This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[Hussar]

On the per encounter spell system:

I wonder what happens if the enemies just pursue the adventurers if they retreat? Do they have to get so many feet away (aka off the screen) before the encounter spells return? What about monster spell casters, could they slink away through a secret door and come back minutes later all 'spelled' up?

What about split parties? By leaving the encounter and returning, would the ones that left in combat get their encounter spells back?

What about being captured? Any need for a spellbook or prep time? How does one prevent a magic missile spell from being cast from a prison cell?

How about a siege? When the bad guys keep harassing the adventurers holed up in a barricaded room so they can get any rest to heal and regain spells.

Will anti magic field be nerfed so as not to upset the magic users ability to do anything?

Lots of questions. I'll be interested in seeing how these are handled.

If playing a spellcaster is so 'unfun' now why do so many people play them?

The easiest way to make abilities per encounter based is to just whack in a recharge rate. Put in a 5 round break between uses and you have a per encounter (mostly) ability. Most encounters don't last much more than 4 or 5 rounds, so, poof, end of problem and many of your issues go away.

On the magic missile issue - manacle mages. End of problem. No somatic gestures while manacled. Gags are pretty much par for the course as well.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

If playing a spellcaster is so 'unfun' now why do so many people play them?

IME a lot of people don't, especially if the campaign starts at 1st and doesn't seem likely to live past 5th. Past 5th, wizards and sorcerers are a lot more fun since their spells are both more useful and more plentiful (mostly more plentiful, b/c there are some really cool 1-2 level spells). I mean, at first level a wizard barely has one spell per encounter (again, assuming 4 encounters per day).

Oh, and not all spellcasters suffer from this problem. Like I said up thread, the other spellcasters have fallbacks -- things they can do when out of spells.

 

[Ourph]

If playing a spellcaster is so 'unfun' now why do so many people play them?

I don't think anyone is saying that the overall experience of playing a caster is "unfun", just that it could be better. There are lots of great things about playing a spellcaster, but some people don't think the "rest after one encounter or be useless" is one of them.

As an analogy, I love rollercoasters but don't particularly like driving for hours on end. I drive between 8-11 hours once or twice a year to go to my favorite amusement park. I have fun despite the drive. I would have more fun if the amusement park were closer.

 

[Reynard]

There are lots of great things about playing a spellcaster, but some people don't think the "rest after one encounter or be useless" is one of them.

Part of the issue is this presumed uselessness of spallcasters after one encounter, which is a function of what the PCs are actually doing during their day of adventuring. If iyt is combat after combat, with little or no other things to do, the mage can indeed feel useless once that magic missile is gone. But then, combat after combat isn't adventuring -- it is a roving arena. The definition of what constitutes an adventure has changed with editions, and that is why it is difficult to shoehorn 3e into supporting 1e adventures, for example.

I like adventures I run to involve combat, but at only 25%, more or less, of the overall activity of the adventure. By varyingt eh kinds of situations and encounters, you can help ensure that everyone has a good time and no one feels "useless".

 

[Ourph]

Part of the issue is this presumed uselessness of spallcasters after one encounter, which is a function of what the PCs are actually doing during their day of adventuring. If iyt is combat after combat, with little or no other things to do, the mage can indeed feel useless once that magic missile is gone. But then, combat after combat isn't adventuring -- it is a roving arena. The definition of what constitutes an adventure has changed with editions, and that is why it is difficult to shoehorn 3e into supporting 1e adventures, for example.

My games are primarily dungeon delves in a mega-dungeon complex. There is a lot of combat, but I would still call what my players do "adventuring". Note that the "rest after one encounter" is something I've encountered in both 1e and 3e games. IMO, it's been a bugaboo of D&D that has needed addressing for a long time.

 

[Spatula]

Part of the issue is this presumed uselessness of spallcasters after one encounter, which is a function of what the PCs are actually doing during their day of adventuring. If iyt is combat after combat, with little or no other things to do, the mage can indeed feel useless once that magic missile is gone. But then, combat after combat isn't adventuring -- it is a roving arena. The definition of what constitutes an adventure has changed with editions, and that is why it is difficult to shoehorn 3e into supporting 1e adventures, for example.

I don't know what 1e adventures you were playing. All the ones I owned were dungeons chock full of monsters & traps, and little else - almost exactly like the WotC 3e adventures I own, just with less built-in plot.

 

[Reynard]

I don't know what 1e adventures you were playing. All the ones I owned were dungeons chock full of monsters & traps, and little else - almost exactly like the WotC 3e adventures I own, just with less built-in plot.

Try giving your 1e DMG a re-read. You'll note, as you do so, that there's a lot of information in there regarding what's in a dungeon and what makes an exploratory dungeon delve adventure. I just started running ToEE for my 1E game - and adventure that I have never read, played through or run before -- and I immediately noticed a couple things: 1) half the rooms are empty (this is a good thing, it provides for natural rest points as well as allowing PCs to explore without the threat of imminent combat), and 2) the scenario is wide open regarding the players' action (even the local farmers have stats and treasure; while it isn't necessarily a good thing if the party decides to burn and loot Hommlett, the information is there should such a thing happen).

I think people have a lot of memories about 1E that focus on the negatives aspects -- i.e. the DMG stating that the DM is "god", etc... -- and totally ignoring the positive aspects -- i.e. the importance of maintaining game balance, the importance of pushing players to rely on their own skills instead of those of their PCs, etc... I would implore anyone who has access to really read the 1E DMG and see if they don't come away with a feeling of "This is how D&D is meant to be, and it is fun!"

it is easy to focus on the m-u that a house cat can kill, but it isn't representative of the game at all. it is cherry picking for the purpose of being negative and throws out the baby with bath water, as it were, in regards to what made D&D so good, and commercially successful, in the first place.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Part of the issue is this presumed uselessness of spallcasters after one encounter, which is a function of what the PCs are actually doing during their day of adventuring. If iyt is combat after combat, with little or no other things to do, the mage can indeed feel useless once that magic missile is gone. But then, combat after combat isn't adventuring -- it is a roving arena. The definition of what constitutes an adventure has changed with editions, and

Combat is a big part of the game. If the wizard is able to perform just as well as any other character out of concept but is getting shafted within combat due to running out of spells, then it seems to me that there's still a problem.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You're right. I should have just killed them when they ran out of spells. Much better.

It's even worse when players figure out that you don't want to kill them off because that'll make more trouble for you, so they operate under the assumption that no, bad guys will not come kill them while they're weakened.

On the one hand, it makes me want to kill them more. On the other hand, I get the feeling that they'd be fine with that, since it's only my hard work at building the campaign that would go to waste.

I try to screen out this type of player these days.

 

[Will]

Another issue is that this is yet another element in D&D that tilts the game one way or another depending on how you play.

That is, what if this campaign is set up so that in a given game-day, you're only likely to have one encounter? Or, conversely, it's set up so there are many encounters daily (at least, if the party keeps moving).

Spellcasters in the first campaign have more power than those in the second campaign, just out of the blue. IMO, that's ... unpleasant.

Similar issues abound, like the rogue in the undead & construct heavy compaign, or rangers in most campaigns, or players who want to be buff-n-attack clerics under a DM who always uses surprise encounters, or...