Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Belaugured DM" data-source="post: 4725226" data-attributes="member: 82918">Ok well, as to the point of unnecessarily nerfing caster basic attacks I must admit it’s a good one I hadn’t thought of. Luckily for me those who pointed it out also came up with an easy fix. With regard to "blowing it all in one shot" - I think this is more likely an issue if restrictions were on daily use as opposed to encounter use. Yes I am aware of the fact that you still have x uses vs y rounds of combat. To me however that’s why its a question of resource management and picking and choosing when and where you want to unload your arcane goodies. Again - I know many simply don’t like that at all but, as I said I am looking for like minded folks to chip in here or at least those open to accepting that some might be ok with that concept of magic use. Regarding nerfing monster at wills, no I had no intention of nerfing the monster at wills. I am not trying to promote fairness in all its aspects. I am aware I am making life tougher for my players this way. They know I am a rotten nasty no-goodnick dirty DM anyhow. They never send me Christmas cards, or thank you notes but they seem to enjoy my game and keep coming back to the table. If it makes things too unbalanced where I am killing PCs through lack of foresight that’s one thing but I don’t think that’s going to happen. If it does I will humbly accept a few "I told you so" comments however and readjust. Regarding the use of brain sweat to enhance an attack or if you prefer - using your noggin terminology. As I see it, again this is only my humble opinion, but as I see it the at wills act almost as a crutch or impediment to roleplay. Especially for newer players, the "combat flair" or little extra bonus benefit they provide make them an easy substitute to thinking about how to use basic attacks in creative ways. Basically what I am saying is if you view tactics as an individual players use of abilities, versus strategy as the party's cohesive use of abilities, the at wills as written become almost a default. I have seen this work for and against new players. For some who are still learning their abilities I have seen them try much more exciting, swashbuckling or tactical maneuvers just using a basic attack and asking - can I do / try this? (I always say yes, but...) For others who are still new I have seen them simply use Twin Strike (for example) every. single. round. ad nauseum. That in effect becomes their tactical choice. Now I know this is a player issue, and some players are just more creative than others. What I am trying to say though is, if I take some of that away, what happens then? Do players have to become a little more creative or daring? I think they very well might, it's been my experience from playing lots of 1e and 2e that you had to at least. With regards to the 2 Old school Wiz variants, both are good ideas. Both have some things I am thinking a lot about however. I don’t know if I like the idea of encounter refreshers for encounter powers or at wills that much for arcane casters. I may allow it but require an hour of study lets say. I don’t know yet. That of course introduces the random encounter factor which may be a fun idea.  I am definitely leaning towards a total daily use paradigm vs encounter or at will. That makes it a little more old school and also makes use of resources a little more interesting, simpler to track, and more old school imo. I both like and dislike the idea of MP because that gives back something to the players if you relegate a regain of MP through use of an action point lets say. The problem is now I am creating bookkeeping. If I use MP it’s almost definitely going to be a daily limit because that definitely eases bookkeeping. Again, I really appreciate the help guys. You're all giving me a lot to think about even the dissenters. You have also pointed out things I may miss and I appreciate that. Thank You!</blockquote>

Verification