# Why is the Vancian system still so popular?



## Surmos (Apr 16, 2012)

Question in the thread is about as direct as i can be.

   I’m noticing a correlation to the amount of people that like the Vancian magic system as well as the option for At-Will powers for Vancian casters.

Why is this system so preferred in comparison to the AEDU(Powers) system?  Especially if its likely the new Vancian system will allow for At-Will abilities anyway?


My goal isn't to sound ignorant, but since [FONT=&quot]the announcement of D&D next and  viewing the poll regarding the choice of the Vancian system (as well as popular opinions), I can’t quite understand why this system seems so significantly better than the power system that is currently in place in 4E.  I’m not even a fanboy of this system, but I have to admit there is a degree of balance using AEDU that I hadn’t seen in previous editions of the game.[/FONT]


----------



## ggroy (Apr 16, 2012)

Inertia.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Apr 16, 2012)

Because players who like non-4e Wizards like options.  They like the ability to have one set of abilities today and a different set tomorrow, if needed.

Also, personally anyway, having the ability to learn and release a magical effect feels more like a spell.  Having an ability I can use as many times a day as I want feels more like a super-power.


----------



## Kynn (Apr 16, 2012)

Grognard nostalgia.

Plus it's pretty easy to use.


----------



## Kynn (Apr 16, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Because players who like non-4e Wizards like options.  They like the ability to have one set of abilities today and a different set tomorrow, if needed.




Well, you can do that in 4e also.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Apr 16, 2012)

Kynn said:


> Well, you can do that in 4e also.




Not to nearly the same degree.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 16, 2012)

The flexibility and options are often cited, but I have no problem with having those things; the AEDU system could easily allow greater flexibility.  In fact, 4E Wizards can gain quite a bit of flexibility in spell choice.  What really limits them is the lack of flexibility of the spells themselves, and limited reasons to favor one over the other on a given day, not the AEDU system.

What ruins Vancian for me is its the emphasis on Daily resources.  I think those are fundamentally bad game mechanics, and make it nearly impossible to have balance with classes based on at-will abilities.  Class balance becomes extremely unstable, and highly dependent on how aggressively DMs push day-length.  There should be no more than a smattering of them; even 4E has too many of them, I feel.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Apr 16, 2012)

Because D&D wizards have always used vancian magic. So if the 5e wizard doesn't use vancian magic, then it won't "feel like D&D" to some degree. "Feeling like D&D" is basically the main goal of the new edition (there's a lovely explanation somewhere on the web, but I can't find it).

It's not my absolute favorite magic system (nor is AEDU), but if it's D&D, vancian is mandatory.


----------



## Oni (Apr 16, 2012)

For me it provides more excitement and variety that the AEDU system does by leaps and bounds.  And while it isn't my favorite spellcasting system of all time it IS D&D.  Remove Vancian casting and it's just not the same game anymore.  I like having alternatives, because I might not always want to use it, but it MUST be there.


----------



## TimA (Apr 16, 2012)

I'd like to see BOTH systems take a long walk off a short cliff. But if i had to pick between the 2 of them vancian is better. the powers system just doesnt feel magical at all and far, far, too limiting.


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 16, 2012)

For me, because it bring back the focus on the advanture rather than the combat encounter, vanician magic was flexible, if you found or researched the right spells you could prety much do anything if you learns it before hand.

Spells like charm person, transmute mud to rock and rock to mud and many more could be used in combat and outside of it by imaginative players.

I know that 4e introduced rituals, and on paper they seem like a great idea, but after five years of playing I can say that in my group they were used only when the DM railroaded their need, that might be because the character sheet didn't print the rituals out but the main reason was that the group was more combat oriented.

I like having spells as daily resource, especially if the focuse of the game move from the combat encounter to the advanture itself because than, having daily resource, makes the exploration phase more interesting.

The problem with 3rd ed and the 15 minute advanturing day was, IMHO, that groups tended to blow their biggest spells on the first combat encounter and than head back to rest. That was because the game design was focused on the combat encounter and not the advanture itself which lead to each combat encounter trying to be bad ass because if it wasn't the group would just brush it away with no serious consequences (I'm looking at you city of the spider queen).

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not bashing 3rd here so please don't see it as a new edition wars post, and I freely admit that the folks I played with for the last couple of decades like to fight but I've been playing with roughly the same people from basic through 2nd Ed AD&D to 3rd and now 4th and there has been a marked change with how we play the game.

To sum it up, vanician is good because it puts exploration, interaction and combat on the same playing ground eating from the same bowl of resources, if the game rule will reflect that and put more focus on exploration and interaction than I'll be an happy camper.

Warder


----------



## Akaiku (Apr 16, 2012)

Because it's only magic if it wins the situation. Magic is great and powerful. Traditional wizards were limited from always winning by limited preparation. They had to know exactly _which_ 'I win' button to have. Combat and non-combat used the same resources cause a wizard's resources is in aforementioned 'I win' buttons. It's a different game then other less wizardly classes play.

Dailys do not do this well because there could be a need for 2 of the same button. Having them at will means they are either op if you can change them or simply a list of things the gm shouldn't throw at you if you can't change them.


----------



## BobTheNob (Apr 16, 2012)

One time in the 2e days we thought "Vancian sucks, lets develop a mana equivalent" and we did. Then, a month or two later, we brought back Vancian. It was just too dull to watch mages spam fireballs! True story, but I digress...

I don't think Vancian is the best possible solution out there. But AEDU Im just not fond of. Played it, played it and played it some more, and after playing it for a very long time...I just dont like it any more. Its accurate, adaptable, clever...and utterly charmless.

The thing is AEDU was a generic power structure to unify classes. That was (IMHO) its biggest mistake (and when its biggest mistake is its reason for existance, Im really not gravitating toward it!), because thats the source of the dreaded 4e class homogenization, which Im happy to say all indicators point to us walking away from. Without class homogenization, AEDU is reduced to a potential, caster only approach.

So given its now only really a caster only approach, the question is what do people prefer for casters...Vancian or AEDU? Well, Im for Vancian. Others are too, its just the type of play we prefer.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 16, 2012)

Because I like D&D, and when I think of D&D magic, that's the first thing that comes to mind. 

It's been a core part of the game for longer than I've been alive, and attempts to do away with it haven't exactly been among the most popular of changes.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 16, 2012)

I really wonder how much of the "Vancian" love is from the Vancian system and how much is from the power and complexity of the individual spells, which is NOT related to being Vancian.

Certainly many people love Vancian in and of itself, but I'd be curious to see how they'd react to a Vancian caster using 4E's assumptions, or a 3E caster with spells balanced to be equal to a 3E fighter's output potential.


----------



## kevtar (Apr 16, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> I really wonder how much of the "Vancian" love is from the Vancian system and how much is from the power and complexity of the individual spells, which is NOT related to being Vancian.
> 
> Certainly many people love Vancian in and of itself, but I'd be curious to see how they'd react to a Vancian caster using 4E's assumptions, or a 3E caster with spells balanced to be equal to a 3E fighter's output potential.




This is an interesting point. It is a combination of factors, the spells and the system, and not simply just the system. Personally, since it seems that "Vancian" magic is back for 5e (along with some at-will stuff), I think they will be taking a closer look at how spells operate and, like you say, they may use the Vancian system with spells that are much more in line to other classes' powers (or maneuvers or whatever they will call them). I'm hoping that they recognize a serious flaw in 4e magic, and that was they gained parity at the expense of class distinctiveness (in my opinion).


----------



## Lwaxy (Apr 16, 2012)

Unfortunately, people equal Vancian with D&D.  For me, it was always one big annoyance in the game, and in most groups we didn't really use it unless a player wanted to. 

Using a mana system here and will continue to do so as it is much more logical. Vancian style, we only use when a wizard wants to use up daily mana points and then can prepare for the next day to cast at a lower cost. 

Limit the amount of same spells a day per spell level and you are fine.  I saw a lot more creative use of different spells than before. 

I like Vancian as an option to differentiate one magic user from the other but definitely not as standard. The idea that D&D won't be complete without it is a bit silly to me. It is the same as claiming D&D is only a battle game when it can do so much more.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 16, 2012)

I think people attribute more to the Vancian system that it actually means.

To me, the core Vancian system contains the following attributes:

1. Spell slots - A spellcaster's access to spells is expressed in terms of spell slots. Each slot can contain a single spell. This distinguishes the Vancian system from systems that make use of spell points (such as 3e psionics).

2. Preparation - A spellcaster has to decide beforehand which spells occupy his spell slots. This distinguishes the Vancian system from spontaneous casting systems (such as the 3e sorcerer).

3. Fire and forget - Once a spell is cast, it is removed from the spell slot and cannot be re-used until the spellcaster prepares it again.

The following elements are strongly associated with traditional D&D-style Vancian spellcasting, but are (IMO) not core elements of a Vancian system:

4. Daily refresh cycle - spellcasters are only allowed to prepare spells once per day, or each spell slot can only be prepared to hold a spell once per day.

5. Generic spell slots - each spell slot can hold any type of spell: offensive, defensive or utility.

6. Wide variety of choice - spellcasters can choose what spell to prepare in each spell slot from a wide variety of options, either because they automatically gain access to them (as was the case for the 3e cleric) or because they can gradually build up these options (e.g. a 3e wizard adding spells to his spellbook).

When comparing the AEDU system to the Vancian system, the key dissatisfaction is usually that it is less flexible, in particular, points 2, 5 and 6. Most classes do not get to choose which daily power to prepare after an extended rest, utility powers are siloed from attack powers, and even for classes who do get to choose which spells to prepare, there are usually only two to three options per spell slot. Because of point 4, some are also uncomfortable with the idea of encounter spells. 

Some of the inflexibility issues can possibly be fixed, such as granting more classes the choice of daily powers to prepare, and increasing the number of choices for each class (points 2 and 6). However, certain inflexibilities, such as the split between attack and utility powers, and factors such as the presence of encounter powers (points 4 and 5), are inherent to the AEDU system.


----------



## DonAdam (Apr 16, 2012)

As I've played more and more 4th ed, I think the encounter power system suffers from this problem. Lots of per-encounter resources make fights feel like they have few consequences, and make lots of fights feel the same. It often feels like going down a checklist of encounter powers.

That said, I think it's a good idea for different classes (or builds/subclasses) to lean more heavily on encounter vs. daily powers. I like how encounter powers give martial characters something more to do, and they effectively serve as a de facto fatigue system (no more power strikes for me! I'm beat.).

The more traditional Vancian system has the benefits of empowering strategic planning as an alternative to kick down the door and of introducing _interesting_ resource management. Memorized spells are discrete, weird things. I find them far more fun to manage than a dial with points.

The downside to the traditional system is that it works well only in multiple-encounter days, but the Daily powers in 4th suffered exactly the same problem. I hope there's a good way to deal with "one big fight" days in 5e.


----------



## steeldragons (Apr 16, 2012)

Cuz if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 16, 2012)

Surmos said:


> Why is this system so preferred in comparison to the AEDU(Powers) system?  Especially if its likely the new Vancian system will allow for At-Will abilities anyway?



Beyond the traditionalism that others have noted, the Vancian system is preferred relative to the power system for other reasons. First and foremost, it applies only to spellcasters, whereas the power system applies to all characters. Sure, Vancian magic is hackneyed and arbitrary, but at least it made spellcasters feel like they were doing something out of the ordinary. Different characters having different mechanics is really important.

Second, while you've correctly noted that while many people like Vancian plus at-will abilities, the "per encounter" business is a hangup for a lot of people, because defining an encounter is a conceptual problem.

The flexibility of a Vancian wizard is also much greater than that of any 4e character, and while some complained, many players enjoyed strategizing using their endless repotoire of spells derived from twenty different supplements.

Moreover, the power system fixes none of the substantive problems with Vancian magic. You still have enormous complexity. You still have abilities that never fail, backfire, or harm the user. You still have recovery of abilities over time as the major balancing factor.

The real question to me is why Vancian is preferred over some point-based system, or one that (gasp!) isn't predicated on limiting magical use by some arbitrary resource that recovers over time but instead having substantive costs (or no direct costs, as the 3e warlock). That, I think, is a combination of traditionalism and stylistic issues.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Second, while you've correctly noted that while many people like Vancian plus at-will abilities, the "per encounter" business is a hangup for a lot of people, because defining an encounter is a conceptual problem.



While defining an encounter may be problematic, the definition of an encounter power is not. It's a power that you get back after a short rest, in the same way that a daily power is one that you get back after an extended rest. No rest, no recharge; it's as simple as that.

In fact, it's so simple that it sometimes seems to me that people who keep getting it wrong despite having it pointed out to them several times must be deliberately and wilfully trying to make other people misunderstand.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Beyond the traditionalism that others have noted, the Vancian system is preferred relative to the power system for other reasons. First and foremost, it applies only to spellcasters, whereas the power system applies to all characters. Sure, Vancian magic is hackneyed and arbitrary, but at least it made spellcasters feel like they were doing something out of the ordinary. *Different characters having different mechanics is really important*.




Why?

It seems far more likely that a spellcaster will feel they're doing something out of the ordinary _by having them do something out of the ordinary_. The mechanic by which that's achieved is not remotely as significant. Observe the rather large number of games where spell casting is a skill like any other, and inquire of the players of those games whether spellcasters feel like they're doing something out of the ordinary. I suspect that you'll find people who think that being able to fly without wings is just a little unusual, regardless of how it's achieved.


----------



## Gargoyle (Apr 16, 2012)

Nostalgia sure, but more than that, strategic selection of spells is fun for some people.  Part of the fun of playing a wizard used to be having the right spell at the right time.  The player felt smart when they chose something like Comprehend Languages and it saved the day.  Or perhaps a better example, something non-ritually like using Cone of Cold on a fire elemental.


----------



## paladinm (Apr 16, 2012)

Personally, even back in the OD&D/ 1e days, I always tried to think up alternative magic systems.  Back then, spells were "memorized" and then "forgotten".  I could never understand this; wizards were supposed to be the sharpest knives in the drawer!  When 3.x came out, I could get my head around spells being "prepared" a little easier; but then I saw the 3.x Sorcerer.  I Love spontaneous casting, and would have that as the default magic system if I had my druthers.  You have flexibility and resource management; but you're not stuck with only a Web spell when you desperately need a Magic Missile.


----------



## Wiseblood (Apr 16, 2012)

When I play a wizard I want it to be different from the fighter in more than just the effect of my powers.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 16, 2012)

Nostalgia. Vancian is a well recognizdd part of D&D. It is also really easy to record. Just write and erase the words. No math needed once the character sheet is updated to the level and equipment.

My issue is why some don't want to see anything except Vancian for spellcasters and see spell point, at-will, and recharge mechanics as evil abominations.

Although I like Vancian, it feels weird for non scientific spellcasters. Characters like sorcerer and fey, who are natural caster look weird as Vancians. Even warlocks who steal/borrow/infusedwith magic feel off with spell slots.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 16, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> The problem with 3rd ed and the 15 minute advanturing day was, IMHO, that groups tended to blow their biggest spells on the first combat encounter and than head back to rest. That was because the game design was focused on the combat encounter and not the advanture itself which lead to each combat encounter trying to be bad ass because if it wasn't the group would just brush it away with no serious consequences (I'm looking at you city of the spider queen).




This is a natural result of Daily-heavy design.  Unless there are actual mechanics in 5E to enforce standard adventure-day lengths, the exact same thing is likely to occur.  3.5 was not an Encounter-based design.  It was a Day-based design.  I very much doubt that 5E will truly be Adventure-based design.  Sure, there might be Adventure creation rules along the lines of 3.X/4E Encounter creation rules, but if there's traditional Vancian casting, then it's really Day-based design.

The problem is that resting for a night is an _incredibly_ overpowered action, by the rules.  There are enormous benefits outlined by the rules, with negligible downside.  It is left to the DM to try to balance the game, against players that have every natural incentive to rest as often as possible.

Any other mechanic that powerful, that relied solely on DM fiat to reign in, and I think most would call it a broken mechanic.  But a night's rest gets a pass.  I don't think it should.

I think the best way to do it is to have most daily resources be based on a point system, and for the DM to get points to spend too.  If the players rest, then so does "the world", and the DM gets his points back.  But since that probably wouldn't "feel" like DnD, it won't happen.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 16, 2012)

It is the best magic system i have ever encountered (besides spells and magic spell point vancian variant).

1. You have a lot of spells to select. Each day begins with making informed choices. It is a bit of preparing for the unoreoareable, a bit general good choices and a bit of adapting to the task at hand.

It is both flexible and unflexible: sneaking through something? sure, have an invisibility spell, but maybe you didn´t prepare one, so the rogue has to get along without it.

2. Spells themselves are flexible: Need a hole in a wall? Stone to flesh, disintegrate, stone shape... etc. Spells are useful in and out of combat.

3. Hunting for spells to expand your spellbook.

I really don´t mind AEDU, and I like the addition of rituals. And I guess, that both will have a place in 5e (at least AED and Rituals). I just believe, both attack and utility spells need to be both prepared as classic spells or as rituals. Having a division between them is quite metagamey.
Also only having the choice between 1 of 2 different spells does not really allow for making informed choices. It is rather a strategic choice you make when levelling up, not in game, and this is IMHO one of the biggest flaws of both 3rd and 4th edition.

Both fighter and wizard should be able to gather combat techniques/spells that are not tied to level advancement. Why should the fighter not be able to learn another at-will? It makes him just a bit more flexible, not a great lot more powerful. Especially when the alternative would be finding magic items. The same goes for the wizard: Would the 4e wizard really be imbalanced, if he could learn 4, 5 or even 10 at-wills?


----------



## illwizard (Apr 16, 2012)

Mechanics aside, I just reckon it's cool having to pore over a bunch of dusty old tomes to find and study the right spells for whatever lay ahead. 

I also actually enjoyed having the wrong spells and being original in how I used them, or saving my Melf's Acid Arrow (sometimes to the detriment of the party oops) just in case that troll showed up. I suppose you can still claim this happens in 4e, but it lost a bit of the magic for me. 

I certainly understand why people don't like economising and preparation et cetera but for me... I love Vancian!


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Apr 16, 2012)

Thta's two questions.

I like Vancian for D&D because it's a critical part of D&D's identity.  I've used plenty of other systems in other games and they're fine, but if I want to play D&D I want Vancian magic.  (I actually far prefer mana systems)

I prefer Vancian magic to 4E's system for wizards just because I really, really don't like 4E's power system.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 16, 2012)

dkyle said:


> This is a natural result of Daily-heavy design.  Unless there are actual mechanics in 5E to enforce standard adventure-day lengths, the exact same thing is likely to occur.  3.5 was not an Encounter-based design.  It was a Day-based design.  I very much doubt that 5E will truly be Adventure-based design.  Sure, there might be Adventure creation rules along the lines of 3.X/4E Encounter creation rules, but if there's traditional Vancian casting, then it's really Day-based design.



4e was also a Day-based design, though not nearly as 'Daily-heavy' as previous editions.

I agree with you completely about the strangeness of relying so heavily on the DM to balance the power of dailies - sending raiding parties after the PCs, designing adventures with time limits, etc. Personally I've never been very comfortable doing those things, and I don't like the traditional dungeon - a lot of disparate encounters within a small geographical space - so dailies have never worked well for me.

Dailies also don't work with a sandbox that contains a lot of non-reactive adventure locations, such as tombs and ancient ruins (which I happen to prefer), as they are vulnerable to being 15-minuted.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 16, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I just believe, both attack and utility spells need to be both prepared as classic spells or as rituals. Having a division between them is quite metagamey.




How is it "metagamey"?  You are entirely free to cast 4E spells out of combat, and to try to cast rituals during combat.  There are no metagame mechanics restricting you.  Only the the entirely in-game properties of of the spells/rituals themselves.



> Also only having the choice between 1 of 2 different spells does not really allow for making informed choices.




A Wizard can get more than that.  But the difficulty of informed choices is more a matter of 4E monsters tending to not have very significant strengths or weaknesses, so it's rare that there's a compelling reason to select one spell over another, in advance.



> It is rather a strategic choice you make when levelling up, not in game, and this is IMHO one of the biggest flaws of both 3rd and 4th edition.




Leveling up is "in-game".



> Both fighter and wizard should be able to gather combat techniques/spells that are not tied to level advancement. Why should the fighter not be able to learn another at-will? It makes him just a bit more flexible, not a great lot more powerful. Especially when the alternative would be finding magic items. The same goes for the wizard: Would the 4e wizard really be imbalanced, if he could learn 4, 5 or even 10 at-wills?




Perhaps not terribly imbalanced, but it does have the effect of encouraging more and more sameness, if every character can get every power of their class.  It also significantly exacerbates the "analysis paralysis" that some have with 4E.


----------



## Mattachine (Apr 16, 2012)

I've played Blue Box onward, and in every long campaign I ran, we eventually developed house rules to change Vancian magic--added spells that gave an at-will attack for the day, allowed spell choice on the fly (except for ritual-style spells), and spell-focusing items (that allow prepared to spells to be converted to a particular spell). Our gaming groups were always trying to come up with a workaround for choosing the wrong spells, and for running out of basic magical attacks. No one wanted the wizard throwing darts.


Fourth edition really did screw up in this regard. I think the easiest changes to the 4e wizard would be to allow a real, full spellbook, and allow choice of all spell abilities each day. Also, give 4e wizards the ability to learn more and more spells per level. This would combine the Vancian (daily spells) with AEDU.

It seems to me, by the way, that 5e is toying with what I suggest: a Vancian/AEDU hybrid.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 16, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> 4e was also a Day-based design, though not nearly as 'Daily-heavy' as previous editions.




It's a hybrid; it has both Encounter-based and Day-based elements, whereas prior editions were almost exclusively Day-based.  My preference would be for an even less Day-based 5E.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 16, 2012)

The only real issue I ever had with Vancian wizardry was the simple "run out of basic magic attack spells" issue.

In order for my wizards to feel at all useful and _wizard-like_ in combat, I was always forced to memorize more than half of any spell level (if not all of them) as attack spells... like almost every single 1st level spell being Magic Missile.  This was simply because I hated "going to the crossbow" the second fight into a day (if not even the end of the very first fight).

So to have the possibility of a single (or two) at-will attack spells (like MM or Scorching Burst) in addition to a full complement of Vancian spell slots, would suit me just fine.  I could then use one or two slots for more powerful attack spells (than the at-wills would be), and the rest could be the more universal utility ones.  It could mean I would feel more like a wizard through all facets of the game, regardless of how many combat might come up.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 16, 2012)

FireLance said:


> While defining an encounter may be problematic, the definition of an encounter power is not. It's a power that you get back after a short rest, in the same way that a daily power is one that you get back after an extended rest. No rest, no recharge; it's as simple as that.
> 
> In fact, it's so simple that it sometimes seems to me that people who keep getting it wrong despite having it pointed out to them several times must be deliberately and wilfully trying to make other people misunderstand.




For me the issue was not identifying the encounter so much as the combat slanted nature of encounter powers. A rockslide could be an encounter and throwing up a wall of stone or force, a good way to shield the party from the rocks. 

The rigidly defined states of being in or out of combat is what was really bad. Rituals took too long to be of use in a situation that was fast paced and action oriented but didn't actually include combat.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 16, 2012)

FireLance said:


> While defining an encounter may be problematic, the definition of an encounter power is not. It's a power that you get back after a short rest, in the same way that a daily power is one that you get back after an extended rest. No rest, no recharge; it's as simple as that.
> 
> In fact, it's so simple that it sometimes seems to me that people who keep getting it wrong despite having it pointed out to them several times must be deliberately and wilfully trying to make other people misunderstand.



This seems to come up a lot. A leader is not one who leads. A healing surge doesn't necessarily involve actual healing. And an encounter power has nothing to do with the nebulously defined "encounter"; it's just another recharge time. Apparently, just reading these terms and using their common language meanings misrepresents the ideas behind them.

In any case, that isn't the issue. Having two recharge times, with no interaction between the two, and tracking them separately for each ability is a problem in terms of both bookkeeping and explaining to your players why these limitations exist, even more so than the (again, hackneyed but established) Vancian rules.



			
				Bluenose said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> It seems far more likely that a spellcaster will feel they're doing something out of the ordinary by having them do something out of the ordinary. The mechanic by which that's achieved is not remotely as significant. Observe the rather large number of games where spell casting is a skill like any other, and inquire of the players of those games whether spellcasters feel like they're doing something out of the ordinary. I suspect that you'll find people who think that being able to fly without wings is just a little unusual, regardless of how it's achieved.



There are many games where spellcasting is a skill, but even in those, there is usually a pretty clear separation of what is magic and what is not, and the magical skills/abilities usually follow some special rules.

In any case, D&D is not those games. Wizards with use limitations and fighters without them are fundamental to D&D, as a style. It certainly would be possible to make a game without this dynamic, which could be done well, but it wouldn't be D&D.

In any case, I would argue that having the mechanics for magic be radically different than the general rules of the world is better, because the metagame constructs then reflect the in-game reality: magic is different. It breaks the laws of physics and the laws of common sense. That's what makes it magic.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 16, 2012)

DonAdam said:


> As I've played more and more 4th ed, I think the encounter power system suffers from this problem. Lots of per-encounter resources make fights feel like they have few consequences, and make lots of fights feel the same. It often feels like going down a checklist of encounter powers.
> 
> That said, I think it's a good idea for different classes (or builds/subclasses) to lean more heavily on encounter vs. daily powers. I like how encounter powers give martial characters something more to do, and they effectively serve as a de facto fatigue system (no more power strikes for me! I'm beat.).
> 
> The more traditional Vancian system has the benefits of empowering strategic planning as an alternative to kick down the door and of introducing _interesting_ resource management. Memorized spells are discrete, weird things. I find them far more fun to manage than a dial with points.



Agree!



> The downside to the traditional system is that it works well only in multiple-encounter days, but the Daily powers in 4th suffered exactly the same problem. I hope there's a good way to deal with "one big fight" days in 5e.



This is easy to accomplish by restricting the ability of PCs to cast multiple daily spells in the same combat.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 16, 2012)

I prefer Vancian casting, because when I think D&D, that is what I think of.

It feels like D&D.


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 16, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> This is easy to accomplish by restricting the ability of PCs to cast multiple daily spells in the same combat.




I can already see it:
Player: I cast fire ball!
DM: you can't you already cast lightning bolt this encounter.
Player: huh??? woot? Why?
DM: errrr, I donu that's the rule...
Player: we'll that rule sucks!
DM: live with it...

I think that that is the worst idea ever.

Warder


----------



## Aenghus (Apr 16, 2012)

Vancian spellcasting doesn't per se specify the absolute power level of the spells being learned.

My  fear is that "Vancian Spellcasting" is being used as a label to appeal for getting back pre-4e spellcasters in all their broken glory, without actually saying so. The furore over Quadratic Wizard, Linear Fighter is a reaction to this fear.

The bad old days (IMO) of Casters & Caddies(TM) will return if the new mechanics have the combination of lots of spell choice for spellcasters and individual spells being brokenly powerful. It's natural for players to gravitate to the most broken spells, whatever they turn out to be, if they are able to.

There is a significant section of the fanbase who won't accept spellcasters who are just plain better than everyone else in the average game. This includes spellcasters with theoretical drawbacks that can be mitigated or overcome by system mastery.

IMO the way to keep the caster curve down is to restrict their choices somewhat, and restrict the power of individual spells. 

Re spell choice, I like the idea of specialists with good access to a small area of magic, and more limited access magic in general, so casters have strengths and weaknesses, and can't just do anything given time to prepare.
I think generalists should take a power hit in return for a wider choice of powers.

Re spell power, I don't think spells should automatically be more powerful than non-spell abilities just because they are magic. It's possible to have useful and flavourful magic that isn't also the best ability in the setting.

An isssue I see is that the most complex classes with the most optional content tend to be the spellcasters, and this appeals to a disparate group of people with differing goals e.g. powergamers seeking raw power, roleplayers seeking a particular concept, strategists expoiting the long term consequences of spells etc etc.

The spellcasting rules will be stress tested by players and shouldn't break under predictable game conditions, lke players working hard to mitigate every limitation placed on them by the system, and using the most effective abilities available, regardless of how the designers envisaged the system being used.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 16, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> For me the issue was not identifying the encounter so much as the combat slanted nature of encounter powers. A rockslide could be an encounter and throwing up a wall of stone or force, a good way to shield the party from the rocks.



Well, the 4e versions of _wall of stone_ and _wall of force_ are utility spells which can be cast with a standard action, and there are encounter utility powers that have non-combat uses. 

That said, the E in AEDU more precisely stands for encounter _attack_ power, and the "siloing" of spell slots into attack and utility spells is an issue I do recognize (point 5 of my first post in the thread).


----------



## FireLance (Apr 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> This seems to come up a lot. A leader is not one who leads. A healing surge doesn't necessarily involve actual healing. And an encounter power has nothing to do with the nebulously defined "encounter"; it's just another recharge time. Apparently, just reading these terms and using their common language meanings misrepresents the ideas behind them.



Right. Jargon bad. I get it. My point is: adding to the confusion also bad. 



> In any case, that isn't the issue. Having two recharge times, with no interaction between the two, and tracking them separately for each ability is a problem in terms of both bookkeeping and explaining to your players why these limitations exist, even more so than the (again, hackneyed but established) Vancian rules.



