PDA

View Full Version : How to stop a time-controlling wizard?



Caduceus
2007-06-26, 10:31 PM
Let me say this from the start: I don't want this thread to degrade into the usual "Wizards are overpowered" arguments.

Now, on to the situation at hand. I DM'd a session today using a premade superadventure module (Eyes of the Lich Queen), starting at 5th level. We had a dwarven fighter, a warforged artificer, a human cleric of the Silver Flame, and a changeling wizard specialized in illusion and transmutation (using the changeling wizard substitution levels).

The wizard prepared his spells for the first day with his 3rd-level spells as follows: Lightning Bolt, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Fireball. In the first fight, he used his Lightning Bolt to blast a single Poison Dusk Lizardfolk into oblivion. Then, later on he used a fireball to destroy three blackscale lizardfolk. And scant minutes later he tossed a fireball into a lizardfolk camp, obliterating three Poison Dusks and severely damaging the two Blackscales and destroying their huts.

After that fight, he decided to convince the rest of the party that he was no longer useful for the day, despite the equivalent of an hour in-game passing from the first fight, and they set up camp in the nearby jungle to hide from any patrols that came by to check out the sudden bursts of flame engulfing the temple grounds.

This can't be normal, for a whole party to stop because the wizard wasted his most powerful spells and barely touched his others because they are so far beneath him. How do I stop this from happening, or discourage the wasting of resources within the bounds of the adventure?

Side note: The wizard was punished by the remaining lizardfolk for the destruction of their homes and was nearly killed in the course of a round from concentrated attack.

Gralamin
2007-06-26, 10:34 PM
Let me say this from the start: I don't want this thread to degrade into the usual "Wizards are overpowered" arguments.

Now, on to the situation at hand. I DM'd a session today using a premade superadventure module (Eyes of the Lich Queen), starting at 5th level. We had a dwarven fighter, a warforged artificer, a human cleric of the Silver Flame, and a changeling wizard specialized in illusion and transmutation (using the changeling wizard substitution levels).

The wizard prepared his spells for the first day with his 3rd-level spells as follows: Lightning Bolt, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Fireball. In the first fight, he used his Lightning Bolt to blast a single Poison Dusk Lizardfolk into oblivion. Then, later on he used a fireball to destroy three blackscale lizardfolk. And scant minutes later he tossed a fireball into a lizardfolk camp, obliterating three Poison Dusks and severely damaging the two Blackscales and destroying their huts.

After that fight, he decided to convince the rest of the party that he was no longer useful for the day, despite the equivalent of an hour in-game passing from the first fight, and they set up camp in the nearby jungle to hide from any patrols that came by to check out the sudden bursts of flame engulfing the temple grounds.

This can't be normal, for a whole party to stop because the wizard wasted his most powerful spells and barely touched his others because they are so far beneath him. How do I stop this from happening, or discourage the wasting of resources within the bounds of the adventure?

Side note: The wizard was punished by the remaining lizardfolk for the destruction of their homes and was nearly killed in the course of a round from concentrated attack.

Well, too be fair those aren't especially powerful spells. However, the wizard should reserve spells. An encounter of CR 5, vs a 4 level 5's, should take 20% of their resources. Pushing 5 encounters a day hurts pcs.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-06-26, 10:36 PM
Well, first, fireballs usually don't blow up structures. Otherwise every dungeon room would be on fire after a typical combat.

Second, nighttime ambushes do wonders for discouraging constant resting.

nerulean
2007-06-26, 10:36 PM
Attack the camp with something and prove to the rest of the group that they can actually do things without the wizard's support, and remind the wizard that he has other spell slots? Throw them into situations where cunning application of said low level spells is more effective than nuking everything in sight? The old favourite of imposing an arbitrary time limit on the campaign?

EvilElitest
2007-06-26, 10:37 PM
Let me say this from the start: I don't want this thread to degrade into the usual "Wizards are overpowered" arguments.

Now, on to the situation at hand. I DM'd a session today using a premade superadventure module (Eyes of the Lich Queen), starting at 5th level. We had a dwarven fighter, a warforged artificer, a human cleric of the Silver Flame, and a changeling wizard specialized in illusion and transmutation (using the changeling wizard substitution levels).

The wizard prepared his spells for the first day with his 3rd-level spells as follows: Lightning Bolt, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Fireball. In the first fight, he used his Lightning Bolt to blast a single Poison Dusk Lizardfolk into oblivion. Then, later on he used a fireball to destroy three blackscale lizardfolk. And scant minutes later he tossed a fireball into a lizardfolk camp, obliterating three Poison Dusks and severely damaging the two Blackscales and destroying their huts.

After that fight, he decided to convince the rest of the party that he was no longer useful for the day, despite the equivalent of an hour in-game passing from the first fight, and they set up camp in the nearby jungle to hide from any patrols that came by to check out the sudden bursts of flame engulfing the temple grounds.

This can't be normal, for a whole party to stop because the wizard wasted his most powerful spells and barely touched his others because they are so far beneath him. How do I stop this from happening, or discourage the wasting of resources within the bounds of the adventure?

Side note: The wizard was punished by the remaining lizardfolk for the destruction of their homes and was nearly killed in the course of a round from concentrated attack.


Use miltary tatics, make it so his wasting time effects them. In the eight hours that they rest their enemies can be on the move, and attack that night. Also make in further fights that people can take advantage of this lack of inivitive.
from,
EE

Inyssius Tor
2007-06-26, 10:40 PM
Okay, so: the wizard used three spells, then decided to quit for the day. This is over the course of one encounter.

Hmm... Well, going out into the jungle isn't going to deter lizardfolk.
indent You could just stop the game for forty minutes each time they stop to rest...

Also: the lizardfolk will certainly make use of the lull in the action. When the party wakes up, they'll be walking into an ambush (and anywhere they go will be on high alert).

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-26, 10:51 PM
Aside from the fact that you have an incompetent idiot for a wizard, he did exactly what he should do when low/out of "useful" spells.

The wizard was an idiot to pick those spells. He was even stupider to blow then on a single encounter.

The only good choice made was stopping to rest.

You don't want to play D&D with wizards who think and act in character.

To stop him from doing it in the future give time sensitive quests and the like.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-06-26, 11:58 PM
Ambush his camp. Seriously, they're not being exactly subtle, right? So lizardmen track them down and attack them during the day while they're waiting for the wizard to re-memorise his spells.

