D&D 5E Sharpshooter/Great Weapon Master and Why They Are Broken 101.

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't think anyone here accused you of being bad. Far from it. I believe Hemlock put the quotation mark were there to make sure of that.

Correct. I have a high opinion of Fanaelialae, although I cannot spell her (his? gya's?) name without looking. [looks] Hey, I got it right after all!

That is why that the concentrating wizard won't be the target of the spell that could be disrupted. Both Bladesigners would be buffed by the necro and the summoner if needed or required. You seem to think in terms of one wizard. There are four of them. Some good defensive spells don't even need concentration.

I might even go the other way and have the Bladesingers Polymorph the Necromancer and Summoner (assuming the summoner isn't concentrating on any summons currently). Necromancer can still command his undead while in T-Rex form, and the Summoner would probably rather save his spell slots for summons rather than Polymorph. Bladesingers can pew pew with longbows or cantrips from afar.

A potentially interesting idea, which would be very DM-dependent: Necromancer casts Fire Shield before Polymorphing into a T-Rex. Every time someone hits the T-Rex, they take fire damage. If the fire damage kills them, the Necromancer may regain 8 HP via Grim Harvest--depending on how you interpret the "game statistics" clause of Polymorph. (Why would Fire Shield start working differently just because the caster turns into a T-Rex? But then again, why would it keep working the same? 5E is extremely vague on how any of the PC abilities actually work, so it's ultimately up to the DM to say how or whether Grim Harvest keeps working in T-Rex form.)

It's not a brokenly-strong combo--probably less efficient than just casting a second Polymorph when the first one runs out--but it does eke out the T-Rex's HP while also inflicting damage on the enemy. But mainly I just think the idea of a flaming, life-draining T-Rex is intrinsically interesting. Worth testing, even if it turns out not to work.

 

[Flamestrike]

Right on target, as is often the case. Casters, especialy wizards, are the kings of versatility and massive AoE. What about Tiny Hut? Which is one of the best spells for a long rest. The evasive possibilities of wizards is what gives them their strength. They can scout in advance using familiars or spells, summon appropriate help to counter the strength of the ennemies, Kite brutes to almost no ends and with blade singers, they have just the right touch in melee that is needed to either regroup or simply block a passage and use cantrip/magic missiles barrage.

Their downsides are low hp usualy low AC and bad dex/con saves. A single bad save against a dragon's breath can spell doom for the unlucky wizard. A brute that can get his hands on a wizard is pretty much sure to kill him in a few strokes if the wizard can't get away or is surprised and can't get away. A drow assassin might not kill a fighter, but his odds on a poor frail wizard are almost a sure thing. A whole party of wizard can go down quite fast to assassin type enemies if the right circumstances are met, not so easily done with the fighters.

Spell selection can be a pain in the neck for a single wizard, but for four of them, it becomes much more easy to share utility spells among them, spreading the pressure on spell slot equally. And do not forget that they have rituals to boost the available magic. And nothing prevent them to multiclass into clerics to have access to some healing magic if the wisdom is high enough and it wouldn't even make them lose spell slots (but would slow down a weebit their access to high level spells.)

There are pros and cons to such a group. But I saw that kind of group in one of my 1ed game. The sight of 5 fire balls going at the same time toward a frost giant party can be awesome. Strangely, the sixth member, a dwarven fighter was quite happy to watch them clear out the trash for him

Tiny hut and Rope trick arent all that useful when you have been given a time limit or time constraint for your quest (and most if not all quests should come with one).

Adding a time constraint doesnt make the adventure mathmatically harder, it just ensures you as DM have a framework for your encounters and resource expenditure.

There are other methods you can use as well. Take for example a magic pillar that must absorb the energy of one spell of each of the schools of magic in order to function (granting a boon and allowing the adventure to progress). It comes with a riddle the PCs must decypher to figure out how to make it work, and if the PCs dont solve it, and advance through the linked magic portal, the portal shuts down access to one school of magic for 24 hours for each spell school not used for all who venture through it.

Encounters with Beholders become much deadlier against casters than fighters. Throw a few of them at the party. Setting the adventure on the planes, with the PCs benefactor granting them a 'runestone of planar travel' that requiries the several expenditures of a spell slot of at least 'X' level to function, etc etc etc.

You also design encounters and challenges expecting them to use spells to overcome them. The entrance to the dungeon is 500m up a sheer cliff wall (requiring flight to ascend) etc. You factor in tactics used by the party, and include choke points and situations where those tactics are less than optimal (a one way magic portal that severs communication with their familliars).