I think you underestimate the general intelligence of players and the power of color-coding: 
"The red ones take less effort and can be regained after a short rest. The black ones take more effort and can only be regained after an extended rest."


----------



## dkyle (Apr 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> This seems to come up a lot. A leader is not one who leads. A healing surge doesn't necessarily involve actual healing. And an encounter power has nothing to do with the nebulously defined "encounter"; it's just another recharge time. Apparently, just reading these terms and using their common language meanings misrepresents the ideas behind them.




It's jargon.  Every game has it.  And jargon works by redefining the "common language" meaning.

Leader very well could lead, and tend to have mechanics thematically conducive to that role.  They are not obliged to, of course.

Healing Surge involves healing, in the jargon sense of the word of "increasing HP", analogous of the jargon sense of the word damage for "decreasing HP"

Encounter powers are generally usable once per encounter, with the assumption of at least 5 minutes of rest between encounters.  The usability of Encounter powers is in fact directly tied to the game definition of "Encounter".

And to show that jargon is nothing new to DnD, let's look at some past jargon:

Armor Class: includes many factors other than armor

Touch Armor Class: in fact, specifically does _not_ include armor

Damage: simply loss of HP; due to the abstract nature of HP, does not necessarily mean actual physical damage.

Hit Points: often are not lost due to "hits"; most spells prior to 4E did not "hit".  And really, trying to make sense of the phrase on the basis of pure common language is impossible; it makes no sense.

Hit: means "landing a solid enough blow to get past armor"; the common language definition would include any contact with the person or their armor, and would be better modeled by attacks vs Touch AC, instead of vs. AC.  So Plate would not help avoid getting hit.

X per day: doesn't actually mean X times per day.  It means X times, until reset by a full rest.  Don't rest?  Doesn't count as a new day.  Oh look, that's almost identical to Encounter abilities in 4E, just with a different rest duration.


So, in short, the only difference with 4E's jargon?  It's new.



> In any case, that isn't the issue. Having two recharge times, with no interaction between the two, and tracking them separately for each ability is a problem in terms of both bookkeeping and explaining to your players why these limitations exist, even more so than the (again, hackneyed but established) Vancian rules.




Comparing high-level bookkeeping in 4E vs 3.5 is no contest.  4 Encounters/4 Dailies vs dozens of Vancian spells?  I find it hard to believe that having two different types of rest is that complicated.

And why are explanations so hard?  Since this is a thread about casting, set aside the issues with Martial classes.  How is a spell that comes back after a 5 minute rest so much harder to understand than a spell that comes back after a 6 hour rest?  Why is it so hard to understand how magic could work that way, and have different spells that require different amounts of rest and preparation?  Is that really so different from spells with different casting times?


----------



## Mengu (Apr 16, 2012)

Some say D&D is vancian magic.
Some say D&D is elves, dwarves and halflings.
Some say D&D is +5 holy avengers and flame tongues.
Some say D&D is magic missiles and fireballs.
Some say D&D is attributes, hit points, and armor class.
Some say D&D is B&W Erol Otus art.

And naturally, some disagree with part or all of the above.

If someone asked me what is D&D, before all this 5e talk, I would say it is a fantasy role playing game system. Today, I know better. D&D is a feeling. It must feel right to its fans, or else, it isn't D&D. With 5e, I am becoming less and less of a D&D fan, because I disagree with most its fans. I want D&D to be the best fantasy role playing game system it can be. But that is no longer the goal of the design team. They are after capturing a feeling, and not interested in improving the game system.

So, why is vancian magic so popular? Because many D&D fans say vancian magic *feels* like D&D.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 16, 2012)

dkyle said:


> X per day: doesn't actually mean X times per day.  It means X times, until reset by a full rest.  Don't rest?  Doesn't count as a new day.  Oh look, that's almost identical to Encounter abilities in 4E, just with a different rest duration.




Snipped to the points I am responding to.

Incorrect about the rest.  Clerics are not required to rest to regain spells.  They get them back at whatever time they pray each day, regardless of rest.  So they really do mean X times per day.  Same with Turn/Rebuke undead.
Same with many items, which recharge at dawn or at midnight.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 16, 2012)

I often wonder if 4e had given wizards 2 daily for every daily and encounter sell and no limit on spell books if that would work better


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 16, 2012)

dkyle said:


> How is it "metagamey"?  You are entirely free to cast 4E spells out of combat, and to try to cast rituals during combat.  There are no metagame mechanics restricting you.  Only the the entirely in-game properties of of the spells/rituals themselves.




The split is metagamey: why can´t I do a ritual that makes something explode? Why can´t I do a spell that opens a door in some seconds if well prepared. Of course, a fireball cast as a ritual is not as useful. Beeing able to open a door as a prepared spell is also often not needed. So why is there a split between rituals and attack spells?
You could as well have a universal mechanic that allows spells to be cast as rituals...







dkyle said:


> Leveling up is "in-game".



usually not. You do it between sessions. Building a character is often making choices between sessions. And you are stuck with them if they fit the actual session or not.



dkyle said:


> Perhaps not terribly imbalanced, but it does have the effect of encouraging more and more sameness, if every character can get every power of their class.  It also significantly exacerbates the "analysis paralysis" that some have with 4E.




If the wizard knows 10 at-wills, but can prepare only two, you still have only two choices. And if you knew what you would face, you could prepare 2 good choices. Often the wizard paralyzes, not because he has too many choices, but all choices he has are equally bad. If my wizard knows he is facing lots of fire resistant creatures, his scorching burst is as bad as a single target spell. The necromancer who has a spell that is very well vs undead but only mediocre vs living targets and only an area spell, he needs to decide, which bad option he uses... those are the cases where the game needs unnecessarily long to resolve. If there is a clearuseful spell, you use it.
In ADnD or 3e i never had to think about much which spell is used. Usually only IF using a spell is really needed.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 16, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Right. Jargon bad. I get it.



Slightly off-topic, but on further reflection, it has occured to me that jargon may very well be the 4e version of "THAC0 keeps the riff-raff out".

And this, of course, is bad. Very, very bad.

5e should do its utmost to avoid the use of jargon, and should not be released unless every word has no more and no less than its common language meaning. Nothing less than absolute perfection is acceptable.

Oh, and while WotC is working on that, it should, of course, continue to support 4e.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 16, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> I can already see it:
> Player: I cast fire ball!
> DM: you can't you already cast lightning bolt this encounter.
> Player: huh??? woot? Why?
> ...



It doesn't have to be restricted like that. Your ability to cast multiple spells in one battle is already by default restricted, because you can only cast one per round, so you can't cast more than the number of rounds the battle lasts.

I am simply saying, play with this restriction if need be to control the "going nova" effect. Maybe subsequent spells in the same battle take longer and longer to cast.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 16, 2012)

D&D "Vancian" is short-hand for some variation of having discrete spells in slots.   Far as I'm concerned, that includes the 3E sorcerer and the 4E ADEU system--though obviously those are somewhat off the center of what D&D "Vancian" has meant.  If you want to get more particular than that about what "Vancian" means, then go to the source material, where spells are very much the big guns--"I win" buttons so powerful that even in a story, with no chance of the character power gaming, the casters only have 4-6 of them. 

The reason that D&D "Vancian" has been popular so long in some form is that "spell points" and other options aren't nearly as universally "all that" as their individual proponents would like to believe.  Those other systems have their own issues.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Apr 16, 2012)

Vancian is popular because it's a good resource management system.  You have access to a lot of potential options, but on a given day you have to choose which ones to have and how much of each.  People like stuff that rewards smart resource management.

My favorite system I've seen is probably the one in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, a 3E variant system by Monte Cook.  Casters had certain lists that they could draw spells from (there were simple, complex, and exotic spells, and every spell had a descriptor like fire or positive energy, and the list was shared by all magic users).  Mostly it was "all simple spells plus complex (and maybe exotic) spells of X, Y, and/or Z descriptors that fit your class theme."
Anyway, you choose from your spell lists the spells you wish to know prepare, and can then spont. cast them like a sorcerer... except, you get to choose each day which ones to prepare, so you're not forever locked into your choices like a sorcerer would be.

I like the flexibility and decision making that system gives you.  I also like that the spells were generally weakened from 3E, at least the more powerful options.  Save or die was largely absent completely (might've been some that relied knowing the target's truename, I forget, but the whole truename mechanic was a part of that system I didn't like so much anyway).

I also have ideas on a new type of magic system to try that no one else seems to like.




FireLance said:


> That said, the E in AEDU more precisely stands for encounter _attack_ power, and the "siloing" of spell slots into attack and utility spells is an issue I do recognize (point 5 of my first post in the thread).




Thank you!  I read through this whole thread just trying to find out what the hell this weird aronym everyone keeps throwing around stands for other than "4E powers system."

At-will Encounter Daily Utility.  Here I thought it was some sort of phrase like "Attack E....? as Directed by User."


----------



## jsaving (Apr 16, 2012)

Kynn said:


> Grognard nostalgia.



Our gaming group split in two primarily over the issue of Vancian casting versus the 4e power system.  Each side felt it fairly evaluated the pros and cons of the two systems, and I think for the most part they did.  While some in the 4e group accuse the other of "grognard nostalgia" and really believe 4e is so objectively superior to what came before that nothing else can explain why anyone would like Vancian magic, I think it's important to give both sides the benefit of the doubt here.

A key difference comes down to which system is more flexible.  A lot of people in my 3e/Pathfinder group like to spend time away from the gaming table optimizing their characters for the next session.  Reacting to what they've seen on the adventure so far and what threats they believe are around the corner, they like being able to dramatically change their memorized spells to solve the "puzzle" with which their characters are currently confronted.  There may not be a great deal of flexibility within a battle, but with proper preparation that kind of flexibility isn't needed anyway(they would say).

On the other hand, a fair number of people in my 4e group just want to dive in and start playing.  To them, pre-commiting your spell slots the way Vancian magic compels you to makes little sense.  What's important is to be able to cycle between, say, fireball and cone of cold as you see fit during the battle rather than having to spend time outside the gaming table guessing which one you might need.  There may not be a great deal of flexibility regarding the powers you bring to the table on any given day, but with proper battlefield tactics that kind of flexibility isn't especially important anyway (they would say).

I think there's something to be learned from both groups, personally.  And I hope the 5e team will feel the same way.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 16, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> Snipped to the points I am responding to.
> 
> Incorrect about the rest.  Clerics are not required to rest to regain spells.  They get them back at whatever time they pray each day, regardless of rest.  So they really do mean X times per day.  Same with Turn/Rebuke undead.
> Same with many items, which recharge at dawn or at midnight.




Interesting on the Cleric; my group must have ignored that part.

Looking at the SRD, I'm having trouble finding the actual rules for other per Day abilities, though, even Turn Undead.  We always played them as being Rest based.



UngeheuerLich said:


> The split is metagamey: why can´t I do a ritual that makes something explode? Why can´t I do a spell that opens a door in some seconds if well prepared. Of course, a fireball cast as a ritual is not as useful. Beeing able to open a door as a prepared spell is also often not needed. So why is there a split between rituals and attack spells?
> You could as well have a universal mechanic that allows spells to be cast as rituals...




That's not meta-game.  That's just how the world works, entirely in-game.  It's not "meta-game" for every possible combination of effects to not be available.

Is it "meta-game" to not be able to Raise Dead as a Standard Action in 3.5 (at least in the core rules; don't know about splatbooks)?



> usually not. You do it between sessions. Building a character is often making choices between sessions. And you are stuck with them if they fit the actual session or not.




It's an in-character decision, is what I mean.  I'm not sure why characters being "stuck" with the decisions they make is a bad thing.  Shouldn't decisions have consequences?



> If the wizard knows 10 at-wills, but can prepare only two, you still have only two choices. And if you knew what you would face, you could prepare 2 good choices.




But what about the Fighter.  Is he "preparing" only two of his ten at-wills?



> Often the wizard paralyzes, not because he has too many choices, but all choices he has are equally bad.




That sounds rather bizarre, and not at all similar to my experiences with 4E.  It's rare that a Wizard would run into a situation where all his choices are equally bad, simply because spell choices are rarely _bad_.

And I'm not sure why decision paralysis only occurs with equally bad choices, and not equally good choices.



> In ADnD or 3e i never had to think about much which spell is used. Usually only IF using a spell is really needed.




Huh... and that's a _good_ thing?  That choice of spell to use was always obvious?




GMforPowergamers said:


> I often wonder if 4e had given wizards 2 daily for every daily and encounter sell and no limit on spell books if that would work better




Well, I'd have banned Wizards from my campaign, so... I'd say "no".  And signs point to me doing exactly that with DnD:Next, if I end up running it.

But it's interesting to think about, because I doubt it would've changed the complaints much.  Because the bulk of complaints don't really seem to be about Vancian vs AEDU, but rather Wizard spells not being "I win" buttons any more, which would not be changed with an all-Daily 4E Wizard.

Just like how most complaints about Healing Surges really seem to be more about Second Wind, and Warlords, and not really about what the Surges themselves are: simply a limit on how much healing a character can get each day (although I know that some _do_ take issue with that).


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 16, 2012)

I like the Arcana Evolved system too, for flavor, but its flexibility causes a lot of analysis paralysis once a caster hits about 10th level or so.  And it suffers the same overpowered casters issue as its 3E root system, though it puts off the reckoning until higher levels, thanks to some weeding out of the worst offending spells.

I wouldn't mind seeing a AE/4E mixed system, where it took something very much like a ritual to swap "readied spells"--perhaps much easier, cheaper, and safe when not on an adventure.  Then the caster could cast non-readied spells, slowly and at risk and expense, via ritual, and use the AE system for the readied spells.  That puts the planning between adventures, where the analysis paralysis does the least harm, while leaving the option to swap out a spell or two in a pinch, if the party suddenly needs _water breathing_ or the like, but didn't have it.

Then set up a handful of optional at-will and encounter spells, available via feat and/or class/theme features that take up one or more of those "readied" slots, also via ritual.  (By "optional" here, I mean the group decides to allow these or not--and you've got something else to do with that feat or feature if the group decides not.)  

Combine all of that with AE's features to keep the spell list more under control--especially the more powerful spells--and you have a system where "specialist caster" or "generalist wizard" is not some hard-coded dichotomy, but a spectrum that can be tweaked as the players want.


----------



## RHGreen (Apr 16, 2012)

I don't like vancian, but I could live with it if they do something like the following:

1. Have at least 2 or 3 low powered at-wills so I never have to use a pointless crossbow that I can never hit with.

2. Have separate silos (in a similar philosophy to 4E) where I have to choose some utility type spells as part of the system. It is always too tempting and possibly too 'right choice' to choose damage spells or save or dies and leave some of the other spells sitting around unused.

For example, if you had separate spell slots for combat spells and utility spells like Level 1: 1 (1) where #(#) is combat spells (utility spells).

3. The ability to ad hoc casting a spell at a disadvantage.

4. Ritual casting, perhaps with the ability to cast utility spells in a ritual fashion.

Something along those lines.

Oh, and on a couple of spell side notes.

a) Ditch meta-magic. Didn't like it, not in the 3E presentation. Not sure exactly why. Just didn't.

b) Save-Or-Die. How about if we spells that have a low chance of success per round, but you can keep casting it until i) you give up, ii) you are interrupted, iii) you succeed.

For example: 

Charm Person. 

You really really want to charm the target rather than just kill it. The target can help you in the adventure. It can give information, help you through a door (either pass guards, knowing the magic word, or perhaps disarm the trap etc) and maybe even fight along side you.

Charm Person has only about a 1 in 3 (or perhaps 4 - I don't know - it would need play-testing to figure out) chance of succeeding.

Possible Outcomes: 

1) You cast it on the 1st round, it fails, you keep casting on the 2nd round, you fail again, you continue casting it yet another round and bang it succeeds. You defeat the target. It took 3 rounds of attacking to take it out in much the same way attacking with damage spells would have done. The difference is you now have a "friend".

2) You cast Charm Person on the 1st round and fail. You try to keep casting on the second round, but take an arrow to the leg disrupting the spell. You lose the spell and now have to try something else.

3) You cast Charm Person on the 1st round. You succeed. You have excelled yourself this time. Cheers and celebrations all round. Like the old days of Save-Or-Die, but it doesn't happen very often so it isn't a constant encounter fun destroyer.

Hopefully this would get rid of the 2 normal outcomes of Save-Or-Dies. "Well that encounter was over quick, magic-users are too powerful, my fighter didn't get to do anything" or "That was my only spell and it didn't work. Now all I can do is watch you lot play. Magic-users are rubbish."


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 16, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> The split is metagamey: why can´t I do a ritual that makes something explode? Why can´t I do a spell that opens a door in some seconds if well prepared. Of course, a fireball cast as a ritual is not as useful. Beeing able to open a door as a prepared spell is also often not needed. So why is there a split between rituals and attack spells?
> You could as well have a universal mechanic that allows spells to be cast as rituals...




You could.  Just give them a casting time measured in minutes and a cost and few are going to bother.  And that makes your spellbook the spells you know well enough to cast reflexively.  (For that matter I have the house rule that a wizard can cast _any_ wizard at will attack power in 3 rounds as long as they don't move - it doesn't happen IME).



Crazy Jerome said:


> D&D "Vancian" is short-hand for some variation of having discrete spells in slots. Far as I'm concerned, that includes the 3E sorcerer and the 4E ADEU system--though obviously those are somewhat off the center of what D&D "Vancian" has meant. If you want to get more particular than that about what "Vancian" means, then go to the source material, where spells are very much the big guns--"I win" buttons so powerful that even in a story, with no chance of the character power gaming, the casters only have 4-6 of them.




Ultimately I don't mind Vancian casting.  What I mind is the classic Wizard (and Cleric) class.  Spell points are trying to fix the symptom not the cause.

What's wrong with the wizard can be shown easily by looking at Lord of the Rings.  In the whole of Lord of the Rings, Gandalf casts about six spells.  A third level 3.X specialist wizard can cast seven significant spells (plus cantrips).  Per day.  And then even if they've spent a night sleeping on a bed of nails (and a night's sleep is something _everyone_ needs so it's not a specific inconvenience), they can cast seven spells the next day.  It's absurd by the standards of Lord of The Rings - or just about any protagonist from Appendix N.  For that matter I'm not sure _Harry Potter_ normally casts seven spells in a day.

The problems with Vancian magic to me boil down to the same two things.

1: The Wizard has _too much magic_.  A fifth level wizard makes Gandalf look like an amateur.  If you cut the wizard (and other primary casting classes) out of the game, the top tier class that remains in the PHB is the _Bard_.  Cut all the primary casters out and the best caster is _still_ right at the top of the power tree.

2: The recharge times are wrong.  Resetting your spells should be something much more significant.  It works in classic dungeoncrawling where you make far to many wandering monster checks to make an 8 hour rest healthy.  And the penalty for recharging isn't a night's rest but schlepping back to town.  But for a less focussed game this does not work.  It means that for any situation that takes time to unfold the wizard can reprepare quite happily.  Make it at least a full day and much more of the problem vanishes.

(3: In 3.X the crafting rules were broken.  But that's not inherent).

Most of the spellpoint systems or the like don't fix either of these problems - if anything they make them worse as they mean with a very few versatile spells the wizard always has a good one to hand.  "True Vancian" casting with only a handful of prepared spells and needing time in a lab to prepare would be fascinating.  But that's not what we have.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 16, 2012)

In addition to the above points, my main reasons for liking the Vancian system are as follows:

1) No siloing of spells.  You can prepare all combat spells, or no combat spells, or any permutation.  Which means you can spend one day fireballing everything in sight, and another day divining all of your enemies, and another day setting up long-term wards, giving you maximum strategic flexibility.  As mentioned before, it basically comes down to being a superior system strategically where AEDU is often superior tactically, and I much prefer a system with both good strategic and good tactical capability to one with mediocre strategic and excellent tactical capability.

2) No enforcement of non-combat-ness.  This is similar to the above, but in speed rather than number.  _Wall of stone_, _silent image_, and _teleport_ are in theory non-combat spells, and some people lament being able to cast them so quickly (mostly the people who think that you should require the preparation of some utility spells because combat spells are better, protip, they're not), but when it comes right down to it _every single spell_ is a combat spell if you're creative enough.  If the designers say "This is a non-combat spell, so we should make it not castable in combat," what they're actually saying is either "It's too powerful to be able to cast in combat" or "We're not creative enough to think of combat uses for this."  Most of the time when they say it's too powerful for combat they're wrong--seriously, guys, you didn't need to make the 4e Silent Image ritual take forever to cast and cost gold--and the latter case is self-explanatory.


Also: All the time, I see people who dislike Vancian casting but like the ritual system, saying that magic should be long and involved and so forth.  Guess what?  Vancian casting _is_ a ritual system!  You spend a long time casting a ritual...and then at the end, instead of having it take effect immediately, you stick it in stasis in your mind to be released later.  All of the heavy lifting gets done in advance, which is why there are no super-long casting times in combat or skill checks--they were all done in relative safety over a few hours.



			
				Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> 1: The Wizard has too much magic. A fifth level wizard makes Gandalf look like an amateur. If you cut the wizard (and other primary casting classes) out of the game, the top tier class that remains in the PHB is the Bard. Cut all the primary casters out and the best caster is still right at the top of the power tree.
> 
> 2: The recharge times are wrong. Resetting your spells should be something much more significant. It works in classic dungeoncrawling where you make far to many wandering monster checks to make an 8 hour rest healthy. And the penalty for recharging isn't a night's rest but schlepping back to town. But for a less focussed game this does not work. It means that for any situation that takes time to unfold the wizard can reprepare quite happily. Make it at least a full day and much more of the problem vanishes.




That isn't a Vancian problem, actually, it's a 3e problem.  In AD&D, wizards had many fewer spells (no bonus spells for high attributes, no focused specialist, no widely-available charged items, etc.) and spells took 10-15 minutes per spell level to prepare, each, so it took a 20th level wizard about 2.5 days to prepare all of his spells and he only had about 2/3 the spells of a 20th-level counterpart.  Bring back AD&D-style Vancian instead of 3e-style Vancian for 5e, problem solved.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 16, 2012)

dkyle said:


> It's jargon.  Every game has it.  And jargon works by redefining the "common language" meaning.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So, in short, the only difference with 4E's jargon?  It's new.




In a word, no.

Games have jargon. That's true. But when the meaning of words used as jargon contrast with common, non-jargon uses of the word you risk being down the rabbit hole, so to speak (or technically, chatting with Humpty Dumpty on an adventure through the looking glass). Too much dissonance between the use of the word as jargon and as everyday speech and people object, as we've seen. The jargon begins to look like spin. Nobody wants to play the healer? Call him a leader instead. That sounds active, not reactive.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 16, 2012)

Mengu said:


> . I want D&D to be the best fantasy role playing game system it can be. But that is no longer the goal of the design team. They are after capturing a feeling, and not interested in improving the game system.




"Best system" and "improvement" are subjective terms, as stated here.  Best at doing what?  Improved in what sense?  You cannot "make a game better" - you can only make a game better _at providing some specific play experience_.


----------



## Mengu (Apr 16, 2012)

Umbran said:


> "Best system" and "improvement" are subjective terms, as stated here.  Best at doing what?  Improved in what sense?  You cannot "make a game better" - you can only make a game better _at providing some specific play experience_.




That is very true. I should clarify... For me, I look for a diverse experience, a system that can deliver to the needs of a variety of campaign worlds that a DM can create, and a variety of character concepts a player can come up with. Again for me, D&D is first and foremost a fantasy role playing game system, and not a fantasy campaign template.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 16, 2012)

billd91 said:


> In a word, no.
> 
> Games have jargon. That's true. But when the meaning of words used as jargon contrast with common, non-jargon uses of the word you risk being down the rabbit hole, so to speak (or technically, chatting with Humpty Dumpty on an adventure through the looking glass). Too much dissonance between the use of the word as jargon and as everyday speech and people object, as we've seen. The jargon begins to look like spin. Nobody wants to play the healer? Call him a leader instead. That sounds active, not reactive.




And what's wrong with using a term that emphasizes the totality of the class, instead of a single feature?  There's no simple, non-jargon word that quite means what Leader means in 4E.  Ergo, take a word, that doesn't already have baggage from previous editions, and give it a jargon definition.  Clerics were not meant to simply be "Healers", from day one.  Calling them "Healers" would have been an abandonment of the spirit of Gygax's DnD.

I guess, overall, all this concern over jargon and terminology is hard for me to understand.  It's just on a whole completely different wavelength than how I view games.  It's all just labels for mechanics; the more clearly defined those labels are, the better (which tends to differentiate further from common language, since that is rarely clearly defined).  I dislike 3.X because I dislike the mechanics, not because of terminology weirdness like Touch "Armor" Class.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> There are many games where spellcasting is a skill, but even in those, there is usually a pretty clear separation of what is magic and what is not, and the magical skills/abilities usually follow some special rules.




A clear separation between what you can do with skills and what you can do with magic is common. Special rules are less so. 



> In any case, D&D is not those games. Wizards with use limitations and fighters without them are fundamental to D&D, as a style. It certainly would be possible to make a game without this dynamic, which could be done well, but it wouldn't be D&D.




Not arguing about that. Vancian magic is iconic to D&D. 



> In any case, I would argue that having the mechanics for magic be radically different than the general rules of the world is better, because the metagame constructs then reflect the in-game reality: magic is different. It breaks the laws of physics and the laws of common sense. That's what makes it magic.




Funny how this thing that breaks the laws of physics and common sense is so damn reliable in D&D. And as far as I can tell, magic in skill based systems can break the laws of physics and common sense without function mechanically in a different way to other abilities. Again, it's about what magic does - not the game mechanic involved.


----------



## filthgrinder (Apr 16, 2012)

I wouldn't mind seeing a combination of the two. I think At-will spells/powers are a good thing. Having the option to take some basic attacking spell and being able to spam it works. Having a number of spell "slots" and being able to prepare some from a list, also "feels" right.

Here is how I'd like to see a wizard.
First, he uses a feat/spell choice/skill option, whatever character creation/building resource you want to call it, and spends it on magic missile (or another at-will). Now, this is a choice, he could have spent that resource on some other option. So people who HATE at-wills, can build their character without it.
Now, for spells, you have a number of spell slots. You can fill certain slots with certain level spells.
Now, and here the fun part. Not all spells of the same level have the same prep time. So, let's say I have 2 fourth level spell slots. My spell book has four fourth level spells in it.
Spell 1: Requires an extended rest and 1 hour to prepare.
Spell 2: Requires five minutes to prepare
Spell 3: Requires a short rest and 1 minute to prepare
Spell 4: Requires an extended rest and 1 hour to prepare.

Now, I have the flexibility to prepare out my day. I can spend those two slots and prep spell 2 and 3. These will be "encounter" type spells where I will probably reprep throughout the day after a fight. Spell 1 and 4 would be "daily" spells. I wouldn't be able to prep them again throughout the day, but I might want one just in case. Also, I might want to prep one of those dailies, and then when I use it, maybe I can prep my encounters then as well. Or maybe that spell burns out that spell slot until I can extended rest again.

Something to think about.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 16, 2012)

Could also have "spells" that take a "daily" slot, but last all day, and provide more limited actions, as a way to handle "at-wills" or other such spells.

For example, if you have the right feat investment, you can maybe turn a traditional 3rd level slot (i.e. appropriate for a 5th level wizard) into a spell that, once cast, gives you around seven, 1d6+mod _magic missile_ spells, as a resource you can use anytime during the day.

This is similar to the old magic missile that gave multiple missiles per casting at higher levels, except you get more of them to make up for the fact that you can't use them all at once. So the traditional Vancian "spell economy" is used to set your major limits by "slot," but what the "spells" in those slots do is widened considerably in scope and mechanics.

I'm sure people could come up with other interesting structures besides turning said daily into a quasi-at-will, too. Once there is a layer of indirection between the mechanics of the "spell slot" and the in-game "spell" that ultimately comes out of it, the relationship doesn't need to be as strict as the traditional model made it.

You could also then reuse the mechanical framework but not the in-game output for some different things for non-magical stuff. For example, instead of "exploits," a fighter has "practices" that govern where he is currently honing his techniques. He slots these "practices" similar to 4E, but what they enable are some "encounter", "at-wills," 3E barbarian rage-style bits, or even some straight, reusable abilities, almost like feats that can be retrained within certain limits between each adventure.


----------



## Andor (Apr 16, 2012)

In AD&D we had Vancian casters. And Psionics. As far as I can recall that was about it. Plus a few use per day like druid shape changing.

In 2ed we had vancian casters, psionics and sha'irs, plus a lot of awesome variant sha'irs in the handbook. When you broke open the big book of brokenness aka "Skills and Powers" you had some more options. 

In 3e we had Vancian wizards and clerics, sorcerers and favored souls, psionics, recharge based casters, at-will based casters, skill based casters, use-per-day based abilites that fed multiple options, power pool abilities, token based abilites (if you count iron heroes,) and artificers. 

4e had AEDU + rituals.

Speaking for myself I'd like to see more of the flexibility, openness and outright wackiness that 3e afforded.


----------



## Lwaxy (Apr 16, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> D&D  Those other systems have their own issues.




Like? We haven't encountered any issues save people sometimes getting confused about how many points they have left.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 16, 2012)

Andor said:


> 4e had AEDU + rituals.




