X/Day abilities as a gameplay mechanic

[Treblain]

I was thinking about various abilities that are usable a number of times a day. Chiefly, barbarian rages and spellcasting. The way they work in 3.5, at low levels, you get very few uses, and at high levels, you have more than you need. Does this really make sense as far as gameplay goes?

The way adventuring works, the low-level character does just as much adventuring as a high-level one. The intended "schedule" is four encounters per day, and this doesn't change fundamentally at different levels.

So at 1st level, the rage, which is a key part of the barbarian class, can be used in one encounter. At 20th level, he can rage in every encounter, barring a long adventuring day. His CON is high enough that it will last until the end of every encounter (which, incidentally, makes Tireless Rage pointless). The same goes for spellcasters, who can't play full encounters casting at low levels, but will always have something useful to do at high levels.

Should the play of classes fundamentally change in this way? I'm not saying a barbarian should be able to rage in every encounter at low levels, but going from having limited resources to having them only run out in rare circumstances is a big change. Is this bad class design, or does it work out okay?

[Flickerdart]

This is why classes made later in 3.5 focused more on encounter-based stuff, like Binder, Factotum or the much-beloved martial adepts.

[Godskook]

X/Day abilities have a bit of variation, and honestly, you can't lump casting, rage and smite into the same category, cause imho, they're 3 very differently designed abilities.

1.For casting(and other abilities that get huge growths in uses/day), the design is fine overall, and just needs a bit of smoothing at low levels to ensure that players are actually capable of doing something 'useful' to avoid feeling like a squishier Paladin. Typically, DMs solve this with an upgrade to cantrips, giving the casters access to 'weak' magic either at-will or with much higher uses per day.

2.For rage, and other encounter-long abilities, you don't really ever notice uses/day being a problem, and even when it is, its cause the ability is both really good and the class can function fine without it.

3.For Smite, its almost always over-costed. Personally, I change this to X/encounter(which is how NPCs technically get it), while PF makes it a rage-like ability. Both are improvements.

Others, like luck abilities, and abrupt jaunt are usually highly specialized and either have an opportunity cost low enough to be worth it or are just too costly to ever be taken anyway.

[Urpriest]

I think X/Day abilities have an interesting effect on worldbuilding since they're the sort of thing people could pretty easily notice and catalogue, and could lead to all sorts of rituals and strategies.

That said, they're not great game design. A game like D&D thinks it is should have the flexibility to use variable numbers of encounters per day (and as has already been mentioned, X/Day abilities don't even match this guideline very well). When the PCs have these sorts of limits it makes telling a story a lot harder, and it doesn't help with making NPCs and PCs interchangeable as has also been mentioned.

This may just be part of my general opinion about 3.5 and 4e: 3.5 leads to more interesting worldbuilding, while 4e is a more robust gamesystem.

[Godskook]

That said, they're not great game design. A game like D&D thinks it is should have the flexibility to use variable numbers of encounters per day (and as has already been mentioned, X/Day abilities don't even match this guideline very well). When the PCs have these sorts of limits it makes telling a story a lot harder, and it doesn't help with making NPCs and PCs interchangeable as has also been mentioned.

I'm confused as to what kind of game you think D&D thinks it is, cause to my knowledge, D&D is mostly simulationist, and 'ammo' concerns are quite 'realistic' and add to the versimilitude of the game. People who can continue on all day every day without rest or loss of resource is far more difficult to believe.

[TroubleBrewing]

I'm confused as to what kind of game you think D&D thinks it is, cause to my knowledge, D&D is mostly simulationist, and 'ammo' concerns are quite 'realistic' and add to the versimilitude of the game. People who can continue on all day every day without rest or loss of resource is far more difficult to believe.

Sure, if you're playing a simulationist-style game.

Unless you're playing D&D in any of the nigh-infinite ways that aren't simulationist-style games.

[Jeraa]

While "ammo" concerns can be quite realistic, it also brings up strange situations. Why can my barbarian only get really mad 1/day? Do I suddenly lose faith in my god when I use my last turn or smite attempt for the day? My punches can only stun 1/day - do I forget how to do it after it works (Stunning Fist feat)?

Even removing the x/day things, and replacing them with "unlimited uses, but total of Y rounds per day", like Pathfinder did with a few abilities, doesn't make sense. Now, instead of my barbarian being limited to being angry 1/day, he can be really angry for a maximum of 54 seconds every day (Con 20, 4+con mod rounds).