Set time limits. Example: "OMG! The bad guys are doing some evil ritual. If they aren't stopped in <x time frame> then <bad things happen>." You'll find the party saying things like "Wait, we can't be waiting eight hours every time you go nova. We don't have the time for it. Let's just keep going on. Maybe you can think of something worthwhile to do with your lower level spells, and maybe next time don't be so trigger happy".

Corolinth
2007-06-27, 12:54 AM
Why did he have four level 3 spell slots if he's a level 5 character?

Moving on.

Nightly ambushes. Also note that wizards get a certain number of spells per day, not spells per eight hours of rest. He's going to have to convince the party to stop and rest until tomorrow morning every time you get into a fight. Drop that one on him, and it might stir the rest of the party into action. Time-sensitive plots are another good one that someone thought up. Another way to convince him to use a little more discretion is to have the lizardmen start gunning for him specifically (after all, the other characters weren't the ones that destroyed their camp). Stuff like that should teach him that he needs to back off of the trigger a bit.

If it doesn't, well let him suffer the consequences of his wanton use of fireballs. Let him face down an angry lynch mob after he runs out. (That's a polite way of suggesting you kill him, and possibly other PCs along with him).

Renegade Paladin
2007-06-27, 01:59 AM
Personally, I favor stopping them with my violence.

What? :smalltongue:

But seriously, the thread title made me think you were trying to deal with a chronomancer or something. Anyway, it's per day, not per time slept. Besides, have you ever tried going to sleep for a solid eight hours after only being awake for one or two? It just doesn't work. Tell the wizard's player that the wizard, not being tired, can't seem to fall asleep. :smallamused:

Ikkitosen
2007-06-27, 02:05 AM
I believe it's spells per rested memorisation period, so he can rest whenever he wants to get spells back.

Anyhooo...yeah, sleeping during the activity cycle of your opponents can be bad. Trackers, enemy wizards/clerics/whatever, patrols, can all find your hiding party. Find them and give them a good hiding, to prove that the party can win without a fireball and that the wizard can use his lower level spells.

lord_khaine
2007-06-27, 02:28 AM
it is spells per day, so if he wantet to get his spells back he would have to wait until next day, or some 23 hours if he had run out of spells after 1 hour of adventuring.

anyway, ill throw in my 5 copper behind attacking them in the camp, just becasue they deside to stop for the day does not mean the rest of the world goes into stasis while he recover his spells.
the system is ballanced after 4 encounters, and if they dont want to go to the encounters, then the encounters just have to encounter them in their own camp.

Matthew
2007-06-27, 07:52 PM
Here are the rules:


Preparing Wizard Spells
A wizard’s level limits the number of spells she can prepare and cast. Her high Intelligence score might allow her to prepare a few extra spells. She can prepare the same spell more than once, but each preparation counts as one spell toward her daily limit. To prepare a spell the wizard must have an Intelligence score of at least 10 + the spell’s level.

Rest
To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.

Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions
If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit.

Preparation Environment
To prepare any spell, a wizard must have enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration. The wizard’s surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from overt distractions. Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character might experience while studying. Wizards also must have access to their spellbooks to study from and sufficient light to read them by. There is one major exception: A wizard can prepare a read magic spell even without a spellbook.

Spell Preparation Time
After resting, a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If she wants to prepare all her spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state.

Spell Selection and Preparation
Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, she chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that she has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells.

When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells.

Spell Slots
The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his or her due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower level.

Prepared Spell Retention
Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in her mind as a nearly cast spell until she uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until she abandons it. Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character’s mind.

Death and Prepared Spell Retention
If a spellcaster dies, all prepared spells stored in his or her mind are wiped away. Potent magic (such as raise dead, resurrection, or true resurrection) can recover the lost energy when it recovers the character.

There is nothing much you can do about Wizards convincing the rest of the party it is 'rest time' after blowing all their useful spells. However, unless the party has wiped out all the local denizens, they are hardly safe for the nine hours it takes to rest and prepare Spells, especially if they have been drawing attention to themselves. There are ways around this for the Player Characters, but they had best get to it.
In the end, though, this is just a resource management issue. It's no different from a Fighter with 100 Hit Points who has lost 5 convincing the rest of the party he needs to rest to recover his strength.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-27, 08:11 PM
Go up to the wizard and say "DUDE! Scrolls! DUDE! Wands! WTF!"

OzymandiasVolt
2007-06-27, 08:17 PM
Aside from the fact that you have an incompetent idiot for a wizard, he did exactly what he should do when low/out of "useful" spells.

The wizard was an idiot to pick those spells. He was even stupider to blow then on a single encounter.

The only good choice made was stopping to rest.

You don't want to play D&D with wizards who think and act in character.

To stop him from doing it in the future give time sensitive quests and the like.

Tippy, stop calling people idiots for choosing blaster spells. Seriously. The whole anti-blaster superiority complex is just obnoxious.

Seffbasilisk
2007-06-27, 08:30 PM
Tippy, stop calling people idiots for choosing blaster spells. Seriously. The whole anti-blaster superiority complex is just obnoxious.

It's not a superiority complex, it's a simple statment of fact.

If I offered you a +2 Longsword or a +1 Burning, Speed, Metalline Longsword and you chose the +2 Longsword, I would mock you.

Matthew
2007-06-27, 08:34 PM
That may be true, but calling somebody an idiot is not really appropriate in the context of these Forums, or so I am led to believe. Unwise is probably sufficient.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-27, 08:38 PM
Tippy, stop calling people idiots for choosing blaster spells. Seriously. The whole anti-blaster superiority complex is just obnoxious.

I am calling that player an idiot for multiple reasons, his spell selection is a minor one. Even if it was the one I chose to highlight.

He is an idiot because he used spells when he didn't have to, wasting them. He is an idiot because by all appearances the rest of the party never contributed and were prevented from contributing.

His spell selection being stupid, even for direct damage spells, is only another factor in the formation of the opinion that the OP's player is an idiot.

----
Now if he actually fought 4 encounters within that hour the OP is in the wrong for getting annoyed. He threw a days worth of encounters at the party in an hour and wondered why they rested afterward.


That may be true, but calling somebody an idiot is not really appropriate in the context of these Forums, or so I am led to believe. Unwise is probably sufficient.

Calling another person an idiot is perfectly allowed under the flaming rules. The only thing you aren't allowed to do is call another poster and idiot, something which I have not done.


Flaming
Any poster that openly attacks, insults, belittles, or abuses another poster will have their offending post modified and an Infraction issued to them.