Don't forget the 4E psionics system. Honestly, if you get rid of the scaling issues with it, I'd love to see that applied to classes of all types as a fatigue system.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 16, 2012)

One thing about Vancian magic and wizards that I never got that wizards "understood" magic but could not copy other forms of magic. The idea of Vancian magic locked designers and into the thought that spell slot are completely separate from every other system.

A wizard can learn to inject a spell into a potion but no one thought of a way to turn their hand into a reloadable magic wand? It would be interesting if there was some way to cast Vancian spells to gain access to another spell system. _Fingerwand_ turns your finger into a 10 charge wand of a 0th level spell. _Eyebeam_ allows the caster to fire off a 2d6 energy beam out their eyes once every enc.... 10-(wizard level) minutes.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 16, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> Like? We haven't encountered any issues save people sometimes getting confused about how many points they have left.




The people that are really gung ho about particular systems seldom have any issues with them, at least not that they are aware of--probably due to a particular playstyle.  If you think you have a great solution, throw it out there and defend it.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Apr 16, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> I prefer Vancian casting, because when I think D&D, that is what I think of.
> 
> It feels like D&D.



This guy is correct.  To _me_, that's all there should be to this discussion.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 16, 2012)

ArmoredSaint said:


> This guy is correct.  To _me_, that's all there should be to this discussion.




While true, it's something that will always be brought up, since the system is pretty weird within fantasy, and a lot of people can't slip into the Fiddler on the Roof mentality.

Indeed, if they can keep non-Vancian casters in D&D long enough, Vancian casting may get phased out naturally by the audience once the Vancian-only generations have passed, though by definition none of us will live so long to see that.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 16, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> While true, it's something that will always be brought up, since the system is pretty weird within fantasy, and a lot of people can't slip into the Fiddler on the Roof mentality.
> 
> Indeed, if they can keep non-Vancian casters in D&D long enough, Vancian casting may get phased out naturally by the audience once the Vancian-only generations have passed, though by definition none of us will live so long to see that.




Don't worry, I've been teaching the younger generations how to play 3.5 and the wonder and majesty of the Vancian system.


----------



## Ranganathan (Apr 16, 2012)

Vancian casting is still popular for a few reasons.

1. Versatility. In older editions you had a large spell list to chose from on a daily basis and you could pick which spells to memorize. In 4th, by contrast, you have a set list of spells that you cast over and over.

2. Utility. In older editions you had many non-combat spells that could be used in interesting ways to perform often off the wall things, and create synergies with other spells or other casters. In 4th, to contrast, you have utility spells which largely fall into rather dull categories of static bonuses for a round, spend a surge, or free movement.

It's not a distinction between at-will, encounter, etc vs Vancian, it's a distinction between the feeling of stasis / set lists / non-choices / and sameness vs feeling magic is dynamic / players have agency / control / and the ability to improvise. With 4th, despite many of it's improvements in places, you simply don't have the range of possibilities available under Vancian casting.

I for one would welcome the improvisation and synergies of Vancian casting along with the magic-user not running out of magic set up of at-wills. With Vancian I can cast one spell to form a rain cloud in a room, cast another spell to transform that water into something flammable, then toss a torch into the room. I can't even come close to that in 4th. It's not about nuking an encounter, it's about creative thinking and out smarting parts of the adventure as players. Damn I miss that.

Don't get me wrong, 4E did fix a few things, but it went way too far in fixing them. It fixed the wizards running out of magic problem and the 15-minute work day by ripping the heart out of players' ability to improvise with magic. Something that still fixes the crossbow wizard and the 15-minute work day while retaining the players' ability to pull off amazing things at the same time? Pure win and perfection.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 16, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> A wizard can learn to inject a spell into a potion but no one thought of a way to turn their hand into a reloadable magic wand?




Or, the other way to look at it is that someone thought to try, but the game universe doesn't allow that.

Folks forget that magical traditions follow rules and have limitations - "magic" does not equate to, "can accomplish anything I can conceive."


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 16, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Or, the other way to look at it is that someone thought to try, but the game universe doesn't allow that.
> 
> Folks forget that magical traditions follow rules and have limitations - "magic" does not equate to, "can accomplish anything I can conceive."




Considering that those magical traditions and arcane rules are written by a bunch of role playing and fantasy fans, I don't get it still.


----------



## Kynn (Apr 16, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> Cuz if it ain't broke, don't fix it.




There's a strong argument to be made that Vancian spellcasting as presented in D&D is, indeed, broken -- and thus in need of fixing.


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 16, 2012)

dkyle said:


> This is a natural result of Daily-heavy design.  Unless there are actual mechanics in 5E to enforce standard adventure-day lengths, the exact same thing is likely to occur.  3.5 was not an Encounter-based design.  It was a Day-based design.  I very much doubt that 5E will truly be Adventure-based design.  Sure, there might be Adventure creation rules along the lines of 3.X/4E Encounter creation rules, but if there's traditional Vancian casting, then it's really Day-based design.
> 
> The problem is that resting for a night is an _incredibly_ overpowered action, by the rules.  There are enormous benefits outlined by the rules, with negligible downside.  It is left to the DM to try to balance the game, against players that have every natural incentive to rest as often as possible.
> 
> ...




We are talking about D&D, in the end a good game needs a good DM to run it, if you want to play a game that got rules for every thing including how the DM should act than look no further than WotC advanture board games...

IMHO, what the game need is to teach the DMs to manage those risks, how to build advantures that reward active exploring instead of turteling every 15 minutes, one of the ways to do just that IMO is to build the advanture with a broader scoop in mind so that each combat won't be a grindfest but part of an whole that slowly tax the party resources, couple that with repercussion for not pushing forward. For example, "you come back the next day to find that the kobolds rigged the entrance to collapse when big folks such as yourself walk the floor" or "just when the moon dip into the horizons you feel piercing cold sealing into your bones, you wake up in a start to find that three wraiths have risen through your tents from the crypt bellow"

My point is, what's wrong with encouraging the DMs to build more thought about advantures?

Warder


----------



## am181d (Apr 16, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> IMHO, what the game need is to teach the DMs to manage those risks, how to build advantures that reward active exploring instead of turteling every 15 minutes, one of the ways to do just that IMO is to build the advanture with a broader scoop in mind so that each combat won't be a grindfest but part of an whole that slowly tax the party resources, couple that with repercussion for not pushing forward. For example, "you come back the next day to find that the kobolds rigged the entrance to collapse when big folks such as yourself walk the floor" or "just when the moon dip into the horizons you feel piercing cold sealing into your bones, you wake up in a start to find that three wraiths have risen through your tents from the crypt bellow"




There are two main techniques that I use to address this issue:

1) a sense of urgency (PCs aren't going to stop to rest casually if they're being hunted or if they're on a quest with an urgent objective)
2) DM initiated encounters (particularly in overland and city-based adventures, I'm the one deciding when encounters happen)

Of course, I rarely if ever run extended dungeon delves. In the games I run, generally once you're in the "dungeon" you have a few chained encounters and you're done without a lot of opportunity for breathing in between.


----------



## Lwaxy (Apr 17, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> The people that are really gung ho about particular systems seldom have any issues with them, at least not that they are aware of--probably due to a particular playstyle.  If you think you have a great solution, throw it out there and defend it.




Don't know how great it is, but it works for us way better than pure Vancian (we have some players using that, too). 

I'm just wondering what issues are supposedly going on with it because we haven't encountered anything significant. It would help to know to fix it before it happens.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 17, 2012)

As much as I dislike playing a true wizard or cleric, I have to admit that Vancian magic really is part of what makes D&D D&D. When I play a caster, I prefer to play a sorcerer (or, even better, beguiler, warmage, etc.), but there's an awful lot of slotting in that, too. The warlock is compelling, too, but the hardwired attack role (Eldritch Blast) actually turns me off, a bit. 

I think the ideal mage, IMO would combine the warlock, sorcerer, and wizard. Give the character a small number of innate abilities or at-wills, a double handful of known spells, and a broad reserve of spells that need to be "hung" in advance. 

With just a couple minutes thought, I'd start with the 3.5 wizard and give them a reserve feat in place of the bonus item creation feats. Then give them a "level" of sorcerer every time they gained a new spell level. This level of sorcerer would only involve using the "spells known" table so the mage has a small number of spells, chosen from spells in his book at that time, that never again need to be memorized. Thus, a 20th level wizard would have the same number of slots as current, but would also have 5 reserve feats and the known spells of a 9th level sorcerer.

That's a starting point, and I immediately have some tweaks I'd want to test: What happens if the reserve feats are in addition to, rather than in place of the item creation feats? What other reserve feats can I come up with? Should the daily slots table be replaced with sorcerer? How about adding the "spells known" as bonus slots to the "spells per day"? Are two 4th level spells known actually useful at 18th level? Still, that sounds like a much more interesting class.


----------



## n00bdragon (Apr 17, 2012)

If someone drove up to your house every morning and delivered a giant bag of money with the only stipulation being that you spend it before the next day you'd be pretty attached to that system too.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 17, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> I'm just wondering what issues are supposedly going on with it because we haven't encountered anything significant. It would help to know to fix it before it happens.




It very much depends on the particulars of each system. However, one of the most common problems is too much freedom to swap low-powered spells for higher, or vice versa. I think high to low is usually more of a problem than the other way, but both can happen. 

Take a naive power point system initiated off of AD&D spell slots. Convert all 1st level slots to 1 point, 2nd level to 2 points, etc. Suddenly, a higher level caster can convert a few lower level spells into an extra 9th level spell. Then someone tries to fix the worst of the low to high conversion by charging 1 point for 1st, 3 points for 2nd, 5 points for 3rd, etc., with each spell slot giving the corresponding amount. Now, suddenly, a single 6th level slot lets a caster do a max magic missile all day long. 

But mainly, it takes a system that is already very generous strategically and makes it even more generous and flexible tactically. In a game designed with power points from the ground up, you'll often see some variation on scaling such that the caster can be *reasonably* flexible with low level, modest effects, but really has to sacrifice and dig for the bigger stuff--and the scaling is usually fairly steep after a point, often with unpredictable risks. This often leaves the caster bereft of magic when they try too much, but even that isn't such a big deal in a skill-based system, where the caster has other things to use.

D&D is *already* prone to the wizard being balanced on a razor edge between hopeless drag and terribly over-powered. Power points tend to exaggerate such issues anyway. That's also, by the way, why power point house rules for D&D tend to work better for a particular group when they stick to a relatively narrow level range. Even the AD&D naive implementation isn't so bad between 3rd and 9th level, especially in certain playstyles.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 17, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> In addition to the above points, my main reasons for liking the Vancian system are as follows:
> 
> 1) No siloing of spells.
> 
> 2) No enforcement of non-combat-ness.




Both of these, I agree, would be good things.  If you took the fighter and the thief and merged them into a single class with the abilities of both.  The ability to function at their level both in and out of combat.  Because Vancian means that if expecting a fight the wizard can prepare for the combat focus of the fighter - and if not expecting one he can prepare for the non-combat focus of a thief.  Call him the "professional" or something.  As things stand, this flexibility is a way Spellcasters are Special.  As if they need more than the ability to warp reality to make them special.

I don't dislike those aspects of casting.  I dislike them _paired with the classic D&D class system that doesn't normally allow this sort of flexibility_.  Now whether this is a problem with Vancian Magic or one of the D&D class system is open to debate.  (I'd say it's a flaw in the classic D&D class system, myself).



> That isn't a Vancian problem, actually, it's a 3e problem.  In AD&D, wizards had many fewer spells (no bonus spells for high attributes, no focused specialist, no widely-available charged items, etc.) and spells took 10-15 minutes per spell level to prepare, each, so it took a 20th level wizard about 2.5 days to prepare all of his spells and he only had about 2/3 the spells of a 20th-level counterpart.  Bring back AD&D-style Vancian instead of 3e-style Vancian for 5e, problem solved.




This isn't true.  3e definitely made the problem more severe.  But the 2e mage, with specialisation is hugely more powerful than the 1e mage who doesn't get these bonus spells.  And even in 1e, the commonly thought overpowered variant classes like the Cavalier were made, according to Gygax himself, to try to add some balance.  Also the AD&D endgame is much, much lower than the 3e one.  In AD&D you got castles and towers round level 11 or so - and that's when much of the adventuring stopped - and when the fighters got armies to make up for the wizard's spells continuing to improve.  Talking about 20th level wizards - 20th level wizards could easily make reality beg for mercy in 1e.  Fighters were men with sharpened bits of metal no matter what level.


----------



## Lwaxy (Apr 17, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> That's also, by the way, why power point house rules for D&D tend to work better for a particular group when they stick to a relatively narrow level range.




0 - 50th level here. 

But I see what you mean. 

Yes, we use spell level = mana points needed, but each time you use a spell on a level above an exhaustion point count (which counts down of course) you pay up to 3 additional mana. There are a few more tweaks like more costs or inability of casting the same spell more than a specific number of times unless it is a 0 or 1st level spell and your highest spell (last learned if tie) usually takes up double the mana. Until they are really in the epic levels, we rarely see overpowered, sometimes we see underpowered in the lower levels. We don't have any power players though. 

It is not that the Vancian casters or those using the above suggested "wizard and sorcerer in one" idea (4 PCs with that right now) can't hold up. It is just a different system.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Apr 17, 2012)

Vancian wizards are cool. Chicks dig them.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2012)

I tend to look at Vancian casting in the same way that I view HP and AC.  Sure, it's wonky.  Sure it's got its warts.  But, at the end of the day, it's simple, it's easy to use and, above all, it works.

That's a REALLY hard combo to topple.  Spell points are perhaps better, but, they're more complicated and require a lot more work from the player.  At the levels that most campaigns play at - say 3-12th, for more of those levels managing a wizard isn't too taxing.  Clerics might be a bit more work because of the longer spell list, but, usually not that difficult.

Fast, easy, simple, discrete.  That's a pretty nice system right there.  The primary problems with it are legacy items  - spells that really need to either go away, be much higher level, or changed to be less "versatile" and the presumed length of an adventuring day.  Telling the low level caster that he gets to throw darts for most of the adventure because he's just not good enough to actually do the things his character is supposed to do most of the time, is not my idea of fun.


----------



## The Shadow (Apr 17, 2012)

It's not like spell points are the only alternative to Vancian casting. True20's Fatigue-save system works quite well, for example.  There, powerful effects are controlled by high DC's and/or prerequisites.  Very different feel from traditional D&D, yes, but I like it.

I think a lot of the problems of Vancian casting can be mitigated by good class design.  Why does a generalist wizard have to be best at everything?  I say, if you want to be the magical jack of all trades, you have to accept being master of none.  Sure, the generalist gets a few illusions;  but he's quickly left in the dust by the Illusionist.

2e's reworking of 'specialist wizards' was IMAO a huge step backward from 1e.  Though I grant that the 1e conception of specialists takes a lot more work to get right, I also think it's time well spent.  Believe me, I don't carry a torch for 1e otherwise, I think 3e was a huge improvement, but in this one area Gygax was seriously onto something - the Illusionist had tons and tons of flavor.

I like what I'm hearing some people propose of spells that work in virtually every level, increasing in power and utility depending on slot, but I really think it's better suited to a sorcerer-type than the wizard.  It's always struck me that sorcerers should have 'themed' spells rather than the quirky named-type stuff of wizards.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 17, 2012)

am181d said:


> There are two main techniques that I use to address this issue:
> 
> 1) a sense of urgency (PCs aren't going to stop to rest casually if they're being hunted or if they're on a quest with an urgent objective)
> 2) DM initiated encounters (particularly in overland and city-based adventures, I'm the one deciding when encounters happen).




And both methods work to an extent.  No one is saying they don't.  The trouble is that both are extremely limiting.  The DM initiated encounters issue is that after a relatively low level, people are going to work out that attacking the PCs is foolish.  And with 3.X being balanced round four encounters/day, PTSD and massive depopulation is the probable result.


----------



## Lwaxy (Apr 17, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> Why does a generalist wizard have to be best at everything?  I say, if you want to be the magical jack of all trades, you have to accept being master of none.  Sure, the generalist gets a few illusions;  but he's quickly left in the dust by the Illusionist.




Definitely. I've always paid attention to this. It makes schools like abjuration and illusion really fun to play.


----------



## Tallifer (Apr 17, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Because players who like non-4e Wizards like options.  They like the ability to have one set of abilities today and a different set tomorrow, if needed.




Rituals are even more flexible than Vancian spells. You can cast as many different rituals as you want in a day provided they are cheap enough in residuum.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 17, 2012)

Well I am coming into this late but I'll just throw my 2CP in to answer the OP. I've played DnD from BECMI to 4E (and was a huge 4E pro when it was announced/first released).

Like many things which may well have mechanical or story 'better ways', DnD style Vancian casting makes it DnD. Without that as an option it loses a part of DnD feel. It is not what makes DnD but it is another part that contributes towards the feel of DnD. Clerics and Wizards/Magic Users should use DnD Vancian casting. It is so easy to make other classes that use spell points or AEDU style casting but to give that DnD feel, Vancian is required for those classes as a minimum.


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 17, 2012)

Because it's easier to use than practically every other limited resource spell system, and quite a few of the "limitless" resource spell systems.

It also has the advantage of having a low system mastery floor: If you somehow manage to pick all the wrong spells (like fireballs while fighting red dragons) you are only penalized for an in-game day instead of a level (which in some games, can be months IRL), or even worse, the rest of your characters life.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 17, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> We are talking about D&D, in the end a good game needs a good DM to run it, if you want to play a game that got rules for every thing including how the DM should act than look no further than WotC advanture board games...




I do not want to play a game that has rules for everything including how the DM should act.  That would be impossible in any game with the flexibility and open-endedness of RPGs.

What I want is a game that the DM doesn't have to _fix_.  The game should be balanced, by its rules.  The DM should certainly be free to deviate from those rules, and a big part of the art of good DMing is knowing when to break the rules.



> IMHO, what the game need is to teach the DMs to manage those risks, how to build advantures that reward active exploring instead of turteling every 15 minutes, one of the ways to do just that IMO is to build the advanture with a broader scoop in mind so that each combat won't be a grindfest but part of an whole that slowly tax the party resources, couple that with repercussion for not pushing forward.




You're essentially arguing that the rules don't matter, because the DM is there and can fix them.

3.X would be balanced if only DMs learned how to manage the risks of spellcasting.  If only every adventure included an anti-magic field, or an angry god that punishes those who abuse magic, then 3.X would be a perfectly balanced game!  Heck, just let casters cast any spells they want, as many times as they want, and it's balanced because the DM is there to fix it!

If the DM has to constantly fix or work around a rule, _then it is a bad rule_.  Bad enough to break the game?  Depends.  I don't think overnight rests break 4E; they just might break 3.X.



> For example, "you come back the next day to find that the kobolds rigged the entrance to collapse when big folks such as yourself walk the floor" or "just when the moon dip into the horizons you feel piercing cold sealing into your bones, you wake up in a start to find that three wraiths have risen through your tents from the crypt bellow"




Stuff like this could be part of the rules.  A Fate-point-style system, where the DM gets points, along with the players, would help balance overnight rests.



> My point is, what's wrong with encouraging the DMs to build more thought about advantures?




Nothing.  The problem is forcing them to warp their adventure design to fix the game balance.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 17, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> I really wonder how much of the "Vancian" love is from the Vancian system and how much is from the power and complexity of the individual spells, which is NOT related to being Vancian.
> 
> Certainly many people love Vancian in and of itself, but I'd be curious to see how they'd react to a Vancian caster using 4E's assumptions, or a 3E caster with spells balanced to be equal to a 3E fighter's output potential.



Yeah, I suspect that if 5e's Vancian system was essentially 4e's power list(minus all the encounters and at-wills) for casters and you got 3 daily slots that you could fill with any of the 6 dailies you started with in your spellbook, that a lot of people wouldn't like it.

I suspect people would be complaining that it didn't offer true choice or that it didn't resemble the Vancian system they remember.  I suspect that the Vancian system isn't what people like, it's overpowered spells.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 17, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yeah, I suspect that if 5e's Vancian system was essentially 4e's power list(minus all the encounters and at-wills) for casters and you got 3 daily slots that you could fill with any of the 6 dailies you started with in your spellbook, that a lot of people wouldn't like it.
> 
> I suspect people would be complaining that it didn't offer true choice or that it didn't resemble the Vancian system they remember.  I suspect that the Vancian system isn't what people like, it's overpowered spells.




Well, it's not strictly "power" with some spells so much as it's the open-ended nature of them.

It's like how, in 2E, I managed to talk my DM into giving me a Pick of Earth Parting.

I then collapsed the tower adventure he wrote for me, killing everything inside without a single encounter.


----------



## paladinm (Apr 17, 2012)

Why can't we combine the Wizard and Sorcerer and have one primary arcane caster class?  The Mage can prepare as many spells as s/he currently can; but once prepared, s/he can cast a spell as many times as s/he wishes until s/he runs out of spell slots.  S/he can also use a higher spell slot to cast a lower level spell.  That way, if the mage wants to be a magic missile battery, that's up to the mage.  The party might regret it when they need that Web spell, but that's resource management for you.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 17, 2012)

Ehh. A looot of people are tired of the wizard being the one true caster for D&D. It was horrible enough seeing them just pile on the wizard options in 4E.


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 17, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Ehh. A looot of people are tired of the wizard being the one true caster for D&D. It was horrible enough seeing them just pile on the wizard options in 4E.




Woot? are we looting people now? I don't understand what's your point...

Warder


----------



## steeldragons (Apr 17, 2012)

paladinm said:


> Why can't we combine the Wizard and Sorcerer and have one primary arcane caster class?  The Mage can prepare as many spells as s/he currently can; but once prepared, s/he can cast a spell as many times as s/he wishes until s/he runs out of spell slots.  S/he can also use a higher spell slot to cast a lower level spell.  That way, if the mage wants to be a magic missile battery, that's up to the mage.  The party might regret it when they need that Web spell, but that's resource management for you.




Something like this works for me. One rcane caster who can cast various things in various ways...give up a memorized spell to spontaneously cast something they need in an emergency or something. There's a lot of ways to do it. Cast certain things as rituals when you have the time...or if you don't have the spell on hand...



Incenjucar said:


> Ehh. A looot of people are tired of the wizard being the one true caster for D&D. It was horrible enough seeing them just pile on the wizard options in 4E.




Well then a loooot of people will have to be tired, I suppose. Cuz the wizard/magic-user IS the one true caster of D&D. Comparatively speaking, Sorcerer's are "teenagers" and Warlocks are barely out of diapers.

Bards, druids and clerics aren't "true caster classes" since they get their armors and weapons and others special abilities. What's a mage get? Magic. Done.

So...like it or not, the wizard/MU/mage is pretty much _the_ go to caster guy.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 17, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> So...like it or not, the wizard/MU/mage is pretty much _the_ go to caster guy.




Yeah. This is a pretty serious flaw in the game, for me.

Thank goodness for Invokers, but they need to bring back things like the Illusionist and then branch out into more creative areas. Sorcerers need to stick around, but be given a more visceral association with magic.


----------



## paladinm (Apr 17, 2012)

My point is, once a spell is memorized, it's memorized/prepared.  You can cast it as much as you like until you run out of power (spell slots).  And if you need to switch things out, that's what your nightly rest/study time is for.  This isn't and doesn't have to be rocket surgery.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 17, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Both of these, I agree, would be good things.  If you took the fighter and the thief and merged them into a single class with the abilities of both.  The ability to function at their level both in and out of combat.  Because Vancian means that if expecting a fight the wizard can prepare for the combat focus of the fighter - and if not expecting one he can prepare for the non-combat focus of a thief.  Call him the "professional" or something.  As things stand, this flexibility is a way Spellcasters are Special.  As if they need more than the ability to warp reality to make them special.
> 
> I don't dislike those aspects of casting.  I dislike them _paired with the classic D&D class system that doesn't normally allow this sort of flexibility_.  Now whether this is a problem with Vancian Magic or one of the D&D class system is open to debate.  (I'd say it's a flaw in the classic D&D class system, myself).




It's definitely the class system, not the Vancian system.  In 3e, every class that has some sort of resource management system is better than classes that don't, because for some reason the designers thought that getting something in the Special column of your class table (Smite +1/day!) was equal to getting multiple things (5 spells!  2 maneuvers!  15 power points!).



> This isn't true.  3e definitely made the problem more severe.  But the 2e mage, with specialisation is hugely more powerful than the 1e mage who doesn't get these bonus spells.  And even in 1e, the commonly thought overpowered variant classes like the Cavalier were made, according to Gygax himself, to try to add some balance.  Also the AD&D endgame is much, much lower than the 3e one.  In AD&D you got castles and towers round level 11 or so - and that's when much of the adventuring stopped - and when the fighters got armies to make up for the wizard's spells continuing to improve.  Talking about 20th level wizards - 20th level wizards could easily make reality beg for mercy in 1e.  Fighters were men with sharpened bits of metal no matter what level.




I should have been more clear, by AD&D I was referring to 1e.  3e is the system that made both the "too many spells" and the "too-fast preparation" problems real problems, with Focused Specialist and Collegiate Wizard and easily-crafted wands and Doman Wizards and all that on the one hand and 1-hour preparation on the other.  2e didn't have the too-fast preparation problem, and the number of spells available, both known and per day, were higher than 1e but still nowhere near 3e.  If we went back to the 1e version as I suggested, both problems would be solved.



Lwaxy said:


> 0 - 50th level here.
> 
> But I see what you mean.
> 
> ...




If you have a spell point system with fatigue or other limiters, you're essentially capping people at X 9th-level spells per day, Y 8th-level spells per day, and so forth, with a limited ability to mix that up and a vastly larger number of lower-level spells.  If you're going to do that, then using a Vancian hard cap plus either lots of lower-level spells or reserve feats and some sort of "overchanneling" like the Versatile Spellcaster feat accomplishes the same general concept with less complexity.  Yes, spell points let you keep using the higher-level spells at an ever-increasing cost, but either you actually use those high-level spells with that frequency (in which case you're more powerful than an equivalent Vancian caster) or there's a marginal utility to those spells (in which case there's a self-imposed cap that makes it effectively Vancian).



The Shadow said:


> I think a lot of the problems of Vancian casting can be mitigated by good class design.  Why does a generalist wizard have to be best at everything?  I say, if you want to be the magical jack of all trades, you have to accept being master of none.  Sure, the generalist gets a few illusions;  but he's quickly left in the dust by the Illusionist.
> 
> 2e's reworking of 'specialist wizards' was IMAO a huge step backward from 1e.  Though I grant that the 1e conception of specialists takes a lot more work to get right, I also think it's time well spent.  Believe me, I don't carry a torch for 1e otherwise, I think 3e was a huge improvement, but in this one area Gygax was seriously onto something - the Illusionist had tons and tons of flavor.




Yeah, most of the time when I hear people who want to fix casters by restricting them to themes, the 1e illusionist and the 3e beguiler are held up as shining examples.  Supposedly, before Gygax was kicked out of TSR he had planned to change the wizard into a bunch of specialist spells and leave the mage as a bard-like limited caster, which would have been a sight to see.  I'd be all for going the forced-specialization route.



Tallifer said:


> Rituals are even more flexible than Vancian spells. You can cast as many different rituals as you want in a day provided they are cheap enough in residuum.




In theory, yes.  However, the problems with the ritual system are their time and gold/residuum cost.  As presented in 4e, they're not worth it at all the vast majority of the time because of one or both of those factors ("Quick!  They're almost here!  _Arcane lock_ the door!  What?  10 freaking minutes?  Never mind, grab some debris!" and "Sooo...I could _knock_ the door down, at the cost of 10 minutes and 175 gp, orrr...I could blow the thing off its hinges, because they'll hear me chanting anyway...decisions, decisions....") and they aren't as well supported.

Also, as I mentioned above, they don't give you any tactical flexibility or creativity at all, which the Vancian system does.  Being able to cast several spells in quick succession lets you get creative with combining them, casting them as rituals one at a time does not.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yeah, I suspect that if 5e's Vancian system was essentially 4e's power list(minus all the encounters and at-wills) for casters and you got 3 daily slots that you could fill with any of the 6 dailies you started with in your spellbook, that a lot of people wouldn't like it.
> 
> I suspect people would be complaining that it didn't offer true choice or that it didn't resemble the Vancian system they remember.  I suspect that the Vancian system isn't what people like, it's overpowered spells.




It's not the overpoweredness of AD&D/3e spells people like, it's the variety.  If 5e was 4e powers in a Vancian framework, I wouldn't like it because those spells would likely be incredibly boring and same-y and all combat-focused.  Give me _grease_, _silent image_, _reduce person_, _fly_, _fire trap_, _wall of force_, _delayed blast fireball_, _telekinetic sphere_--and those are just SRD spells--not yet another way to damage someone and push them a bit, or teleport tactically, or create a crowd-control zone.  Lots of people played crowd-control wizards in 3e, and that's a fun and effective way to play, but 4e (and now probably 5e) have said "If you want CC or blasting or very limited abjuration, you can contribute in combat, if you want illusions or enchantment or very limited necromancy, you'll have a few watered-down tricks in combat and not much out of combat."