Most X/day things are that way because of "balance", not realism. Putting strict daily limits on things is nice for balance, but stupid for any sort of realism.

[Treblain]

I don't have a problem with the abilities per se, just how they are affected by level. It's somewhat reasonable that you can only exert yourself a certain amount of times before resting. But using your rage or smite means something completely different at level 1 vs. level 20.

Raging at 1 means you're going into an "all out" berserker rage. Raging at 20 is just what you do every time you enter combat, unless there's a specific goal that rage prevents. Smite is to use on the BBEG for that final, dramatic hit. (Smite being underpowered is a different problem).

Low-level casters expend their spells and then have to run and hide. This creates a mentality of the wizard who can cast hard-hitting spells, but can't do it all day.

High levels completely undermine the basis of these class features. The barbarian is no longer the guy who can be really strong, but only for a limited time. The caster is no longer the guy who can cast those great spells but not too many of them. The paladin... uh... still sucks. :smallsigh: Well, you get my point.

[Drolyt]

While "ammo" concerns can be quite realistic, it also brings up strange situations. Why can my barbarian only get really mad 1/day? Do I suddenly lose faith in my god when I use my last turn or smite attempt for the day? My punches can only stun 1/day - do I forget how to do it after it works (Stunning Fist feat)?

Even removing the x/day things, and replacing them with "unlimited uses, but total of Y rounds per day", like Pathfinder did with a few abilities, doesn't make sense. Now, instead of my barbarian being limited to being angry 1/day, he can be really angry for a maximum of 54 seconds every day (Con 20, 4+con mod rounds).

Most X/day things are that way because of "balance", not realism. Putting strict daily limits on things is nice for balance, but stupid for any sort of realism.
Some make more sense than others, though on the whole they still make more sense than most 4e Encounter abilities. Among those you mention, I think Rage makes perfect sense, especially in Pathfinder, because it represents your character getting tired. In real life fighting is very tiring, the real problem is that Fighters can fight at full capacity all day long. As for Smite, we can assume that uses some sort of mystical energy that is limited. Stun... I'm not sure.

[Flickerdart]

That's not really how getting tired works. With per-day rounds or uses of Rage, a Barbarian can hulk out in the evening, hang around for a couple hours and then hulk out in the morning again. Then a few days later, after he hulks out in the morning, he can't Rage at all for another 24 hours, whereas it took him only around 8 to recover last time.

[Drolyt]

That's not really how getting tired works. With per-day rounds or uses of Rage, a Barbarian can hulk out in the evening, hang around for a couple hours and then hulk out in the morning again. Then a few days later, after he hulks out in the morning, he can't Rage at all for another 24 hours, whereas it took him only around 8 to recover last time.
Well, per encounter makes more sense, but that has kind of been tainted by 4e and the tendency to make everything per encounter whether it makes sense or not.

[noparlpf]

That's not really how getting tired works. With per-day rounds or uses of Rage, a Barbarian can hulk out in the evening, hang around for a couple hours and then hulk out in the morning again. Then a few days later, after he hulks out in the morning, he can't Rage at all for another 24 hours, whereas it took him only around 8 to recover last time.

That's not how I read it. I think if you just rest for eight hours you can regain any per-day abilities, like uses of Rage or Wildshape. This doesn't necessarily have to be resting overnight.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

To all of the above; yes.

Rage is a huge surge of adrenaline that you trigger through sheer force of will, you push your body to its limits and beyond that's why you're fatigued afterwards.

Any divine ability can easily be viewed as being limited not by your god's power or your faith in them, but by the limits of your mortal body/mind to contain a fraction of their divine power. One could argue that Divine classes should have a pool of power they spend for spells, turning and smiting

Ki, ya it's true you only have so much Ki but Ki can be refreshed in a brief time so that should be per encounter like TOB abilities but ya Monk sucks.

[Coidzor]

Well, per encounter makes more sense, but that has kind of been tainted by 4e and the tendency to make everything per encounter whether it makes sense or not.

Screw that noise. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, get some moccasins.

[Flickerdart]

That's not how I read it. I think if you just rest for eight hours you can regain any per-day abilities, like uses of Rage or Wildshape. This doesn't necessarily have to be resting overnight.
Except that you don't need to rest to regain Rage. You could spend the whole night getting smashed and trading punches to the head with the party Fighter, and in the morning you'll have Rage back.

