rule.[/quote]It's like playing tennis with a net in the middle of the court or without it, but with the gentlemen's agreement between players of 'let's not hit the ball too low'. I prefer hav
Vancian spellcasting including at-will would work perfectly fine, even from a "single encounter day" perspective, with a limit to the number of dailies usable during a period.
Something like a maximum of total spell levels used equal to caster level within one minute of the first spell cast. It can be justified by the stress put on the caster.
Vancian spellcasting including at-will would work perfectly fine, even from a "single encounter day" perspective, with a limit to the number of dailies usable during a period.Something like a maximum of total spell levels used equal to caster level w
I have yet to see anyone claim Vancian is not in D&DNext. Where did you even get the idea anyone said so?
We just don't want Vancian to keep the same problems it had in past ediions.
Several people are talking like they can convince the devs to drop it. Isn't going to happen, though I do note that the default now (with packet two) seems to be 4e's AEDU with the introduction of spells recoverable with a short rest. So we have at-wills, encounter spells, daily spells, and rituals.
I have no idea what site you see this at, because I've never seen that here. I see plenty of people arguing for ALTERNATIVES to Vancian casting, but no one actually believeing it's not going to be in.
Several people are talking like they can convince the devs to drop it. Isn't going to happen, though I do note that the default now (with packet two) seems to be 4e's AEDU with the introduction of spells recoverable with a short rest. So we have at
Vancian spellcasting including at-will would work perfectly fine, even from a "single encounter day" perspective, with a limit to the number of dailies usable during a period.
Something like a maximum of total spell levels used equal to caster level within one minute of the first spell cast. It can be justified by the stress put on the caster.
Have you actually looked at the spells yet? They're the weakest they've ever been (and no, that's not a complaint). You're drawing conclusions from a time where spells were completely different in most ways.
Have you actually looked at the spells yet? They're the weakest they've ever been (and no, that's not a complaint). You're drawing conclusions from a time where spells were completely different in most ways.
So the main problem is players that blow their dailies on the first encounter?
For the nth time, no.
The main problem of the 5mwd is system that over-rewards one way of playing, thus making others sub-optimal. That problem is compounded if the system gives that excessive reward to some classes and not others.
I still blame the DM, because he should teach them to save their strength later.
"Everyone should play the game the exact same way." Is not much of a solution. More so than ever with 5e, which is supposedly trying to be more flexible.
If you ask me, I think the wizard should only 2 two dailies per battle, 1 if low level. Then the rest should be weaker spells. Any more then it's over kill.
Put in some mechanics to model that and you might be onto something. But that's not what the mechanics have made the optimal approach in the past. The optimal strategy is limit yourself to one important battle per day, and overwhelm the enemy with your biggest guns, fast. That's a consequence of the mechanics, most particularly Vancian casting (but, also AEDU, because of the 'D').
The wizard job is to give support, not blow it all up.
Then the magic system needs to reflect that, rather than over-rewarding the nova and 5mwd.
That how a wizard should be played.
We already got that you believe everyone should play the way you do. Hopefully, WotC is honest in their proffessed belief to the contrary.
I have yet to see anyone claim Vancian is not in D&DNext. Where did you even get the idea anyone said so?
Several people are talking like they can convince the devs to drop it. Isn't going to happen.
I have no idea what site you see this at, because I've never seen that here. I see plenty of people arguing for ALTERNATIVES to Vancian casting, but no one actually believeing it's not going to be in.
Even the most strident opponents of Vancian casting realize that the devs are absolutely committed to the huge mistake of bringing it back. At best, they can hope that sufficient repetitions of the systems well-known, extreme, and utterly intractable flaws, might have some small chance of convincing the devs to make Vancian extricable from core as some sort of practical options requiring less effort than outrigh re-writing the entire game. That is a tiny, forlorn hope, but a few may cling to it for some time yet.
For the nth time, no.The main problem of the 5mwd is system that over-rewards one way of playing, thus making others sub-optimal. That problem is compounded if the system gives that excessive reward to some classes and not others."Everyone should
Vancian spellcasting including at-will would work perfectly fine, even from a "single encounter day" perspective, with a limit to the number of dailies usable during a period.
Something like a maximum of total spell levels used equal to caster level within one minute of the first spell cast. It can be justified by the stress put on the caster.
Have you actually looked at the spells yet? They're the weakest they've ever been (and no, that's not a complaint). You're drawing conclusions from a time where spells were completely different in most ways.
I totally agree. I was assuming balancing at-will spells and dailies with the limit. Personally, I would leave the at-will as they are and increase the dailies effects.
Have you actually looked at the spells yet? They're the weakest they've ever been (and no, that's not a complaint). You're drawing conclusions from a time where spells were completely different in most ways.[/quote]I totally agree.I was assuming ba
Even the most strident opponents of Vancian casting realize that the devs are absolutely committed to the huge mistake of bringing it back. At best, they can hope that sufficient repetitions of the systems well-known, extreme, and utterly intractable flaws, might have some small chance of convincing the devs to make Vancian extricable from core as some sort of practical options requiring less effort than outrigh re-writing the entire game. That is a tiny, forlorn hope, but a few may cling to it for some time yet.
All you have to do is play any of the arcane spellcasters that are not wizards. Problem solved. Now can we stop talking about it incessantly??
All you have to do is play any of the arcane spellcasters that are not wizards. Problem solved. Now can we stop talking about it incessantly??
If all are daily resource based you have 4e. No reason for Next. If none do, you still loose the very people WotC is trying to bring back into the fold. Daily Vancian is the deal breaker for a large, even perhaps a mjaority of the people WotC is trying to reclaim with Next.
Most all classes in 4e were not based around daily resources. Sure, they all had them, but a majority of their power is derived from their at-will and encounter powers (such as the healing abilities of the Leader classes or the at-will defender marking abilities). There is also no reason why having every class heavily using daily based resources means that they all have to look the same either.
I have pretty much never encountered the seemingly all consuming problem of the 5MWD in spite of playing with dozens of different groups over the years precisely because I identified it early and created a culture at my table where it was unacceptable.
I've never encountered it either, but at least I can recognize that it exists and that other people have a problem with part of it.
But here's the thing, are you saying that you've never in all these years encountered a daily resource based class (such as a wizard) using slightly more spells per encounter than they should based on the printed expected number of combat rounds / encounters? This would be a situation where a wizard is casting spells based on the assumption that there is three "average" encounters when the DM's guide mentions that players should plan for four "average" encounters? In such a case, the wizard is more powerful than he is supposed to be in comparison to the other classes. Now, I can understand that this might not not cause any problems at your table(s), but it is a symptom of what people are talking about when they complain about the 5MWD as a general topic.
All you have to do is play any of the arcane spellcasters that are not wizards. Problem solved. Now can we stop talking about it incessantly??
You can't just say that without knowing how the full wizard will work nor how the other spell-caster classes will work. You don't know what class features those other classes may have nor what other class features the wizard may have. We already know that the wizard can gain new spells from enemy spell books or as rewards. What if the other spell casting classes (like Warlocks and Sorcerers) can't get new spells like that? What if the spell lists end up having little or no overlap? What if the other spell casting classes don't feel like wizard's at all in how they play at the table?
So you guys saying the main problem of 5mw is the wizard or just about any spellcasters?
It is any class that is heavily based around daily resources. Right now it is only casters that are like that, but any class could potentially be like that. The original fighter with its action surge thing would not be considered based around daily resources, even though it had one, because that feature was not a huge part of the class compared to everything else. By comparison, a huge part of the Cleric is based around daily resources (both spells and channel divinity), making it a daily resource based class.
Most all classes in 4e were not based around daily resources. Sure, they all had them, but a majority of their power is derived from their at-will and encounter powers (such as the healing abilities of the Leader classes or the at-will defender marki
I've never encountered it either, but at least I can recognize that it exists and that other people have a problem with part of it.