If you sort 3e spells by power and cut off the top half of them, you'll _still_ have plenty of fun, creative, flexible, and noncombat-capable spells.  You can shape the world, fool people, build wards and traps for later, pick up a few minions, and do lots of other things.  If the designers think you can't use illusions in combat, tough noogies for them, they shouldn't give you a few powers that deal psychic damage and call them illusions and then make you spend an arm and a leg to get basic rituals, like Hallucinatory Creature which, at level 12, finally lets you make the moving image of a creature at the cost of 10 minutes and 500gp where a 3e caster could have been doing that several times a day from level 1.

Back in 1e, all the overpowered 3e spells had drawbacks, and plenty of them.  _Wish_ had no "safe" options and aged you, _polymorph_ could kill you, _animate dead_ could be dispelled, _fly_ didn't have the safe descent, and so forth.  Yet people liked the 1e system just fine, because it wasn't about options, it was about creativity and breadth of effects.

[/rant]



			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Yeah. This is a pretty serious flaw in the game, for me.
> 
> Thank goodness for Invokers, but they need to bring back things like the Illusionist and then branch out into more creative areas. Sorcerers need to stick around, but be given a more visceral association with magic.




It's not actually a problem if there's one Wizard class, as long as you can build him into whatever kind of style you like.  In theory, the 3e fighter could be built as a legionnaire, a mercenary, a knight, a bodyguard, and bunches of other things, and even do a passable job of duplicating the ranger, knight, nonmagical monk, and so forth; the fact that none of those classes were really capable of doing what they said they were is beside the point.  Likewise, it's not a problem having one Wizard class as long as you can build him as a pyromancer, a summoner, a diabolist, an oracle, a warlock, or anything else.

The difference between versatility in _build_ and versatility in _play_ is an important one.  You want a single class to be able to do many, many things well when you _build_ a character of that class, so you have interesting options and not all characters of that class are too similar, but you want to limit their options when you _play_ a character of that class to keep things within one theme.

1e and 2e were very good at the latter as far as casters were concerned, with their cap on spells known, difficulty in learning new spells, and such, but not so good with the former, since you didn't have any class features to differentiate "illusionists who happen to cast a summon once in a while" from "summoners who happen to cast an illusion once in a while" from "wizards who can both summon and create illusions."  3e was the opposite--build any kind of wizard you want, good; play any kind of wizard you want with the same character, bad.

If the 5e wizard can be built to be anything under the sun involving magic, but you can build the 3e/4e warlock, 3e dread necromancer, 1e illusionist, and more with it to play with, I'd be perfectly happy with a do-anything wizard class.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 17, 2012)

Eh. The sorts of spellcasters I would like to see access and use spells differently than a mage does. My favored notion of the supernatural is more like "benders" from the Avatar series, which a proper elementalist class could tackle. A spellcaster, somewhere between an invoker and a warlock in concept, and more like a spontaneous caster in practice, that more actively called on their patron, would also be fantastic. A spellcaster that was more of a reverse gish, somewhat like the 2E psion, would also be great.

I can only hope that, after they plop down the generic wizard, they do something creative and, heavens forbid, new.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2012)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Well, it's not strictly "power" with some spells so much as it's the open-ended nature of them.
> 
> It's like how, in 2E, I managed to talk my DM into giving me a Pick of Earth Parting.
> 
> I then collapsed the tower adventure he wrote for me, killing everything inside without a single encounter.




Yeah, I'm thinking we need a new definition of "balance" that doesn't essentially mean "The night goes basically like the DM plans."

The problem in your scenario, IMO, isn't the pick, or that it can collapse a tower. It's not the open-ended nature of the power (indeed, that open end was golden!). The problem is that the DM then (presumably) ran out of options and had hours of work disposed with. The tower adventure wasn't as _disposable_ as it perhaps should have been. 

For me, personally, there is nothing more dull than preparing an adventure and having everything follow the script.


----------



## paladinm (Apr 17, 2012)

Did anyone ever play Dragonlance Saga?  It had a really interesting, open, free-form magic system where you created your own spells and paid for the effects, range, scope, power, etc. with magic points.  It seemed kinda cool, but I thought calculating all the magic costs would be a buzzkill for any game.

Once again, an idea that looked good on paper..


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 17, 2012)

I have tried point-based systems, skill-based systems, mana-point systems, keyword/rune-based systems and fixed-power-based systems.  They have all had their advantages and disadvantages.  At one point I felt the Vancian system was archaic and stupid.  That was approximately 25 years ago.  My feelings have changed quite a bit since then.

Preference for the survival of the Vancian system, to me, is far from nostalgia.  Many of previous e-mails have hit on the ideas that make it appealing.

1) Player Agency - Excepting 4E, under all previous editions, the vancian was the most flexible and customizable.  More than one party would tailor the plans around waiting another day for the caster to prepare a particular spell.  The caster was not just a combat machine, he was complicated tool that the player could tailor to the role he wanted, within certain limits.  Was a pure wizard, an illusionist, a self-buffing warrior-priest, an undead-destroying machine, a protector, a savior, a transportation system?  He could be.  

2) Definitive sense of advancement: every time a caster advances to a new spell level, it's like a kid in the candy store.  Our experience in 4E is simply not the same; we didn't see people anticipating getting a spell like Fireball or Raise Dead the way you did under the AEDU system.  A new slot was a tactical improvement, a new spell level was like a class expansion.

3) Spells no longer as treasure: under every edition prior to 4E, the spellbook was LEWT.  I thought eliminating this would actually be a positive move, but I found we didn't enjoy that aspect.  Now, every enemy caster was just some guy...it didn't matter what his power source was, since you couldn't benefit from it.  

4) Tactical choices: Following on #1: when a player 'didn't prepare that spell today', she knew it was her choice; it made those choices valuable and meaningful in a way that 'I didn't ready that daily today' doesn't....not on the same scale.  Under the Vancian system, the caster made distinct choices:  we're traveling today, so I'll memorize these three spells that I normally wouldn't.  We're going into the frozen lands, I'll memorize these defensive spells and rope trick, etc.  The caster felt like he was making important choices, even if they ended up not being important in the course of play...they still felt like they COULD be important.

5) Linear Progression: Following on #2: You felt a significant improvement in power that the acquisition of new powers under the AEDU system doesn't evoke with us.  A 10th-level wizard FEELS much more powerful than a 1st level wizard in a way he doesn't under a non-vancian system, IMHO...and how free he is with his spells was one obvious difference to non-casters.

There are other reasons, but in terms of D&D, Vancian evokes a particular feel that is the game for us.

I do find it funny that someone listed Gandalf as an example of how D&D does a bad job with casters.  Given that the first D&D article about Gandalf (back in, what, Dragon #4) described Gandalf as a 4th-level druid based on the actual spells he cast in AD&D.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 17, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Yeah, I'm thinking we need a new definition of "balance" that doesn't essentially mean "The night goes basically like the DM plans."
> 
> The problem in your scenario, IMO, isn't the pick, or that it can collapse a tower. It's not the open-ended nature of the power (indeed, that open end was golden!). The problem is that the DM then (presumably) ran out of options and had hours of work disposed with. The tower adventure wasn't as _disposable_ as it perhaps should have been.
> 
> For me, personally, there is nothing more dull than preparing an adventure and having everything follow the script.




Dungeon- and building-based adventures are inherently ruinable to begin with, the Pick of Earth Parting just makes it a lot faster and doable by a lone non-caster. If D&D focused more on outdoors adventures, it probably wouldn't be as much of an issue, but soooo much of the game is focused on confined spaces.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 17, 2012)

paladinm said:


> Did anyone ever play Dragonlance Saga?  It had a really interesting, open, free-form magic system where you created your own spells and paid for the effects, range, scope, power, etc. with magic points.  It seemed kinda cool, but I thought calculating all the magic costs would be a buzzkill for any game.
> 
> Once again, an idea that looked good on paper..




I haven't, but I'd actually really love a well-designed card-based magic system for a particular spellcasting class. You'd just have to make sure that the system calculated itself efficiently based on level assumptions. It would be pretty easy to pull off with 4E-style structure.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 17, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Dungeon- and building-based adventures are inherently ruinable to begin with, the Pick of Earth Parting just makes it a lot faster and doable by a lone non-caster. If D&D focused more on outdoors adventures, it probably wouldn't be as much of an issue, but soooo much of the game is focused on confined spaces.




I think part of the issue though is the Gm believing the adventure has been "ruined" simply because the players found a way around many of the challeneges. One thing I learned a few years ago is to reward clever parties accordingly. If they figure out how to beat your adventure in one move, let them. Just like if the players figure out a way to kill your big bad guy in one or two rounds, let them do so.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 17, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think part of the issue though is the Gm believing the adventure has been "ruined" simply because the players found a way around many of the challeneges. One thing I learned a few years ago is to reward clever parties accordingly. If they figure out how to beat your adventure in one move, let them. Just like if the players figure out a way to kill your big bad guy in one or two rounds, let them do so.




Eeeeh... it basically forces you to put something vulnerable at the end of the adventure, or to keep constant pressure going, to keep PCs from just wrecking the joint. Put me within a mile of a river and a shovel and I'll patiently ruin anything you've got planned.

Kobolds never expect an inland tsunami.


----------



## paladinm (Apr 17, 2012)

Hey here's a thought.. We've talked about having both custom and "canned" classes.. Do we need to have the same for spells/powers/whatever?  You can choose from the standard list of "canned" spells (that cost spell points) and/or roll your own and pay the sum of the costs of the effects.

Hmm.. what would the cost be for Cthulu's Dark Tenticles of Death and Despair?

(Yes, I'm kidding)


----------



## Ranes (Apr 17, 2012)

Vancian is the worst form of magic system, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Apologies to Winston Churchill.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva][/FONT]


----------



## EmbraCraig (Apr 17, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think part of the issue though is the Gm believing the adventure has been "ruined" simply because the players found a way around many of the challeneges. One thing I learned a few years ago is to reward clever parties accordingly. If they figure out how to beat your adventure in one move, let them. Just like if the players figure out a way to kill your big bad guy in one or two rounds, let them do so.




I think part of the issue stems from players feeling the need to "beat" the GMs adventure (and assume that killing everything is the way to beat it) - might be that there was valuable information that he had put in that tower to actually keep the game going beyond that one session.  Might be there were prisoners to rescue that could have branched the story in another direction.  Might be the wizard at the top of it who you thought was the BBEG was actually mind controlled by a high level aberation that could have formed an entire new meta plot for the next part of the campaign... guess you'll never know, though.

Of course, folks are now going to accuse me of being a railroading GM for suggesting that giving clues in one session that give the players a direction to go on in their next session is a good thing.  You call it railroading, I call it giving a campaign direction... rather than having the players randomly wandering the countryside, killing and pillaging things.


But that's off topic really - so about vancian magic - I don't like it as I've experienced it in Pathfinder. 

I'm playing a cleric in my current game - first caster I've played after being a fighter and other simpler classes. Being relatively new to playing a caster in that edition, it takes me about a half hour to actually decide what spells I want in a day every time I get access to a new spell level. And I really don't like the whole rock/paper/scissors casters - if you've got the right spells prepared, some encounters become completely trivial (yep, the caster feels awesome... the guy with the sword and the heavy armour feels pretty useless at the time).

So that'll come under the "Rewards System Mastery" column to some people I guess - I see it more as "assumes or requires system mastery".  I don't see that as a good thing - if a new player rocks up to a game and wants to play a Wizard because he thinks they're cool, I don't want to have to say "Probably better not... have you thought about swinging a hammer around? That can be fun too.  Yes, those people are playing casters. They've done their time, so they're allowed to have more fun than you"

As they level up, Fighters make choices and stick to them. Rogues make choices and stick to them. So do Rangers, so do Barbarians, so does every other martial class. Why should casters have the right to be ideally suited to any situation, just as long as they know what's coming? 

("Hey guess what guys? I've got divination prepared today, I know exactly what we're doing tomorrow!")


----------



## Aenghus (Apr 17, 2012)

I want to vote against ludicrous 1e type drawbacks to spells like a small chance of death, or aging and a system shock roll with again a small chance of death. In practice these drawbacks are often ignored or applied inconsistently and hence unfairly, or the spells with too high a potential price aren't used by most players. After all, there are plenty of ludicrously powerful spells that don't have any drawbacks.

I've never seen a referee actually just wipe out an entire party from a bad teleport roll - (in 1e teleports which went seriously wrong could teleport the whole party  up into the air or into the ground). They would fudge the roll to be off target or give them a possibly survivable fall, rather than kill off the whole group.

I think catastrophic mechanics like this are bad in general. Much better to have less serious drawbacks that the non-suicidal PCs will consider risking, and that don't need to be fudged constantly.

In a high fatality rate game with a pile of premade PCs, catastrophic drawbacks  can be a crazy sort of fun, as replacement PCs are readily at hand and continuity isn't an issue, but this style of game doesn't appeal to me the vast majority of the time.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Apr 17, 2012)

Aenghus said:


> I want to vote against ludicrous 1e type drawbacks to spells like a small chance of death, or aging and a system shock roll with again a small chance of death. In practice these drawbacks are often ignored or applied inconsistently and hence unfairly, or the spells with too high a potential price aren't used by most players. After all, there are plenty of ludicrously powerful spells that don't have any drawbacks.
> 
> I've never seen a referee actually just wipe out an entire party from a bad teleport roll - (in 1e teleports which went seriously wrong could teleport the whole party  up into the air or into the ground). They would fudge the roll to be off target or give them a possibly survivable fall, rather than kill off the whole group.
> 
> I think catastrophic mechanics like this are bad in general. Much better to have less serious drawbacks that the non-suicidal PCs will consider risking, and that don't need to be fudged constantly.




Yes, this.  Absolutely this.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2012)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Eeeeh... it basically forces you to put something vulnerable at the end of the adventure, or to keep constant pressure going, to keep PCs from just wrecking the joint. Put me within a mile of a river and a shovel and I'll patiently ruin anything you've got planned.
> 
> Kobolds never expect an inland tsunami.




Which is fair, but DMs always have more resources than players.

I mean, you dig a new trench, perhaps the kobolds don't expect it, but perhaps the local nixie population decides to wreak havoc with your plans, or the flooded dungeon becomes a flooded MacGuffin hiding spot now filled with quippers and locathah (or whatever), or some druid from downriver decides to go on and on about how you've suddenly starved hundreds of people since the river feeds lots of fields and now doesn't, or in a few days the colonies of giant ants living under the ground decide to move out -- and decide to collect villagers as food as they pass.

That's sort of top-of-the-head spitballing, but I know that in 3e (and still, but less adroitly, in 4e), I could get a really solid night of gaming out of that. 

"I flood the dungeon" or "I wreck the tower," to me, is in part, the player telling me, "Not interested in that, thanks."


----------



## Lwaxy (Apr 18, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> If you have a spell point system with fatigue or other limiters, you're essentially capping people at X 9th-level spells per day, Y 8th-level spells per day, and so forth, with a limited ability to mix that up and a vastly larger number of lower-level spells.  If you're going to do that, then using a Vancian hard cap plus either lots of lower-level spells or reserve feats and some sort of "overchanneling" like the Versatile Spellcaster feat accomplishes the same general concept with less complexity.  Yes, spell points let you keep using the higher-level spells at an ever-increasing cost, but either you actually use those high-level spells with that frequency (in which case you're more powerful than an equivalent Vancian caster) or there's a marginal utility to those spells (in which case there's a self-imposed cap that makes it effectively Vancian).





To prepare in advance is a huddle most of our players sbsolutely don't want. If they really want to try it out later, we made a feat that allows you to convert unused mana points into vancian style spells. Only the abjurer uses it though. I had a problem getting any casters in some of the groups except clerics, because neither the traditional wizard nor the spell limited sorcerer appealed to the players. 

Also, having all the spells you know at your disposal at all times (well, unless you are out of mana) makes a big difference in believability. You don't see Gandalf saying he can't cast something because he does not have it prepared  

We also see a lot more variance in spells used, which is the main reason players pick the points rather than Vancian. 

But as I said before, the Vancian casters hold up, except maybe for the first 3 levels or so.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2012)

Last time I played 3e, no one in the group had any interest in standard casters.  I saw lots of things like Favoured Souls and warlocks and whatnot, but, (again, other than me, the horrid munchkin powergamer that I am) no one wanted straight up casters.

When I asked, the answer was, "We don't want to piss about trying to figure out what to memorize".  Sorcerer style casters, where you pick your spells at level up, was fine.  But, having a list as long as your leg of spells to choose from, just wasn't fun for them.

I think Vancian casting  works best in earlier editions where your spell list was maybe a few dozen spells.  Makes it a lot more accessible.

But, it's funny people bring up the idea of versatility.  That's largely the problem.  It's also a much larger problem in organized play.  I've always maintained that 4e is the RPGA edition.  I'd append that to say it's the organized play edition.  It's the first edition to do organized play out of the box with few, if any, modifications.  

Which, IMO, is one of the big issues that people have with it with their home games.  Overpowered versatility can be a social contract issue and can be solved fairly easily (usually) by reasonable players and DM's.  At an organized play event though, you have no social contract and thus these issues become very exacerbated.

Sure, it's great to have these funky spells in your home game.  It isn't that hard for a moderately competent DM to keep them in check.  Although, some of the more egregious spells really should be rewritten.  But, I think the main problem is in trying to make the rules so fixed that you don't need a social contract agreement.

That works great in organized play or when playing with new strangers, but is WAYYYY too restrictive in a home game.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Apr 18, 2012)

I think the thing that is significant to me is not having to justify the whys about the Vancian System, it's more that I don't see why we need to eradicate a system when it is clearly still being widely used and appreciated by many as a fun, iconic part of the game. 

I've no problem with _additional_ systems being brought into the game to provide alternatives, so maybe a magic points based Sorcerer class, or a pact based Warlock (Witch) class, and so on. Maybe a few feats to create a few more spontaneous 'at will' spells too. 

But the key is adding options, rather than taking them away.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2012)

Surmos said:


> QI’m noticing a correlation to the amount of people that like the Vancian magic system as well as the option for At-Will powers for Vancian casters.



It's impossible to look into the mind of a proponent of the old vancian system and see what they're thinking.  You might speculate that they simply want the nostalgia of the system they learned when they started gaming, or that they are drawn to the radical class imbalance that let their casters lord it over lesser beings, or that they are just big fans of the Dying Earth (a classic of science-fiction, afterall).  But that would just be speculation, and might well be found insulting, at that.  You could also try to rationalize it.

In the AD&D DMG, I think it is, EGG briefly discusses the choice of the 'relatively short spoken spell' inspired by Vance's work.  The alternatives were complex spells of immense power taking long periods of time to complete and requiring substantial material outlays (rituals, really) or spells of minor power that could be used without limitation or the 'Vancian' alternative of relatively easy-to-cast spells of substantial power that could be used only once each.  Given those choices, 'vancian' looks pretty good.  It allows casters to participate in combat, do something dramatic and magical (because spells are powerful), but not overwhelm the sense of magic by doing it every round (because spells are few and must be conserved).

That worked to some degree at low levels, but as the game expanded into much higher levels, the sheer number of spells casters got made the fire-and-forget limitation all but meaningless.


The modern approach is still partially 'vancian' in that it uses daily spells that can be cast only once and that are easy to cast and quite potent.  But, it also adds 1/encounter and at-will spells of lesser potency.  So it's a very good system for keeping the caster playable, and thus his player involved and entertained, at all levels and in both very short and very long 'days.'  


Now, you might think the inclusion of at-wills would 'cheapen' magic and make it seem less magical, but, as you observe, the fans of vancian magic are fine with their magic-users getting more magic, even if it is lower-power at-will magic.  

Where 4e fails the fans of vancian magic is in it's use of the same system for more than just spells.  Specifically, martial characters, like fighters, who also get dramatic daily exploits, as well as 1/encounter and at-will exploits.  If martial characters aren't distinctly inferior to magic-wielding ones, the sense of magic being special and powerful - thus 'magical' is lost.  While 'vanician' is something of a rallying cry, I'm sure many would be just as happy with AEDU, if it were a caster-exclusive system (and if rituals were a lot cheaper and faster).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 18, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> I think the thing that is significant to me is not having to justify the whys about the Vancian System, it's more that I don't see why we need to eradicate a system when it is clearly still being widely used and appreciated by many as a fun, iconic part of the game.
> 
> I've no problem with _additional_ systems being brought into the game to provide alternatives, so maybe a magic points based Sorcerer class, or a pact based Warlock (Witch) class, and so on. Maybe a few feats to create a few more spontaneous 'at will' spells too.
> 
> But the key is adding options, rather than taking them away.



Yeah, I'm cool with that. The issue is space. Magic, which mostly meant Vancian magic, takes up about 50% of the space in the 1e and 3e PHBs. I think Vancian casters just have too many spells. If you cut those down to OD&D/BD&D levels, which it seems may be the case in D&DNext, it leaves more room for other magic systems, and other modules too.

Admittedly the 3e sorcerer, and to some degree the cleric, uses the same spells as the wizard. Ideally we'd want the sorcerer and cleric to use more diverse systems.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 18, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Given those choices, 'vancian' looks pretty good.  It allows casters to participate in combat, do something dramatic and magical (because spells are powerful), but not overwhelm the sense of magic by doing it every round (because spells are few and must be conserved).



The problem is, you have to build the whole game around that. You have to have numerous encounters over the course of a day, to balance non-casters with casters. That then puts limits on your encounter resolution system, primarily your combat rules - combat can't take too long. It puts limits on your adventures, and your world - it must contain a plethora of monsters. This, in fact, is exactly what Vance's Dying Earth is like, it's full of weird monsters.

So it makes D&D quite a limited game, that easily breaks if you change any of the assumptions. And that's bad because I think a lot of people do want to change those assumptions, though possibly I'm just projecting my own desires.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 18, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> I should have been more clear, by AD&D I was referring to 1e. 3e is the system that made both the "too many spells" and the "too-fast preparation" problems real problems, with Focused Specialist and Collegiate Wizard and easily-crafted wands and Doman Wizards and all that on the one hand and 1-hour preparation on the other. 2e didn't have the too-fast preparation problem, and the number of spells available, both known and per day, were higher than 1e but still nowhere near 3e. If we went back to the 1e version as I suggested, both problems would be solved.




And I'm saying that this isn't true. At 9th level or so they _have_ to change the game and give the fighter a castle and followers simply because the wizard is too powerful and versatile. Even in 1e. And Gary has gone on record saying he made the apparently overpowered Unearthed Arcana classes like the Cavalier to try to balance them with casters. (Or more specifically he agreed with this when Raven Crowking stated it as his reason).



> Yeah, most of the time when I hear people who want to fix casters by restricting them to themes, the 1e illusionist and the 3e beguiler are held up as shining examples. Supposedly, before Gygax was kicked out of TSR he had planned to change the wizard into a bunch of specialist spells and leave the mage as a bard-like limited caster, which would have been a sight to see. I'd be all for going the forced-specialization route.




Me too.



> In theory, yes. However, the problems with the ritual system are their time and gold/residuum cost. As presented in 4e, they're not worth it at all the vast majority of the time because of one or both of those factors




The majority of the time, no they aren't. They aren't the 6 second re-writing of reality with trivial cost that old spells were. But with a creative player checking his ritual list they can be extremely useful. As a player I've avoided encounters and disrupted and forced a re-write of sessions using rituals. And as a DM I've had it done to me. But what this took was actual genuine creativity rather than the caster's fingers and using a spell for exactly what they are designed for. To me that's creativity far more than digging through your toolbox to find exactly the right tool.



> It's not the overpoweredness of AD&D/3e spells people like, it's the variety. If 5e was 4e powers in a Vancian framework, I wouldn't like it because those spells would likely be incredibly boring and same-y and all combat-focused. Give me _grease_, _silent image_, _reduce person_, _fly_, _fire trap_, _wall of force_, _delayed blast fireball_, _telekinetic sphere_--and those are just SRD spells--not yet another way to damage someone and push them a bit, or teleport tactically, or create a crowd-control zone.




I'm going to question your assertion. 4e _has _many of the spells on that list. Grease (and yes it doesn't give all the ramifications any more than B/X), several variants on Fly, and Wall of Force. And a decent although even less powerful silent image encounter spell (which is just as well as I broke silent image - although at least it wasn't Phantasmal Force). I'm pretty sure Fire Trap is a ritual. Which means that the only spells I can't think of an analogy for are reduce person and telekinetic sphere - and the latter is an 8th level spell.



> Lots of people played crowd-control wizards in 3e, and that's a fun and effective way to play, but 4e (and now probably 5e) have said "If you want CC or blasting or very limited abjuration, you can contribute in combat, if you want illusions or enchantment or very limited necromancy, you'll have a few watered-down tricks in combat and not much out of combat."




Necromancy I agree with. However there is no orthodox build that says "you'll have a few watered-down tricks in combat". Every build that's officially supported (and this emphatically includes Illusionists and Enchanters - both in Essentials by name) is fully combat capable. And there are enough utility powers for both to be effective.

That said the Mage presented in Essentials is a vastly superior implementation of the wizard concept to the Wizard presented in the PHB.



> If you sort 3e spells by power and cut off the top half of them, you'll _still_ have plenty of fun, creative, flexible, and noncombat-capable spells.




The only two spells on the list you presented that are left, however, are Delayed Blast Fireball, and Fire Trap. The rest are (with the arguable exception of Wall of Force) definitely top half.



> You can shape the world, fool people, build wards and traps for later, pick up a few minions, and do lots of other things.




As long as you allow rituals to build things for later (and sometimes shape the world), you can do every single one of those things in 4e. You have the flexibility you crave. You just don't have the raw power.



> If the designers think you can't use illusions in combat, tough noogies for them, they shouldn't give you a few powers that deal psychic damage and call them illusions and then make you spend an arm and a leg to get basic rituals, like Hallucinatory Creature which, at level 12, finally lets you make the moving image of a creature at the cost of 10 minutes and 500gp where a 3e caster could have been doing that several times a day from level 1.




And the 3e caster was broken sideways. Silent Image is not just abusable but trivially so - think of the effect of a one-way fog cloud. But the basic illusion power you're looking for is presented in HoFK (i.e. the new replacement for the PHB) and is a second level encounter power, IIRC taking a minor action.



> The difference between versatility in _build_ and versatility in _play_ is an important one. You want a single class to be able to do many, many things well when you _build_ a character of that class, so you have interesting options and not all characters of that class are too similar, but you want to limit their options when you _play_ a character of that class to keep things within one theme.




Within one theme and a set power level. "Can re-write reality however he wants" is a theme.



> 1e and 2e were very good at the latter as far as casters were concerned,




1e and 2e were _barely passable_ to the point that EGG himself deliberately raised the power of non-casters. And wanted to break the wizard into pieces. Calling them "very good" is taking things far too far. 4e, especially post-essentials is much much better at this.



WizarDru said:


> 1) Player Agency - Excepting 4E, under all previous editions, the vancian was the most flexible and customizable.




And that's one reason I believe Vancian should die. Either that or the flexibility and customisation of _all_ non-casters needs to be massively raised.



> I do find it funny that someone listed Gandalf as an example of how D&D does a bad job with casters. Given that the first D&D article about Gandalf (back in, what, Dragon #4) described Gandalf as a 4th-level druid based on the actual spells he cast in AD&D.




The prosecution rests.



Bedrockgames said:


> I think part of the issue though is the Gm believing the adventure has been "ruined" simply because the players found a way around many of the challeneges. One thing I learned a few years ago is to reward clever parties accordingly. If they figure out how to beat your adventure in one move, let them. Just like if the players figure out a way to kill your big bad guy in one or two rounds, let them do so.




There's a difference between "figuring your way around" and "snapping your fingers and making the challenges irrelevant using things trivially presented to them by the game".



Aenghus said:


> I think catastrophic mechanics like this are bad in general. Much better to have less serious drawbacks that the non-suicidal PCs will consider risking, and that don't need to be fudged constantly.




Me too. I _like_ backlash systems like WFRP 2e and WFRP 3e where casting a spell is _always_ a risk - just not a catastrophic one.



Doug McCrae said:


> Yeah, I'm cool with that. The issue is space. Magic, which mostly meant Vancian magic, takes up about 50% of the space in the 1e and 3e PHBs. I think Vancian casters just have too many spells.




Yup. To me pre-4e D&D has always been about casters and sidekicks - just the pagecount and level of detail is enough to show this. And I don't think most people intentionally sign up to play sidekicks in D&D. In Ars Magica this isn't a problem as the game tells you what you are getting in for. But nowhere in D&D does it explicitely say that much more time, care, attention, and agency is given by the rules of the game to the players of spellcasters.



Doug McCrae said:


> The problem is, you have to build the whole game around that. You have to have numerous encounters over the course of a day, to balance non-casters with casters.
> ...
> So it makes D&D quite a limited game, that easily breaks if you change any of the assumptions. And that's bad because I think a lot of people do want to change those assumptions, though possibly I'm just projecting my own desires.




Agreed. The encounter model of D&D _works in a dungeon_. But precious few environments are as dangerous as the artificial nature of an adventuring dungeon. Having people preparing for the night and expecting a ninja assault because they've _only_ had three major fights for their life in one day to me breaks settings. You can't run anything Lord of the Rings-esque outside Moria, Mordor, and the big battles. Any sane world just isn't that dangerous.

Of course this is a problem with the recovery rate rather than the parts of casting that are called Vancian and a lot gets fixed if wizards only get to recover their spells in a lab or library, or priests in a temple.  If you need a few days of solid preparation you keep all the advantages of vancian casting while destroying this problem,


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 18, 2012)

Stuff like teleport is not all that trivial to use though. I have seen such spells backfire horribly on a party, particularly when they didn't plan ahead. 

