The wizard and cleric used up all of their spells. Who cares?

This came up in our last gaming session (Pathfinder) with a new player (a guy who only played 4e) joing our crew. 

The guy was worried because after one fight (early in the session) the wizard and cleric used up most of their combat spells. Another player said "don't worry, this was propably the only fight of the night". The guy got up and left saying vancian sucked (I guess he was familiar with the forums). 

What is up with that? Do we really need mechanics for more than one fight per in game day (and by that I mean in game weeks)?



 
This came up in our last gaming session (Pathfinder) with a new player (a guy who only played 4e) joing our crew. 

The guy was worried because after one fight (early in the session) the wizard and cleric used up most of their combat spells. Another player said "don't worry, this was propably the only fight of the night". The guy got up and left saying vancian sucked (I guess he was familiar with the forums). 

What is up with that? Do we really need mechanics for more than one fight per in game day (and by that I mean in game weeks)?



 



Yes. If the Wizard can't feel magical all day there is a problem. If the Cleric can't feel miracley all day there is a problem...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Risk vs. reward is one of the core building blocks of fun and games. So, to me, having the players have the option of weighing the risks of burning spells now vs. the rewards Is fun. Some don't agree.
I'm not too worried about it in the long run. There are plenty of systems out there for both sides. I actually have a lot of faith in them finding a nice way for everyone to play together in the end.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
Risk vs. reward is one of the core building blocks of fun and games. So, to me, having the players have the option of weighing the risks of burning spells now vs. the rewards Is fun. Some don't agree.
I'm not too worried about it in the long run. There are plenty of systems out there for both sides. I actually have a lot of faith in them finding a nice way for everyone to play together in the end.



I and others don't have a problem with risk versus reward or resource managment, we just don't want to end up playing a crossbow user most of the time if we pick the wrong spells or run out. At-wills are helping to remove this so we can feel magical all the time, but we are still left either being 45% power of the Fighter for the rest of the day because we picked the wrong spells or we ran out. Now with the upcoming packet with the Wizard getting to pick any prepared spell to cast for as many slots as they have some of that problem will be mitigated. Now all we need is the option to turn any daily spell into a weaker encounter spell...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Risk vs. reward is one of the core building blocks of fun and games. So, to me, having the players have the option of weighing the risks of burning spells now vs. the rewards Is fun. Some don't agree.
I'm not too worried about it in the long run. There are plenty of systems out there for both sides. I actually have a lot of faith in them finding a nice way for everyone to play together in the end.



I and others don't have a problem with risk versus reward or resource managment, we just don't want to end up playing a crossbow user most of the time if we pick the wrong spells or run out. At-wills are helping to remove this so we can feel magical all the time, but we are still left either being 45% power of the Fighter for the rest of the day because we picked the wrong spells or we ran out. Now with the upcoming packet with the Wizard getting to pick any prepared spell to cast for as many slots as they have some of that problem will be mitigated. Now all we need is the option to turn any daily spell into a weaker encounter spell...


I mean... wizards get to do so much cool stuff. Its hard to feel sorry for them if the fighter gets to be more consistent overall... Tricky buggers can pick locks, read language, open portals, fake out fools, charm people and hit whole groups of enemies at once. God forbid they deal less dmagae than fighters when they aren't busy wrecking house and shooting auto-hit flaming skulls.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
Risk vs. reward is one of the core building blocks of fun and games. So, to me, having the players have the option of weighing the risks of burning spells now vs. the rewards Is fun. Some don't agree.
I'm not too worried about it in the long run. There are plenty of systems out there for both sides. I actually have a lot of faith in them finding a nice way for everyone to play together in the end.



I and others don't have a problem with risk versus reward or resource managment, we just don't want to end up playing a crossbow user most of the time if we pick the wrong spells or run out. At-wills are helping to remove this so we can feel magical all the time, but we are still left either being 45% power of the Fighter for the rest of the day because we picked the wrong spells or we ran out. Now with the upcoming packet with the Wizard getting to pick any prepared spell to cast for as many slots as they have some of that problem will be mitigated. Now all we need is the option to turn any daily spell into a weaker encounter spell...


I mean... wizards get to do so much cool stuff. Its hard to feel sorry for them if the fighter gets to be more consistent overall... Tricky buggers can pick locks, read language, open portals, fake out fools, charm people and hit whole groups of enemies at once. God forbid they deal less dmagae than fighters when they aren't busy wrecking house and shooting auto-hit flaming skulls.



The solution is to take the God out of God Wizard, not limit the God Wizard to X number of times per day. Or at least allow for an option to limit it. That way I can ban pure vancian from my games and you can ban the alternative from your games and we can play the same game...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Do we really need mechanics for more than one fight per in game day (and by that I mean in game weeks)



Yes. Yes we do.



Yep, pretty much the reason why I love Encounter and At-Will powers from 4E (and to a lesser extent, 3E with Reserve Feats). No one wants to become a liability to their group. A Wizard with no more spells and resorts to using a pathetic ranged weapons (which he sucks with because of poor weapon bonus) IS a liability. Now, perhaps the progression of AC is as such in D&D:Next where the Wizard is still hitting with that crossbow 50% of the time with a mediocre Dex-modifier and that would be a boon, but I don't think I should be "non-magical" at all.

Yes, I want my cake and eat it too.
It is very likely, if the wizard and cleric used most of their spells in a single fight, that they utterly dominated that combat, overshadowing all other characters. You didn't tell us which class the 4e guy was playing. Maybe he was playing a fighter (or some other non-god class in 3e) and he was like: 

"Well you casters destroyed that encounter, but now you can't do it again, right?"
"Ha, no, we'll just rest and do it again next time"
"Vancian sucks!" 

