The basic tenet of the Wizard: More

[The Ghost]

I don´t know about 4th edition, but in 3.0 there was somewhere hidden, that xp is gained for overcoming the challenge, not for killing the monster. I.e. no killing required per rules...

This is actually the best approach: xp when it makes sense. Often you only leveld up when the DM will let you find a dragons treasure hoard...

True. Although, I have found that most people I have gamed with use the monster CR to character level chart in the DMG to give out xp. YMMV of course. My preferred way of doing xp is per adventure - complete that adventure, however you like, and you go up a level. I tired doing a gp based xp game and found the math in 3.5 to be too difficult.

 

[Mercule]

I would love to see 5e balanced at the campaign scale, rather than encounter scale. I don't want to go back to Vancian slots, but I do find Immediate Balance to be a cruel and heavy-handed master.

 

[xechnao]

D&D has a long tradition of people using it for different kinds of play, despite the existence of less-well supported niche games that might, at first, seem more appropriate.

This might be true but what is the point? Should we be eliminating everything but sacrifices to the altar of D&D? You are not building progress this way. IMO.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The issue with this is that the class balance being based on a campaign basis as opposed to an encounter basis worked for AD&D but did not work for 3E.

In AD&D:

1. Magic Users did not get bonus spells for high Int, so they had less.
2. Most games didn't go far past level 10, if at all, and games that did tended to focus away from killing monsters.
3. AD&D played much faster at the table, and adventures tended to be written and run with more encounters between rest periods as a result of this. Combined with getting less spells due to the lack of bonus spells for stats, your memorized spells had to last longer.
4. Splatbook use was irregular, and a large amount of games didn't use many spells outside of the PHB.
5. Monsters tended to have low HP, and causing damage with spells was often the most effective thing you could do. Magic Missile and Fireball were staples of play at all levels.
6. Your ability to hit with Save or Die spells did not go up with your level or stats, but the ability of monsters to resist them did. Thus, at higher levels, these spells tended to hit infrequently.

In 3E:

1. Wizards get bonus spells for a higher Int, which gives them more spells than an AD&D ever had at a given level.
2. In 3E, higher level play was far more common and more focused on fighting enemies. The game breaking power of level 6+ spells had more of an effect on play.
3. Combat in particular and gameplay in general was far slower in 3E than it was in AD&D, and this caused adventures to be written and run with fewer encounters between rests, letting the Wizard's limited resources go farther.
4. Splatbook use was more common than sticking to just the PHB, and the wider selection of commonly used spells gave more bang for the buck than the average AD&D Magic User used to have.
5. Monsters tend to have 2-5 times the HP that they did in AD&D, but the damage dealt by spells was not scaled up. Dealing damage was most often a waste of time for the 3E Wizard.
6. Save or Die spells become more effective as you gain levels and stats, and can eclipse the enemies ability to resist them. Thus, they are more powerful and effective than they previously were.

 

[Mallus]

Should we be eliminating everything but sacrifices to the altar of D&D? You are not building progress this way. IMO.

OK, you've lost me.

 

[Reynard]

The issue with this is that the class balance being based on a campaign basis as opposed to an encounter basis worked for AD&D but did not work for 3E.

In AD&D:

1. Magic Users did not get bonus spells for high Int, so they had less.
2. Most games didn't go far past level 10, if at all, and games that did tended to focus away from killing monsters.
3. AD&D played much faster at the table, and adventures tended to be written and run with more encounters between rest periods as a result of this. Combined with getting less spells due to the lack of bonus spells for stats, your memorized spells had to last longer.
4. Splatbook use was irregular, and a large amount of games didn't use many spells outside of the PHB.
5. Monsters tended to have low HP, and causing damage with spells was often the most effective thing you could do. Magic Missile and Fireball were staples of play at all levels.
6. Your ability to hit with Save or Die spells did not go up with your level or stats, but the ability of monsters to resist them did. Thus, at higher levels, these spells tended to hit infrequently.

In 3E:

1. Wizards get bonus spells for a higher Int, which gives them more spells than an AD&D ever had at a given level.
2. In 3E, higher level play was far more common and more focused on fighting enemies. The game breaking power of level 6+ spells had more of an effect on play.
3. Combat in particular and gameplay in general was far slower in 3E than it was in AD&D, and this caused adventures to be written and run with fewer encounters between rests, letting the Wizard's limited resources go farther.
4. Splatbook use was more common than sticking to just the PHB, and the wider selection of commonly used spells gave more bang for the buck than the average AD&D Magic User used to have.
5. Monsters tend to have 2-5 times the HP that they did in AD&D, but the damage dealt by spells was not scaled up. Dealing damage was most often a waste of time for the 3E Wizard.
6. Save or Die spells become more effective as you gain levels and stats, and can eclipse the enemies ability to resist them. Thus, they are more powerful and effective than they previously were.

I generally agree with these assesments. I would add that in AD&D, the level curve tended to be shallower so even mid to low-high level characters still faced "low level" monsters with some frequency, extending the useful life of the magic user's low level spells.

 

[xechnao]

OK, you've lost me.

I have seen this phrase more times but I am not sure what it means. Is it that you disagree with someone or that you can not decipher what they are saying?

 

[Mallus]

I have seen this phrase more times but I am not sure what it means. Is it that you disagree with someone or that you can not decipher what they are saying?

I can't decipher what you're saying.

 

[xechnao]

I can't decipher what you're saying.

Should we be eliminating everything but sacrifices to the altar of D&D? You are not building progress this way.
Ah ok.
I was saying that we should not expect everything from D&D. D&D is what it is. If you want something different look for it -chances are that if you are seeking for some niche that was imposed to you by some media you will find it*. If it is not as perfect as you want it to be try to make it as perfect as possible. This is more plausible than resorting back to D&D -at least for the progress of the hobby and your ability to find more satisfying and suitable things for what you are seeking -especially in the long run.


*If you can not find something specific about what you are looking for it must be a niche of a niche -use what exists there for the bigger niche. If you are feeling creative, create the system that suits you best.

 

[Mallus]

I was saying that we should not expect everything from D&D.

Why not? It's tradition.

Besides, D&D can accommodate multiple modes of play and a very broad range of characters. Look at the Story Hour section here for ample proof of that.