D&D General D&D without Resource Management

[jgsugden]

There is room for 'at will' abilities (like cantrips) that can be used all the time - but that tends to devolve into 'I repeat this every trn' style play that gets boring. This is why cantrips and basic weapon attacks are not amongst our most effective and high damage options, generally.

I would be all for allowing druids unlimited wildshapes - into weaker forms. We already have unlimited bonus action attacks for monks. Warlocks getting eldritch blast is along these lines .... so while I think there is a little room to expand unlimited abilities, I'm not in favor of eliminating resource management.

 

[payn]

It is impossible to balance D&D. Because D&D is split into two separate "time" things-- mechanical ones and narrative ones. And those two do not work well together.

The "Encounter" is purely a mechanical time thing-- an Encounter starts, you have certain abilities you can only use a certain number of times during that encounter, then the Encounter ends when the mechanical result has been accomplished. At that point the number resets, and the next time you have a new Encounter, you have all your encounter stuff again.

The "Day", however, is purely a narrative time thing-- at some point in the narration of the game a Day begins and you gain certain abilities you can only use a certain number of times during that Day. However, unlike Encounters, there is no fixed mechanical point to tell us that a Day is over. Rather, it is the players and DM all collectively deciding together "Okay, we are ending this Day and will take a rest". For absolutely no mechanical reason. The mechanics do not ever tell us that a Day has ended and it is time to reset... it is always just a choice based on the story of the game when the Day ends-- based upon the logics of the story telling us a certain number of "hours" have passed (again, a narrative time thing, not a mechanical one).

As a result... a Day could include one Encounter, it could include two, it could include four, it could include 6-8 Encounters, or it could even include NO Encounters. It's entirely based upon the narrative decision of the group to reset things. And what's more... unlike Encounter abilities that only operate within the said demarcated "Encounter"... "Day" abilities can (and often will) be used outside of individual encounters during the narrative downtime between them. The Story around the Encounter (or fights) if you will. And a lot of those Day abilities don't even have in-Encounter use-- they are specifically designed to be used ONLY outside of Encounters.

And let's not even get started on "at-will" abilities... abilities that can be used all the time as often as you want both within Encounters and within the narrative downtime around the Encounters during the Day. That's now a suite of abilities that can "break the game" for certain tables depending on how they play (and why there are tables out there that hate Cantrips as a thing for instance.) When a feature can be used both within the Encounter and during the Day... you can't balance that against other strictly Encounter abilities and strictly Day abilities.

This is exactly why I don't worry about "balance" anymore, because I know it's going to be a fool's errand. Yes, I might have Encounter abilities that only work during Encounters and are reset on a set schedule... but when I also have Day abilities that can be used within those Encounters too and DON'T reset on a set schedule... and I have at-will abilities that can be used all time within Encounters and Days and never have to be reset at all... there's no way to be able to calculate what that "balance" can be. Balance requires strict calculation. But when some many functions occur on schedules that aren't strict... that screws the calculation up. So all that's left is just playing the Encounters as they are and treating them as merely one more Narrative unit that drives Story forward.

I dont have an issue with encounter or day concepts, they just dont play well together. I think you are right, most folks just go with it and make it work.

 

[Reynard]

When you said that only casters ever had to make that choice, I thought you were referring to casters having to manage the number of spell slots they received for each spellcasting level. Casters can use their spell slots for spells outside of combat to do a number of things such as detecting and identifying magic items. How often they do that is the question, as once they use a spell slot they have to wait until a short or long rest before it becomes available again. It would be easier to perform a skill check than to use up a spell slot.

Exactly my point. Casters have a set of resource points that crossover between combat and non combat that other characters do not have. I think that distinction is bad, and everyone should have both but they should be silo'd.

As for martials, exertion points are useable only for performing a combat maneuver.

I do think that everyone should have cool stuff they can do in combat, and if you are going to have limited resources for that (not strictly necessary, but I see why folks want that) then it should be both streamlined and universal.

 

[Shardstone]

No, but resource systems should be unified when possible. Meaning that instead of having several independent "use X times per short/long rest" features, give the class some sort of resource points that can be used for such features as the player pleases. Resource systems don't need to be similar between the classes, but similar classes might use same resource system.

I'll never understand the design behind this. They seem to have fixed it in some later subclasses, like with the Monk. The Way of the Dragon or w/e its called lets you spend ki to reuse its features. The idea, IMO, is that they want to give free uses for a lot of these features, which makes sense. But after the free uses are up, you should be able to back it up somehow, like how the Monk does with Ki.

 

[Reynard]

There is room for 'at will' abilities (like cantrips) that can be used all the time - but that tends to devolve into 'I repeat this every trn' style play that gets boring.