Just with those ideas, we have planar travel, weird magic items, runic traps designed by archmages of aeons past, a combat encounter with a Beholder, a one way magic portal. Sounds like a great adventure for high level Wizards to engage in. Perhaps they're hunting for the relics of a great Archmage of history, in an effort to recover his robes of the archamge and staff of power before the great ritual he started 1000 years ago comes to fruition... scheduled to occur in just 12 hours time!

For another intresting combat encounter, they encounter the archmages simulacrum and his apprentice (an archmage and a mage) and a bunch of animated object mooks. The apprentice thinks the simulacrum is the real archmage!

There are plenty of ways to structure an adventure for a party of even high level Wizards that doesnt involve 'ramping up the difficulty'. It just requires a different way of thinking and different methods of challenging the Players. Maintining the resource drain is one such method, but there are other ways of going about it as well.

You dont need to make the encounters harder (inflating CR). You just need to tailor them to your party.

 

[Helldritch]

Tiny hut and Rope trick arent all that useful when you have been given a time limit or time constraint for your quest (and most if not all quests should come with one).

Adding a time constraint doesnt make the adventure mathmatically harder, it just ensures you as DM have a framework for your encounters and resource expenditure.

Time constrain can be used for some adventures. But hey, if you do that all the time all you get from experienced players is something like this:"We need you to kill xyz but unfortunately you have 15 hours to do it or poor prince/princess will die".
First you'll have a yes lets do this. After four or five times:" Ok, we'll pass the delay for now. Find an other group, or pay up the ransom. It will be cheaper for you. And why did you wait soooo long to tell us? Nope, we'll wait for the delay after that we'll clone your son/daughter and everyone will be happy" Or even a simple:"Find somebody else".

Too much of one thing leads to boredom. The time constrain should not be used in every campaings, much less in every adventures.

There are other methods you can use as well. Take for example a magic pillar that must absorb the energy of one spell of each of the schools of magic in order to function (granting a boon and allowing the adventure to progress). It comes with a riddle the PCs must decypher to figure out how to make it work, and if the PCs dont solve it, and advance through the linked magic portal, the portal shuts down access to one school of magic for 24 hours for each spell school not used for all who venture through it.

Again a shenanigan that should be used sparingly. Not every dungeons have these. If they start to pop in every adventures, it will again feel like an artificial difficulty. I used things like that in only a few dungeons and I would never shut down access to a single school of magic, it is like removing all weapons from fighters and saying:" Hey! That's the dungeon I made. Sorry for you guys!" That one I could use once in while, and not in every campaing 'cause you would see good players leaving for good. I like my players.

Encounters with Beholders become much deadlier against casters than fighters. Throw a few of them at the party. Setting the adventure on the planes, with the PCs benefactor granting them a 'runestone of planar travel' that requiries the several expenditures of a spell slot of at least 'X' level to function, etc etc etc.

Again, I would not use that in every campaing. Beholders are not to be triffled with. One is good, two is not. Using monsters that shut down all players ability is not a good thing if you use it too often.

You also design encounters and challenges expecting them to use spells to overcome them. The entrance to the dungeon is 500m up a sheer cliff wall (requiring flight to ascend) etc. You factor in tactics used by the party, and include choke points and situations where those tactics are less than optimal (a one way magic portal that severs communication with their familliars).

That one is good but then again, it is to be used sparingly. There are other way to challenge such a party. Riddles and puzzle locks for examples.

Just with those ideas, we have planar travel, weird magic items, runic traps designed by archmages of aeons past, a combat encounter with a Beholder, a one way magic portal. Sounds like a great adventure for high level Wizards to engage in. Perhaps they're hunting for the relics of a great Archmage of history, in an effort to recover his robes of the archamge and staff of power before the great ritual he started 1000 years ago comes to fruition... scheduled to occur in just 12 hours time!

Yep, could be good. But to discover the problem only 12 hours before it comes to fruitition seems awkward. Such evil plans (whatever they maybe) will have deities send dreams of portent to a few selective clerics who will then find the appropriate group to do the job a lot more before it happens. But for a single day adventure yep, that could work. But then again, don't over use that one.

For another intresting combat encounter, they encounter the archmages simulacrum and his apprentice (an archmage and a mage) and a bunch of animated object mooks. The apprentice thinks the simulacrum is the real archmage!

