D&D 5E Resource-Draining Model D&D Doesn't Work (for me)

Fanaelialae · Jul 21, 2019

Flamestrike said:
I agree with you.

You're deliberately choosing not to enforce resource usage of your players... in a game with a central mechanic of resource management.

That's entirely your choice, but surely you can see the problems here? You cant really put your hand up (as DM) and comment about anything to do with resource management and blame it on anything else but your decision you made not to enforce it.

And also, you mentioned they were new players. Isn't it kind of imperative in that case that you (in one of the DMs roles as 'teacher of the game') police that a bit? Get them into good habits and all?

Dont get me wrong mate, it's all well and good to be hard and loose with the rules, and run things all free-form and all that. But you cant really then critique the rules around resource management, when you're running a game like that.

Reread my initial post.

Fanaelialae said:
I've definitely had game sessions where, between RP and debating plans, there really wasn't time for more than one encounter. It would be nice if there was a resource to estimate encounter difficulty for a 1-2 encounter day, in addition to the 6-8 model. It wouldn't be as balanced between the short and long rest classes, but it would be nice to have for those days.

I never critiqued resource management. Literally all I said was that it would be nice if there was an encounter calculating resource that models short days. I even acknowledged that such a thing would not be balanced with regard to short and long rest classes.

As I said in a later post, I'm prioritizing fun over good habits. Good habits can be taught down the line, but a player who doesn't fall in love with the game is potentially gone forever. You are free to disagree with my approach, but that won't change it.

Oofta · Jul 21, 2019

Fanaelialae said:
Reread my initial post.

I never critiqued resource management. Literally all I said was that it would be nice if there was an encounter calculating resource that models short days. I even acknowledged that such a thing would not be balanced with regard to short and long rest classes.

As I said in a later post, I'm prioritizing fun over good habits. Good habits can be taught down the line, but a player who doesn't fall in love with the game is potentially gone forever. You are free to disagree with my approach, but that won't change it.

Every group is going to have different capabilities. Even with the same DM, same rules, similar classes, I've noticed a difference in what they can handle so difficulty of encounters is more art than science. So in your case if you don't want to track resources between games, simply make the encounters more difficult. When calculating, increase the group size, ignore the number of enemies multiplier, always throw hard or deadly encounters. That will make combats more likely to be deadly, but I think it's your best option without going to a different system. You may also want to make rests even easier than standard to give people a chance to recuperate, or give them easy access to out of combat healing.

Note that having fewer but more difficult fights will lead to a greater disparity between slow-and-steady types like fighters and nova types. I don't know of any way around that without massive rules changes or tracking resources between sessions.

Swarmkeeper · Jul 21, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Now the discussion's getting silly.

One of you're saying "don't blame the game if you can't be bothered to track resources in a resource-management game".

That's entirely reasonable... except the OPs topic is something else:

"I don't like D&D being a resource-management game. How can I make D&D be not about managing resources?"

Agree with the bold, but it's not what you "quote".

The OP is about getting around "meaningless" encounters that only serve the purpose of resource depletion. The OP says nothing about resource-management being a problem.

Xaelvaen · Jul 21, 2019

dnd4vr said:
We played with individual initiative, in older editions modified by speed factors, casting times, etc., and at least rolled in 5E for a long time. We toyed with separate initiative speed for certain actions, movement, etc. But then a new player was like, "Oh, that is how you do it? We always just rolled once and moved on to the rounds."

So, at first, I abhorred the idea of cyclical initiative, thinking it would lead to meta-gaming, unreasonable planning, etc. I decided to give the roll-and-repeat system a chance. Honestly, none of that stuff I was worried about happened. Our combat is so much quicker now, especially using average damage. The only thing that slows things down now is when some players still insist on rolling for damage like sneak attacks, fireballs, etc. They have to count our their dice, roll, and add it up. When I cast fireball, it does 28 damage, save for 14. Nice, simple, quick.

And you know what? It all works out just as well as before. The ONLY time the DM rolls damage for anything is if using the average damage would result in a character's death. This way, at least such a character has a random chance for survival instead of simply allowing the average damage to kill them off.

I know doing it this way is certainly not for everyone, but now that we're doing it this way and have been for a long time, I can't imagine going back to a more complex and cumbersome system.

That's awesome that it works for your group! Does seem like a great way to use 5e to its intended short-battle potential. I mean, when we first started playing 5e, we went purely by the book, including the Cyclical Initiative, and it in no way took away from the game.

