Bend, dont break.

[n00bdragon]

I think it's a good idea Shidaku, even if no one else does.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The problem is that you will not often have more than 5 diplomacy checks in one day, or even really 2 important diplomacy checks in one day. Having a spell that is able to eliminate an entire skill event be on a daily recharge is insufficient in cost. Similarly, an attack that does 5 times the damage of a regular attack (in 4th, Daily Powers exist that do just that) can eliminate an entire combat event or at least drop it significantly, and then the party rests to regrow their ICBM.

My take is quite simple. The recharge rate is wrong. A wizard should take a week or so of research in a library to recover their spells just as a fighter should take a week or so of rest to recover their hit points. This was almost the case in 1E - the wandering monster table made it impossible to rest without going back to town. But 2e moved away from that, and 4e standardised on the wrong recharge.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My take is quite simple. The recharge rate is wrong. A wizard should take a week or so of research in a library to recover their spells just as a fighter should take a week or so of rest to recover their hit points. This was almost the case in 1E - the wandering monster table made it impossible to rest without going back to town. But 2e moved away from that, and 4e standardised on the wrong recharge.

Then it's mostly just about time-shifting your rest period, which is a pretty trivial fix, all things considered.

Whether it is an "adventuring day" or an "adventuring week," the game mechanics don't dramatically change. You can still balance a wizard's spikes versus a rogue's skills (or a fighter's attacks) over the course of the recharge period.

 

[Rhenny]

3e did point out the wisdom of the vancian system to me, not that is proved it worked in 3e, but that with worked in 2e. 3e did break it with bonza bonus spells and wands of more castings that you will ever need.

To me the mage is the wildcard, the guys that occasionally, spectacularly trumps the situation. Room full of kobolds? Jeeze, I memorised fireball this morning...I only have 1 but thank god I have it, room cleared. Lock the rogue cant pick leading to the room of loot? Good thing I gave up an acid arrow for a knock (thats ONE knock, not 50, ONE). Big cliff face to get down? Featherfall, let everyone else risk the long climb down.

Im not saying that vancian is the best we can come up with in this day and age, but (to me) the effect it had needs to be preserved. They dont consistently contribute a little, they occasionally single-handidly re-write the terms of the encounter.

I totally agree. People need to stop whining about how a wizard, if prepared, can do something that a rogue (or any other class for that matter) can do.

In a world where there is magic, magic users would first and foremost develop spells that function as utility spells for adventuring. Think about it. Adventuring is how "adventurers" make a living. If I were an adventurer mage, and I could spend time researching spells, I'd make sure I could open doors, become invisible, move quietly if necessary, summon a monster to fight for me, or charm creatures so that I could escape. Even if I hired a bunch of professionals (a rogue, a fighter, a bard, etc), I'd still want to make sure if I had to, I could do any of the above spells. Casting it once or even twice per day does not take anything away from anyone else. And, in most parties, if I were a mage and I knew that the rogue in the party could handle the locks, I wouldn't even bother preparing a "knock" spell. I wouldn't waste resources to trump a party member.

If Wizards were so dang unbalanced because they could cast spells that achieved results reserved for other classes, then everyone would have played a wizard in od&d, 1e, 2e and 3e. That wasn't the case. Some people just like the idea of using magic. Some like the idea that they can achieve results from physical feats or sweat.

 

[Fifth Element]

Also the idea that a magic user who isn't using magic 24/7 is useless can crawl off and die.

Preferably in a fire, since straw men burn so nicely.

A magic user should be equipped with knowledge of magic, and a broad spectrum of subjects. This should be valuable to a party and make the magic user a contributing member of the group even when not casting spells.

You seem to be using "magic user" in the old school sense (what the later editions call a wizard), rather than the more general "spellcaster" sense. Whether or not the above makes any sense for a class depends on a lot more than whether the class uses spells or not.

 

[GM Dave]

Some thoughts;

1> Magic should be dangerous to the user: If you want to play that style of campaign, great! May I point you to some RPGs that have great mechanics for these sorts of things like Call of Cthuhlu, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, other horror based RPGs.

2> Some people like to play with Wizards that can go all out: Some people like Ars Magica where a wizard can do many things (Mage is another good example). Some people like Anime like Fairy Tale or stories like the Myth Inc series.

