Is Resource Management “Fun?”

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
I really don't get why the so called "alternative" is Infinite Arrows with a pointless for show "downside". I get that it takes no effort to keep track of arrows when you will just roll some dice to see if you have infinite arrows. And guess you can reduce the damage, but does it matter with infinite arrows?

And I'm a bit unclear, does the character have infinite quivers?

I guess you will go through some bunch of abstract rules until you somehow decide the character has run out of arrows and can't access the infinite arrows anymore, for no reason.
Or, well, you could just count he arrows. It's much simpler.


This has always been hilariously true.

The vast majority of Gamers-"Spellcasters in D&D are too powerful and broken!"

The Lone DM- "Um, you know there are Official rules, right here in the books to address and take care of that?"

All the Other Gamers- "Oh, we don't use any of those rules."
I reject the idea that creating a rule for spells to fail and possibly backfire is the "easy" solution for casters having o'erweening power. And I almost resent the idea that because I don't agree with that solution, I'm somehow in the wrong.

But in the spirit of discussion, I'll give you my "easy" solution to the problem in 5e. Step 1: Remove Ritual casting; no casting spells for free just because they take awhile to cast. You want a powerful utility spell, you use a spell slot as Gygax intended.

Step 2: replace concentration with "you can only have one spell with a duration active at a time".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I reject the idea that creating a rule for spells to fail and possibly backfire is the "easy" solution for casters having o'erweening power. And I almost resent the idea that because I don't agree with that solution, I'm somehow in the wrong.

But in the spirit of discussion, I'll give you my "easy" solution to the problem in 5e. Step 1: Remove Ritual casting; no casting spells for free just because they take awhile to cast. You want a powerful utility spell, you use a spell slot as Gygax intended.

Step 2: replace concentration with "you can only have one spell with a duration active at a time".

While Im also in the spell failure camp, your ideas are solid as well. Time based balancing measures don't work well when time doesn't matter like it used to and is too easily abstracted into a handwave.


Id honestly go as far as to say your ideas and spell failures should both be done, though Id expect you'd find that to be overkill lol.
 

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
I really don't get why the so called "alternative" is Infinite Arrows with a pointless for show "downside". I get that it takes no effort to keep track of arrows when you will just roll some dice to see if you have infinite arrows. And guess you can reduce the damage, but does it matter with infinite arrows?

And I'm a bit unclear, does the character have infinite quivers?

I guess you will go through some bunch of abstract rules until you somehow decide the character has run out of arrows and can't access the infinite arrows anymore, for no reason.
Or, well, you could just count he arrows. It's much simpler.


This has always been hilariously true.

The vast majority of Gamers-"Spellcasters in D&D are too powerful and broken!"

The Lone DM- "Um, you know there are Official rules, right here in the books to address and take care of that?"

All the Other Gamers- "Oh, we don't use any of those rules."
Well hmmm....in my proposed rule you degrade 1 in 20 rolls, which matches the 20 you get buying a quiver of arrows. The same quiver could provide 20 shots in a track each arrow campaign or reload a 1 in 20 degraded ammo roll in my system.

It's the same cost, the same weight, the same planning.

Like it or not my proposed systems fit in the space between not tracking arrows at all and tracking each and every arrow.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I reject the idea that creating a rule for spells to fail and possibly backfire is the "easy" solution for casters having o'erweening power. And I almost resent the idea that because I don't agree with that solution, I'm somehow in the wrong.

But in the spirit of discussion, I'll give you my "easy" solution to the problem in 5e. Step 1: Remove Ritual casting; no casting spells for free just because they take awhile to cast. You want a powerful utility spell, you use a spell slot as Gygax intended.

