Except...4E wizards DID play like wizards. They had big, splashy dailies and encounter powers that control large portions of the battlefield at once,[...]
Except, that in reality, a good wizard, did not just "control the battle field". He just evaporated or bypassed almost anything in his way, and if need be, used his lackeys for that (read: the other players of the party). Or, if he had not reached the magical uber-level of his edition, he would throw darts or daggers with almost no chance to hit after using some minor spells.
Big splashy spells? They are just for show, once you had memorized the important stuff.
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
Except...4E wizards DID play like wizards. They had big, splashy dailies and encounter powers that control large portions of the battlefield at once,[...]
Except, that in reality, a good wizard, did not just "control the battle field". He just evaporated or bypassed almost anything in his way, and if need be, used his lackeys for that (read: the other players of the party). Or, if he had not reached the magical uber-level of his edition, he would throw darts or daggers with almost no chance to hit after using some minor spells.
Big splashy spells? They are just for show, once you had memorized the important stuff.
This is exactly the problem. A class should not be so overpowered such that the other people of the group don't even have to be there to accomplish the adventure. If you're a one-man show, what's the point of playing with others -- the whole basis of DnD?
If your party is able to constantly "stop and rest" any time a caster runs low on spells, your DM is, imo, doing something awfully wrong.
Idk, I'd find it pretty immersion breaking if we're not allowed to stop for 5 minutes because we're always on some arbirtrary time limit just so the catsers don't ruint he game for everyone again. And not everyone wants to play "rush everywhere:the game"
If your party is able to constantly "stop and rest" any time a caster runs low on spells, your DM is, imo, doing something awfully wrong.
Idk, I'd find it pretty immersion breaking if we're not allowed to stop for 5 minutes because we're always on some arbirtrary time limit just so the catsers don't ruint he game for everyone again. And not everyone wants to play "rush everywhere:the game"
He seems to be referring to full-day rests, not five-minute rests.
When I DM, I like to mix it up. Sometimes the party has pretty tight time restraints and they need to husband their daily resources carefully. Sometimes they've got more time to spare, and they can just go crazy. Both are fun.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />But quite often with the power level discrepancy, that was simply not the case. As both DM and player, I've watched a wizard or other caster end the combat and defeat all the monsters all by themselves. The other characters quite literally didn't have to be there at all. That same caster is the one who detects the secret doors with magic when the others fail with checks (the other characters didn't actually need to be there, the caster could have done that first, no problem). Where the caster is the one who single-handedly sneaks into the castle, gets the critical information, sneaks back out, polymorphed as a rat the whole time. The caster who charms the high-ranking dignitary and uses that to set in motion nation-altering plans or for personal gain. All the same character, mind you, sometimes all in the same session. The non-casters were along for the ride.
It often DIDN'T boil down to "we", but rather, "does the caster feel like holding back big time and allowing the other characters to participate, or does she solve the problem with magic...again.". When one character, or a couple (the wizard and the druid together) could take care of any problems, easily at that, and has to ALLOW the other characters to appear to be valuable to the party, something is very, very wrong with the system. Shrug.
Please see point #1 in my post.
If your DM (you/whomever) is letting one player have such a presence they are doing something terribly wrong. You can't solve everything with magic. If the DM lets that statement be false, they are doing their other players a disservice.
You know how that would have worked in my game?
"As you approach the gate to the castle, your rat-self senses something. Roll a (whatever) check! You notice sigils enscribed around the edges of the gate. They appear to be magical in nature."
I realize that 3.0 and 3.5 have their merits, as well as the other editions, but I cannot fathom this. Why would people want to see this return? It makes martial characters complete deadweights at high levels, and spellcasters become demigods themselves. It's just bad game design. Now, I can understand we didn't have 4e and all we knew were these archetypes, but we do have 4e, and it worked. I'm not saying that I didn't like the older editions, but they had some serious problems with the power curve of several classes. 4e fixed most of this, and while it had a whole new set of problems on it's own, this seems to me like something that should be included in D&D 5e, not subtracted because people miss fighters and rogues sucking. And heck, it's not even as if wizards got a downgrade in 4e! 4e just made it so martial characters can do multitudes of things that can make them compete with what tools the wizard could bring to the table.
Please, for anyone who is in favor of this regression, could you give me a decent reason why this should be implemented in 5e?
Since neither quadratic wizards nor linear fighters are returning, I don't see the point of this thread.
