New tidbit about spells and hit points.

[Nonlethal Force]

See, a few posts ago I think someone nailed this discussion on the head. This discussion is largely about fun.

The reason that we have differing opinions is because people have differing opinions about fun. Some people are this way: Having unlimited resources is fun, because it means my character can always have something magical to do. Other people are this way: Having limited resources is fun, because I like the strategy and planning required.

I happen to be in the second category, which is why I don't think that I'll be moving to 4e. I really like the way 3e organizes resources. But, that doesn't make any other form of the game wrong.

Having said that, I fear that there are basic trends in humanity that will eventually play out. Human beings have a tendency to be attracted to the new and then become immune to its newness.

For example, I remember when home computers were TRS-80s. They were the bomb gaming machine, well, along with the Atari. But now they are really lame, and it's only been less than 30 years since they reigned supreme! I remember when the IBM 486 was the absolute bomb. Same thing. Now, I operate on a desktop that has a Celeron D 325. It was a midgrade computer about 3 years ago and is now falling behind, especially in the gaming department. The truth is that what once excited us now bores us.

The same is true with the entertainment industry. Star Trek used to have cool special effects. Star Wars used to have cool special effects. Then came Matrix and the like. Slowly, we are becoming desensitized to what is cool and a new level must be reached.

I see that really as a race to futility. I don't want to participate in that race. Let's say that your tyical mage has the ability to always fling magic missiles every round, even if they are a minima power level. I have no doubt that in two years that ability will be like today's crossbow. It'll be passe. It'll be the basic model that everyone is now tired with.

The question is, at what point do you draw the line? Everyone has a different point, and the differences don't make one wrong and another right. To those people who look forward to a limited "always on" power, I do sincerely hope they can have fun and not get caught up in the "power spiral" that we also call power creep. But I don't look forward to that. For me, 3e power management is "right" for me.

 

[Sun Knight]

Nicely put, Nonlethal Force.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

As long as the "THIS is fun" "No, THIS is NO fun!" exchanges pipe down a bit again...it reads like the Stooges exchanging slaps, only without any Nyucks to be seen anywhere.

I think expectations are a lot of what shape what one wants out of a wizard. I grew up with wizards and magical characters running out of magical power at some point, from my first RPG books (Grey Star the Wizard ), to the Red Box Basic Set of D&D. I loved playing wizards from the start, and every one of them either had a staff or a dagger along at the very least.

At one point, my group had to fight a mad fighter with a 2H-sword that drove him crazy...and everybody else was down for the count, with that fighter and my wizard remaining with a handful of hit points, and me with no spells left. Initiative came up (AD&D 2e), we both rolled the same...and because I used a dagger, I went first...rolled for attack...hit...and managed to kill the guy before he could bisect me with the two-hander. Trust me, there was enough tension around the table to cut with a knife.

So no, I don't see anything inherently wrong about wizards using "mundane" weapons to fight with when their spells have run out. But as I said...I've grown up with that concept.. And there are enough wizards in "archetypical" fantasy that happily attacked with mundane weapons, to conserve spell energy or because they couldn't cast at that moment.

And yes, I do believe that the "ever-blasting" wizard is a page taken from video-games, anime and other modern pop culture references. I'm not saying it's bad, though. It simply is different, and most likely is not to everybody's tastes...you NEVER can please everybody. People like me, who grew up with the "old" concept, got used to it, learned to play with it, and actually LIKE it (because there are more than enough "old hands" out there that hate the way magic works in D&D for decades as well ), will at best shake an amused head, at worst rattle the cages and proclaim that D&D is burning.

Just stop throwing "fun" and "no-fun" around...it's so useless, it's actually not even funny watching the cakes fly anymore. Fun is such an individual and multi-dependant sensation that you can't simply pin a concept in an RPG down like it's done here.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hmm...

See, I agree that completely unlimited spells wouldn't be fun (for me). But I also dislike running out completely, or the "30 minutes of adventure followed by 23 hours of rest" scenario.