Good plot twist in there.

There are plenty of ways to structure an adventure for a party of even high level Wizards that doesnt involve 'ramping up the difficulty'. It just requires a different way of thinking and different methods of challenging the Players. Maintining the resource drain is one such method, but there are other ways of going about it as well.

You dont need to make the encounters harder (inflating CR). You just need to tailor them to your party.

Fully agree with you on the last part. Yeah! Common ground in here.

And at the same time, you have to be careful. This is a game. Yes challenge is good. But seeing your abilities getting shut down all the time (like a dungeons with only DC 25 traps with a group of rogues) is far from being fun. When a group do such a set up it is to have a magical answer for almost anything. The DM will have to surprise such a group with cleverness and deviousness. I personnaly prefer the wave after wave of monsters or sending resistant fellows. Fast ennemies with spell back up (and where are those back ups?) forcing players to use such spells like dispel magic, detect invisible, and many others.

 

[Helldritch]

Now what would I do to shut down such a group?
Nothing. I would not shut down their abilities. I would simply turn these against them.

In my games, dungeons are usually not static. It is a living eco system. Divination and magical scouting will only give you a picture of the dungeon at that time. It is not always as you see it.

The group wants to enter the dungeon. They use arcane eye to map the lay out. An hour pass...
-Ok boys, in here we have 6 ogres. It will be a nice and quick fight.
Doors open.
-Where are the ogres? Where did they go? Where is the treasure?
DM- You see the treasure but no sign of the ogres what do you do?

or...
-Ok boys, in here we have 6 ogres. It will be a nice and quick fight.
Doors open.
You see the Ogres but they are talking with 5 hobgoblins and a human. They all turn toward you.
-ho ...

or (my favourite)
-Ok boys, in here we have a quite a fight on our hands. Prepare your spells and we storm in. No chance to take with these clerics. 10 of them with a high priest. Let's not take any chance.
Doors open.
You see no one. The temple main room is empty.
-F**k where are they?
Don't know, but you a small goblin with a broom entering from one of the doors in the back. He has a shocked expression on his face...
Doors open.

or (an other favourite)
-Nothing in that room guys. Let's open the one to the left instead.
Fight start
Right door opens and monsters comes out.
-You said it was empty!!!!
It was two hours ago guys...

As you can see. The group did scout with divination magic. They used spells, familliars, stealth and whatever but still they can get surprised. Some rooms will stay as they saw. Some will change. But the beauty of doing this is that you can use the variety as much as you want and it works for every kind of group. Yes the players will have a lay out of the dungeon but so what? They now know that it will not always look like what they saw. They will still be on their toes. They will still be challenged and it explains why there are wandering monsters around.

As a DM, you have to enforce the 6 to 8 encounters per day. This way, the wizard party will not tend to go nova (or any party for that matter) and players will start to play with ressource conservation in mind. I often see my players using the dodge action to mitigate HP loss. Most of my combat encounters lasts about 5 to 7 rounds even the medium ones. A hard one can go up to 10 rounds if the pc are afraid to go nova because they want to keep their ressource for resting. When they rest, I use random encounters to make sure the 6 to 8 encounter per day is met. With these tools, you can go very far. But the wizard party will be able to handle a bit more of the 6 to 8.

I think that with the all wizard party, aiming for a 8 to 10 encounters per day will do the job without increasing difficulty too much. They will have to learn not to nova all the time. Moving monsters around will make things interesting for the players.

And if the players rely on rope trick and leomund's tiny hut they're in for a surprise. If they storm a dungeon and some of the inhabitant finds out, then it is possible that they will be searched for. Getting out of the rope trick might drop them in the middle of a search party! Or into an ambush as the resident casters try to find them with detect magic or invisibility.

I sincerly believe that by using active resident in the dungeon that you can keep players on their toes. It's not by constantly shutting down their abilities that you will do it. I know, I tried that 30 years ago and almost lost my players. Being challenged is fun. Being shut down is not.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Tiny hut and Rope trick arent all that useful when you have been given a time limit or time constraint for your quest (and most if not all quests should come with one).

That's familiar, and maybe even a little circular at this point. Does D&D tradition of 'daily' powers really work? Well sure, as long as your quests have time constraints. And quests should have time constraints, because that's what works...

There are other methods you can use as well. Take for example a magic pillar that must absorb the energy of one spell of each of the schools of magic in order to function (granting a boon and allowing the adventure to progress).