[Godskook]

Sure, if you're playing a simulationist-style game.

Unless you're playing D&D in any of the nigh-infinite ways that aren't simulationist-style games.

Context is important, and in this case, I'm not talking about "how it can be played", but rather "what it thinks it is". In that light, your retort doesn't make any sense to me.

[FMArthur]

In fantasy fiction I'm generally pretty fond of "you have X amount of special energy, but when times are desperate you still have enough juice to keep going at greater cost to yourself". I wish there were more things that could do that in D&D.

[Urpriest]

I'm confused as to what kind of game you think D&D thinks it is, cause to my knowledge, D&D is mostly simulationist, and 'ammo' concerns are quite 'realistic' and add to the versimilitude of the game. People who can continue on all day every day without rest or loss of resource is far more difficult to believe.

Yes and no. D&D is a simulationist game, yes. But read any 3e-3.5e module: it also wants to be story based. Modules are written from the perspective that some days people will have one fight in the midst of a mystery and some days they'll clear out a whole dungeon with a dozen encounters. There just wasn't much thought among D&D's developers about the idea that stories don't follow simulationist logic and vice versa, and it's really not something that a solution was even attempted for until 4e.

[Keld Denar]

Except that you don't need to rest to regain Rage. You could spend the whole night getting smashed and trading punches to the head with the party Fighter, and in the morning you'll have Rage back.

That IS resting for a barbarian! :smallcool:

[werik]

To all of the above; yes.

Rage is a huge surge of adrenaline that you trigger through sheer force of will, you push your body to its limits and beyond that's why you're fatigued afterwards.

Any divine ability can easily be viewed as being limited not by your god's power or your faith in them, but by the limits of your mortal body/mind to contain a fraction of their divine power. One could argue that Divine classes should have a pool of power they spend for spells, turning and smiting

Ki, ya it's true you only have so much Ki but Ki can be refreshed in a brief time so that should be per encounter like TOB abilities but ya Monk sucks.

I completely agree with this. The idea that once per day abilities don't jive well with a story does not really make sense to me. In most good stories the heroes have a limited number of abilities and if they keep facing new obstacles relentlessly using all of those abilities can lead to problems, just as in 3.5 Ed. If there powers never wear out and they can just constantly will themselves on, they become the Green Lantern whose solution to every problem is "push harder with the ring until you win." This is not only unrealistic but undramatic, in my opinion.

I also don't see the problem with the increasing x per day abilities. The OP is correct that the feel of the character does change as the number of times the ability to use these powers increases, but I do not see how this is a "fundamental" shift. Sure, the Barbarian doesn't have to go into that rage for the "one final hit," but that also shows that s/he has grown more powerful as a character. And if you're getting to really high levels, you can still find encounters where you're running out of rage/smite/spells whatever. It just scales with how epic your character is becoming.

[Godskook]

Yes and no. D&D is a simulationist game, yes. But read any 3e-3.5e module: it also wants to be story based. Modules are written from the perspective that some days people will have one fight in the midst of a mystery and some days they'll clear out a whole dungeon with a dozen encounters. There just wasn't much thought among D&D's developers about the idea that stories don't follow simulationist logic and vice versa, and it's really not something that a solution was even attempted for until 4e.

Ok....what exactly is it about being story-based that's in violation to a simulationist's rule-set? To me, simulation is where the best stories come from. A gunslinger who just 'happens' to run out of ammo right as his nemesis shows up has always been annoying, but one that runs out of ammo in his six-shooter after a strict six shots is *great story* to me.

[Doc Roc]

This is why classes made later in 3.5 focused more on encounter-based stuff, like Binder, Factotum or the much-beloved martial adepts.

And why Legend doesn't roll that way.

[Runestar]

Should the play of classes fundamentally change in this way? I'm not saying a barbarian should be able to rage in every encounter at low levels, but going from having limited resources to having them only run out in rare circumstances is a big change. Is this bad class design, or does it work out okay?

I think that's why PHB2 introduced those ACFs they did. They recognised that it is just no fun for that player at lower levels. For the barb who did not take extra rage at 1st lv, he is a potent fighter during that 1 fight and a substandard fighter in every other battle.

