Monte Cook's Design Thoughts On Spellcasters

[Hjorimir]

I would love it if something like this was implemented to break the fight/rest cycle. I few months ago I posted about how I was hating buffs for this very reason; once the buffs were gone and unavailable the group wanted to rest...even if it was 10AM in the morning.

 

[heimdall]

Where you sit on this I guess depends on how you look at spellcasters in general. IMHO, I don't think the system is broke. So I don't see a real need to revamp the way spellcasters work. Then again, I've built things into my game that encourage players continuing to move (a target that is still is an easier target) because that's the way I DM. However, I can see a friend of mine, who likes to DM things differently liking a change to a more "always on but at a lesser power level" system for spellcasters.

This is how I handle the always want to blow through spells and rest syndrome. For clerics, there are certain times of day they pray for spells (not just any time once a day). This isn't a unique concept. FR has this, for instance, which leads to some interesting times to regain spells for some gods. Wizards need 8 hours of rest. If you're resting in the middle of the wilderness for 8 hours, unless your party is hunkered down and hidden (which takes time to prepare), the enemy can find you. If the orc camp is getting assaulted, eventually they are going to start sending scouts out to try and find the group. Give the scouting parties some reasonable percentage of success (but not an unrealistically high one), and the party is going to have to face the music. Even if the scouting party doesn't attack (better to report back and get an ambush set up)... you can see where this is going.

I understand that some players may feel like this is a DM being evil. My players know this is the way I run and while they may jokingly say I'm evil, they prepare for stuff like this... like setting traps up around the camp, like preparing fake camps and setting ambushes... you get the idea. My players are just as eager to spring the trap on my poor orcs as some would say I am on them. Obviously that means my group doesn't fit everyone. And I have very good friends who love D&D who aren't in my campaign because they'd rather a different approach. You can't please everyone.

 

[wayne62682]

I would love it if something like this was implemented to break the fight/rest cycle. I few months ago I posted about how I was hating buffs for this very reason; once the buffs were gone and unavailable the group wanted to rest...even if it was 10AM in the morning.

I would blame that on the reduction of durations in 3.5 than anything else... if buffs lasted several hours like they used to it, instead of minutes (thereby ensuring it's once per encounter), it wouldn't be that big a problem IMO

 

[WayneLigon]

I would love it if something like this was implemented to break the fight/rest cycle. I few months ago I posted about how I was hating buffs for this very reason; once the buffs were gone and unavailable the group wanted to rest...even if it was 10AM in the morning.

"You lay there, staring at the ceiling. You're not the least bit sleepy, since you just woke up two hours ago. You count sheep. All that does is make you hungry for mutton. A cave bear slashes open the tent. Roll for initiative."

..

I always love hearing what a designer like Monte comes up with as far as ways to change the game; it's fascinating to me to get an inside peek at the design process and how it differs for people. Similarly, I love Mearls monster revisions as examples of how the design process works. I think Monte has a good point, that there should be something there for the pure spellcaster to 'do' something almost every round. In the current game I'm in, once the part wizard either runs out of spells or is unable to use his area-of-effect stuff because we're in the way he whips out the crossbow and puts that Elven 20 Dex to work.

 

[ST]

The funny thing is, this doesn't sound like that outrageous a change to people outside of D&D. I remember playing spellcasters that worked much like this as far back in the 80's, in various Fantasy Hero campaigns.

It's definately a system that works well.

 

[mhensley]

I think Monte has a good point, that there should be something there for the pure spellcaster to 'do' something almost every round. In the current game I'm in, once the part wizard either runs out of spells or is unable to use his area-of-effect stuff because we're in the way he whips out the crossbow and puts that Elven 20 Dex to work.

This is why I like this idea alot. I hate the idea of wizards toting crossbows. It just doesn't fit with the fantasy genre in fiction and it doesn't fit with past version of D&D either.

Sigh... I wish Monte was working on 4th.

 

[fuindordm]

I disagree with the problem and the solution. If I were writing 4e, I would dial back the spells per day. I'm still amazed that clerics get as many spells as they do.

I'm not advocating a return to 1 hp wizards with a dagger, though. I like a lot of changes in 3e. Spells flying everywhere is perhaps not one of them.

Yeah, but if you scale back the number of spells you have to scale up their power again. This is why wizards worked in 1st edition even with so few spells--even the first level spells, used judiciously, could end an encounter. Sleep being the most famous, of course, but there were other examples.

Now all the spells with multiple uses have been split into individual spells, their effects scaled back, saving throws added where previously there were none...

I too would appreciate a movement back towards fewer but more powerful spells, especially if the 'best' spells had balancing factors other than gold and xp (e.g. side effects, fatigue, etc.) and the potential for risky casting (like the 1e fireball). Magic in 3rd edition is too ubiquitious, and too safe, for my taste.

I think Monte's idea could work really well.

Ben

 

[pawsplay]

To me, a wizard that can chuck magic missile all day is a serious deviation from what D&D is. The warlock is a special case, and an interesting class in its own right, but that's not what I would do with the wizard. The paladin can cast evil, the warlock can blast, that's fine, that's their schtick. The suggestion made by Monte substantially changes the face of D&D; a world in which 1st level wizards can chuck spells all day is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, Greyhawk, Mystara, the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and especially, Dark Sun. Such a world is so far removed from its sword-and-sorcery roots that a greatsword wielding barbarian would actually be out of place; what role could such a character have as a protagonist in a world of omnipresent magic?

Logically, you'd then need all-blasting-all-the-time versions of the the duskblade and spellsword, variations on Hideous Blow and Arcane Strike, and so forth. Nine Swords would fit right into that scheme.

A knight with a lance on horeseback? Ha! That poor animal would get shot out from under him in two seconds. So now we need spells that protect mounts...

The whole thing would turn into a Magic: The Gathering level attack/counter/counter-counter nightmare.

 

[Hjorimir]

"You lay there, staring at the ceiling. You're not the least bit sleepy, since you just woke up two hours ago. You count sheep. All that does is make you hungry for mutton. A cave bear slashes open the tent. Roll for initiative."

Actually it is...

"You spend hours and hours playing cards hidden within the extradimensional space provided by your rope trick then climb out and cast another one so you can sleep for the night..."

Casting rope trick is like pressing the Pause button in a dungeon.

 

[Reynard]

Casting rope trick is like pressing the Pause button in a dungeon.

Now, if we could only find the Save Point.