3> I like options: The opportunity to do one style or another but I hate being told that 'I must play and use things this way'. You know what I do with those rules? Toss them into the garbage when ever they get in the way. That is why I never bother with things like Challenge Ratings or Alignment rules. If you like them then fine but don't tell me I have to play X way. Fantasy and fun are too big and broad for one 'correct' way to play.

4> A wizard must be bright and knowledgeable: Really? We often have fun making fun of the Sorcerer's and Clerics of the world for the things they don't know. Monday was a perfect example as we played Pathfinder with a Sorcerer and a Witch. The Witch was rolling well and making their Knowledge Plane and Arcana checks. The Sorcerer was rolling poorly and didn't have the same bonus. It was great as they interchanged on what they knew. It also was great when the Witch messed up a role that the Sorcerer scored well on. We just joked on the fact the Witch had skipped the class on identifying Deamons which the Sorcerer seemed take extra interest in learning.

I also have a special place in my heart for rifting on things like Paladins and Clerics that don't know have any Knowledge Religion. It just makes for good comedy at the table and role-playing.

The Order of the Stick's Arch-Villian takes pride in how he is an idiot in terms of IQ but still can blast others to smithereens.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Then it's mostly just about time-shifting your rest period, which is a pretty trivial fix, all things considered.

Funnily enough, I do exactly that when I DM. Thanks for the link

I totally agree. People need to stop whining about how a wizard, if prepared, can do something that a rogue (or any other class for that matter) can do.

In a world where there is magic, magic users would first and foremost develop spells that function as utility spells for adventuring. Think about it. Adventuring is how "adventurers" make a living. If I were an adventurer mage, and I could spend time researching spells, I'd make sure I could open doors, become invisible, move quietly if necessary, summon a monster to fight for me, or charm creatures so that I could escape.

The issue is that if I were an adventurer rogue, the first thing I'd do is try to learn a few spells as well. If magic is as ubiquitous or powerful everyone sensible should have some. - and without stepping outside their class. Give magic serious risk or cost and not so much.

Casting it once or even twice per day does not take anything away from anyone else.

Unless you only need to do it once or twice per day. And why would the rogue not try to memorise and prepare a few spells that would help them be a rogue.

If Wizards were so dang unbalanced because they could cast spells that achieved results reserved for other classes, then everyone would have played a wizard in od&d, 1e, 2e and 3e.

Some people like playing without magic. Some know no better. But with the exception of Robilar who had 1:1 sessions, almost every famous member of Gygax's table in the OD&D days was a rogue. And there's been massive MU inflation since - an odd level MU got one spell of their highest level in 1e, two in 2e (assuming specialist), three in 3e (four for a Focussed Specialist). According to Gygax the game was already unbalanced in 1e and it's got far worse since.

 

[Fanaelialae]

We can do a little trick with the combat spell, to add variety to play: we can up its power in exchange for making it happen less often. A spell can do DOUBLE the damage of a sword, as long as the spell only happens half as often. Now the two things have a very distinct mechanical difference, though they remain broadly balanced.

We can balance Charm Person in a similar way: the spell can do TWICE what a Diplomacy check can do, but it can only happen half as often.

I disagree with your premise.

Being able to output the same damage in half the time is generally going to more valuable than doing it over a longer period of time, even if you can only do it half as often.

For example, let's assume that a fighter has a 10 damage whirlwind attack that he can use at will, while the mage has a 20 damage fireball that he can use every other round. If the enemies only have 20 hp, the mage can do in one round what the fighter could do in two. In other words, if the mage fireballs them, they may not even get off an attack, whereas they would be guaranteed to do so against the fighter.

On the other hand, if the mage has to spend time casting fireball, such that it only occurs on the second round, now the two abilities are roughly balanced. (Although the fighter has a distinct advantage when facing 10 hp opponents.)

Being able to perform a more powerful effect less often isn't necessarily a great balancing mechanism. Never underestimate the ability to front-load.

For starters, daily limits are the source of the 15 minute work day. Not every DM wants to have to go through the heavy-handed tedium of preventing a party from resting. Sure, you can use wandering monsters, or restock dungeons, but not only are these "solutions" not always appropriate, they create extra work for the DM.