Sure, but there are other ways to change this behavior, both carrots and sticks. Repeated actions might invoke a penalty, for example, or characters might build up bonuses by variation. Alternatively, you could create a stunt system that allows players to do different things, but make repeating a stunt the lesser option. There are lots of ways to design these things. Per encounter is a fine way to do it, if that is the way you want to go, but it has the possibility of becoming a slog if fights go too long and suddenly everyone is stuck using their "at will" abilities. (This of course is a pacing problem and one a GM could solve by creating alternatives goals and stakes in encounters.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

There are many ways to address this beyond what I've suggested. Team-based mechanics like being able to use skills to enhance another party members turn would be very interesting. If my out-of-slots and out-of-dice Bard is in a fight, I want to know I can use performance checks to potentially amp up my party or distract the enemy. I want my out-of-rage Barbarian to have an adrenaline rush moment of absolute desperation that lets me doing something rage-like. I want my Druid to be able to use Animal Handling or Nature checks to effect the battlefield or get some kind of advantage for my party.

The thing is... the game really already does allow for everything you say here to occur... it's just that they are Narrative decisions the DM must allow for them to happen as part of the story. And there are unfortunately a lot of DMs out there who won't allow for it, because to them there should be a "mechanic" tied to it for it to be allowed. And if there's not... if it's purely down to the DM needing to make an arbitrary choice to allow it based upon just the story being played... they aren't going to do it. Because they don't like mixing Encounter abilities with Narrative abilities.

You are correct in that there is no rule in the game that says if a Barbarian is out of mechanical Rages that they can still do something "rage-like" if it is narratively cool or important to do. However, to a narratively-focused DM (like myself for instance)... if you as a player told me what your PC was doing in the story of the game that exemplified this situation of wanting/needing/having this "rage-like" effect happen even though you mechanically were out of Rages (like say you were trying to do a Last Stand to defend a bridge against the incoming horde)... I would have no problem making that arbitrary choice and saying "Okay, that sounds cool, yes, you can do this rage-like thing even though mechanically you are out of rages". And I wouldn't need the game to give me "rules" on how or when I should allow for that-- it's just me as a DM using my DMing skills to know when it's time to let the mechanical Encounter rules fall away and just Narratively let players do cool stuff.

Does this put more onus on the DM? Absolutely. DMs will have to learn through experience when it is okay to let the Encounter combat rules fall away and just use Narrative to drive the story forward. But because it is so wide-open on how, when, where, and why this switch over to Narrative storytelling can or should occur... it's nothing the game can create rules for. There's no way for the rules to make an accurate interpretation as to when that switchover occurs. Because if there was... if there was a way for the game rules to know when the DM can give out an extra Rage-like occurrence when they are out of Rages... then that by definition just becomes one more addition to the Rage rules. "The Barbarian gets X Rages per Day, and if they run out and then A,B, or C occur within the story, then the DM can give the Barbarian player an additional Rage." That's not solving a problem... it's just changing when the problem will show up (basically any time that D, E, or F occur that the game did not take into account.)

 

[Pedantic]

I'm firmly in the "not enough" camp, though I think that's mostly down to mismanagement, not lack of systems that could support it. We'd need to actually resolve our resting system concerns, which I think is probably best handled with putting sufficient requirements around resting to create a sufficiently large window of attrition to play in. After that it becomes feasible to start designing different resource management systems. I think it's pretty defeatist to move all classes to the same resource management system (and gives up a huge chunk of mechanical space that should be spent delivering class flavor), but I do agree that it's a difficult balancing challenge D&D has routinely failed.

After that, the question of when to spend scroll and potions, and how much money should be spent on them, when to spend spells to resolve problems, when to risk uncertain skill checks and when to select class abilities that move specific obstacles out of resource cost territory altogether begins to make for interesting gameplay.

 

[payn]

The thing is... the game really already does allow for everything you say here to occur... it's just that they are Narrative decisions the DM must allow for them to happen as part of the story. And there are unfortunately a lot of DMs out there who won't allow for it, because to them there should be a "mechanic" tied to it for it to be allowed. And if there's not... if it's purely down to the DM needing to make an arbitrary choice to allow it based upon just the story being played... they aren't going to do it. Because they don't like mixing Encounter abilities with Narrative abilities.

You are correct in that there is no rule in the game that says if a Barbarian is out of mechanical Rages that they can still do something "rage-like" if it is narratively cool or important to do. However, to a narratively-focused DM (like myself for instance)... if you as a player told me what your PC was doing in the story of the game that exemplified this situation of wanting/needing/having this "rage-like" effect happen even though you mechanically were out of Rages (like say you were trying to do a Last Stand to defend a bridge against the incoming horde)... I would have no problem making that arbitrary choice and saying "Okay, that sounds cool, yes, you can do this rage-like thing even though mechanically you are out of rages". And I wouldn't need the game to give me "rules" on how or when I should allow for that-- it's just me as a DM using my DMing skills to know when it's time to let the mechanical Encounter rules fall away and just Narratively let players do cool stuff.

