D&D General D&D without Resource Management

[ezo]

I'm cool with crossbows. I'm just flexible that way.

Doesn't quite fit in with common medieval fantasy, though, does it? Staffs at least fit a bit, and slinging bolts of magic certainly do. But you can do whatever, flexible or not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That works too. But it'll be hard to not step on magic weapon.

Have it replace Magic Weapon, or more appropriately, Magic Missile. One shot per round, never misses, damage as per Magic Missile (one missile), duration as per Mage Armor. Any ranged weapon that uses ammunition as material component.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Doesn't quite fit in with common medieval fantasy, though, does it? Staffs at least fit a bit, and slinging bolts of magic certainly do. But you can do whatever, flexible or not.

Why not? Crossbows were invented in the late medieval era in Europe (earlier in China I think). Heck, there were arquebuses in the 2e PH. I'm fine with any weapon that isn't a magic automatic.

 

[ezo]

Why not? Crossbows were invented in the late medieval era in Europe (earlier in China I think). Heck, there were arquebuses in the 2e PH.

Because it doesn't fit the fiction. Although crossbows were not difficult to learn (they still required a lot of practice of course), they were heavy and slow, especially the "heavy crossbow". While I can sort of see it with other casters (clerics and druids anyway), I can't really see it with wizards. Your typical wizard is not very strong, so using such a weapon would not be practical.

WotC butchered how crossbows should function anyway, so unless a group houserules them, D&D "crossbows" aren't historical crossbows.

So, it isn't a timeline issue for me, they just don't fit for wizards. And bring firearms of any kind into D&D is a no-no for me.

I'm fine with any weapon that isn't a magic automatic.

I'm not a huge fan of the pew-pew, either, but it fits fantasy for me better than wizards firing crossbows.

 

[Minigiant]

Mentally the wizard image would have a missile option by race.

Human wizards could use peasant missiles like daggers and crossbows but would develop attack Cantrips be old age.

Elf wizards could be young and still vibrant even when old so they would shoot bows.

Dwarf wizards would use throwing axes and hammers all their life because it's tradition.

Halfling wizards could use slings forever because it's easy.

Orc wizards iz firing eye and mouth lazers!

Dragonborn wizards burninate all the peasants.

Tiefling wizards also burn the peasants just edgier and darker.

Goliath wizards are strong even when old and still throw weapons and shot crossbows.

Hobgoblins wizards developed military grade arcane cantrips for combat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because it doesn't fit the fiction. Although crossbows were not difficult to learn (they still required a lot of practice of course), they were heavy and slow, especially the "heavy crossbow". While I can sort of see it with other casters (clerics and druids anyway), I can't really see it with wizards. Your typical wizard is not very strong, so using such a weapon would not be practical.

WotC butchered how crossbows should function anyway, so unless a group houserules them, D&D "crossbows" aren't historical crossbows.

So, it isn't a timeline issue for me, they just don't fit for wizards. And bring firearms of any kind into D&D is a no-no for me.


I'm not a huge fan of the pew-pew, either, but it fits fantasy for me better than wizards firing crossbows.

What fiction are you talking about? Your fiction? Because D&D has had many over the decades.

 

[ezo]

What fiction are you talking about? Your fiction? Because D&D has had many over the decades.

Of course mine... And as far as I know everyone else I've ever played with since 1E. Wizards never had access to crossbows until WotC took over in 3E I believe---I know they didn't in AD&D 1 and 2. Maybe a kit or something added it, but I don't recall any that did off-hand.

But I am also talking about the fiction in stories and movies and such (prior to WotC of course...). As 2E says:

Hence, a wizard can use a dagger or a staff, items that are traditionally useful in magical studies. Other weapons allowed are darts, knives, and slings (weapons that require little skill, little strength, or both).

I really have no idea why WotC decided to allow Wizards to use crossbows, even "light" ones only.

You like them, I don't (and now you know why), there's really nothing more to say about it, is there?