Just an hypothesis.
This came up in our last gaming session (Pathfinder) with a new player (a guy who only played 4e) joing our crew. 

The guy was worried because after one fight (early in the session) the wizard and cleric used up most of their combat spells. Another player said "don't worry, this was propably the only fight of the night". The guy got up and left saying vancian sucked (I guess he was familiar with the forums). 

What is up with that? Do we really need mechanics for more than one fight per in game day (and by that I mean in game weeks)?



 



I don't blame him and maybe it wasn't so much that he was familiar with the forums and more that he honestly doesn't like vancian and the imbalances that it leads to.  Thats not a crime you know.  There are those of us who honestly don't like the way that vancian distorts the game.
 
This story is an example of the 5MWD in action - it sounds like the Cleric/Wizard players know how this DM runs his games - and that's if the Wizards/Clerics have no spells left there isn't likely going to be another combat for the rest of the day.  There is no Risk vs. Reward.  They cast their spells and get to not worry about it.

There could be a lot of reasons for this - the players have previously strongarmed the DM into this type of game, the DM just feels bad for the players not being able to do much after they are out of spells, or could even just be a poorly writen adventure.  

 
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
Vancian classes could be ignored after having burning all their spells in one fight if the healing wasn't vancian based. If the healing is kept as an encounter ressource, the non-vancian pace of the adventure may force the vancian people to change their behaviors.
This came up in our last gaming session (Pathfinder) with a new player (a guy who only played 4e) joing our crew. 

The guy was worried because after one fight (early in the session) the wizard and cleric used up most of their combat spells. Another player said "don't worry, this was propably the only fight of the night". The guy got up and left saying vancian sucked (I guess he was familiar with the forums). 

What is up with that? Do we really need mechanics for more than one fight per in game day (and by that I mean in game weeks)?



 

What worries me most is, that the other players told him:

"Waste all your spells immediately, the DM will not attack us again until you rested."

This is exactly the mindset, which makes casters imbalanced, makes the game unfun etc.
The most interesting thing in vancian cating is managing your resources wisely. And just blasting everything and sleeping again is just not working.
This is a heavily metagamed scenario: the wizard wasts all his precious spells, and knows, there is no punishment for that.

And here comes the reservation:
When the wizards saves his precious vancian slots, he should at least do some basic magic tricks. I hope the ne scaling cantrips/at-wills will really fulfill that role.

In 4e it worked halfway decent.  
This story is an example of the 5MWD in action - it sounds like the Cleric/Wizard players know how this DM runs his games - and that's if the Wizards/Clerics have no spells left there isn't likely going to be another combat for the rest of the day.  There is no Risk vs. Reward.  They cast their spells and get to not worry about it.

There could be a lot of reasons for this - the players have previously strongarmed the DM into this type of game, the DM just feels bad for the players not being able to do much after they are out of spells, or could even just be a poorly writen adventure.  

 

And this is clearly a fault of the DM. Set some examples what could happen, if the caster burns his spells unwisely and the game works fine. ;)

(He should however be careful that he first makes it clear, that a caster who saved spells is doing well, otherwise players could feel, that he attacked them just because the wizard did not cast wisely)
It is very likely, if the wizard and cleric used most of their spells in a single fight, that they utterly dominated that combat, overshadowing all other characters. You didn't tell us which class the 4e guy was playing. Maybe he was playing a fighter (or some other non-god class in 3e) and he was like: 

"Well you casters destroyed that encounter, but now you can't do it again, right?"  



Nyeh, that would be "just watch me destroy the next one" 
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

It is very likely, if the wizard and cleric used most of their spells in a single fight, that they utterly dominated that combat, overshadowing all other characters. You didn't tell us which class the 4e guy was playing. Maybe he was playing a fighter (or some other non-god class in 3e) and he was like: 

"Well you casters destroyed that encounter, but now you can't do it again, right?"  



Nyeh, that would be "just watch me destroy the next one" 
 


After the pyrotechnic magic show, it would be only fair to let the fighter types enjoy themselves ;)
No reason why there can't be ruels to accomodate both playstyles. More importantly these rules should be easy.

I like a survivalist feel, in the last game I played in as a cleric, I cast 0 spells in the first 3 encounters. By the 5th encounter I was out. But doesn't mean I wouldn't also enjoy a style of cleric that's AED. 

I would most like a magic rules module that allows traditional casters to trade x slots for encounter spells, so that my one charachter can do both styles per my fancy. 

 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

No reason why there can't be ruels to accomodate both playstyles. More importantly these rules should be easy.

I like a survivalist feel, in the last game I played in as a cleric, I cast 0 spells in the first 3 encounters. By the 5th encounter I was out. But doesn't mean I wouldn't also enjoy a style of cleric that's AED. 

I would most like a magic rules module that allows traditional casters to trade x slots for encounter spells, so that my one charachter can do both styles per my fancy. 

 



We've already suggested something that works even better. You just add a line to each spell for each type of casting:

Magic Missile
1st-­‐level evocation
A spell famous for its reliability, magic missile produces one or more darts of magical force that unerringly strike their target.
Effect: Choose a number of creatures within 100 feet of you, one for each missile. The targets take 1d4+1 force damage per missile. You gain one extra missile per spell slot level that the spell is memorized in so a 1st level spell slot would be 1 extra missile, a 5th level spell slot would be 5 extra missiles.
At-Will: One missile. (because at-wills are counted as 0th level spell slots)
Encounter: One missiles.
Daily: Two missiles.
Ritual: The ritual form of this spell takes 1 minute to cast per missile created.