So, something that uses up slots just to use up slots, and holds the game up if the party doesn't have the right composition and the right breadth of spells prepared?

You also design encounters and challenges expecting them to use spells to overcome them. The entrance to the dungeon is 500m up a sheer cliff wall (requiring flight to ascend) etc. You factor in tactics used by the party, and include choke points and situations where those tactics are less than optimal (a one way magic portal that severs communication with their familliars).

More this, yes. You can try to aim for that theoretical balance point where an ideal party in an ideal day-length neatly stacks up against eachother, or you can tailor each adventure to the party and the players so everyone gets to have some fun. That might mean single encounter days with the danger level ratcheted way up, or not.
It's all on the DM.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's familiar, and maybe even a little circular at this point. Does D&D tradition of 'daily' powers really work? Well sure, as long as your quests have time constraints? And most quests should have time constraints, because that's what works...

You can also go the other direction: allow challenges which don't rely on attrition at all, which are interesting even when everybody is at full resources. Say you discover that there's a crashed beholder tyrant ship in the hills nearby the player characters' stronghold, and dozens of bickering beholders have gone their separate ways and are each trying to collect an army and establish a little fiefdom. Some of them have recruited local goblin tribes, others have inherited a bunch of peasants, others may have taken control of the ship's aberration footsoldiers, some of them may kept their heads cool enough to remain with each other, and maybe the smartest and quickest of them is embedded right in the stronghold's own underworld... and almost all of the beholders are converging on the stronghold as the logical seat of their new empire.

There's no time limit on this quest, so players are free to five-minute-work-day each beholder they manage to uncover and then take a long rest... but if they do, there will be consequences as the other beholders continue to usurp control. (A group of warlocks and moon druids could of course five-minute-work-day each beholder with fewer or perhaps no consequences, since they take only an hour to recover.) Even if they do five-minute-work-day, though, they will be constrained within the scope of that conflict by action economy, concentration economy, available information, terrain, and enemy actions. Sure, they don't have to worry about spell slot economy or action surge economy or rage economy, but it's still going to be an interesting encounter!

Does that mean I'm giving up on the D&D tradition of Vancian magic? Not really. I still think Vancian magic is an interesting feature of a fantasy world. But I think the game can be more interesting and more like a good fantasy story if you don't build all of your adventures and encounters around implausibly-segmented grindy attrition trying to deplete that Vancian magic*. Maybe have a kidnapping or other reactive event with a hard time limit once in a while (20% of adventures?), for variety, but the rest of the time pacing should be more realistic.

I do wish WotC weren't so obsessed with applying Vancian paradigms to non-magical phenomena like Battlemaster combat maneuvers--but I think we've had that discussion before.

* Remember that the historic D&D tradition is not about trying to deplete daily resources per se, since having most intrinsic abilities recharge on a per-day basis is a WotCism. Old-school dungeon crawling had multiple resources with different paradigms; some recharged over time, others with gold or going back to town; running out of torches could be as serious as running out of spells; and taking an eight-hour nap definitely did not qualify as a factory-reset of your PC's HP/spells/abilities. So attrition is actually even less effective in 5E than it was historically.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't think anyone here accused you of being bad. Far from it. I believe Hemlock put the quotation mark were there to make sure of that. Just by looking at the knowledge you display it is obvious that you know your stuff. But do not assume that a DM is easy on his players. I would not hesitate to TPK for a second if the group played any less than the quality I expect from them. If a group does too many mistakes, boom! TPK.

I never said anyone had accused me of being bad. I simply offered two reasonable explanations. Either I am "bad" at playing casters (even if the definition of "bad" is merely "less than exemplary"), or I'm not "bad" but have good DMs who don't break a sweat challenging a "good" caster. They're both equally viable as explanations, although I know which one I favor.

You can also go the other direction: allow challenges which don't rely on attrition at all, which are interesting even when everybody is at full resources. Say you discover that there's a crashed beholder tyrant ship in the hills nearby the player characters' stronghold, and dozens of bickering beholders have gone their separate ways and are each trying to collect an army and establish a little fiefdom. Some of them have recruited local goblin tribes, others have inherited a bunch of peasants, others may have taken control of the ship's aberration footsoldiers, some of them may kept their heads cool enough to remain with each other, and maybe the smartest and quickest of them is embedded right in the stronghold's own underworld... and almost all of the beholders are converging on the stronghold as the logical seat of their new empire.

