Why is it so important?

[Merlion]

Which wizard archetype? The lowest-level wizards in D&D, for the past 30+ years, usually hang back and do rather little in combat but can throw a big spell once in a while. A wizard in LOTR rarely uses magic because it attracts attention, and often uses weapons. The wizards in Conan the Barbarian use a few magical effects (Raise Dead, Polymorph, Finger of Death, Charm Person, Hold Person), but do not shy from using weapons (Thulsa Doom kill Conan's mother with a sword, the other wizard kills an enemy with a spear).

Saying "D&D wizards aren't wizardly enough" is like saying trolls aren't troll-like, dwarves aren't dwarf-like, or elves aren't elf-like -- all of which may be true if you are considering them in the context of Scandinavian mythology. Or saying that clerics aren't very cleric-like.

D&D isn't a generic fantasy RPG system. It's D&D, with "wizard" having certain connotations just like "cleric," "dwarf," or "troll."

First of, D&D can't make up its mind wether its generic or not.

Second, within D&D, Wizards main class feature is magic. Their role(s) revolve around the use of magic. Without magic, they can't contribute much to combat and, to many at least, don't feel especially wizard like. People play wizards to use magic, as far as combat goes, not fire crossbows or throw alchemists fire.

Thirdly, as I've already mentioned, LOTR "wizards" arent wizards, and the Conan stories are generally not much focused on magic.

The D&D wizard is based on wizard archtypes that involve frequent use of magic, for the most part.

 

[gizmo33]

yea thats kind of my point. I dont think we can draw a whole lot of really specific conclusions without more info on the per-encounter and at will abilities. How many you get, their nature, their possible ties to prepared spells etc.

Why not discuss hypotheticals? By the time "we" know anything for certain, it will be a done deal and then it will move from "don't discuss because it's hypothetical" to "don't discuss because it's a moot point". That game works in politics I guess but I would hope we could have some sensible discussion of the possibilities up front.

 

[Celebrim]

The D&D wizard is based on wizard archtypes that involve frequent use of magic, for the most part.

I would argue that the D&D wizard is, like almost every other thing in D&D, based on itself and the archetype of the D&D wizard is self-created based on people's play experience with D&D wizards.

It is valid to point out that the play experience of a very low level wizard and a very high level one is very different, and much more different than the differences between being a low level fighter and a high level one (except in the sense that at low levels, fighters are definately the center of attention and they are not at high levels). You can make the argument that people's experience of a D&D wizard at high levels causes them to expect a different experience of a wizard character at low levels, though I think that that argument would be quite forced.

I think a much stronger argument would be to compare D&D's play experience which historically is 'high levels are different than low levels' with the Diablo play experience and ask, 'Is there something about today which causes most new D&D pen and paper gamers to expect something closer to the Diablo play experience than historic D&D?'

 

[Merlion]

Why not discuss hypotheticals? By the time "we" know anything for certain, it will be a done deal and then it will move from "don't discuss because it's hypothetical" to "don't discuss because it's a moot point". That game works in politics I guess but I would hope we could have some sensible discussion of the possibilities up front.

But you havent been having a sensible discussion of the possibilities. You seem to have decided what WILL be the case, based on the tiny amounts of information we have.

 

[Merlion]

I would argue that the D&D wizard is, like almost every other thing in D&D, based on itself and the archetype of the D&D wizard is self-created based on people's play experience with D&D wizards. '

And I would say most things in D&D are pretty clearly based on various literary and mythological figures, concepts, and archtypes.

Of course, D&D has changed them. And there are some "D&Disms" like the Cleric.

It is valid to point out that the play experience of a very low level wizard and a very high level one is very different, and much more different than the differences between being a low level fighter and a high level one (except in the sense that at low levels, fighters are definately the center of attention and they are not at high levels). You can make the argument that people's experience of a D&D wizard at high levels causes them to expect a different experience of a wizard character at low levels, though I think that that argument would be quite forced.

Or I can just repeat what i've said before. That many who play wizards play them to contribute magically as far as combat, and wish to be able to do that most of the time. Rather than having to wait several levels to be able to consistently play their class as they want to play it, and a few more to be able to do so the majority of the time.

I think a much stronger argument would be to compare D&D's play experience which historically is 'high levels are different than low levels' with the Diablo play experience and ask, 'Is there something about today which causes most new D&D pen and paper gamers to expect something closer to the Diablo play experience than historic D&D?'

I am not saying this is what you mean, but it sounds much like your saying that D&D players have been "spoiled" by videogames into wanting to be able to blast away at all times.


Just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesnt mean people havent been unhappy with it

 

[gizmo33]

But you havent been having a sensible discussion of the possibilities. You seem to have decided what WILL be the case, based on the tiny amounts of information we have.

You're not reading carefully at all. And assuming that you are an infallible judge of everything that I've said to the degree that you propose a statistically unlikely thing such as that my posts have not been sensible. I find that the not-so-rare-on-the-internet combination of rude and overly speculative.

In fact, I called out my obvious assumptions in my reasoning in a recent post in order to address some other aspect of the issue. This whole "wait until the rules are published thing" doesn't make any sense anyway, the argument will just turn to "why complain, there's nothing you can do".