Does this put more onus on the DM? Absolutely. DMs will have to learn through experience when it is okay to let the Encounter combat rules fall away and just use Narrative to drive the story forward. But because it is so wide-open on how, when, where, and why this switch over to Narrative storytelling can or should occur... it's nothing the game can create rules for. There's no way for the rules to make an accurate interpretation as to when that switchover occurs. Because if there was... if there was a way for the game rules to know when the DM can give out an extra Rage-like occurrence when they are out of Rages... then that by definition just becomes one more addition to the Rage rules. "The Barbarian gets X Rages per Day, and if they run out and then A,B, or C occur within the story, then the DM can give the Barbarian player an additional Rage." That's not solving a problem... it's just changing when the problem will show up (basically any time that D, E, or F occur that the game did not take into account.)

This has me thinking about my Traveller games. Combat is pretty light and simple in comparison to D&D. The game is largely about the skill system. Also, a healthy dose of narrative use of the skill system. D&D works like that in social and exploration, but is very detailed in the combat pillar. This tends to make those narrative choices difficult because they bend and break the detailed rule systems of combat. I think thats why a lot of GMs are reluctant, and many players expect, those rules to work as they work.

 

[Reynard]

I'm firmly in the "not enough" camp, though I think that's mostly down to mismanagement, not lack of systems that could support it. We'd need to actually resolve our resting system concerns, which I think is probably best handled with putting sufficient requirements around resting to create a sufficiently large window of attrition to play in. After that it becomes feasible to start designing different resource management systems. I think it's pretty defeatist to move all classes to the same resource management system (and gives up a huge chunk of mechanical space that should be spent delivering class flavor), but I do agree that it's a difficult balancing challenge D&D has routinely failed.

After that, the question of when to spend scroll and potions, and how much money should be spent on them, when to spend spells to resolve problems, when to risk uncertain skill checks and when to select class abilities that move specific obstacles out of resource cost territory altogether begins to make for interesting gameplay.

We are running Rappan Athuk and the easiest thing we came up with was to simply require that resting must be in a safe place. The dungeon isn't it and the woods outside the dungeon aren't it either.

 

[Shardstone]

The thing is... the game really already does allow for everything you say here to occur... it's just that they are Narrative decisions the DM must allow for them to happen as part of the story. And there are unfortunately a lot of DMs out there who won't allow for it, because to them there should be a "mechanic" tied to it for it to be allowed. And if there's not... if it's purely down to the DM needing to make an arbitrary choice to allow it based upon just the story being played... they aren't going to do it. Because they don't like mixing Encounter abilities with Narrative abilities.

You are correct in that there is no rule in the game that says if a Barbarian is out of mechanical Rages that they can still do something "rage-like" if it is narratively cool or important to do. However, to a narratively-focused DM (like myself for instance)... if you as a player told me what your PC was doing in the story of the game that exemplified this situation of wanting/needing/having this "rage-like" effect happen even though you mechanically were out of Rages (like say you were trying to do a Last Stand to defend a bridge against the incoming horde)... I would have no problem making that arbitrary choice and saying "Okay, that sounds cool, yes, you can do this rage-like thing even though mechanically you are out of rages". And I wouldn't need the game to give me "rules" on how or when I should allow for that-- it's just me as a DM using my DMing skills to know when it's time to let the mechanical Encounter rules fall away and just Narratively let players do cool stuff.

Does this put more onus on the DM? Absolutely. DMs will have to learn through experience when it is okay to let the Encounter combat rules fall away and just use Narrative to drive the story forward. But because it is so wide-open on how, when, where, and why this switch over to Narrative storytelling can or should occur... it's nothing the game can create rules for. There's no way for the rules to make an accurate interpretation as to when that switchover occurs. Because if there was... if there was a way for the game rules to know when the DM can give out an extra Rage-like occurrence when they are out of Rages... then that by definition just becomes one more addition to the Rage rules. "The Barbarian gets X Rages per Day, and if they run out and then A,B, or C occur within the story, then the DM can give the Barbarian player an additional Rage." That's not solving a problem... it's just changing when the problem will show up (basically any time that D, E, or F occur that the game did not take into account.)

I don't disagree with you. My problem is, DMs aren't properly taught in the DMG how to do this, and the game doesn't give good advice for how to use skills in creative ways. We DO get advice on using skills. We have xanathars to help with tools. But there isn't enough of a focus on creatively using skills, and because of that, leaving it up to the DM just isn't satisfactory to me.

There are three reasons any rule exists, and even just checking off one of these reasons is good enough to justify existence:

• It makes the game more fun when engaged with
• It draws attention to the different ways you can use the game
• It highlights what the game is about

5E is about being a heroic adventurer. I would like more rules, or at the very least, guidelines, that highlight that. And when I say rules, I'm not speaking in super strict mechanics exclusively. Give me concrete examples, like most games do these days, of mechanics in the game being used to achieve unique things.

And above all of this, class is the most important part of your character mechanically in D&D. I don't see any single flaw other than page space to having a brief section talking about creative uses a barbarian might have for their skills, or a ranger, or a rogue, or a wizard, etc. It's not enough to know that these skills are available to my class. It's not enough to know I can make ability checks. I want the game to highlight for me potential things I can do, and then encourage me to go off and do them.