[edition neutral] No more dailies?

I've never been to Tibet, but I'd never declare that it doesn't exist as a result, or that people who claim to have been there are making stuff up.

Your experience != all of reality
I never claimed that it did, fercrissakes. More pointedly, *I* am not one of those posting in that manner.

But sure, yes, focus on a post you simply disagree with, and make up stuff to try and discredit it. :rolleyes:

Quite the common practice, but no more valid for it. :)


Well. . . unless you don't understand what 'IME' is shorthand for? In My Experience, just in case you don't. Either way, you do now.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've discussed this with Hussar a number of times...

System X disproportionately rewards playstyle Y.

This is the fault of playstyle Y?

Cheers, -- N

Yes, because the GM lets it happen- see below.

The only way to not use all your resources up "too early" is to cheat and know the adventure in advance.

Assuming your players (or the DM) aren't cheating, then sometimes they'll use up their resources too early.

The most logical thing to do is to have maximum resources available for the toughest encounters -- which are typically at the end of the adventure.

If you look at the way real military forces operate, they don't commit all of their resources early on because they don't know what tomorrow- or even the next hour- may bring. They always try to maintain a reserve.

(Since we're all familiar with D&D between 1Ed to 3.5Ed, I'll stick to that era of the game.)

Key #1: In our games, the spellcasters absolutely DO NOT NOVA.

Just like RW military forces, they husband their resources- IOW, spells. Typically, there will be one or 2 big spells cast to soften up the opponents, and perhaps a couple of lower ones get cast to address particular threats or issues (like a debilitated ally).

But by and large, they hold their actions while the melee specialists handle the heavy lifting. As long as the warriors and sneaks are controlling the battle, the casters don't cast spells. As such, it was not uncommon for our spellcasters to have spells left at the end of the day...even if that day included 6 combats...or more . Yes, its a tad grindy. Sometimes even tedious.

Don't get me wrong, though. Its not like the casters are just standing around. No, they're using their weapons to do things like coup de graces or guarding other points of entry from which enemy reinforcements may arrive.

Healing wasn't used until someone was seriously in danger. While most of our groups had some small store of potions, the use of healing items other than potions- wands, staves, etc.- is quite limited. Only 1 group in all those years had a PC with a magic item devoted to healing, and as yet, nobody in the group has played a true "Crafter" spellcaster- the only healing magic items we get- again, typically only potions- is what we can find via adventuring.

One reason why even healing magic was not burning out the divine casters' resources is that our PCs tend to have a higher-than-average number of PCs who multiclass into classes with lots of HP and/or unusually high ACs. After 5th level, our parties typically only have 1 single classed arcane caster, and have rarely had any single-classed divine casters.

Recent example: my current PC, an 11th level Clc/Sorc/Geomancer/Mystic Theurge- replacing a Ftr/Rgr/Diviner/Spellsword I retired to make up for the guy who was playing the divine caster moving away- has been in the campaign since February. He has not yet exhausted his daily spells for any story arc. He has not yet cast more than 2 spells in a given combat. Due to his feat selection (Sacred Healing + Extra Turning), he almost never has to cast a healing spell.

Key #2: On those occasions when a spellcaster DID run out of spells (here is part of the key), that didn't mean the DM actually let the party rest. Oh, we could TRY to rest, but there were no guarantees. If the party couldn't find a safe place to hold up, they had to slog on until they did.

Yes, this does result in the occasional PC death. It has not, however, ever result in a TPK.

The result of this is that there is no benefit from going nova, which is why our spellcasters don't do it.
 
Last edited:

Assuming your players (or the DM) aren't cheating, then sometimes they'll use up their resources too early.
yeah, that's the theory. I haven't seen it happening much in play.

Now, this is a "playstyle issue" in the sense that the players are deciding to play as smart as they're able to, instead of soldiering on. (Obviously, there are ways to goad them into soldier on -- time limits, races against other parties, etc. -- but there's a limit to how many times you can do this without it getting very dull.)
In my experience, time constraints are the rule, opportunities to rest, the exception.
I'd say there's a limit to how many times adventurers get to fully recover in a hostile environment without it getting dull (and cheesy)

Dungeons shouldn't be static. Even the PCs teleporting out would give the bad guys time to escape (no loot, no xp) or reorganize (get reinforcement, adjust their defenses...)

So yes, making the "15 minute adventuring day" the optimal choice is a playstyle issue.

Now I'm not a fan of dailies either, but that's mostly for simulation reasons.
 
Last edited:

I've Yes, its a tad grindy. Sometimes even tedious.
I think this point is fairly key. As best I can tell, the sort of play you're describing (I think of it as 1st ed AD&D play, because it's the sort of play that is presupposed by the advice section at the end of the PHB for that edition -I've seen Raven Crowking call it operational play) is simply not as popular as it once was. More players want to play a game in which operational skirmishing realism - and the grind/tedium it can bring with it - is replaced by gonzo drama.

Don't get me wrong, though. Its not like the casters are just standing around. No, they're using their weapons to do things like coup de graces or guarding other points of entry from which enemy reinforcements may arrive.
Also, I think more players today want to play a game in which the time they spend playing their spellcaster is time spent casting spells, rather than acting as backup for a lot of playtime.

