Why is it so important?

[Jedi_Solo]

Isn't that what we have already? Having your wizard use a crossbow instead of spells is operating at reduced effectiveness. Granted, they could just be replacing the crossbow with something more "wizardly", but it makes no difference in terms of resource management.

The most obvious difference (to me anyway) if it the crossbow becomes an unlimited magical attack the you lose nothing even if you have to roll a 20 to hit. If you fire with a crossbow you've a bolt that you won't have later when you can hit something that doesn't require a 20. And the magical attack doesn't require any additional bookkeeping.

 

[Merlion]

The best answer to that question would be found by perusing the class role information supplied in earlier editions of the game.

Simple answer: Knowing that you have finite resources, but that those resources are usually the most effective resources available when used, changes the way in which you go about using said resources. If your resources are the same as all other characters, in terms of both when they can be used and how effective they are, then there is nothing significant in game terms to differentiate your role from any other.

Which is why, I imagine, that WotC is now telling you what your class role is supposed to be.


RC

But....if you still have access to all the same abilities, you can still play the same way you did before...

I cant really understand why you would want some classes to have more and more effective resources than others. *different types of abilities and capabilites* yes. And I dont see how any of that is going to change. Making it so one or two classes dont simply run out of steam before all the others in no way makes all characters or all roles the same, it just means one class won't suddenly become incapable of filling any of its possible roles while most of the others still can.


Now, I do also have my worries about the "role" stuff and all the talk of "Defenders, Strikers" etc. I think its fine as long as it isnt taken too far. It could be useful as a shorthand and an explanation of a classes usual role and greatest basic strengths in combat, as long as they dont forget that a Ranger is a RANGER first, and a "striker" simply as shorthand etc. Hopefully, they wont let one eclipse the other.

However I will say also that the books have been telling you a classes role in combat at least since 3e.

 

[Dalberon]

For example, SW has the "Second Wind" feature (use a swift action to regain 1/4 of your total HP or your CON score, whichever is greater) but it only works once a day. Whereas the devoted spirit "healing" strikes aren't sufficient by themselves to heal a character to full and are not useable outside of combat.

Thus, a party in 4E might not be as dependent on a cleric as before but if IH/SWSE/Bo9S are anything to go by, if you actually want to do an "Iron Man" marathon style adventure, you will NEED dedicated healers.

This is more along the lines of what I was expecting. You could battle longer, but you would still be wore down. On the same note, you could push back an opponent only to have them 'redouble' their effort and challenge the players anew.

"Now, I do also have my worries about the "role" stuff and all the talk of "Defenders, Strikers" etc. I think its fine as long as it isnt taken too far. "

I think this is going to be terminology to help group classes. The first thing that comes to mind are MMO Raid Roles...but that may not be the best example.

 

[Rykion]

So I take it this house-ruling has gone well? Oh but, er, when you say "still prefer. . ." - Are they just not so big on D&D in general. . .?

There hasn't been any problem with the houseruling. We play a lot of RPGs, not just D&D/D20. D&D is one of the most popular. The players that like magic type characters seem to prefer systems with mana/magic points, or ones that have a mechanic that makes low power spells safe to cast all day, but powerful ones a gamble.

 

[Merlion]

Isn't that what we have already? Having your wizard use a crossbow instead of spells is operating at reduced effectiveness. Granted, they could just be replacing the crossbow with something more "wizardly", but it makes no difference in terms of resource management. Here's the quote I keep referring to:



So first of all, why is he talking about "25% resources" and stuff if all he wants to do is replace the crossbow with something equivalent (or maybe a little more powerful)? What, according to the author, is "fun" (reminds me of the reading comprehension part of the SATs). My answer - Waves of monsters, and a fight that can go either way

Well according to common sense (as I understand it), everyone is going to want to be at 100% effectiveness when the fight can go either way. Also, it seems logically that you either have daily resources or you don't. The rest of it is just connecting the dots.

I think your making a number of leaps and assumptions here.

And I think what he means is, every encounter will be a "major" "fun" encounter, until you get to the point where you have to stop and rest.

Also I think you need to get past the idea that *all* they are doing is "replacing the crossbow with something equivalent or maybe a little more powerful." I'm pretty sure theres going to be more too it than that.

 

[Aus_Snow]

There hasn't been any problem with the houseruling. We play a lot of RPGs, not just D&D/D20. D&D is one of the most popular. The players that like magic type characters seem to prefer systems with mana/magic points, or ones that have a mechanic that makes low power spells safe to cast all day, but powerful ones a gamble.

