Here, Let Me Fix "Powers Per Day" For You

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Alternatively, I would find it interesting if a Wizard was actually competent with his at-will non-magical attack. Gandalf (yes, he isn't actually a Wizard but an Angel yadayadayda) is pretty good with staff and sword.

It may be interesting to have classes start out mostly mundane - including the Wizard. The Wizard can cast a few spells per day, to compensate, the Fighter has more hit points or healing surges or hit dice or whatever. As the levels grow, every class becomes more innately magical. When you become, say a 11th level Fighter, you finally gain supernatural abilities - stuff that just isn't possible without some kind of "magic", just like Dragons and Giants are - but is not outright a spell either. He kinda needs it if he wants to continue fighting dragons and demons. At that level, the Wizard may gain access to some at-will magic that he can combine with his "mundane" attacks.

Even if adventureres are not "protagonists" or "heroes" or whatever, they have certain requirements to their life. They must be able to jump or climb pits, they must be able to sneak a bit, they certainly must be able to dodge a few attacks by angry humanoids or worse creatures - if they can't do that, the harsh realities of a dungeon will catch up to them, and they either adapt, or die.

There may be spellcasters out there that don't have a Wizard "martial" capabilities - but they just wouldn't be able to go out adventuring, they simply lack the physical endurance and agility to survive against goblin hordes or skeletons. They study magic in the relative safety of their libraries and study rooms. The best they may do is travelling, protected by servants, body guards or (very studious ones) by summoned creatures.

(And if you want to play one of them, there can be s a module for that, too - it requires you two play two or more chars basically, a servant that helps you with the physical stuff and can join the rest of the more typical adventurers most of the time, and the actual mage - a gameplay experience overall more akin to that of a Shadowrun Rigger).

 

[pemerton]

I understand that but the biggest complaint as always been the wizard going to nova and then making the party rest.

<snip>

If stealth and acting quickly is the way to really succeed then stopping to rest is poor tactics.

Sure. But there are other mechanical systems that don't involve resource management at all, or not in the same way. That don't make room for "nova-ing". These systems can make other elements of play salient, rather than managing resources.

One of the reasons I hate daily kind of things 4E introduced was it felt like a video game. To me it took one of the most important parts of the game away which is sometimes not being at full strength for every encounter.

It's very common for PCs in 4e to not be at full strength for every encounter, because some daily powers have been used.

Coming to 4e from Rolemaster, I found that - with its daily abilities, and its wizard spellbooks - if felt like D&D. (Rolemaster has daily items, and daily spell points, but not daily spells).

I don't play video games. Are daily spells a common feature of them?

Some of the most memorable encounters were ones where we didn't go in full strength and yet because of team work and creative use of what we had we still won.

Because 4e PCs have a range on non-daily resources, and are typically able to heal to full hit points after each encounter until they run out of healing surges, the variation in power at the start of an encounter is typically less than in AD&D. (Not always, though. I've GMed plent of encounters in which the PCs started at less than full hp because they had run out of surges.)

Nevertheless, there have been many encounters in which team work and creative use of what is available contribute to victory. This is because the starting conditions of the encounter have been changed on the GM side of the table rather than the player side.

The whole idea that a PC should never lose his items or spend an encounter paralyzed or not always be in the spotlight for every encounter is a a very alien way to play.

I think items fall into two categories - those that are, in effect, part of a PC's build (eg Captain America's shield, Elric's sword, and the enhancement items in 4e), and those that are not. In 4e I generally wouldn't deprive PCs of the first sort of item except as a deliberate part of encounter design. (For example, when the PCs fought a combat at a dinner party, part of the combat involved them re-equipping themselves with their gear that they'd left on weapon racks, leaning against the wall etc.)

The second sort of item they've lost or given away in various circumstances.

"Paraylsis" in 4e comes in various forms - immobilisation, restraint, dazed, stunned, unconscious. I've run encounters in which a PC is immobilised or restrained for most of the combat. But I've probably never had a PC stunned or unconcsious for more than 2 or 3 consecutive rounds.