Even if there are trivial things in the game my whole approach to GMing is I don't feel that the PCs need to jump through the hoops I set up at the pace I intended for the adventure to be fun, if they "beat" the scenario quickly (even if it is moments into the game) though luck, planning, or wise use of resources, that doesn't bother me one lick. In a way I like unexpected concusions. But this goes the other way as well. Most of the time adventures take about what you expect them to. Once in a while, the players teleport in and slay the evil emperor in session one. Well, those kinds of events just lead to further adventures, often in directions I never expected.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 18, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Which, IMO, is one of the big issues that people have with it with their home games. Overpowered versatility can be a social contract issue and can be solved fairly easily (usually) by reasonable players and DM's. At an organized play event though, you have no social contract and thus these issues become very exacerbated.




This is why I keep saying they need some kind of keyword or signal for such, like the Hero System "Stop Sign" symbol on wonky powers.  Instead of pretending that everything is equally balanced, when it can't be, not even in 4E--mark the stuff that is unbalanced.

Personally, I'd prefer a rating scale, 1-5, so that they could put in an electronic tool as both a designer stated, initial number, and also a player-based voting average.  Then organized play can cut off by rating at whatever number works best for them, and everyone else knows that, even if you are perfectly fine with social contract and DM adjudication, you'll need some for power X and a whole lot for power Z.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> This is why I keep saying they need some kind of keyword or signal for such, like the Hero System "Stop Sign" symbol on wonky powers.  Instead of pretending that everything is equally balanced, when it can't be, not even in 4E--mark the stuff that is unbalanced.
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer a rating scale, 1-5, so that they could put in an electronic tool as both a designer stated, initial number, and also a player-based voting average.  Then organized play can cut off by rating at whatever number works best for them, and everyone else knows that, even if you are perfectly fine with social contract and DM adjudication, you'll need some for power X and a whole lot for power Z.




Dude, WOTC really, really needs to hire you.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Apr 18, 2012)

*Power rating systems*

will fail. There will always be the wrong rating on the wrong spells, because as soon as the rabbits (unsuspecting DMs) get faster, so do the foxes (more optimized/exploitative players or powergamers), since there is too much of a lag before errata can either slow down the foxes. (if not take them out back, and shoot them out right)

A creative/smart caster with a vancian system and spells that affect the world in non-trivial ways, can always pose balance problems. Is it the nature of the beast. 4e solved it by making all combat spells apply to a grid, and either do damage against creatures or enemies, but not objects, so you are very much limited to the very limited set of in-combat uses, to avoid e.g. fireball being used to set a forest on fire. In 4e, it just wouldn't happen. But in AD&D, you burn the whole village down. But that's EXCITING. Who wants to play D&D on rails, or without danger or consequence? Being just able to do damage with your spells, is boring and lame. You are playing with fire, expect to get burned. I like my RPG fire to, you know, actually be able to light mundane things on fire, and do more damage, or side effects. Either expected or unexpected, wanted or unwanted. If your aim is off with your spell, whoops. sorry guys

As soon as you make fireball or teleport or invisibility a "tier 5" spell, you just guarantee that they will be sought after more, forcing DMs to allow those iconic spells (at least for specialist wizards), and in which case there never will be balance. However, as we've seen in PF, it is certainly possible to rebalance spells after knowing their uses. There is a huge wealth of use cases and threads on all the power-gamer uses of all these spells, across editions. 

So long as Wotc allows for open play tests, these bugs should be found /sorted before launch. And if they don't properly playtest, fine leave the burned ruins of the official rules in the dust when you DM, and just houserule certain spells. Better yet, the game system should have material components and DMs enforce it, so they have control over how often certain spells are used.

What if bat guano is the rarest thing to harvest in your game world? The bats have been hunted to near extinction by anti-mage inquisitors, and only law-breakers breed bats in cages so they can cast the occasional fireball. A lot of these balance issues can be sorted out in-game within the rules of earlier editions, but there is no house rule in 4e to not use your power the way it says, other than "chose a different power". And with the player entitlement and codified rules expectation, with player-centric focus of 4e, how can DMs reasonably expect to maintain player interest if they bring the ban hammer on your character?

I've said it before, there is no balance between a fighter, any fighter, and a smart player playing a wizard with spells -- any spells -- with which there is a complex enough set of world-modifying, non-straight up damage effects. 

There is virtually no limit on the power of (even weaker) spells in the hands of a creative caster. Sure, start by lowering the number of spells per day, and introducing at-wills, and rebalancing the duration and costs and even spell level of certain spells, but beyond that, there will always be an adventure or encounter-offsetting use of a certain innocuous-seeming spell.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 18, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> That worked to some degree at low levels, but as the game expanded into much higher levels, the sheer number of spells casters got made the fire-and-forget limitation all but meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you might think the inclusion of at-wills would 'cheapen' magic and make it seem less magical, but, as you observe, the fans of vancian magic are fine with their magic-users getting more magic, even if it is lower-power at-will magic.




A 9th level wizard in AD&D has all of 13 spells he can cast, most of those low level.  That's hardly a "Sheer number." 

And this fan doesn't want to see any kind of at will magic, unless it's mage hand or dancing lights type cantrips.


----------



## Saagael (Apr 18, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> 4e solved it by making all combat spells apply to a grid, and either do damage against creatures or enemies, but not objects, so you are very much limited to the very limited set of in-combat uses, to avoid e.g. fireball being used to set a forest on fire. In 4e, it just wouldn't happen. But in AD&D, you burn the whole village down. But that's EXCITING. Who wants to play D&D on rails, or without danger or consequence? Being just able to do damage with your spells, is boring and lame. You are playing with fire, expect to get burned. I like my RPG fire to, you know, actually be able to light mundane things on fire, and do more damage, or side effects. Either expected or unexpected, wanted or unwanted. If your aim is off with your spell, whoops. sorry guys




The power block for "Fireball" doesn't say it lights things on fire because attack powers, by definition, give you information necessary to resolve its attack and damage and effect. Creative use of powers outside of combat is something every 4e DM I've ever talked with _ever_ does. Powers don't give you a list of every single thing that power could possibly do because powers would get ridiculously wordy and bloated.

The power doesn't say what happens when you use fireball underwater (does it boil the water? Push the water away and create a pocket of air? Split molecules and create atomic explosions? Change the water currents from rapidly heated water?), but that's purely because the power block states its combat resolution mechanics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Powers having effects outside of the power is something that only exists in the narrative between DM and player. Does the sorcerer want to use Blazing Starfall to distract guards with bright lights? What about a druid that wants to use Vine Whip to swing across a pit? Those are adjudicated outside of the combat resolution mechanics, and therefore, do not need the power blocks, just an idea of what the power looks like, and, again, that's entirely between the player and DM. I don't need a game telling me that a fireball lights things on fire; I need it to tell me what to add to dice to make attacks.

Knowing what powers do, beyond numbers, is what makes roleplaying so imaginative in 4e. I tend to think of 4e powers like blankets that cover multiple pre-4e spells. Your wizard can cast scorching burst? Then he can manipulate small, mundane, fires. Same goes for other powers.

I think if people played a 4e caster under the assumption that powers (even attack powers) had more than combat uses, and could be used just as creatively and freely as pre-4e spells, many of the complaints on the subject would go away.


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 18, 2012)

Problem is that the core rules are written in such a way that even experienced groups who haven't played for a couple of years and grab 4e can easily fall into the habit of regarding the game solely from a combat perspective.

What the PHB need is more nodes into the out of the box thinking, my best D&D memory is from 20 years ago (I was 9) when I played a halfing and managed to make a giant fall prone by entangling him in 30' rope with a climbing hook and than the party fighter bashed his head with a big two handed sword. For me, that's the essence of D&D not boring gridlocked fights.

Warder


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 18, 2012)

Double post...


----------



## FickleGM (Apr 18, 2012)

Saagael said:


> The power block for "Fireball" doesn't say it lights things on fire because attack powers, by definition, give you information necessary to resolve its attack and damage and effect. Creative use of powers outside of combat is something every 4e DM I've ever talked with _ever_ does. Powers don't give you a list of every single thing that power could possibly do because powers would get ridiculously wordy and bloated.
> 
> The power doesn't say what happens when you use fireball underwater (does it boil the water? Push the water away and create a pocket of air? Split molecules and create atomic explosions? Change the water currents from rapidly heated water?), but that's purely because the power block states its combat resolution mechanics. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> ...



Not a single 4e DM I know has done that. :shrug:


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 18, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Where 4e fails the fans of vancian magic is in it's use of the same system for more than just spells.  Specifically, martial characters, like fighters, who also get dramatic daily exploits, as well as 1/encounter and at-will exploits.  If martial characters aren't distinctly inferior to magic-wielding ones, the sense of magic being special and powerful - thus 'magical' is lost.  While 'vanician' is something of a rallying cry, I'm sure many would be just as happy with AEDU, if it were a caster-exclusive system (and if rituals were a lot cheaper and faster).




*sigh*

Once again, the people who want different systems for different power sources (myself included) don't see it as a power issue; the "everyone who doesn't like 4e that much is a whiny caster player who feels his toys were taken away and hates being on even footing with the mere mortals" stereotype is getting old.  I don't care if the fighter has a bunch of fancy, powerful moves that rival the power of a wizard's spells--in fact, I'm all for the martial classes getting a powerup.  What I don't want to see is a martial power system that doesn't make sense, and martial dailyies don't make much sense to me.

We've had this debate before, so I won't rehash it, but basically it comes down to the fact that while you _can_ provide multiple justifications for a martial daily, none of them is bulletproof and the lack of a single coherent explanation is problematic.  If daily powers were supposed to be these big dramatic events, make them "per scene" instead of "per day" and define a scene appropriately.  If they were supposed to be luck-based, make them use action points and give the martial classes more of them.  If they were supposed to be fatigue-based, make them use healing surges.  Do _something_ besides per day, and I'd be perfectly happy with them.

Many people (again, myself included) feel that different mechanics are just as important as different flavor in differentiating classes.  I love tinkering with different subsystems, and having different casting systems for, for instance, the 3e wizard, sorcerer, and shadowcaster really helps drive home the differences in the power sources and flavor, even if they're all basically Vancian to one degree or another.  My favorite alternate magic system in 3e was the binder because the flavor was amazing and the mechanics matched the flavor very well; I didn't like incarnum as much because, while the mechanics were interesting in and of themselves, they didn't really match the flavor of "channeling peoples' souls" that well.



Neonchameleon said:


> And I'm saying that this isn't true. At 9th level or so they _have_ to change the game and give the fighter a castle and followers simply because the wizard is too powerful and versatile. Even in 1e. And Gary has gone on record saying he made the apparently overpowered Unearthed Arcana classes like the Cavalier to try to balance them with casters. (Or more specifically he agreed with this when Raven Crowking stated it as his reason).




The wizard is too powerful because of the effects he has access to at that level, _not_ because of the number or frequency of them.  4th level spells are a major turning point in every pre-4e edition because it comes with a lot of firsts (first teleportation spell, first SoD, first polymorph spell, and so on).  A 7th-/8th-level wizard is a force to be reckoned with.  The 1e caster has a lot of spells given lots of time, the 2e caster has more spells given the same amount of time, and the 3e caster has yet more spells given much less time...but all three of them can still blast their way into a room, turn everyone inside into frogs, and teleport away before they can react.

The game changes due to the powers available.  If wizards gained spells every third level (and so didn't gain 4th and 5th level spells until 10th and 13th level) the game would change more slowly, even if you increased the number of slots at lower levels.  To "fix" the Vancian casters in any edition, one must change the spells before the caster chassis.  As much as the changing of saving throws and initiative and casting in combat buffed the 3e casters, they were buffed even more by their spells becoming cheaper (gold- and age-wise) and more reliable with the removal of drawbacks.



> The majority of the time, no they aren't. They aren't the 6 second re-writing of reality with trivial cost that old spells were. But with a creative player checking his ritual list they can be extremely useful. As a player I've avoided encounters and disrupted and forced a re-write of sessions using rituals. And as a DM I've had it done to me. But what this took was actual genuine creativity rather than the caster's fingers and using a spell for exactly what they are designed for. To me that's creativity far more than digging through your toolbox to find exactly the right tool.




Rituals can be game-changers, but much of the time their casting time and cost prevents them being worth it.  There are plenty of rituals that even all of the people I know who only play 4e will never use, and there are plenty of spells that I've found useful in AD&D and 3e that don't have the same utility anymore.

As well, the creativity often comes in with the combination of spells even if you feel individual spells aren't creative enough.  Making a big illusion of a demon to scare away dozens of bandits, for example, isn't creative; it's a fairly common strategy.  However, if you're faced with more skeptical opponents, summoning a single real demon for them to interact with, making an illusion of lots of demons, using ventriloquism to make them make lots of noise, and maybe hiding inside an illusion and chucking a few more spells to seal the deal is a lot more creative and requires actual thought.

And my question to you is, how is using a 4e ritual "actual genuine creativity" and using a Vancian spell "exactly what it was designed for"?  They're basically the same effects in terms of what can generally be accomplished, the difference being casting time and cost.  Does taking 5 minutes and 100gp suddenly make an illusion creative?



> I'm going to question your assertion. 4e _has _many of the spells on that list. Grease (and yes it doesn't give all the ramifications any more than B/X), several variants on Fly, and Wall of Force. And a decent although even less powerful silent image encounter spell (which is just as well as I broke silent image - although at least it wasn't Phantasmal Force). I'm pretty sure Fire Trap is a ritual. Which means that the only spells I can't think of an analogy for are reduce person and telekinetic sphere - and the latter is an 8th level spell.




My point wasn't that they don't already exist in 4e, but rather that the majority of 4e powers are directly combat-focused, with those that I listed either being the minority of powers or rituals.  I'd like it to be possible for a wizard to have those sorts of effects as the majority of his spell loadout and not have lots of fun stuff over in the ritual system.



> Necromancy I agree with. However there is no orthodox build that says "you'll have a few watered-down tricks in combat". Every build that's officially supported (and this emphatically includes Illusionists and Enchanters - both in Essentials by name) is fully combat capable. And there are enough utility powers for both to be effective.




I haven't gotten my hands on Essentials, so perhaps they improve it there, but before that the Illusionist is very poorly represented.  The very first illusion powers released were on DDI and were basically attack powers with psychic damage and illusion flavor, and all of the rituals were mid-level and too limited for their cost.



> The only two spells on the list you presented that are left, however, are Delayed Blast Fireball, and Fire Trap. The rest are (with the arguable exception of Wall of Force) definitely top half.




First of all, really?  _Reduce person_ is top half?  _Fly_ is top half?  I mean, I know the 4e devs saw flight as this super-unbeatable strategy because their characters never thought to pack any backup weapons, but seriously.

Second of all, I'm not asking for spells to be ported over directly.  I'd like it if they _were_, but it's not a requirement.  I'm just asking for the same capabilities.  _Silent image_ can be a person-size image requiring concentration and all of my actions to change and maintain for all I care as long as I can be an illusionist who casts actual honest-to-Pelor illusions from level 1.  _Fly_ can be a spell with a lower flight ceiling that leaves you unable to cast and flat-footed while it's in effect and requires actions to sustain for all I care as long as I don't have to wait more than half the game to be able to fly or make someone else fly and I can take to the air on a moment's notice.



> As long as you allow rituals to build things for later (and sometimes shape the world), you can do every single one of those things in 4e. You have the flexibility you crave. You just don't have the raw power.




With 10 minutes notice, you can.  You can't turn the corner, _disguise self_, and say "Guards!  The prisoner went that way!"  You can't _arcane lock_ the door right behind you as you dash through to prevent the monsters from getting in.  You can't have multiple minions for more than 5 minutes at a time--actual creatures, not sort-of creatures that have limited actions and require yours.

Flexibility isn't just "Can I do this?" it's "Can I do this on a time frame and at a cost that I care about?"  Demon summoner isn't really a valid archetype before level 5ish in AD&D/3e because it takes longer than normal to cast and summons don't last all that long.  Warding an area with _forbiddance_ or _hallow_ isn't often a valid option for PCs because it costs a metric ton of gold.  Likewise, if I'm an illusionist and all of my signature spells cost cash and multiple minutes, what's the point?

Basically, it comes down to this: "an illusionist wizard" and "a wizard who happens to cast a lot of illusion rituals" are different.  If the party needs to disguise their hideout and a _major image_ takes hours to cast and tons of gold, they can just get a scroll and have the wizard--or even the fighter, if he's a ritualist!--cast it.  There's no role/theme separation for utility magic the way there is for combat magic.  Oh, yeah, you want to cast some druid spells?  Easy, just multiclass druid.  It's _possible_, but no one does it, because the cost is too high for the benefit and a druid does it best.  Oh, yeah, you want to cast some illusion spells?  Easy, just plop down money and time.  You can't be an illusionist, you can be a person who casts illusions in their spare time.

Again, this may have been mitigated by Essentials, as I don't have access to those books.  But the state of utility magic in the core is sadly lacking, and I want to see that fixed in 5e.



> Within one theme and a set power level. "Can re-write reality however he wants" is a theme.




No, that's a statement of power level, just like "Can kill anything with one slash of a sword" is not a theme.  "Pyromancer" is a theme, "Summoner" is a theme, "Warpriest" is a theme.



> 1e and 2e were _barely passable_ to the point that EGG himself deliberately raised the power of non-casters. And wanted to break the wizard into pieces. Calling them "very good" is taking things far too far. 4e, especially post-essentials is much much better at this.




I didn't say it limited their power, I said it limited their breadth.  Limiting options doesn't matter if each of those options is too powerful.



> And that's one reason I believe Vancian should die. Either that or the flexibility and customisation of _all_ non-casters needs to be massively raised.




I strongly favor the latter.



> There's a difference between "figuring your way around" and "snapping your fingers and making the challenges irrelevant using things trivially presented to them by the game".




If your game is full of things that a single spell can solve, your DM really isn't trying hard enough.  I run many high-power games with several casters in the party, and have since 1e.  I've only very rarely had casters simply solve encounters and challenges with a snap of their fingers and a single spell because I know what spells can do and I know how to challenge them.



> Yup. To me pre-4e D&D has always been about casters and sidekicks - just the pagecount and level of detail is enough to show this. And I don't think most people intentionally sign up to play sidekicks in D&D. In Ars Magica this isn't a problem as the game tells you what you are getting in for. But nowhere in D&D does it explicitely say that much more time, care, attention, and agency is given by the rules of the game to the players of spellcasters.




I agree that casters are better in pre-4e D&D; however, it's not the casters who are the problem.  Caster countermeasures for monster tactics scale at roughly the same rate, most spells have the right level of power and player agency with comparatively few broken exceptions, and there are plenty of interesting and quirky options to allow players creativity and flexibility; martial types die to the less-straightforward monsters, have practically no ability to shape the world sans DM fiat, and are flat and one-dimensional in build.  Don't nerf the casters down to the martial level, bring the martials up to the caster level, or do a bit of both to have them meet in the middle.



> Of course this is a problem with the recovery rate rather than the parts of casting that are called Vancian and a lot gets fixed if wizards only get to recover their spells in a lab or library, or priests in a temple.  If you need a few days of solid preparation you keep all the advantages of vancian casting while destroying this problem,




I've been saying this since the beginning.  If casters once again have to spend a solid 1.5-2.5 days or so to get all their spells back like they did in 1e, many of the problems go away.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 18, 2012)

FickleGM said:


> Not a single 4e DM I know has done that. :shrug:




I don't know a single 4E DM that doesn't.

:shrug:


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> A 9th level wizard in AD&D has all of 13 spells he can cast, most of those low level.  That's hardly a "Sheer number."



It is compared to 1 at 1st or 3 at 3rd.  With 13 spells, you can comfortably cast in every encounter of the day, if not quite every round of a busy day.  And a 3e wizard of 9th level had more like 18 thanks to INT bonus, 23 if a specialist, enough to cast in every single round of an adventuring 'day.'  That's a non-limitation, yet spells only get more powerful as you accumulate more of them.



> And this fan doesn't want to see any kind of at will magic, unless it's mage hand or dancing lights type cantrips.



Your dissenting opinion is noted.


----------



## FickleGM (Apr 18, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> I don't know a single 4E DM that doesn't.
> 
> :shrug:



I'm probably playing with inferior DMs. :shrug:


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 18, 2012)

FickleGM said:


> I'm probably playing with inferior DMs. :shrug:




Have you tried teaching them?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 18, 2012)

One groups' "creative use" is another groups' "stupid rules lawyering tricks". I don't see this as a bridgeable divide, anymore than, say, people showing how nonconformist they are by all dressing alike, or divided opinions on the coolness of Rifts. You either find it silly or you don't, and no amount of evidence is going to sway either camp.


----------



## FickleGM (Apr 18, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Have you tried teaching them?



Well, I don't really think they're inferior. I was just goofing.

You do make a good point, though (even if this side convo isn't exactly on topic). I probably could do more to be a positive influence.


----------



## FickleGM (Apr 18, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> One groups' "creative use" is another groups' "stupid rules lawyering tricks". I don't see this as a bridgeable divide, anymore than, say, people showing how nonconformist they are by all dressing alike, or divided opinions on the coolness of Rifts. You either find it silly or you don't, and no amount of evidence is going to sway either camp.



See, I'm in the "this is silly" camp, but I'm thinking that if the group has decided to play the game, I can either be a distraction (which is what I am, now, constantly ragging on 4e) or I can try to be a positive influence and make the game more enjoyable (which is what I should be doing, regardless of how many slimes I knock prone).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Once again, the people who want different systems for different power sources (myself included) don't see it as a power issue



Yet every argument they make leads to bringing down martial classes and elevating casters.  I can't speak to motive, only to what is being demanded.  For instance:



> What I don't want to see is a martial power system that doesn't make sense, and martial dailyies don't make much sense to me.



Given the classic D&D paradigm, in which abilities that are useable less often are compensated with much greater power, dailies, like vancian spells, are the top tier for sheer power.  By arbitrarily - and such double-standards of 'sense' or realism are arbitrary - demanding the martial source be cut off from such power, you are demanding they be inferior.  You may not want them to be inferior, but you are demanding it.

Suggestions that some novel approach be taken to power up martial characters relative to their 1e days don't help mitigate that, either.  5e is set to be a veritable reactionary edition, harkening back to prior eds, when weapon specialization or perhaps a few more feats were all non-casters could hope for.  Radical new ways of balancing peak-power abilities are unlikely to be considered, let alone adopted.


----------



## Saagael (Apr 18, 2012)

FickleGM said:


> Not a single 4e DM I know has done that. :shrug:




Really? I know a few DMs that don't actively push that kind of thinking onto players, but when asked said they wouldn't mind that kind of creativity. Its also one of the common things I see pop up in "what do you house rule?" threads. Still, the point remains that its possible, and its not even a houserule; at least no more than "you can light a house on fire with a torch" is a house rule.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> A 9th level wizard in AD&D has all of 13 spells he can cast, most of those low level.  That's hardly a "Sheer number."
> 
> And this fan doesn't want to see any kind of at will magic, unless it's mage hand or dancing lights type cantrips.




But, that's less than half the story though.  That 9th level wizard will almost certainly have a selection of scrolls, a wand or three with up to 100 charges and a staff or other spell throwing item.

But, let's say you're right.  Ok, the wizard has 13 spells.  So, he spends significant amounts of time not doing wizardly things because if he blows all his spells, he's got to spend a day trying to rememorize them.

Why does punishing a character for the class he's chosen have to be a good thing?  Why are we telling the Magic User, "hey, great, you have fantastic cosmic powers, but, you can't really use them, because if you do, we're going to make sure you get punished - either you won't have time to regain them (long memorization rules) or at the very least, you're going to spend significant amounts of game time being a somewhat more durable commoner"?


----------



## FickleGM (Apr 19, 2012)

Saagael said:


> Really? I know a few DMs that don't actively push that kind of thinking onto players, but when asked said they wouldn't mind that kind of creativity. Its also one of the common things I see pop up in "what do you house rule?" threads. Still, the point remains that its possible, and its not even a houserule; at least no more than "you can light a house on fire with a torch" is a house rule.



Yeah, I don't think that it's a matter of the DMs not allowing it, but of the players not attempting it.  Technically, my statement was correct, but I think that it paints a picture of the DMs that wouldn't necessarily be accurate.  The players are AT LEAST as guilty of not thinking beyond the pages.


----------



## BobTheNob (Apr 19, 2012)

No-one is stopping people from playing 4e creatively. No-one. I loved it in our 4e campaign when a players sealed a cave entrance by using muscle to move rock over the entrance (athletic test) then using Ice Storm to seal it. Yay! Go Players!

But here is the thing, I haven't read one post that sais 3e, or 2e or 1e stifles creativity. Yet this issue comes up again and again and again for 4e. Now you can spend your time saying "Its the DM's fault for not allowing creativity" or "Its the players fault for not being creative" or "There is nothing stopping you from being creative in 4e" (because there isnt) but the fact remains that this keeps coming up.

If this was a marketing company, they would be asking why this phenomena was occurring, not blaming customers for "playing it wrong". When Coke came up with clear-Coke and it failed misserably, did they spend their time blaming the customer base, or did they very quickly review and re-jig clear-coke out of their product offering? To sit there and blame player and DM's for not being creative is just not how anyone should be addressing this.

Surely, based on this coming up time and again, we can at least acknowledge that there was something (or a number of things) 4e did which dissuaded at least a sub-set of players from X-dimensional problem solving and power interpretation.


----------



## mlund (Apr 19, 2012)

I have to admit, I do love the style of a Wizard who needs to prepare his spells from spell book after resting, cherry-picking the most appropriate incantations and formulas to meet his best estimation of what is to come. I like the idea of overall firepower being depleted over time. I think of Dragonlance as giving me the most intimate narrative of what it is to be a D&D Wizard.

Playing a 3.0 or 3.5 Wizard didn't really feel like the books, though. Nor was it a lot of fun outside of a narrow sweet spot of balance between Link's Crossbow Training (low levels) and Casters & Caddies (higher levels). Also, Fireball and Sleep were world-ender spells in Dragonlance, not Charm Person. My best 3E Wizards were save-or-die factories in combat from Charm Person (protect me, friend!) to Glitterdust (have fun fighting blind) with some AOE and no-save Ranged Touch attacks at higher levels.

"Going Nova," is a problem with 1e - 3e Vancian Magic. Interestingly, though, the narratives that so married me to Vancian Casting also provide a solid restriction on it. Casting Vancian Magic is *draining*. Trying to force too many fire-and-forget spells in an encounter can make you go unconscious or even risk death. Having a hard limit to the portion of your daily Vancian Magic you can blow in a single encounter fits the theme well.

I hope 5E includes a mechanic that discourages Wizards from burning all their daily spells in a single encounter - some sort of burn-out risk. In compensation, they should have some less volatile magic they can use with impunity at-will. Major Arcana and Minor Arcana have a nice ring to them. I suppose Miracles and Blessings could work on the divine side of things as well. The gods only take so heavy a hand in mortal deeds lest they touch off some sort of firestorm between deities, fiends, and primordials.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> No-one is stopping people from playing 4e creatively. No-one. I loved it in our 4e campaign when a players sealed a cave entrance by using muscle to move rock over the entrance (athletic test) then using Ice Storm to seal it. Yay! Go Players!
> 
> But here is the thing, I haven't read one post that sais 3e, or 2e or 1e stifles creativity. Yet this issue comes up again and again and again for 4e. Now you can spend your time saying "Its the DM's fault for not allowing creativity" or "Its the players fault for not being creative" or "There is nothing stopping you from being creative in 4e" (because there isnt) but the fact remains that this keeps coming up.
> 
> ...




Well, I'm not sure that you can't find threads that talk about 3e stifling creativity.  I'm actually pretty sure that you can.  But, your point is well taken.

And, really, I don't think you have to look any further than the first three core books for 4e.  The PHB, DMG, and MM are written in a style that presents the game in a very, very specific way.  From some rather unfortunate word choices for examples (Skip over meeting the guards and get to the good stuff ... like combat!) and the whole presentation of the PBH, you get a game that, on paper at least, looks very rigid.

Sure, there's a crap ton of stuff that you can be creative with in 4e.  But, it's buried under the mountain of crap that is presented as _a fait accomplis_.  Rituals!  Fantastically creative ruleset.  Buried at the back of the book, barely supported and pretty much the red headed stepchild of the book.

Someone opening the 4e PHB is going to see classes described by their in-combat role (Role is the very first thing listed after the class name), most of the powers are presented as what you do in combat and anything that is not centered on fairly rigidly presented combat elements is relagated to the status of footnotes, either presented in the front introduction chapters (does anyone actually read these?) or in the back, in the very last chapter after a section that is about twice as long - Combat.

I still maintain that the biggest single issue with 4e wasn't really the mechanics (although I get that these are issues as well, certainly.  I'm not trying to sweep away the criticisms) but rather how the game was presented.  It LOOKS like a gigantic combat board game.

So, it's not a wonder to see that people have this interpretation of the game.


----------



## Saagael (Apr 19, 2012)

FickleGM said:


> Yeah, I don't think that it's a matter of the DMs not allowing it, but of the players not attempting it.  Technically, my statement was correct, but I think that it paints a picture of the DMs that wouldn't necessarily be accurate.  The players are AT LEAST as guilty of not thinking beyond the pages.




