D&D 3E/3.5 Jonathan Tweet: Third Edition and Per-Day Spells

On the Third Edition design team, we were tasked with rationalizing the game system, but there were some big elements of the system that we didn’t question. We inherited a system in which spellcasters get better in three ways at a time as they level up; they get more spells per day, higher-level spells, and more damage with spells of a given level. In retrospect, that problem is easy to see, and we didn’t fix it. We also inherited a system that balanced powerful class features, notably spells, by making them usable once per day. The problems with that system are less obvious, and we didn’t fix this system, either. But the 3E system laid bare its own inner workings, and so soon enough designers saw that there were issues with this system, and over the years several of us designers have tried to address it one way or another.

IMG_7349.JPG


In classic dungeon crawling, the default best strategy is to take each room one at a time and regain your hit points and spells after each one. That’s no fun, so people usually don’t play that way. For 3E, we spelled out that the game was balanced for four average battles between heal-ups, but actual practice varied. Whatever per-day powers are balanced at one rate of fights per day are necessarily unbalanced at faster or slower rates. Classes with lots of per-day power are too strong when there are one or two fights per day and too weak when there are five or more. Individual Dungeon Masters might be able to schedule the action in such a way that they maintain the sort of balance they’re looking for. If that works, it represents the DM’s efforts and not anything we on the design team could accomplish through system design. Many Dungeon Masters might find the per-day rules convenient precisely because they allow the DM to modulate the threat level up and down. DMs rule on how many encounters the party has in a day and whether they can suspend their mission long enough to reset their spells and other per-day powers. A dynamic I’ve seen over and over again, however, is that players with spellcasting characters are adept at talking the DM into letting the party rest. When the spellcaster is out of spells, they need a night’s rest a lot more than the other characters in the party need to press on. When a mission goes south and the encounters burn up more per-day resources than the DM figured they would, the party often simply camps out for the night and sets out the next day with spells reset to full.

Limiting spells by day also means that a spellcaster’s power level is different when they’re in a preliminary skirmish compared to when they’re in a climactic showdown. When it’s a high-priority battle or when the player knows that there’s a long rest afterwards, the spellcaster can use their best spells without worrying about holding back. This effect is something of a game-wrecker when the party arranges to jump the big bad guy after prepping up to full. With a well-placed teleport, the party’s spellcasters can unload all their best “per-day” spells for the one battle that matters that day (an “alpha strike”). Classes with at-will powers can’t “unload” the way spellcasters can.

IMG_5348.JPG


The per-day system also changes up balance for NPCs. Generally, when a party attacks an NPC boss of some sort, that NPC is in a fight for their life, and they cut loose with every per-day power they can manage. Fighter NPCs aren’t particularly dangerous because they have no such resources to unleash. In my campaign, I found the psionicist NPC the most dangerous because they could use the point system to cast at full capacity every round. As player-characters, psionicists have all the balance problems of the wizard and then some.

Seeing the issues with per-day powers, the designers started experimenting with per-encounter powers in supplemental material. The psychic warrior, for example, had a “focus” that they could expend once in the battle in order to have a special effect. At that point, designers were still in simulation mode, and encounters that were “per-encounter” by fiat seemed too artificial. The psychic warrior had a believable, in-world reason for their “per-encounter” abilities. Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords (2006) introduced special, limited-use powers for martial classes. By 4E, the designers fully embraced per-encounter powers.

Fourth edition established balance among the classes by giving all of them per-day and per-encounter powers. That’s one way to solve the balance issue. 4E is so well-balanced that it’s hard to make bad choices in character design. This approach had the unfortunate effect of making the classes all feel sort of the same.

With 13th Age, Rob Heinsoo and I took a different approach. We turned 3E’s four-fights guideline into a hard rule. You get your spells and hit points back not just by resting but only if you have engaged in a minimum amount of fighting. After your fourth fight (or after four fights’ worth of fighting), the party gets to reset to full. Alternatively, the party can admit defeat and get a heal-up without “earning” it, but admitting defeat entails a “campaign loss,” as determined by the GM. This system creates a lovely rhythm, with characters feeling flush and confident in the first fight, feeling hard pressed in the last fight, and then feeling good again when they heal up. I play a cleric in a 13th Age campaign, and the last fight before a heal-up is tough going. The last fight is so tough that we player all know that the decisions and rolls we made in the earlier fights all mattered in terms of what we have left for the last one.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jonathan Tweet

Jonathan Tweet

D&D 3E, Over the Edge, Everway, Ars Magica, Omega World, Grandmother Fish
Honestly, I think most of the tools already exist in the 5e framework; you simply need to dump neo-Vancian casting to achieve this (which is probably a bridge too far in traditional D&D).

1) Make deployable offensive and defensive resources a shallow pool, but charge more quickly. The warlock is our model here, or the fighter or monk. Short rest resources primarily, or once per encounter. (Regain 1 dice on initiative is per-encounter in all but name, and a concept like "regain focus" or "take a breather" taking 1 minute can easily be put into the system and fulfills both simulationist and gamist agendas.)

Ideally, the goal here is what you bring into a fight on offense is roughly the same in any fight, although a chain of quick fights can become difficult quickly.

