This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[Ourph]

I'm not arguing about which "playstyle" is better but I am still wondering why people think "camping after one encounter" isn't a VALID incharacter action. In fact, I'd argue that such a style is more in-character and closer toa ctually "roleplaying" a character than the "keep going because its fun to fight against the odds".

I think you are misinterpreting at least part of the discussion. The point isn't that camping after one encounter isn't a legitimate in-character strategic move. It is.

The point is that some people don't like the effect it has on the game and want to see the rules change so the "camp after one encounter" strategy isn't the smartest move the PCs can make. It's not a value call on the choices of the players, it's a value call on the game design that makes certain choices the most strategically advantageous.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

I personally believe every character can do "cool"(whatever this word means since I'm getting the impression cool=damage now) things each round as long as their imagination works with any character. YMMV of course.

For me, cool = effective. That may or may not be damage. I think that outside of combat, this is currently possible. The fighter can put ranks in intimidate and play good cop, bad cop with the bard/cleric/wizard/etc. He's got an out of combat role. He's not great at it, but it gives him a mechanical way to be involved in the action.

The wizard with a crossbow isn't effective. They have almost no chance of hitting without sinking 2 feats, which is a lot more of an investment than a few ranks in a skill (even for the skill-strapped fighter). When he does hit, he does almost no damage. He's effective with spells, but he has no fallback. The cleric has a fallback. The druid has a fallback. The paladin? Fallback. Why can't the wizard have a few resources that he can always use that don't suck?

 

[Imaro]

For me, cool = effective. That may or may not be damage. I think that outside of combat, this is currently possible. The fighter can put ranks in intimidate and play good cop, bad cop with the bard/cleric/wizard/etc. He's got an out of combat role. He's not great at it, but it gives him a mechanical way to be involved in the action.

The wizard with a crossbow isn't effective. They have almost no chance of hitting without sinking 2 feats, which is a lot more of an investment than a few ranks in a skill (even for the skill-strapped fighter). When he does hit, he does almost no damage. He's effective with spells, but he has no fallback. The cleric has a fallback. The druid has a fallback. The paladin? Fallback. Why can't the wizard have a few resources that he can always use that don't suck?

Well, as D&D is a game about cooperation, the members in my group often pool and buy the low level wizard a couple of acid flasks, he also uses the crossbow, and a wizard with no spells left, really has no need to go without armor(in fact some of the arcane failure risks are low enough that my player's happily risk it)...thus put it on and facilitate using the aid another action or even help with flanking. Just some suggestion when you start thinking out the box.

Personally I still feel the wizard's versatility would become overpowering if he's made effective(without jumping through hoops) in regular combat. One of the reasons the Cleric and Druid are perceived that way and can end up outclassing the fighter in melee.

 

[Will]

Actually, the biggest culprit for the nova problem (great term!) in my experience are clerics.

Give them time, and they'll blow half their spells on buffs and storm through combat.

Then feel absolutely pathetic thereafter and grouse about resting.

Yes, they are told to be more careful, the entire time 3e has been out. Still happens.


As for wizards, imagine this:
Wizard gets ranged touch attack that does 1 point of damage per level, at will, of one particular energy damage.

Or something similar... something that is ideally not terribly better than, say, shooting at things with a bow (if you have reasonable skill), but not completely useless.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

Or something similar... something that is ideally not terribly better than, say, shooting at things with a bow (if you have reasonable skill), but not completely useless.

Precisely. And, perhaps as importantly, it feels much more wizardly to blast things with a ray of fire than to plunk them with a crossbow.

 

[Lanefan]

Could we all agree that roleplaying games, and D&D especially, do NOT simulate real life, and as such REAL world examples are worth absolutely nothing as comparisons? Apart from only a minority of us all actually having any valid comparable situations to bring up when talking about a bunch of specially gifted people (some not even human) going down into an old, trap-laden, monster-ridden underground complex to extract treasures and knowledge, or hunting after another bunch of equally specially gifted villains (with less gifted but monstrous henchmen) who abducted/stole some important person/item in order to rule/destroy the world.

Actually, if it's all the same I'd rather not agree to that, as while we as humans don't generally have experience with trap-laden magically-enhanced dungeon-crawling and villian-slaying, we *do* have experience with some of the minutae that make up such an endeavour e.g. basic physics (water flows downhill, air is lighter than water, etc.), effects of lack of sleep, and so on; and it's only natural for us to want to try to apply that experience within the game where possible.

As for the rest-after-one-encounter idea, a real-world parallel might be professional athletes. In many cases, their lives consists of short bursts of high performance (running a race, playing a game, etc. which might take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours) interspersed with relatively long periods (at least a day, often more) of downtime and practice.

In adventuring, the "short burst of high performance" would roughly equate to the time spent actively adventuring, with the downtime representing rest. Works OK for me...

Lanefan

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

You know this made me think about an interesting aspect of "old skool" modules that was tossed away and even disparaged by the designers of 3.0...mainly the puzzle. It's something all the player's can participate in and isn't decided by one die roll. I guess the argument that some wouldn't find it fun is valid, but then again some don't find extended combat after combat fun.

That might be because lots of players don't find puzzles fun, and that includes (IME) some very intelligent people. You don't need to know how to swing a sword in real life to play a fighter.