There's no time limit on this quest, so players are free to five-minute-work-day each beholder they manage to uncover and then take a long rest... but if they do, there will be consequences as the other beholders continue to usurp control. (A group of warlocks and moon druids could of course five-minute-work-day each beholder with fewer or perhaps no consequences, since they take only an hour to recover.) Even if they do five-minute-work-day, though, they will be constrained within the scope of that conflict by action economy, concentration economy, available information, terrain, and enemy actions. Sure, they don't have to worry about spell slot economy or action surge economy or rage economy, but it's still going to be an interesting encounter!

Does that mean I'm giving up on the D&D tradition of Vancian magic? Not really. I still think Vancian magic is an interesting feature of a fantasy world. But I think the game can be more interesting and more like a good fantasy story if you don't build all of your adventures and encounters around implausibly-segmented grindy attrition trying to deplete that Vancian magic*. Maybe have a kidnapping or other reactive event with a hard time limit once in a while (20% of adventures?), for variety, but the rest of the time pacing should be more realistic.

I do wish WotC weren't so obsessed with applying Vancian paradigms to non-magical phenomena like Battlemaster combat maneuvers--but I think we've had that discussion before.

* Remember that the historic D&D tradition is not about trying to deplete daily resources per se, since having most intrinsic abilities recharge on a per-day basis is a WotCism. Old-school dungeon crawling had multiple resources with different paradigms; some recharged over time, others with gold or going back to town; running out of torches could be as serious as running out of spells; and taking an eight-hour nap definitely did not qualify as a factory-reset of your PC's HP/spells/abilities. So attrition is actually even less effective in 5E than it was historically.

Having a dynamic world where stuff happens even when the PCs aren't around is the best solution to the 5MWD there is, IMO.

The PCs stick their noses in the dungeon, kill a few monsters and then withdraw to camp? Unless the dungeon denizens are extremely disorganized, or the PCs somehow manage to be extremely surreptitious the inhabitants are likely to take notice. If they think they can handle the party, they might hunt them down and attack them while they sleep (or whenever the duration of Tiny Hut expires). If not, they may take their treasure and leave. The PCs might be able to catch up with them if they hurry, but it's possible they'll be waylaid by an even stronger force before the PCs can reach them. Now the PCs are hunting an unknown enemy even more powerful than the original.

The PCs want to take a long rest after every random encounter on their way to slay a powerful monster? That monster might use that time to kill innocents, and now the PCs are at least partly responsible for the loss of those lives. Or perhaps their rivals beat them to the punch. Probably not the best thing for the party's reputation.

In the Underdark campaign we recently finished, a large part of the campaign was spent a significant amount of time and resources bolstering the defenses of a trading settlement against a coming mind flayer invasion. As the campaign was coming to a head, we became side-tracked by quests of personal interest. In fairness, we thought we still had a little more time before the mind flayer attack, but while we were doing our own thing the mind flayers invaded. While the town technically managed to rebuff the attack due to it's highly defensible position and the defenses we'd procured for it, the majority of the citizens and leadership were either killed or scattered. Though we ultimately did manage to hunt down and cut off the head of the army, ours was a pyrrhic victory at best.

I can see how you wouldn't consider this style of campaign a time limit, but I definitely do think of it as such. In fact, I consider it the best way to implement a time limit. You might distinguish it as setting soft time limits rather than hard time limits. The party can dally as much as it wants, but logical consequences will result. While something like an adventure where you have x time to rescue the hostages before they are executed is perfectly fine, it's not something that necessarily applies to every adventure. Conversely, a dynamic world is always applicable and generates greater depth and immersion for the campaign.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Having a dynamic world where stuff happens even when the PCs aren't around is the best solution to the 5MWD there is, IMO.

I do like that kind of 'living world' solution, in concept, and I've advocated for it before, and probably will again, as it can actually work for 5e. But, it doesn't work for every style of play, and it can be demanding for the DM, so I'd have trouble endorsing it as 'best.' Simply not having the management of re-charging resources being central to the functionality of the system might be a much better solution. Just one with different issues, like 'not being D&D.' ;P

The PCs stick their noses in the dungeon, kill a few monsters and then withdraw to camp? Unless the dungeon denizens are extremely disorganized, or the PCs somehow manage to be extremely surreptitious the inhabitants are likely to take notice.

What if they successfully 'frame' another faction of monsters in an adjacent area or other part of the dungeon, now the denizens are fighting amongst themselves, and the PCs return not only refreshed, but to bloodied opposition!