2) Long-rest resources are used for restoration and repair, or for non-combat utility. Leveraging the ritual system is particularly useful, and could use expansion.

3) Short rests keep the PCs in fighting shape, but cause weariness (Spend Hit Dice to regain hit points). Long rests alleviate weariness (Restore Hit Die). Out-of-combat healing magic should be tightly constrained to reinforce this loop.

4) Deeper attrition is handled by consumables. Going into a dungeon where you might not be able to long rest requires preparation in the form of healing potions and utility scrolls. Access to this function is constrained either by tight financial constraints for a simulationist agenda (potions cost money and special reagents, the best source of money and reagents is found in the more dangerous places) or by metagame currency for a gamist agenda (replace money with a metagame currency like XP).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Exploration of a dead city is a standard D&D trope. But any simulation-favoring GM running such a thing has to deal with the fact that the sensible approach is to alpha-strike a room or two, rest overnight and repeat.
<snip>
Maybe I'm just more crotchety than most, but whenever a GM tells me "your cannot rest here because there are regular patrols" or "there are many wandering monsters here", or "the McMuffin will be unobtainable in X hours if you rest" I just here them saying:"You are not getting a full recovery here because it will make the game less fun and I don't like telling you that so I'll give you an in-game veneer of explanation which we all know really just means I don't want you to take a long rest as I've scaled the encounters assuming that"
And as I've said before, I both allow the PCs to try to rest there if they want, and I'm completely okay with them novaing once a day and then retreating to safety to recover, if they can do so safely. I have, in fact, run old school dungeon crawls using this method, and my experience is that players will typically push on in an adventuring day if they think they can handle it, usually imposing upon themselves a routine of 1-4 encounters before they retreat to their camp above ground.

If they try to camp in the dungeon, as in fact they did several times, yes I roll on a random encounter table to see if they are interrupted. But I don't see that as artificial or force, as you seem to. If you are trying to clear out a bandit nest, and then right before you enter the bandit king's throne room you unroll your sleeping bag on his back porch and take a nap, which is more realistic: that he lets you do so all hunky dory because hey, fair's fair and the heroes need their beauty sleep! Or he either flees from your advance or sends some lackeys to slit your throats in the night (or both)?

I'm not knocking the 13th Age style, as I said before it has advantages. But I don't think you are representing the more naturalistic style of encounter pacing, either. It takes more work, absolutely, but you can make it work just fine IME.
 

Yeah. 3e was too lenient in letting people heal up to full.
In ADnD, it took 10 min per spell level to prepare a spell. So it was not done with just sleeping to get well again. A medium high level caster needed to spend a day or two and so and suddenly pressing on was an option.
The main problem in 3e was removing all restrictions for spellcasters while retaining all special features.

5e at least does a better job at balancing the scales. The number of spells and power of each one are much more balanced.
As a spellcaster you start with a few spells and cantrips for baseline power and you don't end with a plethora of ultimate spells.
Also damage per spelllevel is fixed and does not grow automatically.

Could it be balanced even more? Of course.
Repeating fireball after fireball and still having utility seems a bit too much.
A lot more spellslot recovery could have been relegated to short rests and rituals.
(lower spells per day. Every class gets a few spells back each short rest).

Like that (just made it up)
Level 1: 2 per day
Level 2: 1 spell per day, 1 per short rest
Level 3: 2 level 2 spells per day on top. And then probably another level 1 spell from daily use to per short rest. Or maybe just leave it as is, since short rests become more common at level 3 and you can just cast mage armor after sleep and just short rest thereafter.
Level 4: 1 of the level 2 spells from daily use to per short rest.

basically when you would get a third use of daily spells, 2 degrade/upgrade to 1 short rest use.

What I found out was adjusting rest rules to your group helps a lot in pacing.
 
Last edited:

If you are trying to clear out a bandit nest, and then right before you enter the bandit king's throne room you unroll your sleeping bag on his back porch and take a nap, which is more realistic: that he lets you do so all hunky dory because hey, fair's fair and the heroes need their beauty sleep! Or he either flees from your advance or sends some lackeys to slit your throats in the night (or both)?

It is both more realistic AND more gamist to send some lackeys to slit their throats in the night. That's an easy question because there's no conflict between realism and fun.

A trickier scenario would be this:
If you are trying to clear out a trap-filled tomb, and then right before you enter the final room room you unroll your sleeping bag on his back porch and take a nap, which is more realistic: that you can do so because you've disabled all the traps around you and made the rooms safe, or a wandering monster attacks you having previously been lurking off-stage undetected by anyone?

You can argue that the trap-filled tomb contains a secret room full of skeletons that you didn't;t notice, and that you locking and blocking the door was not sufficient because these skeletons have once-per-day passing or whatever other rationalization you want, but everyone will know that you're just justifying a gamist need with a simulationist veneer.

I'm not arguing that simulation-first is wrong -- just that it needs moderation. Sometimes game-fun decisions take priority. In happy situations where they align, great! But if they don't, then for this particular case (along with a few others like hit points, pass/fail skill results and lack of wounds) I'd argue that you should go with rules that make the game fun, and consider simulation secondary.

