General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Sure, such players exist. But they're enough of an outlier that a core part of the system cannot afford to cater to them at the expense of other uses.
You're the pro- I'm not going to argue that you're not- but are there actual stats to back you up?
I'm not being snarky here.
Its just that my personal experience as a gamer since 1977 simply doesn't jibe with that assertion- besides me and my buddy, the majority of the guys & gals I've played D&D with in the past 32 years (in Colorado, Kansas, and Texas) have been perfectly capable of self-restraint in combat. As I've said to Hussar in several other threads- I have NEVER seen the "15 minute workday" in my years of D&D, and a lot of that is because of that patient playstyle.
I have to wonder if certain design decisions were made because of assumptions about the predominant playstyle within the game that may not be justified.
Its just that my personal experience as a gamer since 1977 simply doesn't jibe with that assertion- besides me and my buddy, the majority of the guys & gals I've played D&D with in the past 32 years have been perfectly capable of self-restraint in combat.
I have no doubt that lots of people are capable of it.
Where my questioning comes in is, how many people would have chosen it?
Obviously, there's no way for either of us to answer that, since we're getting into the realm of hypotheticals and guesses on other people's motivations. But my own experience--and my understanding of the average person--is that people prefer to be able to decide for themselves on this sort of thing.
So a class that lets you choose whether you want to play a conservative, "I only act every few rounds" type is going to have a wider appeal than a class that forces you to play that type.
And no, you can't just say "Well, they shouldn't play a wizard then." Wizards are too much of a fantasy archetype to restrict them to what is--IME, and apparently judging by WotC's research--a relative minority playstyle.
My first 4E character was a rogue. And there were times where I spent several rounds just moving, to position myself for the perfect sneak attack, even though it might've been more mathematically sound for me to spend those rounds attacking even without SA damage. And I enjoyed doing it.
But I enjoyed it because I chose to do it. If I'd been forced, if (for whatever reason) I was incapable of contributing meaningfully without first maneuvering for position, I'd never have played the class.
I played wizards, a lot, in 2E and 3E. And I enjoyed the experience. But I enjoyed it in spite of the fact that there were times I just couldn't meaningfully contribute (especially at low levels), not because of that fact.
Quote:
I have to wonder if certain design decisions were made because of assumptions about the predominant playstyle within the game that may not be justified.
I have no access to WotC's research, and I certainly won't claim that their design decisions are infallible. But I do know that they have such research, and I trust that, for the most part, they have a strong sense of what the majority of their market is looking for.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
And you still wind up with the same problem, although not to the same level. If the wizard "save up" all his good stuff until the opportune moment, and then--due to the penalties he incurs--it fails utterly, I think even the most patient of players is going to be frustrated.
A wizard does not have to only save up the big stuff, why not save up the OK reliable stuff too (thus being effective but not a scene stealer so to speak against the big guy). Or possibly saving that one spell cracker as a last roll of the dice, all or nothing TPK or Victory spell that saves everyone's bacon... or not. I'm not seeing much frustration here unless a wizard psychotically tries overstretching themselves (in which case he is tempting fate and most likely losing and deservedly so).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouseferatu
Or you wind up with the wizard's companions handling all the "minor" fights, and the wizard hogging all the glory against the main villains.
Sometimes the wizard will "win" versus the big guy, or they will "lose" and the rest of the party will have to pick up the slack, or the wizard can be mister reliable contributing and letting the Barbarian/Rogue/Cleric win the gold instead. Each approach and result seems fair to me and not skewed too far in the wizard's favour.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
A wizard does not have to only save up the big stuff, why not save up the OK reliable stuff too (thus being effective but not a scene stealer so to speak against the big guy).
So what's he doing in the other fights? If he's saving all the big and all the "okay" stuff, he's losing the chance to shine--or even contribute meaningfully--before the big fight. And once again, you have a wizard who's spending lots of his time doing nothing of consequence.
Quote:
Sometimes the wizard will "win" versus the big guy...
And you really don't see how that's a problem? Giving one class the chance to completely short-circuit the dramatic final encounter without the other players being able to contribute is not good design. It only works in a game where everyone agrees from the get-go to accept that as a possibility--which once again takes me back to the "optional rule" comment. It's fine for some groups, but it's not a good thing to build into the core system.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
So a class that lets you choose whether you want to play a conservative, "I only act every few rounds" type is going to have a wider appeal than a class that forces you to play that type.
Again, this is counter to what I'm observing.
IME, its the warrior and other non-caster classes that force you act nearly every round of combat. If/when the warriors sheathe their swords or the rogues elect not to flank...well, things are going to go south very, very quickly.