I recognize that it exists too. That's why I said I identified it and resolved it. The problem is that we aren't demolishing the entire D&D building here, to rebuild anew as some are suggesting we are. Instead we have stripped the building to it's foundation and girders, and are refacing the framework. Instead of making D&D something that the devs have decided is not D&D, I suggest fixing the problem through exercise of the things we inherently have over the other beasts inhabing this planet. I suggest we use rational thought, and willpower instead of fundamentally altering what makes D&D what it is.
I recognize that it exists too. That's why I said I identified it and resolved it. The problem is that we aren't demolishing the entire D&D building here, to rebuild anew as some are suggesting we are. Instead we have stripped the building to it's
I suggest we use rational thought, and willpower instead of fundamentally altering what makes D&D what it is.
Yeah, but that could excuse almost any terrible mechanic or over-powered spell or unbalanced thing in the game. The idea of "use rational thought and willpower" and don't break the game at the table (to take an extreme example) allows the designers to get away with more sloppy work and I don't like that.
Your solution is also not very natural feeling in-game because it relies on metagaming where the daily resource based classes know how many combat rounds / average encounters they are supposed to participate in on any given day and they parcel out their spells accordingly. Now, that is certainly one possible solution, but I prefer one that makes more sense within the game world.
To things in perspective, so that you know what I mean by something that makes sense within the game world. It does not make sense in-game for a wizard to plan around four average encounters instead of three or five. It is a purely arbitrary number that the game designers came up with to average out the power levels between daily based classes and at-will / encounter based classes. It is also becomes problematic if you start throwing in weaker or stronger encounters and the daily resource classes don't have enough metagame knowledge to recognize the different encounters so they know how to properly parcel out their spells.
Yeah, but that could excuse almost any terrible mechanic or over-powered spell or unbalanced thing in the game. The idea of "use rational thought and willpower" and don't break the game at the table (to take an extreme example) allows the designers t
So you guys saying the main problem of 5mw is the wizard or just about any spellcasters?
Daily powers, in general, whether from a class, race, item or whatever. If you're a 3/16th Ecru Dragon who can breath deadly tapioca once per day, you're part of the problem. The problem is /worse/ if you have some classes who have all or virtually all of their effectiveness tied up in dailies (like the classic 'Vancian' wizard) and others that have no effectiveness in dailies, at all (like virtually all itterations of the fighter).
Daily powers, in general, whether from a class, race, item or whatever. If you're a 3/16th Ecru Dragon who can breath deadly tapioca once per day, you're part of the problem. The problem is /worse/ if you have some classes who have all or virtually
If you're a 3/16th Ecru Dragon who can breath deadly tapioca once per day, you're part of the problem. The problem is /worse/ if you have some classes who have all or virtually all of their effectiveness tied up in dailies (like the classic 'Vancian' wizard) and others that have no effectiveness in dailies, at all (like virtually all itterations of the fighter).
Tapioca aside, I don't think having a small handful of daily powers is going to be too much of a problem if the rest of your powers are at-will, encounter, or rechargable by some sort-of situational mechanic that you can use multiple times per day as needed.
Tapioca aside, I don't think having a small handful of daily powers is going to be too much of a problem if the rest of your powers are at-will, encounter, or rechargable by some sort-of situational mechanic that you can use multiple times per day as
How you want the dailies to change? What type of recovery system you want?
Turn them into skill based at-wills with (apropriatelly) lowered damage instead of auto-effects that have to be resisted. Allow the to do incremental condition effects per hit. Lower the outright power outside of day long rituals.
Or lift them to Encounter level of effects, again, make the do scaling levels of damage.
(Flesh to Stone, does, for example, a total of 4d6 at level 7. Now depending on how hard you hit the target they might be Slowed because only a little of them have been turned stone. Or immobilized if you hit half his HP, or of you managed to 'kill' the target in one shot, you turned them into a statue you can use to decorate your castle yard. Something like that, rather then an All or Nothing effect that most Wizard players will make sure will ALWAYS work.)
Turn them into skill based at-wills with (apropriatelly) lowered damage instead of auto-effects that have to be resisted. Allow the to do incremental condition effects per hit. Lower the outright power outside of day long rituals.Or lift them to En
Vancian spellcasting including at-will would work perfectly fine, even from a "single encounter day" perspective, with a limit to the number of dailies usable during a period.
Something like a maximum of total spell levels used equal to caster level within one minute of the first spell cast. It can be justified by the stress put on the caster.
Have you actually looked at the spells yet? They're the weakest they've ever been (and no, that's not a complaint). You're drawing conclusions from a time where spells were completely different in most ways.
Uh... Stinking Cloud now does 550-1100 points of damage to each target if you can manage to keep the targets in the area for the full duration...
Have you actually looked at the spells yet? They're the weakest they've ever been (and no, that's not a complaint). You're drawing conclusions from a time where spells were completely different in most ways.[/quote]Uh... Stinking Cloud now does 550
How you want the dailies to change? What type of recovery system you want?
Turn them into skill based at-wills with (apropriatelly) lowered damage instead of auto-effects that have to be resisted. Allow the to do incremental condition effects per hit. Lower the outright power outside of day long rituals.
Or lift them to Encounter level of effects, again, make the do scaling levels of damage.
(Flesh to Stone, does, for example, a total of 4d6 at level 7. Now depending on how hard you hit the target they might be Slowed because only a little of them have been turned stone. Or immobilized if you hit half his HP, or of you managed to 'kill' the target in one shot, you turned them into a statue you can use to decorate your castle yard. Something like that, rather then an All or Nothing effect that most Wizard players will make sure will ALWAYS work.)
I like this, I like this a lot.
Turn them into skill based at-wills with (apropriatelly) lowered damage instead of auto-effects that have to be resisted. Allow the to do incremental condition effects per hit. Lower the outright power outside of day long rituals.Or lift them to En
If you're a 3/16th Ecru Dragon who can breath deadly tapioca once per day, you're part of the problem. The problem is /worse/ if you have some classes who have all or virtually all of their effectiveness tied up in dailies (like the classic 'Vancian' wizard) and others that have no effectiveness in dailies, at all (like virtually all itterations of the fighter).
Tapioca aside, I don't think having a small handful of daily powers is going to be too much of a problem if the rest of your powers are at-will, encounter, or rechargable by some sort-of situational mechanic that you can use multiple times per day as needed.
Small handful? the Wizard gets 9 spell slots at level 5, that's about 2-3 spells for the average 4 encounter day of the second play test packet. By level 10 the Wizard will be able to cast a daily spell every other round every encounter. Some of the spells don't lose their usefulness either like grease or hold person. In other words it stops becoming a 'small handful' of powers at a relatively low level...
Tapioca aside, I don't think having a small handful of daily powers is going to be too much of a problem if the rest of your powers are at-will, encounter, or rechargable by some sort-of situational mechanic that you can use multiple times per day as
How you want the dailies to change? What type of recovery system you want?
Turn them into skill based at-wills with (apropriatelly) lowered damage instead of auto-effects that have to be resisted. Allow the to do incremental condition effects per hit. Lower the outright power outside of day long rituals.
Or lift them to Encounter level of effects, again, make the do scaling levels of damage.
(Flesh to Stone, does, for example, a total of 4d6 at level 7. Now depending on how hard you hit the target they might be Slowed because only a little of them have been turned stone. Or immobilized if you hit half his HP, or of you managed to 'kill' the target in one shot, you turned them into a statue you can use to decorate your castle yard. Something like that, rather then an All or Nothing effect that most Wizard players will make sure will ALWAYS work.)
Wow you should check out the game in my signature it does just about everything you ask for...
Turn them into skill based at-wills with (apropriatelly) lowered damage instead of auto-effects that have to be resisted. Allow the to do incremental condition effects per hit. Lower the outright power outside of day long rituals.Or lift them to En
I suggest we use rational thought, and willpower instead of fundamentally altering what makes D&D what it is.
