A Simple Solution to Vancian Spellcasting

[Spatzimaus]

You only have to do that if you think this system gives them too much. And even then, why not just use the RAW? The whole point of this system is to give spellcasters more spells per day, not come up with another way of keeping their spells per day the same.

It's a fair point, although I'd say that there's a substantial melee-vs-caster balance issue involved. One of the big advantages of a weapon-user is the over-time consistency of his damage, and if a caster can just shoot fireballs ad nauseum, it diminishes the noncasters a bit. The current system gives 3 or 4 good encounters before you run out of heavy spells; substantially increasing this means that the caster effectively never runs out of firepower.

Now, maybe you're okay with that, or maybe you can add something else to those other classes. But I just don't think it can be ignored.

I believe simplicity should be strived for, but that is because I like playing the game, not doing a bunch of otherwise abstract calculations.

There's a difference between "striving for simplicity" and "limiting because of simplicity". For instance, one of the complaints against the UA-style fractional BAB/Save system is that a Ftr 6/Rog 5 can't just look up the two separate class levels and add their numbers together. And yet, the result IMO is a much more balanced and robust system, with fewer rules abuses and less metagaming. Yes, it's more complex, but this is one case where the simplicity of the original system leads to weaknesses.

In general, I feel that complexity works fine as long as it's done out-of-game. That is, complex decisions/mathematics can (and should) be made during the level-up process, but shouldn't be forced on a player during the game. In-game, if it can't be easily looked up on a single table or done in the player's head, it's too much.

...only if you want a "realistic" system of game mechanics.

If I wanted "realism", I wouldn't be playing a game involving Elves and fireballs.
It's about balance, more than anything else; as a card-carrying Friar in the Church of Munchkin, I can say that an overly-simplistic system leaves a lot of loopholes for spectacular rules abuses. Yes, if you've got a good group of players they won't go around looking for these specifically, but you can run across them occasionally no matter how good your intentions are.
Take the 1-level multiclassing issue. I had a player who hadn't played much at all, and so didn't know the issue, but his character concept was a mix of Ranger, Rogue, and Fighter (I think the term was "nature-oriented Bard, but a little more combat-oriented"). You can pretty much guess what happened. But, I HATE the idea of forcing a character to change his concept simply because the game system won't let him implement it fairly. (In this case, we just tweaked the Horizon Walker into a more roguelike "Stalker" PrC to fit his concept.) You especially see this in the fighter/mage types; they've had to make a bunch of questionably-balanced PrCs just to make it viable, because the RAW fail in that regard.

If it's long enough to finish the dungeon, then the problem has been solved as the group is going to rest after that anyway.

You know, in the last three campaigns I've played, I don't think we've ever actually gone through a "dungeon", and I don't mean that in the pure dictionary sense; I mean that our adventures rarely involved fighting our way through a single extended location, and when they did it was more of a "one big fight" setup. City-based campaigns tend to do that to you.
As a result, we rarely had any time where we could claim to have "finished" an adventure. And within each adventure there were rarely times where the players could hole up and be absolutely sure nothing would happen to them for 8 hours, to where they could feel safe blowing off their heavy artillery in the final fight of the day. They ended up building a stronghold simply so that they could have a place for safe downtime (and then, of course, I had an adventure involving that stronghold...)

And more importantly, there's a conceptual question: SHOULD the DM dynamically adjust the number or intensity of encounters such that the players will always have enough resources? Or should the players adapt to the DM's setup, accepting the consequences when their mistakes cause them to lose?

That is called foolishness. Being judicious with spell slots is one of the primary elements of strategy for D&D spellcasters.

Yes, it is. And yet, what happens when the player fails at this? As I said before, if the Wizard blows all his huge nukes on the first fight of the day, what does the DM do?
Does he continue with the encounters as planned, knowing that the single player's mistake could likely lead to a TPK?
Does he reduce the later encounters, making the adventure easier for the group, which only leads to the same thing happening the next week?
Either way, the stupid mistake of one player has had a large impact on the experience of the group as a whole. You can't just write it off as a learning experience.