Deel
2007-06-27, 08:41 PM
Not everyone feels like playing Batman/Utility. Blasting isn't optimal, yeah, it isn't as good as a utility wizard, but it isn't useless, it's just a style to more directly help kill things.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-06-27, 08:43 PM
It's not a superiority complex, it's a simple statment of fact.

No, it's a simple statement of OPINION being PRESENTED as fact. And the fact that you believe it IS a fact suggests that my initial assessment was correct. Some people like blasting. Blasting is not useless. It may be mechanically 'inferior' but the point of the game is to have fun and as such derision for someone else's completely valid playstyle is unmerited.

Matthew
2007-06-27, 08:46 PM
Calling another person an idiot is perfectly allowed under the flaming rules. The only thing you aren't allowed to do is call another poster and idiot, something which I have not done.
Tippy, I didn't say it was against the Forum Rules, I said it was 'not really appropriate' in the context of these Forums, which because they are supposed to foster a friendly atmosphere it isn't as far as I am concerned. If I thought you were going against the letter of the rules and not just the spirit I would have said so.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-27, 08:46 PM
I will add this in.

I have no problem with some people playing blaster wizard or casters. I've done it before, it can be fun. The problem arises when people who don't understand how to play a blaster wizard and treat it as a melee character with nifty ranged attacks play them.

A blaster wizard should sit out whole encounters fairly often. You don't just blast, you wait until you can hit a group or drop an enemy. You don't have enough spells to fireball every monster.


Tippy, I didn't say it was against the Forum Rules, I said it was 'not really appropriate' in the context of these Forums, which because they are supposed to foster a friendly atmosphere it isn't as far as I am concerned. If I thought you were going against the letter of the rules and not just the spirit I would have said so.

Aye, you did. I misinterpreted what you said and I apologize.

SalientGreen
2007-06-27, 08:48 PM
Let the wizard camp...but don't let him rest. Keep interupting him. Hailstorms, wandering monsters, travelling clown posses, whatever to keep him from getting his 8 hours. Eventually his party will get tired of waiting for the wizard to get his 'one more hour' and break camp, with or without him. The party might also learn to choose resting times and places with a little more wisdom.

Dark_Wind
2007-06-27, 08:49 PM
Tippy, stop calling people idiots for choosing blaster spells. Seriously. The whole anti-blaster superiority complex is just obnoxious.

He didn't just take blaster spells (which is suboptimal, no two ways about it, but can still be somewhat effective if done properly), though. He also went and blew all his highest level spells right off the bat (and inefficiently, as well. Lightning bolt on one creature!?). That just isn't smart. He also completely neglected his lower level slots. Again, not smart.

The real problem here stems from the fact that the Wizard's player hasn't the first clue how to play a caster. And don't lay into me about different styles of play, either. Certain things, like, say, resource conservation, are universal. If this guy had been less trigger happy, he would have lasted longer before running out of spells.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-06-27, 08:51 PM
Oh right, the thread has a subject. <_<

Um...if the whole party wants to rest, let them try. Whether they succeed or not obviously depends on whether or not any nearby lizardfolk noticed the explosions and so forth.

If the wizard wants to rest and no one else does, see if the wizard can come up with an in-character reason for wanting to rest. And then see if the wizard character can convince the others of its validity. He has to realize that the game isn't about HIM, it's about the party, and sometimes they can't do everything everyone wants. :smallsmile:

Also, Darkwind, my complaint was primarily based on the fact that Tippy specifically said that the player was an idiot due to his spell selection. I didn't infer that or anything, it was explicitly stated in a sentence. When people whose opinions you respect suddenly start saying crazy things it is cause for concern. I have to say I'm actually quite happy that it was a simple mistake and that he doesn't actually feel that way.

I do not contest your observation that the player is in fact an idiot due to non-spell-selection-related reasons such as terrible inefficiency and apparent disregard for the rest of the players and/or any kind of roleplaying logic. Although if his character tends to go crazy with the blasting then he'll just have to suck it up and deal with the consequences of his actions, yes?

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-27, 09:01 PM
No, it's a simple statement of OPINION being PRESENTED as fact.

No. It is a fact.

Blaster wizards are the weakest wizard builds you can make. The fact that the OP's wizard was specialized in illusion and transmutation makes it an even worse build.


And the fact that you believe it IS a fact suggests that my initial assessment was correct.

It is a fact. I will present any mechanical proof you want. Blasting is inferior in every way to a batman wizard.

Stating that they are fun to play is an opinion, and one that no one has disputed.


Some people like blasting. Blasting is not useless. It may be mechanically 'inferior' but the point of the game is to have fun and as such derision for someone else's completely valid playstyle is unmerited.

I said the player was an idiot. He is playing a wizard specialized in transmutation and illusion. He can't ban Divination and he didn't ban Evocation.

That means he banned at least 2 of the following: Abjuration, Conjuration, Necromancy, and Enchantment.

The players character concept is not Blaster. If it was he would not have chosen those specializations. Assuming no extenuating circumstances in why the player chose that spell list, he is an idiot.

1: Wizard Blaster - Go Psion or Sorcerer for blaster.


Also, Darkwind, my complaint was primarily based on the fact that Tippy specifically said that the player was an idiot due to his spell selection. I didn't infer that or anything, it was explicitly stated in a sentence. When people whose opinions you respect suddenly start saying crazy things it is cause for concern. I have to say I'm actually quite happy that it was a simple mistake and that he doesn't actually feel that way.

I believe I said
The wizard was an idiot to pick those spells. He was even stupider to blow then on a single encounter.

See above for why my opinion on his spell list is correct short of very strange circumstances that we should be able to assume that the OP would have mentioned.

Seffbasilisk
2007-06-27, 09:12 PM
No, it's a simple statement of OPINION being PRESENTED as fact. And the fact that you believe it IS a fact suggests that my initial assessment was correct. Some people like blasting. Blasting is not useless. It may be mechanically 'inferior' but the point of the game is to have fun and as such derision for someone else's completely valid playstyle is unmerited.

Perhaps you didn't notice my avvy.

That's Hallnsfarth Zukuri, from the game 'In the Eye of the Storm' on these boards. He's an elvish, now pay attention to this bit, because it's important, WARMAGE. The quintessential blaster.

Now, while you're busy sticking your foot in your mouth, or hitting yourself in the head, or whatever you do, I want you to go back, carefully reread all of the posts in this venue. We're not saying that it's WRONG for him to CHOOSE to be a blaster if he so chose, we're saying it was IDIOTIC for him to be a blaster with his build, to blast as he did, to screw up the game for the party, etc.