See? Win/Win. You can go full vancian we can go full at-will or encounter or a mix...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
No reason why there can't be ruels to accomodate both playstyles. More importantly these rules should be easy.

I like a survivalist feel, in the last game I played in as a cleric, I cast 0 spells in the first 3 encounters. By the 5th encounter I was out. But doesn't mean I wouldn't also enjoy a style of cleric that's AED. 

I would most like a magic rules module that allows traditional casters to trade x slots for encounter spells, so that my one charachter can do both styles per my fancy. 

 



We've already suggested something that works even better. You just add a line to each spell for each type of casting:

Magic Missile
1st-­‐level evocation
A spell famous for its reliability, magic missile produces one or more darts of magical force that unerringly strike their target.
Effect: Choose a number of creatures within 100 feet of you, one for each missile. The targets take 1d4+1 force damage per missile. You gain one extra missile per spell slot level that the spell is memorized in so a 1st level spell slot would be 1 extra missile, a 5th level spell slot would be 5 extra missiles.
At-Will: One missile. (because at-wills are counted as 0th level spell slots)
Encounter: One missiles.
Daily: Two missiles.
Ritual: The ritual form of this spell takes 1 minute to cast per missile created.

See? Win/Win. You can go full vancian we can go full at-will or encounter or a mix...



You're not listeneing brah, I don't want to go full vancian, yo.

I want options also. 

They possibly could do this, but definately don't bank on it. Couple reasons why, that should be apparent. You won't see any rules written into the spells that explain how to use them in a module. In the same way football commentators won't explain how a yellow card in soccer works during the super bowl. ALL core content will be core content. All optional and Advanced content will be in its own sub sections. period. If they dont; do this they are making a huge design mistake for all new players.

Also their goal is to allow 4ed players to continue their style, but I'm pretty sure they are not trying to make more of you. They want new adopters to 5e to be 5e playstlye. So why would they write 4e playstyle into the core rules? Answer: they won't. It will be a side note, optional, and module style. 

You will likely never see these words side by side anywhere in the book except in a module "At-will, encounter, Daily" in the same way you won't see "thac0"

SO I reccomend you rethink your idea if you want it included, to at least provide an acceptable alternative that doesn't mean the core is filled with module rules. 


My mind is a deal-breaker.

What is up with that?

Sounds like he didn't like Vancian.  
Do we really need mechanics for more than one fight per in game day (and by that I mean in game weeks)? 


Yeah, we do.  Some people like to have more than one fight in the game day, they oughta be able to do it.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
No reason why there can't be ruels to accomodate both playstyles. More importantly these rules should be easy.

I like a survivalist feel, in the last game I played in as a cleric, I cast 0 spells in the first 3 encounters. By the 5th encounter I was out. But doesn't mean I wouldn't also enjoy a style of cleric that's AED. 

I would most like a magic rules module that allows traditional casters to trade x slots for encounter spells, so that my one charachter can do both styles per my fancy. 

 



We've already suggested something that works even better. You just add a line to each spell for each type of casting:

Magic Missile
1st-­‐level evocation
A spell famous for its reliability, magic missile produces one or more darts of magical force that unerringly strike their target.
Effect: Choose a number of creatures within 100 feet of you, one for each missile. The targets take 1d4+1 force damage per missile. You gain one extra missile per spell slot level that the spell is memorized in so a 1st level spell slot would be 1 extra missile, a 5th level spell slot would be 5 extra missiles.
At-Will: One missile. (because at-wills are counted as 0th level spell slots)
Encounter: One missiles.
Daily: Two missiles.
Ritual: The ritual form of this spell takes 1 minute to cast per missile created.

See? Win/Win. You can go full vancian we can go full at-will or encounter or a mix...



To be clear... I'm not against this idea at all personally, I would be mostly fine with it.  
Just that developers shouldn't and most likely won't conisder it.WinkWink

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Currently, clerics and wizards do suck compared to the rogue, fighter, or monk.   2 rounds per day the casters are barely ahead, the rest of the time they are way behind.

This has nothing to do with a vancent in particular (people usually fear it's power, not complain of it's wimpyness).  Just the balance of the current packet is off (i almost wonder if it's intentionally showing that the system can be weak).

But still, they acknowledged this and said that casters where getting more spells, as well as scaling at-wills.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

This came up in our last gaming session (Pathfinder) with a new player (a guy who only played 4e) joing our crew. 

The guy was worried because after one fight (early in the session) the wizard and cleric used up most of their combat spells. Another player said "don't worry, this was propably the only fight of the night". The guy got up and left saying vancian sucked (I guess he was familiar with the forums). 

What is up with that? Do we really need mechanics for more than one fight per in game day (and by that I mean in game weeks)? 


We have rules for more than one fight per day. I've played many, many sessions of 3e with multiple fights in one day. They just have to be smaller fights and there needs to be a motive not to rest (so spellcasters do not nova). 
Pathfinder makes this even easier as there are At-will spells. So wizards and the like NEVER run out of spells.

I'd have to say the player was being a bit of a dick, and letting edition wars get the best of him. (If he had only played 4e prior, and walked away afterr a single fight, this does mean he was likely pre-biased). The situation you describe is pretty simmilar to characters walking into a room and dropping all their Dailies right away because it's the only fight. Vancian has nothing to do with it.

From what you said, it also sounds like that was the only fight of the session. Was there only one fight the entire game? Because that would also change things.  

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

This came up in our last gaming session (Pathfinder) with a new player (a guy who only played 4e) joing our crew. 

The guy was worried because after one fight (early in the session) the wizard and cleric used up most of their combat spells. Another player said "don't worry, this was propably the only fight of the night". The guy got up and left saying vancian sucked (I guess he was familiar with the forums). 

