D&D was never designed to support a 5mwd.  In fact, the opposite.  Want to spike the door?  Congrats, but all the other denizens have now organized a defense and you're trapped.  5mwd only exists as a problem if DMs ignore how monsters should act and react, essentially pausing the game world.  Early D&D was very much designed where a MU could far out damage a fighter--for a couple of attacks only, but that there would be several encounters before you could get back to a safe place.  That's why in AD&D days, players had a base of operations they returned to rather than rest in a dungeon.  So mages had to very much manage their resources, and didn't go around making the fighter obsolete damage wise.  Not at all

You should be happy then because there are no generalist wizards in 5e. They specialize by school.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761457D&D was never designed to support a 5mwd.

I feel like you're conflating how it's designed with how it was played.

Quote5mwd only exists as a problem if DMs ignore how monsters should act and react, essentially pausing the game world.

This requires that the GM be on the ball about how the dungeon - or whatever environment the group is in - would react.

Experienced GMs being able to handle this? Sure. Fresh ones, or ones that haven't dealt with it before? Not so much.

Look, it's fine and dandy if earlier editions of D&D apparently supported the style of play I'm looking for. The problem is that, in a lot of other ways, they don't.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761459I feel like you're conflating how it's designed with how it was played.

no, it was played pretty much how I described.  It wasn't until 3e, when all the factors that mitigated mages being overpowered (interruptions, etc) before you started seeing the power imbalance

QuoteThis requires that the GM be on the ball about how the dungeon - or whatever environment the group is in - would react.

Experienced GMs being able to handle this? Sure. Fresh ones, or ones that haven't dealt with it before? Not so much.

Look, it's fine and dandy if earlier editions of D&D apparently supported the style of play I'm looking for. The problem is that, in a lot of other ways, they don't.

No, even basic DMs could do this.  Random wandering tables were an excellent tool that even the most inexperienced DM could use.  Also, it's less DM experience and more common sense that drives the living world.. I don't know why you assume a new DM would assume the monsters all stop what they're doing whenever the players want to rest

so yeah, you can't criticize the game when you're (general you) ignoring how it's designed and won't use common sense

Quote from: Bill;761456You should hear me rant about how most wizards should be very specialized.
I dislike the so called specialist wizards that are not actually specialized enough.

Would you do it again just for me?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761464no, it was played pretty much how I described.  It wasn't until 3e, when all the factors that mitigated mages being overpowered (interruptions, etc) before you started seeing the power imbalance

That's fine if that's how it was played. That doesn't necessarily mean that that's how it was designed, though; you do see the difference there, yes?

Emergent properties are just that. Sometimes you design a thing, and it winds up doing something you totally did not see coming. It happens. Whether or not high-level play in earlier editions could lead to the 15 minute workday isn't something I can personally speak to and haven't really seen much evidence either way; but given that LFQW has been around since the game's inception, I could see it going to that.

QuoteNo, even basic DMs could do this.

You cannot assume that everyone has your same basic skill set, or that they will arrive at the same conclusions you did.

QuoteRandom wandering tables were an excellent tool that even the most inexperienced DM could use.

Is the game going to provide those for every dungeon, every wilderness setting, every city, etc?

QuoteAlso, it's less DM experience and more common sense that drives the living world.. I don't know why you assume a new DM would assume the monsters all stop what they're doing whenever the players want to rest

Did I say that? I did not, so kindly don't act like I did.

I am saying that a newbie GM is not necessarily going to have the knowledge/skills/awareness to do this. Even if they say, "huh, they left the dungeon... stuff probably is still happening there," that does not necessarily mean they'll be able to make that stuff happen in a sensible manner.

Quoteso yeah, you can't criticize the game when you're (general you) ignoring how it's designed and won't use common sense

Mostly I try to envision how a bunch of pre-teen kids who have never seen a TTRPG before, who have no assistance and have no experienced gamers they can turn to for advice, would look at the rules, and try to figure out how to make the game experience I'm looking for emerge from the game without too much effort or weird leaps of logic that may not be obvious to everyone.

So if it seems like I am generally trying to avoid what you or I would consider "common sense," it's because I'm trying to approach things from a demographic not known for having it.

wait, what?  First you say, "Just because it was designed that way doesn't mean it was played that way.", and when I said it was played that way too, you say, "just because it was played that way doesn't mean it was designed that way."


wow.

