Is Resource Management “Fun?”

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
Earlier in the thread someone was saying tracking every arrow or infinite arrows were the only two choices.

Here is an alternative.

Quiver Rules (made up in 2 minutes just now)

1. When a 1 rolled for a ranged weapon attack the attacker becomes low on that weapons ammunition.

2. When using a weapon that has low ammunition the weapons damage die is lowered one step.

3. Low ammunition can apply more than once if additional 1s are rolled. The step below d4 is 1. 1 is as low as the damage can go.

4. When outside of combat a character can return to normal damage by expending one quiver of the appropriate ammunition.

There you have a system that encourages players to remain stocked up on on quivers but only requires bookkeeping 1/20th of the time individual narrow tracking does.


Quiver Rules Alternate

1. At the beginning of combat a character can expend one quiver of ammunition.

2. If they choose to do so they may add 1 to their damage rolls for any weapon that can use the ammunition expended for the duration of that combat.

3. Quivers now cost 10gp (or some appropriate amount for your campaign)

Here you treat ammo as a consumable that gives a slight edge. Requires no bookkeeping for normal combats.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
What loverdrive said, and yes, spell failure is annoying; I know people who would refuse to cast spells with even a 5% chance of failure (such as due to old school magic resistance).

As to whether or not everyone would use magic...well, yeah. Why wouldn't they? In fact, the better question is why don't they now, since 5e gives no reason whatsoever for people not to use magic.
People complain all over the place about how casters are too powerful, even in 5e.

And yet when given an easy means of reining them in* you won't use it, instead suggesting everyone should play a caster.

I've neither sympathy nor time for those who won't cast spells if there's a risk of failure.

* - and maybe also giving them back some power in the actual spells.
Don't get me wrong, magic does need to be contained, but lowering it's power would be better than having a greater chance of spells to fail (since some already require attack rolls, allow saving throws or both) or worse, turning everyone into a wild magic sorcerer, where the party is constantly wondering if today is the day they will be engulfed in a miscast fireball.
Casting times and interruptability are your friend, my friend; with interruption risking a wild surge. WotC-era D&D has screwed up awfully on this.

I don't mind spells being powerful - I don't want to see the spells nerfed, I'd rather just make them less reliable to cast and riskier for all involved. In other words: high risk, high reward.
 

That's something else I haven't seen in nearly forever: a party using pack animals. For anything.
Both the fantasy campaigns I'm playing do that.

One rides everywhere, and often uses either pack animals or a cart. Our cavalier has a squire who looks after the horses when we aren't on them, and the paladin's fully sapient horse helps too. We sometime have to collect them when they've run from a night attack: we don't tether them too tightly, so that they can run.

The other party walks, but took a pack-mule on the current expedition, which started with a long journey. We did have to worry about keeping it alive as we explored the scenario area. Before heading into the valley full of tombstones we tethered it in a quiet area with a lot of grass; we expect it will have got free by the time we get back.
 

Quiver Rules (made up in 2 minutes just now)

1. When a 1 rolled for a ranged weapon attack the attacker becomes low on that weapons ammunition.
That's a bit too random. It's perfectly possible to roll a 1 on the first ranged weapon attack after re-stocking in a town.
2. When using a weapon that has low ammunition the weapons damage die is lowered one step.

3. Low ammunition can apply more than once if additional 1s are rolled. The step below d4 is 1. 1 is as low as the damage can go.
What does this mean in terms of the underlying game reality? You can't shoot 0.8 of an arrow.
 

loverdrive

Prophet of the profane (She/Her)
What does this mean in terms of the underlying game reality? You can't shoot 0.8 of an arrow.
For example, your character shoots only one arrow where normally they would make two or three shots in a quick succession. Or maybe they use subpar ammunition they avoided using before. Or maybe they are so worried about expending the last few rounds that their hands are shaking slightly.

Narrarive justifications are a dime a dozen.
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
extended casting durations are i thing i think ought to make a return, sure you can have your action/bonus action/reaction spells that you cast immediately but also have 'end of round' and 'next turn' spells where you have to wait until, like the names imply, the end of the round or your next turn before your character actually finishes casting them and their effects pop off, so that the spellcaster players have to consider 'by the time i actually finish casting this fireball will all the enemies i'm currently targeting take their turns and move out of it's AoE and i hit precisely nobody with it?'
 

Panzeh

Explorer
The magic thing is kinda interesting to me because i do play a system that lets you handle it in a lot of different ways. Personally, if my world has it, people who want to play magic-users want to actually cast spells and use them regularly and not just be 'a scholar who has the thaumatology and occult skill so they could do a spell if they took a bunch of time and effort or whatever'. It's just the fantasy of being the wizard, which I respect. I've not met a person who would be satisfied if they asked for a mage and i gave them a scholar who can't cast spells but can understand magical runes and rituals.

If i'm playing a game with d&d's conceits, where the wizard is just a highly intelligent (which doesn't count for much) person who can't do much but has these big, beefy spell slots they can use once per moon, i'd feel a bit miffed if i had a chance to fail- that's all this character can do, otherwise they're an awful crossbowman. I think tacking on further limitations to it doesn't really help much, unless they're totally not onerous, in which case they're just a memory check on the player to go to the store to buy the crap they need to cast their spells, more of an annoying than an interesting restriction.
 

Jface

Villager
Not sure if anyone addressed this, and just throwing in my own experience, but my favorite resource management in an TTRPG was probably Band of Blades. I liked having the resource management tied to the entire mercenary company, and the idea that we as a group were the heads of that company. That was a nice design that seemed to blend game play and feel really nicely
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
What loverdrive said, and yes, spell failure is annoying; I know people who would refuse to cast spells with even a 5% chance of failure (such as due to old school magic resistance).

As to whether or not everyone would use magic...well, yeah. Why wouldn't they? In fact, the better question is why don't they now, since 5e gives no reason whatsoever for people not to use magic.

Don't get me wrong, magic does need to be contained, but lowering it's power would be better than having a greater chance of spells to fail (since some already require attack rolls, allow saving throws or both) or worse, turning everyone into a wild magic sorcerer, where the party is constantly wondering if today is the day they will be engulfed in a miscast fireball.
I would rather my spells not always work the way I want than just be less effective across the board. DCC does unreliable magic and it's fun as all get out. So does Warhammer Fantasy.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
That's a bit too random. It's perfectly possible to roll a 1 on the first ranged weapon attack after re-stocking in a town.

What does this mean in terms of the underlying game reality? You can't shoot 0.8 of an arrow.
I think this rule assumes less importance on an underlying game reality. Which is very much not for me.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top