I rather liked the notion of a game in which the character's "big guns" still require resource management (since those are once/day), but they're still at a good 70-80% effectiveness without them. The characters still require some level of careful play, but aren't hosed after two big fights.

I thought it was a nice, solid compromise.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

See, I agree that completely unlimited spells wouldn't be fun (for me). But I also dislike running out completely,

I hear you. I like the planning and the strategy myself, but different strokes. I can definately see your point, though.

or the "30 minutes of adventure followed by 23 hours of rest" scenario.

This I totally agree with. Gaming groups with this tendency have a difficult time with making the typical dungeon crawl seem realistic. Not saying it can't be done ... but that is the largest complaint I hear about dungeon crawls. It just doesn't make sense for a party to be able to leave a dungeon and come back without the dungeon owner massively buffing the guards. Or even worse, parties who suddenly sleep for 8 hours (or 23 hours) while the dungeon "waits" for them to continue.

I totally hear this complaint!

 

[Cadfan]

There is a difference between "unlimited power" as in "my wizard can shoot a mildly damaging bolt of electricity as a touch attack all day long, so he can keep on wizardin' even after he's used up all of his actually good spells, and never has to pretend he's a particularly crappy rogue," and "unlimited power" as in "my wizard is a god amongst men capable of shattering planets with his mind!!!!!11!oneoneeleven!"

In fact, I think that the difference is so obvious that if you are stating that you cannot see it, you must be intentionally constructing and burning straw men. I do not think you can fail to see the difference if you are looking at this matter in good faith.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I rather liked the notion of a game in which the character's "big guns" still require resource management (since those are once/day), but they're still at a good 70-80% effectiveness without them. The characters still require some level of careful play, but aren't hosed after two big fights.

I thought it was a nice, solid compromise.

Me, too. You've got at will minor abilities, plus once/encounter and once/day stuff to use. Doesn't sound like it's anything BUT in the middle.

Brad

 

[Sun Knight]

I have never had the aproblem with the constant need to rest after my wizard cast his spells. I simply reserved my spells for encounters that warrant them while the rest of the time I simply used mundane weapons to defend the character. When I do have him cast his spells I make sure I use spells that have durations of at least an hour per caster level for those are the spells that will carry my character through the day, not the fire and forget magic missiles.

A wise wizard conserves his power and only uses it when needed.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I have never had the aproblem with the constant need to rest after my wizard cast his spells. I simply reserved my spells for encounters that warrant them while the rest of the time I simply used mundane weapons to defend the character. When I do have him cast his spells I make sure I use spells that have durations of at least an hour per caster level for those are the spells that will carry my character through the day, not the fire and forget magic missiles.

A wise wizard conserves his power and only uses it when needed.

That's fine, but it's not the way a lot of people prefer to play wizards. Many people want to be able to contribute, magically, to every encounter. It doesn't mean they want to be able to dominate the encounter, or to throw their biggest spells every time, but not being able to do something magic defeats the purpose of playing a wizard, for them. Plus, wizards frankly aren't very effective with their crossbows, since they tend to be unable to hit the broad side of a barn.

Also, the style you're talking about only works in games where the PCs face a lot of smaller fights. For gamers who prefer fewer but much more dangerous fights (like I do, and most of the people in my group do), the party is screwed if the wizard can't meaningfully contribute to each fight.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your chosen wizard playstyle. But the simple truth is, it's not what many people--indeed, in my own experience, most peope--want from playing a spell-caster.

 

[Sun Knight]

The people who want to constantly use their power in an unlimited fashion as you suggest makes me believe that the Wizard class is not for them, and they would be happier playing a Warlock. Wizards are refined casters that mold magic in specific shape and functions and more often than not don't flash it about. Sorcerers, while flashier, take a more aristicratic approach to magic an dothers, and represent a balance point in arcane diversity and raw unbridle power. The warlock is arcane power in its rawest form, and can use it at will but because of its near raw state it is not as refined and less diverse than the wizard or sorcerer. Checks and balances, my vampiric mouse. Checks and balances.