But our parties do just fine when the casters hold fire after just a couple of rounds of action.
And if what you say were true, those non-casting classes- forced to act every round- should be the minority of PCs observed in our campaigns...and they simply aren't.
I think what is really going on is that the controlling factor as to who must act when is their proportion within a given party. IOW, if a party is comprised of 3 warriors, a rogue a cleric and a mage, the party can win if one of the "soloists" elects (for whatever reason) to hold actions, but if the warriors take a holiday, its going to be a TPK.
OTOH, if a party is built along the lines that Hussar suggested upthread, with 3 full-caster arcanists, a rogue, a warrior, and a cleric, that party will be killed if those arcanists don't do something each time they have the opportunity. The inaction of the rogue, the warrior or the cleric for one combat won't matter much.
Variation does make characters interesting. I find the classes in 4E to be quite varied. Just because they use the same basic progression doesn't make them identical.
No, of course not. Conversely, even the most varied 3e characters are not as varied as, say, Batman and Superman.
IME, its the warrior and other non-caster classes that force you act nearly every round of combat. If/when the warriors sheathe their swords or the rogues elect not to flank...well, things are going to go south very, very quickly.
Well, as I said above, I've played rogues who were inclined to spend rounds in positioning themselves, and I've seen fighters do the same, so I wouldn't say the melee types are "forced" to do anything.
Of course, I'd also suggest that even if true, being forced to do something every round is still not nearly as limiting, or unattractive to most people, as being forced to do nothing in some rounds.
But mostly, I think we've reached the point of "dueling anecdotes." So I don't see this getting us much further.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
And if what you say were true, those non-casting classes- forced to act every round- should be the minority of PCs observed in our campaigns...and they simply aren't.
I can't speak for that specific paragraph, but unless I've misread both him and Herremann, that is Mouseferatu's entire point in this thread. In the majority, people like to be effective all the time. People who often prefer waiting to be effective are a minority, and people who prefer needing to wait to actualize their full potential are in such small number that they aren't really worth marketing to.
Well, as I said above, I've played rogues who were inclined to spend rounds in positioning themselves, and I've seen fighters do the same, so I wouldn't say the melee types are "forced" to do anything.
But that IS doing something in combat- you're trying to gain a positional advantage that should contribute to success in combat. That's sound combat strategy.
And that's conceptually no different than holding an action: holding a reserve, be it large scale like an army or small scale in a party; be it a warrior guarding the rear or a wizard holding off on casting- is all sound strategy that contributes to the success of the party as a whole. No good commander commits his entire force to a fight until he has no option.
Quote:
Of course, I'd also suggest that even if true, being forced to do something every round is still not nearly as limiting, or unattractive to most people, as being forced to do nothing in some rounds.
And now I'm confused- in what way has anyone suggested that someone is being forced to do nothing?
The nearest I can see is that I've suggested that choosing to do nothing is sometimes the superior option.
Its akin to Feat selection. Some feats are objectively better or worse than others, but AFAIK, nobody is forced to choose them. (I've often chosen "suboptimal" feats because it was appropriate to the PC in question.)
But IMHO, the inclusion of "suboptimal" feats in 3.X was part of the charm.
I never saw Wizards or other spellcasters stand around and do nothing in 3E to the degree they did so in 1E/2E and was described earlier in this thread. Even at 1st level, a 3E Wizard could have three level 1 spells without breaking a sweat. By level 3, a Wizard could have 7 spells to cast in 3E.
I really would not expect to see a 1st level wizard blow all three spells in one combat.
Quote:
I don't see the previous editions Wizard as being an issue. Its specifically the 3E Wizard that was the problem. I played 2E for years, and have no beef with the 2E Wizard.
The 2e wizard was so similar to the 3e wizard as to be virtually indistinguishable, from their spell list to their gear. You could probably take an AD&D wizard, recalculate their AC, BAB, and saves, and drop them into a 3e game converting everything else on the fly. I just do not agree that changes in 3e completely changed their playstyle. Daily spells in 3e were still limited. Wizards in 2e were capable of keeping their distance and casting relatively fast spells without interruption. Wizards in AD&D could largely pick their main spells, and wizards in Basic D&D could learn every wizard spell in the game. You can argue all you like, but you have this: A guy, in robes, possibly wearing bracers, with a dagger or staff, who casts some spells throughout a combat but not every round.
While I can certainly imagine you feel the 3e is too much changed, I do not think a sizeable percentage of people who reviewed both classes in the book as well as in play would agree they were very different or the 3e version was completely over the top because all of its weaknesses had been removed.