In PHB2, the barb's berserker strength potentially lets him rage every encounter, so long as certain situations are met. This is useless at lv12+ (when he gets enough to rage every encounter), but fairly useful at 1st lv.

The druid gets the ability to shapeshift at 1st lv (instead of 5th lv), and can do so every encounter, allowing him to contribute even after running out of spells. The forms aren't that strong, and frankly, I find they are pretty much useless at lv16+, but at that point, you don't really care because you already have 8th/9th lv spells.

This lets their combat prowess be more consistent regardless of whether your DM throws 1 encounter or 10 encounters at them before they get to rest.

[Vowtz]

The whole point of "Martial powers" sucks. If someone is trained to do something, then he just do it, needing to "rest 5 minutes" to do a different sword slash is pure metagame concept, and that is the main reason I stay away from 4e.

In ToB you can recover your maneuvers in 6 seconds, meaning that you can repeat your different sword slash once for every 12 seconds, that is acceptable.

Magic is made to be less frequent and more powerful, so needing a full rest of 8 hours to recover it is a nice rule.


Any divine ability can easily be viewed as being limited not by your god's power or your faith in them, but by the limits of your mortal body/mind to contain a fraction of their divine power. One could argue that Divine classes should have a pool of power they spend for spells, turning and smiting Cleric spells are refreshed at a given time everyday(sunrise for some), so it is not about body/mind or lost faith, your divine powers are granted by your deity in the beginning of the day, and you got to choose how to best use them.


So at 1st level, the rage, which is a key part of the barbarian class, can be used in one encounter. At 20th level, he can rage in every encounter, barring a long adventuring day. His CON is high enough that it will last until the end of every encounter (which, incidentally, makes Tireless Rage pointless). The same goes for spellcasters, who can't play full encounters casting at low levels, but will always have something useful to do at high levels. I agree with you, high level play is really bad designed.

[DiBastet]

Stun... I'm not sure.

It only works some times per day. You are always trying to go for the secret blow, but only sometimes it connects, IC.

OoC you decide when, but there is a difference between roleplay and mechanics. You char isn't waiting a good roll to do well, he is always trying his best, but when the rolls are high, he did better.

[Draz74]

Is this bad class design,
Yes.

It's gotten to the point that, when I read a homebrew class, I immediately become skeptical and unenthusiastic about the whole thing if I see one Daily ability. Which is probably too strong of a reaction; I'm sure there are a few daily abilities here and there (especially non-combat utilities) that are balanced and sensible on a per-day basis.


And why Legend doesn't roll that way.

Likewise with CRE8. :smallsmile: In CRE8 there is exactly one per-day resource: Reserve Points (which are akin to 4e's Healing Surges). So you can burn yourself completely out of magic until you rest for the night, and so on; but needing to rest for the night always represents being tired, not e.g. "my god doesn't feel like giving me any more Smites today." And all "tiredness" is lumped into one unified mechanic.

[Urpriest]

Ok....what exactly is it about being story-based that's in violation to a simulationist's rule-set? To me, simulation is where the best stories come from. A gunslinger who just 'happens' to run out of ammo right as his nemesis shows up has always been annoying, but one that runs out of ammo in his six-shooter after a strict six shots is *great story* to me.

Simulationism in principle...perhaps not. But it depends what sort of rules your world uses. All I'm saying is that 3.5 D&D has a built in conflict between simulationism and story for exactly the reasons I mentioned. In a story you can have some days when you only have one fight and some days when you clear out a dozen rooms in a dungeon, and both can be equally challenging for the characters. Those are the kinds of stories modules often try to tell. You can have that in a simulationist system too: perhaps that one fight makes people go all-out, or requires particular planning, while the others are more routine. It just happens that D&D sets the two goals in conflict, both because it has a level system that makes easy fights trivial and especially difficult ones almost impossible, and because D&D has lots of X/Day abilities rather than more fluid resources (like Power Points).

[Drolyt]

Yes.