Our preference for dynamic initiative is actually to eliminate some of the randomness - getting a 1 on a single check, and that putting you last for an entire combat - it was brutal on us, so I developed our current initiative system which we can port into literally any system, and it's quite enjoyable (for us at least).

Thanks for clarifying your reasoning for the cyclical!

Xaelvaen · Jul 21, 2019

Fanaelialae said:
I've been making trackers like that since I was a kid. The trick with things like that is that it doesn't help if players forget to use them. Some of them have those O's on their sheets already (I didn't even have to suggest it, it's just that obvious). Doesn't do much if the player gets so excited about resolving their ability that they forget to tick the tracker. I've never had issues with them tracking HP. I've had some issues with them tracking XP though. So I'm essentially certain that it's not a matter of cheating, merely carelessness.

I know it's a ton of extra work on me as a DM, but since I use Maptools for tabletop projection, I also use it to track all resources a character uses. That way, it's a double-check system to make sure the resources are marked appropriately. I trust my players emphatically to do the right thing, so it's not about anti-cheating, but like you said - excitement can wreck the best of players' attention to detail.

DND_Reborn · Jul 21, 2019

Xaelvaen said:
That's awesome that it works for your group! Does seem like a great way to use 5e to its intended short-battle potential. I mean, when we first started playing 5e, we went purely by the book, including the Cyclical Initiative, and it in no way took away from the game.

Our preference for dynamic initiative is actually to eliminate some of the randomness - getting a 1 on a single check, and that putting you last for an entire combat - it was brutal on us, so I developed our current initiative system which we can port into literally any system, and it's quite enjoyable (for us at least).

Thanks for clarifying your reasoning for the cyclical!

No problem, I am glad to share. Some people might decide to give it a try and like it, others won't.

When you mention the idea of getting the 1 and going last for the entire combat, you get it doesn't really matter after the first round? All that really happens is everyone else gets one extra action, and then you would be going first. Suppose you had an order of ABCDE, with E going last. Well, if ABCD all go, then it becomes EABCD... and E is now "first" and will always be "first".

I know in many games going first is key, but at least for our table much of the first round is often spent moving, etc. anyway. Using the above example, suppose the encounter distance is 45 feet. A goes first, using a move and dash to engage E. Later on, E gets to attack first because A's turn was spent closing the distance. Of course, the smart thing for A would be to move a bit and maybe throw a weapon or something, and allow E to finish closing the distance. That is where some tactics come into play obviously.

We toyed with a partial turn system. Suppose the order is ABCDE. The "first time through" the order, you can move OR act (not both). Then the order reverses to EDCBA, and you can take the rest of your turn. On the next turn, the order shifts one position to BCDEA, then finishes with AEDCB (the reverse). It shifts again to CDEAB and BAEDC. The fourth round is DEABC and CBAED. Finally the last shift would be EABCD and DCBAE, before it starts all over again. While it sounds complicated, in practice it was fine and it add some variability to the order without rerolling. Ultimately, we dropped it for the normal cyclical because, frankly, it just didn't matter.

We tried variable speeds as well, akin to the Greyhawk variant. If you attacked with a weapon, you rolled the damage die to determine the speed for that round. So, a longbow would add 1d8 to your Initiative. Movement was a d6, as were most other actions. Suppose you wanted to move and then attack with your longbow once in position for the shot. Roll d6, get a 4. You finish your move on 4. Then roll the d8, get a 3. You attack on 7 (4+3), etc. Extra attacks added rolls of course, and movement when broken added more d6's. Spells used a d4 up to level 4 (cantrips were d4-1). After than you used the next larger die type by level (5,6 used d6, 7,8 used d8, 9 used d10). We had rules for how things like Alert and advantage changed things, as well as your Dex mod, etc. It was a more complex system, but in many ways modeled combat better. However, like the rest, we sacrificed the idea (as much as I loved it) for speed of play.

Xaelvaen · Jul 21, 2019

dnd4vr said:
No problem, I am glad to share. Some people might decide to give it a try and like it, others won't.

When you mention the idea of getting the 1 and going last for the entire combat, you get it doesn't really matter after the first round? All that really happens is everyone else gets one extra action, and then you would be going first. Suppose you had an order of ABCDE, with E going last. Well, if ABCD all go, then it becomes EABCD... and E is now "first" and will always be "first".