What is up with that? Do we really need mechanics for more than one fight per in game day (and by that I mean in game weeks)? 


We have rules for more than one fight per day. I've played many, many sessions of 3e with multiple fights in one day. They just have to be smaller fights and there needs to be a motive not to rest (so spellcasters do not nova). 
Pathfinder makes this even easier as there are At-will spells. So wizards and the like NEVER run out of spells.

I'd have to say the player was being a bit of a dick, and letting edition wars get the best of him. (If he had only played 4e prior, and walked away afterr a single fight, this does mean he was likely pre-biased). The situation you describe is pretty simmilar to characters walking into a room and dropping all their Dailies right away because it's the only fight. Vancian has nothing to do with it.

From what you said, it also sounds like that was the only fight of the session. Was there only one fight the entire game? Because that would also change things.  




I have to agree. I don't care how much you don't like some game mechanics, this seems like a bit extreme.
It is a G A M E.... No need to turn any tables over....

However if anyone ever lays those squares down on a table I'm sitting at... I'll introduce him too a sucker punch and an uncomfortable landing into a punch bowl.... Then say something like "goodnight sweet prince."Wink

My mind is a deal-breaker.

No reason why there can't be ruels to accomodate both playstyles. More importantly these rules should be easy.

I like a survivalist feel, in the last game I played in as a cleric, I cast 0 spells in the first 3 encounters. By the 5th encounter I was out. But doesn't mean I wouldn't also enjoy a style of cleric that's AED. 

I would most like a magic rules module that allows traditional casters to trade x slots for encounter spells, so that my one charachter can do both styles per my fancy. 

 



We've already suggested something that works even better. You just add a line to each spell for each type of casting:

Magic Missile
1st-­‐level evocation
A spell famous for its reliability, magic missile produces one or more darts of magical force that unerringly strike their target.
Effect: Choose a number of creatures within 100 feet of you, one for each missile. The targets take 1d4+1 force damage per missile. You gain one extra missile per spell slot level that the spell is memorized in so a 1st level spell slot would be 1 extra missile, a 5th level spell slot would be 5 extra missiles.
At-Will: One missile. (because at-wills are counted as 0th level spell slots)
Encounter: One missiles.
Daily: Two missiles.
Ritual: The ritual form of this spell takes 1 minute to cast per missile created.

See? Win/Win. You can go full vancian we can go full at-will or encounter or a mix...



You're not listeneing brah, I don't want to go full vancian, yo.

I want options also. 

They possibly could do this, but definately don't bank on it. Couple reasons why, that should be apparent. You won't see any rules written into the spells that explain how to use them in a module. In the same way football commentators won't explain how a yellow card in soccer works during the super bowl. ALL core content will be core content. All optional and Advanced content will be in its own sub sections. period. If they dont; do this they are making a huge design mistake for all new players.

Also their goal is to allow 4ed players to continue their style, but I'm pretty sure they are not trying to make more of you. They want new adopters to 5e to be 5e playstlye. So why would they write 4e playstyle into the core rules? Answer: they won't. It will be a side note, optional, and module style. 

You will likely never see these words side by side anywhere in the book except in a module "At-will, encounter, Daily" in the same way you won't see "thac0"

SO I reccomend you rethink your idea if you want it included, to at least provide an acceptable alternative that doesn't mean the core is filled with module rules. 





You may want to mention it in the next poll then because they stuck all kinds of optional rules all over in the packet. So my suggestion would fit perfectly. You can also change the names to whatever is appropriate...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
No reason why there can't be ruels to accomodate both playstyles. More importantly these rules should be easy.

I like a survivalist feel, in the last game I played in as a cleric, I cast 0 spells in the first 3 encounters. By the 5th encounter I was out. But doesn't mean I wouldn't also enjoy a style of cleric that's AED. 

I would most like a magic rules module that allows traditional casters to trade x slots for encounter spells, so that my one charachter can do both styles per my fancy. 

 



We've already suggested something that works even better. You just add a line to each spell for each type of casting:

Magic Missile
1st-­‐level evocation
A spell famous for its reliability, magic missile produces one or more darts of magical force that unerringly strike their target.
Effect: Choose a number of creatures within 100 feet of you, one for each missile. The targets take 1d4+1 force damage per missile. You gain one extra missile per spell slot level that the spell is memorized in so a 1st level spell slot would be 1 extra missile, a 5th level spell slot would be 5 extra missiles.
At-Will: One missile. (because at-wills are counted as 0th level spell slots)
Encounter: One missiles.
Daily: Two missiles.
Ritual: The ritual form of this spell takes 1 minute to cast per missile created.

See? Win/Win. You can go full vancian we can go full at-will or encounter or a mix...



You're not listeneing brah, I don't want to go full vancian, yo.

I want options also. 

They possibly could do this, but definately don't bank on it. Couple reasons why, that should be apparent. You won't see any rules written into the spells that explain how to use them in a module. In the same way football commentators won't explain how a yellow card in soccer works during the super bowl. ALL core content will be core content. All optional and Advanced content will be in its own sub sections. period. If they dont; do this they are making a huge design mistake for all new players.

Also their goal is to allow 4ed players to continue their style, but I'm pretty sure they are not trying to make more of you. They want new adopters to 5e to be 5e playstlye. So why would they write 4e playstyle into the core rules? Answer: they won't. It will be a side note, optional, and module style. 

You will likely never see these words side by side anywhere in the book except in a module "At-will, encounter, Daily" in the same way you won't see "thac0"

SO I reccomend you rethink your idea if you want it included, to at least provide an acceptable alternative that doesn't mean the core is filled with module rules. 





