Why is it so important?

[gizmo33]

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

Well, one poster's leap is another one's logical deduction I suppose. Either 4E will have daily resources or it won't. The principles of basic "true/false" logic are not going to be reinvented by 4E. Most everything I've said I've tried to put an IF in front of.

If I have a per-day resource in DnD, then it's logical to assume that that power/resource will be more significant than the "per-encounter" powers. Furthermore, given that all classes currently have a "per-encounter" ability in 3E (even if it's just a crossbow or their bare hands), we already know how players treat encounters that tax only the "per-encounter" abilities of their PCs. And that is, they don't take them seriously at all.

Or, take a hybrid system. You can use a certain ability "per-encounter" but at a maximum of 4/day, for example. If all classes are like that, then there would be IMO a very artificial ceiling where everyone has to go sleep after 4 encounters. If the times/day varies among character classes, then you have the divide similar to the current fighter-wizard divide in 3E. I really don't see how anything that anyone has proposed for 4E could possibly change the basic logic of resource management. (Unless they're using magic to design DnD's magic system! )

 

[Rykion]

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

I don't think they've ever read any Vance, and want mages that play more like most fiction. Most other systems have a lot less record keeping involved, making it easier on GM and players. The D&D magic system is about resource management. Systems that have fatigue or dangerous spell failure usually have a random mechanic that makes easy spells safe, but high level magic potentially dangerous. This adds risk management and lets players try to push their luck when major spellcasting is needed. In D&D they know exactly when their magic will fail.

 

[Grog]

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

In your opinion. Personally, I've never found playing a first level wizard (or magic-user) to be much fun at all. For me, it was always just an exercise in marking time until I could get to higher levels and start having fun.

 

[Treebore]

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.

My opinion is that since magic is totally fabricated (false) in the first place, however you want it to work is what makes it "real". The trick is to get everyone to accept the same "working hypothesis" for how magic is to work.

 

[Dalberon]

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.

Combat is one of the few mechanical aspects that everyone is expected to participate in. Its one of the few instances in which the party pools their power together to accomplish an immediate goal (defeating the current enemy)....it is also the most common element in almost every single game.

The impression I get is that they are attempting to make combat (a core concept of the game) more enjoyable for a variety of classes and players of varying experience levels (as in familiarity to the game).

 

[gizmo33]

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..

But "useless" here is an exaggeration - and that exaggeration is the core of the issue. Because no matter what you replace the wizard's crossbow with, once it falls below the threshold of a daily resource it will be considered "useless".

Right now, a DM could throw 4 kobolds at a party of 9th level adventurers and the wizard's crossbow would not be useless. Why don't DMs do this? Because they (and the players) ALREADY equate "per-encounter" abilities with weak. 4 kobolds against 9th level adventurers is not interesting because it doesn't not tax daily resources AND it does not represent a significant chance of death during the encounter. The SAME TWO conditions apply to any encounter where PCs use only "per-encounter" abilities.

So you can change the basic numbers but you still wind up with the same problem. Let's say in 3E my wizard has a single 4th level spell, and near unlimited crossbow bolts. In 3E he would have a single 4th level spell and near unlimited 3rd level spells.

So in 4E the party encounters a bunch of greater kobolds. The PCs assement of the situation is that they can defeat the enemy using 3rd level spells (near unlimited). This costs nothing, and it doesn't challenge the "class A" abilities of the characters (ie. the 4th level spell) so it winds up feeling just like the 3E situation where the 9th level party is fighting regular kobolds, doesn't it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

In your opinion. Personally, I've never found playing a first level wizard (or magic-user) to be much fun at all. For me, it was always just an exercise in marking time until I could get to higher levels and start having fun.

In my opinion, yes.

In the games that I ran, from Christmas day 1997 to present, in the opinion of many others as well.

If sales are any indication, in the opinion of a great many more than myself or those I personally know.

RC

 

[Rakin]

Aren't all 4E characters starting at the playing power of level 4 now anyway, I can't help to wonder if this could be used to eliminate those first 3 "bad mage" levels, without dropping the spells per day thing.

I wonder if you'll have to drink to get man..I mean spells in 4e?

 

[broghammerj]

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..

Taken this line of thinking to the extreme, why don't we just have all characters do 1d8 points of damage per round. Your wizard calls it a magic missile and my fighter calls it a longsword. Part of the reason I like being a wizard is resource management. Yes, I realize that there will still be resource management.

The thing I don't like about the per encounter system is now my fighter can unleash his springing ninja, berserker rage, whirling dervish attack per combat. I never really desired nor cared for the special maneuvers. If I wanted to do that I would have entered up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A.

 

[Celebrim]

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). What that actually means is that you get up the morning, then have three encounters in a row that don't reallly challenge you. It's the fourth one that tests your skill—that's where you figure out whether you've spent too much, or if you still have enough resources left to finish off that last encounter. Then you're done. So basically, three boring encounters before you get to one that's really life or death.

Mr. Wyatt is wrong about something critical here. Player's that metagame the system like that don't attempt three encounters. They just do one. If they expend any resources at all, then they rest. Afterall, why risk going into the next encounter missing 4 of your 60 hit points? That 4 hit points could be the difference between life and death!

This is true whether thier abilities are regained per encounter or per day.

The only difference aside from fluff (we rest 'a minute' and we rest 'a day' are both really no more than fluff and hand waving) is whether there is any risk in resting. If resting takes a whole day, then there is a significant risk provided that the story has a time line and the enemy is ran proactively by the DM. If resting takes a whole minute, then there is comparitively a much smaller risk. You don't even have to set watch and try to avoid a night ambush. You can just keep on pushing on. After a rest, of course. One that forces you to make no meaningful trade offs.

Alot of the pro-per-encounter types have made the argument have made the argument that 4e will be best of both worlds, in that some fraction of the player's resources will be per day so that there will be some resource management. But this isn't really an answer. Either they will do one encounter and rest a day to get thier full abilities back (no net change over what people are complaining about), or they will choose to push on with less than optimal resources (again, no net change), or they can't run out of useful resources at all in which case the distinction is meaningless. I don't think many are yet arguing that the game would be better in the latter case, but I can't help but notice that the first two options are the same as what we have in 3rd edition.

I still think that per encounter abilities aren't going to fix some people's problem with the metagame because they aren't addressing the core issues that cause the metagame. It might make for more satisfying fluff though.