Why is it so important?

[Sun Knight]

Mang, this post is so videogamey.

Well, I prefer to find a wand of magic missiles with 13 charges than finding a generic wand +6.

 

[Sun Knight]

My point is that any system that assumes the heroes have to stop after two minutes of combat is, by definition, more unrealistic* than it needs to be. (To say nothing of the fact that it's extremely limiting in the sorts of plots/stories/adventures that can be run.)

Um... then don't stop or allow the action to stop. If the wizard uses up all his spells in the first combat then it sucks to be him. Next time he shouldn't be so foolish.

 

[hong]

Well, I prefer to find a wand of magic missiles with 13 charges than finding a generic wand +6.

I'm charging up my "wand +6" RIGHT NOW, IYTIMAIKYD.

 

[Vigilance]

Your right. I build the dungeon so it will hopefully take two or more days for the adventurers to get to me. That why I can run to a new hide out where they have to try and find me all over again. And the adventure continues.

Or, if I want the PC's to succeed I make sure the spellcasters have enough depth. They have plenty of potions, wands, scrolls, and other items to last through the dungeon marathon to get to the Vampire and stake it. Either way, versimilitude.

Verisimilitude doesn't mean what you evidently think it means.

It doesn't mean "the way OD&D/Jack Vance did it".

You (obviously) have the right to dislike any changes to the magic system, but disliking it on the grounds of being more "realistic", seems very silly to me.

Vancian magic isn't any more realistic than final fantasy magic.

I think putting wizards on the same plane as fighters is a good thing myself.

Also, getting rid of Vancian magic could well extend the sweet spot of D&D, which is currently about 5-15th level.

Making mages have some staying power at low levels, and being less over-powered at high levels, would be a HUGE boon to the game imo.

 

[Sun Knight]

What I don't get is why people keep saying low level wizards have no staying power. My low level wizard gets pretty much in every fight and stays in the game. Then again I don't use his magic as a crutch. Diversifying in tactics and strategy to use magic and the mundane makes the wizard have more staying power and more fun to play. When the fighter is down, it is my wizard that goes into melee!

 

[Vigilance]

What I don't get is why people keep saying low level wizards have no staying power. My low level wizard gets pretty much in every fight and stays in the game. Then again I don't use his magic as a crutch. Diversifying in tactics and strategy to use magic and the mundane makes the wizard have more staying power and more fun to play. When the fighter is down, it is my wizard that goes into melee!

Yes, you can continue to participate once your spells are gone, or while hoarding them for that one five-round encounter.

You could also have a Fighter charge and attack with his unarmed attack for 1-2 while disarmed.

It's just not desirable, or fun for a lot of people.

Now imagine that the game's odds were stacked such that the fighter was going to break his weapon half the time, forcing him to either save his longsword for a "really important encounter" or use it early, and either arrive at the end of the adventure with a 1d2 attack, or make frequent trips back to town, or spend a lot of his money on lesser "back-up" weapons (the equivalent of a wand).

That's basically what the game does for mages.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Diversifying in tactics and strategy to use magic and the mundane makes the wizard have more staying power and more fun to play. When the fighter is down, it is my wizard that goes into melee!

Yes, so you keep saying. And that's fine, if that's how you enjoy playing.

But many people--I'd even hazard a guess and say "most"--who choose to play a wizard do so because, well, they want to play a character that uses magic. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen even experienced players get that glazed-over look in their eyes when they realize that it's time for the wizard to break out the crossbow. (And not just because they're out of spells, either. Often, it's because it's become clear that a combat's not worth "wasting" magic on. And as often as not, what I've seen is players who say "Okay, you guys finish it off," rather than even bothering with the crossbow. Why? Because it's not the character they wanted to play, and/or because they know that their own contribution with the crossbow is going to be meaningless in the face of the fighter's greatsword and the ranger's longbow, and it's not worth the extra time it would take to roll the dice.)

And no, it's not because they're "power gamers" who want "unlimited magic." They're fine with the notion that they need to manage their spells. They just want to be able to contribute, regularly, with magic, in some way, shape, or form.

What they really need is a system that requires them to carefully manage their most potent spells, but gives them a wider variety of weaker magics they can use more regularly. Hey, wait...

 

[Mouseferatu]

BTW, the beauty of the new system, or at least what we know of it, is that we both win. You can still choose to play a wizard who hoards his most potent magics, preferring to default to a crossbow or a staff. Nobody says you have to use all the abilities the class presents. Heck, pretend your character doesn't even possess them. But it leaves the option open for the people who want more flexible magic.

 

[hong]

BTW, the beauty of the new system, or at least what we know of it, is that we both win. You can still choose to play a wizard who hoards his most potent magics, preferring to default to a crossbow or a staff. Nobody says you have to use all the abilities the class presents. Heck, pretend your character doesn't even possess them. But it leaves the option open for the people who want more flexible magic.

One of the concepts I'd really like to play someday is the fighter who doesn't fight. Now, in actuality he'd be a twinked out weapon master with a katana bastard sword, the usual bonuses, buffs and so on, but the core concept would be restraint. A true master wins the fight before it's even started, that sort of thing; he views it as a personal setback if he actually has to draw his sword. On those rare occasions when he does draw, this would set his achievements into even sharper relief.

In a similar vein, I could actually go for a wizard who doesn't... wiz? But this should be an active decision on my part, not something forced on me by the vagaries of the ruleset.

 

[Mouseferatu]

One of the concepts I'd really like to play someday is the fighter who doesn't fight. Now, in actuality he'd be a twinked out weapon master with a katana bastard sword, the usual bonuses, buffs and so on, but the core concept would be restraint. A true master wins the fight before it's even started, that sort of thing; he views it as a personal setback if he actually has to draw his sword. On those rare occasions when he does draw, this would set his achievements into even sharper relief.

Interesting. How do you plan to go about modeling this in D&D? Maxed out ranks in skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate? Maybe a few unarmed fighting techniques for use in those cases where violence is inevitable but bloodshed is not?