Idea on keeping Vancian casters from novaing

[billd91]

Balance shouldn't be a goal of your campaign - if it turns into one, you're likely playing a poorly-balanced game. Similarly, forcing a play style seems, to me, like an odd goal for a campaign.

Cannot disagrr strongly enough on that one. Balances of various sorts should be a GM's goal. It's a question of the right kinds of balance. Balanced screen time for the PCs, elements and styles of play balanced in a way that all players have fun, balanced thematic elements so at no single one becomes tiresome. That sort of thing.

 

[Elf Witch]

Balance shouldn't be a goal of your campaign - if it turns into one, you're likely playing a poorly-balanced game. Similarly, forcing a play style seems, to me, like an odd goal for a campaign.

Though, logically, if you don't care about balance, and do want to force a play style, a game that is imbalanced in such a way as to reward that playstyle and punish others would clearly be ideal. If 5e were to deliver on it's improbably goal to support all playstyles and bring them together at one table, it would be singularly un-suited to such a campaign.

I can't easily describe the depth of my contempt for that metaphor. It's nothing but a snide personal attack against anyone who might want to actually approach a game, /as a game/.

The issue I have seen when is that in trying to balance the classes so they all contribute equally in every encounter is you end up with bland characters or wonky rules where you have the rogue doing a backflip to add to the over all diplomacy score.

There are times one or more character may shine and contribute more than others it is up to the DM to make sure they run varied encounters to give everyone their chance in the spotlight.

Not only is it hard to balance classes but players have different ideas of what is fun for them. For example I really don't care how much I shine in combat I like the social and puzzle encounters far more.

I did not take his comment has a slap on at how people choose to play the game. I took it as people who play war as combat wanted a more realistic style where you can't take the guards out and then go rest and expect the world to just wait for you as opposed to people who want a less realistic more gamiest style play.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

For my campaign, balance between characters is not a goal, whereas making the players do resource management is absolutely a goal. So "balance" restrictions that remove resource management are a big negative for me.

The suggestion in my OP does not remove resource management. It adds an additional restriction as to how those resources are deployed. To use your SpecOps example, the sniper can carry around dozens of bullets, but he can't fit them all into the same magazine.

The simplest way to explain it is the "Combat as War" versus "Combat as Sport" thing. For me, the game is about the party pulling together to overcome whatever obstacle they encounter, with any resources they can muster, deployed with as clever tactics as they can come up with. It's not a sport, it's a war, where each side is trying to kill the other, players versus bad guys. D&D is a team game, there's no "I" in team, so balance is largely irrelevant.

First, none of this would change for your group with the rule I've suggested. The wizard would still only have X spells per day, chosen in advance; he just wouldn't be able to use them all in one encounter.

Second, (and here's the part that makes this debate frustrating for me), I think a game with balance between character classes actually contributes to teamwork and clever tactics. If the wizard's burst potential is more limited, it forces both him and the rest of the group to play closer attention to tactical considerations. Let's take, as an example, a 5rd-level wizard who can cast 4 first-level, 4 second-level, and 3 third-level spells per day. Let's say under my system he can cast 4 spells in an encounter. Early in the morning, the party encounters a fairly large band of roaming orcs. In both versions, the wizard knows that this is only the first encounter of the day and he shouldn't blow all his spells on it. But in my version, he's got an extra consideration: if he uses all his first-level spells and the orcs prove more dangerous than expected, he can't just toss out a fireball to clear the room, so maybe he should use a higher-level spell early instead. And if the group DOES decide to save their powder on this fight, then they'd better be ready to keep the wizard protected, because he can't just blow all his spells to save the day if things go wrong.

Third, even if my first two points didn't apply, your group isn't the only one playing D&D, and the core rules should accomodate the "combat as sport" folks WHEN it can do so without messing things up for "combat as war." Now, if I were suggesting 4e-style wizards with predominantly encounter powers, you could justifiably complain that I was messing up your fun. But since (as far as I can see) all I'm doing is enforcing a resource-management approach your party is probably taking 90% of the time anyway (how often would your wizard blow more than 4 spells on that group of wandering orcs?) this might be a case where the game could be adjusted to better suit both Bob's party of medieval gladiators and your SpecOps murder hoboes

 

[Elf Witch]

The suggestion in my OP does not remove resource management. It adds an additional restriction as to how those resources are deployed. To use your SpecOps example, the sniper can carry around dozens of bullets, but he can't fit them all into the same magazine.



First, none of this would change for your group with the rule I've suggested. The wizard would still only have X spells per day, chosen in advance; he just wouldn't be able to use them all in one encounter.

Second, (and here's the part that makes this debate frustrating for me), I think a game with balance between character classes actually contributes to teamwork and clever tactics. If the wizard's burst potential is more limited, it forces both him and the rest of the group to play closer attention to tactical considerations. Let's take, as an example, a 5rd-level wizard who can cast 4 first-level, 4 second-level, and 3 third-level spells per day. Let's say under my system he can cast 4 spells in an encounter. Early in the morning, the party encounters a fairly large band of roaming orcs. In both versions, the wizard knows that this is only the first encounter of the day and he shouldn't blow all his spells on it. But in my version, he's got an extra consideration: if he uses all his first-level spells and the orcs prove more dangerous than expected, he can't just toss out a fireball to clear the room, so maybe he should use a higher-level spell early instead. And if the group DOES decide to save their powder on this fight, then they'd better be ready to keep the wizard protected, because he can't just blow all his spells to save the day if things go wrong.

