D&D General D&D without Resource Management

[Minigiant]

A level 5 fifth edition wizard has 9 spell slots and can recover 9 more slots slots once per day.

Why doesn't the wizard have just 5 spell slots per long rest and recover 2 per short rest?

That's enough for one spell per encounter plus mage armor. Why so many? this is my personal pet peeve

 

[ezo]

The druid who can wildshape unlimited times.
The barbarian who can rage every turn.
The paladin who can smite 5 times each combat.
The monk who starts every fight with full ki point.
The ranger who has hunter's mark on at all times.
The wizard how has half their level of slots restored after every combat.
Dragons who can breath attack every other turn.
Fiends who can out leash spells until one side does off.
Full hit points every fight.
Near unlimited potions.
Magic items with more charges than can be regularly used.

Funny when I read the thread title none of this stuff is what I thought you were addressing. I've never considered such things "resources" so much as things that can be used when I really need to. If I don't have them at that time, I try something else.

Some people and some tables already play D&D where the impact of resource management is reduced. Instead of metering out resources, they come to every combat, obstacle, trap, conversation, or puzzle will full or near full power and the DM just ups the difficulty or price of failure.

While we begin most encounters with full or near full hp, the rest is totally variable IME.

I got me wondering. How would D&D without resource management fair? I've listened to a few podcasts about D&D's history of resource management and some mentions the increase of action management and event management in more recent editions of D&D and D&D likes.

In the recent D&D playtests, there is a nudge to give every class major benefits from taking both long and short rests. And I've experienced that both players and DMs enjoy when their characters can do their thing in a nonthrowaway combat, social, or exploration encounter, So I wondered about the perception of this if D&D went full on this and let you do this all the time and shifted difficulty according. Would it be more fun? Would it take the spice out of the aspects that used resources

The "thing" a character can do should be limited depending on its power and ability to affect a situtation. If that limit isn't going to be on usage, it needs to be on power and ability.

If it would be more fun just depends on the game you want to play. For myself, I don't want paladins smiting every round etc. so I wouldn't play in a game like that. But I know of some here who might enjoy a more "fantastical" game model.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A level 5 fifth edition wizard has 9 spell slots and can recover 9 more slots slots once per day.

Why doesn't the wizard have just 5 spell slots per long rest and recover 2 per short rest?

That's enough for one spell per encounter plus mage armor. Why so many? this is my personal pet peeve

Because you can't step down wizard power that much between editions without either making a new game entirely (like 4e) or angering the fanbase, many of whom aren't happy with the wizard power drop from 3e to 5e as it is.

 

[ezo]

A level 5 fifth edition wizard has 9 spell slots and can recover 9 more slots slots once per day.

Why doesn't the wizard have just 5 spell slots per long rest and recover 2 per short rest?

That's enough for one spell per encounter plus mage armor. Why so many? this is my personal pet peeve

Limiting spell uses across the board would be fine with me. I've seen people complain about the balance of power between casters and warriors, and I'd rather see casters weakened than make warriors superheroes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Limiting spell uses across the board would be fine with me. I've seen people complain about the balance of power between casters and warriors, and I'd rather see casters weakened than make warriors superheroes.

I don't think the spells themselves need to be nerfed in most cases, but I'm fine with fewer slots. I'd also really like combat cantrips to die in a fire.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't think the spells themselves need to be nerfed in most cases, but I'm fine with fewer slots. I'd also really like combat cantrips to die in a fire.

if we're seriously clipping down the number of slots i think combat cantrips can stay, but i would be down with turning down their scaling a little instead.

 

[Micah Sweet]

if we're seriously clipping down the number of slots i think combat cantrips can stay, but i would be down with turning down their scaling a little instead.

It's the idea of combat cantrips I have a problem with, not the power.

 

[ezo]

I don't think the spells themselves need to be nerfed in most cases, but I'm fine with fewer slots. I'd also really like combat cantrips to die in a fire.

I'd do both, reduce spells and reduce the power of them. While I'm not a fan of combat cantrips, I'd rather see them scaled down instead of removed. Few players want to return to the days of wizards with daggers and staffs...

 

[jmartkdr2]

4E had way less daily resource management and more encounter-based resource management. This made the game effectively not care about how many encounters you had in a day.

There’s that, too.

Even 4e is a little too per-day oriented for my ideal, here.

 

[Voadam]

I'd do both, reduce spells and reduce the power of them. While I'm not a fan of combat cantrips, I'd rather see them scaled down instead of removed. Few players want to return to the days of wizards with daggers and staffs...

Given the flavor choice of having fantasy sorcerers throw knives or eldritch bolts of magic for a d4 damage I am for having sorcerers do magic as their go to.

I really hate the flavor of crossbow packing academic wizards as the archetype from 3e.