Why is it so important?

[Celebrim]

Ok, let me be totally specific here.

To me, and most people I am familiar with, most of the time, contributing to combat as a wizard involves the use of magic to damage foes, incapacitate foes, kill foes, enhance allies, alter or control the battlefield etc etc and similar things.

And wizards in 3rd edition don't do that now?

During combat, when your allies are already being attacked, making knowledge checks isnt likely to be terribly useful...

In your game maybe.

...and shooting off a crossbow or waving a dagger around isnt very "wizardy".

Perhaps. But even in 3rd edition these things only happen for about 4 levels or so, then the wizard ends up with a wand of magic missiles, a bag full of scrolls, and enough spells per day make a bang in most every combat (and certainly the big ones). And that is plenty wizardly. If a wizard is forced to occasionally hit something with his staff, I'm not sure how that's a problem.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm sympathetic to changes that would improve the experience of play through the first four levels or so, and increase balance say above 13th level (current sweet spot is IMO about 4th-12th). However, such sympathy doesn't necessarily endear me to these particular changes which for the most part strike me as unnecessary to achieve what you say you want out of the system.

Doug McCrae I think has a much more serious complaint about the system than, 'My wizard isn't during the first couple of levels necessarily always wizardly', and while your problem is easily addressed in the existing system, his isn't.

Of course, addressing his problem means making Wizards much less powerful, which if I had to guess is going to force wizards by design to do less in the way of battlefield alteration, ally enhancing, and so forth.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because I typed "certain" before adding "per-encounter" and forgot to edit it out.

OK, then. Here's the problem as I see/understand it:

(1) Each battle either does or does not use up per-day resources. I will consider PC death as a per-day resource.

(1a) If a battle does not use up per-day resources, nothing is lost in engaging in that battle. This means:

(1ai) The PCs can engage in an effectively endless number of these battles.

(1aii) The only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff.

(1b) If a battle doe use up per-day resources, the PCs will be at less than full capacity. This means:

(1bi) These battles are automatically much more important than the other battles.

(1bii) The PCs can only engage in a limited number of these battles per day.

(1biii) This impact of these battles is to make the PCs less able to deal with future events.

To my mind, these things together lead to several conclusions:

1. In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle. It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario. We have been told for a very long time, "if it doesn't impact the game, it's better to handwave it."

1a. The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-encounter resources don't impact the game, and hence are not significant.

1b. The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-day resources impact the game, and hence are significant.

1c. We are told that the problem that this design is meant to counter is resting as soon as significant (in the metagame sense) resources are depleted.

1ci. Having greater insignificant (in the metagame sense) resources means that you can adventure longer, but also that said adventuring is not meaningful (again, in the metagame sense).

1cii. If it is true that PCs will rest as soon as significant resources are depleted, then within the new framework, PCs will rest as soon as per-day resources are depleted.

1ciii. Point 1cii is even more true if some (or all) per-encounter resources are tied into having per-day resources untapped.

2. In order to make a battle significant, all (or the vast majority of) non-handwaved battles should have a reasonable chance of expending per-day resources.

2a. This means that resting may occur after the first encounter, which is exactly the problem the system is intended to eliminate.

2b. Assuming fewer per-day resources than 3e, this also means that there is a smaller range of encounters that can both impact those resources and be survivable, hence narrowing the opportunity for significant action within the system.

From what I have seen posted so far, it appears that the 4e designers expect that:

(1) Most encounters will not use up any significant (in the metagame sense) resources.

(2) Players will be excited about these encounters; i.e., they will find them "fun".

(3) This will result in a longer, and more fulfilling adventuring "day".

I believe that the designers are correct in terms of initial play (first 3-6 months), but the more players become aware of the meaninglessness (in a metagame sense) of the majority of encounters, the less excited they will be by those encounters, the less fun they will have, and the more they will want to get on to the "real" encounters that have a chance to significantly (in a metagame sense) impact the game.

Which puts us right back to where we began.

Crowking's Maxim 1: A stronger element of resource attrition leads both to a greater range of choice, and a greater range of significance to encounters, than a weaker element of resource attrition.

Crowking's Maxim 2: No element of resource attrition is meaningful unless there exists some cost/benefit analysis related to the choice between renewing the resource or attempting to continue without renewing the resource.

(A) If a 10-minute rest is required to reset abilities (instead of per-encounter), and wandering monsters are encouraged, so-called "per encounter" resources gain a level of cost/benefit analysis that makes them more interesting.

(B) If wandering monsters are encouraged, and the means to avoid wandering monsters becomes more difficult to use effectively (Rope Trick, Teleportation in 3e), then "per day" abilities gain a higher level of cost/benefit analysis.

I would hazard to say that, regardless of what 4e determines to be what type of resource, applying (A) and (B) would resolve the 9-9:15 (or 9-9:30) problem completely. In fact, nerfing the "hiding" spells while encouraging wandering monsters would have done the trick in 3.X without requiring any further revision to address that problem.

IMHO, of course.

YMMV.

YDMB.


RC

 

[Merlion]

.Yes "A is exactly like B. A is nothing like B". I get into these debates all of the time on the internet, and I have yet to figure out how to interject subtlety into this. The way magic works in novels is vague to a degree that IME would not be useful in an RPG. The preceeding statement falls into neither category of A being completely like B, or being completely unlike B, but if those are the only two statement patterns that I can choose from I'm afraid I just cannot make my point.

Your still not getting it.

