This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

Or, instead of being a moron and taking a 1d6 damage/caster level spell, the level 1 wizard could, I dunno, take SLEEP or something in that vein. Now that 1st level spell takes out the CR:3 Ogre that would have pounded the fighter into pink paste.

Wow with the negativity, but OK I'll bite. How is sleep any different? It means the wizard gets one shot the entire combat to be cool. And the ogre could make his save. It still means saving the spell in the hopes that it works, and doing nothing with a crossbow until then. I've been there and IME it's not fun.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I see it as a good thing.

Why?

 

[Imaro]

The question I would like to ask all the "fun" advocates is this...at what point does this argument become absurd. At higher levels a wizard can shape reality(Wish), make monsters appear from thin air(summon monster), levitate, fly, etc. Wouldn't it be fun if a high level fighter could do this? In fact shouldn't all the characters have this type of diversity, at least to a point? Wouldn't that be more fun?

 

[Shayuri]

Kinda like the wizard in Gauntlet! Infinate puny fireballs, but his magic potions are the BEST!!

Clearly the real question we should be asking is if wizards will need food...badly.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*
EDIT: I also know there's a reason Wizards and Clerics get Scribe Scroll for free at 1st level. It's not much of a stretch to use it.

-DM Jeff

nitpick - Clerics do not get Scribe Scroll for free at 1st level.

*snip*

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

*snip*

There were no 9th level cleric or druid spells until 3rd edition. I believe that OD&D capped out long before 9th as well. B/E rules certainly did.

9 levels of magic is not a bedrock system at all. Half the spell casters didn't get it until very recently.

/nitpick.

I've been playing a Binder for the past six months. Facinating class. It does use per encounter mechanics almost exclusively. Yet, I'm not overpowering the game, nor am I the one forcing everyone to rest every day. It's a nice position to be in. I can bind a blaster vestige and play artillery (albeit weak artillery) all day long, or I can bind a melee vestige and stand shoulder to shoulder with the fighter.

Fantastic mechanics. If they set it up so that ending the game day is due to in game reasons rather than entirely metagame reasons like "I'm out of spells" then more power to them.

 

[Arkhandus]

That just makes me think of this: "If everyone is special, then no one is."

Yep. One of my problems with the apparent direction of 4E.

If a Wizard can fight indefinitely just like a Fighter can, and just as well, then......what's the point of the Wizard? Or if the Wizard has more tricks up his sleeve at the same time (or alternately), then, what's the point of the Fighter?

If they play almost identically, other than a little bit of combat positioning and a minor difference in what non-combat things they can do kinda well.....why bother with the distinction at all? Where's the magic in that?

And I just don't think a 1st-level spellcaster should have infinite magic at his disposal.

 

[Hussar]

I HIGHLY recommend listening to the Podcast. It will answer almost all the questions in this thread nicely. They KNOW that allowing a wizard to do his thing all day long won't work. The example they give is getting up at 9 am, adventuring to 5 pm and gaining 8 levels. It doesn't work.

AND THEY KNOW IT.

Come on, these are the same guys that have been writing 3e books for the past several years. If you like PHB2, Tome of Magic et al, then why do you suddenly think they're going to widdle all over the game?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The question I would like to ask all the "fun" advocates is this...at what point does this argument become absurd. At higher levels a wizard can shape reality(Wish), make monsters appear from thin air(summon monster), levitate, fly, etc. Wouldn't it be fun if a high level fighter could do this? In fact shouldn't all the characters have this type of diversity, at least to a point? Wouldn't that be more fun?

Should every class have cool stuff to do in every fight at every level, with new coolness available as they progress?

Is this a trick question?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I HIGHLY recommend listening to the Podcast. It will answer almost all the questions in this thread nicely. They KNOW that allowing a wizard to do his thing all day long won't work. The example they give is getting up at 9 am, adventuring to 5 pm and gaining 8 levels. It doesn't work.

AND THEY KNOW IT.

Come on, these are the same guys that have been writing 3e books for the past several years. If you like PHB2, Tome of Magic et al, then why do you suddenly think they're going to widdle all over the game?

The podcast seems to only be available via iTunes at the moment. The second it's up on Feedburner, I'm all over it, like an otyugh on poo.

 

[Azgulor]

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?

NOTE: This isn't intended to be an edition wars thread or an anti-4E thread. It is intended more to talk about playstyles and how game mechanics and subsystems support different playstyles.

I think this is a function of the DM's style of play. Have I ever encountered this issue? Yes, when I was 15 and learning the game.

At 18 when I was running a game for newbies? Nope.

At any point in the next 17 years? Nope.

This isn't an issue inherent in 3e. In my experience, it's never even come up in a 3e game. If the party rested, it was due to a combination of wounds, spent resources, & fatigue. It was a function of the story. Did they sometimes get their butts kicked and need to rest? - sure. Did they have to fight on in some instances because enemies gave them no ability to rest? - you bet. It was dictated by tactics, die rolls, and dare-I-say-it encounter/dungeon/story design.

(Not to threadjack, but I also don't buy the "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" argument either. If that were true, I think RPGs would have died years ago.)

The 4e marketing strategy of negatively selling against 3e rings hollow to me on almost every level. I don't think 3e is perfect (no game is, and 4e won't be either), but my players and I have been having a hell of a lot of fun with 3e & OGL games. I don't think we were playing the game incorrectly all this time.

I wish they'd sell the merits of 4e more and their (mostly) hollow criticisms of 3e less.