Your example is a tad confusing, since you seem to be talking about power selection rather than magic items, which is no different from casters picking out spells from their spell list. For the magic items being in the PHB, it makes me see it more as *improved* equipment now but I don't see how different it is in terms of access. The DM still controls access, about all you could say is that having in the PHB creates a sense of entitlement where the players could ask for specific equipment to fit their character concept. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on how you play.
It wasn't intended as indicating that I was attempting to tie magic items and powers together. I was stating that those are two of the issues I have w/ 4e. Magic items in the PHB lends a sense of entitlement to the players, that much is true - even if unintentional. The difference is that in previous editions, players didn't even get to (unless they owned the DMG or the DM let them) read about the magic items - it was up to the DM or a module writer's whimsy as to what (if any magic items) they had access to.
D&D has NEVER been low magic. Unless you ban spellcaster classes from the players, they use magic more than they poop. Player wizards make any game a "high magic" game IMO. D&D magic is almost always a safe, known commodity. Aside from a few spellls, there's little chance of magic backfiring as I would expect in a low magic world. Its always been a poor system for this type of play.
I dunno what pre-3e game you played in, but the DM had the ability to deny access to any and all magic items. He had the ability to force the players to roll for their spells and you could have found a cool scroll in a dungeon and failed the check to learn or scribe it. There was no implied message about what the DM had to let the players have for their PCs because none of the magic items were in the PHB.
That stuff should really be in a supplement, IMO. Not everyone wants their game to become Axis and Allies at 10th level, and it shouldnt be the default assumption. I actually picked up MMS for this reason, but the player that is interested int hat sort of thing handles it between sessions, because the other 4 are bored to tears with that sort of thing.
If you've never had the opportunity to engage in a political thriller type of adventure, you don't know what you are missing. Sure, MMS:WE is a toolkit, but the PC/NPC interactions should be occurring in-game and, if done right, won't be boring to the other players.
Its been my experience that everyone min-maxes, or "optimizes". First edition was easier to break, because it was so poorly designed in regards to balance (among other things). I also didnt see many fighters running around using daggers over longswords.
And when the wizard and cleric were cashed, you rested. Period. You hopped in your rope trick, played cards for 8 hours until the real party memebrs were ready to do the heavy lifting and moved on.
Oh right, you never rested in 1st/2nd edition...
And the problem with 4e is everything is so balanced, nothing distinguishes a fighter from a wizard. They both have powers that they can use x/day or x/encounter. The fighter does x damage - same as the wizard. The only difference, it seems, is the name of the power being used.
Yes, there were times where we didn't rest. In cases where the DM wanted to create tension or a sense of urgency, wandering monster encounters ensured that there was no chance to rest.
Most sane people would as well. Sort of like the fireman who doesnt wear protective gear because he's tough. I've long ago tired of "edgy" characters who rely on using weak options as crutches.
And then there's playing a well designed character well. You know, like what you do after you get bored of the guy who fights with d3 weapons and the mage who only memorizes the worst possible spells to get attention.
Whose opinion of a well-designed character? I played a rogue-based twin knife wielder (and took some PrC levels). Fit my character concept and did a decent amount of damage - but I wasn't trying for some stupid min-max munchkin. It seems like the only thing you value is a munchkin who does ludicrous amounts of damage or who can't be hit by his opponents. At that point, it becomes no fun for the other players as it becomes evident that the DM has to make an exception by having the baddies roll 20s to hit him or throw a way-overpowered creature into the mix.
Tournament modules also kept score, and were hardly indicitive of normal play. As to going on when the party was out of spells, I frankly do not believe you. When you're out of healing, you rest, unless something absoloutely prevents you from tossing a rope trick, spiking a dungeon door or retreating. You can say your party ran around naked, with 2 HP and nothing but a pointy stick to attack with all you want. I can also call hogwash. Out of spells meant you quit, unless your DM is going out of his way to play with kidskin gloves.
Wrong. Smart, focused players managed to survive without the use of magic - it all gets down to not having the wizard blow his load (of spells) all in the first two minutes (of the scene)...