You may want to mention it in the next poll then because they stuck all kinds of optional rules all over in the packet. So my suggestion would fit perfectly. You can also change the names to whatever is appropriate...




That's what I'm saying. There are optional rules in little sub areas. Do you think each individual spell will look like:

Magic Missile
1st-­‐level evocation
A spell famous for its reliability, magic missile produces one or more darts of magical force that unerringly strike their target. 
Effect: Choose a number of creatures within 100 feet of you, one for each missile. The targets take 1d4+1 force damage per missile. You gain one extra missile per spell slot level that the spell is memorized in so a 1st level spell slot would be 1 extra missile, a 5th level spell slot would be 5 extra missiles.
Ritual: The ritual form of this spell takes 1 minute to cast per missile created.


Optional for 4e module:
At-Will:
 One missile. (because at-wills are counted as 0th level spell slots)
Encounter: One missiles.
Daily: Two missiles.


Its Easy to see how this idea also clearly doubles the size of the spellbook also.

EDIT: had to say one more thing...
Do you really really deep down think they will do this x500 spells? Do you really think this would be a good thing for ALL players? All I;m suggesting is that you guys are smart to think of a way to do it with out something so ridiculous. Thus not proposing a Catch 22 situation.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I'm all for resting when the magicians are out of spells...but this is probably because of the DM I played who would make every encounter assume you were at top shape. He practically encouraged the idea of resting after the spell casters run out of spells. If we kept playing we would probably die because we wouldn't be strong enough to survive.

But yes there should be more than one encoutner per day, and a DM should take the opportunity to attack the PCs/make a situation where they feel they should help someone being attacked while the PCs are resting. Or if it takes three days to get to the orge cave, have the ogre move on already and get them to have to search for him again.

A lot of the 5MWD Issues can be attributed to the DM starting with a tough encounter and not trusting him to not have another tough encounter before you rest. So for example, say your wizard player messes up and casts fireball in the first tough encounter, where the DM made the second tough encounter actually need fireball to eliminate a large number of players. If the DM doesn't adjust the second encounter, then the party probably dies due to to many monsters. If the DM does adust the enounter there hasn't been a good measure of risk vs. reward. FIrst encourages 5MWD, last lets you know you can waste spells however you like and the DM will adust the next encounter or realize you are to weak for his planned encounter and still end up with a 5MWD.

I think 5MWD is largely the result of players not wanting to die. 
I think 5MWD is largely the result of players not wanting to die. 



I agree, but its a matter of perspective, in my last session as a player (lvl 4 cleric) I casted 0 spells in the first 3 encounters, because I wanted to save them for when I needed them. We had 3 avg encounters and 2 tough encounters (thus exceeding the Next suggestion by quite a bit). I can't say that I was in love with this session, but I can easily imagine times where this style of alternates with days where we do nova, thus the different individuals in the group shift into focus at different times.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

No reason why there can't be ruels to accomodate both playstyles. More importantly these rules should be easy.

I like a survivalist feel, in the last game I played in as a cleric, I cast 0 spells in the first 3 encounters. By the 5th encounter I was out. But doesn't mean I wouldn't also enjoy a style of cleric that's AED. 

I would most like a magic rules module that allows traditional casters to trade x slots for encounter spells, so that my one charachter can do both styles per my fancy. 

 



We've already suggested something that works even better. You just add a line to each spell for each type of casting:

Magic Missile
1st-­‐level evocation
A spell famous for its reliability, magic missile produces one or more darts of magical force that unerringly strike their target.
Effect: Choose a number of creatures within 100 feet of you, one for each missile. The targets take 1d4+1 force damage per missile. You gain one extra missile per spell slot level that the spell is memorized in so a 1st level spell slot would be 1 extra missile, a 5th level spell slot would be 5 extra missiles.
At-Will: One missile. (because at-wills are counted as 0th level spell slots)
Encounter: One missiles.
Daily: Two missiles.
Ritual: The ritual form of this spell takes 1 minute to cast per missile created.

See? Win/Win. You can go full vancian we can go full at-will or encounter or a mix...



You're not listeneing brah, I don't want to go full vancian, yo.

I want options also. 

They possibly could do this, but definately don't bank on it. Couple reasons why, that should be apparent. You won't see any rules written into the spells that explain how to use them in a module. In the same way football commentators won't explain how a yellow card in soccer works during the super bowl. ALL core content will be core content. All optional and Advanced content will be in its own sub sections. period. If they dont; do this they are making a huge design mistake for all new players.

Also their goal is to allow 4ed players to continue their style, but I'm pretty sure they are not trying to make more of you. They want new adopters to 5e to be 5e playstlye. So why would they write 4e playstyle into the core rules? Answer: they won't. It will be a side note, optional, and module style. 

You will likely never see these words side by side anywhere in the book except in a module "At-will, encounter, Daily" in the same way you won't see "thac0"

SO I reccomend you rethink your idea if you want it included, to at least provide an acceptable alternative that doesn't mean the core is filled with module rules. 





You may want to mention it in the next poll then because they stuck all kinds of optional rules all over in the packet. So my suggestion would fit perfectly. You can also change the names to whatever is appropriate...




That's what I'm saying. There are optional rules in little sub areas. Do you think each individual spell will look like:

Magic Missile
1st-­‐level evocation
A spell famous for its reliability, magic missile produces one or more darts of magical force that unerringly strike their target. 
Effect: Choose a number of creatures within 100 feet of you, one for each missile. The targets take 1d4+1 force damage per missile. You gain one extra missile per spell slot level that the spell is memorized in so a 1st level spell slot would be 1 extra missile, a 5th level spell slot would be 5 extra missiles.
Ritual: The ritual form of this spell takes 1 minute to cast per missile created.