I'm a narrative-first GM; I'll modify a scenario in-flight to improve the narrative. But just because I like narrative first, doesn't mean I ignore the other aspects. I rarely change the combat rules or outcomes, since people like to have those as solid rules they can depend on. And if the players have a strong feel for how something behaves (like gravity!), I'm not going to override a logical simulation of that for narrative concerns.

Sumamrizing; I think this is a situation where even if you are simulation-first, strongly consider not doing so for this case; this subject is one that has perennially plagued games, and it's one that exceptional designers like Rob Heinsoo and Jonathon Tweet have concluded cannot be resolved using a simulationist framework, I'd tend to say that it's one where going with the gamist approach is the better default strategy.
 

I guess it's disappointing if you want a role-playing game to be a good simulation above and beyond all else, but for me, it's more disappointing to see rationalizations as to why you cannot rest overnight and regain all your resources.
It's more like we want a plausible simulation, at a minimum, regardless of what else is going on. It doesn't have to be the primary thing, but as an RPG, we need to be able to suspend disbelief in order to buy into it.
 

A trickier scenario would be this:
If you are trying to clear out a trap-filled tomb, and then right before you enter the final room room you unroll your sleeping bag on his back porch and take a nap, which is more realistic: that you can do so because you've disabled all the traps around you and made the rooms safe, or a wandering monster attacks you having previously been lurking off-stage undetected by anyone?
That one is easy for me too; if it really is a safe place that wandering monsters don't travel, I won't roll on the random encounter table! That is in fact simulationist, I would say, because the whole point of rolling on the random monster table is that the dungeon isn't static, some monsters roam, some will be attracted by the smell of adventurers or the sound of combat, etc. But I would, and do, and have allowed PCs to rest without being interrupted if they manage to find a place in the dungeon that other monsters just don't go, or don't have access to, for whatever reason.

I have said in each post that I'm not arguing any one-true-way here, just that I fall on the simulationist side and don't really enjoy how gamified "X combats and then a rest happens" feels. But it's A-okay to play otherwise, and I'm not dogmatic about it either; when I have players who had crappy rolls and got thoroughly trashed by an encounter or two and everybody is a bit grumpy about it, and then on the way out of the dungeon I roll on the random encounter table and land on "2 pitfiends escorting an elder brain to evil prom", I'll lie straight to my players' faces and say "by the grace of Pelor, you manage to avoid any monsters on the way back to your camp", because at the end of the day the fun is the main goal, not the simulation. It just so happens that I find the simulation serves our fun more often than it detracts, so I use it as my main tool.

Cheers!
 

It depends how you look at Barbarian. Donyou see the rage ability as just anything anyone who fights with a temper or flys off the handle and fight can do. Or do you see it as a special class ability that a few select can do. I don’t like barbarian being something we just give the tough street fighter that fights. Personally I think someone fighting in a rage should have a penalty. Only a rare select class learn to harness that ability and they are from uncivilized society’s. It’s not just some ability that someone dips into to get modifiers for a build. Now this is just the way I do it. I am in no was saying other tables that do otherwise are having badwrongfun. But either is my table.
 

it's more like somewhere between a daily and an encounter feature It's a step in the right direction. 4e, 13A, and even 5e are all steps in the right direction. I still kinda wished 4e, 5e, PF, or 13A would have fully delved into the idea of a truly heroic and amazing action that a warrior or expert could do once a day. Even barbarians in all these games are sorta tame. I wish designers would really dive into modern media and pick out the epic actions that match their settings.

But I guess that's what the psychic and wuxia classes and subclasses are for.
Personally, my taste trend in the opposite direction. I want more mundane & realistic combat options. I actually don't like the idea that a fighter can make 8 quality attacks and move 30 feet in 6 seconds. With one caveat: I'm fine with it, if we except it is something beyond mundane. For example, I would like to levels 1-10 to have all of the mundane options realistically possible. Then, level 10+ we just accept that what characters can do is beyond mundane, it is "martial magic" of some type. Then we can grant all kinds of craziness in levels 11-20.
 

Alzrius said:
3E added a lot of power to each level that characters gained, and also removed a lot of the limitations that casters had always faced. It's understandable why they did so, since those were things that a lot of people had been house-ruling away for years because "limits and restrictions aren't fun."

In the real word archeologists take months or years to explore ancient ruins. Realistically, D&D explorers will do the same. But we're not really interested in realism, we're interested in having fun!
Limits and restrictions aren't fun, as @Alzrius rightly points out.

By absolutely no means whatsoever is that any justification for removing them, if doing so makes the game otherwise worse.

When 3e first came out one of my initial reactions to what I saw in it was that the designers had, it seemed, spent a lot of time listening to whiny players who didn't like restrictions and not enough time asking why those restrictions existed or what their purpose was. The removal of casting restrictions is an example.

grump
As for simulationism, there's some things more or less have to be gamist (hit points being one) and many other things where there's a choice (rest-and-recovery rates being one) between gamist concerns and simulationist or realism concerns. Where you must, accept gamism. Where you can, choose realism; and if it's "less fun" then so be it.
/grump
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top