This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[Philotomy Jurament]

As an aside I've noticed that Monte Cook is right approximately 100% of the time.

Yeah, but Chuck Norris can still kick his ass.

 

[shilsen]

That's the Fighter's time to shine. There, the wizard is the scholarly one, less useful in combat. That's the way its always been with D&D.

Even if that were true, and I personally don't think it is, why is that relevant? If something has always been the way it's been and it can be improved, then I figure we might as well improve it, sacred cows be damned. And I'd much rather have a ruleset where all classes get a chance to shine at all levels, rather than taking turns doing so.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So with the usual Inspire Courage he's looking at maybe +6 to hit for 1d8+1 damage, where the fighter's at +10 for 1d8+5.

-4 for shooting into melee, +4 AC for Cover from the Fighter.

Unless your spellcaster is focusing on rays, and takes Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot (which requires 3rd-level unless you're human). And that only solves the melee problem.

Alternatively, "If you want to be a good wizard, you should become an archer" is a bit counterintuitive.

On the other hand, I will say that allowing these feats to apply to magic attacks is one of my favorite aspects of 3.X.

By the time the BAB difference is really significant, the wizard has lots of spells and the ability to make wands.

... at the cost of still another feat, gold, and XP.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Even if that were true, and I personally don't think it is, why is that relevant? If something has always been the way it's been and it can be improved, then I figure we might as well improve it, sacred cows be damned. And I'd much rather have a ruleset where all classes get a chance to shine at all levels, rather than taking turns doing so.

There's nothing wrong with improvement. Give all the classes something as they go up in level, good. Make all the classes more useful, good. Make all the classes equally and uniquly useful, not for me. What's wrong with overlap? What's wrong with a bard being a generalist but a master of none? What's wrong with simply reinventing the gnome by drawing on other fantasy sources as opposed getting rid of a core race?

It sounds like elves are being reimagined. GREAT! Why can't they do that with gnomes? Why are they adding in a Warforged (which is not a generic fantasy race)? They're changing fighters to progressively more useful. GREAT! Why can't they do that with bards? They're making wizards power more evenly spread over the whole class. Eh, ok fine. Why can't they do that within the preexisting system of 9 spell levels and X number of spells per day? Why do they have to scrap several editions of system? Or why don't they at least change it to something more like the psionic system and have a certain number of magic points (to use the Final Fantasy term)? Why do wizards have to be always useful, all the time? Wizards are suppose to be more difficult to play. Your reward for playing something more difficult: a more powerful character.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I never realized how much of a grognard I am until this thread.

 

[Ourph]

Anyway -- how do you feel about the idea that PCs can/should/must rest after just a couple of encounters. Do you run or play in games where this happens? Do you actively avoid it? Prefer it?

I don't like it, but it happens in just about every game of D&D I've run/played. Yes, the DM can come up with all kinds of nasty trickses to hit the PCs when they are low on spellcaster resources but that just makes the players adapt their tactics. Players are pretty ingenious about keeping their characters safe. At the very least, a DM who starts throwing lots of random encounters at the party on the way back to their "safe house" can expect the players to start packing it in earlier in the day and conserving some resources for the trip back to camp. That just exacerbates the problem.

It's not so much that I care about how much time each day the PCs use up adventuring. It really comes down to two things. First, if the PCs take on a dungeon one encounter at the time, the dungeon inhabitants can (and should) make strategic changes to their environment in response to the PCs' attacks. The downside to this is that if the PCs are taking 14 or 15 expeditions to clear out a single dungeon level that means the DM has to restructure his dungeon 14 or 15 times. That's just a lot of extra (and IMO unnecessary) work. Second, playing the game this way means the PCs are nearly always at full strength when they take on encounters. This is great for the players (and unarguably smart tactics from the vantage point of the PCs), but many aspects of the game don't function well when this is the play paradigm. I think it's a tactic the designers didn't fully consider when developing the 3e rules.

Personally, the focus on per encounter abilities is one of the very few things I've heard about 4e that actually piques my interest. If the rules find some way to drain PC resources without having an all or none power curve for spellcasters (where the higher level casters are either super-powerful or complete duds), that would be a major step forward in design, IMHO.