This is true that the players are just as guilty as not being creative. What's strange though, and yes this is purely anecdotal, but of the players I've run games for, its usually the ones that are new to the D&D (as in 4e is their first edition to try) that pick up on "powers outside of combat" mentality on their own. It's the people who had played D&D since 2e that I have to pull teeth from to get to be creative.

4e only seems restrictive because the language is vastly different than any other edition. But to add to the topic, I think 5e does need to be more traditional Vancian, but I don't want to see the giant lists of spells that were in 3.5. As much as people decry 4e's power bloat, I feel just the same about 3.5's huge list of spells that players had to sift through every day. I'd like to see that trimmed down to more usable umbrella-spells.


----------



## Saagael (Apr 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> The PHB, DMG, and MM are written in a style that presents the game in a very, very specific way.  From some rather unfortunate word choices for examples (Skip over meeting the guards and get to the good stuff ... like combat!) and the whole presentation of the PBH, you get a game that, on paper at least, looks very rigid.




I'd xp for you but must spread it around.

I'll agree with this. It took about a year of playing and running games before I really started trying to engage players with that sort of creativity, all because of the way things were presented.

Tying in with my above post, that would go a ways to explaining why when I would hand a new-to-D&D player a character sheet and said "these are your spells, green ones you can use all the time, red ones are once every few minutes, and black are the awesome daily spells", they had little trouble thinking creatively with them.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 19, 2012)

I think the short answer is that, aside from the folks who still play earlier editions of the game, it isn't. Few if any games these days use Vancian mechanics.

Vancian magic has been one of the most heavily modified rules elements since the early days: the first systems after D&D such as Tunnels and Trolls and Runequest had spell point systems. Early fanzines had spell point systems for D&D as well. There was *always *controversy about vancian spell casting.

I really haven't seen a reason to use Vancian magic outside of "it's the way D&D has typically done things." That's not to say there *aren't *reasons, but I don't know of anything that Vancian spellcasting gives you that you can't get from a more flexible system.

Now I don't want to make it sound like Vancian is badwrongfun in general, but it's not the game *I* want to play at this point... so put a big IMHO on this post, and certainly don't take it as "Steve tells you your game isn't any good."


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I still maintain that the biggest single issue with 4e wasn't really the mechanics (although I get that these are issues as well, certainly. I'm not trying to sweep away the criticisms) but rather how the game was presented. It LOOKS like a gigantic combat board game.




Part presentation, part target audience--which are both highly related, of course. This also explains a peculiar facet of 4E: Arguably, since the release of the BECMI Rule Compendium, it is the single easiest version to buy and start having success with rapidly, assuming a bunch of beginners, with no outside help whatsoever. Some teenagers get the rules, one of them decides to DM, and off they go. Had the Essentials Red Box not been such a, err, misguided effort, and the first part of Essentials might have even beaten the RC on this front. There are just so many things that you can do with 4E that will more or less work, right out of the box.

On the other hand, that presentation is so targeted at beginners that it does very little to help you once you get past that beginning bloom. If you already know this stuff, 4E can really sing. But it doesn't tell you *how* to make it sing, nor does it much show you. This is especially bad since some of the techniques to make it sing are not traditional in D&D.  Sometimes, it actively harms your development here, telling you things that were ok for a beginner, but not qualifying them as such--as if your English teacher had you write at 4th grade level all the way through high school to keep your modest success unthreatened. 

Heck, as pemerton has said, they could have done worse than to include a few links to other games, and suggested people go read them for advice on how to play. The Burning Wheel Adventure Burner is even cheap!


----------



## GX.Sigma (Apr 19, 2012)

SteveC said:


> I really haven't seen a reason to use Vancian magic outside of "it's the way D&D has typically done things."



Isn't that enough?

One of the core goals of 5e is to meet people's expectations of what D&D is. I know you're a 4e fan, but you can't deny that 4e didn't meet a lot of those expectations, and that's why a lot of people didn't like it.

4e was the one where they took the game apart and did something different, and 5e is the one where they use what they've learned to put it all together again.


----------



## steeldragons (Apr 19, 2012)

mlund said:


> I hope 5E includes a mechanic that discourages Wizards from burning all their daily spells in a single encounter - some sort of burn-out risk.




Are not all wizard spells "dailies"? And, if not, WHY not?



mlund said:


> In compensation, they should have some less volatile magic they can use with impunity at-will.




Why?..."in compensation"?! Mages do not require "compensation"! All of this "I wanna at-wills" is the result of the cultural "I want it NOW daddy" mentality. The "I deserve to have my cake and eat it too". 

"I don't mind if I can only fireball once a day...cuz I get to magic missile alllll day long"....What?! Why!? You're trying to master the arcane mysteries of the universe...so you should be able to "pew pew"all day...because...???

The problem here is a divergent attitude in VIEWING the game...where flavor matters not at all cuz we're worried about mechanics. The why and wherefore of my +20 is all that matters..versus...flavor is the ambrosia of the gods on which all things in the game world feed off of...the why and wherefore of your +20 do not matter a lick in this section of the story.



mlund said:


> Major Arcana and Minor Arcana have a nice ring to them. I suppose Miracles and Blessings could work on the divine side of things as well. The gods only take so heavy a hand in mortal deeds lest they touch off some sort of firestorm between deities, fiends, and primordials.
> 
> - Marty Lund




Could we..ya know...not have primordials as an integral/"understood" part of the D&D game world? Or gods or fiends for that matter. Leave all of that goodly otherworldly stuff to the DM and the game they are running.

Spanks n' good night.
--SD


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 19, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yet every argument they make leads to bringing down martial classes and elevating casters.  I can't speak to motive, only to what is being demanded.  For instance:
> 
> Given the classic D&D paradigm, in which abilities that are useable less often are compensated with much greater power, dailies, like vancian spells, are the top tier for sheer power.  By arbitrarily - and such double-standards of 'sense' or realism are arbitrary - demanding the martial source be cut off from such power, you are demanding they be inferior.  You may not want them to be inferior, but you are demanding it.
> 
> Suggestions that some novel approach be taken to power up martial characters relative to their 1e days don't help mitigate that, either.  5e is set to be a veritable reactionary edition, harkening back to prior eds, when weapon specialization or perhaps a few more feats were all non-casters could hope for.  Radical new ways of balancing peak-power abilities are unlikely to be considered, let alone adopted.



OK come on. Don't use language like "this is all martial classes can hope for". Classes can't hope for anything. They are not people.

This is not an ethical issue. We're not talking about the relative balance of power among classes of people. They're just classes in a role-playing game. It's got nothing to do with being fair or unfair to real people. If somebody really feels their fighter is underpowered, then they can always just play a damn wizard.

It's just an aesthetic issue. Some people like the mundane martial/magical caster image, and some people like the...well I haven't even figured out what the image 4e presents is yet, it sort of flits over both with abandon, but some people like it. Neither is *unethical*.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 19, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Isn't that enough?
> 
> One of the core goals of 5e is to meet people's expectations of what D&D is. I know you're a 4e fan, but you can't deny that 4e didn't meet a lot of those expectations, and that's why a lot of people didn't like it.
> 
> 4e was the one where they took the game apart and did something different, and 5e is the one where they use what they've learned to put it all together again.



In all honesty, for me, nope. I don't expect to be listened to here, mind you: I expect we'll see Vancian magic back with the new edition exactly as you say because it is *expected *to be there. That doesn't mean it's a good thing, especially if you're looking to bring new people to the game. Vancian casting doesn't match up to the magic you see in modern fiction or the movies at all, and looking at Amazon's ranking for Jack Vance's works, very few people are reading him today. For full disclosure: I did read Vance back in the day, so I did get what D&D's magic was trying to do, I just didn't really care for it.

Now a lot of people will say, "hold on, Steve, if you don't like Vancian, why play D&D? I mean, there are a lot of other systems out there..." and they'd be  right. I've played a lot of other systems, and magic (or a "powers" system) was the main reason for trying them. What I found was that for a fantasy game, D&D does a lot of things right. I find myself liking class and level systems for my fantasy gaming, and D&D hit points really work for me.

When the powers system hit in 4E I found that I could finally come home to D&D since it gave me what I was looking for. I know a lot of other folks disagree of course, and they're just as right as I am. But I certainly won't argue that Vancian magic has more things going for it than tradition. I think other people are quite capable of doing that.


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> OK come on. Don't use language like "this is all martial classes can hope for". Classes can't hope for anything. They are not people.



 You could rephrase that as "this is all martial classes' *players* can hope for"



> This is not an ethical issue. We're not talking about the relative balance of power among classes of people. They're just classes in a role-playing game. It's got nothing to do with being fair or unfair to real people. If somebody really feels their fighter is underpowered, then they can always just play a damn wizard.



 That last sentence is incredibly dismissive. Some people want to play a certain archetype. They want to be Conan, for example. And they don't want to be underpowered. If the Caster player can cast "power word to kill" at 18th and instantly killing someone, they might want to be balanced and being able to do "power sword to kill" maneuver for a comparable effect, or whatever. They don't want  to "just play a damn wizard" because they want to roleplay a muscular barbarian with a sword, and not a beardy man with a pointy hat. What's so hard to understand?


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 19, 2012)

triqui said:


> You could rephrase that as "this is all martial classes' *players* can hope for"
> 
> That last sentence is incredibly dismissive. Some people want to play a certain archetype. They want to be Conan, for example. And they don't want to be underpowered. If the Caster player can cast "power word to kill" at 18th and instantly killing someone, they might want to be balanced and being able to do "power sword to kill" maneuver for a comparable effect, or whatever. They don't want  to "just play a damn wizard" because they want to roleplay a muscular barbarian with a sword, and not a beardy man with a pointy hat. What's so hard to understand?



Well I mean I'll say this -- if there is class disparity then it should be transparent. It would be unfair to give someone a "trap" class that is just destined to get relatively worse and worse as the game goes on. Any "traps" in the system should be things you can change relatively soon after you find out that it's a trap.

But if it IS transparent, if the game actually said right there that wizards (for example) start out worse than fighters but at high levels are much better, then I don't find that unfair. The player is free to take that information into account when choosing their class. You could argue it from a game design standpoint, but I think it's just toxic discourse to get all moralistic about it.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 19, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yet every argument they make leads to bringing down martial classes and elevating casters.  I can't speak to motive, only to what is being demanded.  For instance:
> 
> Given the classic D&D paradigm, in which abilities that are useable less often are compensated with much greater power, dailies, like vancian spells, are the top tier for sheer power.  By arbitrarily - and such double-standards of 'sense' or realism are arbitrary - demanding the martial source be cut off from such power, you are demanding they be inferior.  You may not want them to be inferior, but you are demanding it.




So I suppose all of my comments that martial classes should be boosted, and my suggestion of several things that would make the martial daily issue palatable mere sentences after that quote, somehow mean I'm demanding fighters be inferior to wizards...?

I say again, I am perfectly happy to have fighters with abilities on the same power level as wizards' spells, and I want high-level fighters to be Hercules and Cú Chulainn as much as the next guy.  I just don't think daily powers are the way to do it.  Action points, fate points, healing surges, fatigue-based, per hour, per scene, random recharge, or something else, all of those are power use schedules that are different from the spellcasting schedule and, more importantly, don't feel as artificial as per day.  If your justification for martial dailies is "You only get the right opening to use them at such-and-such a time," give them some sort of action/fate/plot/whatever points governing their usage.  If the justification is "It's very taxing to use those powers," give them some sort of fatigue or random recharge system (or better yet, build battle fatigue into the base system and hook martial "dailies" into that).  If the justification is "They can only use them when it's dramatically appropriate," well, you should probably put the same limitations on casters.

Look at the 4e psionics system: you have a bunch of encounter powers, and a bunch of power points, and you can upgrade your encounter powers into daily-equivalents using power points, so you aren't locked into the same AEDU structure every other class has.  Psion "daily powers" are (in theory, at least) equivalent to other sources' daily powers, but they don't have to use daily powers 1/day each, so they have a more organic/logical feel.  Why couldn't martial powers use _that_ sort of system, where they have the same power as a magical class but a resource system that is different, tactically and flavor-wise, from the magical classes?  Why does "I don't like martial dailies, use a different resource system" automatically translate to "I love wizards and hate fighters"?


----------



## Akaiku (Apr 19, 2012)

Thing is, if Vancian works for magic, why not have it work for martial as well? It's a secret fighting technique that immediately vacates your body until you study it again the next day? And your training capacity only increases by level or str mod cause you have more muscle/skill to store the powers in.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 19, 2012)

Akaiku said:


> Thing is, if Vancian works for magic, why not have it work for martial as well?



Different people find different things plausible. For some, "martial" is inextricably linked with "repeatable".


----------



## GX.Sigma (Apr 19, 2012)

Akaiku said:


> Thing is, if Vancian works for magic, why not have it work for martial as well? It's a secret fighting technique that immediately vacates your body until you study it again the next day? And your training capacity only increases by level or str mod cause you have more muscle/skill to store the powers in.



That may work for mystic martial artists, but doesn't really work for mundane fighters.


----------



## Akaiku (Apr 19, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> That may work for mystic martial artists, but doesn't really work for mundane fighters.




The only argument on how it works for non-ameniasic mages is that DnD and Vance did it. Plus, mundane... A mundane fighter cannot match up to even a middling amount of reality warping. If the fighter cannot parry a fireball or a dragon's breath, it will never be useful for a wizard. Fighters have to quit being mundane or wizards need to start.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Apr 19, 2012)

Akaiku said:


> The only argument on how it works for non-ameniasic mages is that DnD and Vance did it. Plus, mundane... A mundane fighter cannot match up to even a middling amount of reality warping. If the fighter cannot parry a fireball or a dragon's breath, it will never be useful for a wizard. Fighters have to quit being mundane or wizards need to start.



The in-world explanation for Vancian magic works. 

If you  explain in-world that the fighter is overcoming the limits of mortal capabilities and is basically a demigod, that would work too. 

If you explain in-world that the fighter is channeling his inner energy by learning and mastering ancient martial techniques with mental discipline, that doesn't work because that's not the fighter. It could work for the monk, but not the fighter.


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

FickleGM said:


> Not a single 4e DM I know has done that. :shrug:



Really? I've done a lot of times. Giving a instant success in a chase skill challenge because you use a teleportation power, or quelching a tavern on fire using a blizzard-like power are the first two that came to my mind.

EDIT: I've just remembered one that happened in the very first 4e encounter we had. A player used Thunder Wave to overturn a brazier and blocking a corridor with fire. Creative use of powers is actually encouraged if you use 3e style terrain.


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Well I mean I'll say this -- if there is class disparity then it should be transparent. It would be unfair to give someone a "trap" class that is just destined to get relatively worse and worse as the game goes on. Any "traps" in the system should be things you can change relatively soon after you find out that it's a trap.
> 
> But if it IS transparent, if the game actually said right there that wizards (for example) start out worse than fighters but at high levels are much better, then I don't find that unfair. The player is free to take that information into account when choosing their class. You could argue it from a game design standpoint, but I think it's just toxic discourse to get all moralistic about it.



I'm not being moralistic about it, or arguing about a game design standpoint. I'm just stating that some *players* (as opossed to PC) might want to play Conan-like or The Great Mouse-like characters, and still being comparatively competent to other players who choose diferent kinds of flavor for their in game avatars.

In your proposed example, the game states that wizards start being worse, and end being better. A *LOT* of players might feel bad treated by that. For example, a player that is an unconditional fan of martial archetypes (like Conan or Aragorn) and ussually plays in high level campaigns, or a player that is an unconditional fan lof caster-archetypes, but play mostly low level campaigns. Or a martial fan that play from 1-20/30, but want to stay balanced through the whole career. In your proposed scenario, those players have two options: either they can play a character they *don't want* to play, or they can go and find a different game. None of those are good for WotC, from a selling perspective.

If a player wants to play a fighter, and stay gimped, they should be able to. But if a player wants to play a fighter that stay balanced, they should be able to as well. There's a whole difference between me, deciding I like to play a class that is gimped, and *you* deciding that the class I like to play *has* to be a gimped class.


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 19, 2012)

Being the guy that always wants to play Aragorn I always though that a high level Aragon will have an army at his back...

Warder


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 19, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> will fail. There will always be the wrong rating on the wrong spells, because as soon as the rabbits (unsuspecting DMs) get faster, so do the foxes (more optimized/exploitative players or powergamers), since there is too much of a lag before errata can either slow down the foxes. (if not take them out back, and shoot them out right)




But being close is better than not doing it at all.



> A creative/smart caster with a vancian system and spells that affect the world in non-trivial ways, can always pose balance problems. Is it the nature of the beast. 4e solved it by making all combat spells apply to a grid, and either do damage against creatures or enemies, but not objects, so you are very much limited to the very limited set of in-combat uses, to avoid e.g. fireball being used to set a forest on fire.




This is complete nonsense.  I'll give two counter-examples

1: B/X D&D has a phrasing that is surprisingly similar to that of 4e for the fireball.  The necessary text for the most common uses - i.e. combat, added to enough fluff (keywords in 4e) to extrapolate.  If you're saying that B/X had problems this way that's the first I've heard of it.  You can use 4e fireball to set a forest on fire - with the DM's agreement.  And no DM I've ever played with would say that fireball lacked that potential.  Fireball explicitely does fire damage.  And fire burns.

2: The last time I played a 4e wizard I retired him for giving the DM too much of a headache through creative power use.



> So long as Wotc allows for open play tests, these bugs should be found /sorted before launch.




Because it worked with Pathfinder.



> A lot of these balance issues can be sorted out in-game within the rules of earlier editions, but there is no house rule in 4e to not use your power the way it says, other than "chose a different power".




"There is no house rule in 4e" - are you actually reading what you are writing?  Even if you are, it's completely wrong in my experience.



> I've said it before, there is no balance between a fighter, any fighter, and a smart player playing a wizard with spells -- any spells -- with which there is a complex enough set of world-modifying, non-straight up damage effects.




Then we might as well give up on D&D.  I've only actually retired a wizard in 4e but I've caused enough headaches with a monk and offbeat use of powers (much more experienced DM).  We have what you want in 4e - it's just weaker than in 3.X and intentionally so.



FickleGM said:


> Not a single 4e DM I know has done that. :shrug:




Any 4e DM who didn't allow that sort of stunt would bore me very fast.  :shrug:  (And I've played with more than half a dozen).



***************************************




Eldritch_Lord said:


> I don't care if the fighter has a bunch of fancy, powerful moves that rival the power of a wizard's spells--in fact, I'm all for the martial classes getting a powerup. What I don't want to see is a martial power system that doesn't make sense, and martial dailyies don't make much sense to me.




Then try playing Essentials.  No Martial Dailies.  Martial classes use stances and basic attacks rather than at will powers.  Seriously, just about every criticism you've made has been fixed in Essentials.



> If daily powers were supposed to be these big dramatic events, make them "per scene" instead of "per day" and define a scene appropriately.




I'd rather say "per episode".  The single point of 4e I always houserule when DMing is to change extended rests to be extended rather than 8 hours sleep.  But then I believe pre-4e casters are also improved by this rule and needing a lab or a temple and several days to restock spells.



> The wizard is too powerful because of the effects he has access to at that level, _not_ because of the number or frequency of them.




Number and frequency can both do a lot in their own right.  Both are part of the problem.



> but all three of them can still blast their way into a room, turn everyone inside into frogs, and teleport away before they can react.




And here is one of my problems.  The fighter should be able to turn the wizard into cuisineart before the wizard can turn him into a frog.  At high levels wizards should act as fighter delivery mechanisms.



> Rituals can be game-changers, but much of the time their casting time and cost prevents them being worth it.




Exactly.  They aren't an obvious answer.



> And my question to you is, how is using a 4e ritual "actual genuine creativity" and using a Vancian spell "exactly what it was designed for"? They're basically the same effects in terms of what can generally be accomplished, the difference being casting time and cost. Does taking 5 minutes and 100gp suddenly make an illusion creative?




There's a much more serious opportunity cost to the rituals - and they aren't as directly targetted at an end result in most cases.



> I haven't gotten my hands on Essentials, so perhaps they improve it there, but before that the Illusionist is very poorly represented.




They do and agreed.  



> First of all, really? _Reduce person_ is top half?




This I'll grant.

_



			Fly
		
Click to expand...


_


> is top half?




Emphatically.  Or would be if the polymorph chain didn't contain quite so much stinky cheese (Alter Self being able  to cover almost everything fly can do and do it for longer).  Fly is effectively a reality-altering spell that changes what needs guarding against in the gameworld.  Fly is every bit as much a gamechanger at level 3 as teleport is at level 4.



> Second of all, I'm not asking for spells to be ported over directly. I'd like it if they _were_, but it's not a requirement. I'm just asking for the same capabilities. _Silent image_ can be a person-size image requiring concentration and all of my actions to change and maintain for all I care as long as I can be an illusionist who casts actual honest-to-Pelor illusions from level 1.




You can have a person sized image as an encounter utility power at level 2.  (And I really dislike the 4e decision not to hand out the first utility power at level 1).  This is once again in Essentials where they did a _much_ better job with Illusionists.



> _Fly_ can be a spell with a lower flight ceiling that leaves you unable to cast and flat-footed while it's in effect and requires actions to sustain for all I care as long as I don't have to wait more than half the game to be able to fly or make someone else fly and I can take to the air on a moment's notice.




I can't recall when the wizard gets the first Fly spell (they are definitely there).  But my Monk was able to get a wire-fu short distance flight at level 2 (I think there's a level 1 way of allowing wire-fu flight for a monk).  A sorceror can definitely have a sustainable-for-five-minutes encounter flight spell from level 6 (which does take serious sustaining).



> With 10 minutes notice, you can. You can't turn the corner, _disguise self_, and say "Guards! The prisoner went that way!"




Yes you can.  I'm pretty sure there's a spell that does this at heroic tier in Essentials.  And I know there's one that does this as a cantrip in Heroes of the Feywild.



> You can't _arcane lock_ the door right behind you as you dash through to prevent the monsters from getting in.




I think you're right here.



> You can't have multiple minions for more than 5 minutes at a time--actual creatures, not sort-of creatures that have limited actions and require yours.




This part is right. The action economy is important.  Or you can just _hire_ minions.  (I will say that the Necromancy rules suck even post-essentials).



> Likewise, if I'm an illusionist and all of my signature spells cost cash and multiple minutes, what's the point?




The point is that you're a year and a half out of date in your source material.  Now I'll admit that the PHB wizard with just PHB options can't do what you want.



> Again, this may have been mitigated by Essentials, as I don't have access to those books. But the state of utility magic in the core is sadly lacking, and I want to see that fixed in 5e.




Essentials was intended to be the new core.



> I didn't say it limited their power, I said it limited their breadth. Limiting options doesn't matter if each of those options is too powerful.




On the other hand quantity of options has a quality all of its own.



> Don't nerf the casters down to the martial level, bring the martials up to the caster level, or do a bit of both to have them meet in the middle.




I favour the "Bit of both" version.


******************************************





steeldragons said:


> Are not all wizard spells "dailies"? And, if not, WHY not?




Why should they be?  Why can't wizards ever master their spells to the point they don't actually need to prepare them.



> Why?..."in compensation"?! Mages do not require "compensation"! All of this "I wanna at-wills" is the result of the cultural "I want it NOW daddy" mentality. The "I deserve to have my cake and eat it too".
> 
> "I don't mind if I can only fireball once a day...cuz I get to magic missile alllll day long"....What?! Why!? You're trying to master the arcane mysteries of the universe...so you should be able to "pew pew"all day...because...???




Because I've _mastered_ it.  Because I have that much control over that fragment of magic that I can do it with just a thought.  To me the part I have trouble understanding is the idea that spells cast by rote directly out of a spellbook and preparation count as actually mastering the arcane mysteries of the universe rather than actually getting to the point that I can do some things with the snap of my fingers even if I can't do things that are quite so powerful.


----------



## Harlander (Apr 19, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> Are not all wizard spells "dailies"? And, if not, WHY not?




Personally, I find a character whose prime focus is magic use being able to produce a set of low-level magical effects at will more compelling than the alternative.

Are cantrips not usable at will? And if not, why not?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 19, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> It's not the overpoweredness of AD&D/3e spells people like, it's the variety.  If 5e was 4e powers in a Vancian framework, I wouldn't like it because those spells would likely be incredibly boring and same-y and all combat-focused.  Give me _grease_, _silent image_, _reduce person_, _fly_, _fire trap_, _wall of force_, _delayed blast fireball_, _telekinetic sphere_--and those are just SRD spells--not yet another way to damage someone and push them a bit, or teleport tactically, or create a crowd-control zone.  Lots of people played crowd-control wizards in 3e, and that's a fun and effective way to play, but 4e (and now probably 5e) have said "If you want CC or blasting or very limited abjuration, you can contribute in combat, if you want illusions or enchantment or very limited necromancy, you'll have a few watered-down tricks in combat and not much out of combat."



Which kind of makes my point.  No one cares about the Vancian system.  They care that spells aren't written like 4e.

Here's a hypothetical: 5e instead gives you the entire list of 1st level dailies in a vancian fashion for Wizards.  Then they add the entire list of Arcana and non-skill based Rituals from level 1 to 4 and make them all 1st level dailies that you can prepare instead of any of your normal dailies.  Then they change the casting time of all 10 minute or less rituals to 3 rounds.  Then remove the component cost for any ritual that currently costs less than 20gp per level of the ritual(leaving the ones that are supposed to be expensive still have a cost).  Then do the same for 5-8th level rituals to become 2nd level spells, 9th-12th become 3rd and so on.

This means you still get the variety of a vancian system, choosing between utility and combat spells, without making utility spells break combat(since 3 rounds is too long to make most of them viable in combat without some planning and protecting the wizard).



Eldritch_Lord said:


> If you sort 3e spells by power and cut off the top half of them, you'll _still_ have plenty of fun, creative, flexible, and noncombat-capable spells.  You can shape the world, fool people, build wards and traps for later, pick up a few minions, and do lots of other things.  If the designers think you can't use illusions in combat, tough noogies for them, they shouldn't give you a few powers that deal psychic damage and call them illusions and then make you spend an arm and a leg to get basic rituals, like Hallucinatory Creature which, at level 12, finally lets you make the moving image of a creature at the cost of 10 minutes and 500gp where a 3e caster could have been doing that several times a day from level 1.



A number of these spells are EXTREMELY combat capable depending on your DM.  Which is my real problem with them.

"Hey, Mr DM, I create an image of the typical food of the creature.  Every time the creature attempts to hit it, the image jumps out of the way.  Since it had virtually no intelligence it doesn't get a chance to disbelieve or think it's an illusion.  It doesn't even know what illusions are.  Every time we attack, I'll have the illusion leap up and attack the same spot so he'll think it's the illusion attacking.  Also, in combat, who do you think it's going to attack, its favorite food or us?  Perfect.  My spell has negated all damage done by the enemy."

Some DMs will say "No, that's stupid.  I'm not letting you use a first level illusion spell to negate more damage than a 9th level actual combat spell."  Some will say "Awesome, since you are being so creative with your illusion spells, I will reward you by having it succeed and the monster never attacks you."

Out of combat their power can increase to almost limitless levels.  With a couple of low level illusions., some creativity, and a DM who goes along with stuff, you could nearly conquer the entire world.:  Invisibility to sneak past guards, illusions to look like important people or charms to make important people do whatever you want them to.  Soon entire armies and kingdoms are at your command and it doesn't take much more than 3rd level spells to do it.

Certainly there should be some cost for these extremely powerful abilities that isn't "I need to wait until tomorrow to continue my plot, since I have no more charm spells today".  I don't mind some sort of gold cost for these sorts of abilities...though it needs to be lower than 4e.  They went overboard.


Eldritch_Lord said:


> Back in 1e, all the overpowered 3e spells had drawbacks, and plenty of them.  _Wish_ had no "safe" options and aged you, _polymorph_ could kill you, _animate dead_ could be dispelled, _fly_ didn't have the safe descent, and so forth.  Yet people liked the 1e system just fine, because it wasn't about options, it was about creativity and breadth of effects.



Most of the drawbacks could be worked around so they were non-existent:

I'm a elf...1 year of my life?  Let me know if I cast it over 900 times.

Wish was and still is a stupid spell, because its text basically said "Your DM should make whatever you say hurt you badly.  But feel free to wish for anything you want."  If you worded it correctly, it could give you the power of a god(and your DM was nice) if you didn't, casting it meant the death of your entire party.  Without the safe options, Wishing for lunch would often get you killed.  No one in their right mind ever cast it.

Spells being able to be dispelled isn't a drawback, that just makes them spells like anything else.  Against non-casters or in low magic worlds it isn't a drawback in the slightest.  And in most games, that's 95% of encounters.  I understand that some DMs have worked around this issue by making nearly 100% of encounters against casters and given every guard in existence the ability to dispel magic and see invisibility.  But in most games, it means "If one of the 3 wizards who lives in this city casts a dispel on you, it'll suck.  Luckily only one of them is high enough level to cast it and he works at the brewery making beer."


----------



## FickleGM (Apr 19, 2012)

Harlander said:


> Personally, I find a character whose prime focus is magic use being able to produce a set of low-level magical effects at will more compelling than the alternative.
> 
> Are cantrips not usable at will? And if not, why not?