I know in many games going first is key, but at least for our table much of the first round is often spent moving, etc. anyway. Using the above example, suppose the encounter distance is 45 feet. A goes first, using a move and dash to engage E. Later on, E gets to attack first because A's turn was spent closing the distance. Of course, the smart thing for A would be to move a bit and maybe throw a weapon or something, and allow E to finish closing the distance. That is where some tactics come into play obviously.

We toyed with a partial turn system. Suppose the order is ABCDE. The "first time through" the order, you can move OR act (not both). Then the order reverses to EDCBA, and you can take the rest of your turn. On the next turn, the order shifts one position to BCDEA, then finishes with AEDCB (the reverse). It shifts again to CDEAB and BAEDC. The fourth round is DEABC and CBAED. Finally the last shift would be EABCD and DCBAE, before it starts all over again. While it sounds complicated, in practice it was fine and it add some variability to the order without rerolling. Ultimately, we dropped it for the normal cyclical because, frankly, it just didn't matter.

We tried variable speeds as well, akin to the Greyhawk variant. If you attacked with a weapon, you rolled the damage die to determine the speed for that round. So, a longbow would add 1d8 to your Initiative. Movement was a d6, as were most other actions. Suppose you wanted to move and then attack with your longbow once in position for the shot. Roll d6, get a 4. You finish your move on 4. Then roll the d8, get a 3. You attack on 7 (4+3), etc. Extra attacks added rolls of course, and movement when broken added more d6's. Spells used a d4 up to level 4 (cantrips were d4-1). After than you used the next larger die type by level (5,6 used d6, 7,8 used d8, 9 used d10). We had rules for how things like Alert and advantage changed things, as well as your Dex mod, etc. It was a more complex system, but in many ways modeled combat better. However, like the rest, we sacrificed the idea (as much as I loved it) for speed of play.

Honestly, we go variable because it is a Pro-Defender approach. With your 45ft assumption, in example, defender does nothing but rush forward at the end of the round and engage. If all the foes attack him on their turn, there's a high likelihood he doesn't live to see his next turn. We don't really do 'trivial' encounters as mentioned before, just not our playstyle. With the dynamic initiative, since he did nothing but move, there is a high chance he'll go before, or between some of those bad guys. This gives him the chance to prepare for their oncoming assault, kill one to weaken their damage output, protect a nearby ally who might not be as chunky, or heal (potion, lay on hands, etc).

Doesn't -always- work that way, but we just like the failsafe in place. I'm not advocating anyone switch to our system by any means haha - that level of crunch isn't for everyone, especially the OP. It's just what we enjoy, and that's what we're all here for of course!

CapnZapp · Jul 21, 2019

DM Dave1 said:
Agree with the bold, but it's not what you "quote".

The OP is about getting around "meaningless" encounters that only serve the purpose of resource deletion. The OP says nothing about resource-management being a problem.

Except the topics are conflated.

On the surface, avoiding "meaningless" encounters is trivial. Just don't have them.

The interesting part is where you note how this leads to imbalance between short and long rest classes, and make the question instead read "how do I avoid long rest classes dominating short but possibly difficult adventuring days?"

Which leads us right back into resource-management being a problem.

The real solution is having two versions of each class: one long rester, one short.

This way people not enjoying the default resource management game, but still likes to track resources per day, can play an all-long-rest party.

And people not enjoying much resource management at all can play an all-short-rest party.

Xaelvaen · Jul 21, 2019

CapnZapp said:
The real solution is having two versions of each class: one long rester, one short.

This way people not enjoying the default resource management game, but still likes to track resources per day, can play an all-long-rest party.

And people not enjoying much resource management at all can play an all-short-rest party.

In one of the very rare times I played a character instead of DMed, an FLGS game, the DM decided we'd play his version of 5e - everything was an 'encounter' resource, meaning even spell slots came back at the end of each fight. It obviously made wizards crazy powerful, so he threw some really long fights in there. I'm surprised to say I didn't find it at all terrible. It was a nice change of pace, but not something I'd want to play every day. Once or twice a month, though...

Retreater · Jul 21, 2019

Eric V said:
I usually found that once a fight got down to spamming at-wills, it was over and we just handwaved the rest.

I really appreciate your position on this one though; though I play a bit more frequently than you, it's still a slog for no real (fun) reason it seems.

It's a big enough problem that, after this campaign wraps up, we'll be switching to 13th Age. Have you considered that?

We've done 13th Age. Didn't go over well with the group, strangely. Was kinda the number inflation (rolling big pools of dice), still others didn't like the relationships with the Icons that got confusing with possible conflicting connections, etc