Don't worry, the rest of the post isn't going anywhere. Go read'em. This can wait.


Now if you've actually managed to swallow your pride, and reread them? Thank you. Leaping to false conclusions only make things harder for everyone. Blaster casters are weaker. This is FACT. Proven by numerical comparison time and time again. The fact that he went wizard, and if I hear correct didn't even speciallize in blasting, just adds to the ignomity of such actions.

That is all.

Gavin Sage
2007-06-27, 09:50 PM
Getting back on topic..... that style of play reminds me of when I was playing NWN and soloing a caster. The DM shouldn't let casters get away with using all there spells then resting like that anymore then they should let a Wizard buy any scroll anywhere as long as they have the gold. Wizards have weakpoints, and those weakpoints should be exploited.

Simplest way is roll up some random encounters and stick it on the party everytime they rest like that. Nothing hard, but enough that the Wizard can't prepare spells. In a less punishment oriented sense, have the objective have a time limit to it. So the party has to push on everyday even if it means a few fights were only the Fighter has all his cards to play.

Caduceus
2007-06-27, 09:50 PM
Okay, and I'm back to the topic. Time to correct some misconceptions about the situation.

1. They fought THREE encounters, one of which was story-related and they had no choice in, but the other two the wizard dove straight into, with the others agreeing to go along with him.

2. He didn't ONLY cast those three spells, but their use was the reason he cited for wanting to rest. He had cast two other spells. Repair Light Damage on the artificer's Iron Defender, and Invisibility on the Iron Defender so that it could sneak up and release the captive Girallon to attack one of the blackscales waiting at the first encampment.

3. He did not go unpunished for the blasting of the huts. He was nearly killed, and that was understood (though not stated by the player or myself in the original post) as another reason to set up camp.

4. He wasn't entirely stupid in the use of his spells, either. Just inefficient. He did his best to get as many enemies and as few allies as possible in each fireball, and only truly wasted the one lightning bolt. My problem was with the fact that he knew that tougher fights were to come and that he'd need those spells for those fights.

5. He didn't make the character. It's convention for my group that I make the characters for any game I DM, as they have little drive or time for it. He okay'd a Changeling Wizard with specialization in Illusion and Transmutation. I knew he'd want access to Evocation, so I barred Enchantment, Conjuration, and Necromancy, knowing that the artificer could handle those when necessary.

Thank you all for your support and suggestions, I will take them to heart for the next session. Know, however, that after his near-death experience, he decided to play it safer and wiser the next day by sniping from afar with his crossbow and saving his spells for Fly buffs and the like.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-27, 09:50 PM
You might think about introducing this guy to the concept of Reserve feats. That way he can blast all day without depleting his spell slots.

Thrall_Of_Ao
2007-06-27, 09:53 PM
Wow folks, it's really getting kind of heavy in here.
S'probably why I couldn't resist posting.

Just, IMHO, all the 'idiot talk', drop it, you're beating a dead horse. Numerically speaking, that build is not optimal, but no one even bothered to consider character concept.

Yea, the player sounds like he plays lilke, or just is, an overbearing control freak. Why the party when along with it is anyones' guess.

What's with all this talk of, "don't let them rest"? I say go ahead and let them rest (if it's even possible to get effective rest and properly rememorize spells), then let the lizard-folk cleric/shaman/druid/etc. feel free to distribute some spells and potions of elemental protection (a few people did mention preparation, but I didn't see anyone consider elemental pro.).

As far as the rules state, it's clear:
If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit.

Your wizard, no matter how crafty he is, isn't always going to get the opportunity to rest immediately after each time the uses all his spells.

Outside that, there are just times that the players are going to stomp all over your NPC's, it's not a bad thing. If it doesn't happen occasionally, with PC's dying left and right, people get discouraged and quit your game. You haven't failed as a GM, just learn from the situation and don't let them see you sweat.

Next time, if you want things to be a little more challenging, just scale the opponents up a little bit. When that wizard is staring at a raging charging Blackscale lizardman with a few levels of Barbarian he is going to think twice about using the not so subtle or effective fireball rather than a far more effective (and useful) charm monster spell. But hey, if he and the party are happy and having fun, just go with the flow.

-TOA

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-27, 10:05 PM
Okay, and I'm back to the topic. Time to correct some misconceptions about the situation.

1. They fought THREE encounters, one of which was story-related and they had no choice in, but the other two the wizard dove straight into, with the others agreeing to go along with him.

The players should have rested then. 3-5 encounters per day is what everything is balanced for. If the wizard lasted 3 encounters thenhe has every right to rest.


2. He didn't ONLY cast those three spells, but their use was the reason he cited for wanting to rest. He had cast two other spells. Repair Light Damage on the artificer's Iron Defender, and Invisibility on the Iron Defender so that it could sneak up and release the captive Girallon to attack one of the blackscales waiting at the first encampment.

Ok. The player seems more intelligent that he originally appeared.


3. He did not go unpunished for the blasting of the huts. He was nearly killed, and that was understood (though not stated by the player or myself in the original post) as another reason to set up camp.

Ok. SO why where you complaining about it then?


4. He wasn't entirely stupid in the use of his spells, either. Just inefficient. He did his best to get as many enemies and as few allies as possible in each fireball, and only truly wasted the one lightning bolt. My problem was with the fact that he knew that tougher fights were to come and that he'd need those spells for those fights.

He was perfectly efficient. 3 encounters is on the low end of what you should face each day.


5. He didn't make the character. It's convention for my group that I make the characters for any game I DM, as they have little drive or time for it. He okay'd a Changeling Wizard with specialization in Illusion and Transmutation. I knew he'd want access to Evocation, so I barred Enchantment, Conjuration, and Necromancy, knowing that the artificer could handle those when necessary.

Fine nothing that is the players fault.


Thank you all for your support and suggestions, I will take them to heart for the next session. Know, however, that after his near-death experience, he decided to play it safer and wiser the next day by sniping from afar with his crossbow and saving his spells for Fly buffs and the like.

So he is now deciding to play a wizard to its ability? Good for him.

Dervag
2007-06-27, 11:01 PM
Okay, and I'm back to the topic. Time to correct some misconceptions about the situation.

1. They fought THREE encounters, one of which was story-related and they had no choice in, but the other two the wizard dove straight into, with the others agreeing to go along with him.

