Who is more bothered by the whole per-encoutner thing?

[Mouseferatu]

You know, I find the most interesting aspect of this poll has nothing to do with the like/dislike of "per encounter" abilities (though I'm heartened that the majority seem to like the idea).

Rather, I think it's fascinating that there's such a huge disparity between those who regularly do, and do not, play spellcasters at all. It suggests (with the understanding that this poll isn't meant to measure this detail, and is thus not a reliable measure) that WotC had the right idea by giving the non-spellcasting classes similar mechanical and tactical options.

(Assuming the trend continues as the poll picks up more respondents.)

 

[Psion]

I don't mind some per-encounter type abilities. I do not think that, as some have suggested, spellcasters should be functionally identical to non-spellcasters, otherwise they are all the same characters with different color paint.

 

[Gundark]

I really like the idea. I mostly play non-spellcasters.

 

[hazel monday]

WotC had the right idea by giving the non-spellcasting classes similar mechanical and tactical options.

Maybe, but I'm not so sure about that. I'm concerned that that turning every class into a "spellcaster" mechanically is going to make NPCs a nightmare to run, especially in groups.I'm not sure how this is an example of "streamlining "the game.
Spellcasters take the most work to run as NPCs, not only because of the increased tactical options, but also because of the numerous mechanical variables that precast spells bring to the table. If every class becomes a spellcaster, I think they'll have to radically alter the mechanics of the game just to keep it from from playing even slower than it already is.

 

[hong]

I do not think that, as some have suggested, spellcasters should be functionally identical to non-spellcasters

Who?

 

[Zurai]

I mostly play spellcasters (especially if you consider Tome of Battle martial adepts to be spellcasters), and I'm pretty pleased with the change, pending review of the actual implementation.

 

[Megatron]

hate x/day
hate x/encounter so much more.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I am not sure how to vote...

Do warlocks and warblades count as spellcasters or not spellcasters? Though I guess it is obvious from the question that I like per-encounter abilities...

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I mostly DM, I dont like it. Something about doesnt seem right. It;s ok for a new and original set of abilities, but I dont like the idea of spells or Psionic powers being per encounter.

 

[Lackhand]

I too mostly DM, but I love it.

It depends a lot on what the per encounter/at will abilities are, of course. But depending on how everything is weighted, this could suit me just fine.

My biggest complaint/worry is that of necessity, many at will abilities (most? all?) will have to be combat related, otherwise going to at-will has bought you nothing.

I just hope their siloing works well; my favorite characters to play have always been abjurers and diviners, and more combat-ready wizards intrude a bit on that.

Still, sorcerous fire never hurt anyone. Erm. You know what I mean.