And that's conceptually no different than holding an action: holding a reserve, be it large scale like an army or small scale in a party; be it a warrior guarding the rear or a wizard holding off on casting- is all sound strategy that contributes to the success of the party as a whole. No good commander commits his entire force to a fight until he has no option.
Right, but the difference is, I chose to do that. Had I wanted to just make constant attacks every round, I could have. What I'm discussing is choice.
Quote:
And now I'm confused- in what way has anyone suggested that someone is being forced to do nothing?
In a system where a wizard has only a tiny number of very powerful spells, he's effectively "forced" to do nothing--or at least nothing meaningful--part of the time. In your case, you talk about a player who prefers to dole out his spells carefully, only a couple per combat. While that's his choice in one respect, in the other it's something forced on him--because he wasn't that careful, he'd wind up without any spells at all in a later combat.
Like I keep saying, there's nothing wrong with that playstyle. But a version of class X that lets people choose whether to go with that style, or go with something more active, is by definition going to have wider appeal than a version of class X than only supports one.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
I can't speak for that specific paragraph, but unless I've misread both him and Herremann, that is Mouseferatu's entire point in this thread. In the majority, people like to be effective all the time. People who often prefer waiting to be effective are a minority, and people who prefer needing to wait to actualize their full potential are in such small number that they aren't really worth marketing to.
And my assertion is that Mouseferatu's definition of "effective" is a bit narrow.
My buddy's Wizard play is sound, not just from a gameplay standpoint, but also from a RW military standpoint. He has a certain amount of power that he brings to the conflict, commits a certain amount and holds a certain amount in reserve...just in case he's misread the situation and hasn't accounted for all of the opponents he's got to face.
Sometimes, "being effective" means being patient.
They aren't "waiting to be effective"- they are being effective by waiting.
Look at the history of RW conflict, and you'll find that many conflicts were lost because one side or the other over-committed to action and had nothing left in reserve when the tide of battle changed.
And my assertion is that Mouseferatu's definition of "effective" is a bit narrow.
Fair enough. Mine is that your definition isn't shared by the majority of players, and doesn't take into account that we're playing a game.
IME, the average player wants to have a tangible effect. He wants to be doing something. The fact that his mere presence may be a benefit to a military tactician doesn't change the fact that, during several rounds of combat--many minutes of real time and many die-rolls--he's not doing anything.
Again, yes, there will be those happy with playing that way, but I don't believe the majority would be.
(This leaving aside the question of whether the wizard is actually "being effective by waiting," which I think is pure semantics and not actually accurate, but honestly, I have no interest in delving into it.)
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
Right, but the difference is, I chose to do that. Had I wanted to just make constant attacks every round, I could have. What I'm discussing is choice.
As am I.
Quote:
In a system where a wizard has only a tiny number of very powerful spells, he's effectively "forced" to do nothing--or at least nothing meaningful--part of the time. In your case, you talk about a player who prefers to dole out his spells carefully, only a couple per combat. While that's his choice in one respect, in the other it's something forced on him--because he wasn't that careful, he'd wind up without any spells at all in a later combat.
Its called resource management, and its a part of any conflict. The archer with 20 arrows makes the same kind of decisions.
Its just magnified in D&D because the foe around the corner may just be a Pit Fiend.
Which, BTW, is why he also makes sure his PC upgrades his weapons from time to time, just like the warriors and rogues. No 6th level spells? No problem- eat bolts from his Brilliant Energy Crossbow!
Quote:
Like I keep saying, there's nothing wrong with that playstyle. But a version of class X that lets people choose whether to go with that style, or go with something more active, is by definition going to have wider appeal than a version of class X than only supports one.
As I read 4Ed- indeed, as I believe you yourself posted earlier in this thread- this kind of resource management has not disappeared, its just shifted to a different mechanical part of the game. The difference is that instead of it being a caster's top couple of levels of spells (3.X), its whether the party has any of their Daily powers and Healing surges left.
(This leaving aside the question of whether the wizard is actually "being effective by waiting," which I think is pure semantics and not actually accurate, but honestly, I have no interest in delving into it.)
Feel free not to delve- but I'll say this anyway: our parties tend to go 5+ combats between rests, and my buddy's Wizard will usually still have spells to burn at the end of that stretch.
Which means that even as the party is resting, he is not defenseless.
Which means that if we are attacked while resting, we have a decent chance of fending off the attack.
I'd call that effective.
(And just to be 100% clear- I'm not trying to harangue Mouseferatu or anyone else...I'm just...I guess I'm railing against an assertion that I've seen many times in the past few years that simply doesn't in any way resemble my decades in D&D. So don't take any of my posts personally, anyone. If my posts seem to have an edge, chalk it up to the evils of my being a lawyer. )
Its called resource management, and its a part of any conflict. The archer with 20 arrows makes the same kind of decisions.