2. He didn't ONLY cast those three spells, but their use was the reason he cited for wanting to rest. He had cast two other spells. Repair Light Damage on the artificer's Iron Defender, and Invisibility on the Iron Defender so that it could sneak up and release the captive Girallon to attack one of the blackscales waiting at the first encampment.

3. He did not go unpunished for the blasting of the huts. He was nearly killed, and that was understood (though not stated by the player or myself in the original post) as another reason to set up camp.

4. He wasn't entirely stupid in the use of his spells, either. Just inefficient. He did his best to get as many enemies and as few allies as possible in each fireball, and only truly wasted the one lightning bolt. My problem was with the fact that he knew that tougher fights were to come and that he'd need those spells for those fights.

5. He didn't make the character. It's convention for my group that I make the characters for any game I DM, as they have little drive or time for it. He okay'd a Changeling Wizard with specialization in Illusion and Transmutation. I knew he'd want access to Evocation, so I barred Enchantment, Conjuration, and Necromancy, knowing that the artificer could handle those when necessary.

Thank you all for your support and suggestions, I will take them to heart for the next session. Know, however, that after his near-death experience, he decided to play it safer and wiser the next day by sniping from afar with his crossbow and saving his spells for Fly buffs and the like.If this is correct, then he used up all his most powerful spells (some of them on fights that he might possibly have avoided), got the crud beaten out of him, and decided that he needed a rest before moving on.

Sounds reasonable. I can't speak to whether or not his play style was optimal; sometimes a fireball really is a better choice than a buff spell in a given round. But that's beside the point. He may not be playing optimally, but from the sound of it his character is actually hurt and exhausted and it really does make sense for him to take a breather.

Kiero
2007-06-28, 05:11 AM
How do I stop this from happening, or discourage the wasting of resources within the bounds of the adventure?

Why does it have to be "within the bounds of the adventure"? How about you talk to the player and tell them it's bothering you. Then between you work something out.

Leon
2007-06-28, 08:02 AM
The players should have rested then. 3-5 encounters per day is what everything is balanced for. If the wizard lasted 3 encounters thenhe has every right to rest.


Why should things come nicely packaged in 3-5 blocks. Life doent stop for you the Adventurer to get comfy and relax for 8 hours.

Ok, the Wizard is out of spells - tough, grab a crossbow and give fire support

If they choose to rest then unless they Really Really Really make the effort to bunk down in a out of the way or secure place then they should not expect everything to be alright all night

Fixer
2007-06-28, 12:55 PM
I am still trying to identify the problem.

Their tactics were relatively sound and it would not be out of character for a wizard to ask for a rest to recover his magical reserves. The fact the party went along with it meant they valued his contributions enough to do so and expected more difficult encounters later.

Really, what is the problem? To me this is 'normal' adventuring behavior. If resources are below 50% and there is no significant threat of immediate attack: locate a secure base to rest, recover and recuperate and then restart fresh.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-28, 01:09 PM
look at BGII, creatures attack when you sleep before spells are replenished, and there is no place to hide where you can't be found besides an inn.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-28, 01:14 PM
Why should things come nicely packaged in 3-5 blocks. Life doent stop for you the Adventurer to get comfy and relax for 8 hours.

Um, because the DMG says that everything is balanced for 4 CR equal to party ECL encounters per day. It also goes on to say that there can be more or less encounters in the day.

The DM decided to throw a days worth of encounters at the party in an hours worth of time. It's not the players fault that they decided that it was time to rest as they were low on health and magic. It's the DM's fault.


Ok, the Wizard is out of spells - tough, grab a crossbow and give fire support

No. Get a good DM. And when out of magic the wizard is better at just running around in circles, or better yet running away so he can rescue teh party if they get captured.


If they choose to rest then unless they Really Really Really make the effort to bunk down in a out of the way or secure place then they should not expect everything to be alright all night

IC? They apparently cleared out the area and made a good effort.

OOC? The DM had already used a days worth of encounters on them, and the days includes night time ambushes, and they were low on resources and health.



The players made no mistake in their tactics. The OP is just annoyed that he messed up and through to many encounters at them to fast.


Remember, a CR equal to your ECL encounter should use 20% of your resources. So 5 of those in a day should use all your resources. After 3 you are down to 40%. If I was an adventurer you can be damn sure that I wouldn't keep fighting stuff if I was only 40% ready, I don't want to die.

Roland St. Jude
2007-06-28, 07:09 PM
...Calling another person an idiot is perfectly allowed under the flaming rules. The only thing you aren't allowed to do is call another poster and idiot, something which I have not done.

Are you sure the person isn't a poster? Even if you're sure, and perhaps in technical compliance with what the rule requires, is insulting others really necessary? Conducive to meaningful discussion? A mode of conversation you want to be known for?

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't insult each others, others, or otherwise lower the level of discussion to personal attacks rather than issue-oriented discussion. As noted, we do try to have a civil and friendly atmosphere around here, but that takes the help of everyone to acheive. Thank you.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-28, 07:22 PM
Will do Roland.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-28, 07:36 PM
Um, because the DMG says that everything is balanced for 4 CR equal to party ECL encounters per day. It also goes on to say that there can be more or less encounters in the day.

The DM decided to throw a days worth of encounters at the party in an hours worth of time. It's not the players fault that they decided that it was time to rest as they were low on health and magic. It's the DM's fault.

I'm really getting sick of these appeals to false authority. The RAW also let you drown a dying character back to conciousness.

It's entirely within the DM's bounds to throw more than 3-5 encounters at the party per day. If the wizard decides to blow all his spells at the first few things he sees every day, then he can expect to be useless in future fights.

But then, if you're metagaming to this extent:


You don't want to play D&D with wizards who think and act in character.

I can see your folly.

Gavin Sage
2007-06-28, 07:43 PM
A DM can throw more encounters, but PCs will start dieing is all. Or they become "Fighter smash puny kobolds" level encounters.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-28, 07:48 PM
I'm really getting sick of these appeals to false authority. The RAW also let you drown a dying character back to conciousness.

What false authority? The RAW is the authority as far as these boards are concerned. DM's can change what ever they want. But unless they state a houserule in the thread that is in effect we have to assume a RAW game in a vanilla setting, baring extreme cheese.

No one has said the RAW is smart, in fact I am one of the people who regularly says that it is utterly retarded. An authority doesn't have to make sense or be smart to be the authority.


It's entirely within the DM's bounds to throw more than 3-5 encounters at the party per day.

It certainly is. That doesn't mean that there is any reason to expect the party to survive more encounters than that. Everything, from WBL to class features, expects 4 encounters per day on average and 13 encounters per level on average. Assuming all are CR equal to ECL encounters.