Optional for 4e module:
At-Will:
 One missile. (because at-wills are counted as 0th level spell slots)
Encounter: One missiles.
Daily: Two missiles.


Its Easy to see how this idea also clearly doubles the size of the spellbook also.

EDIT: had to say one more thing...
Do you really really deep down think they will do this x500 spells? Do you really think this would be a good thing for ALL players? All I;m suggesting is that you guys are smart to think of a way to do it with out something so ridiculous. Thus not proposing a Catch 22 situation.



Where are you getting 500 spells from? If adding 3 lines to each spell makes 35% more people customers then yeah I'd have to say its worth it. Ridiculous? Not really. Spells will take up slightly more space, but then you don't have to create multiple classes or whatever like Mearls originally wanted...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I'm all for resting when the magicians are out of spells...but this is probably because of the DM I played who would make every encounter assume you were at top shape. He practically encouraged the idea of resting after the spell casters run out of spells. If we kept playing we would probably die because we wouldn't be strong enough to survive.

But yes there should be more than one encoutner per day, and a DM should take the opportunity to attack the PCs/make a situation where they feel they should help someone being attacked while the PCs are resting. Or if it takes three days to get to the orge cave, have the ogre move on already and get them to have to search for him again.

A lot of the 5MWD Issues can be attributed to the DM starting with a tough encounter and not trusting him to not have another tough encounter before you rest. So for example, say your wizard player messes up and casts fireball in the first tough encounter, where the DM made the second tough encounter actually need fireball to eliminate a large number of players. If the DM doesn't adjust the second encounter, then the party probably dies due to to many monsters. If the DM does adust the enounter there hasn't been a good measure of risk vs. reward. FIrst encourages 5MWD, last lets you know you can waste spells however you like and the DM will adust the next encounter or realize you are to weak for his planned encounter and still end up with a 5MWD.

I think 5MWD is largely the result of players not wanting to die. 



Are we really going to run in circles again? Please don't repeat the 5MWD thread. It was discussed to death...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
At the very least, the guy should have stayed for the rest of the session to see if it truly was the only encounter for the day.  If the DM confirmed it, and it was more the just wishful hoping on the part of magician-players, and if he wasn't having fun with his own contributions to the game (in or out of combat), then it would make sense to leave after that session and hold a legitimate grievance against Vancian casting.

Personally, I would more likely hold a grievance against the other players (for meta-gaming and going all-out without regards to future safety), or against the DM (if the single-encounter day did not follow naturally from the rest of the world setting).

Funny story (not really, but bear with me), but I'm actually playing in a Pathfinder game of my own, where I'm the paladin in a group with a rogue, wizard, and cleric.  The wizard spent all of her spells in the first encounter, because she didn't want to just ray of frost or longbow the assorted baddies.  Over the course of the next two sessions, the party subsequently engaged in four other encounters in that same game-day, and the wizard resorted to at-wills (with occasional detect magic and spellcraft/arcana checks).  The wizard player called in sick to both sessions

And then, in the middle of the night, just as the wizard was resting in order to prepare new spells, there was a disturbance on yon horizon and my paladin led eveyone off to investigate.  I wonder how the wizard player will feel, coming back to the game three weeks later only to find that she is still out of spells.

The metagame is not the game.


But yes there should be more than one encoutner per day, and a DM should take the opportunity to attack the PCs/make a situation where they feel they should help someone being attacked while the PCs are resting. 


There are sessions with two fights. And sometimes they are in the same game day. But we like our fights to have meaning. We find dungeons boring, we prefere to roleplay than rollplay. 

Casters need to be ready for fights but also to research and travel. So they spread their spells over combat, divination and travel spells to be ready for whatever the DM throws at us (fights are often unannounced so players take a lot of risks). 5e's ritual system will make the casters happy. More combat spells and the utility spells will be cast has ritual mostly (if we switch or decide to import the system to PF).

Everyone feels they contribute to fights. No one is jealous among us. The guy who left played a ranged and we actually fought his favorite race during the fight. I think he just didn't like roleplay and just likes to have fights after fights. 

Nothing wrong with that, but not our cup of tea. Designers should have this style of play in their mind when designing. Dungeons delves aren't for roleplayers.  
I have to agree. I don't care how much you don't like some game mechanics, this seems like a bit extreme.
It is a G A M E.... No need to turn any tables over....


If we're going with the "It's just a game" reasoning, then what he did was perfectly reasonable.  It's just a game.  Games are for fun.  If a game isn't fun, you stop playing it.  Simple as that.

Not like he kicked the table over and set the house on fire or anything.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
No, his behaviour really was resonable. I wouldn´t play with them either, if they told me that 5MWD is the solution for playing D&D or pathfinder.

For me, that would be badwrongfun and I would also leave. If they instead told him: you can make some scrolls for very cheap to get over the frst few levels. After that, you have enough spells to use over the course of a day.

Although I also hesitated from playing pure mages, as only saving up is no real fun... this is why fighter mages or bards were always a lot more popular with me, and some self buffs to be a useful fighter while you safe up the big spells for special situations.
Actually the 4e bladesinger was a very good example of how you could design a cool fighter mage (if you forget, that he had int and dex as prime stats and no real encounter spells... the concept was actually great!)
No, his behaviour really was resonable. I wouldn´t play with them either, if they told me that 5MWD is the solution for playing D&D or pathfinder.

For me, that would be badwrongfun and I would also leave. If they instead told him: you can make some scrolls for very cheap to get over the frst few levels. After that, you have enough spells to use over the course of a day.

