This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[Hussar]

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.

I started in the same place and I can agree with point. Although, to be honest, simply continuing to do something just because that's the way we did it decades ago isn't a convincing argument.

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.)

There's a problem with this one though. All the wizards you mention are NPC's. The idea of a wizard protagonist is largely a fairly recent addition to fantasy lit. Once you give players magic, they're going to use it. It's no longer mysterious and unknown because the players know exactly what it does and are going to use it every chance they get. A better comparison to a D&D wizard is Harry Potter, the wizards in Thieves World or Belgarion from David Eddings. These are wizard protagonists, and, they never run out of juice.

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.

That's more of a campaign consideration and I'm not sure if its really all that prevalent. Except at very low levels, how often did your wizard completely run out of spells? We often rested long before that (thus the whole point of this thread). Also, this is a consideration completely divorced from Number 2. Gandalf never ever said, "Oh, I'd like to help right now, but I'm out of juice". He had exactly the spells he needed whenever he needed them.

Of course, that's because magic in fantasy novels are a plot device and not a resource to be expended. You'll never see the hero be given a magic trinket that he doesn't need further on down the road, yet, I'm sure everyone here has a PC sheet with a potion or two they've been carrying for a dozen levels.

I'm fairly certain that the /encounter level magic or the at will level magic will be fairly weak. It will likely scale somewhat, but, it'll still be the weaker stuff. In earlier editions, whacking something with your staff could be useful because even the strongest non-unique monsters had less than 100 hp. A d6 damage could amount to a decent chunk of a hill giant's hp. ((Case in point, the Giant series has 42 hp giants. A whack with a staff isn't all that bad)) However, with 3e's much, much tougher monsters, a d6 just isn't doing anything. If the baddie has 250 hp, the wizard might as well use harsh language.

At least with an at will ability that somewhat scales, he can still be useful.

 

[Will]

Brother, you'd have me with the mythic tradition angle, except none of the examples cast five fireballs daily. I agree completely that those are interesting and intriguing magical examples to use, but D&D doesn't do them at all.

I suppose my problem is that there are three ideas that work for me, for how magic should work in a setting:
You do magic. Whether through knowledge or inborn power, magic flows through you. Little tricks are easy, and every once in a while you can channel great power.

You shape the world. In subtle ways, you can influence the world around you. Mysteries abound, but there are reasons you do not overtly show power. When push comes to shove, a wave of your hand will blast a door to tinder.

You perform magic. Magic is a skill like any other, and it simply takes the proper focus to make things happen.


In the first case, I'd have constant magic along with occasional big stuff, either tied to exhaustion or some per-whatever mechanic.

In the second case, I'd have something wacky like Unknown Armies, or the ability to force others to reroll down, or... something.

In the third case, magic is a series of skills with high difficulty, lower difficulty if you take a lot of time/whatever.


Unfortunately, D&D doesn't really fit any of those three. And that's fine, there's games for everyone.

Is it selfish of me to like a lot of D&D, and wish it fit my interests even more?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I started in the same place and I can agree with point. Although, to be honest, simply continuing to do something just because that's the way we did it decades ago isn't a convincing argument.

Well, I play MOST games the same way I learned them decades ago. Scrabble, Risk, Monopoly, soccer, baseball, basketball, card games, etc. Learned some new poker variations and mix those in with the old standby games; have tweaked the Risk rules on card trades. Why must RPGs be subject to this "perpetual revolution" idea? Is it that so many gamers are tinkerers, in search of a perfect system? Is it that computer games have convinced people that games have a finite lifespan and you should expect a new game every few years? I'd have been perfectly happy to stick with B/X mechanics, only exploring new settings, new parties, and new adventures.

Gandalf never ever said, "Oh, I'd like to help right now, but I'm out of juice".

See, because he was so cautious and conservative in using his spells, saving them for when really needed rather than casting every round to feel useful, he never ran out. Obviously the Magic-User of a "superior roleplayer."

However, with 3e's much, much tougher monsters, a d6 just isn't doing anything. If the baddie has 250 hp, the wizard might as well use harsh language.

Here's an idea -- why couldn't 4E scale down everything again? Reduce monster and PC HP, scale Power Attack way back, remove many of the stacking stat-boost spells and other buffs, and so on. Some things were never scaled up in the first place (Fireball, or the longsword's base 1d8 damage) and others not enough to keep pace with HP and damage escalation (Cure Light Wounds).

 

[Reynard]

Here's an idea -- why couldn't 4E scale down everything again? Reduce monster and PC HP, scale Power Attack way back, remove many of the stacking stat-boost spells and other buffs, and so on. Some things were never scaled up in the first place (Fireball, or the longsword's base 1d8 damage) and others not enough to keep pace with HP and damage escalation (Cure Light Wounds).