If the wizard decides to blow all his spells at the first few things he sees every day, then he can expect to be useless in future fights.

No. Unless the DM rebalanced the entire game the player is well within his rights to expect an average of 4 encounters per day.



But then, if you're metagaming to this extent:
I can see your folly.

What metagaming?

In character why are you risking your life for thsi quest? There are a lot of easier ways to make money. Even if we get past that and assume that you are off adventuring, why would you hold back. This is a fight for your survival. Unless you have a reason to fight 3 more battles today, why hold back. Sure maybe hold enough in reserve for 1 or 2 battles.

1 fight and rest would be perfectly incharacter for a wizard.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-28, 07:55 PM
No. Unless the DM rebalanced the entire game the player is well within his rights to expect an average of 4 encounters per day.

That one, I have to disagree with. From a metagame perspective, the mage shouldn't be able to afford to horde magic past the 4th or 5th such encounter in a day, but assuming that because you've had your 5th fight there's no chance of a 6th is blatant and stupid metagaming. The player and the DM both know the CR and encounters/day balance will likely be maintained, but the PCs and NPCs don't...

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-28, 08:01 PM
That one, I have to disagree with. From a metagame perspective, the mage shouldn't be able to afford to horde magic past the 4th or 5th such encounter in a day, but assuming that because you've had your 5th fight there's no chance of a 6th is blatant and stupid metagaming. The player and the DM both know the CR and encounters/day balance will likely be maintained, but the PCs and NPCs don't...

I said the player, not the character.

The player shouldn't expect to have to spread his magic out over more than an average of 4 encounters.


A player can't metagame. A character can metagame.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-28, 08:06 PM
What false authority? The RAW is the authority as far as these boards are concerned. DM's can change what ever they want. But unless they state a houserule in the thread that is in effect we have to assume a RAW game in a vanilla setting, baring extreme cheese.

Not really.


No one has said the RAW is smart, in fact I am one of the people who regularly says that it is utterly retarded. An authority doesn't have to make sense or be smart to be the authority.

K. That's what would make it a FALSE authority.


It certainly is. That doesn't mean that there is any reason to expect the party to survive more encounters than that. Everything, from WBL to class features, expects 4 encounters per day on average and 13 encounters per level on average. Assuming all are CR equal to ECL encounters.

There are plenty of reasons to expect otherwise.
The characters are extremely optimized.
Their opponents are sub-CR. Mobs of human commoners armed with clubs, for instance.
The characters are familiar with their foes weakness, have a special tool to exploit it (ranger vs. his only favored enemy).
It's gestalt.
High point buy.

Your average also doesn't take into account the standard deviation. What's the deviation from average? 1 encounter? 10 encounters?


No. Unless the DM rebalanced the entire game the player is well within his rights to expect an average of 4 encounters per day.

The player should also expect 2 or 6 or none or 7 encounters a day. You know, a DM mitigated law of averages. A player is behaving very foolishly if he thinks that once they hit the 4th encounter, he can rest.


What metagaming?

The fact that none of your wizards play in character?


In character why are you risking your life for thsi quest? There are a lot of easier ways to make money. Even if we get past that and assume that you are off adventuring, why would you hold back. This is a fight for your survival. Unless you have a reason to fight 3 more battles today, why hold back. Sure maybe hold enough in reserve for 1 or 2 battles.

Actually, compare what the avg fighter makes/day with how much cash you get at the next level for the low, low cost of 13 encounters. 13 encounters is 4 days of work, where, if you are a properly optimized fighter, can easily only spend 5 rounds in battle. That's a minute of work per day, for 4 days. Then you get a level and a big chunk of loot.


1 fight and rest would be perfectly incharacter for a wizard.

"Hey guys, despite my 20 int, I just blasted all my spells on an encounter you could have handled. We have to rest now, since I can't do anything. You also have to stay watch, here, in the heart of enemy territory, for 8 hours, since I'm incapable of doing anything during that time."

You're right. It's in character. If your character's a retard.

TempusCCK
2007-06-28, 08:08 PM
All this is of course assuming that you're in a position to have 3 encounters, then call it quits for a while. Seriously, there's not always an empty room 40 feet ahead on the left where we can all unroll our blankets and bed down.



What metagaming?

In character why are you risking your life for thsi quest? There are a lot of easier ways to make money. Even if we get past that and assume that you are off adventuring, why would you hold back. This is a fight for your survival. Unless you have a reason to fight 3 more battles today, why hold back. Sure maybe hold enough in reserve for 1 or 2 battles.

1 fight and rest would be perfectly incharacter for a wizard.

It's very reasonable to assume that he can expect to fight many more battles that day. The BBEG is up ahead in the Temple, doing some nasty stuff, and we're going to stop him. Except we're in the middle of a jungle crawling with lizardfolk. Not exactly a place I'd be secure in resting in. Even if I had 3 encounters that day, I'd keep moving.

All of this is completely circumstanial, if they felt secure in bedding down and felt it was an issue, fine. But you have to assume that there's more in this for the wizard than just some money.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-28, 08:13 PM
The player shouldn't expect to have to spread his magic out over more than an average of 4 encounters.


A player can't metagame. A character can metagame.
If the player is playing the character with the assumption that they won't need to spread their magic over more than 4 encounters, somebody is metagaming. And it's certainly the player who's responsible.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-28, 08:14 PM
You know, by RAW, with an average of 4 encounters/day, a DM could throw 1,000 encounters at a party in one day, as long as they had 1,000 days prior with no encounters. Or something like that.


False authority dude.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-28, 08:19 PM
The 4 CR=level encounters per day is not RAW, or any other sort of rules. It is a simple guideline that is a direct consequence of the design of the CR system. 3-5 encounters per day says 'less than 3 encounters, and your characters probably aren't breathing hard. And the players might get bored. More than 5, and you'll probably kill everyone."

You don't even need to invoke 'rule 0' or 'RAW is stupid' to ignore it. You just have to be unconcerned by the reasonable expectation that you will slaughter the entire party in the 6th or 7th encounter of the day, unless they are tweaked well beyond the expected standard.

Zel
2007-06-28, 08:23 PM
{Scrubbed}

I'm really glad I play with my friends {Scrubbed}.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-28, 08:23 PM
Not really.



K. That's what would make it a FALSE authority.

No. It's and idiotic, asinine authority but it is still utterly correct in every thing it says. Making it the ultimate authority on the matter.


