Idea on keeping Vancian casters from novaing

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Um, if Bob is happy letting his party rest after every encounter, he can continue to do so. Obviously, he's not bothered by Novas if that is what he is allowing. If he is, he can follow my advice form above. And, if Gary isn't "letting" his players rest... yeah, he's a DM that needs help and he's likely to find out when his players keep dying and tell him his game isn't fun for them. Again, the problem will work itself out.

The problem is that Bob and Gary might want to alter the pacing of the game for reasons OTHER than wanting the wizard to feel stronger or weaker. Maybe Gary feels it would ruin verisimilitude to let his players dip in and kill 1/4 of the goblins in the Caves of Chaos, then take a nap while the remaining monsters wait their turn; or maybe his part uses ingenious tactics to split the opposition into a bunch of small-scale skirmishes rather than a few bigger encounters, so even if the wizard burns all his spells after 3 encounters everybody else is still at full HP. Maybe Bob doesn't want to punish his players with random encounters, and decides a more "fun" approach would be to make the existing encounters more challenging. Or maybe Bob's campaign world isn't populated by roaming hordes of deadly monsters, and the party is smart enough not to camp right next to the dungeon.

 

[Fifth Element]

You're not offering any solutions, just attacking mine. Got it. Calling it heavy handed, gamist, rule 0 fallacy is insulting and just because it isn't the solution you would choose doesn't mean others might. Of course, are you going to say its "badwrongfun", to quote from above?

I'm trying to address it from the perspective of someone who finds it a problem serious enough to prevent it from the get-go, as the OP has done. Your proposal does not do this.

Any suggestion offered is surely open to criticism, isn't it? I could make one of my own, if I wanted to (if I had one that I thought was a good one). Or I could participate in the discussion by examining solutions offered and critiquing them.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Make spells more varied how they pace their power. Leave some as typical Vancian, all or nothing, big deal effects. But then have some that:

• Are recastable N times, and get better as they go.
• Are recastable N times, and get worse as they go.
• Variations on the first two where the rate is erratic and/or random.

For example, fireball is maybe this splashy spell that starts in a 3rd level slot as 5d6 damage, is not "Vancian", but every time you cast it it loses a die of damage. When you throw out that last 1d6 fireball, you've now got a 0d6 fireball "at-will" which you can use to light lamp oil, but that's about it. This slot will function at zero level until you can rest appropriately.

Meanwhile, lightning bolt goes the otherway. It starts at 0d6, but every time you cast it, it gains a die, up to its slot max--or 5d6 if you put it in a normal third level slot. When you cast that 5d6 version, it functions very much like Vancian, blowing out the energy of the slot completely. Technically, the spell is still there (available when the slot recharges, starting over at 0d6), but it's so blown out that the wizard can't do anything with it until it rests some. (This is a lot like what happens when Kirk demands that Scotty push the warp drive too hard. )

How wizards divide up their slots would need some flexibility, but I think mostly guidelines are useful here. If you don't want novas, demand that casters vary their spell selection across all three types. Those that want pure Vancian can do that, too--though you'll need some somewhat redundant spells to give them a good selection.

Finally, you can do all kinds of fun things with the recharge rate, once such a system is in place. Vancian, being all or nothing, pretty much demands that recharge be all or nothing (at least per slot). With a system like the above, you can have the other two types gain or lose a die each day.

 

[Harlock]

The problem is that Bob and Gary might want to alter the pacing of the game for reasons OTHER than wanting the wizard to feel stronger or weaker. Maybe Gary feels it would ruin verisimilitude to let his players dip in and kill 1/4 of the goblins in the Caves of Chaos, then take a nap while the remaining monsters wait their turn; or maybe his part uses ingenious tactics to split the opposition into a bunch of small-scale skirmishes rather than a few bigger encounters, so even if the wizard burns all his spells after 3 encounters everybody else is still at full HP. Maybe Bob doesn't want to punish his players with random encounters, and decides a more "fun" approach would be to make the existing encounters more challenging. Or maybe Bob's campaign world isn't populated by roaming hordes of deadly monsters, and the party is smart enough not to camp right next to the dungeon.

Great! Now we are getting somewhere. This, however, will lead us into things like "balance", etc. and that's always sticky when the game has supported different styles and levels of balance. Personally, I fall back on the old standby that nothing is preventing the wizard from contributing to the party even without spells. He may still have a weapon or two. He can still negoatiate in the Caves of Chaos.

Perhaps a wand? I personally like the idea of an implement that allows at-will, low-powered magical attacks comparable to a wizard's melee attack in function and damage. It helps maintain the flavor of the wizard while still allowing him to contribute. Perhaps it even makes saving all those spells for one nova less attractive because now he can spread them out and still "be a wizard" and contribute.

And, I know no one likes this solution because it "must be" a symptom of bad game design, but sometimes a DM can talk to a player and see why they behave a certain way and see what can be done to change that behavior. As a DM I've talked to players before specifically about behaviors, and about other things as well. As a player, I've had many a talk with a DM outside of the game, when their campaign wasn't for me to see if we could reach some compromise.

If one's chief complaint is that Vancian magic shouldn't be used in the first place, I think Mr. Mearls has already stated that wizards will use Vancian and other casters may have different options recently on his Twitter feed.