Yeah, but that could excuse almost any terrible mechanic or over-powered spell or unbalanced thing in the game. The idea of "use rational thought and willpower" and don't break the game at the table (to take an extreme example) allows the designers to get away with more sloppy work and I don't like that.
Your solution is also not very natural feeling in-game because it relies on metagaming where the daily resource based classes know how many combat rounds / average encounters they are supposed to participate in on any given day and they parcel out their spells accordingly. Now, that is certainly one possible solution, but I prefer one that makes more sense within the game world.
To things in perspective, so that you know what I mean by something that makes sense within the game world. It does not make sense in-game for a wizard to plan around four average encounters instead of three or five. It is a purely arbitrary number that the game designers came up with to average out the power levels between daily based classes and at-will / encounter based classes. It is also becomes problematic if you start throwing in weaker or stronger encounters and the daily resource classes don't have enough metagame knowledge to recognize the different encounters so they know how to properly parcel out their spells.
Please do me the favor of reading the entire thread, or at the very least all of my posts in it before you start trying to poke holes in my most recent posts. This has already been addressed.
Yeah, but that could excuse almost any terrible mechanic or over-powered spell or unbalanced thing in the game. The idea of "use rational thought and willpower" and don't break the game at the table (to take an extreme example) allows the designers t
Please do me the favor of reading the entire thread, or at the very least all of my posts in it before you start trying to poke holes in my most recent posts. This has already been addressed.
There are around 422 posts in this thread. That is a bit of a bold request.
But basically, you are saying that you have already said the exact same thing before and people have already posted to poke holes in it and that you've already responded to the poking and you don't feel like doing it again, but you did feel like posting your original thought again.
How did they respond to your responses? Were they satisfied with your arguments? Why did you feel it was necessary to state your opinion again if you have already done so in this thread before, but now appear unwilling to defend that opinion?
Alright then, since you are apparently fine with reposting your own opinions in the thread (and I don't see any problem with that), I'll repost my opinion about what the true problem of the 5MWD:
I think there is a increase in power for daily resource based classes (like the wizard) compared to at-will and encounter based classes when the wizard plans to have only three average encounters per day when the DM guidelines say that four average encounters is what they should plan for. Such a player will only have a problem if they hit four average encounters and are more powerful than they should be if they happen to only run into 1, 2, or 3 average encounters (or equivalents in easy / tough encounters) and that is simply not going to happen every day that there is an encounter.
There are around 422 posts in this thread. That is a bit of a bold request.But basically, you are saying that you have already said the exact same thing before and people have already posted to poke holes in it and that you've already responded to th
Please do me the favor of reading the entire thread, or at the very least all of my posts in it before you start trying to poke holes in my most recent posts. This has already been addressed.
There are around 422 posts in this thread. That is a bit of a bold request.
But basically, you are saying that you have already said the exact same thing before and people have already posted to poke holes in it and that you've already responded to the poking and you don't feel like doing it again, but you did feel like posting your original thought again.
How did they respond to your responses? Were they satisfied with your arguments? Why did you feel it was necessary to state your opinion again if you have already done so in this thread before, but now appear unwilling to defend that opinion?
Alright then, since you are apparently fine with reposting your own opinions in the thread (and I don't see any problem with that), I'll repost my opinion about what the true problem of the 5MWD:
I think there is a increase in power for daily resource based classes (like the wizard) compared to at-will and encounter based classes when the wizard plans to have only three average encounters per day when the DM guidelines say that four average encounters is what they should plan for. Such a player will only have a problem if they hit four average encounters and are more powerful than they should be if they happen to only run into 1, 2, or 3 average encounters (or equivalents in easy / tough encounters) and that is simply not going to happen every day that there is an encounter.
Sigh.
My solution is the opposite of metagaming, while I see your entire explanation as metagaming.
Because your character cannot know the number of encounters (planned and random) they will face in a given "day" of adventuring, they would naturally conserve their resources until they are really needed. A smart and logical Vancian caster (or any party member really) will attempt to use only the resources absolutely needed to defeat the encounter. This fits the way we understand real life, and the way our characters would most logically understand their lives. It doesn't make any sense to be active for 5 minutes of every 32 hours. In the 5MWD model the Caves of Chaos would take 85 days to complete barring any further timesinks like going back to town to unload overencumbered characters. You don't find that Monty Python-ish in its ridiculousness?
I don't and have never cared about relative power levels. I have fun regardless of whether I am a weak little halfling rogue, or a big burly dragonborn paladin. I also don't worry if my wizard doesn't cast any spells, but throws darts, or takes defensive actions during an entire fight. Given the current play test packet a party of 5 facing 6 goblins should take no more than 3 or 4 rounds to complete. In Next that takes almost no real time. My wizard (1e AD&D) wouldn't bother to waste any spells. In Next I would contribute with only Magic Missle at-wills, and not waste anything more powerful. I might need that Burning Hands spell in the next encounter...or the next after that.
There are around 422 posts in this thread. That is a bit of a bold request.But basically, you are saying that you have already said the exact same thing before and people have already posted to poke holes in it and that you've already responded to th
Please do me the favor of reading the entire thread, or at the very least all of my posts in it before you start trying to poke holes in my most recent posts. This has already been addressed.
There are around 422 posts in this thread. That is a bit of a bold request.
But basically, you are saying that you have already said the exact same thing before and people have already posted to poke holes in it and that you've already responded to the poking and you don't feel like doing it again, but you did feel like posting your original thought again.
How did they respond to your responses? Were they satisfied with your arguments? Why did you feel it was necessary to state your opinion again if you have already done so in this thread before, but now appear unwilling to defend that opinion?
Alright then, since you are apparently fine with reposting your own opinions in the thread (and I don't see any problem with that), I'll repost my opinion about what the true problem of the 5MWD:
I think there is a increase in power for daily resource based classes (like the wizard) compared to at-will and encounter based classes when the wizard plans to have only three average encounters per day when the DM guidelines say that four average encounters is what they should plan for. Such a player will only have a problem if they hit four average encounters and are more powerful than they should be if they happen to only run into 1, 2, or 3 average encounters (or equivalents in easy / tough encounters) and that is simply not going to happen every day that there is an encounter.
Sigh.
My solution is the opposite of metagaming, while I see your entire explanation as metagaming.
Because your character cannot know the number of encounters (planned and random) they will face in a given "day" of adventuring, they would naturally conserve their resources until they are really needed. A smart and logical Vancian caster (or any party member really) will attempt to use only the resources absolutely needed to defeat the encounter. This fits the way we understand real life, and the way our characters would most logically understand their lives. It doesn't make any sense to be active for 5 minutes of every 32 hours. In the 5MWD model the Caves of Chaos would take 85 days to complete barring any further timesinks like going back to town to unload overencumbered characters. You don't find that Monty Python-ish in its ridiculousness?
I don't and have never cared about relative power levels. I have fun regardless of whether I am a weak little halfling rogue, or a big burly dragonborn paladin. I also don't worry if my wizard doesn't cast any spells, but throws darts, or takes defensive actions during an entire fight. Given the current play test packet a party of 5 facing 6 goblins should take no more than 3 or 4 rounds to complete. In Next that takes almost no real time. My wizard (1e AD&D) wouldn't bother to waste any spells. In Next I would contribute with only Magic Missle at-wills, and not waste anything more powerful. I might need that Burning Hands spell in the next encounter...or the next after that.
Currently in the play test packet they have reduced the game to rocket tag. Whoever wins initiative will destroy the competition. At around level 3 it evens out and you get around 6-10 combat rounds. By level 5 however the Wizard starts showing massive Quadraticness while the fighter starts showing its linearness...
There are around 422 posts in this thread. That is a bit of a bold request.But basically, you are saying that you have already said the exact same thing before and people have already posted to poke holes in it and that you've already responded to th
My solution is the opposite of metagaming, while I see your entire explanation as metagaming.