Quote from: Marleycat;761465Would you do it again just for me?

I like characters with a theme, and with specialist wizards, spells presumably should fit the theme.

Hate it when a wizard who is an illusionist, enchanter, or diviner take's freakin' stoneskin.

Evokers that take divination, charm, illusions.

Drives me crazy.

Especially when the excuse is "I am a Wiiiizaaaaaard! I can cast anything!"

That's should be for universality, not specialists.

Specialist should not mean "I take any spell I want because its uber and the hell with theme"

In pathfinder the even ruined the opposition school limit, when they should have made it more strict. In pathfinder a specialist can cast opposition school spells by using two slots. Its  a penalty, but I don't want Evokers casting mirror image at all!!!!

Blood pressure!

Angst!

@GW, as for your question about random encounter tables? Hell yes that's happening and been done. Now if only they had the balls to bring the brothels and the streetwalkers (prostitutes) then we're talking. Real World in motion I like to call it.

Quote from: Bill;761474I like characters with a theme, and with specialist wizards, spells presumably should fit the theme.

Hate it when a wizard who is an illusionist, enchanter, or diviner take's freakin' stoneskin.

Evokers that take divination, charm, illusions.

Drives me crazy.

Especially when the excuse is "I am a Wiiiizaaaaaard! I can cast anything!"

That's should be for universality, not specialists.

Specialist should not mean "I take any spell I want because its uber and the hell with theme"

In pathfinder the even ruined the opposition school limit, when they should have made it more strict. In pathfinder a specialist can cast opposition school spells by using two slots. Its  a penalty, but I don't want Evokers casting mirror image at all!!!!

Blood pressure!

Angst!

6/10.

I agree with you. There should be a Universal list and then you pick from 2-3 schools picked at creation or given by the game and if you pick in your school that spell has features nobody else gets on top. That's a specialist.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761472wait, what?  First you say, "Just because it was designed that way doesn't mean it was played that way.", and when I said it was played that way too, you say, "just because it was played that way doesn't mean it was designed that way."

The game is designed such that the 15 minute workday is an emergent property. It obviously does not emerge for everyone; in earlier editions, for presumably various reasons, it seems to come up a lot less than in WotC D&D.

However, the fact that an individual group did not wind up seeing it emerge does not mean that it is not something that comes up.

If I'm being (apparently) inconsistent, please be a little more concise in demonstrating that; I'm trying to catch up on homework at the moment, and I realize that splitting my attention can cause me to say things that seem absurd (it's happened in the past, hence why I bring it up).

When I was 14 I think my GM at the time would definitely have shoved some vampires under the door or something if we tried to just Fireball the giant rat and go to sleep, instead of clearing the dungeon first.
I think the problem is encounterdization. If every challenge is balanced, every challenge is also the same difficulty, so there's no point saving resources.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;761488When I was 14 I think my GM at the time would definitely have shoved some vampires under the door or something if we tried to just Fireball the giant rat and go to sleep, instead of clearing the dungeon first.
I think the problem is encounterdization. If every challenge is balanced, every challenge is also the same difficulty, so there's no point saving resources.

Exactly. And it's why GW is having issues. You can't quantify a day vs an encounter and the fact is old school is built on the adventure day model.  But new school is built on ENCOUNTERS inside that day. And just to make it impossible for both you and WotC you have us MIDDLE school people that mix and match from both extremes.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;761488I think the problem is encounterdization. If every challenge is balanced, every challenge is also the same difficulty, so there's no point saving resources.

Ding! Winnah. When the game is based on a balanced encounter every encounter is supposed to be challenging but not too challenging, so you get the idea that casters have to maximize damage output, thus the Nova.  Once spells run out, encounters run out = 15 minute adventuring day.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761381Well, unless I am missing something, 3d6 is less than, e.g. (1d8+2)x3 - all day every day.

That is what I've pointed out at least twice now.

Sac's argument was that 2d8 once is equal to 1d8 twice if all else was equal. And in 5e the mage and the fighter can have the same to hit chance with ray and weapon due to how ray functions.

Add in the fighters stat bonus and he moves forward as I pointed out. Toss in a magic weapon and he jumps forward again. Outside of the base equation things are not equal.

All of that irrelevant to finding out if Sac's base statement was true or false.

I may have a rather low opinion of Sac. But hands on testing shows that in this case he was correct. They balance out.