I want the magic in an RPG to FEEL like how magic is depicted in fiction, in a very broad and general sense. For me, Vancian magic doesnt really do this at all. The proposed changes in 4e have to me a FEEL and a structure that is much more like how I am used to magic being depicted overall.

AFAICT

What exactly does that stand for?

mention* was made of that fact in Wyatt's statement AFAICT. *For good reason* Because this aspect of Vancian magic was not his problem. And this aspect of Vancian magic is not addressed by going to a "per-encounter" resource model. Spell points are typically a per-day resource, and you have the same potential "9:00-9:15" problem with them as you do with Vancian, even though AFAICT they address the problem you described above. A "Sorcerer" type character class design already solves your problem, why is the "per-encounter" design important in this?

I've read the Wyatt thing several times, and I honestly dont fully understand exactly what he's getting at, or exactly what your getting from it. And even less do i get its relevence to the parts of the issue that I myself am mainly discussing.

my extrapolations IMO are a very logical, and rather conservative assessment of what Wyatt's rather clear design goals were that were stated in the quote

But even if thats true, which I'm not sure about, theres a lot more too it, and your deciding how everything is going to be based on the tiny amounts of information we have.

AFAICT that's like saying that the authors believe in the principle of good grammar but will only use it for Chapter 1 of the book. Assuming we understand each other I guess we'll just have to disagree on this as it is dependant on a basic understanding of human nature.

DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE GAME ARE DIFFERENT. Therefore, why would they apply exactly the same philosophy and methods to every aspect of the game?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Gandalf isnt a wizard, and is probably the worst possible example for this situation. The limitations on Gandalf's use of his powers have nothing to do with resources. They were philosophical in nature.

Middle Earth wizards are not D&D wizards, but Gandalf was a wizard.

And, in fact, his use of power did have to do with his resources, as is explicit in both The Hobbit (when he was treed by the goblins and wolves) and in Moria (where he tried to hold the door against the balrog and he states that it nearly depleted his resources).

RC

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

What exactly does that stand for?

AFAICT = As Far As I Can Tell

 

[Merlion]

Middle Earth wizards are not D&D wizards, but Gandalf was a wizard.
RC

Gandalf was an Angel, sent by the higher powers to encourage people to stand up to Sauron, and to a very limited degree, to aid them in doing so.

And, in fact, his use of power did have to do with his resources, as is explicit in both The Hobbit (when he was treed by the goblins and wolves) and in Moria (where he tried to hold the door against the balrog and he states that it nearly depleted his resources).

But the fact that he rarely "casts spells" and does more physical fighting than magical has more to do with the philosophic restrictions, and the fact that his using supernatural means can attract unwanted attention.

 

[Merlion]

And wizards in 3rd edition don't do that now?

Yep, they do. For a while. And usually, especially at lower levels, they become unable to do this well before the other classes especially the melees become unable to practice their shtick.

In your game maybe.

Yep, true. but also in those of everyone else I know of. You see monsters, you make a knowledge check to inform your combat decisions. A knowledge check isnt going to stop an attack, restore your ally, or harm your enemy in and of itself, at that moment.

'My wizard isn't during the first couple of levels necessarily always wizardly', and while your problem is easily addressed in the existing system, his isn't.

First off, thats only part of my overall problem, and nextly how exactly is it easily addressed in the system?

Perhaps. But even in 3rd edition these things only happen for about 4 levels or so, then the wizard ends up with a wand of magic missiles, a bag full of scrolls, and enough spells per day make a bang in most every combat (and certainly the big ones). And that is plenty wizardly. If a wizard is forced to occasionally hit something with his staff, I'm not sure how that's a problem.

But we know that 4e is reducing magic items. And many already reduce magic items in their existing games. And more importantly, many consider it bad design for magic items to be needed to fill gaps in character abilities.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Gandalf was an Angel, sent by the higher powers to encourage people to stand up to Sauron, and to a very limited degree, to aid them in doing so.

Gandalf was a wizard; in Middle Earth the five wizards were incarnated spirits sent from Valinor. This is not the same as a D&D wizard; but he was still a wizard. In Middle Earth, the term "wizard" means what Gandalf was.

It is true that there are times when we are told explicitly that Gandalf doesn't act for philosophic reasons. It is also true that there are times that we are told that Gandalf doesn't act (or act more powerfully) because he doesn't have the ability to do so.

Both of which are neither here nor there, because this isn't a thread about Middle Earth. If you, however, open such a thread, invite me in, because, overall, I enjoy discussing it.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

But we know that 4e is reducing magic items. And many already reduce magic items in their existing games. And more importantly, many consider it bad design for magic items to be needed to fill gaps in character abilities.

Yep. That would be me.

I understand your desire for a more "novel-like" feel to the magic system (or a more folkloric feel, if you're like me!), but I don't share your belief that what we're hearing described in the 4e blogs is it. To me, it is even farther away than the current system.

I certainly accept that this is a matter of opinion, though.


RC

 

[Merlion]

Gandalf was a wizard; in Middle Earth the five wizards were incarnated spirits sent from Valinor. This is not the same as a D&D wizard; but he was still a wizard. In Middle Earth, the term "wizard" means what Gandalf was.

Humanity called them "wizards" only because they didnt know what they were. They looked and acted the part, but conceptually and in the sense of their origins they dont really fit any common definition of Wizard. they were inherently purely spiritual/magical beings incarnated in physical humanoid forms, not humanoid beings who learned and/or were born with a gift for magic.


I'm just saying in discussion of Wizards Gandalf isnt a particularly great example.