If someone wants to discuss what happens if gnomes get removed from the game, why is it relevant to stonewall the conversation with some largely irrelevant issue of whether or not it will really happen in 4E. Given the dynamic nature of RPGs, it could happen in 4.5 or 5.0, or people's house rules, or other situations that makes the conversation worth having.

 

[Merlion]

You're not reading carefully at all. And assuming that you are an infallible judge of everything that I've said to the degree that you propose a statistically unlikely thing such as that my posts have not been sensible. I find that the not-so-rare-on-the-internet combination of rude and overly speculative.

In fact, I called out my obvious assumptions in my reasoning in a recent post in order to address some other aspect of the issue. This whole "wait until the rules are published thing" doesn't make any sense anyway, the argument will just turn to "why complain, there's nothing you can do".

If someone wants to discuss what happens if gnomes get removed from the game, why is it relevant to stonewall the conversation with some largely irrelevant issue of whether or not it will really happen in 4E. Given the dynamic nature of RPGs, it could happen in 4.5 or 5.0, or people's house rules, or other situations that makes the conversation worth having.

All I am saying is this. You've been saying all along that per encounter abilities are going to have certain specific effects on the game.

I am saying, we don't know for sure what exact effects they will have because we know basically nothing about them apart from that they will exist. We dont know all the rules governing them. We don't know how or if they interact with other aspects of a characters abilities. We don't know how many characters get, or their natures.

Therefore, we can say that per-encounter abilities in general may be likely to have this or that impact, but we can't say that the exact system of per encounter abilities that 4e will have will have a certain specific set of effects, because we dont have any information about them. Speculating is fine, but you havent been speculating. You have, in the posts I have seen, been stating that having per-encounter abilities will, beyond all doubt, have a certain set of effects on gameplay. Not that it might, or could or even that its likely to, but that it WILL.

 

[gizmo33]

I am saying, we don't know for sure what exact effects they will have because we know basically nothing about them apart from that they will exist. We dont know all the rules governing them. We don't know how or if they interact with other aspects of a characters abilities. We don't know how many characters get, or their natures.

I don't know what page number of the PHB the wizard class will be described on, so therefore I can't talk about the various design elements? I find your language here to be rather vague, and the number of specific caveats that you introduced IIRC is about zero, so if you thought there was some relevant possible detail missing, why not give an example of one?

Why not take a specific issue and say "here are a list of things that we don't know that would have a bearing on this". In places where this has been done, me and others have been willing to discuss the ramifications of those possiblities as well. Want to mix and match daily resources with encounter resources? That's been discussed. Want to make daily resources only utility stuff like phantom steed? We've gone over that too.

Proposing an ineffable, unknowable, and infallable rule that will trump any logic with a design issue IMO is probably some strange logical fallacy I'm not familiar with. If you don't think the starting conditions for hypothesizing are being taken into account, then just say what they are.

but we can't say that the exact system of per encounter abilities that 4e will have will have a certain specific set of effects, because we dont have any information about them.

Monte Cook's web page describes a problem, describes the nature of the problem, and then proposes a solution. If what you were saying were true then it would apply to his posting, and Wyatt's, and everyone else who's tried to explain something about their proposed new system, 4E or otherwise.

Speculating is fine, but you havent been speculating. You have, in the posts I have seen, been stating that having per-encounter abilities will, beyond all doubt, have a certain set of effects on gameplay. Not that it might, or could or even that its likely to, but that it WILL.

You accused me of speculating on the final form that 4E will take. That's not the same thing as following a chain of reasoning that says a certain design feature will create a certain effect. This line of reasoning would have to be valid or else you'd have no business sugggesting that you have any idea what kind of game 4E would be if it retained the Vancian spell casting system in it's entirety In other words, based on what you've written I find the amount of speculation that you allow to others to be inconsistent with what you allow yourself.

 

[Grog]

Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during the battle, then the battle is consequential. If significant resources are used during the battle, then the battle is consequential.

And what you are missing is that per-encounter resources are still resources. They can be used up in any given battle, and thus require tactical decisions as to how they can best be used. A PC who uses his per-encounter resources too soon or in an inefficient manner could easily find himself in trouble very quickly - in much the same way that a PC who uses his per-day resources too soon or in an inefficient manner can find himself in trouble under the current system.

As I've said, even if a battle isn't a life-or-death situation initially, poor tactical decisions on the part of the PCs can turn it into one very quickly.

As the odds are very good that you will use per-day resources only in those battles where you believe there is a significant chance of death/defeat, that makes it likely that we are largely talking about the same group of battles.

I don't think that follows at all. The obvious counterexample is a battle that happens after the PCs have already used most or all of their per-day resources that day. Death or defeat could be a serious risk there, but obviously the PCs won't be using per-day resources because they don't have any per-day resources available to use.

The problem the "per-encounter" ability design is supposed to fix is that of PCs resting after they use their significant resources. This design means that you can extend combats beyond those that use up significant resources, certainly, but only by making those combats inconsequential. Which we have already been told, time and again, is unfun.

See above. Per-encounter resources aren't inconsequential.

 

[Imaro]

Here's something I thought would be interesting for people to check out, it's a thread started by a prospective GM who is about to run his first game of SW saga ed. Almost universally those who have played the game had simlar issues to what I exspressed earlier in this thread and are advising him on it...yet earlier posters claimed it had to have been my GM'ing. Well all I can say is alot of people must be GM'ing like me.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=353630