Why is it so important?

[Merlion]

By an evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary one. Right now the problem is that all of a wizards magical abilities are linked to 'per day'. But, the current d20 system supports 'at will' powers just fine. Since you are worried about wizards running out of wizardly things to do in combat, simply give them a built in 'wand' which never runs out of charges. No 'per encounter' powers are then needed.

For example, using terms that should be familiar from the current rules set:
1st-5th level: Can use 'ray of frost' (1d3 elemental damage) as an attack action.
6th-10th level: As above, plus can fire a 'magic missile' (1d4+1 force damage) as an attack action.
11th-15th level: As above, plus can fire a scorching ray (4d6 elemental damage) as an attack action.
16-20th level: As above, plus can use a lightning bolt (5d6 elemental damage, reflex for half) as an attack action.

There, I've fixed the problem. A full write up would probably take a page or two. A slightly more flexible system might allow you to substitute out certain non-blaster type spells, and basically any minor variation on the warlock class features would work here.

No need for 'per encounter', major revisions of the vancian system, or an approach that would render translation from the prior editions versions of a 'Wizard' to 4e difficult.

The biggest complaint I think you'd see with something like the above is that except at 1st 2nd, or 3rd level, the fall back spell option I described would be used very rarely in most peoples games. At latter levels, you'd almost always have better options. So, simple as it is, its a lot of complexity in the class description for the simple goal that it achieves.

Yep, your right that that would be another possible solution to that particular problem. A pretty nice one too, that I wouldnt object to.

So then your only issue is specifically with the addition of per encounter abilities? You have no problem with a wizard with the usual Vancian spells plus at-will powers...so why are having per encounter ones as well specifically an issue?

Besides which, we aren't talking about gaps in the character abilities. We are talking about allowing the wizard to act wizardly all the time. That's the goal right? You don't think a wizard needs his magic wand to be wizardly far more than a fighter needs a magic sword?

That depends on the nature of the wand. One that increases his inherent abilities? Sure. One thats a spell storage stick? Not so much, for me.

 

[Grog]

1. In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle. It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario.

Oh, and one other thing. Even looking at it solely from the standpoint of how many resources are expended, a hypothetical 4E fight that only uses per-encounter resources isn't comparable to a "4 goblins against a 10th level fighter" scenario, because that scenario uses no resources at all. Which isn't the same thing as a fight in which per-encounter resources are used.

 

[Celebrim]

So then your only issue is specifically with the addition of per encounter abilities?

Isn't that pretty much what this thread is all about?

You have no problem with a wizard with the usual Vancian spells plus at-will powers...so why are having per encounter ones as well specifically an issue?

Have you been reading the thread???

And its not just the wizard. All the classes are apparantly getting a per encounter make over.

That depends on the nature of the wand. One that increases his inherent abilities? Sure. One thats a spell storage stick? Not so much, for me.

I'm not so sure what the difference is. It lets you do more magic one way or the other. Other systems out there treat wands as a mana batteries, which in a mana point system is basically a spell storage stick.

Besides, do you make the same objection to potions? Scrolls?

 

[gizmo33]

I'm just saying that, in all my years of gaming, I've never seen an exchange like this one:

DM: So, how was that fight? Was it fun for you guys?
Player: Wait, let me check my character sheet to see how many spells I cast.... Yeah, it was fun.

But in most/all descriptions of why people consider a combat encounter to be challenging/interesting there is a strong implication of a use of daily resources. Just recently in this very thread someone was in the process of describing various types of difficult encounters and all of them wound up having some aspect of daily resource usage built into them. I think an awareness of daily resources is very much a part of players sense of danger/difficulty, even if they're not explicitly aware of it. In fact, I think the fact that they're not explicitly aware of it explains RC's assertion that a change like this might be ok for the first 3 to 6 months, the time it takes for a player's intuition to catch up with the changes in the rules.

 

[gizmo33]

This is going to sound snarky, but if a wizard doesn't have magic potions, scrolls, wands, or staffs and assorted wizardly trappings, then he's doesn't strike me as being very 'wizardly'. The ability to make and use these items is very wizardly indeed, and quite rightly has _always_ been considered part of a wizards character abilities.

I guess it's risky to discuss the huge subject of folklore and fiction in the span of limited time, but I basically agree with what you're saying here. A fighter-type having access to a huge variety of magic items is a DnD-ism. The idea that a wizard would have a variety of magical accoutrements is much more common. In fact, the last Conan story I read (cited on another thread, seems to be useful for a variety of examples) has a wizard whose *entire* combat repetoire was a set of quasi-alchemical bombs, powders, and poisons.