Additionally, more powerful, less often, is only balanced if you drag things out. It might be fine if everyone has to make 30 checks in an adventure, but what about the mini-adventure where everyone only has to make 5 checks?

I think one better balancing mechanic would be longer casting times with a real chance for spell disruption of powerful spells. Then you can also offer shorter casting time spells that are more in line with "mundane" abilities (such as a blast of fire that is on par with a sword attack). Granted, that's just one possible approach, but I think it's far more balanced than daily limits. Additionally, it encourages teamwork; whether it's the fighter and rogue holding the slavering orcs at bay while the mage invokes a fireball, or the fighter and the rogue holding the enemy captain down while the mage ensorcels his mind to turn him against his master.

 

[Umbran]

Of course the wizard has to "do nothing" rather than attack non-magically because if you aren't #1 at something its best to just tune out and play angry birds rather than participate.

Perhaps if you are three years old.

When did Ricky Bobby take over the gaming hobby?

Ricky Bobby took over the hobby roughly when insulting sarcasm became a valid rhetorical tactic in polite conversation.

For the rest of this thread, folks, we expect to see people speak politely and respectfully about their fellow gamers. I don't care how much you disagree with them, or how much you don't like their play-styles or preferences, they're still fellow gamers. If that isn't enough for you to speak of them with a modicum of civility, you need to walk away from the keyboard.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Being able to output the same damage in half the time is generally going to more valuable than doing it over a longer period of time, even if you can only do it half as often.

For example, let's assume that a fighter has a 10 damage whirlwind attack that he can use at will, while the mage has a 20 damage fireball that he can use every other round. If the enemies only have 20 hp, the mage can do in one round what the fighter could do in two. In other words, if the mage fireballs them, they may not even get off an attack, whereas they would be guaranteed to do so against the fighter.

That's encounter-based design thinking, that is!

Yeah, a fireball might end the encounter early. But the encounter isn't self-contained. It is part of a broader day's worth of challenges. The game doesn't stop after that encounter -- it goes onto the next one, where the fireball has already been spent, and therefore cannot be used again, and so if the wizard wants to contribute to this one, he's gotta pull out a crossbow or whack a few orcs with a staff or rely on his Background or Theme abilities or use Magic Missile (which is balanced for at-will use). And the fighter deals with most of them in a blaze of steely glory.

Part of the great flexibility you gain with adventure-based design is that you don't need to worry quite as much about effects that end encounters early or avoid them entirely. It's fine to go up to the orc standing guard and Charm him with a single spell, because you don't gain your resources back until after you deal with ALL the orcs.

So if you think about the individual encounter, any trade off of frequency for power is going to look very powerful (which is part of why 4e standardized this across the classes). But if you look at the entire adventure, and balance and pace your game around that, it's a more viable balance, since it forces you to continue even after you've nova'd.

For starters, daily limits are the source of the 15 minute work day. Not every DM wants to have to go through the heavy-handed tedium of preventing a party from resting. Sure, you can use wandering monsters, or restock dungeons, but not only are these "solutions" not always appropriate, they create extra work for the DM.

There's a LOT of ways to address this, but the simplest is to say that when the PC's fully recharge, the adventure does, too. If the party rests for a night, the goblins use that night to call in reinforcements. By the time the party wakes up, hey presto, there's just as many goblins as there were when they first came in. This works more believably with slightly longer timescales, but if your using an "adventuring day" instead of an "adventuring week", verisimilitude probably isn't THAT important to ya.

Additionally, more powerful, less often, is only balanced if you drag things out. It might be fine if everyone has to make 30 checks in an adventure, but what about the mini-adventure where everyone only has to make 5 checks?

You reduce it proportionally. With each party member making 5 checks to win their part of the adventure, you get a wizard who only has to cast 1 spell to win their part of the adventure. It responds quite well to maths.

I think one better balancing mechanic would be longer casting times with a real chance for spell disruption of powerful spells. Then you can also offer shorter casting time spells that are more in line with "mundane" abilities (such as a blast of fire that is on par with a sword attack).

That's actually the same mechanic, just front-loaded instead of back-loaded.

Which is fine. I like tension-building mechanics more than nova mechanics personally. But it doesn't really evoke the classic D&D wizard to me. A vancian wizard prepares spells at the beginning of the day and then parses them out as he goes.