Why is it so important?

[hong]

You are *truly* impressive!

Yes.

Yes, yes. Get to the fun button already. You know you want to.

All in good time.

Ah, there we are. Got your fix now? Good, good.

But hey, how many's that? 5 per encounter? 6? Impressive, indeed!

Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.

 

[Aus_Snow]

You can't win, Aus_Snow. Hong's guns never run out of bullets.

Cool, I can respect that. But *I* am teh INCIVIBELZ!

And he's only shooting himself each time.

 

[hong]

And he's only shooting himself each time.

It's my secret weapon.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ah, yes. The Oberoni Fallacy.

"The rules work perfectly fine because you can ignore them."

Nah, that's a new innovation based off of the 3.X ruleset that hasn't been extensively playtested yet. I might have to pull back from it after more playtesting. I am just admitting that there is a degree to which I agree with you about the Vancian magic system.

Of course, "The rules will work perfectly fine because you can ignore them" is largely what I'm hearing as a response to objections to change, too.

RC

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

It's less to keep track of, and less of a chance to be stuck with a raft of useless spells. Myself, I'd remove preparation completely and let everyone be a spontaneous caster. Then we'd see a lot more in the way of utility spell usage rather than everyone loading up on Mage Armor, Magic Missle, and Sleep.

 

[gizmo33]

It's very simple. Medium-term resource attrition (in the time window of one day) is not a necessary condition for a risky encounter in an RPG.

(Cool. Some ideas. Risky, but hopefully it's worth it.)

I didn't think I said it was necessary. In fact I gave two different conditions that *could* make an encounter interesting/risky. The other condition was that it be potentially deadly. This can happen without a resource issue at all (for example - in a system where everyone has only per-encounter resources). I can also imagine some other conditions - for example that the kobold (or animated strawman) says something interesting during the fight that has a bearing later on. But once you get away from the two that I identified I think it gets harder to use them. Removing the "resource attrition" from the possible consequences of an encounter removes, IMO, one of the big motivators in the current system. Or just my game? Do you really need another argument about what "majority" means?

No one but me is interested in my 3E game?! I guess I need a story hour!

 

[gizmo33]

It's less to keep track of, and less of a chance to be stuck with a raft of useless spells. Myself, I'd remove preparation completely and let everyone be a spontaneous caster. Then we'd see a lot more in the way of utility spell usage rather than everyone loading up on Mage Armor, Magic Missle, and Sleep.

I agree. But IME one of the down sides is that combat takes even longer when people are flipping through dozens of spell descriptions. Much like the movement rules in 3E, it doesn't *have* to slow things down if you're real draconian about it. But recently one of my players suggested that I go back to the standard spell system (and he plays a wizard) because it was just taking everyone too long. Currently I'm using a hybrid system that allows you to spontaneously cast any spell that you have Spell Mastery in. A little bit of flexibility can go a long way.

 

[Rel]

I just started reading this thread ten minutes ago and I'm already tired of the little zingers flying back and forth between Hong, et al. So how about you give it a rest, at least until tomorrow. I have work then and one of the other moderators can go to the trouble of giving you a tempban.

 

[hong]

(Cool. Some ideas. Risky, but hopefully it's worth it.)

I didn't think I said it was necessary. In fact I gave two different conditions that *could* make an encounter interesting/risky. The other condition was that it be potentially deadly. This can happen without a resource issue at all (for example - in a system where everyone has only per-encounter resources). I can also imagine some other conditions - for example that the kobold (or animated strawman) says something interesting during the fight that has a bearing later on. But once you get away from the two that I identified I think it gets harder to use them. Removing the "resource attrition" from the possible consequences of an encounter removes, IMO, one of the big motivators in the current system.

For medium-term resource attrition, substitute short-term resource attrition.

Under the current paradigm, you get beaten up by some mooks, explore some more, and meet the BBEG. Under the 4E paradigm, you get beaten up by some mooks, then just as the last mook falls, the BBEG enters the room (encounter keeps going, everyone is down resources).

Similarly, escalating challenge over time can be done by varying the encounters rather than the resources.

Under the current paradigm, you meet some monsters and have an easy fight but lose some resources; then you meet some more monsters and have a slightly harder fight and lose even more resources; then you meet some more monsters etc. Under the 4E paradigm, you meet some monsters and have an easy fight; then you meet some tougher monsters and have a slightly harder fight because the monsters are tougher; then you meet some even tougher monsters etc.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The thread has been a bit heated recently, can we try to cool things down a bit please?

Thanks