Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7640100" data-attributes="member: 29398">If they're already designing all their spells-powers as 'new' then the field's wide open to on-the-fly design whatever the frick we like, as this rationale immediately removes any requirement to stick to what's in the PH or other sourcebook(s).&nbsp; I'm not sure this would be viable in any edition. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In the fiction it ought to be trivially easy for a DM to find a way to explain why a new spell failed, particularly if the player has the PC go and ask someone and-or has their PC do their research and design while in contact with other wizards.&nbsp; In fact I'd say a DM who doesn't explain why it went wrong is shortchanging the PC/player.Perhaps, though a DM/table can choose to ignore resource management in any edition should they so desire - nothing special about 4e in this regard.&nbsp; That said, doing so would have different knock-on effects in each edition and maybe these are fewer or more subdued in 4e?I see the game-play efficiency rationale but to me the internal consistency is paramount; and when it conflicts with efficiency, efficiency just has to take a back seat.Oh, I'll roll all 20 of those - if only because my game has crits and fumbles - and I'll also expect the player to roll for each attack vs. the mooks.Fixed damage in physical combat is something else I'll never use.&nbsp; You're right that the system sometimes isn't granular enough to do everything that's asked of it, but otherwise the answer is to simply take the time to do it right.That, and in the 4e adventure modules I've seen (and run!) it's rare that the design calls for hordes of minions - more common seems to be that there's maybe one minion for each non-minion in a given encounter, which makes the too-much-rolling issue a moot point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7640100, member: 29398"] If they're already designing all their spells-powers as 'new' then the field's wide open to on-the-fly design whatever the frick we like, as this rationale immediately removes any requirement to stick to what's in the PH or other sourcebook(s). I'm not sure this would be viable in any edition. :) In the fiction it ought to be trivially easy for a DM to find a way to explain why a new spell failed, particularly if the player has the PC go and ask someone and-or has their PC do their research and design while in contact with other wizards. In fact I'd say a DM who doesn't explain why it went wrong is shortchanging the PC/player. Perhaps, though a DM/table can choose to ignore resource management in any edition should they so desire - nothing special about 4e in this regard. That said, doing so would have different knock-on effects in each edition and maybe these are fewer or more subdued in 4e? I see the game-play efficiency rationale but to me the internal consistency is paramount; and when it conflicts with efficiency, efficiency just has to take a back seat. Oh, I'll roll all 20 of those - if only because my game has crits and fumbles - and I'll also expect the player to roll for each attack vs. the mooks. Fixed damage in physical combat is something else I'll never use. You're right that the system sometimes isn't granular enough to do everything that's asked of it, but otherwise the answer is to simply take the time to do it right. That, and in the 4e adventure modules I've seen (and run!) it's rare that the design calls for hordes of minions - more common seems to be that there's maybe one minion for each non-minion in a given encounter, which makes the too-much-rolling issue a moot point. [/QUOTE]

Verification