There are plenty of reasons to expect otherwise.
The characters are extremely optimized.
Their opponents are sub-CR. Mobs of human commoners armed with clubs, for instance.
The characters are familiar with their foes weakness, have a special tool to exploit it (ranger vs. his only favored enemy).
It's gestalt.
High point buy.

Did the OP state any of these things were the case? No.

We must[/i] assume a standard world and standard game.


Your average also doesn't take into account the standard deviation. What's the deviation from average? 1 encounter? 10 encounters?

Make a standard party at ECL 5 and let me throw 10 encounters at it. You won't survive. The standard deviation, while unknown and unknowable, has definite upper limits.


The player should also expect 2 or 6 or none or 7 encounters a day. You know, a DM mitigated law of averages. A player is behaving very foolishly if he thinks that once they hit the 4th encounter, he can rest.

Yes. And the DM is behaving foolishly if he throws 3 encounters at the party in an hour and then gets annoyed when they rest.


The fact that none of your wizards play in character?

Personal insults are such fun, aren't they?


Actually, compare what the avg fighter makes/day with how much cash you get at the next level for the low, low cost of 13 encounters. 13 encounters is 4 days of work, where, if you are a properly optimized fighter, can easily only spend 5 rounds in battle. That's a minute of work per day, for 4 days. Then you get a level and a big chunk of loot.

So the character knows the game leveling mechanism? Go talk with a soldier. Most will tell you that they much, much prefer anything to combat duty. Even though combat pays more and gives you more experience.

Risk vs. Reward.


"Hey guys, despite my 20 int, I just blasted all my spells on an encounter you could have handled. We have to rest now, since I can't do anything. You also have to stay watch, here, in the heart of enemy territory, for 8 hours, since I'm incapable of doing anything during that time."

You're right. It's in character. If your character's a retard.

That entire scenario is out of character for a wizard with 20 Int and even average wisdom.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-28, 08:35 PM
You know, by RAW, with an average of 4 encounters/day, a DM could throw 1,000 encounters at a party in one day, as long as they had 1,000 days prior with no encounters. Or something like that.


False authority dude.

Sigh. By its very definition the DMG can not be a false authority. Just like the RAW can not be a false authority.

Look up what authority actually means.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-28, 08:53 PM
No. It's and idiotic, asinine authority but it is still utterly correct in every thing it says. Making it the ultimate authority on the matter.

Where do you get that idea?



Did the OP state any of these things were the case? No.

We must[/i] assume a standard world and standard game.

Why bother assuming when you can ask? You assumed that the wizard blew all his spells in 1 encounter, then proceeded to cram your foot down your throat.


Make a standard party at ECL 5 and let me throw 10 encounters at it. You won't survive. The standard deviation, while unknown and unknowable, has definite upper limits.

Punpunpunpunp-

By the rules, but not those ones?
Please.


Yes. And the DM is behaving foolishly if he throws 3 encounters at the party in an hour and then gets annoyed when they rest.

Depends on the scenario, really. Is it a place they can rest? If the rate of encounters in that particular environment seems to be 3/hour, and they can safely rest, and there are no time crunches, and the encounters are actually difficult, and so on and so on, yeah, then the DM is behaving foolishly.



Personal insults are such fun, aren't they?

:smallconfused:


So the character knows the game leveling mechanism? Go talk with a soldier. Most will tell you that they much, much prefer anything to combat duty. Even though combat pays more and gives you more experience.

Well, you're presuming the characters know the encounter system.

And while I'm at it, you want me to ask the marines I know if they magically learned how to speak Mandarin after shooting X number of Iraqis?


Risk vs. Reward.

Reality vs. Fantasy.


That entire scenario is out of character for a wizard with 20 Int and even average wisdom.

Yet it appears to me what you suggest; after 3 encounters, a wizard has a god given right to take a nap. Well, I guess he can try to rest.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-28, 09:06 PM
Where do you get that idea?

The fact the it is the source for the rules for the game? Seriously. Look up what authority means. One of the definitions is a source of data on a subject.


Why bother assuming when you can ask? You assumed that the wizard blew all his spells in 1 encounter, then proceeded to cram your foot down your throat.

Because if the OP wants advice they should lay out how everything is in the OP.

From what the OP said in the OP it appeared that the party only fought 1 encounter. There was absolutely no evidence that they had fought any more.

When the OP came back later and said that it was 3 separate encounters I changed what I was saying based on new evidence.


Punpunpunpunp-

By the rules, but not those ones?
Please.

Pun-Pun is not in a standard party.


:smallconfused:

You said that non of my wizard play incharacter. That is a personal insult. I'm not sure what you are confused about.


Well, you're presuming the characters know the encounter system.
Not at all. If you want the in character response it is to fight as little as possible and run fairly often.


And while I'm at it, you want me to ask the marines I know if they magically learned how to speak Mandarin after shooting X number of Iraqis?

Stop trying to widen this discussion to include things that have absolutely no place in it.


Reality vs. Fantasy.

D&D models neither very well at all.


Yet it appears to me what you suggest; after 3 encounters, a wizard has a god given right to take a nap. Well, I guess he can try to rest.

No. A player has a right to expect an average of 4 equal level encounters per day. Much more will kill him and that is no fun most of the time.

A wizard has no god given right to anything. The DM has no right to force encounters on the players either. And especially not if he is doing it just because the players are resting.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-28, 10:14 PM
The fact the it is the source for the rules for the game? Seriously. Look up what authority means. One of the definitions is a source of data on a subject.

Look up appeal to false authority.

Simply because wizards (under Hasbro, btw) decided to write up a set of rules and proclaim that they're rules are teh best, doesn't necessarily make them the best set of rules.

Now, do we need a common ground to argue from? Yes, absolutely.
But does that mean there is one and only one answer to every problem?

You turn to the rule book, which you yourself acknowledge doesn't work, as the source of solutions. Many disagree with you, as they realize it's actually not that great a source of rules.


Because if the OP wants advice they should lay out how everything is in the OP.

Everything's a lot. Sometimes the OP doesn't know what needs to be layed out.


From what the OP said in the OP it appeared that the party only fought 1 encounter. There was absolutely no evidence that they had fought any more.

Actually, it appeared that it was two or three encounters in rapid succession. Maybe that was a later edit that I had the luck of reading after all your hullabaloo.


When the OP came back later and said that it was 3 separate encounters I changed what I was saying based on new evidence.

Aye, that you did, and with the same "I'm right, this is how it is," without possibly knowing all the info.


