Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3755582" data-attributes="member: 30001">I have all kinds of problems. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  This is one of those situations where the suggestion seems to me to be "redesign your campaign to fit a certain pattern", and unlike designing to deal with PCs camping outside the BBEGs fortress, this one isn't based on common sense but instead on the peculiarities introduced by the rule system.Basically this will impact city-based and similar campaigns in strange ways, and ultimately having to enforce distance between objectives and limit the PCs ability to travel those distances quickly IMO is precarious solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.  To be fair, the bulk of the problems with PCs going from noob to god-like in the span of a year were introduced in 3E.  But this isn't helping.Well then the question is whether or not "blood frenzy/big fireball" is significant or not.  Recall that one of Wyatt's beefs is that every encounter but the 4th one in a given day is insignificant.  Well it wouldn't be insignificant if wizards simply used a crossbow instead of blowing all of their spells in the first three encounters.  But then DMs don't design things that way because encounters that require only "at will/encounter" level resources to overcome are not interesting.  Why this somehow is not the case in 4E continues to escape me.  So to address your "blood frenzy" statement, it appears to me to now put the fighter in the same situation as the wizard (though it does address the balancing issue, but at this cost).I am totally cool with this and if this was all that it was about I'd have nothing bad to say about this.  My probably is that, IMO, Wyatt is very clear what his issues are, and it's not a matter of mundane vs. magical flavor.  It's about resource management and AFAICT he wants to significantly change how it works in order to change the way DnD plays.There are two aspects that I see to this paragraph.  One is the magical vs. mundane flavor issue.  I will readily agree that wizards should be able to use more magical effects during combat, even if it's crossbow powered stuff.The other aspect is that it what you're saying can be interpreted as hinting at some sort of arms race.  IME adventure gaming has a tendency to raise the bar over time.  This is why Conan is considered 30th level by designers.  There's no real reason IMO why Conan isn't just 9th level except that everyone else has 9th level characters and even though you can kill scads of normal warriors at 9th level, and do things inconceivable in the real world, it's just not special anymore.  So if the power aspect of Force Slam is what is interesting, doesn't that just get taken for granted after a while?The people that I know that like to play wizards prefer them over fighters because (for one reason) they'd rather have a few strategic, important effects on the adventure rather than the consistent slogging that fighters seem to offer.  By evening out the wizard's combat ability to consistent slogging, wizards aren't offering what they used to as a class.  Making wizard powers a daily resource makes it possible for wizards to evoke interesting effects at critical times - that one big fireball that saves the party.  A level of tactical decision making that I don't see in a "100% per-encounter" design.  The trade-off is having to camp, et. al.  I just don't see any way around this that maintains game balance.</blockquote>

Verification