Although I also hesitated from playing pure mages, as only saving up is no real fun... this is why fighter mages or bards were always a lot more popular with me, and some self buffs to be a useful fighter while you safe up the big spells for special situations.
Actually the 4e bladesinger was a very good example of how you could design a cool fighter mage (if you forget, that he had int and dex as prime stats and no real encounter spells... the concept was actually great!)


Ummm.. I don't think this counts as a true part of the 5MWD discussion. Or rather, it's a good example of why hard mechanical reasons to prevent a 5MWD might be problematic, as the rest of the party seems to want only one or two fights each session. 

It sounded more like he either really did not like the play style of the group, or had his mind already made up about the game and just want to "confirm" his opinion. Either way, storming out mid game seems like a dick move.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

What is up with that? Do we really need mechanics for more than one fight per in game day (and by that I mean in game weeks)? 

In 3.5 or 5e, yes, you do need more than one fight per day, because what balance there may be is based upon a certain level of challenge burning through a certain amount of resources before the last challenges are reached, so that at-will-only classes can be said to be balanced with Vancian ones.   Not enough challenge in each day (with any challenge at all), and the Vancian types have it far too easy, and dominate; too much challenge in each day and they get tapped out while there's still adventuring to be done and the story is disrupted (you have to 'rest' at an inapropriate point) or the party unable to handle those final challenges (unless they're trivial challenges, of course).  It's a very old idea, going all the way back to the earliest incarnations of the game, only 4e deviated from it, and not by much - it still assumed multi-encounter days, deviating just didn't impact class balance.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

What is up with that? Do we really need mechanics for more than one fight per in game day (and by that I mean in game weeks)? 

In 3.5 or 5e, yes, you do need more than one fight per day, because what balance there may be is based upon a certain level of challenge burning through a certain amount of resources before the last challenges are reached, so that at-will-only classes can be said to be balanced with Vancian ones.   Not enough challenge in each day (with any challenge at all), and the Vancian types have it far too easy, and dominate; too much challenge in each day and they get tapped out while there's still adventuring to be done and the story is disrupted (you have to 'rest' at an inapropriate point) or the party unable to handle those final challenges (unless they're trivial challenges, of course).  It's a very old idea, going all the way back to the earliest incarnations of the game, only 4e deviated from it, and not by much - it still assumed multi-encounter days, deviating just didn't impact class balance.


No, that is not true. Maybe in your experience but not ours. It's not an objective fact, but an subjective one.

Play style, DM quality and how players act have more of an impact on balance than the pure mechanics. As I said 4 posts above yours.

But yes there should be more than one encoutner per day, and a DM should take the opportunity to attack the PCs/make a situation where they feel they should help someone being attacked while the PCs are resting. 


There are sessions with two fights. And sometimes they are in the same game day. But we like our fights to have meaning. We find dungeons boring, we prefere to roleplay than rollplay. 

Casters need to be ready for fights but also to research and travel. So they spread their spells over combat, divination and travel spells to be ready for whatever the DM throws at us (fights are often unannounced so players take a lot of risks). 5e's ritual system will make the casters happy. More combat spells and the utility spells will be cast has ritual mostly (if we switch or decide to import the system to PF).

Everyone feels they contribute to fights. No one is jealous among us. The guy who left played a ranged and we actually fought his favorite race during the fight. I think he just didn't like roleplay and just likes to have fights after fights. 

Nothing wrong with that, but not our cup of tea. Designers should have this style of play in their mind when designing. Dungeons delves aren't for roleplayers.  



No, they're just not for the roleplayers your playing with.  Because me?  I play in a very RP heavy game - and we go dungeon delving.  Quite often in fact.  But the reason we're delving is part of the RP.  As is what happens during the delve & as a result of the delve. 
No, his behaviour really was resonable. I wouldn´t play with them either, if they told me that 5MWD is the solution for playing D&D or pathfinder.

For me, that would be badwrongfun and I would also leave. If they instead told him: you can make some scrolls for very cheap to get over the frst few levels. After that, you have enough spells to use over the course of a day.

Although I also hesitated from playing pure mages, as only saving up is no real fun... this is why fighter mages or bards were always a lot more popular with me, and some self buffs to be a useful fighter while you safe up the big spells for special situations.
Actually the 4e bladesinger was a very good example of how you could design a cool fighter mage (if you forget, that he had int and dex as prime stats and no real encounter spells... the concept was actually great!)


Ummm.. I don't think this counts as a true part of the 5MWD discussion. Or rather, it's a good example of why hard mechanical reasons to prevent a 5MWD might be problematic, as the rest of the party seems to want only one or two fights each session. 

It sounded more like he either really did not like the play style of the group, or had his mind already made up about the game and just want to "confirm" his opinion. Either way, storming out mid game seems like a dick move.

I really do believe, that the 5MWD issue is a DM-Player problem, that can´t be solved. I remember all those 15MWD threats of 4e...
and 4e pretty much extinguished the need for constant rests, if the DM balanced the encounters well. Especially in the MM3 and later era.

I think your two possible conclusions are sound. However, I don´t think it is really a dick move. Sometimes it is better to leave than to have no fun or even spoil the other people´s fun.
What is up with that? Do we really need mechanics for more than one fight per in game day (and by that I mean in game weeks)? 