Yes, my explanation was metagaming, because a metagame solution is what they are offering us. They have said that the point of balance between at-will / encounter based classes and daily resource based classes is four average encounters between extended rests. Four average encounters is an entirely metagame construct that has no basis in the game world and only exists as the balance point between different resource based classes. Since it exists and since they are balancing around it and since the players know it exists, they can plan around it too.
Because your character cannot know the number of encounters (planned and random) they will face in a given "day" of adventuring, they would naturally conserve their resources until they are really needed. A smart and logical Vancian caster (or any party member really) will attempt to use only the resources absolutely needed to defeat the encounter. This fits the way we understand real life, and the way our characters would most logically understand their lives.
Alright, here is a scenario: the party is escorting a caravan through a wooded area. They have been travelling for a couple of days without incident when suddenly the caravan is attacked by whatever. This is the first encounter in a few days and these people are trying to kill the party. Why is it not logical for the wizard to be thinking that he should kill these attackers as quickly as possible before they get lucky and kill him or his friends? Is it logical for the wizard to sit their hoarding his spells while there are dangerous things running around him. He casts magic missile instead of Hold Person (or whatever) and his target instead of doing nothing, hits one of the wizard's friends, gets a lucky hit and knocks him unconscious. His friend later asks why he didn't do something more effective when he could have, the wizard shrugs and says "who knows what might have happened this afternoon".
Now, that does have a certain amount of logic, but the other way is certainly not illogical. The wizard casting a daily resource spell to potentially save his comrade cannot really be considered a bad use of his resources since his ultimate goal is to get the caravan to its destination and that goal is really helped by having all of his friends still be alive as long as possible.
It doesn't make any sense to be active for 5 minutes of every 32 hours.
Well no, that doesn't make sense and that's why a better refresh model would be more useful and make more sense. In fact, I think it was in this most recent Legend & Lore article that they said that they were looking at ways for a wizard to refresh some spells (or maybe only certain spells or maybe just not certain powerful spells) during short rests.
I don't and have never cared about relative power levels... I also don't worry if my wizard doesn't cast any spells, but throws darts, or takes defensive actions during an entire fight.
And this is part of what makes your opinions and "solutions" not as helpful as you probably wish they were. You don't care about relative balance so solutions to fix relative balance feel completely unnecessary to you. You don't care if your wizard is casting spells (or apparently doing anything) in a given encounter so you feel solutions that allow a wizard to cast more spells in an encounter are completely unnecessary. You also don't seem very sympathetic to people that do see these as problems and are trying to search for solutions.
Yes, my explanation was metagaming, because a metagame solution is what they are offering us. They have said that the point of balance between at-will / encounter based classes and daily resource based classes is four average encounters between exten
Alright, here is a scenario: the party is escorting a caravan through a wooded area. They have been travelling for a couple of days without incident when suddenly the caravan is attacked by whatever. This is the first encounter in a few days and these people are trying to kill the party. Why is it not logical for the wizard to be thinking that he should kill these attackers as quickly as possible before they get lucky and kill him or his friends? Is it logical for the wizard to sit their hoarding his spells while there are dangerous things running around him. He casts magic missile instead of Hold Person (or whatever) and his target instead of doing nothing, hits one of the wizard's friends, gets a lucky hit and knocks him unconscious. His friend later asks why he didn't do something more effective when he could have, the wizard shrugs and says "who knows what might have happened this afternoon".
Now, that does have a certain amount of logic, but the other way is certainly not illogical. The wizard casting a daily resource spell to potentially save his comrade cannot really be considered a bad use of his resources since his ultimate goal is to get the caravan to its destination and that goal is really helped by having all of his friends still be alive as long as possible.
What makes this a game is that it is about making choices that have consequences. Sometimes we guess right, sometimes we guess wrong. Those guesses also aren't always in a vacuum. The wizard could take a cue from the previous days and go ahead and use a powerful spell, but then he doesn't have it when he finds out that was just the first of several attacks by the bandits or whatever. Would the guy who barely survived the first encounter without the big spell rather have it saved when he dies during the second or third encounter when it really would have made a difference? I suspect so. Casting the spell though smacks a little of metagaming because, ya know, we can rest safely and I'll recover it before the next encounter which might come in a few more days.
It doesn't make any sense to be active for 5 minutes of every 32 hours.
Well no, that doesn't make sense and that's why a better refresh model would be more useful and make more sense. In fact, I think it was in this most recent Legend & Lore article that they said that they were looking at ways for a wizard to refresh some spells (or maybe only certain spells or maybe just not certain powerful spells) during short rests.
I have no problem with this personally, but dailies still remain, and this is pretty much 4e AEDU which many complain is unrealistic (especially if it is ever applied to a martial class).
I don't and have never cared about relative power levels... I also don't worry if my wizard doesn't cast any spells, but throws darts, or takes defensive actions during an entire fight.
And this is part of what makes your opinions and "solutions" not as helpful as you probably wish they were. You don't care about relative balance so solutions to fix relative balance feel completely unnecessary to you. You don't care if your wizard is casting spells (or apparently doing anything) in a given encounter so you feel solutions that allow a wizard to cast more spells in an encounter are completely unnecessary. You also don't seem very sympathetic to people that do see these as problems and are trying to search for solutions.
I am symapthetic to the extent that I understand and like that we do have at-wills, and we do (we've been told) have non-Vancian casters. I don't see how we need more than that. I do feel that the entire solution to those who don't like resource management is a short paragraph saying don't do it. Not for spells, or arrows, or rations. If you don't enjoy it, don't do it.
What makes this a game is that it is about making choices that have consequences. Sometimes we guess right, sometimes we guess wrong. Those guesses also aren't always in a vacuum. The wizard could take a cue from the previous days and go ahead and
Casting the spell though smacks a little of metagaming because, ya know, we can rest safely and I'll recover it before the next encounter which might come in a few more days.
And not casting the spell because the player knows the number of average encounters per day is four also smacks of metagaming. The logic works both ways and that is one of the reasons why classes built around daily resource mechanics are far more "metagame" focused then at-will and encounter classes. Their entire resource management is an excercise in metagaming.
Just take our bandit ambush on the caravan as an example. The caravan has gone several days without being attacked and is now suddenly being attacked. The wizard could easily and logically think that the bandits wouldn't hold back warriors for future ambushes and that this attack represents the majority of the bandits, so he then uses half of his daily spells. Sure, he keeps some in reserve, just in case, but there is no real reason he should keep back 75% of his spells, especially if doing so puts his friends in more immediate danger.
I have no problem with this personally, but dailies still remain, and this is pretty much 4e AEDU which many complain is unrealistic (especially if it is ever applied to a martial class).
Right, and one of the reasons why AEDU works well as a representation of daily resources is that those daily resources only represent a smallish fraction of a class' overall power. So while there is some daily resource management to handle, a character without any of his daily resources is still at a fairly high percentage of his total power level compared to a 5e wizard which is at a much lower level of power with all of his daily resource powers expended.
I am symapthetic to the extent that I understand and like that we do have at-wills, and we do (we've been told) have non-Vancian casters.
That's not sympathetic, that's reading comprehension. Being sympathetic would be understanding that telling people to ignore daily resource based classes is not suffecient and working with those people to find a solution that does work for them without taking away anything really important from what you want.
And not casting the spell because the player knows the number of average encounters per day is four also smacks of metagaming. The logic works both ways and that is one of the reasons why classes built around daily resource mechanics are far more "me
And not casting the spell because the player knows the number of average encounters per day is four also smacks of metagaming. The logic works both ways and that is one of the reasons why classes built around daily resource mechanics are far more "metagame" focused then at-will and encounter classes. Their entire resource management is an excercise in metagaming.