It's gotten to the point that, when I read a homebrew class, I immediately become skeptical and unenthusiastic about the whole thing if I see one Daily ability. Which is probably too strong of a reaction; I'm sure there are a few daily abilities here and there (especially non-combat utilities) that are balanced and sensible on a per-day basis.
I agree that x/day is bad, but I think that 1/day is fine for certain abilities, especially noncombat and special "boss finishers" (although the later doesn't really exist in D&D, except maybe in 4e's dailies, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept). More than that and it becomes a problem of adventure design, making adventures with only one or few encounters a day much easier than one with several (1/day has this too, but since 1/day is also 1/encounter you don't have to worry as much about players going nova; it is easier to design a 1/day ability that is useful without dominating a battle where it is used but designing x/day abilities that aren't overpowered when going nova but still useful when spread out over several encounters is virtually impossible). If x is high enough it stops mattering at all.

Returning to the OP's question, it is pretty bad design to have x/day abilities where x goes up in level. It basically means that instead of getting stronger, you just get to use your abilities more often throughout the day, which isn't good game design. It is one of 3e's biggest flaws.

[Psyren]

I hate 1/day restrictions. Quite apart from being poor design, from a metagame perspective it just makes me anxious as a player. "Should I use it now? Now? How about now? Oh now we're in trouble, why didn't I use it?!" And even when I do fire it off at the right time and get to be all awesome, now I get to worry for the rest of the day: "Should I have used it back then? The day's not even halfway over yet. Will I need it before we go into this room? How about this one? Hey guys, we should rest."

I would have been a-okay with e.g. Metashadow feats or Sudden Metamagic if they weren't 1/day. As-is they suck.

3/day or more I'm fine with, provided the ability is powerful enough.

[Drolyt]

3/day or more I'm fine with, provided the ability is powerful enough.
These are too difficult to balance though, especially if the campaign doesn't stick to the expected encounters per day. Personally, I think a "mana" or "energy point" system which all of your abilities run off would be better.

[Tenno Seremel]

"Should I use it now? Now? How about now? Oh now we're in trouble, why didn't I use it?!"

That sounds like quite a few RPGs I've played where my spellcasters do nothing but defend/basic attacks all the time so they can go berserk in boss battles because mana potions are so rare/costly (and all the money goes to gear anyway) :)

[Draz74]

"Hey guys, we should rest."

Oh yeah, this! This. "The fifteen minute workday" or "the narcoleptic adventurer syndrome" is a direct consequence of having per-day special abilities.

The more often a party isn't up to "full" power and ready to use their most awesome abilities, the more often they will take a break from the plot to recharge.

That's ok if the DM just says, "OK, you recharge. What next?" But when parties have per-day abilities and declare that they're resting for a whole night, the DM tends to feel the need to introduce random encounters that slow the game down a lot. (Either because a module/tradition says they should, or because they feel like the characters shouldn't actually be able to recharge all their per-day abilities in between every fight without running into some trouble. And let's be honest, from a balance perspective, they're right. Spells are so much more powerful than what other characters can do, precisely because (originally) they were supposed to be a harshly limited resource.)

So having per-day abilities indirectly tends to prevent the plot of the adventure from going forward. Boooooooo. :smallannoyed:

[Psyren]

These are too difficult to balance though, especially if the campaign doesn't stick to the expected encounters per day. Personally, I think a "mana" or "energy point" system which all of your abilities run off would be better.

Oh believe me, I agree with you. The problem is trying to get D&D players to like that sort of thing when Vance has all but been carved into our bones. Both psionics and spell points remain niche because of this.

But even better than a points system to me would be a fully-realized Recharge system. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm) Sort of like every modern RPG ever is doing with cooldowns. And that would remove story/immersion problems with resting (since recharge is constantly ticking away in the background no matter what you're doing)) as well as the nova problems with points systems.

And honestly, something as powerful as Gate or Wish should be less than 1/day anyway. (Maybe 1/week?)

[Tenno Seremel]

Recharge system. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm)

Hmm… When you can 1 spell it blocks all spells of that level. Is that normal?

[Psyren]

Hmm… When you can 1 spell it blocks all spells of that level. Is that normal?

That is how the system works. In practical terms, it turns your highest-level spells into encounter powers, while your lower spells tend to become more spammable.

It can mess up casters in the early game however, when they don't have lower-level spam spells to fall back on. And psionics needs substantial modification to fit into the system, though Incarnum has ideas we can borrow to make that function well.

[Tenno Seremel]

In the end this will probably mean that characters will have more redundant spells. You already cast that delayed blast fireball? How about… Empowered Fireball or… Fell Drain Empowered Arcane Thesis Fireball? Or… I'm not sure it's a good thing.

