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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6321045" data-attributes="member: 5143">They are.  But I view magic in 4e(actually in every edition) as billions upon billions of possible variations based on any number of things.  It's an art rather than a science.  Moving your pinky finger an extra millimeter might make a Fireball double the radius but discovering that fact and having the skill to do it without blowing yourself up are things that are hard to do.  Most Wizards stick to what they know and can rely on.  So, although Wizards are curious about the abilities other Wizards have, it's like saying that I'm curious about how Quantum Mechanics works.  I'd like to understand it completely and I took Physics courses in University.  However, I don't want to spend the time and dedication it would take to fully understand it(which would probably take years).I assume, like science, there are hundreds of different competing theories as to how the intricacies of magic work and while all of them seem to work, in theory, many are incompatible with one another.  So, when most Wizards see other Wizards doing weird things, they say, "Weird, their magic must work under a different principle than mine.  That's interesting but without one of them to teach me it and a couple of years to understand where it comes from, I guess it'll just be something they can do and something I can't."It doesn't try to pass muster as an in-game explanation.  It doesn't WANT to.  It ISN'T an in game explanation.  It doesn't need one.The rule is that you can't cast two of the same encounter power in the same combat.  The in game rule is whatever fits your world best.  Either they can only absorb so much energy before needing to rest(and some Wizards due to a quirk of birth or focus in a different discipline can do it faster) or the Wizard in question simply decides to use a different spell that round because he doesn't WANT to use the same spell again.  Despite the player wanting to use the spell again.Either way, the system is designed around at-wills being spammable but encouraging people NOT to use them unless they have no other choice.The entire system is a metagame construct to create balance and interesting combats within the game.  Because, you'll find that any in game explanation of why things work the way they do will be abuseable by players who will look at the rules and say "This one spell is the best spell in the game, I'm going to do nothing but cast it over and over.  When I run out, we need to rest, since I refuse to use any spell that isn't the best."  People are boring and they'll attempt to abuse in game explanations of things.  Like, if someone finds out that a spell does fire damage suddenly their mind goes racing into the things they know about fire.  It burns, it is hot.  What benefit could you get from making something hot?  Then suddenly PCs are asking if their fireballs also heat up the opponents armor enough to do damage for the next couple of rounds as it burns them from being red hot.  They are asking if enemy Wizard's robes are on fire.  They want to cook their food using it.  They want to use a fireball to burn down a whole village of orcs without having to step inside.If you have a metagame construct, you can still have a fun game without people attempting to get more benefit than they are supposed to out of a spell.  When you accept that the game IS a game with players playing it then you can say "I understand that a fireball in real life might set his cloak on fire, but we are going to assume that for game purposes it doesn't.  It would make the spell too powerful for your level and it would require more time and effort to keep track of it."  Which isn't an in-game explanation of anything.  It is instead an agreement that the game is more fun when it is balanced and easy to keep track of.  You simply don't have your PCs constantly trying to figure out in character why their fireballs don't set things on fireball because then you are purposefully trying to ruin the agreement that you've come to.Is it?  NPCs should never use monster stats, first of all, unless you are fighting them.  Most NPCs should have 1 hitpoints and an AC of 10.  If they are to accompany the PCs, it's best to use the rules for making up allies in the DMG(or DMG2, I always forget).  That way their bonuses are in line with the PCs.As for the discrepancy, I don't think I'd notice the difference between my hit rate on a tennis ball and my partners if one was 35% and the other 55%.  Maybe, over time, I'd think "Wow...he's better than me."  I don't think I'd ever say "He can't be better than me!  That's impossible!  I'm supposed to be the best at this game!  It's unfair that I'm going to have to buy a better racket to compete!"The narrative idea that PCs are better than other people means that IN GENERAL they will be better.  There will always be exceptions.  Like most of the monsters they fight.  Some special NPCs and so on.</blockquote>

Verification