You are assuming a motivation that I do not concede. My character's motivation is not knowingwhat is coming. Yet you insist that he does know. His reaction to not knowing is trying to make the best use of resources by using just enough force to defeat an encounter without overkill (i.e., wasting resources).
Just take our bandit ambush on the caravan as an example. The caravan has gone several days without being attacked and is now suddenly being attacked. The wizard could easily and logically think that the bandits wouldn't hold back warriors for future ambushes and that this attack represents the majority of the bandits, so he then uses half of his daily spells. Sure, he keeps some in reserve, just in case, but there is no real reason he should keep back 75% of his spells, especially if doing so puts his friends in more immediate danger.
Sure, and he could be wrong if the whole idea of the attack (a valid strategy) was to make the caravan waste resources before the main thrust comes. To soften them up. Maybe even most of the bandits escape before being killed, but the point was to make the wizard blow some powerful spells...if he was foolish enough to fall for the feint.
I have no problem with this personally, but dailies still remain, and this is pretty much 4e AEDU which many complain is unrealistic (especially if it is ever applied to a martial class).
Right, and one of the reasons why AEDU works well as a representation of daily resources is that those daily resources only represent a smallish fraction of a class' overall power. So while there is some daily resource management to handle, a character without any of his daily resources is still at a fairly high percentage of his total power level compared to a 5e wizard which is at a much lower level of power with all of his daily resource powers expended.
Yay! So you are saying playtest packet #2 has solved the problem? I'm so relieved we can finally stop talking about it!!
I am symapthetic to the extent that I understand and like that we do have at-wills, and we do (we've been told) have non-Vancian casters.
That's not sympathetic, that's reading comprehension. Being sympathetic would be understanding that telling people to ignore daily resource based classes is not suffecient and working with those people to find a solution that does work for them without taking away anything really important from what you want.
See my response immediately above!
You are assuming a motivation that I do not concede. My character's motivation is not knowing what is coming. Yet you insist that he does know. His reaction to not knowing is trying to make the best use of resources by using just enough force to d
You are assuming a motivation that I do not concede. My character's motivation is not knowingwhat is coming. Yet you insist that he does know. His reaction to not knowing is trying to make the best use of resources by using just enough force to defeat an encounter without overkill (i.e., wasting resources).
Of course he "knows" what is coming because he read the rules, just like he knows what happens when he gains a level, just like he knows what spells are available in spell levels that he doesn't have access to. He knows that the balance point is four average encounters and he knows that that is what the DM guidelines suggest and he will likely plan accordingly. The only thing he doesn't know if any given encounter is supposed to be easy, average, or tough (except through the player's previous experience giving him even more metagame knowledge).
Sure, and he could be wrong if the whole idea of the attack (a valid strategy) was to make the caravan waste resources before the main thrust comes.
Or he could be right and his friends might be happier that they didn't die from an ambush. Since he doesn't know if he's right or wrong and since he just went several days without any fights, why is it suddenly more logical that there could be a series of attacks on that same day instead of that being the only attack or maybe only one of two attacks (unless of course he draws on metagame knowledge).
So you are saying playtest packet #2 has solved the problem?
I don't recall any refresh mechanic for daily spells in packet #2? If it is in there, then could you point it out to me.
Also, putting it in packet #3 completely changes the dynamic because it makes the wizard less dominated by his daily resources, which fixes exactly the problem I care.
Of course he "knows" what is coming because he read the rules, just like he knows what happens when he gains a level, just like he knows what spells are available in spell levels that he doesn't have access to. He knows that the balance point is four
You are assuming a motivation that I do not concede. My character's motivation is not knowingwhat is coming. Yet you insist that he does know. His reaction to not knowing is trying to make the best use of resources by using just enough force to defeat an encounter without overkill (i.e., wasting resources).
Of course he "knows" what is coming because he read the rules, just like he knows what happens when he gains a level, just like he knows what spells are available in spell levels that he doesn't have access to. He knows that the balance point is four average encounters and he knows that that is what the DM guidelines suggest and he will likely plan accordingly. The only thing he doesn't know if any given encounter is supposed to be easy, average, or tough (except through the player's previous experience giving him even more metagame knowledge).
As a player I know that, but I don't play my characters as me. In their world there is no encounter per day. I play as such.
Sure, and he could be wrong if the whole idea of the attack (a valid strategy) was to make the caravan waste resources before the main thrust comes.
Or he could be right and his friends might be happier that they didn't die from an ambush. Since he doesn't know if he's right or wrong and since he just went several days without any fights, why is it suddenly more logical that there could be a series of attacks on that same day instead of that being the only attack or maybe only one of two attacks (unless of course he draws on metagame knowledge).
In your example the character came close to dying, but didn't. I'd say that was perfect use of resources. It is a gamble, but if you know the outcome then why play?
So you are saying playtest packet #2 has solved the problem?
I don't recall any refresh mechanic for daily spells in packet #2? If it is in there, then could you point it out to me.
Also, putting it in packet #3 completely changes the dynamic because it makes the wizard less dominated by his daily resources, which fixes exactly the problem I care.
No, you're right there are still dailies, but your point from above was that some spells refresh after a 5 minute rest. Those are encounter spells. Since you were touting that as a solution I thought you were accepting of the solution presented in packet #2. It also seems like a great compromise because I like dailies and don't want to see resource management removed from the game.
Of course he "knows" what is coming because he read the rules, just like he knows what happens when he gains a level, just like he knows what spells are available in spell levels that he doesn't have access to. He knows that the balance point is four
No, you're right there are still dailies, but your point from above was that some spells refresh after a 5 minute rest. Those are encounter spells. Since you were touting that as a solution I thought you were accepting of the solution presented in packet #2. It also seems like a great compromise because I like dailies and don't want to see resource management removed from the game.
I don't really follow where you went with this. I mentioned that in a Legend & Lore article they were talking about allowing some spells refresh using some unspecified mechanic that will presumably happen more often than an extended rest. I think that a mechanic like that is good. As you have confirmed, that mechanic is not in packet #2.
So how does that mean that I accept the solution presented in packet #2?
I don't really follow where you went with this. I mentioned that in a Legend & Lore article they were talking about allowing some spells refresh using some unspecified mechanic that will presumably happen more often than an extended rest. I think tha
No, you're right there are still dailies, but your point from above was that some spells refresh after a 5 minute rest. Those are encounter spells. Since you were touting that as a solution I thought you were accepting of the solution presented in packet #2. It also seems like a great compromise because I like dailies and don't want to see resource management removed from the game.
I don't really follow where you went with this. I mentioned that in a Legend & Lore article they were talking about allowing some spells refresh using some unspecified mechanic that will presumably happen more often than an extended rest. I think that a mechanic like that is good. As you have confirmed, that mechanic is not in packet #2.
So how does that mean that I accept the solution presented in packet #2?
My fault. Reading way too much about D&D Next. I mistakenly misremembered it being in the play test, as opposed to the L&L. So if it is coming, we are in agreement that we have a solution then, right?
I don't really follow where you went with this. I mentioned that in a Legend & Lore article they were talking about allowing some spells refresh using some unspecified mechanic that will presumably happen more often than an extended rest. I think tha
So if it is coming, we are in agreement that we have a solution then, right?
I think so.
A good refersh mechanic coupled with less daily spells (since that is really the only way it could work), would help smooth out a lot of the problems that I see with the 5MWD.
I think so.A good refersh mechanic coupled with less daily spells (since that is really the only way it could work), would help smooth out a lot of the problems that I see with the 5MWD.
My fault. Reading way too much about D&D Next. I mistakenly misremembered it being in the play test, as opposed to the L&L. So if it is coming, we are in agreement that we have a solution then, right?
I would have to say no. This is a fine solution from a player perspective - don't like dailies, don't play a daily-based class. However, from a DM perspective it doesn't really solve the issue. I'm sure you could make a house rule that Vancian casters aren't allowed in your campaign, but in practice outlawing entire swaths of the game like that tends to build animosity and drive players away.