 

[Shayuri]

There's nothing wrong with improvement. Give all the classes something as they go up in level, good. Make all the classes more useful, good. Make all the classes equally and uniquly useful, not for me. What's wrong with overlap?

-- SOME overlap is probably all right, depending on specifics. I think one thing that's nice I've seen so far in 4e is attention being given to the role of a character within the party, as something that transcends class and race and so on. Within those roles, I imagine there may still be overlap between classes. A Healer druid and a Healer cleric may have many similarities, for example. At this point it's hard to draw any real conclusions though.

What's wrong with a bard being a generalist but a master of none?

-- It makes the bard a kind of silly thing to include, mainly. I've never seen a bard used this way though. Typically bards have been masters of social arenas...which still can be an issue, depending on the game and other players...and decent support with their music and occasional healing. I've seen bards played well that did just fine. I've also played a bard, but didn't find it very rewarding. They don't suit my play style very well, except by being very vocal.

What's wrong with simply reinventing the gnome by drawing on other fantasy sources as opposed getting rid of a core race?

-- Do we know they're getting rid of it, or are we assuming?

It sounds like elves are being reimagined. GREAT! Why can't they do that with gnomes?

-- See above.

Why are they adding in a Warforged (which is not a generic fantasy race)?

-- ...also see above.

They're changing fighters to progressively more useful. GREAT! Why can't they do that with bards?

-- See, I thought they WERE. In fact, I thought I saw a quote that specifically said that bards wouldn't suck anymore. So I'm not sure where you're coming from.

They're making wizards power more evenly spread over the whole class. Eh, ok fine. Why can't they do that within the preexisting system of 9 spell levels and X number of spells per day?

-- Maybe they could, but you have to admit that system carries a lot of presumptions that limit game design. Is there a real reason they should stick to those limitations? Do those limits make the game more, or less fun?

Why do they have to scrap several editions of system?

-- I don't know I'd say they HAVE to scrap previous editions, nor would I say they are. A new edition gives them, and us, an opportunity to apply lessons learned insofar as what works and what doesn't. It builds on past editions, without being limited to them.

Why do wizards have to be always useful, all the time?

-- Because that's more fun than being necessary once or twice, then useless?

Wizards are suppose to be more difficult to play.

-- That's a design decision. One that they (and I) apparently disagree with.

Your reward for playing something more difficult: a more powerful character.

-- See above.

Really though...it's too soon to be flying off the handle. Lets save the vitriol until the rumors are over and we really learn what's going to be done. THEN we can bust out the torches and go mob Wizards.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Wizards are suppose to be more difficult to play.

Why is this a good thing?

 

[dmccoy1693]

Really though...it's too soon to be flying off the handle.

Its the internet; it's always time to fly off the handle.

-- Do we know they're getting rid of it, or are we assuming?

Getting rid of gnomes from the core book

It sounds like elves are being reimagined. GREAT! Why can't they do that with gnomes?

-- See above.

Elves Reimagined

Why do wizards have to be always useful, all the time?

-- Because that's more fun than being necessary once or twice, then useless?

Or they could plan for their "useless"ness and compensate for it in by being useful in other ways other ways like 1) making contacts, aka role playing, 2) working with their backstory, aka role playing, 3) investigate some leads, aka using their knowledge skills and role playing or etc. Just because their class skills aren't useful doesn't mean that they are useless.

-- I don't know I'd say they HAVE to scrap previous editions, nor would I say they are.

Ummm 9 levels of magic is a bedrock system for how many editions now?!? All of them?

Why are they adding in a Warforged (which is not a generic fantasy race)?

-- ...also see above.
SNIP
-- See, I thought they WERE. In fact, I thought I saw a quote that specifically said that bards wouldn't suck anymore. So I'm not sure where you're coming from.

I'm not going to go through all of these for you. Goto this page. And search the page for each of the following words: Warforged, Bard, Eladrin, Gnome and anything else you can think of.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Why is this a good thing?

I see it as a good thing.