Pun-Pun is not in a standard party.

Right. 4 pun-puns, each embodying the different adventuring archetype, would be. You'd have your rogue pun-pun, your wizard pun-pun....


You said that non of my wizard play incharacter. That is a personal insult. I'm not sure what you are confused about.

I'm sorry. I deduced that, since you claimed that "you" shouldn't play with wizards who play in character, that you yourself don't play your wizards in character.

Again, I apologize if I insulted you.


Not at all. If you want the in character response it is to fight as little as possible and run fairly often.

Maybe if it was Call of Cthulhu.
But this is D&D. It's hack'n'slash. If you want to roleplay a coward, play a different system, cause it's the end of the day and we're all here to drink beer and slay stuff.

Ergo, we make powerful characters. That, and the fact that wizards, fighters, etc are all the 'adventuring' sort. It's implicit that the character you're playing doesn't mind danger, because he's the 1 in 1000 that slays dragons.


Stop trying to widen this discussion to include things that have absolutely no place in it.

You told me to go ask soldiers if they liked combat duty, as if comparing those serving in modern combat roles are at all applicable to an adventurer in the D&D universe. I was merely trying to demonstrate the absurdity of your rhetoric.

(If you catch it: by D&D rules, after killing roughly 13 encounters worth of enemies, you can fluently learn a language that the day before you couldn't understand or speak.)


D&D models neither very well at all.

D&D models D&D pretty well. Not always, but usually.


No. A player has a right to expect an average of 4 equal level encounters per day. Much more will kill him and that is no fun most of the time.

You do know what 'average' means, right? Without a standard deviation, your average 4 encounters per day RAW is pretty meaningless. Strictly RAW, of course.

You do see the necessity for looseness of interpretation, yes?


A wizard has no god given right to anything. The DM has no right to force encounters on the players either. And especially not if he is doing it just because the players are resting.

I like to write up my campaigns with environments that have slightly more integrated monster denizens. I tend to do this with humanoids or other social creatures. Basically, I figure out what the group's RL time commitment is, figure about how many encounters I can get in, then break it down into 3-7 encounters/day. I put the encounters in sensible clusters. A guard detail on the armory, for instance, where inside a smith is making things. There may be 5 encounters there, but if the party decides to rest after only 3, there are two roaming encounters wondering where the hell their buddies went.

If the wizard decided to get upset that I wasn't letting him rest, I'd inform him that when invading a castle, you typically don't get to take an 8 hour nap without hassle (unless you've got rope trick).

I would assume such would be the case in the OPs situation, where they have been blasting Lizardfolk encampments.

Caduceus
2007-06-28, 11:57 PM
Once again, I step in to mention that he didn't use ALL of his spells. He used three. Three spells for three encounters. Encounters of EL 6, 7, and 5, in that order, and none of which lasted longer than two rounds. All of them 3rd level spells. He had plenty more left, as well as a stock of scrolls provided by the party artificer. This group of players works together incredibly well to complement each other, and without even the slightest discussion of tactics.

He did, however, inform me today that after the fireballing of the huts, when the lizardfolk were bashing on his unprotected and fragile form, he dropped down to -7, rather than 0.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-29, 12:19 AM
Once again, I step in to mention that he didn't use ALL of his spells. He used three. Three spells for three encounters. Encounters of EL 6, 7, and 5, in that order, and none of which lasted longer than two rounds. All of them 3rd level spells. He had plenty more left, as well as a stock of scrolls provided by the party artificer. This group of players works together incredibly well to complement each other, and without even the slightest discussion of tactics.

He did, however, inform me today that after the fireballing of the huts, when the lizardfolk were bashing on his unprotected and fragile form, he dropped down to -7, rather than 0.

I can understand why HE would want to stop; and with that sort of damage coming out of him, it makes sense for the party to also agree to stop.

I agreee with you, though, for wanting to have them adventure more than an hour without stopping. You just have to provide the right incentive for them to do so.

Hope you've banned rope trick.

Jayabalard
2007-06-29, 01:16 AM
What metagaming?

In character why are you risking your life for thsi quest? There are a lot of easier ways to make money. Even if we get past that and assume that you are off adventuring, why would you hold back. This is a fight for your survival. Unless you have a reason to fight 3 more battles today, why hold back. Sure maybe hold enough in reserve for 1 or 2 battles.

1 fight and rest would be perfectly incharacter for a wizard. I think specifically he was talking about your comment "You don't want to play D&D with wizards who think and act in character." which seems to say that the wizards that you want to play with are the ones who don't play in character, ie, metagame.

Two other quick examples of metagaming in what you suggest:
-OOC knowledge that you will only have 3-5 encounters average in a day.
-OOC knowledge that you will be able to safely rest


We must assume a standard world and standard game.Very few people (if any) play a strictly RAW game with no house rules or variants of any type; so you really need to assume that it's a non-standard word and non-standard game, and ask questions about what makes their game non-standard. That way you can give a meaningful answer within the context of their game. Doing otherwise so tends to make you come off as pretty condescending, since it looks like your taking the easy way out and assuming that everyone's game works like yours does...


No. A player has a right to expect an average of 4 equal level encounters per day. Much more will kill him and that is no fun most of the time.Nope... a player has a right to expect an average of 4 equal level encounters per day, unless they go picking more fights than that. If you go in, blast part of a village in 4 different fights, and then try and rest there, then it's poor player decision making, not the DM's fault when you get run into more than 5 fights.

Fixer
2007-06-29, 07:24 AM
When I got to play (oh so long ago, and again soon) I remember having my character casting spells as needed (not being stingy or wasteful) and when his spells got low asking the other PCs if we could find somewhere to rest so he could recover spells.

It doesn't matter if it was one encounter or 6 encounters, when my spellcaster was low on spells, he'd ask for a stop to recover spells. If the rest of the party thought his contributions were important and they had time, they'd all rest. If not, we didn't.

The simple facts of the matter are that the PLAYERS decide when they rest and when they do not. They make their decision based not only on their current status, but on what they might expect to encounter in the future. After fighting that many fights the players (and likely their characters as well) figured that they were likely approaching whoever was in charge of all these lizardmen and wanted to be at their strongest before taking them on. That isn't metagaming, that's common sense.

An argument about whether or not 4-6 encounters per day is appropriate has no place in here, guys. This is all about a GMs complaint that his players decided to rest when the wizard asked them to. So far I have not seen anyone (after all the facts were shared) say the wizard was hogging the gametime. As far as the OP goes, the players are playing smart.