Action denial is an important part of combat tactics, but in my experience you certainly don't have to rob a player of actions completely in order to generate pressure.

 

[pemerton]

Personally I have always liked the 1E playstyle and balance the best of all editions but it would not have been ruined for me if the wizard's crossbow or dart usage was reskinned into a sort of basic magical attack.

A slight tangent - where does this "wizard's with crossbows" motif come from? Is it a 3E thing? 1st ed wizards threw daggers or darts, post-UA also used slings, I think, and in OA could use shortbows. But crossbows were always for fighters and monks.

 

[Shadeydm]

A slight tangent - where does this "wizard's with crossbows" motif come from? Is it a 3E thing? 1st ed wizards threw daggers or darts, post-UA also used slings, I think, and in OA could use shortbows. But crossbows were always for fighters and monks.

"fire my crossbow" was one of the "at will" actions listed in the post i was replying to.

 

[pemerton]

Alternatively, I would find it interesting if a Wizard was actually competent with his at-will non-magical attack. Gandalf (yes, he isn't actually a Wizard but an Angel yadayadayda) is pretty good with staff and sword.

A Gandalf tangent - as opposed to giving him lots of magic and then putting in some sort of "will alert Sauron" limitation, I would build Gandalf as a low-ish magic, high-ish martial PC (as you describe) and then give him some sort of Angel Point mechanic where, on a limited basis, he can do more magical stuff, but with the consequence that the GM is allowed to introduce some serious Sauron or Saruman-based complication.

 

[TwoSix]

A slight tangent - where does this "wizard's with crossbows" motif come from? Is it a 3E thing? 1st ed wizards threw daggers or darts, post-UA also used slings, I think, and in OA could use shortbows. But crossbows were always for fighters and monks.

It's definitely a 3e thing. Wizards start proficient with light and heavy crossbows. Crossbows have better range and superior damage to a thrown dagger, to compensate for the fact that crossbows don't have the Strength modifier added to damage. Add in that Dexterity is almost always much higher for wizards than Strength, and crossbows become the obvious choice.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sure. But there are other mechanical systems that don't involve resource management at all, or not in the same way. That don't make room for "nova-ing". These systems can make other elements of play salient, rather than managing resources.

It's very common for PCs in 4e to not be at full strength for every encounter, because some daily powers have been used.

Coming to 4e from Rolemaster, I found that - with its daily abilities, and its wizard spellbooks - if felt like D&D. (Rolemaster has daily items, and daily spell points, but not daily spells).

I don't play video games. Are daily spells a common feature of them?

Because 4e PCs have a range on non-daily resources, and are typically able to heal to full hit points after each encounter until they run out of healing surges, the variation in power at the start of an encounter is typically less than in AD&D. (Not always, though. I've GMed plent of encounters in which the PCs started at less than full hp because they had run out of surges.)

Nevertheless, there have been many encounters in which team work and creative use of what is available contribute to victory. This is because the starting conditions of the encounter have been changed on the GM side of the table rather than the player side.

I think items fall into two categories - those that are, in effect, part of a PC's build (eg Captain America's shield, Elric's sword, and the enhancement items in 4e), and those that are not. In 4e I generally wouldn't deprive PCs of the first sort of item except as a deliberate part of encounter design. (For example, when the PCs fought a combat at a dinner party, part of the combat involved them re-equipping themselves with their gear that they'd left on weapon racks, leaning against the wall etc.)

The second sort of item they've lost or given away in various circumstances.

"Paraylsis" in 4e comes in various forms - immobilisation, restraint, dazed, stunned, unconscious. I've run encounters in which a PC is immobilised or restrained for most of the combat. But I've probably never had a PC stunned or unconcsious for more than 2 or 3 consecutive rounds.

Action denial is an important part of combat tactics, but in my experience you certainly don't have to rob a player of actions completely in order to generate pressure.

But we are not talking other mechanical systems we are talking DnD. Look I can understand really liking a system and not liking one or two aspects of it and wanting to find a fix for those issues. But the more I read in these threads the more I feel that some people just don't like DnD and want it to change almost into another game.