Step 2: replace concentration with "you can only have one spell with a duration active at a time".
I agree with step 1 but you'd have to sell me hard on step 2; I prefer spells be fire and forget, with the limit usually being how many you can cast in a day rather than how many you can have going at once.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
I remember once considering using some kind of arrow crafting rules, so archers could just crank out their own supply. But you'd still need arrowheads, and metal ones can't really be made in the field. Plus, apparently, it takes about 2 hours to make an arrow from scratch, so just the arrows you'd need for one adventuring day would take a couple downtime days, so that didn't work (I don't mind dispensing with some verisimilitude, of course, but at the time, I felt that speeding up the time to make arrows would only be a half-measure towards not tracking these things. In fact, in a "realistic setting", one wonders who has all these arrows laying around to purchase anyways!).
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
I agree with step 1 but you'd have to sell me hard on step 2; I prefer spells be fire and forget, with the limit usually being how many you can cast in a day rather than how many you can have going at once.
Oh well, that idea needs a little work, generally I've noticed that spells with durations tend to be some of the more problematic, and concentration seems to be a complicated method to avoid you from having multiple duration spells going at once, so I figure, why not cut out the middleman? You want light, you can't have mage armor, etc..

This doesn't cover permanent spells, but there's not a ton of those.

Removing spells with durations would be interesting; you'd lose a huge chunk of the spell list, which would definitely lower the power level of caster.
 



Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Oh well, that idea needs a little work, generally I've noticed that spells with durations tend to be some of the more problematic, and concentration seems to be a complicated method to avoid you from having multiple duration spells going at once, so I figure, why not cut out the middleman? You want light, you can't have mage armor, etc..
That's not what I meant.

What I'd prefer is that you cast the spell, after which it runs itself without any further input from you, until its duration expires. To wit, you can have six Light spells going at once provided you have the slots to cast them, or three Light spells and three Fly spells, or whatever. No concentration on anything, with the notable exception of phantasmal illusions which require constant input from the caster to make them act believably.

There's some specific spells which have problems (lookin' right at you, L's Tiny Hut) but the answer there is to fix those few spells rather than hose the casters on everything. And if the problem is that they can cast too many per day (I don't think it is), cut down their available slots a bit.

I'd do away with cantrips or at-will spells, though.
This doesn't cover permanent spells, but there's not a ton of those.

Removing spells with durations would be interesting; you'd lose a huge chunk of the spell list, which would definitely lower the power level of caster.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Honestly I don't see the issue with cantrips at all. Most Wizards, for example, are going to want decent Dexterity, and a crossbow attack for d8+3 is better than firebolt in most circumstances.

Light, you say? Wizards don't use shields, so you could carry a torch, in dungeons you could even drop it on the ground when combat begins.

I've never encountered a problem with Mage Hand or Prestidigitation, and I think that covers the three most taken cantrips, lol.

Now obviously, the main point, for this thread, is that "well, those spells prevent you from having to worry about crossbow bolts or torches". But the canny mage can easily start with a bullseye lantern which is better than a torch anyways, and as long as they don't waste their oil trying to light random things on fire all the time the way my group did in AD&D, you shouldn't need to restock very often.

I actually recently thought I'd try holding onto flasks of alchemist's fire like the old days, but yikes! That stuff is expensive in the 5e PHB! 50 gp a flask? The heck with that, that cuts into the Spellbook budget!

My DM recently told me he was ok with me making scrolls, and I was like "uh....25 gp for a 1st level spell slot?!". He's lucky that the cost to scribe spells in my book is so much, or I might be tempted to destroy any semblance of game balance by buying a couple extra day's worth of spell slots, lol.

Anyways, at will magic is fine, IMO. You can argue about damage scaling, but by the time you're doing 2d10 or more with a firebolt, the threats have escalated significantly. Sure, you might take out a goblin with a cantrip. But you're fighting 20 of the buggers, lol, and they're smart enough to use bows.

(Another unsung source of ammunition and other resources, btw, the monsters need food, torches, water, and the like too!).

I'm glad you recognize the evils of the concentration mechanic, Lanefan, but I don't see your solution as being any more practical. I say no more than one duration spell running.

You say "oh no, have as many running as you want, but with a mechanic that can punish you for casting spells"- surely the end result is the same, where players are cautious and frugal about casting a lot of spells?

Then again, perhaps you simply have one of those groups that embraces the chaos and laughs whenever the wizard turns blue and erupts in a magical force explosion, lol. I mean someone besides me had to play Wild Mages in 2e!

I just found out the hard way that one should really clear it with their group before playing a Wild Mage. Or using a Wand of Wonder...or a Bag of Beans...or...

Well you get the idea. Not everyone thinks that sort of thing is "fun", so I wouldn't push it on anyone.
 


AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Upcoming Releases

Top