Ah, fair enough. Do you know offhand why they happen to prefer mage-types being that way?

 

[Kerrick]

See, in 3e there's a basic assumption that an encounter between four 5th-level PCs and one CR 5 monster should drain away about 25% of the party's resources, which primarily translates into spells (and primarily the cleric's spells, which determine everyone else's total hit points).

And it's a flawed assumption. I don't know where they're getting this idea. Firstly, a CR 5 monster is an EL ~3 encounter. Secondly, I don't think a party would blow more than about 15-20% of their resources against an equal-EL encounter, unless things went really badly for them.

I have to chime in on the side of folks like Sun Knight - if you're blowing all your spells in one or two encounters, maybe you should rethink how you're playing your PC, because realistically, that PC wouldn't survive very long. Wizards are supposedly smart - high Int, right? Clerics are wise. A wizard would look at the battle and say, "Should I cast a spell now (this round)? Or should I do something else? Should I just lean on my staff and watch the fighter hack the monster to bits and offer sardonic advice?"

'But it's not FUN!" you cry. "The wizard's just standing around back there twiddling his thumbs while everyone else does the work!" Well DUH. He's a leader. He's a tactician. He's a controller. Call it what you will, he's supposed to stand at the rear of the party (or in the middle). Our group had a skill called Knowledge (tactics) - you make a check, and you could offer advice to the other PCs that would gain them benefits - kind of like the teamwork feats from PHBII, but we've been using them for years. That's what someone with easily the highest Int in the party would (should) have. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with giving them AP Light and a single martial WP of choice - the sword-wielding melee mage is very common in literature. They'd still have low hp and BAB, so they're no threat to the fighter, but they can defend themselves and others.

Clerics and druids have the hit points and skills (armor and weapons) to mix it up with the enemies - they can serve as first- or second-line combatants. Bards? They're support. They aid their comrades by singing, and they have roguish abilities - they can use their bows as archery support, or sneak around and flank enemies for the fighters, while singing. Sorcerers? They're strictly artillery. Given the fact they have a larger number of spells than the wizard, it's unlikely they'd run out before the party needs to rest.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I cant really understand why you would want some classes to have more and more effective resources than others. *different types of abilities and capabilites* yes.

How often you can use resources and how powerful those resources are is a different type of ability, and it is essentially a more different kind of ability than "everyone can do 1d6 per round; here's the fluff text for where your damage comes from".

If the differences in your abilities perforce cause you to approach problems in different ways, then it should be self evident that the difference is greater than one which allows all classes to behave in essentially the same way in all cases.

If you really can't understand that, then I have no idea how I could explain it to you better.


RC

 

[Merlion]

I have to chime in on the side of folks like Sun Knight - if you're blowing all your spells in one or two encounters, maybe you should rethink how you're playing your PC, because realistically, that PC wouldn't survive very long. Wizards are supposedly smart - high Int, right? Clerics are wise. A wizard would look at the battle and say, "Should I cast a spell now (this round)? Or should I do something else? Should I just lean on my staff and watch the fighter hack the monster to bits and offer sardonic advice?"

So basically low level wizards should be restricted to casting one or maybe two spells per encounter.

try to remember just how few spells low level wizards have. And bear in mind also that especially if they want to have any utility/divination etc spells, thats going to mean less combat spells as well. And the Wizard really needs at least one or two defensive spells so he doesnt get completely smeared.

So a low level wizard is only going to end up with a very few actual combat spells. And once they are gone, as it stands, theres little he can actually do to take part in the combat.

It also depends on the intensity and specific nature of the encounters. But the changes, from what we hear, sound like they will reduce the need for a DM to worry if the wizard player is likely to be rendered useless by a single encounter..

 

[Raven Crowking]

So a low level wizard is only going to end up with a very few actual combat spells. And once they are gone, as it stands, theres little he can actually do to take part in the combat.

And, yet, for three (and a half) editions, this worked out pretty darn well.

Interestingly enough, the low level fighter in 3.5 ended up with very few skill points, so that when there's sneaking or trap discover/disarming or Knowledge tasks to perform, there's little he can do to actually take part.

Why not just make one class, with all the same abilities, and have "kits" that describe the fluff for those abilities differently? That way everyone can contribute equally to all things.....


RC