Third, even if my first two points didn't apply, your group isn't the only one playing D&D, and the core rules should accomodate the "combat as sport" folks WHEN it can do so without messing things up for "combat as war." Now, if I were suggesting 4e-style wizards with predominantly encounter powers, you could justifiably complain that I was messing up your fun. But since (as far as I can see) all I'm doing is enforcing a resource-management approach your party is probably taking 90% of the time anyway (how often would your wizard blow more than 4 spells on that group of wandering orcs?) this might be a case where the game could be adjusted to better suit both Bob's party of medieval gladiators and your SpecOps murder hoboes

You do realize that there are times when the wizard needs to go nova to save the party. Your way limits this ability. There have been plenty of times I have planned just one encounter and it was a big one that would either take all the resources to win or end in a TPK. They are usually the big last encounter between the party and a certain BBEG.

I really dislike the entire idea of limits put on players like this. The players should be the ones deciding when to blow all their resources and when to save them. It is why I really dislike a lot of the way 4E was designed.

So personally I would hate to see your way be the rule though as I have said I think it makes a great optional rule.

I think there is ways to do all of this fairly easily. DnD has always had optional rules and plenty of DMing house rule.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

You do realize that there are times when the wizard needs to go nova to save the party. Your way limits this ability. There have been plenty of times I have planned just one encounter and it was a big one that would either take all the resources to win or end in a TPK. They are usually the big last encounter between the party and a certain BBEG.

Yes, the rule is designed to limit the ability of the wizard to save the day, specifically so that DMs can create challenging single encounters that DON'T end up making the wizard upstage everybody in combat.

Well, I guess WOTC has sided with you in any case, judging from this column. C'est la vie.

 

[haakon1]

I think the issue with the metaphor is that Combat as Sport can imply that combat is a fun thing that you do, it ultimately doesn't matter and no one gets hurt, while Combat as War is deadly and serious, and very important.

Sport is ultimately meaningless diversion, while war changes the course of history.

I don't necessarily read what you wrote that way, but I can see where someone can take issue with how you've characterized your own play style versus that of others.

I didn't invent the Combat as War versus Combat as Sport thing. I think the person originally did actually prefers a Combat as Sport game, and was looking to describe an interesting divide in approaches to the game, not to say one is better than the other. I believe he made fun of CaW silliness, like CaW sometimes devolving into absurd "tactical" plans, for example trying to lure Owlbears with honey pots and dressing like bees, instead of just using actual D&D rules, I forget what he said exactly.

Maybe call it Combat as War versus Combat as Balance?

Or perhaps Combat as War versus Combat as Gladiators? Gladiators perhaps gets across the idea of "gaminess" and "balance" being preferred, without sounding unmacho?

 

[haakon1]

I like wargames (Battle Tech/ Warhammer) and even when I play them I like to think about the characters and not just treat them as pieces on a game board.

Me too. "Making History II" (strategic, global WWII) is one of my favorite games, and I love doing research to get my units named correctly. It's so much more fun and involved for me if it's the Black Watch, Royal Green Jackets, and Bengal Lancers fighting the Japanese in Burma, rather than "British Mountain Infantry 1", "British Infantry 47", and "Bengali Cavalry 1", and though it doesn't matter in the game, I act like a traditionally light infantry unit like the Royal Green Jackets should do better in that terrain.

I went so far as directing my ship builds in that game, not towards a strategic plan, but so that when the war started, I'd have the historically correct number and names of each type of capital ship in the Royal Navy.

 

[haakon1]

this might be a case where the game could be adjusted to better suit both Bob's party of medieval gladiators and your SpecOps murder hoboes

Perhaps your idea is the middle ground between "pure resource management" and "mostly encounter resetting powers", from which the other two approaches could devolve.

I think you'll need both extremes to appeal to different approaches to the game, though.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yes, the rule is designed to limit the ability of the wizard to save the day, specifically so that DMs can create challenging single encounters that DON'T end up making the wizard upstage everybody in combat.

Well, I guess WOTC has sided with you in any case, judging from this column. C'est la vie.

I disagree with this is is not about the wizard upstaging the rest of the party. It is about all the party having all its member at full strength with all their abilities ready to go to take on the BBEG and his minions.

If the wizard is the only one who gets center staging then that is because the DM failed to their job and design an encounter that lets everybody shine.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Two distinct things I feel the need to address here:

1) (more on-topic) Balance as an attribute of the system vs balance as a goal of the DM. The DM has enough to do in any game - he's imagining, statting out, making decisions for, and portraying everyone & everything in the world /except/ the PCs. Also taking on the burden of balancing the PC's against eachother by tailoring every story or encounter or 'day' to showcase each of their disparate talents, failings, and strength so that they take turns shining and sucking in some equal proportion, can only take away from his already substantial responsitibilities.


2) (tangent) The whole my-style-as-serious/your-style-as-pointless thing. No metaphor or terminology is going to make that sort dismissive personal attack a helpful thing. We could talk about the commonalities of different styles and how a game could emphasize what they have in common an minimize hammering on differences to create something that could apeal to both - like 5e supposedly wants to try to do. IMHO, solid overall game balance is key to that, because it gives the players and DMs the tools to create the characters and scenarios they want - whether those are symetric contests of skill and chance, or asymetric challenges of cunning and desperation.