Why is it so important?
- Thread starter Treebore
- Start date
outsider
First Post
Sun Knight said:
Magic isn't a wizard's crutch. Magic is a wizard's legs.
Melee(or more sensibly a crossbow) is a wizard's crutch. It's something he should only be using when he's got a broken leg. There's something wrong with a system that regularly breaks a wizards legs and calls it part of the fun.
Lots of ranks in Intimidate/Diplomacy, yep; in general, a decent smattering of social skills since 4E looks to be having more elaborate rules for this kind of thng. Naturally, a cooperative DM would be good to have, as well as a campaign that didn't revolve around dungeoneering or survival in the untamed wilderness (no sense being restrained when you're surrounded by monstrous horrors wanting to eat you). It's really the kind of concept that makes most sense against human opponents, as opposed to monsters.Mouseferatu said:
One quirk about wuxia movies is that people often fight with sheathed swords (you see it in both CTHD and Hero). If I were DM, I would treat this as just a normal attack with the sword, with the -4 penalty for improvised weapons, and dealing reduced nonlethal damage. In any case, I tend to play fast-and-loose with the specifics of damage anyway: anyone reduced to 0 hp is "defeated", and whether that's dead or just unconscious is up to the person who defeated them. I posted about it before.
Last edited:
Vigilance
Explorer
Treebore said:
Ok.
So maybe you can explain to me how "can use magic a set number of times per encounter" emulates life less than "can use magic a set number of times per day" then.
Clearly, you prefer one over the other.
That's not the standard for life emulation last I checked.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I try to figure something out that is highly speculative but incorporates some things we heard about (just without the necessary details to understand how the system really looks like.)
Wizard prepares spells (possible less than today), say Magic Missile.
As long as he has Magic Missile prepared, he can fire a bolt of force as a ranged touch attack, dealing 1d6 + caster level points of damage per round.
He can also cast, once per encounter, a a Magic Missile dealing 1d6 points of damage per 2 caster levels that automatically hits.
And once per day, he can cast a Magic Missile that deals 1d6+caster level damage to 1 target per caster level, automatically hitting each target. (This use might remove the spells from his list of prepared spells, or make it impossible to use the spell again during this encounter.)
A Wizard prepares Mount (say, in his "utility silo" spell slot, if that how it works):
As long as he has it prepared, he can do the following things:
Summon a Heavy Warhorse or Warpony once per encounter that lasts for one minute, serving as his combat mount (or that of another character?)
Summon one Light Horse, Pony or Mule once per day, that lasts for two hours per level. (This use might or might not remove the spells from his list of prepared spells, or this use is exclusive with the other)
So you still have to decide: Which spell do I prepare? When do I use which benefit from the spell? When do I use the more powerful effect?)
This might not at all be how it will work, but it gives at least an example how using 1/encounter abilities can work in the great scheme without entirely removing resource management.
There is also a further alternative: Maybe spell casting times increase for some spells, which means that per day resource management ends up into per encounter resource management.
Wizard prepares spells (possible less than today), say Magic Missile.
As long as he has Magic Missile prepared, he can fire a bolt of force as a ranged touch attack, dealing 1d6 + caster level points of damage per round.
He can also cast, once per encounter, a a Magic Missile dealing 1d6 points of damage per 2 caster levels that automatically hits.
And once per day, he can cast a Magic Missile that deals 1d6+caster level damage to 1 target per caster level, automatically hitting each target. (This use might remove the spells from his list of prepared spells, or make it impossible to use the spell again during this encounter.)
A Wizard prepares Mount (say, in his "utility silo" spell slot, if that how it works):
As long as he has it prepared, he can do the following things:
Summon a Heavy Warhorse or Warpony once per encounter that lasts for one minute, serving as his combat mount (or that of another character?)
Summon one Light Horse, Pony or Mule once per day, that lasts for two hours per level. (This use might or might not remove the spells from his list of prepared spells, or this use is exclusive with the other)
So you still have to decide: Which spell do I prepare? When do I use which benefit from the spell? When do I use the more powerful effect?)
This might not at all be how it will work, but it gives at least an example how using 1/encounter abilities can work in the great scheme without entirely removing resource management.
There is also a further alternative: Maybe spell casting times increase for some spells, which means that per day resource management ends up into per encounter resource management.
FireLance
Legend
I don't think the issue is running out of spells. Regardless of edition, a wizard that was out of spells (or who wished to conserve them) should still be able to find something to do. I think the key issue is that thus far, the wizard has been tapping on external and finite sources of power.
So, at low level, a wizard could throw darts or daggers or (in 3e) use a crossbow, but he was still limited by the amount of ammunition he had. At higher levels, when mundane ranged weapons are no longer significantly useful, a wizard could use a wand or a staff, but he would be limited by the charges in the wand or staff.