I like the idea that 4E is going to ratchet down the magic items overall, but I hope they give some thought to how the wizard fits into this.

 

[Merlion]

Isn't that pretty much what this thread is all about?



Have you been reading the thread???

Yea, but a lot of the back and forth and jargon and number flinging has ceased to make much sense to me. I tend to think of things in a more basic manner. I either could never tell, or have forgotten through all the other stuff, what your specific objection to per encounter is. I realize you dont think its "necessary" to fix some or all of the problems people have mentioned but thats not the same thing.

I'm not so sure what the difference is.

Well one difference is, a wand that say adds to caster level makes a wizard better at what he doesnt, but isnt merely an item to take over for when his personal resources run out. Thats the one that pops right into my mind this second, there are probably others.

Besides, do you make the same objection to potions? Scrolls?

I think single use magic items in general are overused, although I probably like potions best.

 

[Grog]

But in most/all descriptions of why people consider a combat encounter to be challenging/interesting there is a strong implication of a use of daily resources.

First, "challenging" and "fun" are not necessarily synonymous. I've had easy fights that were great fun, and I've had difficult fights that were extremely frustrating. I agree that in general difficult fights tend to be more fun, but that's not true 100% of the time.

And second, the reason that, in all previous editions of D&D, challenging fights demanded the use of daily resources on the part of the players is because, in all previous editions of D&D, daily resources were the only resources the players had. But in 4E, that will no longer be the case. Players will have per-encounter resources in addition to daily resources. And I see no reason that a fight can't be both challenging and fun, even if the players end up mostly just using their per-encounter resources to fight it.

Having multiple types of resources opens up more options, both to the players, and the DM. This is a good thing IMO.

 

[Merlion]

But in most/all descriptions of why people consider a combat encounter to be challenging/interesting there is a strong implication of a use of daily resources. Just recently in this very thread someone was in the process of describing various types of difficult encounters and all of them wound up having some aspect of daily resource usage built into them. I think an awareness of daily resources is very much a part of players sense of danger/difficulty, even if they're not explicitly aware of it. In fact, I think the fact that they're not explicitly aware of it explains RC's assertion that a change like this might be ok for the first 3 to 6 months, the time it takes for a player's intuition to catch up with the changes in the rules.

I think *resources* are. I dont think daily, hourly, per encounter, per full moon etc makes much difference to most.

 

[Merlion]

I guess it's risky to discuss the huge subject of folklore and fiction in the span of limited time, but I basically agree with what you're saying here. A fighter-type having access to a huge variety of magic items is a DnD-ism. The idea that a wizard would have a variety of magical accoutrements is much more common. In fact, the last Conan story I read (cited on another thread, seems to be useful for a variety of examples) has a wizard whose *entire* combat repetoire was a set of quasi-alchemical bombs, powders, and poisons.

I like the idea that 4E is going to ratchet down the magic items overall, but I hope they give some thought to how the wizard fits into this.

I think a character whose practice of magic consists entirely of the use of magical objects would almost have to be a seperate class.

I think there should be more permanent items for spellcasters that dont necessarily cast spells, but that produce unique magical effects or make the spellcaster better. Add to cast level, or damage, or save DCs(or equivalent), or that give access to new spells or abilities etc.

items for casters have always seemingly been either stat boost/defensive items, or "spell storage" items for the most part.

 

[gizmo33]

And also lets remember there are more degrees than life or death or "gimme". Theres a wide range in between.

Really? In a world where I can click my fingers and restore my health, capabilities, and resources to full power once a minute has passed? In such a world, IMO, I actually find there is not much of a range between life or death and "gimme". Unless encounter poses a measurable chance of killing my character, in the 4E paradigm the only real effect it has (outside of the story significance) is to make my dice arm get tired and take up some time (and in a 3E 6-second AoO combat model, that's often a lot of time).

Some of this could be gaming style. I've seen several people (or maybe one person several times) assert that they know players that enjoy push-over encounters because it makes their PCs seem like heroes. Even for those players though, there's a limit to that I would think, and when that limit is exhausted you're still stuck with the same rule system.

This IMO has nothing to do with a Vancian magic system. This has to do with any system where you do the minute-long finger clicking to get your stuff back.