NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5868769" data-attributes="member: 17106">I don't see it in practice because I find it very rare that a party would face more than one challenging combat encounter in a game day, and because my players conserve resources pretty effectively. Also, I use spell points, which grants casters more flexibility and staying power. Even moderate level casters rarely run out of useful spells in my game. I can imagine where different styles would differ in that point.The question is not "can a spellcaster blow all his useful spells for the day in a matter of minutes?". It's whether that is indeed a problem, given that this concept is the foundation of how (pre-power) D&D has been balanced. If the casters never run out of spells and feel useless, why would we have rules limiting their spells per day at all? And how would the basic fighter/caster dichotomy be relevant? The premise of the classic D&D class system is that fighters can whack all day, while casters have to deal with an extra layer of resource management. They sometimes run out of spells. This is not necessarily a "problem", it's supposed to happen.People who complained about this issue in play are generally articulating a situation where a party is expected to face multiple combat encounters but instead stops and rests to recover hit points and abilities, which feels game-y and anticlimactic. This, however, is more of a DMing issue. I don't see how a DM who didn't genuinely want this to happen could set up a set of circumstances that allowed it. There are so many simple ways of structuring a game that make this a non-issue. Thus, the 15 MAD as a game design problem is somewhat mythical, even though casters certainly do run out of spells.No one complains about fighters having spells? Warlords healing with words? Siloing of combat and noncombat abilities? Or homogeneity of characters? Or the power sources that were invented to underly the powers? Or the definition of an encounter? Or why martial powers are limited by day or by encounter? They only complain about specific powers? I don't agree with that at all. There are a lot of systemic issues with the power system. It's at the center of why we're talking about 5e in the first place.Even the specific power complaints, however, are symptomatic of systemic issues. The very existence of a martial "power source" seems to have been taken as a justification to invent a wide variety of reality-bending character abilities to fill mechanical niches, many of which have inspired debate.If anything is going to come of 5e, the entire paradigm has to change.</blockquote>

Verification