Per encounter abilities change these assumptions. A per encounter ability is innate, not external. A per encounter ability trades the limitation of finite uses for the limitation of a longer refresh time - a wand can be used in consecutive rounds, but a per encounter ability most likely will not.
I think that the idea of innate abilities might turn some people off because they see them as more powerful than external abilities. While I do agree than innate abilities have an advantage over external abilities in that they cannot be taken away (although if a wizard is still required to study his spell book to refresh his per encounter spells, he remains dependent on his equipment), whether or not this advantage is significant depends on how often your DM likes to take your gear away or sets up opportunities for you to lose them.
Similarly, finite abilities tend to make players more careful and conservative about using them, while infinite abilities tend to encourage players to use them. I think that whether you prefer one or the other depends on how you want your players to play your game. Some DMs prefer their players to be more cautious and to think more strategically would likely favor finite abilities, whereas a DM who wants to see his players use their abilities more often would likely favor infinite abilities.
So, at low level, a wizard could throw darts or daggers or (in 3e) use a crossbow, but he was still limited by the amount of ammunition he had. At higher levels, when mundane ranged weapons are no longer significantly useful, a wizard could use a wand or a staff, but he would be limited by the charges in the wand or staff.
Per encounter abilities change these assumptions. A per encounter ability is innate, not external. A per encounter ability trades the limitation of finite uses for the limitation of a longer refresh time - a wand can be used in consecutive rounds, but a per encounter ability most likely will not.
I think that the idea of innate abilities might turn some people off because they see them as more powerful than external abilities. While I do agree than innate abilities have an advantage over external abilities in that they cannot be taken away (although if a wizard is still required to study his spell book to refresh his per encounter spells, he remains dependent on his equipment), whether or not this advantage is significant depends on how often your DM likes to take your gear away or sets up opportunities for you to lose them.
Similarly, finite abilities tend to make players more careful and conservative about using them, while infinite abilities tend to encourage players to use them. I think that whether you prefer one or the other depends on how you want your players to play your game. Some DMs prefer their players to be more cautious and to think more strategically would likely favor finite abilities, whereas a DM who wants to see his players use their abilities more often would likely favor infinite abilities.
WhatGravitas
Explorer
Well, on 1st or 2nd level, it almost works, because the crossbow firing is quite effective (due to the high dexterity most wizards have). But then... starting with 2nd- or 3rd- level, the difference between the wizard and all other classes (non-magic-wise) is too large. The crossbow becomes a worse weapon with every level, your hit points are so low, that you don't survive more than one full attack of your enemies - you basically try to hide und avoid being hit or seen.Sun Knight said:
Or you get a wand and start blasting all the day - at will! And since most defeated encounters give you money, you can buy new wands! Effectively, you can soon have one or two trusty wands, which you can use at will!
Problem with wands and scrolls? Whether you craft or buy them, you start doing accounting. You check "how many charges do I have", "what utility spell may I need", "where do I get that wand"... and so on. And doing that bogs down the game, especially for the meleers, who need a sword and an armor.
Cheers, LT.
Actually, it is the opposite for me – I usually throw too little at the party, in that I often might only throw one combat encounter in a day against the party, which means the casters can go ape-crap in that encounter. And please don't give me the 'But they should track their resources because they don't know if there will be another encounter that day'. When a party wants to rest, they can usually find a way to rest, especially at higher levels. Also, the party shouldn't have to worry about these encounters that "may" or "may not" happen, it ruins suspension of disbelief -Treebore said:
"Well, I figure the DM needs to throw one more encounter against us to meet the quota…"
And this brings up another point, I don't want to have to feel contrived into throwing X encounters a day at a party, if I want to throw 1, or 13 encounters against the party, the rules should be balanced to accommodate that as the adventure/story/dungeon etc demands.
This assumed 4 encounters day malarkey has got to be one of the most arbitrary, and odd design decisions I've ever heard of – lame.
And the overpowered, antiquated, Pseudo-Vancian, Gygaxian magic/spell system has been a thorn in my side for 20 years – always loathed it.
shilsen
Adventurer
Baby Samurai said:
I've been running an Eberron campaign that's 2.5 years old now, and 1 encounter a day is par for the course with us, with 2 much less often and 3 having happened maybe thrice in 60 sessions. And the 5-person party I have consists of 3 single-classed casters (1 wizard & 2 druids) and one multi-classed caster (paladin/cleric), so there's a whole lot of stuff being unloaded in that one fight. But I've found it fairly easy to still challenge them, even though they always fight enemies weaker than them, with an average of a PC hitting -10 every two sessions.
As mentioned above, I don't think the assumed 4 encounters a day really has any material effect on the game. The rules are balanced enough, or at least flexible enough, that you can easily play with much less or much more encounters regularly. YMMV, and apparently does.