We're back to dueling anecdotes, then, because in all my years of gaming, through every edition, I think I only ever met one DM who actually made the PCs count ammunition.
Quote:
Which, BTW, is why he also makes sure his PC upgrades his weapons from time to time, just like the warriors and rogues. No 6th level spells? No problem- eat bolts from his Brilliant Energy Crossbow!
Of course, he wasn't going to hit that often with it...
Quote:
As I read 4Ed- indeed, as I believe you yourself posted earlier in this thread- this kind of resource management has not disappeared, its just shifted to a different mechanical part of the game.
Well, yeah. I'm not arguing for the elimination of resource management.
Quote:
Feel free not to delve- but I'll say this anyway: our parties tend to go 5+ combats between rests, and my buddy's Wizard will usually still have spells to burn at the end of that stretch.
Fair enough. Now consider two aspects of the reverse.
How many other resources did the party burn--ammunition (if you're counting that), healing spells, hit points, disposable magic items or charges, or other types of damage like ability drain--because your buddy didn't hurl some of those spells earlier?
And in how many rounds of combat did he accomplish nothing of note, other to save those spells for later--when they arguably didn't do him any good?
I think that's a definition of "effective" that could be argued. On the one hand, it's always nice to have a reserve. On the other, any spell wizards in prior editions had left at the end of the day was something they could have accomplished in combat, and didn't.
This is a game that needs to appeal to a wide base of players. Some people enjoy the resource management more than other stuff, sure. But I'm willing to all but guarantee you that your average player, standing around for several rounds and not casting spells just so he might have something to fall back on later, is going to feel like he's not getting to play his wizard to full effectiveness.
So again, I say a class build that lets you choose is better than one than forces a level of caution or hoarding of resources so intense that you wind up doing nothing--or resorting to your crossbow --for a significant portion of combat.
As far as resource management... The difference is that, using healing surges and daily powers, you're still at high effectiveness until you're completely out. Dailies are cool, but you can forge ahead without them. Healing surges are vital, but you don't fight more poorly without them.
In prior editions, a wizard's resource management also mandated his ability to do anything. If he's out of expendable resources, he's out of spells. He's reduced to an archer with a crappy BAB.
As I said, I'm not arguing for the removal of resource management. I'm just suggesting that a system where running low isn't the same as being almost helpless might be reasonably said to have a broader appeal, and contribute to people feeling more effective/productive more of the time.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
And just in case I haven't said it enough already...
I'd be tickled pink if WotC began publishing optional systems that added some of this back in, for those who want it. I'd love to see rules for spell-casters built differently, where they have more powerful spells but limited access to them. I think it's difficult--borderline impossible--to balance with the existing system, and there's no way around some of the "swing" problems I mentioned. But for groups who know that going in, sure, give them the toys they want to play with.
But to do that, you need the firmly balanced baseline from which to work. And for that, you need classes that have roughly the same resources, and roughly the same economy of actions, and roughly the same opportunities to go "nova."
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
I'll also admit that, even understanding all the arguments, part of me still misses old-edition wizards. I got a kick out of trying to figure out if I could use the spells I'd prepared that day in a given situation, and trying to figure out how best to do so. And yes, I enjoyed occasionally going nova and shoving magic down the villain's throat.
None of that changes the fact that I absolutely understand why the changes that were made, were made. I said when I first came into the thread that I don't know if might've been a better option. Maybe, maybe not. But I understand why something was necessary. And most of the time, I'm quite content playing the new version of the wizard.
Just, for the occasional times I'm not--and assuming the rest of my group agreed--I'd love those aforementioned optional rules for my own use, not just to pacify you guys.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
I just want to point out that according to 4e players on ENworld who bother to participate in votes, the Wizard is the third most popular class (out of all 16 or however many there are in the PHB1 + PHB2 + FRPG + EPG), despite this nerf.
No. Its the third least unpopular class. IIRC, the results were markedly different when asked "Whats your favorite class?" and dropping the lowest vote getter in each round.
__________________ Marshall
-
Insanity is my only means of relaxation
No. Its the third least unpopular class. IIRC, the results were markedly different when asked "Whats your favorite class?" and dropping the lowest vote getter in each round.
Yeah, I realized the first time someone mentioned it that you just didn't understand that it effectively amounts to the same. Which is that despite the wizard having undergone a massive nerf, a lot of people do not hate it more than everything else.
__________________
360 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 22nd level Musings of an Epic Virgin
So I don't see this getting us much further.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