In 3.5 or 5e, yes, you do need more than one fight per day, because what balance there may be is based upon a certain level of challenge burning through a certain amount of resources before the last challenges are reached, so that at-will-only classes can be said to be balanced with Vancian ones.   Not enough challenge in each day (with any challenge at all), and the Vancian types have it far too easy, and dominate; too much challenge in each day and they get tapped out while there's still adventuring to be done and the story is disrupted (you have to 'rest' at an inapropriate point) or the party unable to handle those final challenges (unless they're trivial challenges, of course).  It's a very old idea, going all the way back to the earliest incarnations of the game, only 4e deviated from it, and not by much - it still assumed multi-encounter days, deviating just didn't impact class balance.

No, that is not true. Maybe in your experience but not ours. It's not an objective fact, but an subjective one.

It's the way the game was balanced in the past.  Sure, it didn't work very well much of the time, but it's what Gygax said he was going for back in the day, and it's what Mike Mearls has come right out and said he's going for with 5e.  

Play style, DM quality and how players act have more of an impact on balance than the pure mechanics. As I said 4 posts above yours.

All are factors.  Mechanics are the ones subject to objective analysis, and, yes, objectively, if you have some classes with at-will abilities and others with limited-use abilities, they only balance at some hypothetical point when the demand on their abilities runs up against those limitations before they can be refreshed.  Now, that /can/ be experienced in different ways.  A timid casters, for instance, might horde some spells all day long, he's been limited by their 1/day nature because he never got to use them, even though he didn't run out, even, for instance, if it was a rare single-encounter day.  An aggressive one can run out too soon.  Either way, the expectation of the multi-encounter day must be there, which requires the reality of it be there most of the time.  If a player can confidently 'nova' and say "well, there won't be another encounter today," then that particular balancing mechanism has failed.  

It's a poor mechanism, but it's one D&D depended on quite a bit.  Hiding behind "style" doesn't change it.  Intimating that anyone who notices that it's a poor mechanic is an idiot doesn't change it.  Pretending that fighters having only at-will abilities and casters having primarily daily ones is "subjective" doesn't change it.  It's not a "subjective fact," but simply a fact.



 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!


But yes there should be more than one encoutner per day, and a DM should take the opportunity to attack the PCs/make a situation where they feel they should help someone being attacked while the PCs are resting. 


There are sessions with two fights. And sometimes they are in the same game day. But we like our fights to have meaning. We find dungeons boring, we prefere to roleplay than rollplay. 

Casters need to be ready for fights but also to research and travel. So they spread their spells over combat, divination and travel spells to be ready for whatever the DM throws at us (fights are often unannounced so players take a lot of risks). 5e's ritual system will make the casters happy. More combat spells and the utility spells will be cast has ritual mostly (if we switch or decide to import the system to PF).

Everyone feels they contribute to fights. No one is jealous among us. The guy who left played a ranged and we actually fought his favorite race during the fight. I think he just didn't like roleplay and just likes to have fights after fights. 

Nothing wrong with that, but not our cup of tea. Designers should have this style of play in their mind when designing. Dungeons delves aren't for roleplayers.  



Yeah, that roll play and role play divide doesn't really exist. you can role play and roll play at the same time and be good at both. Example:

Fighter: I scream out "You killed my brother prepare to die!" and charge at the dark cloaked figure. Got a 17 which hits for 12 damage. I slash my great axe into his side as he turns to face me.

DM: He screams out in pain and jabs at you as he backs up a a few steps. Rolled a 15 and misses. He slashes in vain as he staggers back.

Cleric: I say in a cold hard voice "We will assure you vengeance." as I slowly walk up to him fingering the blood stained spiked head of my morning star. Double move to end up flanking him.

Wait what? how could they use tactics and role play at the same time, that breaks some kind universal law or something right?Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Trureamer didn't really fully describe the situation, so everyone will read this with a certain amount of bias.   For instance, many people who play 4e enjoy it due to its balance.   Most people who argue that wizards and fighters are balanced do so by arguing that unless the wizard uses all of his spells and then the dm let's the party rest, the wizard is balanced with the fighter.  (please if youdisagree, take it somewhere else)  Of course, that scenario is exactly what happened here.   So,  the hypothetical 4e player in that scenario would see the party optimized to make his character weak and the dm going along.  In that case, it seems reasonable that the player would look for a different group - just as if they had sat down looking for ravenloft and found the party playing eberon.   
 many people have called the player a jerk, but we don't know how disruptive the leaving was.  If it were disruptive, I agree that playing the whole night out would be preferable.  But, if it were a 1 shot encounters scenario?    Let the fighter die heroically offstage and get on with it.  Also, we don't know if the player has played previous d&d - if so, they might have had flashbacks to arguments about resting/not resting and just decided it was less disruptive to let others play the way they wanted. 

As for regaining powers only after a week and not daily, it wouldn't really matter in this case.   As the op points out, the players somehow knew that the dm wasn't going to send any more monsters that day - which means that even if there were rules about weekly fights, the players could just assert there weren't any fights thAt week.   I'm not arguing that a good dm can solve bad rules, I'm arguing that a bad dm can ruin good rules.   So, if we want to argue about whether non-daily recharges are useful, we need to look at what stories it helps encourage, not what bad behavior by dms it can fix. 

To be clear, I'm arguing the dm is complicit here in turning a player off pathfinder.   if we want 5e to succeed, we need to give guidance for dms on how to encourage balance, which means not allowing recharges of peoples powers who abuse rests.    And it means giving non daily users some way to ramp up their awesome if the daily users abuse resting.  Something like "heroic rage" where a martial can remove all his expertise dice for the rest of the day to instantly murder 3d10 opponents, but only if the wizard is constantly novaing and then resting.  Those who hate martial dailies complain that multiple dailies are unrealistic, but this is a case of raging making you tired, which is a daily that martial barbarians have had since.. 2e without complaint.  And, as aspecific reaction against wizards meta gaming it shouldnt come up often.