[Psyren]

In the end this will probably mean that characters will have more redundant spells. You already cast that delayed blast fireball? How about… Empowered Fireball or… Fell Drain Empowered Arcane Thesis Fireball? Or… I'm not sure it's a good thing.

To be fair, Arcane Thesis has no business existing so balancing the game around it shouldn't be necessary.

I don't see how Empowered Fireball and Delayed Blast Fireball are redundant with each other, the spells function differently enough to be separate.

But I was more thinking of the practical applications of a cooldown based system. Look at WoW, League of Legends, Mass Effect, Diablo 3 etc... what those games all have in common is cooldown-based magic.


It's also a great way to balance problem spells. Contact Other Plane becomes much more manageable when it can't be cast multiple times/day, yet you don't have to ban it outright or simply stonewall inquisitive players.

[Tenno Seremel]

But I was more thinking of the practical applications of a cooldown based system. Look at WoW, League of Legends, Mass Effect, Diablo 3 etc... what those games all have in common is cooldown-based magic.
Aren't those cooldowns are for spells not spell levels? Otherwise Sorcerers will have even less spells to cast in any given round. And by the time cooldown has expired encounter might already be over :}

[Psyren]

Aren't those cooldowns are for spells not spell levels? Otherwise Sorcerers will have even less spells to cast in any given round. And by the time cooldown has expired encounter might already be over :}

The level-lockout functions like a global cooldown. I agree it would need to be tweaked though to minimize those "reaching for the crossbow" moments.

Perhaps it should be school-based instead. So if you Confuse a bunch of enemies in combat, you can't Dominate their friend that made his save for a few rounds and need to switch tactics; perhaps instead you lay some Solid Fog down between you.

Or maybe there's a very short cooldown for spell levels, while the spell itself that you had cast uses a longer one. So you can't spam Charm Person on the whole tavern at any level but you're never locked out of all your 1st-level spells for casting it either.

Like I said, the system needs work.

[Victoria]

Except that you don't need to rest to regain Rage. You could spend the whole night getting smashed and trading punches to the head with the party Fighter, and in the morning you'll have Rage back.

Uhhh... I don't know about you, but if I were DMing a campaign where a barbarian spent all night doing that instead of, you know, actually resting, I don't think I'd allow him to have his daily rage uses the next day.

I've also rule zeroed a couple instances where the players were trying to basically adventure for half an hour, rest 8 hours, adventure another half hour, rest 8 hours, etc. I mean, I think about it in the real world, if you've just woken up after a complete night's sleep, do you think you'll always be able to force yourself to go back to sleep for another 8 hours?

I wouldn't think so, personally.

[Flickerdart]

The fact that you have to houserule it in the first place just goes to show that the original rules don't make sense. So I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing here.

[Psyren]

The fact that you have to houserule it in the first place just goes to show that the original rules don't make sense. So I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing here.

Good concept, poor execution.

Truenaming made conceptual sense too, they just failed to implement it properly. That doesn't make the idea bad. Same applies here.

[lesser_minion]

It is not inherently bad design.

Asking players to worry about resources is not inherently unreasonable, and it's an entirely valid component of gameplay.

The X/day limits on Stunning Fist and Barbarian's Rage (paladins don't actually receive an ability called Smite Evil, it's actually a mass shared hallucination) were all terrible ideas, but that was because in each case, the mechanic was the wrong tool for the job.

None of these abilities make any sense when limited on a daily basis -- are you getting tired? If so, why doesn't being 'tired' affect anything else you do? Why does being immune or resistant to fatigue not affect how often you can use these abilities?

[Drolyt]

Aren't those cooldowns are for spells not spell levels? Otherwise Sorcerers will have even less spells to cast in any given round. And by the time cooldown has expired encounter might already be over :}
As given in Unearthed Arcana the recharge system isn't very good, but on the whole it isn't a terrible idea. It works better than the current vancian system, to be sure, but I still think an encounter based vancian system (where it only takes like five/ten minutes to recharge your spells, but you only get a handful that increases in power but not quantity with level) would be best. I like point systems too.

[Victoria]

The fact that you have to houserule it in the first place just goes to show that the original rules don't make sense. So I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing here.

Well, it was more of this thread reminding me of those situations and posting my story about it, even though it might have not really been part of the argument.