On those occasions when a spellcaster DID run out of spells (here is part of the key), that didn't mean the DM actually let the party rest. Oh, we could TRY to rest, but there were no guarantees. If the party couldn't find a safe place to hold up, they had to slog on until they did.
This depends not only on playstyle but on system, scenario etc. For example, in a Rolemaster game I GMed for many years the PCs would start the day in their quarters in the imperial palace, teleport (without risk of error) 1000s of miles across the continent to the dungeon/tower/etc that they were exploring, adventure until they ran out of power points (all the PCs were spellcasters) and then teleport home - more or less 15 minutes later, depending on precisely what happened while they were adventuring.

In any system that permits more than one of teleporting mages, effective scrying, nova-ing and/or safe urban home bases, I think that the 15 minute adventuring day is a real possibility. The Rolemaster campaign I was GMing had all four, and the 15 minute day was utterly typical.
 

I feel much the same way and have been considering having dailies and healing surges refresh after every 2nd milestone (i.e. every 4 encounters) rather than at extended rests.

Thats what I'm doing and it works out way better for me. Also surges don't come back until then either no matter how much in game time has elapsed.

I for one would like to see daily abilities go away forever.
 

Key #2: On those occasions when a spellcaster DID run out of spells (here is part of the key), that didn't mean the DM actually let the party rest. Oh, we could TRY to rest, but there were no guarantees. If the party couldn't find a safe place to hold up, they had to slog on until they did.

Yes, this does result in the occasional PC death. It has not, however, ever result in a TPK.

The result of this is that there is no benefit from going nova, which is why our spellcasters don't do it.

In my core 3.5 D&D campaign, this worked very well (and played a lot like you predicted) until Teleport and Scry showed up; especially Teleport. For a couple of spells, the party can show up, attack and flee.

Once or twice I had the opposition either ambush or follow but it got way too difficult to justify after a while . . .
 

But by and large, they hold their actions while the melee specialists handle the heavy lifting. As long as the warriors and sneaks are controlling the battle, the casters don't cast spells. As such, it was not uncommon for our spellcasters to have spells left at the end of the day...even if that day included 6 combats...or more . Yes, its a tad grindy. Sometimes even tedious.
Can't say you're selling me on this as a viable alternative. You choose to a style of play where the spellcasters don't cast spells (much), and even you find your playstyle of choice to be tedious.

If my recreational choices are "15 minute workday" vs. "grindy & tedious", guess which one I'm going to pick?

That's right, neither. I'm going to try for a better system, one which has better playstyle choices.

Cheers, -- N
 

I think this point is fairly key. As best I can tell, the sort of play you're describing (I think of it as 1st ed AD&D play, because it's the sort of play that is presupposed by the advice section at the end of the PHB for that edition -I've seen Raven Crowking call it operational play) is simply not as popular as it once was. More players want to play a game in which operational skirmishing realism - and the grind/tedium it can bring with it - is replaced by gonzo drama.

Also, I think more players today want to play a game in which the time they spend playing their spellcaster is time spent casting spells, rather than acting as backup for a lot of playtime.

And that is clearly about playstyle.

There are several published adventures and campaigns that detail how to deal with Teleport- usually some kind of Teleportation shielded areas. Also, recall that to get the entire party out, they all need to be in physical contact with each other.

In addition, there is the concept of spell rarity. Found in the core rules of pre-3Ed games, arcane spellcasters didn't simply get to choose all of their spells from the list. 3Ed ditched this (to its detriment, IMHO), but there is no reason why it can't be a HR.

Of course, in a group such as pemerton's all-mage party, the options for preventing the 15 minute day diminish exponentially, but such parties are, IME, exceedingly rare.

(And, as always, there is the far too underutilized concept of spell disruption...and the admittedly weak counterspelling rules of 3.X)

Can't say you're selling me on this as a viable alternative. You choose to a style of play where the spellcasters don't cast spells (much), and even you find your playstyle of choice to be tedious.

Actually, I find it neither grindy nor tedious- I was acknowledging that some might. I think its kind of cool that the melee characters continue to contribute meaningfully to the party's progress the entire campaign. And I know I'm not alone since, as I've said, I haven't personally witnessed a 15 minute day in any group anywhere in 33 years in the hobby.
 
Last edited:

Encounters/dailies is a good idea, but IMO there are better mechanics. I believe they are over-simplified and a step backwards, or sideways at most, from mr. Mearls. Whire Iron Heroes is heavy and a bit clumsy, it's token mechanics have promise for much more.
 

Yes, its a tad grindy. Sometimes even tedious.

Actually, I find it neither grindy nor tedious- I was acknowledging that some might. I think its kind of cool that the melee characters continue to contribute meaningfully to the party's progress the entire campaign. And I know I'm not alone since, as I've said, I haven't personally witnessed a 15 minute day in any group anywhere in 33 years in the hobby.

If this were an episode of Law & Order, I'd get to say something cool on cross like: "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?", and the camera would pan to a hot stenographer demurely sporting eyeglasses and a trim suit, who could thus be mistaken for a naughty librarian. But it's not, and I don't care if the record shows that you find your playstyle of choice tedious or not, so let's move on. As long as you understand that many other people would not find that playstyle acceptable, I think we can have a fruitful discussion.

Instead, I'll ask what levels you play at, since IME the 15 minute day happens more towards the high end than the low.

Cheers, -- N
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top