I thin k the genie is out of the bottle. I don't thjink you'll get players to give back the power you gave them with 3.x. We're pretty much stuck with 800 hit point dragons and therefore the abilities of characters to deal with them.

The problem with an arms race is that it never ends.

 

[DarkKestral]

See, because he was so cautious and conservative in using his spells, saving them for when really needed rather than casting every round to feel useful, he never ran out. Obviously the Magic-User of a "superior roleplayer."

Not really. He only uses a combat spell once or twice in the whole of LotR. I doon't think he 'saved magic', because he manages to create umpteen fireworks that have much larger, more powerful blasts, and is implied to be able to do so frequently. It's just that he doesn't, if only because blowing things up is usually a bad idea and prone to making situations worse. He CAN blow things up all day, but the general idea is.. he doesn't need to because he's like a fighter, and a wizard, and a badass all in one who can go all day before resting.

Gandalf =/= D&D wizard. If he was, there would be no reason his fireball spell was less powerful than his fireworks...

 

[Glyfair]

I doon't think he 'saved magic', because he manages to create umpteen fireworks that have much larger, more powerful blasts, and is implied to be able to do so frequently.

And there is that "magic fire ring" he has, that throws another complication in the mix.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Not really.

Well, of course not really. He's basically a demigod. "Conserving magic" is a thoroughly ludicrous idea if you're talking about Gandalf. Saying that his player is a "superior roleplayer" is absurd because he's not a character in a game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You make it sound like the whole point of per-encounter abilities is to make sure those nasty, mean DM's don't beat up on those poor, defenseless players anymore...

I don't think that has a lot to do with it. I think the reason for the shift is because the idea is that the only thing that is fun is combat and anything that takes a player/PC out of combat is unfun.

I do not think that that's the reason for the mechanics. Being in combat without the ability to do something useful is "unfun". Being in combat without doing something that fits to your character is unfun.

The resting problem is not a problem for people that enjoy combats. They just skip over it. "OK, you leave the dungeon, rest, and go back to the last room you killed those beholder swarm. Where do you want to go now?"
The reason why they are resting is the problem - they are resting because if they don't some people will not enjoy the next few encounters as much as the rest, because they don't have anything to contribute. And also because the next few encounters will a lot more dangerous than they need to be.

But this means effectively if a DM puts up a time-critical adventure with a lot of combat encounters, the current rules will mean that non-spellcasters like Fighters and Rogues will have more to do than spellcasters (especially wizards) who have to "manage resources" and avoid doing much. And this "more to do" implies "more fun" during combat.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I do not think that that's the reason for the mechanics. Being in combat without the ability to do something useful is "unfun". Being in combat without doing something that fits to your character is unfun.

Again, I just don't get this.
If I play a Magic-User in B/X, I know that my role is to cast the big spell now and then, NOT to cast a spell every single round. If I can't have fun in that role, I shouldn't play a Magic-User. Also, if I play a Magic-User in B/X, I know that my character is one who can barely grasp the edges of this vast power called Magic. It's beyond my control but for a few times per day. In that case, a staff, some throwing daggers, and several flasks of oil and holy water are my character's "backup weapons." That DOES fit his character. At low levels, he's basically a normal and somewhat frail person who can once in a while command powerful magics.

That, to me, is a D&D wizard. You could just as well say "Using an axe doesn't seem very dwarf-like, they should be using magic" if you have some different context for what a dwarf is in a fantasy RPG. You could say "Wearing plate mail and carrying a mace doesn't seem very cleric-like" if you have some different conception of what "cleric" should mean in a fantasy RPG. You could say "Trolls shouldn't be 9' tall skinny green giants because that's just not troll-like." But to me, all of these things fit how those words are used in D&D. Not in a generic fantasy game. In D&D. So why bring in some other definition of what feels wizardly? Arguments over "that just doesn't feel wizardly" ring just as hollow with me, because conserving spells and either doing nothing or throwing daggers DOES feel "wizardly" if you mean "D&D wizard."

 

[Imaro]

But this means effectively if a DM puts up a time-critical adventure with a lot of combat encounters, the current rules will mean that non-spellcasters like Fighters and Rogues will have more to do than spellcasters (especially wizards) who have to "manage resources" and avoid doing much. And this "more to do" implies "more fun" during combat.

I still disagree with this, it takes some out-of-the-box thinking(see my above posts about acid flasks, flanking, aid another, etc.) but spellcasters aren't automatically out of the game if they prepare right. And for anyone who thinks throwing acid flasks or alchemist fire isn't "wizardly" check out 300 for an example of "sorcerers" doing just this.