 

[billd91]

The power level of a daily caster is directly proportional to how many combats the party is expected to face between rests, and that number changes depending on the group and the DM. So sure, you can toss random encounters at the group and they'll learn to stretch out their spells over 3-4 encounters. But Bob down the street is letting his casters blow their loads and rest every encounter. And Gary in Ohio won't let his players rest until they've gotten through 6-8 encounters.

So the PROBLEM is that in each of these groups, the wizard's power level is vastly different. Bob's wizard is overpowered, your wizard is probably appropriate to the character level, and Gary's is underpowered.

So either you have to tell Bob and Gary that they're doing it wrong (badwrongfun), or you have to adjust the game mechanics to encourage (or force) casters to spread out their spells an appropriate amount.

So the problem is that some people play it differently than others and get different results. That's basically what's going on here. And now the impulse is to change the game for everybody even if not everybody finds it problematic. Whatever happened to people fixing their own problems? If you get output you don't like or want... change your input.

I suppose a more positive spin on this might be that the outcomes in the game are too responsive to differences in input. And it is certainly true that 3e is highly responsive to choices made by the players and the DM in character builds and campaign/play styles. But that's part of the magic of RPGs for me. There's so much variety that can come out of them and each campaign/group has a unique personality.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

This is a very heavy-handed and gamist approach. Players will begin to notice that the rate of wandering monsters jumps if they're resting because the caster's out of spells versus when they're resting because the party really needs to rest.

The rate doesn't change. I generally roll for wandering monsters every 2 hours outdoors and every 2 turns (20 minutes) in a dungeon. That doesn't change regardless of whether the party sleeps or not. But, the 8 hours plus resting probably takes longer than exploring an entire dungeon. Also, the party stumbling upon a monster is nowhere near as dangerous as a monster stumbling upon the party.

 

[Fifth Element]

And now the impulse is to change the game for everybody even if not everybody finds it problematic. Whatever happened to people fixing their own problems? If you get output you don't like or want... change your input.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it goes both ways. You don't like something like this being built into the system? Fix it yourself then!

In discussing building a new game, "changing" the game doesn't have much traction. Changing from what? 4E's AEDU system? That dealt with this issue fairly well. Maybe we shouldn't change from that for 5E?

But something like this will never be an easy issue, because some people see it as a big thing that needs to be dealt with, and others have no problem with it at all. And indeed, some of the latter group find any mechanical solution to be intrusive on their playstyle.

So what's the answer? I have no idea. Maybe someone smarter than me will be able to come up with something that will please a large majority of the potential players. That would be a good thing.

 

[Fifth Element]

The rate doesn't change. I generally roll for wandering monsters every 2 hours outdoors and every 2 turns (30 minutes) in a dungeon. That doesn't change regardless of whether the party sleeps or not. But, the 8 hours plus resting probably takes longer than exploring an entire dungeon. Also, the party stumbling upon a monster is nowhere near as dangerous as a monster stumbling upon the party.

Sure, but unless I'm misunderstanding it, the suggestion was that the DM should punish the players for resting after a nova by ensuring that there's a "random" encounter in such cases. That's what I was responding to, and I've raised that point a couple of times and Harlock hasn't corrected me, so at this point that's my understanding of what he was saying.

 

[billd91]

Sure, but unless I'm misunderstanding it, the suggestion was that the DM should punish the players for resting after a nova by ensuring that there's a "random" encounter in such cases. That's what I was responding to, and I've raised that point a couple of times and Harlock hasn't corrected me, so at this point that's my understanding of what he was saying.

You don't have to ensure there will be a random encounter. If their standard tactic is to nova and rest, random encounters will eventually occur. But it's not just random encounters either. As long as things in the environment react to the PCs, novaing and resting will come with a cost. Defenses may be strengthened. Retaliation may occur. Wholesale retreats (with whatever isn't nailed down) may also occur.

When I was running the Secret of the Slavelord's Stockade, the PCs retreated from the stockade multiple times and each time the residents reacted to them. They fortified entry points encouraging the PCs to attack from a different point each time. They sent out a punitive expedition. Some of the forces withdrew with a large chunk of the treasury when holding the stockade became untenable. And, in the end, the PCs' efforts led to a third power group in the Pomarj occupying the fortress and an uneasy truce between them and the PCs burdened with a lot of freed slaves to escort back to civilization.

 

[Harlock]

Sure, but unless I'm misunderstanding it, the suggestion was that the DM should punish the players for resting after a nova by ensuring that there's a "random" encounter in such cases. That's what I was responding to, and I've raised that point a couple of times and Harlock hasn't corrected me, so at this point that's my understanding of what he was saying.

How about, oh, asking what I meant directly? "Harlock, are you suggesting that the DM force an encounter every time the Vancian caster novas?" Apparently, you're version of addressing the point is to skirt around the issue and criticize nearly all of my posts rather than ask a direct question because no where in this thread did you bother to simply ask the question directly. And then, of course, you play the innocent, "Well, gee, I asked and he never responded" and then the assume the worst card.

At this point, there's no need to address your "concerns" from my point of view because you are merely arguing for the sake of it. This is to say nothing of the attitude you manifest concerning "punishing" the characters. We obviously have vastly different play styles and ideas on game management if you believe in adversarial DMing and the like.