I would have to say no. This is a fine solution from a player perspective - don't like dailies, don't play a daily-based class. However, from a DM perspective it doesn't really solve the issue. I'm sure you could make a house rule that Vancian caster
If you can come up with a better solution then dailies then post it here. Until then, we're stuck with it because it's a big part of D&D.
There's already been plenty of things suggested. Changing resource refresh from daily to per adventure, or to per level.
Another is simply not to have daily resources at all, or to have a strict encounter limit on uses of dailies, to prevent novaing. So even if you have 6 spells per day, you can only use 2 max in any given encounter.
There's already been plenty of things suggested. Changing resource refresh from daily to per adventure, or to per level. Another is simply not to have daily resources at all, or to have a strict encounter limit on uses of dailies, to prevent novaing.
So even if you have 6 spells per day, you can only use 2 max in any given encounter.
Give a spell an extended casting time.. 1 round rev up...and a repercussion where I dipped into the sandmans bucket and I am groggy and slowed the round after casting sleep, or stunned save ends after casting a finger of death or some such (I am for tailered after effects) .. not quite the same as your 2 max but it could well bring it down to something approaching that... It would also impair the round 1 blow out unless you manage to get a suprise round.. those in favor of suprise being significant ought to like that.
Give a spell an extended casting time.. 1 round rev up...and a repercussion where I dipped into the sandmans bucket and I am groggy and slowed the round after casting sleep, or stunned save ends after casting a finger of death or some such (I am for
So even if you have 6 spells per day, you can only use 2 max in any given encounter.
Give a spell an extended casting time.. 1 round rev up...and a repercussion where I dipped into the sandmans bucket and I am groggy and slowed the round after casting sleep, or stunned save ends after casting a finger of death or some such (I am for tailered after effects) .. not quite the same as your 2 max but it could well bring it down to something approaching that... It would also impair the round 1 blow out unless you manage to get a suprise round.. those in favor of suprise being significant ought to like that.
Its important to note that encounters are supposed to last around 4-5 rounds, due to that at level 3 its impossible to nova all of your spells in one combat...
Give a spell an extended casting time.. 1 round rev up...and a repercussion where I dipped into the sandmans bucket and I am groggy and slowed the round after casting sleep, or stunned save ends after casting a finger of death or some such (I am for
So even if you have 6 spells per day, you can only use 2 max in any given encounter.
Give a spell an extended casting time.. 1 round rev up...and a repercussion where I dipped into the sandmans bucket and I am groggy and slowed the round after casting sleep, or stunned save ends after casting a finger of death or some such (I am for tailered after effects) .. not quite the same as your 2 max but it could well bring it down to something approaching that... It would also impair the round 1 blow out unless you manage to get a suprise round.. those in favor of suprise being significant ought to like that.
Its important to note that encounters are supposed to last around 4-5 rounds, due to that at level 3 its impossible to nova all of your spells in one combat...
So a 1 round rev up would almost exactly replicate his suggested 2 max for those situations.
Give a spell an extended casting time.. 1 round rev up...and a repercussion where I dipped into the sandmans bucket and I am groggy and slowed the round after casting sleep, or stunned save ends after casting a finger of death or some such (I am for
If you can come up with a better solution then dailies then post it here. Until then, we're stuck with it because it's a big part of D&D.
Remember, for a lot of us, the problem is not the mere existence of daily resources, it is classes that are primarily based around daily resources (such as the Wizard in playtest package #1 and #2).
Remember, for a lot of us, the problem is not the mere existence of daily resources, it is classes that are primarily based around daily resources (such as the Wizard in playtest package #1 and #2).
Remember, for a lot of us, the problem is not the mere existence of daily resources, it is classes that are primarily based around daily resources (such as the Wizard in playtest package #1 and #2).
Yes. I'd like to see that changed (alright - modulized so people who don't like it can make the change themselves).
My solution is to change the underlying math that currently gauges resource usage based on an adventuring day, which in turn assumes a certain number of combat rounds making up that day. I'd much rather they based game math using a single encounter as the gauge for resource use. In 4e terms, PCs would have at-wills and encounter powers only.
The potential downside to basing everything around the encounter is that it creates a system where after a short rest the party is back up to 100%, which some people might find strains credulity. To address that, I'd suggest that hit points be viewed as a measure of stamina and fatigue rather than actual injury, and a separate injury system (such as already exists in a recent Dragon issue IIRC) would be used to incorporate the idea that some fights take a larger toll on the group and have lasting effects.
Yes. I'd like to see that changed (alright - modulized so people who don't like it can make the change themselves). My solution is to change the underlying math that currently gauges resource usage based on an adventuring day, which in turn assumes a
Remember, for a lot of us, the problem is not the mere existence of daily resources, it is classes that are primarily based around daily resources (such as the Wizard in playtest package #1 and #2).
Yes. I'd like to see that changed (alright - modulized so people who don't like it can make the change themselves).
My solution is to change the underlying math that currently gauges resource usage based on an adventuring day, which in turn assumes a certain number of combat rounds making up that day. I'd much rather they based game math using a single encounter as the gauge for resource use. In 4e terms, PCs would have at-wills and encounter powers only.
The potential downside to basing everything around the encounter is that it creates a system where after a short rest the party is back up to 100%, which some people might find strains credulity. To address that, I'd suggest that hit points be viewed as a measure of stamina and fatigue rather than actual injury, and a separate injury system (such as already exists in a recent Dragon issue IIRC) would be used to incorporate the idea that some fights take a larger toll on the group and have lasting effects.
I'm not sure I understand how this is a solution. I like dailies and don't want them removed, in part, because I like daily resource management (not just spells, but hit points, healing, consumables, arrows, food). How does only having at-wills, and encounter powers and being at 100% for each encounter help me?
Yes. I'd like to see that changed (alright - modulized so people who don't like it can make the change themselves). My solution is to change the underlying math that currently gauges resource usage based on an adventuring day, which in turn assumes a
Remember, for a lot of us, the problem is not the mere existence of daily resources, it is classes that are primarily based around daily resources (such as the Wizard in playtest package #1 and #2).
Yes. I'd like to see that changed (alright - modulized so people who don't like it can make the change themselves).
My solution is to change the underlying math that currently gauges resource usage based on an adventuring day, which in turn assumes a certain number of combat rounds making up that day. I'd much rather they based game math using a single encounter as the gauge for resource use. In 4e terms, PCs would have at-wills and encounter powers only.
The potential downside to basing everything around the encounter is that it creates a system where after a short rest the party is back up to 100%, which some people might find strains credulity. To address that, I'd suggest that hit points be viewed as a measure of stamina and fatigue rather than actual injury, and a separate injury system (such as already exists in a recent Dragon issue IIRC) would be used to incorporate the idea that some fights take a larger toll on the group and have lasting effects.
I'm not sure I understand how this is a solution. I like dailies and don't want them removed, in part, because I like daily resource management (not just spells, but hit points, healing, consumables, arrows, food). How does only having at-wills, and encounter powers and being at 100% for each encounter help me?
I have suggested, in another thread, that spells could be treated more like out of combat healing.
If you reduced the amount of spells slot expansion (as you level) by a significant ammount, you could then tie spell recharge to the already existing HD mechanics.
A level 10 Wizard has 10d4 spell levels that they can recharge per day during a short rest.
And with that you have a limitation placed on Vancian Caster novas, removes the 5MWD, potentially removes the class imbalance, and you still have a daily resource to manage. You are still picking which spells to cast, which ones to recharge, and how many dice to roll to do so.
Edit: Additionally it could be supported by feats that let you reroll 1s on your recharge dice or convert your Healing HD to Spell Recharge HD with a 2:1 ratio. Or even swap out a prepared spell by spending recharge dice to make up for the reduced spell slots.