The living world model isn't always a faithful simulation of a living world, it's a counter-balance to the perverse incentives built into the system. Not that that's a bad thing. The system's not changing, it's a proven way of coping with it.

I can see how you wouldn't consider this style of campaign a time limit, but I definitely do think of it as such. You might distinguish it as setting soft time limits rather than hard time limits.

Yes, not a limit, but putting a price tag of sorts on time. There's an issue in that the system gives a fixed benefit for time (resources recovered), but a plausible living world gives a variable cost for that time. So it helps to make it a difficult to anticipate cost, too.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I do like that kind of 'living world' solution, in concept, and I've advocated for it before, and probably will again, as it can actually work for 5e. But, it doesn't work for every style of play, and it can be demanding for the DM, so I'd have trouble endorsing it as 'best.'

I used to think that doing so was more work for the DM, and that it was beyond my skill as a DM. The funny thing is that once I actually gave it a whirl, it was the most natural thing in the world. It's what we, as DMs, are already doing. At least unless you're following the written text of the adventure in lockstep, which I don't think happens outside of the very most inexperienced DMs. It's like if the party decides to walk through the dungeon loudly banging pots and pans together; do the denizens remain static in their rooms waiting for the PCs to enter, or might they come out to investigate what the noise is about?

This is just going one small step further and giving a quick thought to what the wider implications of the PCs actions are. It's what every DM has to do if the PCs go even slightly off script (assuming there is a script). It's simply thinking 'The PCs did X; what happens as a result?'. I'd been so daunted at the prospect of "creating" a dynamic world that I never broke it down into its components to consider how it worked. Once I did, I realized that it was really quite simple; I'd effectively been doing it all along, just restricted to a smaller scope. Since the campaign world exists primarily in the mind of the DM, changing your scope isn't hard to do unless you convince yourself otherwise. It's nothing more than making stuff up for the entertainment of the table. IME of course.

Simply not having the management of re-charging resources being central to the functionality of the system might be a much better solution. Just one with different issues, like 'not being D&D.' ;P

Pretty much. There are games out there that do this, but they're much less simulationist and more story-oriented than D&D. Many of them are good games in their own right, but they offer a very different experience from D&D's wargaming-inspired roots.

What if they successfully 'frame' another faction of monsters in an adjacent area or other part of the dungeon, now the denizens are fighting amongst themselves, and the PCs return not only refreshed, but to bloodied opposition!

The living world model isn't always a faithful simulation of a living world, it's a counter-balance to the perverse incentives built into the system. Not that that's a bad thing. The system's not changing, it's a proven way of coping with it.

If they do that, I say reward them for being clever. After all, they must have made an effort to convincingly frame the rival faction. Otherwise, they might find that the PCs have merely offered the two factions common ground (the extermination of their new enemy, the PCs).

I'd say it's more than just a counter balance. It doesn't simply create an incentive to avoid the 5MWD; I find that it significantly enhances the campaign. The 5MWD hasn't been an issue for us in 5e, but I still do my best to create a dynamic world. The fact that it creates a disincentive with regard to excessive caution on the part of the players is merely the cherry on top.

Yes, not a limit, but putting a price tag of sorts on time. There's an issue in that the system gives a fixed benefit for time (resources recovered), but a plausible living world gives a variable cost for that time. So it helps to make it a difficult to anticipate cost, too.

Indeed. But it's like the 6-8 encounter day that the DMG recommends. You don't have to use it all the time. You don't even have to use it a majority of the time. You just need to use it often enough that the players are never entirely certain whether going nova will make them struggle later. If you do that, they'll manage their resources even when they don't technically have to. Or they keep TPKing until they learn.

 

[Helldritch]

The living world is part of my DM' style since the mid '80s. It is, by far, the best solution to the 5mwd that is not heavy handed and it actualy promote cooperation between the players and knowledge of what each other can do for the group.

You can bet your shirt that if a player forgets about a key item in his possession for a problem that one of the other players will point it out to him/her. "Hey Joe! you still have that scroll of dispel magic don't you?"

It also have advantages. If a group takes too much time to clear out a dungeon because they go nova all the time. The denizen will either ally with each other and hunt the group down or they will get reinforcement. They will also set more sentries and traps to get the invaders in check.
Nothing is funnier than the face a group that falls in a glyph/trap set in a corridor they had previously explored.