Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5769764" data-attributes="member: 17106">Should have seen that coming. It's an aside, but I'll answer the question (thoroughly). I think that Vancian magic is a problem; the game has largely been balanced by the idea that mages can do incredible things a few times per day and fighters can do decent things indefinitely. This didn't achieve balance very well, less so as spells became more plentiful and easy to cast. Spells aren't difficult enough to cast. The fighter and the fatigue and wounds of combat were not modeled well, and his infinite reserves of stamina aren't that useful.4e tried to fix this by adding an abstraction to where fighters and mages used the same power system. This also didn't model fatigue very well, robbed spellcasters of their diversity, and, even worse, created a &quot;per encounter&quot; distinction, even though an encounter is not an objective time unit. There's also the &quot;homogeneity&quot; and &quot;grind&quot; that even 4e advocates often complain about. Even if it was more balanced, it's hard to say that's worth it.My take on the whole thing is that limiting an ability by &quot;X uses per unit time&quot; is an anachronistic game mechanic. It doesn't achieve balance, because the amount of adventuring in a day varies enormously by group, and it creates cheesy attempts to rest and regain uses (15 minute adventuring day). In addition, it doesn't model reality very well. You could get away with it with mages because magic isn't real, but the problem was there even before the mechanics migrated towards fighters. People fatigue over time, but they aren't fine one minute and unable to swing their sword a certain way the next. If you're going to release a new edition of D&amp;D, an &quot;upgrade&quot; this is one of the prime things to fix.And yes, I have some ideas on other ways of doling out spells and other abilities (which I'm sure I'll be posting at length somewhere else).And no, I never liked 3.X barbarian rages, PF barbarian rage points, the 3.0 version of power critical, anything from the Tome of Battle, or any of the other &quot;per day&quot; or &quot;per [unit of time]&quot; mechanics that made their way into the rules during 3e. This is an edition-neutral issue. I hate &quot;per day&quot; in all editions, and I see it as a nexus of problems that many different people have with the game, along with hit points, magic items, combat maneuvers, and some other things.And no, I don't think Trailblazer's &quot;per rest&quot; solution works, that's a band-aid.Bottom line, unless you're going to take problematic rules and replace them with innovative and better mechanics that are actually better than the old ones, why would I buy a new game?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 5769764, member: 17106"] Should have seen that coming. It's an aside, but I'll answer the question (thoroughly). I think that Vancian magic is a problem; the game has largely been balanced by the idea that mages can do incredible things a few times per day and fighters can do decent things indefinitely. This didn't achieve balance very well, less so as spells became more plentiful and easy to cast. Spells aren't difficult enough to cast. The fighter and the fatigue and wounds of combat were not modeled well, and his infinite reserves of stamina aren't that useful. 4e tried to fix this by adding an abstraction to where fighters and mages used the same power system. This also didn't model fatigue very well, robbed spellcasters of their diversity, and, even worse, created a "per encounter" distinction, even though an encounter is not an objective time unit. There's also the "homogeneity" and "grind" that even 4e advocates often complain about. Even if it was more balanced, it's hard to say that's worth it. My take on the whole thing is that limiting an ability by "X uses per unit time" is an anachronistic game mechanic. It doesn't achieve balance, because the amount of adventuring in a day varies enormously by group, and it creates cheesy attempts to rest and regain uses (15 minute adventuring day). In addition, it doesn't model reality very well. You could get away with it with mages because magic isn't real, but the problem was there even before the mechanics migrated towards fighters. People fatigue over time, but they aren't fine one minute and unable to swing their sword a certain way the next. If you're going to release a new edition of D&D, an "upgrade" this is one of the prime things to fix. And yes, I have some ideas on other ways of doling out spells and other abilities (which I'm sure I'll be posting at length somewhere else). And no, I never liked 3.X barbarian rages, PF barbarian rage points, the 3.0 version of power critical, anything from the Tome of Battle, or any of the other "per day" or "per [unit of time]" mechanics that made their way into the rules during 3e. This is an edition-neutral issue. I hate "per day" in all editions, and I see it as a nexus of problems that many different people have with the game, along with hit points, magic items, combat maneuvers, and some other things. And no, I don't think Trailblazer's "per rest" solution works, that's a band-aid. Bottom line, unless you're going to take problematic rules and replace them with innovative and better mechanics [I]that are actually better than the old ones[/I], why would I buy a new game? [/QUOTE]

Verification