DnD is not just a fantasy game it is DnD there are plenty of other systems that can do fantasy.

I played 4E for six months and no matter what class I played I was bored out of my mind and the dM who ran it is a fantastic DM. The game ran like a chess game with all the different rules for this maneuver and that maneuver. This was the first time I had really encountered the 15 minute adventuring day because of losing resources as opposed to being out of hit points an healing. I dislike healing surges because again they scream video game where you go and click on an item for more life. DnD needs to make up its mind just what hit points are. I know they are supposed to be more than just taking hits they also represent endurance and dodging. But what confuses me is that you can only use them by being hit.

Of all the groups I know that started 4E when it came out no one is still playing it some went to Pathfinder others to Savage Worlds a lot of the complaint was it always seem to play the same they felt it was to rigid.

I think options are a great thing which is one reason I liked 3E so much because of the OGL I could find options for classes, magic, feats, skills you name it to drop in my game for whatever kind of campaign I am looking for.

Video game feel to me is when you have rules that scream this is here because of a balance issue and screams game as opposed to making rules that try emulate real life. The point of a video game is winning above all else.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

A slight tangent - where does this "wizard's with crossbows" motif come from? Is it a 3E thing? 1st ed wizards threw daggers or darts, post-UA also used slings, I think, and in OA could use shortbows. But crossbows were always for fighters and monks.

Yes, it's a 3E thing. Crossbows are a simple ranged weapon, and are completely independent of your Strength score (neither positively nor negatively).

Thrown weapons and bows take a Strength penalty to damage rolls, if you have one, and only some bows get a Strength bonus to damage rolls.

Thus, wizards, with low Strength, are steered away from thrown weapons, slings, and bows and towards crossbows.

 

[pemerton]

It's definitely a 3e thing. Wizards start proficient with light and heavy crossbows. Crossbows have better range and superior damage to a thrown dagger, to compensate for the fact that crossbows don't have the Strength modifier added to damage. Add in that Dexterity is almost always much higher for wizards than Strength, and crossbows become the obvious choice.

Yes, it's a 3E thing. Crossbows are a simple ranged weapon, and are completely independent of your Strength score (neither positively nor negatively).

Thrown weapons and bows take a Strength penalty to damage rolls, if you have one, and only some bows get a Strength bonus to damage rolls.

Thus, wizards, with low Strength, are steered away from thrown weapons, slings, and bows and towards crossbows.

Thanks.

In AD&D (at least 1st ed) STR does not affect thrown weapons one way or another, and wizards have a minimum 9 DEX (and 16 for Illusionists). And darts and daggers have a 2 per round and 3 per round attack rate respectively, making their damage output 2d4 or 3d3 respectively (but with the extra variability of spreading that damage over multiple attack rolls). From memory anges are 20/40/60 feet for daggers, and 30/60/90 feet for darts.

Crossbows in AD&D are actually quite bad - the damage from a light crossbow is d4, the same as a dagger, and a heavy crossbow does 1d4+1 - except for range and weapon vs AC bonuses once you get into the heavier armour types (whereas daggers and darts are quite poor in that respect).

 

[pemerton]

But we are not talking other mechanical systems we are talking DnD.

<snip>

I played 4E for six months

<snip>

This was the first time I had really encountered the 15 minute adventuring day because of losing resources as opposed to being out of hit points an healing.

I am also talking about D&D - including 4e, which last time I checked was an edition of D&D - but am making comparisons to other systems also. For example, the OP said that "the fix" for the 15-minute day is wandering monsters. It's true that that is one fix, but it's one that arguably hasn't been a big part of D&D design since Dragonlance was published - which is now nearly 30 years ago - so it can make sense to look at how other systems handle the issue.

As for your particular experience with 4e, I personally don't quite get it - I don't see how a version of the game that make daily resources less important than any other edition would be the first one in which you encounter limits based on daily reources other than healing. But anyway, that would seem to be an argument for making daily resources even less important, which is what some other recent threads have argued in favour of. But at present D&Dnext seems to be going in the other direction.