 

[airwalkrr]

And more importantly, there's a conceptual question: SHOULD the DM dynamically adjust the number or intensity of encounters such that the players will always have enough resources? Or should the players adapt to the DM's setup, accepting the consequences when their mistakes cause them to lose?

Ok this is thread-jacking. The DM should always do what he feels is best for the game. I prefer to let player mistakes teach the players a lessen. Your mileage may vary. In any event this question is irrelevant to the point of the thread.

The point here is that this alternate spell point system addresses the fact that PCs have to rest after they run out of spells, which is the primary complaint against Vancian spellcasting. If the PC will only be able to prepare his highest level spells once each day, that means he will have to save his highest level spells for fights where he really needs them.

I don't really intend for this thread to debate the finer points of whether encounters should be balanced per day or per encounter. I did not offer this house rule as an alternative to per day limitations. I offered it as a way to extend the per day limitations allowing for more adventuring per day. If you want to make suggestions for a per encounter balanced system, Sadrik has a good one here. If you want to discuss the merits of per encounter vs. per day limitations, I suggest you start a new thread.

And just to clarify, I am only trying to make polite suggestions so as to keep this thread on topic. Thanks for listening.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Ok this is thread-jacking. The DM should always do what he feels is best for the game. I prefer to let player mistakes teach the players a lessen. Your mileage may vary. In any event this question is irrelevant to the point of the thread.

It's not thread-jacking, and it's definitely not irrelevant to the thread.

Several people suggested changes. I tried to point out that many of said changes drastically skewed the balance between casters and non-casters, as well as the relative balance between low-level and high-level spells. This was countered with a "good DMs/players avoid this" statement, to which I gave examples of how a player can do this sort of thing unintentionally in a simple system if it isn't designed well, and how it only hurts the group as a whole.

But fine, you don't want any negative feedback, so feel free to go ahead with your changes.

 

[airwalkrr]

But fine, you don't want any negative feedback, so feel free to go ahead with your changes.

Negative feedback is fine as long as it doesn't skew the intention of the thread and is still in essence constructive despite being negative.

You have been giving examples of what a player will do and then asking what the DM should do in response. That's simple; the DM lets the players figure out how to deal with their dilemna. The DM is not there to solve the PCs' problems for them. He is there to enforce the rules of the game and run the campaign.

The problem of a a player spending all his high-level spells in the first combat is one that exists in the core rules with or without the variant under discussion. Hence, questions of how a DM should deal with this problem are not germaine to the discussion. Ergo thread-jacking.

Once again, the point of this variant is to offer spellcasters more stamina in a way that doesn't overhaul the spellcasting system. Refining that idea is the goal of the thread.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

In order to avoid just blowing the lid off the spells per day limits, why not try the following:

A spellcaster may rest for 1 hour in order to regain bonus spell slots.

That way, a wizard or cleric that has cast himself out of spells can hobble through the rest of the day with a drastically reduced spell portfolio. He's still useful enough that the party might not have to leave the dungeon to go find a place to rest for a day, but he's also not going to dominate by virtue of his unlimited casting ability. Plus, if there isn't an hour of game time available, situations in which resource management is important are still possible.

 

[airwalkrr]

In order to avoid just blowing the lid off the spells per day limits, why not try the following:

A spellcaster may rest for 1 hour in order to regain bonus spell slots.

That way, a wizard or cleric that has cast himself out of spells can hobble through the rest of the day with a drastically reduced spell portfolio. He's still useful enough that the party might not have to leave the dungeon to go find a place to rest for a day, but he's also not going to dominate by virtue of his unlimited casting ability. Plus, if there isn't an hour of game time available, situations in which resource management is important are still possible.

Another simple, yet elegant solution. I like this as well.