Yes. I'd like to see that changed (alright - modulized so people who don't like it can make the change themselves). My solution is to change the underlying math that currently gauges resource usage based on an adventuring day, which in turn assumes a
Remember, for a lot of us, the problem is not the mere existence of daily resources, it is classes that are primarily based around daily resources (such as the Wizard in playtest package #1 and #2).
Yes. I'd like to see that changed (alright - modulized so people who don't like it can make the change themselves).
My solution is to change the underlying math that currently gauges resource usage based on an adventuring day, which in turn assumes a certain number of combat rounds making up that day. I'd much rather they based game math using a single encounter as the gauge for resource use. In 4e terms, PCs would have at-wills and encounter powers only.
The potential downside to basing everything around the encounter is that it creates a system where after a short rest the party is back up to 100%, which some people might find strains credulity. To address that, I'd suggest that hit points be viewed as a measure of stamina and fatigue rather than actual injury, and a separate injury system (such as already exists in a recent Dragon issue IIRC) would be used to incorporate the idea that some fights take a larger toll on the group and have lasting effects.
I'm not sure I understand how this is a solution. I like dailies and don't want them removed, in part, because I like daily resource management (not just spells, but hit points, healing, consumables, arrows, food). How does only having at-wills, and encounter powers and being at 100% for each encounter help me?
modulized so people who don't like it can make the change themselves
Yes. I'd like to see that changed (alright - modulized so people who don't like it can make the change themselves). My solution is to change the underlying math that currently gauges resource usage based on an adventuring day, which in turn assumes a
I like dailies and don't want them removed, in part, because I like daily resource management (not just spells, but hit points, healing, consumables, arrows, food). How does only having at-wills, and encounter powers and being at 100% for each encounter help me?
I have to agree in general with you Kalex_the_Omen, I think daily resources are nice and provide a good recharge mechanic that simply makes sense to most people (ie. a person feels better after a good night's sleep). I don't see any value in removing all daily resources from all classes. Certainly, there is no reason why every class has to have them, but they are a mechanic resource that should be tapped as needed; just like encounter-based abilities (which we haven't seen any yet).
I don't like classes that are based almost entirely on daily resources, but fixing that doesn't require getting rid of all daily resources.
Be careful. I don't think feats are going to let you do this sort of things anymore. Using the speciality framework, I think they are moving away from feats that specifically enhance class features (or racial features or class + racial features, etc.) and more towards using feats to enhance the character in general or provide entirely new features.
I have to agree in general with you Kalex_the_Omen, I think daily resources are nice and provide a good recharge mechanic that simply makes sense to most people (ie. a person feels better after a good night's sleep). I don't see any value in removing
Be careful. I don't think feats are going to let you do this sort of things anymore. Using the speciality framework, I think they are moving away from feats that specifically enhance class features (or racial features or class + racial features, etc.) and more towards using feats to enhance the character in general or provide entirely new features.
I was just trying to illustrate different avenues of mixing up or improving the feature. Maybe not feats, perhaps class features or a specialization. I'm obviously not on the design team, though...so they would have to make those sorts of judgment calls if they chose to go that route.
Be careful. I don't think feats are going to let you do this sort of things anymore. Using the speciality framework, I think they are moving away from feats that specifically enhance class features (or racial features or class + racial features, etc.
I think that a round up period would take too long and be too difficult to use reliably. I would prefer a cooldown, although each has some good points.
I think that a round up period would take too long and be too difficult to use reliably. I would prefer a cooldown, although each has some good points.
How you want the dailies to change? What type of recovery system you want?
There are three workable solutions I can think of that directly involve dailies:
1) remove dailies, entirely.
2) give everyone about the same number/power in daily resources.
3) Change 'dailies' to a mostly DM-controlled re-charge, something like a 'story' or 'chapter.'
There may be others. But, giving some classes lots of powerful dailies and others none is not among them.
There are three workable solutions I can think of that directly involve dailies:1) remove dailies, entirely.2) give everyone about the same number/power in daily resources.3) Change 'dailies' to a mostly DM-controlled re-charge, something like a 'sto
Thinking back on 3E, it wasn't so much the 5MW exactly so much as us not playing campaigns that involved heavy resource attrition. A typical day involved 2 or so combats and a bit of problem solving. It wasn't nova-rest, but it also didn't tax the casters to any great degree and they dominated. The problem was, the resource attrition necessary to balance casters just wasn't appropriate for the games we wanted to play.
This problem is just going to resurface in 5E, if we bother to play it.
Thinking back on 3E, it wasn't so much the 5MW exactly so much as us not playing campaigns that involved heavy resource attrition. A typical day involved 2 or so combats and a bit of problem solving. It wasn't nova-rest, but it also didn't tax the ca
Thinking back on 3E, it wasn't so much the 5MW exactly so much as us not playing campaigns that involved heavy resource attrition. A typical day involved 2 or so combats and a bit of problem solving. It wasn't nova-rest, but it also didn't tax the casters to any great degree and they dominated. The problem was, the resource attrition necessary to balance casters just wasn't appropriate for the games we wanted to play.
This problem is just going to resurface in 5E, if we bother to play it.
Since DDN is based on an assumed number of combat rounds per day, you'll be running into problems any time you materially deviate from that number. If more, the casters will be starved for resources and thus underpowered, if less they'll be able to use dailies in a proportionally greater number of encounters and thus overpowered.
I also lean towards campaigns that are story-focused rather than combat-focused. To the extent that it wouldn't be uncommon to have only 2 or 3 combat encounters in a week, let alone in a day. Some of the proposed solutions have changed the recharge from daily to something else - but the problem with that is that it really taxes believability when you're telling the wizard he still doesn't have his fireball back even several days after he last cast it.
Since DDN is based on an assumed number of combat rounds per day, you'll be running into problems any time you materially deviate from that number. If more, the casters will be starved for resources and thus underpowered, if less they'll be able to u
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I also lean towards campaigns that are story-focused rather than combat-focused. To the extent that it wouldn't be uncommon to have only 2 or 3 combat encounters in a week, let alone in a day. Some of the proposed solutions have changed the recharge from daily to something else - but the problem with that is that it really taxes believability when you're telling the wizard he still doesn't have his fireball back even several days after he last cast it.
I've heard this sort of thing before, and I've never quite understood it. Magic is magic. It doesn't really exist, so what it takes to recover from casting a fireball can be anything arbitrary that you want. It can even be something the caster himself doesn't fully understand beyond feeling that "he's just not ready."
Divine spells are even easier because they just come and go at your dieties whim, so you need no explanation even there.
As for arcane spells, you're calling upon powerful extradimensioanl forces beyond mortal comprehension. Who says a night's rest is going to fix everything? You're talking about recovering the mystical strength to throw a giant ball of fire. That might take a little bit more recovery time than fixing a pulled muscle.
I've heard this sort of thing before, and I've never quite understood it. Magic is magic. It doesn't really exist, so what it takes to recover from casting a fireball can be anything arbitrary that you want. It can even be something the caster himsel
Some of the proposed solutions have changed the recharge from daily to something else - but the problem with that is that it really taxes believability when you're telling the wizard he still doesn't have his fireball back even several days after he last cast it.
What about that taxes believability? So you threw a ball of fire with magic and you can't do it again for an unspecified amount of time? Maybe the stars aren't right? Maybe you offended the odyllic spirit of essential flame (or balls)? Maybe your bat guano went off (how could you tell?), or your sulphur lost its magical potentcy when the shadow of a dove passed over it?
What about that taxes believability? So you threw a ball of fire with magic and you can't do it again for an unspecified amount of time? Maybe the stars aren't right? Maybe you offended the odyllic spirit of essential flame (or balls)? Maybe your
I think the point of this thread may be moot. Seems that AEDU, spell point, and Vancian will all be modular options regardless of casting class.
This is according to the keynote address currently underway.