The point is that some people don't like the effect it has on the game and want to see the rules change so the "camp after one encounter" strategy isn't the smartest move the PCs can make. It's not a value call on the choices of the players, it's a value call on the game design that makes certain choices the most strategically advantageous.

Well thought out and doesn't attack anyone's play style. +Rep.

 

[Hussar]

I just read the post referenced above, and it seems IMHO, that Ryan Dancey is more commenting on an overabundance of rules that must be checked, out of game chatter and rules arguments, rather than player's having to stop and rest to replenish abilities( I don't see the problem with this since a DM can easily throw an encounter at the PC's while they're trying to rest if he wants to up the stakes...or handwave the time it takes to rest and move on.).

I agree. However, I was pointing to the source of the quote because it was being misrepresented above. It wasn't that the other 3 1/2 hours was fun doing other stuff, it was that the players were sitting on their hands most of the time.

*snip because I have no opinion one way or another about the speed of rules light vs rules heavy*

The problem with D&D 3e in this respect is that more power has been placed in the hands of players and it first; builds a sense of distrust between players and GM's especially if the GM makes a mistake or judgement call that one of the players knows the rules for.
Second; it promotes rules arguments as it grants the power of players to know more about the RAW, and why grant power if it isn't going to be exerted. Thus players feel more secure and justified in questioning the rulings of a GM.

This is a point that gets raised a lot and I think it's not entirely accurate. 3e does take power from the DM. That's true. But, it doesn't give that power to the players. It keeps that power nicely wrapped up in the rules. If it gave powers to the players, then the players could declare their success or failure and make it stick. That's not true. Determining DC's, for example, is the responsibility of the DM, not the player. Even when the DC is fixed, like in a Jump check, the player still cannot change that DC. He has no power. The DM also has no power as well, but, the rules have lots of power.

If the DM makes a bad call and the player knows the rule, where's the problem? It was a bad call, the player says, "Hey, I should have succeeded" and the game moves on. The problem comes when the DM decides that his call should trump the rules. Then we're back to playing Calvinball where the players have to guess whether or not they should have a chance of success.

I have ZERO problems questioning or being questioned as a DM and I fail to understand why any DM would. The DM's hat does not make me infallible. I rely on my players heavily actually to make sure that my rulings are close enough to RAW to satisfy everyone. Most of the problems I've seen in any edition has been the result of DM's deciding that they are infallible and no argument can sway their point of view.

If I make a bad call, I fully expect to be called on it. And, because the players have a reasonable grasp on the mechanics, they can generally quote chapter and verse as to why my call is bad. Fantastic. I look at the rules, learn them for next time and away we go.

Do you honestly have more rules arguments in 3e than in previous editions? Really? I can't honestly remember the last rules argument I had at the table. It's been years. In previous editions, it was each and every session.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Precisely. And, perhaps as importantly, it feels much more wizardly to blast things with a ray of fire than to plunk them with a crossbow.

But that's the point of disagreement. To me, playing a novice wizard, it feels RIGHT to only be able to control the magic for a brief burst of power each day. Not to be able to throw minor blasts of flame all day long. Why?

1) Game Tradition. I grew up on B/X. I LOVE the feel of the system. I've always had the option to play other games and I've always chosen to play D&D. To me, a wizard starts out weak but can potentially become very powerful (Moldvay B10). To me, magic is limited but strength can be used as often as needed (Mentzer B28). These are fundamental design principles of the game that I love. If I didn't like a game in which I couldn't use my hands, I wouldn't play soccer. If I didn't like a game in which wizards started weak, I wouldn't play D&D.

2) Mythic tradition. This one's a little hard to explain, but let me try. When I imagine a wizard from a legendary story, I *don't* imagine someone slinging magic left and right. I imagine someone with a great deal of the knowledge and the (rarely exercised) ability to use magic. That's Merlin, Gandalf, the wizard in Conan, or the druids in the background of the stories of Finn MacCool or Cuchulainn. Why is somewhat more subtle image of a wizard so potent? Because the people inventing the legends believed there could be wizards among them, yet never saw any overt signs of magic. Therefore, the mark of a wizard is not "He's always turning people into newts," but rather "He COULD turn you into a newt if you offend him." So to me, continuously spewing little fireballs like the wizard in Gauntlet does not feel wizardly. (On a side note, 3E did a great job bringing a wizard's knowledge to the foreground, but 4E seems to be focusing on spell-slinging as What a Wizard Does.)

3) It makes magic feel more powerful if mortals' capacity to channel it is limited. The old system ephasizes the power of magic and the fact that wizards are fundamentally human. When they're resorting to whacking things with a staff as they are out of magic -- they're just people. People who are working to master magic, but people nonetheless. Incidentally, I also love the warlock class, with his unlimited reservoirs being something clearly dark and dangerous... he's rather inhuman.

 

[Storm Raven]

Using your own example of "pushing on", why push on when there is such a increasing likelihood of death when the smart thing is to camp and rest. Sure, they lose a day but why is this a problem when you have all the time in the world?

Of course, the real solution to this is to design adventures where the PCs don't have all the time in the world - and there can be a lot of reasons for that. The PCs are on a deadline, the opposition is expecting reinforcements, there are competing adventuring groups that will clear out the area and snag all the loot, the opposition will react and reinforce areas making life difficult for them in subsequent forays, the PCs have to infiltrate and area and accomplish something before the opposition knows they are there, and so on and so forth.

The danger of random encounters is only one possible problem with stopping and camping.