The funny thing about arbitrary time limits is that they are just that. Arbitrary. They only sere to reign in the caster. If you had a group of all martial characters in 3e you could not use arbitrary time limits at all. It took weeks to heal after a fight and travel without magic took many times longer. So yes a DM can impose arbitrary time limits, but don't fool yourself into thinking it is serving any purpose other than to help balance shoddy game design.
If your DM (you/whomever) is letting one player have such a presence they are doing something terribly wrong. You can't solve everything with magic. If the DM lets that statement be false, they are doing their other players a disservice.
To be fair, it is possible for a game system to make it easier or harder for a DM to make that mistake. I would like to see this edition written so that even a completely inexperienced group can pick it up and have fun with it at every level. This means giving DMs a lot more advice and support on how to run balanced adventures and shift the spotlight around gracefully than we have seen in previous editions.
The funny thing about arbitrary time limits is that they are just that. Arbitrary. They only sere to reign in the caster. If you had a group of all martial characters in 3e you could not use arbitrary time limits at all. It took weeks to heal after a fight and travel without magic took many times longer. So yes a DM can impose arbitrary time limits, but don't fool yourself into thinking it is serving any purpose other than to help balance shoddy game design.
It's "arbitrary" that sometimes bad things will happen if the PCs sit around for too long? I prefer to think if it as "running the campaign in a dynamic world". And as for your point about martial parties, of course you could run the campaign giving them time limits. Of course you shouldn't give them time limits they would be unable to beat, but that's just a corollary of the fundamental DMing rule that you shouldn't run impossible adventures.
The funny thing about arbitrary time limits is that they are just that. Arbitrary. They only sere to reign in the caster. If you had a group of all martial characters in 3e you could not use arbitrary time limits at all. It took weeks to heal after a fight and travel without magic took many times longer. So yes a DM can impose arbitrary time limits, but don't fool yourself into thinking it is serving any purpose other than to help balance shoddy game design.
Bullocks
Please find me one example from any fantasy novel that does not use time as a plot device at any point. This isn't a video game. The bad guys don't sit around waiting for the good guys.
I keep reading all of these threads and I keep thinking the same things over and over and over.
So, having finally decided to post something, I'll leave the following list:
I hope you come back and check on it. There is nothing here that we haven't seen before.
1.) If your party is able to constantly "stop and rest" any time a caster runs low on spells, your DM is, imo, doing something awfully wrong.
If your DM is constantly having to work in reasons why it might not be a good idea to stop and rest, thus limiting the types of adventures he can run to a small subset, all to enforce a class balance that should have just been in the rules already, how is this not a system problem?
On that same note, the encounters need to be tailored to the party. I remember fondly tanking some golems on my fighter that would have quickly found our casters a red stain underfoot.
I remember spell immune monsters, in particular stone golems, being an absolute joke. My 3.5e dm tried to send some at us thinking it would shut down the spells, but really, the druid was still the most valuable member of the party in that fight, by a wiiiiiide margin.
Monsters that "eat" prepared spells? Have fun with that.
That sounds fun. Like the DM not so subtly slapping you for daring to think casters were cool in a system where they're overpowered.
Immune to magic?
Is a sick joke, sorry.
Fighting in a hallway where casting Fireball, Meteor Swarm, etc would hit ally and foe alike?
Who needs fireball and meteor swarm? Damage is a chump's game in 3.5. Why not just summon some monsters to either side of them and turn the hallway into a pincer trap? Or stone to mud to cave the ceiling in on them?
On the flip side, monsters that ignore armor? Monsters that disarm? Etc Etc
These on the other hand, these actually pose a threat to the fighter.
If the DM can't find a way to engage/challenge everyone, s/he is doing something wrong.
Or s/he's playing in a game where finding that is incredibly difficult, because non-casters were designed around the idea of semi-realistic medieval combatants and casters were designed around "Hey, you know what'd be a cool spell?"
2.) When anyone says, "Players want this!" (like in the OP), please don't speak for me. Your desires do not match mine. A lot of the ideas being thrown around sound like munchkin powergaming to me. You know why I don't care that the wizard can cast Meteor Swarm and I get my 5 attacks a round? Because this is my story and my character. This isn't an MMO, we don't have damage meters. The party is defeating the Big Bad Monster. We are saving the town. We are conquering this castle.
Sorry, I had to get that out. Munchkin powergaming? By asking for balance? Balance is the antithesis of munchkin powergaming. If we were looking for the best setup to get some munchkin powergaming going, we'd cheer for quadratic wizards/linear fighters as hard as we could, because the casters in that system would be stronger than anything in a balanced game. Quadratic wizards/linear fighters is a munchkin paradise.
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.