I think the point of this thread may be moot. Seems that AEDU, spell point, and Vancian will all be modular options regardless of casting class. This is according to the keynote address currently underway.
Well, if spell points (as an aside, every spell or 'mana' point system I ever saw back in the day was horribly broken) are recovered on a daily schedule, then all three will have that Daily component, and the 5MWD issue will remain...
Well, if spell points (as an aside, every spell or 'mana' point system I ever saw back in the day was horribly broken) are recovered on a daily schedule, then all three will have that Daily component, and the 5MWD issue will remain...
Some of the proposed solutions have changed the recharge from daily to something else - but the problem with that is that it really taxes believability when you're telling the wizard he still doesn't have his fireball back even several days after he last cast it.
What about that taxes believability? So you threw a ball of fire with magic and you can't do it again for an unspecified amount of time? Maybe the stars aren't right? Maybe you offended the odyllic spirit of essential flame (or balls)? Maybe your bat guano went off (how could you tell?), or your sulphur lost its magical potentcy when the shadow of a dove passed over it?
Back in my younger days, I used to use the Moons of Krynn excuse to keep Wizards from fully recharging over one night.
What about that taxes believability? So you threw a ball of fire with magic and you can't do it again for an unspecified amount of time? Maybe the stars aren't right? Maybe you offended the odyllic spirit of essential flame (or balls)? Maybe your
So the dailies will never offically change. You can bring up a new recovery system, but who really use them?
I'm going to make this clear. The DM is the one who created the encounters. If all there is was one encounter for that entire session and the wizard just easily defeat it because he went all out on it? That's fine.
Not everything need to be competitive to keep the party on it toes. Somtimes it's nice to make an encounter where the party curb stomp it into the dust.
I'm sick of the DMs putting down the wizard. If the DM didn't care how the party defeat his encounters and the only thing matter is that they win then this 5MW couldn't be a problem.
It's the DM fault that he made a story or dungeon where the party can take it's sweet time finishing it. If he really want to challenge the players, he should made a series of encounters between resting.
I already post my solution on the first 2 pages. How this topic goes after I make this post, I won't care.
After reading pages after pages. So the dailies will never offically change. You can bring up a new recovery system, but who really use them? I'm going to make this clear. The DM is the one who created the encounters. If all there is was one encounte
I think the point of this thread may be moot. Seems that AEDU, spell point, and Vancian will all be modular options regardless of casting class. This is according to the keynote address currently underway.
What about for non-casting classes?
Part of the issue, as far as some of us opine anyway, isn't necessarily that the wizard (or whatever casting class you have) uses Dailies, or AEDU, or Spell Points. Some of us believe that the fact that some classes (example: Fighters) are None of the Above can be equally to blame.
What about for non-casting classes?Part of the issue, as far as some of us opine anyway, isn't necessarily that the wizard (or whatever casting class you have) uses Dailies, or AEDU, or Spell Points. Some of us believe that the fact that some classe
If all there is was one encounter for that entire session and the wizard just easily defeat it because he went all out on it? That's fine. Not everything need to be competitive to keep the party on it toes. Somtimes it's nice to make an encounter where the party curb stomp it into the dust.
True - a mix of encounter challenge levels is desirable. It's interesting that you observe "the wizard" easily defeating an encounter, as opposed to "the party" doing so, which I would suggest is a big part of the problem many of us have with Vancian magic.
Are you sure you're using the phrase "putting down" in an appropriate context? I think "seeking to balance power levels across classes" is substantially different than "putting down".
If the DM didn't care how the party defeat his encounters and the only thing matter is that they win then this 5MW couldn't be a problem.
That's true, but I sure wouldn't want to be in that game. Imagine a game where the PCs win every encounter easily because the wizard dominates combat. Unbalanced and unfun for everyone except the wizard, and possible unfun for him as well unless he's completely selfish.
It's the DM fault that he made a story or dungeon where the party can take it's sweet time finishing it.
That's right. Every adventure has to be on some sort of contrived timer that herds the PCs along. There's no room for slower paced mysteries and plot-focused adventures with space for role-playing and exploration.
If he really want to challenge the players, he should made a series of encounters between resting.
The DM also has to contrive a bunch of random combat encounters now to stop the game from breaking? How about a game that doesn't require a narrow set of contrived nonsense to function properly?
In any event, as someone pointed out, it sounds like the modularity I've been looking for has been announced at Gencon, so this thread may be out of date. If they don't hard-wire Vancian into the system this DDN might - might - be salvageable.
Appreciate it. Not necessarily; what if it's a published adventure? True - a mix of encounter challenge levels is desirable. It's interesting that you observe "the wizard" easily defeating an encounter, as opposed to "the party" doing so, which I w
I'm sick of the DMs putting down the wizard. If the DM didn't care how the party defeat his encounters and the only thing matter is that they win then this 5MW couldn't be a problem.
It's the DM fault that he made a story or dungeon where the party can take it's sweet time finishing it. If he really want to challenge the players, he should made a series of encounters between resting.
The problem is that the default concept of D&D isn't with crazy time limits. It's just a dungeon crawl. I mean look at the sample adventure in the playtest, the Caves of Chaos. That's about as classic D&D as you can get. And there's no time limit.
It's a bad sign for the game if the default dungeon crawl type adventure is broken.
Requiring a time limit on all adventures sucks for casual play and most DMs really dont' want to do that. There are better ways the rules can just not make the 5MWD a factor.
I don't know why the game is so hooked on the videogamey premise of resting at an inn for the night and suddenly being at full strength automatically. Damn guys, this isn't Final Fantasy.
The problem is that the default concept of D&D isn't with crazy time limits. It's just a dungeon crawl. I mean look at the sample adventure in the playtest, the Caves of Chaos. That's about as classic D&D as you can get. And there's no time limit. It
I think the point of this thread may be moot. Seems that AEDU, spell point, and Vancian will all be modular options regardless of casting class. This is according to the keynote address currently underway.
I just got done watching it. He's referencing the whole Vancian Wizard, spell point Warlock, and AEDU Sorcerer crap he's been talking about since the beginning...
I just got done watching it. He's referencing the whole Vancian Wizard, spell point Warlock, and AEDU Sorcerer crap he's been talking about since the beginning...
I just got done watching it. He's referencing the whole Vancian Wizard, spell point Warlock, and AEDU Sorcerer crap he's been talking about since the beginning...
Which means the baked-in fluff you want and the casting system you want have a very high probability of not existing in any class.
Which means the baked-in fluff you want and the casting system you want have a very high probability of not existing in any class.
I just got done watching it. He's referencing the whole Vancian Wizard, spell point Warlock, and AEDU Sorcerer crap he's been talking about since the beginning...
Which means the baked-in fluff you want and the casting system you want have a very high probability of not existing in any class.
They showed the sheets. Both the Warlock and the Sorcerer have a whole bunch of baked in flavor... So again complete fail...
Which means the baked-in fluff you want and the casting system you want have a very high probability of not existing in any class.[/quote]They showed the sheets. Both the Warlock and the Sorcerer have a whole bunch of baked in flavor... So again comp
I was thinking about a limiting system that would allow to return to stronger dailies while balancing them for single encounters days.
The vancian spellcaster can "freely" cast a total number of spell levels equal to his caster level (a 3rd level wizard would be able to cast one 2nd level spell and two 1st level spells, or three 1st level spells, for example).
After this point, vancian spellcaster can rely on at-will spells or try to go beyond the limit with a DC (10 + level of the spell the he wants to cast) constitution check). If he fails, the action he used to cast the spell is wasted, but the spell itself is not.
The fluff could be that that residual magic is too strong and render magic too unstable to cast daily spells for the current level of the vancian spellcaster.
I was thinking about a limiting system that would allow to return to stronger dailies while balancing them for single encounters days.The vancian spellcaster can "freely" cast a total number of spell levels equal to his caster level (a 3rd level wiza