The at-will cantrip makes me smile. The at-will magic missile, not so much. Why? Personal taste.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2012)

FickleGM said:


> The at-will cantrip makes me smile. The at-will magic missile, not so much. Why? Personal taste.




But, at the end of the day, why should your personal taste be more important than mine?

Wouldn't a much better criteria be, "what makes for a more compelling class"?

Which is better?  You spend several weeks of game play, playing a character that gets to do what his class is supposed to do, once, maybe twice every three hour session, or, playing a character that can do something directly related to his class very frequently, throughout a three hour session.

Which makes a more fun class to play?  Not just for you and your personal tastes, but, thinking about the people you know that play casters.  Which would they prefer?  Which makes for better experiences for that player?

To me, the idea that you get to spend 20-30 hours of play (guestimate for leveling from 1st to 3rd or 4th) at best using the primary purpose of your class 1/hour is very poor class design.

Who cares if the reward is that after 100+ hours of play, you FINALLY get to play the character you created on a regular basis?  Why in heck have I just spend a hundred hours being a commoner with a rocket launcher and very, very limited ammunition?

No thanks.  Even back in the day, you were expected to pick up wands and the like at very low level.  A wand of magic missiles appears in the Basic rules, as does a wand of paralyzation (albeit, these wands only grant 10 charges).  You are EXPECTED to find these treasures at these levels.  Scrolls are included in the rules as well.  

The idea that you're supposed to have your base casting and nothing else isn't really supported by the actual text of the game.  So, if you're supposed to have more than your base 1 spell per day anyway, why not build that directly into the class?  What do we gain by placing the control over the character in the hands of either the dice (random treasure) or the DM?  Does that actually make a better experience?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, at the end of the day, why should your personal taste be more important than mine?
> 
> Wouldn't a much better criteria be, "what makes for a more compelling class"?




How can that latter question be separated from personal taste?


----------



## FickleGM (Apr 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, at the end of the day, why should your personal taste be more important than mine?
> 
> Wouldn't a much better criteria be, "what makes for a more compelling class"?
> 
> ...



*At-will cantrips make me smile. At-will magic missiles, not so much.*

I'm fairly certain that posting the above opinion doesn't elevate it's importance above yours or anyone else's.

*Why? Personal taste.*

I'm fairly certain that posting the above, in order to preemptively answer the inevitable forthcoming question does not elevate it's importance, either.

There was a style of game I could play in certain editions which could be run without changing or excluding the magic user class. I liked that style. It would appear that the majority of people may not enjoy having that option available, and based on what we've seen, WotC would be amongst that number. So, the next edition, like 4e, will invalidate that style by the core rules.

Also, while not in the majority, I know that I'm not alone in thinking it would (and did) make a more compelling class.

In response to the post I quoted, above, I do like at-will cantrips, but not at-will magic missiles. :shrug:


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2012)

billd91 said:


> How can that latter question be separated from personal taste?




By actually trying to maintain some distance and remaining objective.  By constantly questioning the existence of something and it's inclusion into the ruleset.  By requiring that everything that is included in the ruleset be justifiable in some manner beyond simply, "because it's the way it was done yesterday".  

By trying to be intellectually honest enough to admit that just because I happen to like something doesn't make it good and because I happen to dislike something doesn't make it bad.

I realize it's impossible to remove all personal preference, but, it is the goal that should be striven for.  All it requires is a recognition of the following



			
				Robin Laws said:
			
		

> ”The tendency to confuse personal taste with objective quality is nearly universal.” - Robin D. Laws – Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering




and a refusal to allow personal taste be the arbiter of quality.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2012)

FickleGM said:


> /snip
> 
> There was a style of game I could play in certain editions which could be run without changing or excluding the magic user class. I liked that style. It would appear that the majority of people may not enjoy having that option available, and based on what we've seen, WotC would be amongst that number. So, the next edition, like 4e, will invalidate that style by the core rules.
> 
> ...




Don't just tell me though, show me.  How does having an at-will attack ability on par with a regular weapon attack (such as a crossbow or dagger), invalidate your playstyle?  What about your playstyle makes it compelling and interesting?  Why is it more compelling to be limited to 1 spell per day than many?

And, what do you mean as well?  Is your 1 spell, or limited spells, per day a big spell that effectively ends an entire encounter, like Sleep?  Or is it any spell?  Is it compelling and interesting play to spend two levels casting Comprehend Languages and Detect Magic once or twice per day?

And, is it possible to achieve your goals in another way?  Does the caster absolutely have to be limited to very small numbers of spells or could wizards be more like clerics and start with 3 spells per day (presuming a what, 13 or 14 Wis for the AD&D cleric)?  Or perhaps 2 spells per day a la the AD&D druid at 1st level.  

Or, could we give the casters some sort of powers like druids and still keep the highly limited Vancian casting.  Your wizard could have very limited fire and forget spell casting, but starts with a familiar that is capable of getting into combat without getting instantly squished.  Something like that.

Look, I'm not really interested in telling anyone they're wrong.  But, if we're going to get anywhere, people need to stop telling each other that X is better or worse than Y and start actually presenting options and ways in which everyone gets what they want.


----------



## FickleGM (Apr 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Don't just tell me though, show me.  How does having an at-will attack ability on par with a regular weapon attack (such as a crossbow or dagger), invalidate your playstyle?  What about your playstyle makes it compelling and interesting?  Why is it more compelling to be limited to 1 spell per day than many?
> 
> And, what do you mean as well?  Is your 1 spell, or limited spells, per day a big spell that effectively ends an entire encounter, like Sleep?  Or is it any spell?  Is it compelling and interesting play to spend two levels casting Comprehend Languages and Detect Magic once or twice per day?
> 
> ...



I didn't say anything was better or worse.  I said, "At-will cantrips make me smile. At-will magic missiles, not so much."


----------



## MoonSong (Apr 19, 2012)

FickleGM said:


> I didn't say anything was better or worse.  I said, "At-will cantrips make me smile. At-will magic missiles, not so much."



I share that opinion. 
Personally I wouldn't mind At-will magic being an option, as long as i'm not forced to take it. In fact I wouldn't mind any alternative magic system, as long as I have the option to be a 100% non-combat caster without needing to rely on DM-fiat (Vancian allows me to do so). You don't need to cast the same damaging spell time after time all day to feel magical (to me that actually makes it feel less magical by making it mundane and taken for granted) but I understand some people would think otherwise.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> By actually trying to maintain some distance and remaining objective.  By constantly questioning the existence of something and it's inclusion into the ruleset.  By requiring that everything that is included in the ruleset be justifiable in some manner beyond simply, "because it's the way it was done yesterday".
> 
> By trying to be intellectually honest enough to admit that just because I happen to like something doesn't make it good and because I happen to dislike something doesn't make it bad.
> 
> ...




There's a reason it's nearly universal. It's because it's fundamentally true except for narrow definitions of quality. Quality may be defined to measure how suitable something is for a particular purpose. In that case, there may be some objectively better fits than others. But if we're talking about coming up with quality rules for an RPG, we'd have to be a lot more specific about the purposes we're trying to support. Coming up with the best RPG, for example, is far too broad. And when do engage in getting more specific, there's a lot of subjectivity in what those purposes should be.

This is why taste matters a lot. 4e gets lauded for being great design. That design may be high quality in fitting the purposes of the 4e game. But its quality is terrible when fitted to other purposes, like producing a game that feels like AD&D. Whether the former is more important for a game in the D&D line of products than the latter depends on taste, not any objective metric.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 19, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> I'd rather say "per episode".  The single point of 4e I always houserule when DMing is to change extended rests to be extended rather than 8 hours sleep.  But then I believe pre-4e casters are also improved by this rule and needing a lab or a temple and several days to restock spells.
> 
> Number and frequency can both do a lot in their own right.  Both are part of the problem.




Part of the problem, yes, but again I only claimed going back to 1e memorization and acquisition rules would solve one part of the problem.  Spell nerfs and reinstituting dangerous combat casting solves another part.



> And here is one of my problems.  The fighter should be able to turn the wizard into cuisineart before the wizard can turn him into a frog.  At high levels wizards should act as fighter delivery mechanisms.




I wasn't saying the wizard could nuke the fighter, just a roomful of random goblins or nobles or whatever.  That the wizard _can_ easily neuter the fighter is a different, but no less pressing, issue.



> Emphatically.  Or would be if the polymorph chain didn't contain quite so much stinky cheese (Alter Self being able  to cover almost everything fly can do and do it for longer).  Fly is effectively a reality-altering spell that changes what needs guarding against in the gameworld.  Fly is every bit as much a gamechanger at level 3 as teleport is at level 4.




Fly really isn't the gamechanger people make it out to be.  From an NPC/world perspective, there are already flying threats out there such as, say, one-half of the name of the game.  (No, not flying dungeons, though those would be pretty awesome.)  If you already have to prepare for every flying thing from allips to zombies, flying humanoids that are more easily stopped than other flying critters (e.g. dispelling) aren't any more of a problem.

From a PC perspective, _fly_ doesn't really open up new avenues of exploration.  If you're in the wilderness, you can already buy/find/borrow/tame flying mounts, and your reliance on the mount for flight is no more onerous than your reliance on the wizard for flight--and might actually be a benefit, if the mount you choose is intelligent and/or can fight well.  If you're underground or in an otherwise-cramped space where you can't take a mount, flight isn't as much of an advance because you're limited in your flight ceiling and creatures can climb to get to you.



> This part is right. The action economy is important.  Or you can just _hire_ minions.  (I will say that the Necromancy rules suck even post-essentials).




Action economy is important, but that's not the concern here.  As you said, you can hire minions already, and there are non-action-economy-breaking minions of other sorts, but undead have their own advantages, such as not breathing or sleeping, being totally loyal, being immune or resistant to different things than living creatures, and so on.  And of course the most important reason to have necromantic minions is that some people want to play the Dread Lord Tim, Lich King Extraordinaire, not the Dread Lord Bob, Mercenary Leader and Human Resources Guy Extraordinaire.



Neonchameleon said:


> Then try playing Essentials.  No Martial Dailies.  Martial classes use stances and basic attacks rather than at will powers.  Seriously, just about every criticism you've made has been fixed in Essentials.
> 
> You can have a person sized image as an encounter utility power at level 2.  (And I really dislike the 4e decision not to hand out the first utility power at level 1).  This is once again in Essentials where they did a _much_ better job with Illusionists.
> 
> ...




It's interesting that Essentials seems to have everything I want, and I freely admit that I don't have much knowledge of it.  It's interesting for a few reasons.  First of all, the reason I'm not that familiar with it is that my 4e group doesn't like it at all and doesn't play with it, and since we don't use DDI I don't just run into the material.  Second, Essentials discards a lot of the formerly-sacrosanct 4e design goals in favor of more 3e-esque design goals.  Third, a lot of online advice surrounding 4e centers around non-Essentials material: the question "How do we handle out-of-combat stuff?" is usually "Rituals are amazing!!!" rather than "Non-combat utilities from Essentials are amazing!!!"

So if the way to satisfy my complaints is to note that those complaints are inherent to pre-Essentials 4e, and if the Essentials material "broke the base" a bit among 4e players precisely because it is more 3e-like than standard 4e, turning around and saying that the pre-Essentials 4e way of doing things is great doesn't really jibe with that.  If Essentials is the best way to unite 4e fans and AD&D/3e fans on the topic of martial dailies, utility magic, and so forth, I don't see why people are complaining about Vancian casting and too-versatile wizards and all that.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Which kind of makes my point.  No one cares about the Vancian system.  They care that spells aren't written like 4e.
> 
> Here's a hypothetical: 5e instead gives you the entire list of 1st level dailies in a vancian fashion for Wizards.  Then they add the entire list of Arcana and non-skill based Rituals from level 1 to 4 and make them all 1st level dailies that you can prepare instead of any of your normal dailies.  Then they change the casting time of all 10 minute or less rituals to 3 rounds.  Then remove the component cost for any ritual that currently costs less than 20gp per level of the ritual(leaving the ones that are supposed to be expensive still have a cost).  Then do the same for 5-8th level rituals to become 2nd level spells, 9th-12th become 3rd and so on.
> 
> This means you still get the variety of a vancian system, choosing between utility and combat spells, without making utility spells break combat(since 3 rounds is too long to make most of them viable in combat without some planning and protecting the wizard).




You say that no one cares about the Vancian part, but you've just described a Vancian system.  I like it, actually, and I do the same when I run 4e (make rituals Vancian alongside daily powers, I mean).  Part of the appeal of Vancian casting is not only the daily preparation part but the part where you have the effects at your fingertips (if you thought ahead to prepare them, that is) to allow on-the-spot use and creative combinations.  It _is_ the Vancian part that I appreciate--I don't mind if it takes 10 minutes to cast the Knock ritual, as long as I can hang it at the end and release it later when I need it, because a 10-minute Knock simply isn't useful compared to a rogue or your fist while a 1-round Knock might be.



> A number of these spells are EXTREMELY combat capable depending on your DM.  Which is my real problem with them.
> 
> "Hey, Mr DM, I create an image of the typical food of the creature.  Every time the creature attempts to hit it, the image jumps out of the way.  Since it had virtually no intelligence it doesn't get a chance to disbelieve or think it's an illusion.  It doesn't even know what illusions are.  Every time we attack, I'll have the illusion leap up and attack the same spot so he'll think it's the illusion attacking.  Also, in combat, who do you think it's going to attack, its favorite food or us?  Perfect.  My spell has negated all damage done by the enemy."
> 
> ...




I would point out that, in that particular example, even an unintelligent animal would probably not go after something that looks like a prey creature but smells like nothing.  In the general example, countermeasures to all of those spells exist, and the vast majority of the time the countermeasures are at the same spell level as those abilities (_invisibility_ vs. _see invisibility_, _charm_ vs. _protection from X_) or even lower-level (_major image_ vs. _detect magic_).

There's a difference between a DM rewarding creativity, which is desirable, and a DM rolling over and letting the PCs take over kingdoms.  Countermeasures exist for all of these abilities that are not only just as common as those abilities themselves but are also quite logical to use with a bit of thought, and the abilities have limitations that are frequently ignored (lack of senses for illusions, volume affected for creation/shaping spells, features not granted by polymorph spells, etc.).  Granted, you shouldn't _require_ a DM who thinks about the world for 5 minutes to figure out why the world isn't already under the control of invisible, charming 3rd-level casters, but it isn't too much to ask for, and a section in the DMG on fitting abilities into the world and making the world coherent would go a long way to helping with that.



> Most of the drawbacks could be worked around so they were non-existent:
> 
> I'm a elf...1 year of my life?  Let me know if I cast it over 900 times.
> 
> ...




Elves being less susceptible to aging was admittedly a feature rather than a bug according to many people, including one of my 1e DMs, to reinforce the whole magical elves thing, but several effects did scale the penalty based on race.  Age may not be a large penalty, but it does have an effect; you can't cast _haste_ for every combat of every day, because then adventuring for a year or so could kill you--aging wasn't there to stop you from using something or make you think long and hard before using it, just to disincentivize using the same abilities over and over again.  _Wish_ has more significant drawbacks than just aging (not the DM-screwery, the resting afterwards), as do polymorph and other things, so aging isn't the only drawback.

And dispelling isn't a huge drawback in general, I'm referring specifically to the fact that many 3e spells with an Instantaneous duration (particularly _animate dead_) had a Permanent duration in 1e.  A _dispel magic_ in 1e can wipe out a half-dozen undead per casting, _antimagic field_ suppresses undead while it's up, and so forth.  Necromancers' hordes of undead are much less powerful in such a situation.  3e wizards can build entire castles out of thin air with _wall of stone_; 1e wizards shouldn't do that unless they want a determined rival to be able to dispel their castle out of existence.  That difference did in fact limit a lot of the more powerful world-altering strategies in 1e that 3e casters have easy access to.


----------



## innerdude (Apr 19, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Look at the 4e psionics system: you have a bunch of encounter powers, and a bunch of power points, and you can upgrade your encounter powers into daily-equivalents using power points, so you aren't locked into the same AEDU structure every other class has.  Psion "daily powers" are (in theory, at least) equivalent to other sources' daily powers, but they don't have to use daily powers 1/day each, so they have a more organic/logical feel.  Why couldn't martial powers use _that_ sort of system, where they have the same power as a magical class but a resource system that is different, tactically and flavor-wise, from the magical classes?  Why does "I don't like martial dailies, use a different resource system" automatically translate to "I love wizards and hate fighters"?




I would LOVE a system like this, applied equally to all classes. Every class has a "resource" (willpower, fatigue, focus) that they can apply to the things their class is good at. Apply more power now for more powerful effects, but leave yourself vulnerable down the road. 

There's no "daily" effects, only effects you can use within your power "pool" constraints. 

Every class is using a point / mana system, but maybe martial classes get more "at will" effects that don't require points, while casters get some potentially more powerful effects, but require more points to spend. 

But here's the problem . . . this isn't going to "feel like D&D" to a lot of people. An elegant, fun, interesting solution that rewards good play, provides interesting resource management, and can easily be placed into the mechanical / fluff contexts necessary for a "believable" world. 

But it won't "feel like D&D." So the designers won't use it. 

Vancian magic is never going to be a 100%, foolproof, "have your cake and eat it too" mechanic. There's simply too much baggage, history, and general "process" behind it. Thus, why are we trying to make something "Vancian" out of some nod to "tradition," when the circumstances seem to dictate that the optimal solution is to go another direction?


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

innerdude said:


> I would LOVE a system like this, applied equally to all classes. Every class has a "resource" (willpower, fatigue, focus) that they can apply to the things their class is good at. Apply more power now for more powerful effects, but leave yourself vulnerable down the road.
> 
> There's no "daily" effects, only effects you can use within your power "pool" constraints.
> 
> ...




That's how Mike Mearls did in Iron Kingdoms. Pathfinder new classes mostly work like this: Monks and ninjas have "Ki", Samurais have "resolve", Gunslingers have "grit", etc. Old classes have something similar (paladins spend "lay on hands" resource for several effects, barbarians can spend "rounds of rage", clerics have channels per day, bards have the songs, etc)

I'd like it. It has the best of both systems, in my opinion.


----------



## YRUSirius (Apr 19, 2012)

Hm, why not make these class specific ressources something that all classes share? Let's say every class uses let's say "action points" to power their abilities? Every character gets a pool of action points and uses these to power their spells, rages, songs, maneuvers, etc.

The new Neverwinter MMO uses something like this for the daily powers of the characters.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 19, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Part of the problem, yes, but again I only claimed going back to 1e memorization and acquisition rules would solve one part of the problem.  Spell nerfs and reinstituting dangerous combat casting solves another part.




And that's why I was citing Gygax.  The 1e wizard was _still_ considered too powerful.



> And of course the most important reason to have necromantic minions is that some people want to play the Dread Lord Tim, Lich King Extraordinaire, not the Dread Lord Bob, Mercenary Leader and Human Resources Guy Extraordinaire.




Agreed.  I'd be happy with two types of minion that were permanent for Necromancers.  The first is the shambling zombie.  Not a serious threat except in large numbers.  And the second is the programmable skeleton.  Not a combat threat - but excellent at doing manual repetative tasks.  And armed with pikes or in a shield wall a military force.



> It's interesting that Essentials seems to have everything I want, and I freely admit that I don't have much knowledge of it.  It's interesting for a few reasons.  First of all, the reason I'm not that familiar with it is that my 4e group doesn't like it at all and doesn't play with it, and since we don't use DDI I don't just run into the material.




Seriously I'm going to try to sell you on some of Essentials later in the post, but Monster Vault and Monster Vault: Threats to Nentir Vale are two of the best monster manuals ever written.



> Second, Essentials discards a lot of the formerly-sacrosanct 4e design goals in favor of more 3e-esque design goals.




Here I disagree.  The design goals for Essentials are more like AD&D or even OD&D than they are like 3e.  There's none of the annoying fiddliness of 3.X and they are much more about archetypes than about options.  And IMO pre-Essentials 4e had gone _almost_ as far as it could go, so they needed something new, expanding the system.  Martial Power 2 was an excellent book - and I believe there was some space for Arcane Power 2 (although it would have been a disappointment).  But there are only so many splatbooks you can produce and have the splatbooks extend.  (I also believe that Essentials is about there - the last big hole I saw in Essentials was the "simple blast mage" - filled by the Elementalist Sorceror who has absolutely no dailies and only a single type of encounter boost power based on their at wills).



> Third, a lot of online advice surrounding 4e centers around non-Essentials material: the question "How do we handle out-of-combat stuff?" is usually "Rituals are amazing!!!" rather than "Non-combat utilities from Essentials are amazing!!!"




Non combat utilities have always been amazing - far better than anything 3.X ever offered.  But this doesn't cut wizards apart from other characters.



> So if the way to satisfy my complaints is to note that those complaints are inherent to pre-Essentials 4e, and if the Essentials material "broke the base" a bit among 4e players precisely because it is more 3e-like than standard 4e, turning around and saying that the pre-Essentials 4e way of doing things is great doesn't really jibe with that.




Pre-Essentials was limited.  Mages were conjurers or evokers.  And there were no simple classes.



> If Essentials is the best way to unite 4e fans and AD&D/3e fans on the topic of martial dailies, utility magic, and so forth, I don't see why people are complaining about Vancian casting and too-versatile wizards and all that.




Who says it is.  IME it works well between 4e and _OSR_.

But I'd seriously recommend getting a copy of Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms to see what the fuss is about.  The Mage is flat out more evocative than the Wizard despite changing very little (being an Illusionist, an Evoker, or an Enchanter is far far more interesting than an Orb Wizard, a Staff Wizard, or a Wand Wizard).  The only downside being they didn't give it Ritual Caster.  But ultimately very little has changed (you now get a choice of cantrips and get Magic Missile (post errata) as a cantrip, and some minor bonusses to replace the implement bonusses and Ritual Caster).

The Slayer is a simple "I hit it" class - and absolutely wonderful for NPC fighters.  Two handed weapon.  Melee basic attacks.  Two stances and encounter powers that just add 1[W] after you attack.  The Knight on the other hand is a simple defender.  No marks to worry about - instead you own the space around you and everyone in it is de facto marked while adjacent (a real mark trumps that).  Again no daily attack powers and only encounters to boost.  Both good for people who want to say "I hit it".

But the real gem of a class is the thief.  If it's from any previous game it's definitely pre-3e.  Encounter-backstab and no dailies.  And some useful tricks that allow lots of roguey stuff in addition to your encounter powers.  The whole thing looks vanilla but fits together well.  And breaks the 4e design precepts (and every other version of D&D's).  Just don't make it a charge-build; that's the cheesy way.



> You say that no one cares about the Vancian part, but you've just described a Vancian system.  I like it, actually, and I do the same when I run 4e (make rituals Vancian alongside daily powers, I mean).




When 4e fans say they don't like Vancian Casting, what they are normally IME trying to get at is the whole thing that says "Wizards must have more flexibility than anyone else".  Vancian Casting is disliked because it is a way to give wizards Awesome Powah while locking other classes into tight little niches.  And it's a lot of book keeping.  The prepare some spells daily isn't itself a problem to any 4e player I'm aware of (4e having daily powers and giving wizards choices).

Re: Flying Dungeons I sometimes love RPG.net threads


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2012)

billd91 said:


> There's a reason it's nearly universal. It's because it's fundamentally true except for narrow definitions of quality. Quality may be defined to measure how suitable something is for a particular purpose. In that case, there may be some objectively better fits than others. But if we're talking about coming up with quality rules for an RPG, we'd have to be a lot more specific about the purposes we're trying to support. Coming up with the best RPG, for example, is far too broad. And when do engage in getting more specific, there's a lot of subjectivity in what those purposes should be.
> 
> This is why taste matters a lot. 4e gets lauded for being great design. That design may be high quality in fitting the purposes of the 4e game. But its quality is terrible when fitted to other purposes, like producing a game that feels like AD&D. Whether the former is more important for a game in the D&D line of products than the latter depends on taste, not any objective metric.




But, is that actually true?

Ok, sure, out of the box, yes, it's totally true that 4e will not reproduce a 1e experience.  That's fair enough.

But, is it possible to modify the 4e mechanics to the point where it will?  After all, 3e's Back to the Dungeon approach was certainly aimed at the goal of producing an iconic game play experience while not reproducing the mechanics of AD&D.  3e is very, very far away, mechanically, from 1e.  Yet, it manages to capture the "iconic feel" of D&D for many gamers.

Why is it that 4e doesn't?  Is it strictly the mechanics?  Is it presentation?  Could you modify 4e mechanics to taste?  We've seen multiple methods for shifting 4e's Surge mechanics to pretty closely model 1e's HP's, without forcing the need for a cleric in the group.

If I can get 1e style pacing but loosen the restrictions placed on the game by 1e's mechanics, isn't that qualitatively better?

I do not believe that, "It was done this way before" is ever a sufficient justification for any game element.  If you have two ways of doing something and one is demonstrably better in some way and not demonstrably worse in others, then that is a better mechanic.

What is it about having 1 spell per day that is so appealing to some gamers?  Why is it so difficult for people to articulate reasons for why they like something?  "I like it because I just do" adds nothing to the conversation.  Hey, great for you.  Why should I care?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, is it possible to modify the 4e mechanics to the point where it will?  After all, 3e's Back to the Dungeon approach was certainly aimed at the goal of producing an iconic game play experience while not reproducing the mechanics of AD&D.  3e is very, very far away, mechanically, from 1e.  Yet, it manages to capture the "iconic feel" of D&D for many gamers.




I think it's a matter of conjecture whether or not 3e is very, very far away or just "some distance" away. And in any event, 4e is still farther. I would even call 4e very far from 3e.



Hussar said:


> Why is it that 4e doesn't?  Is it strictly the mechanics?  Is it presentation?  Could you modify 4e mechanics to taste?  We've seen multiple methods for shifting 4e's Surge mechanics to pretty closely model 1e's HP's, without forcing the need for a cleric in the group.




Really, it's both mechanics and presentation. Could you modify 4e mechanics to taste? It would take a lot of work, probably to the point where they wouldn't be particularly 4e-ish any more. I think healing surges, for the most part, would have to go, as would martial dailies.



Hussar said:


> If I can get 1e style pacing but loosen the restrictions placed on the game by 1e's mechanics, isn't that qualitatively better?




Depends on what you want. What if some of the restrictions from 1e mechanics are one of the things you want?



Hussar said:


> I do not believe that, "It was done this way before" is ever a sufficient justification for any game element.  If you have two ways of doing something and one is demonstrably better in some way and not demonstrably worse in others, then that is a better mechanic.




Demonstrabily better by what standards? To use an example, are the NAD defenses in 4e demonstrably better than 1e defenses? I really don't think so, in part because I think the 1e/2e range of saves works really well - nearly always within the range of the rolled d20 . I don't even think they're as good as the saves in 3e because 3e's saves work great with the 3e action point system, which I enjoy. But some people think they are? Which one of us is right?



Hussar said:


> What is it about having 1 spell per day that is so appealing to some gamers?  Why is it so difficult for people to articulate reasons for why they like something?  "I like it because I just do" adds nothing to the conversation.  Hey, great for you.  Why should I care?




What's so appealing? What's so appealing about playing computer games on difficult mode? It's a challenge. It's a challenge that some people like and, as far as I'm concerned, that's enough.
As far as simulating a particularly representative of the genre, think of Galen in Dragonslayer. He's a wizard's apprentise and can barely cast a spell. He has to resort to other methods. For some people, the neophyte adventurer fits that sort of mold. He has a little magic and is content to resort to his crossbow (or darts) when he runs out.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I think it's a matter of conjecture whether or not 3e is very, very far away or just "some distance" away. And in any event, 4e is still farther. I would even call 4e very far from 3e.




3e is mechanically far closer to 4e than it is to 1e.  Virtually every single mechanic in 1e is absent in 3e - variable xp tables exchanged for unified xp advancement, completely reworked caster systems (Save DC's based on caster, number of spells per day, sheer number of spells in the books, changing spells based on feats), combat mechanics that are entirely different, addition of feats, completely different system for balancing encounters, on and on and on.

I know people want to distance themselves from 4e, but, this is pretty easily disproved.  4e mechanics are very much d20 based and virtually all 4e mechanics appeared at some point or other in 3e D&D.



> Really, it's both mechanics and presentation. Could you modify 4e mechanics to taste? It would take a lot of work, probably to the point where they wouldn't be particularly 4e-ish any more. I think healing surges, for the most part, would have to go, as would martial dailies.




But that's the thing.  No they don't.  I wish I had bookmarked the thread, but, there's been multiple instances of taking 4e surge mechanics and recreating 3e healing with a couple of minor tweaks.  Disconnect being able to access surges from individual characters and give the power back to clerics or items and you're done.  It takes about two sentences.

As far as martial dailies go, yeah, you could pull them out.  Let's be honest, it's already done in Essentials.  Not a major deal.



> Depends on what you want. What if some of the restrictions from 1e mechanics are one of the things you want?




Then add them in.  That's easy enough.  They don't need to be in the base mechanics, because that would make them too restrictive.  But, adding it in to recreate other editions isn't that difficult.



> Demonstrabily better by what standards? To use an example, are the NAD defenses in 4e demonstrably better than 1e defenses? I really don't think so, in part because I think the 1e/2e range of saves works really well - nearly always within the range of the rolled d20 . I don't even think they're as good as the saves in 3e because 3e's saves work great with the 3e action point system, which I enjoy. But some people think they are? Which one of us is right?




