Why is it so important?

[Scribble]

I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.

I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.

So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?

I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?

I don't think it's really a case of making the game "better." I think it's a case of making the game more in line with how things actually happen.

I've noticed in almost any game I've been in, whether as a player or a DM, the game flows like this:

Enter dungeon, fight a monster (or two) then as soon as the wizard or cleric is out of spells everyone stops and "camps."

No one is really willing to continue if there isn't any magical backup around.

So in a sense everything being per day, or per encounter, doesn't matter because it's easy to just "camp" whenever you need to restock.

Why not just ditch the ignored part?

 

[Sun Knight]

First off, I never said anything about pointy hats. To me Wizard=Magic. Wizards accomplish things through supernatural power, not physical means. Thats the point.

To me Wizards are just another profession that allows one to use magic, but in order to truly be an adventurer one should not limit oneself to just one trick. You lose the edge of adaptability. Such as if you are playing a wizard in go into an area where magic is completely unreliable, and in fact may spawn "living spells" that can harm your party than help if you aren't adaptable you become more of a liability to the party than anything else.

Wizards as it stands dont HAVE "other abilities". they have spells. You can choose to take combat feats etc with your wizard, but they arent going to do him much good.

I wholly disagree. My wizard's first combat feat was Weapon Finesse with with my 14 Dexterity and 10 Strength it really upped my melee potential. It most certainly made him more versitile in combat and often uses his combat abilities when the fighter is unable to. He is far more effective in melee than the bard, cleric or the ranger/warlock that is in the party.

Now of course your going to argue that and go on about all the stuff your wizard can do without spells. Fine, whatever...but thats not what most people want out of playing a wizard. They want to do magic.

Yet the wizard can do so much more than just magic. I don't see why we, as players, be forced to limit ourselves to the stereotype. It just seems silly to me.

If the current system works great for you, great. but thats not the case for everyone.
Coming in and attempting to invalidate peoples desire to be able to do that by going on about how much you enjoy your "melee wizard" or whatever is a bit silly.

I am just saying change for the sake of change is never any good, and personally I just don't see the need to drastically change magic from what it is in 3.5e. Minor tweaks would be nice, like what is done with AE, but major rewriting of the system is just not needed.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

People have complained about the various and sundry problems of the Vancian system, especially as regards Wizards, for as long as it has existed.

Various companies have published alternatives too the Vancian system for some time because of that. Even in 2nd edition skills and powers there were variant non-Vancian magic systems. Thats why Monte Cook didn't use it in Arcana Evolved. Just look at all the D20/OGL games that have non-Vancian systems.

Even the inclusion of the Sorcerer in 3e was a nod to this to some extent.

Right, and which RPG has been the MOST successful? D&D. With its quirky spell-prep, with its dramatic moments of wizards down to their last spell or resorting to staves and daggers, and so on. So why is it that those other systems didn't succeed to the extent that D&D did, if D&D's magic system was so horribly flawed?

 

[Sun Knight]

I my ever so humble opinion I think that the Vancian Spell System is what gives DnD its unique flavor with all the other systems out there. There are many many RPGs that uses spell points/mana rules and such. Only one I know of that uses the Vancian system is DnD/d20.

 

[Merlion]

Right, and which RPG has been the MOST successful? D&D. With its quirky spell-prep, with its dramatic moments of wizards down to their last spell or resorting to staves and daggers, and so on. So why is it that those other systems didn't succeed to the extent that D&D did, if D&D's magic system was so horribly flawed?

I my ever so humble opinion I think that the Vancian Spell System is what gives DnD its unique flavor with all the other systems out there. There are many many RPGs that uses spell points/mana rules and such. Only one I know of that uses the Vancian system is DnD/d20.

Then why do so many people who play it complain about it and/or change it in their own games?

And why then did the designers feel it was finally time to if not remove it, make it less central to the use of magic in the game?

 

[Merlion]

To me Wizards are just another profession that allows one to use magic, but in order to truly be an adventurer one should not limit oneself to just one trick. You lose the edge of adaptability. Such as if you are playing a wizard in go into an area where magic is completely unreliable, and in fact may spawn "living spells" that can harm your party than help if you aren't adaptable you become more of a liability to the party than anything else.



I wholly disagree. My wizard's first combat feat was Weapon Finesse with with my 14 Dexterity and 10 Strength it really upped my melee potential. It most certainly made him more versitile in combat and often uses his combat abilities when the fighter is unable to. He is far more effective in melee than the bard, cleric or the ranger/warlock that is in the party.



Yet the wizard can do so much more than just magic. I don't see why we, as players, be forced to limit ourselves to the stereotype. It just seems silly to me.



I am just saying change for the sake of change is never any good, and personally I just don't see the need to drastically change magic from what it is in 3.5e. Minor tweaks would be nice, like what is done with AE, but major rewriting of the system is just not needed.

Oh dear. it isnt a sterotype. Look up "Wizard" in the dictionary. A Wizard is someone who DOES MAGIC.

I have no problem with branching out. But a wizards main focus, and currently only truly mechanically viable option is magic. You should be able to play a magical wizard, remain effective, and not have to resort to other means.

 

[Sun Knight]

Then why do so many people who play it complain about it and/or change it in their own games?

Because the grass is always greener on the other side. I have played spell point/mana system in the past and I just do not like them.

And why then did the designers feel it was finally time to if not remove it, make it less central to the use of magic in the game?

To change the game for the sake of change. Two words: Marketing ploy.

 

[Sun Knight]

Oh dear. it isnt a sterotype. Look up "Wizard" in the dictionary. A Wizard is someone who DOES MAGIC.

I have no problem with branching out. But a wizards main focus, and currently only truly mechanically viable option is magic. You should be able to play a magical wizard, remain effective, and not have to resort to other means.

Its not the only viable option, but I do agree it is their main focus and yes, my wizard do use spells quite a bit. My main thing is that a truly effective character is one who can be effective without needing to be so limited to just his baseline abilities. A character that can't adapt is less effective than a character that can. It doesn't matter if you are wizard, fighter, rogue, cleric, or whatever.

 

[Merlion]

Because the grass is always greener on the other side. I have played spell point/mana system in the past and I just do not like them.



To change the game for the sake of change. Two words: Marketing ploy.

You dont like them, and love the Vancian system. Fine.

Many, many people feel differently. If your already happy with what you have, why not leave them alone?


You realize people screamed "marketing ploy" about 3rd edition and its changes as well. As near as I can tell, the designers are responding to the desires of a majority of their fan base.

 

[Merlion]

Its not the only viable option, but I do agree it is their main focus and yes, my wizard do use spells quite a bit. My main thing is that a truly effective character is one who can be effective without needing to be so limited to just his baseline abilities. A character that can't adapt is less effective than a character that can. It doesn't matter if you are wizard, fighter, rogue, cleric, or whatever.

This is about being able to be effective while staying within your primary role. Most people play a class for its primary role. So to be faced with being ineffective in that role while many of the other players can still keep going is frustrating and problematic for many.


Not for you, I realize. But the game isnt being designed for you.