 

[Corinnguard]

Limiting spell uses across the board would be fine with me. I've seen people complain about the balance of power between casters and warriors, and I'd rather see casters weakened than make warriors superheroes.

I like to think that Level Up fixed this divide by giving the martials access to the various combat traditions, each of which have 15 combat maneuvers that are ranked by degrees.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course mine... And as far as I know everyone else I've ever played with since 1E. Wizards never had access to crossbows until WotC took over in 3E I believe---I know they didn't in AD&D 1 and 2. Maybe a kit or something added it, but I don't recall any that did off-hand.

But I am also talking about the fiction in stories and movies and such (prior to WotC of course...). As 2E says:


I really have no idea why WotC decided to allow Wizards to use crossbows, even "light" ones only.

You like them, I don't (and now you know why), there's really nothing more to say about it, is there?

Crossbows famously require little skill.

 

[Lanefan]

I meant to respond to this earlier, but have been distracted by IRL things.

Frankly, Lanefan, this position comes across as naive at best; you are assuming that because someone does something, it necessarily must be the most fun they could have.

It's the most fun they think they could have, else they'd be doing something different.

That is simply, outright false. We can cover it with a thought experiment: Imagine you are playing Qhess, which is just like chess, except that it has an automatic win button which only activates if the player captures no pieces after playing for exactly one full hour. The optimal choice, then, is to sit there and do nothing for exactly one hour and then slam the instant-win button; by definition, you have captured no pieces (since you haven't moved!)

Except every game would be a tie; as even if I'm playing black there's no way white can take a piece on the first move, thus the other player won't have captured any pieces either.

The problem here is exactly what I said earlier: the difference between task and outcome. The game tells players that some outcome is valuable, and thus they will pursue it. The whole point of telling the player something is valuable is to get them to want to pursue it. But, for a game to be a game and not a puzzle (or other non-game things), there must be multiple tasks which could potentially lead to that outcome. Hence, the player is encouraged to pick whichever task is the most effective at producing the outcome. But the outcome itself is, generally speaking, not much fun, for the same reason that "cross the finish line" in isolation is not a particularly enjoyable action. It is the process of getting to the finish line that is, generally speaking, where the enjoyment occurs.

Ah, there's the disconnect: to me "cross the finish line" is the enjoyable payoff (particularly if you're the first to do so!) for all the grunt not-fun stuff you had to do to get there. Back in school I used to love winning races (not that I won very many) but I hated all the running I had to do in order to get those wins.

Also, a puzzle is still a game.

Hence: Something which short-circuits that process, which lets the player completely reject the challenge, really does damage the fun of play. It turns the process into something trivial and boring.

Players will optimize the fun out of a game if they're given the chance to do so. Not all of them, of course; but most of them will. It is human nature to want to win, and if one must endure tedium, even outright unpleasantness in order to win...most players will do it.

And I'm just fine with that. It's the same as my running-race example just above: you do the work in order to get the payoff. Now if I could get the payoff without having to do the work then so much the better, but races just don't work that way. Same is true of D&D: the 5-MWD doesn't optimize the fun out of the game, it (potentially) brings more fun into it.

I mean, there's also a third way, which has none of the problems of either of those, and instead gets the players to want to engage with the actually enjoyable gameplay-process of the game in question.

That is, write the game so that engaging with the process of gameplay, engaging with risk and challenge, IS the most optimal path to victory.

Rewarding in-character risk is what individual xp is for: those who take the risks tend to (ideally) level up faster than those who do not, even within the same party. That people are moving away from individual xp (and xp in general) as a reward mechanism ain't my problem.

Then, the folks who would already be doing that because they want to aren't punished for refusing to push the "I win" button, and the folks who prefer to optimize will literally optimize for an enjoyable experience because that's what is maximally effective.

Except for many - as you yourself point out just above - human nature says that pushing the win button very likely IS the enjoyable experience. And trying to legislate against human nature doesn't often end very well.