That's why game designers get the big bucks.  My point is, it's not about being right or wrong.  It's about being able to at least attempt to be objective.  



> What's so appealing? What's so appealing about playing computer games on difficult mode? It's a challenge. It's a challenge that some people like and, as far as I'm concerned, that's enough.
> As far as simulating a particularly representative of the genre, think of Galen in Dragonslayer. He's a wizard's apprentise and can barely cast a spell. He has to resort to other methods. For some people, the neophyte adventurer fits that sort of mold. He has a little magic and is content to resort to his crossbow (or darts) when he runs out.




Now, is it possible to get this from other magic systems.  If we went with an AEDU system, the stripped out the at-wills, would it work.  Now, Galen isn't really a D&D wizard at all, so, using him as an archetype is a bit difficult.  But, if we did drop the at-wills for wizards, but kept encounters, would that satisfy people?  I don't know.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> 3e is mechanically far closer to 4e than it is to 1e.  Virtually every single mechanic in 1e is absent in 3e - variable xp tables exchanged for unified xp advancement, completely reworked caster systems (Save DC's based on caster, number of spells per day, sheer number of spells in the books, changing spells based on feats), combat mechanics that are entirely different, addition of feats, completely different system for balancing encounters, on and on and on.
> 
> I know people want to distance themselves from 4e, but, this is pretty easily disproved.  4e mechanics are very much d20 based and virtually all 4e mechanics appeared at some point or other in 3e D&D.




Sure, there are quite a few mechanical differences between 1e and 3e and yet 3e plays a lot like 1e. We've played mostly 1e adventures for 3e and they play a lot like they did back when I ran them in the 1980s with 1e. 3e designers worked at designing new and more systematic rules structures but also worked to preserve most of the feel of earlier editions of D&D. I think they proved reasonably well this can be done, wedding different mechanics with earlier edition feel, so I have some hopes for 5e.

Contrast that with 4e in which designers have implied sacred cows didn't have immunity any more, and I take that to mean elements of feel as well as mechanics. There are even 4e fans on this site who have posted that 4e feels like a different game though 3e didn't. For a lot of people, 4e broke D&D out of a groove that had been very similar from 1e through 3e. Even WotC recognizes this, hence the, at least rhetorically, different direction for 5e.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> That's why game designers get the big bucks.  My point is, it's not about being right or wrong.  It's about being able to at least attempt to be objective.




I don't think you're making much sense here. How can it not be about being right or wrong when you're trying to be objective? If you're being objective, there are objectively right answers. That's rather the point.

But I think, for the designers, it really is more about being right or wrong - right or wrong in their estimations about what designs the market will want, accept, and tolerate based on the subjective judgment of the buyers.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 20, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Sure, there are quite a few mechanical differences between 1e and 3e and yet 3e plays a lot like 1e. We've played mostly 1e adventures for 3e and they play a lot like they did back when I ran them in the 1980s with 1e. 3e designers worked at designing new and more systematic rules structures but also worked to preserve most of the feel of earlier editions of D&D. I think they proved reasonably well this can be done, wedding different mechanics with earlier edition feel, so I have some hopes for 5e.




The above paragraph is extremely contentious.  Yes, you can play 1e using 3e rules.  But this isn't the same as saying 3e plays like 1e.  If you either explicitely or implicitely agree to play 3e like 1e it actually works (and this is what happened in playtesting).  

If you start out playing 3e as 3e rather than trying to use it to play 1e, the Cleric starts in on the damage prevention hard, the druid walks over everything, the wizard makes the enemies irrelevant and realises that XP is a river, and that he can craft items like a boss and you end up with the excesses of Scry and Fry and Lunar Lich Wars.  And the fighters being utterly useless as the vast power disparity and their problems with will saves are exposed.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The above paragraph is extremely contentious. Yes, you can play 1e using 3e rules. But this isn't the same as saying 3e plays like 1e. If you either explicitely or implicitely agree to play 3e like 1e it actually works (and this is what happened in playtesting).
> 
> If you start out playing 3e as 3e rather than trying to use it to play 1e, the Cleric starts in on the damage prevention hard, the druid walks over everything, the wizard makes the enemies irrelevant and realises that XP is a river, and that he can craft items like a boss and you end up with the excesses of Scry and Fry and Lunar Lich Wars. And the fighters being utterly useless as the vast power disparity and their problems with will saves are exposed.




Seconded.  There were multiple ways that people played 1E--at least three distinct ones, and possibly more.  *One* of those ways maps very well to 3E.  If you happened to play AD&D that way, then 3E seems like a better designed version of what you were already doing.  However, if you were playing 1E one of those other ways, then low-level 3E sort of works, at times, if you keep your eye on it, and don't let it stray off into the back forty looking for some greener grass.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The above paragraph is extremely contentious.  Yes, you can play 1e using 3e rules.  But this isn't the same as saying 3e plays like 1e.  If you either explicitely or implicitely agree to play 3e like 1e it actually works (and this is what happened in playtesting).
> 
> If you start out playing 3e as 3e rather than trying to use it to play 1e, the Cleric starts in on the damage prevention hard, the druid walks over everything, the wizard makes the enemies irrelevant and realises that XP is a river, and that he can craft items like a boss and you end up with the excesses of Scry and Fry and Lunar Lich Wars.  And the fighters being utterly useless as the vast power disparity and their problems with will saves are exposed.




I'd say the latter paragraph is the extremely contentious one. It's not playing 3e like 3e. It's playing 3e to maximize certain of your character's potentials, one of many styles that can be used with 3e. It's not 3e itself.

If you're not all that concerned with maximum optimization, 3e works great. Works a lot like 1e.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 20, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I'd say the latter paragraph is the extremely contentious one. It's not playing 3e like 3e. It's playing 3e to maximize certain of your character's potentials, one of many styles that can be used with 3e. It's not 3e itself.
> 
> If you're not all that concerned with maximum optimization, 3e works great. Works a lot like 1e.




You have an inch there and you're claiming a mile.

First, in order to turn 3e into something that is very much not like 1e the easiest way is to allow magic item shops _as recommended in 3.X_.  The second the Wand of Cure Light Wounds becomes readily accessible for something approaching the 750GP list price (a default 3.X assumption) the nature of clerical magic and of resting change drastically.  You need to therefore either change the very nature of the 3.X gameworld to revert it to an older feel or have PCs not spend their money smartly.  (Note that if there aren't magic item shops, it takes one day of downtime, and the combined resources of a 5th level wizard and a cleric to craft a wand of CLW - to keep wands from being accessible, the wizard needs to stay away from crafting feats).

The second thing you need to change is far more important because it is a class feature of the wizard from level 1.  _Scribe Scroll_.  The Vancian tradeoff of preparing spells you will probably want or spells you might really need just goes straight out of the window unless you cut out the downtime.  Almost all wizards are smart.  All wizards in 3.X have Scribe Scroll.  The wizard should take less time to recover than a fighter.  So a wizard has the spare time to scribe the scrolls that means he doesn't need to prepare the only occasionally useful spells, thus meaning they don't have to prepare them.  For a wizard to not have memorised the obscure but occasionally really useful spells in 1e is therefore understandable.  In 3.X it is simply _sloppy_ not to have them on a scroll irrespective of world design and magic item shops.  (Or you simply never give downtime which has issues all by itself).

And talking about maximum optimisation is a canard.  You don't need to summon dire anthropomorphic half-illithid crocodile with your summon monster spells.  Wolves, bears, and unicorns will do nicely for summons and companions.  (Even if it _wasn't_ a strong option, a wolf would be an obvious L1 animal companion).  And even low level wildshape.  This is where the druid is a seriously bad class.  You don't have to be trying with a druid to smash the power curve.  You just need to take naively sensible options.  (The wizard needs effort to be played as Tier 1, and the cleric needs to be played slightly against the fluff to start breaking things).

And then there's the diplomacy skill...

Maximum optimisation isn't the problem with 3.X.  No one claims that Pun-pun is the core flaw.  The problem is that simple _in character_ options will cause serious balance issues with 3.X.  And to not take good options that are choosable in character means that you must play a player that doesn't prepare or recon that much.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> You have an inch there and you're claiming a mile.
> 
> First, in order to turn 3e into something that is very much not like 1e the easiest way is to allow magic item shops _as recommended in 3.X_.  The second the Wand of Cure Light Wounds becomes readily accessible for something approaching the 750GP list price (a default 3.X assumption) the nature of clerical magic and of resting change drastically.  You need to therefore either change the very nature of the 3.X gameworld to revert it to an older feel or have PCs not spend their money smartly.  (Note that if there aren't magic item shops, it takes one day of downtime, and the combined resources of a 5th level wizard and a cleric to craft a wand of CLW - to keep wands from being accessible, the wizard needs to stay away from crafting feats).
> 
> ...




Real optimizers know CLW wands are a trap.  Wands of Lesser Vigor are better.  Magic item shops are a good idea, we've had them since 1e.  Assuming that everything was available was the problem.  We've always rolled X magic items (dependent on city size) randomly to determine what a shop has, reflecting what adventurers or whoever happened to find and sell off.

A big problem with wildshape was the fact a druid could dump dex and str and gain the stats of the creature they wildshaped into.  This way they could have awesome mental stats and con, and make up for it with their wildshape stats.

Also, wildshaping into a wolf was a problem?  At the level they could wildshape, they stuff they fight chews up a wolf.  They can't trip anything large, they get one attack.  The only wildshaping I had issues with (and we banned) were the dinosaurs.   We also restricted wildshape to animals in your home territory/area OR that you had encountered and studied.  (Similar to what we did with polymorph and alter shape, no MM diving for the top stuff)

We played (and still do play) 3.x since the release.  None of the above have ever been issues for us, because we recognize the issues and as a group, we correct them.  If only WotC could have taken the same path...


----------



## MoonSong (Apr 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Now, is it possible to get this from other magic systems.  If we went with an AEDU system, the stripped out the at-wills, would it work.  Now, Galen isn't really a D&D wizard at all, so, using him as an archetype is a bit difficult.  But, if we did drop the at-wills for wizards, but kept encounters, would that satisfy people?  I don't know.



No, it wouldn't, the AEDU system still siloes spells by kind. In order for the AEDU to give the same experience we would need to get rid of Encounters and Utilities too and make it possible to use a Daily to cast any of the other spells, at which point it isn't AEDU anymore but Vancian with only two or three spells per day.


----------



## Ranes (Apr 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> You have an inch there and you're claiming a mile.
> 
> First, in order to turn 3e into something that is very much not like 1e the easiest way is to allow magic item shops _as recommended in 3.X_.




Ha! The very reason for that recommendation is because so many people had magic shops from right back in the days of 1e, as plenty of White Dwarf, Dragon, et al articles and letters illustrated.




Neonchameleon said:


> The second thing you need to change is far more important because it is a class feature of the wizard from level 1.  _Scribe Scroll_.




This I will grant. I love scribe scroll and always wanted something like it back in 1e days. Indeed, I played and ran games where there was something like it but it was not available to first level PCs and shouldn't have been in 3e. Not only should the ability to scribe scrolls be restricted to mid-level characters but there should be further constraints on the level of spell you can scribe at any given caster level.



Neonchameleon said:


> The wizard should take less time to recover than a fighter.




I'm pretty sure there's an assumption inherent in this comment that I can't quite make out from the rest of your post.



Neonchameleon said:


> And talking about maximum optimisation is a canard.




True. But remove the word 'maximum' and he still has a point.



Neonchameleon said:


> You don't need to summon dire anthropomorphic half-illithid crocodile with your summon monster spells...




I have issues with the flexibility of low level summoning but it's a trivial fix. The druid is not a trivial fix. Agreed. You'll never see a by-the-book druid in my games. I didn't even need to play 3e before addressing that.



Neonchameleon said:


> The problem is that simple _in character_ options will cause serious balance issues with 3.X.  And to not take good options that are choosable in character means that you must play a player that doesn't prepare or recon that much.




My only issue here is the degree to which your argument pivots on the word 'serious'.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> You have an inch there and you're claiming a mile.
> 
> First, in order to turn 3e into something that is very much not like 1e the easiest way is to allow magic item shops _as recommended in 3.X_.  The second the Wand of Cure Light Wounds becomes readily accessible for something approaching the 750GP list price (a default 3.X assumption) the nature of clerical magic and of resting change drastically.  You need to therefore either change the very nature of the 3.X gameworld to revert it to an older feel or have PCs not spend their money smartly.  (Note that if there aren't magic item shops, it takes one day of downtime, and the combined resources of a 5th level wizard and a cleric to craft a wand of CLW - to keep wands from being accessible, the wizard needs to stay away from crafting feats).
> 
> ...




I think you're the one trying to take the mile here because of your assumptions of play. You're assuming that the ability to do all of these things you suggest *must* be done extensively or the player is sloppy. that's the real canard here because that's not really the case. Any and all of these things may be done (or not done) in moderation without a major balance hit on the system. That's determined by the players and DM at the individual game table. 

3e's main flaw, as I see it, is it's highly responsive to player choices. Players who push the envelope can be much more powerful than those who don't. If players at a table aren't in general agreement on play styles with respect to optimization, conflict and trouble will occur.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 20, 2012)

Ranes said:


> Ha! The very reason for that recommendation is because so many people had magic shops from right back in the days of 1e, as plenty of White Dwarf, Dragon, et al articles and letters illustrated.




Point. But could you buy e.g. a Wand of Cure Light Wounds at most of them? If the magic shop mostly sells items with a vanilla or continuous bonus (e.g. magic swords or armour) there isn't much problem. The problem is when you can spam certain spells (other spells don't mind being spammed).

I think the problem is the accessability of charged items - ultimately it doesn't matter whether you make or buy them (3e allowing both). Either are gamechanging with the wrong spell.



> This I will grant. I love scribe scroll and always wanted something like it back in 1e days. Indeed, I played and ran games where there was something like it but it was not available to first level PCs and shouldn't have been in 3e. Not only should the ability to scribe scrolls be restricted to mid-level characters but there should be further constraints on the level of spell you can scribe at any given caster level.




Oh, agreed. Make it e.g. a 5th level class feature that will scribe a scroll of a spell level 3 lower than your highest or something and the problem really isn't a severe one. 



> I'm pretty sure there's an assumption inherent in this comment that I can't quite make out from the rest of your post.




Actually the implicit one is that you _aren't _using wands of CLW to simply heal the fighter. "With a full night’s rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level." If the fighter recovers by resting it's going to take a lot longer to recover than the wizard needs due to hit point totals. If you effectively have bottomless healing this doesn't hold.



> My only issue here is the degree to which your argument pivots on the word 'serious'.




Fair enough.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 20, 2012)

billd91 said:


> 3e's main flaw, as I see it, is it's highly responsive to player choices. Players who push the envelope can be much more powerful than those who don't. If players at a table aren't in general agreement on play styles with respect to optimization, conflict and trouble will occur.




That 3E breaks when pushed is a flaw, but hardly killer.  All game systems eventually break when pushed, unless cut down so simple that there are highly limited combinations.  (And even some of those systems still break when pushed.)  No, 3Es problem is that it breaks, readily, when *not* pushed, but by accident. That it breaks selectively and partially when not pushed only means that it is playable by people that are lucky.

Playing 3E without restrained system mastery (i.e. you know exactly where it breaks but choose not to go there) is akin to a bunch of folks tailgating each other at high speeds on the freeway.  A lot of them, a lot of the time, will get where they want to go, because no one slammed on the breaks at the wrong moment.  Some will be a little stressed at the close calls, but they might get over that.  Eventually, someone has a massive wreck, though. Maybe someone should call Ralph Nader.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 20, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I think you're the one trying to take the mile here because of your assumptions of play. You're assuming that the ability to do all of these things you suggest *must* be done extensively or the player is sloppy. that's the real canard here because that's not really the case. Any and all of these things may be done (or not done) in moderation without a major balance hit on the system. That's determined by the players and DM at the individual game table.




You confuse player choice with character choice.  And it's all _In Character_ choices I've been pointing out except for the druid.  I assume that the character is actually feeling that they are in danger for their life and taking maters seriously.  And I assume that most people who regularly risk their lives, and those fo their friends (and possibly even the fate of the world) and know they are going to in the future will take at least basic steps to prepare for this.  To me to do otherwise would indicate that the character had a deathwish.

And although I can play PCs with a deathwish (a paladin of mine springs to mind) I wouldn't want all my characters to have one.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Seriously I'm going to try to sell you on some of Essentials later in the post *snip*




Interesting read.  If Essentials really is more AD&D than 3e, I'll have to get my hands on it--I play 3e and some 4e now but I've always been a bit more of an AD&D fan.  Thanks for the recommendation.



Crazy Jerome said:


> That 3E breaks when pushed is a flaw, but hardly killer.  All game systems eventually break when pushed, unless cut down so simple that there are highly limited combinations.  (And even some of those systems still break when pushed.)  No, 3Es problem is that it breaks, readily, when *not* pushed, but by accident. That it breaks selectively and partially when not pushed only means that it is playable by people that are lucky.
> 
> Playing 3E without restrained system mastery (i.e. you know exactly where it breaks but choose not to go there) is akin to a bunch of folks tailgating each other at high speeds on the freeway.  A lot of them, a lot of the time, will get where they want to go, because no one slammed on the breaks at the wrong moment.  Some will be a little stressed at the close calls, but they might get over that.  Eventually, someone has a massive wreck, though. Maybe someone should call Ralph Nader.




To be fair, it easily breaks accidentally _if_ you don't go in with AD&D assumptions in mind.  If you're essentially trying to play 2e using 3e rules, you can go a long time before you accidentally break something, simply because you're not even thinking of doing the sorts of things that would break it.  It's much more of a problem for people who either go into it cold having never played AD&D or who deliberately try to play in a non-AD&D style.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 20, 2012)

triqui said:


> I'm not being moralistic about it, or arguing about a game design standpoint. I'm just stating that some *players* (as opossed to PC) might want to play Conan-like or The Great Mouse-like characters, and still being comparatively competent to other players who choose diferent kinds of flavor for their in game avatars.
> 
> In your proposed example, the game states that wizards start being worse, and end being better. A *LOT* of players might feel bad treated by that. For example, a player that is an unconditional fan of martial archetypes (like Conan or Aragorn) and ussually plays in high level campaigns, or a player that is an unconditional fan lof caster-archetypes, but play mostly low level campaigns. Or a martial fan that play from 1-20/30, but want to stay balanced through the whole career. In your proposed scenario, those players have two options: either they can play a character they *don't want* to play, or they can go and find a different game. None of those are good for WotC, from a selling perspective.
> 
> If a player wants to play a fighter, and stay gimped, they should be able to. But if a player wants to play a fighter that stay balanced, they should be able to as well. There's a whole difference between me, deciding I like to play a class that is gimped, and *you* deciding that the class I like to play *has* to be a gimped class.



It's not about playing a "gimped" class.

The attraction of the traditional D&D Wizard (I will agree with those earlier in the thread who said the reason people like "Vancian" wizards isn't really because of its Vancian-ness as such, although *I* love _The Dying Earth_ and do have a fondness for spell memorization for that reason) is that it's "hard mode". If you choose wizard, in exchange for more work and a more fragile character at lower levels, you have the opportunity to have greater relative power later.

It's a "hard mode" with benefits.

I purchased _The Witcher 2_ videogame yesterday. The hardest difficulty is called "Dark" and it says that if you play on this difficulty you can get some unique items and quests. Cool!

I imagine some people are upset that they'll be missing out on content just because they choose to play on Easy mode. But too bad for you, Easy-moders. Games are supposed to reward greater skill and risk-tolerance.

Now if you understand this aspect -- perhaps you will then say "'difficulty' as it were should be divorced from class, and there should be 'easy mode' and 'hard mode's for each."

I am not entirely averse to this and it could be space for a compromise...if it at least is recognized that there is a drawback any time you weaken the connection between fluff and mechanics. This should never be done willy-nilly just to offer players maximum aesthetic freedom. Many people want the game to provide a strong aesthetic "out of the box". i strongly feel that "refluffing" is not as popular among the general gaming populace as it is among some 4e players.

But if there are compelling archetypes for easy mode Wizards and hard mode Fighters, then OK perhaps.


----------



## Ranes (Apr 20, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Actually the implicit one is that you _aren't _using wands of CLW to simply heal the fighter.




By the way, thank you for 'implicit'; more apposite than the word I used.

Sorry, everyone. As you were.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 20, 2012)

I find it interesting some of the arguments put forth in defense or against the Vancian system.  Not that I find them invalid in any way, just that in some cases they seem to point towards other notions that might actually point that folks aren't necessarily discussing the likes/dislikes of the Vancian system.

For example: one school of thought is that the Vancian system is evil because it makes the casters too powerful.  Certainly this isn't a new thought.  EGG's original thinking was that as the game wore on, the classes progressed at different rates as part of his attempt at balance.  While the Vancian system was not designed by him specifically, his implementation was certainly an attempt at balance.  Taking AD&D to task for not doing the best job of implementing that balance seems, to me, to be like criticizing Watt's steam engine forty years after its invention.  That is, it was the first iteration of the concept (well, OK, the newcomen engine, let's not get derailed) and successive versions, iterations and competitors refined the concept.

The innate balance mechanism was that fighters were tough at the start and got tougher, but only just so.  It was easier for them to survive a fight and engage monsters.  Wizards, by contrast, were fragile...the proverbial eggshells-with-hammers.  Each had separate save tables and required different XP to advance.  This led to the wizards being dependent on the fighters, not unlike the archers on a battlefield needed protecting by infantry...D&D did, of course, rise from wargaming roots and it shows quite well, there.

Are wizards and clerics in D&D anything like the characters in fiction they attempt to emulate, at least in semblance?  Of course not.  Because the needs of fiction and gameplay are not the same.  Gandalf, of course, isn't your typical wizard of legend.  Because excepting Gandalf, most wizards would dwell in a tower or evil crypt...they didn't go looking for adventure, they were the adventure others sought out.  

The idea that vancian casters get too much flexibility begs the question: do they get too much flexibility or do other classes get too little (assuming that this is an issue)?  Under 3E, a core concern was that casters could often do a better job of a task than a class devoted to that task...under limited circumstances for a certain period of time, assuming they can prepare or know beforehand what challenge they're facing.  This was a problem in previous editions, but 3E codified it more than most....but at the same time, 3E was more balanced than any edition before it, in terms of player parity.  This fact, IMHO, made perceived imbalances more noticeable or at the very least, more annoying.  The claim that Vancian casters could outdo the fighter fell in the same place as the rogue sneak attack being overpowered, to me...true in specific instances, but not true over the long haul.  That wizard could easily take out the FIRST Umber Hulk.  It was the second or third that was the problem.  By the time the party was escaping the dungeon, he might be spent, while the fighter was still ready for action.  The rogue might have dealt more damage (with the help of flanks), but his hit points dwindled and now he had to stay back.  

I liked the Sorceror an awful lot.  He showed that the Vancian system could be tweaked, just like other systems.  I think he also illustrates a point that I'm not sure some folks are seeing.  That is, that the implementation of the Vancian system does not necessarily mean it has to be identical to previous iterations, other than a base adherence to the concept.

Consider the 3E sorceror for a moment.  He sacrifices depth for volume.  This typically led to sorcerors being 'blasters', but didn't necessarily have to end up that way.  They could make great illusionists, for example.  Because of the way they altered how they used the vancian system, they played differently...even when they had access to the same resources.  A 5E vancian system does not have to mean an exact replicat of AD&D or 3E's versions.  It sounds like many folks are assuming that D&D Next's implementation will be an exacting recreation of what has gone before and judging the system on that.  There's nothing wrong with that, but I suspect that Monte and his team are probably looking to improve the system and make it more flexibile than previous iterations.

For me, personally, Vancian magic isn't better, but it is part of D&D's flavor and I'd like to see it included as the default.  I LOVE alternate magic systems, be they rune magic, psionics, spell point systems, keywords or what have you.  But if I had to choose one system that was core to the conceit of D&D (as opposed to generic fantasy), I'd use Vancian.


----------



## innerdude (Apr 20, 2012)

billd91 said:


> 3e's main flaw, as I see it, is it's highly responsive to player choices. Players who push the envelope can be much more powerful than those who don't. If players at a table aren't in general agreement on play styles with respect to optimization, conflict and trouble will occur.




And this is a huge point, because the response to this need to agree on playstyles was 4e .... where the rules in large part negated the need to have a social contract in place for optimization, conflict, and class balance "trouble." 

If, as a designer, you view the D&D ruleset as primarily a vehicle to combat resolution, then removing the need for that social contract probably seems like a high-minded, absolutely necessary step for the game to evolve. 

At it's core, 4e's seductive undertones are, "Don't be beholden to the whims and fancies of DMs and players. Build the character YOU want, and it will work. Never feel useless, never let those Wizards and CoDzillas rule you again." 

It's a powerful, persuasive argument to the right kind of players and groups. And while there were certainly other avenues to pursue the goal of inter-class balance than the sum total of 4e's approach, 4e definitely solved "it" better than any other edition of D&D to date. 

I have zero problem with the goal as stated; I'm actually drawn to it. I also think there are lots of ways to approach that goal that D&D has yet to explore.

(If there is a flaw in this view, as Ranes states below, it's the assumption that the need for inter-party "balance," and thus the removal of a need for an active social contract governing "balance" in playstyle, was important enough that other elements of robustness were sacrificed, generally affecting groups that DON'T treat combat resolution as the primary _raison d'etre_ of RPGs.)


----------



## Gorgoroth (Apr 20, 2012)

*+1*



Blackwarder said:


> Being the guy that always wants to play Aragorn I always though that a high level Aragon will have an army at his back...
> 
> Warder




An unkillable undead one, at that.


----------



## Ranes (Apr 20, 2012)

innerdude said:


> And this is a huge point, because the response to this need to agree on playstyles was 4e .... where the rules in large part negated the need to have a social contract in place for optimization, conflict, and balance "trouble."
> 
> If, as a designer, you view the D&D rule set as primarily a vehicle to combat resolution, then removing the need for that social contract probably seems like a high-minded, absolutely necessary step for the game to evolve.
> 
> At it's core, 4e's seductive undertones are, "Don't be beholden to the whims and fancies of DMs and players. Build the character YOU want, and it will work...




So far so good.




innerdude said:


> "...Never feel useless, never let those Wizards and CoDzillas rule you again."




And it's still that easy to come off the rails. It's not a binary argument.



innerdude said:


> It's a powerful, persuasive argument to the right kind of players and groups.




Undoubtedly.



innerdude said:


> And while there were certainly other avenues to pursue that goal than the sum total of 4e's approach, 4e definitely solved it better than any other edition of D&D to date.




Er, not for any given definition of 'it' but for yours, evidently.



innerdude said:


> I have zero problem with the goal as stated; I'm actually drawn to it. I also think there are lots of ways to approach that goal that D&D has yet to explore.




When you say 'the goal as stated', if you mean, as you said earlier, "If, as a designer, you view the D&D ruleset as primarily a vehicle to combat resolution..." then I agree. However, I also think the way they chose to explore that with 4e (in terms of how certain elements of the narrative were given back to the player) undervalued me as a DM and, by extension, DMs in general.

On the other hand, as a designer, if you don't regard the rule set's primary goal as being that of combat resolution vehicle, then 4e's solution to solving whatever it was it was supposed to solve was overshadowed - for some - by all the new pitfalls it brought with it.

Anyway, here we are.


----------



## innerdude (Apr 20, 2012)

Ranes: by "it," I mean the need for a social contract so  that players of  certain classes were not automatically going to  overshadow other  players / classes. 

As billd91 states, you really have to have one or the other--players who agree not to stretch the limits of the rule system, or a rules system that keeps the players within highly codified limits of "stretching."

When it comes down to it, there's really two specific arguments generally levied against "Vancian" casting: 

1. It assumes a very specific "flavor" or "fluff" surrounding the workings of magic that does not appeal to everyone.

2. It creates more leeway than many people / groups like in having to adjudicate the "stretchable" limits of magic. It has to be tightly regulated to not overshadow non-caster classes, and as some have pointed out in this thread, it's been that way since 1e. Vancian magic is just hard to balance so that it's fun for the players of casters, AND the players of non-casters, because it inherently creates high rules "stretchiness."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 21, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> OK come on. Don't use language like "this is all martial classes can hope for". Classes can't hope for anything. They are not people.



"All the players who prefer martial archetypes can hope for..."  Better?



> We're not talking about the relative balance of power among classes of people.



And the classes of people who play those classes of characters.   







> They're just classes in a role-playing game. It's got nothing to do with being fair or unfair to real people. If somebody really feels their fighter is underpowered, then they can always just play a damn wizard.



It's a game balance issue.  If people are playing wizards, or self-buffing clerics, or Druids in animal form, instead of fighters because those builds are strictly superior to the fighter, then that's a balance problem.  A sign of players coping with a poorly designed game.  

There are many possible solutions.  For instance, the game could simply delete inferior classes as PC options.  Or it could present them in a more balanced fashion, like 4e did.  As long as whatever classes are presented are balanced, the game is functional.  



> This is not an ethical issue.



Game balance does share some parallels with ethics, though, so it's not a bad metaphor.  Not one that I was using, at least not intentionally, this time, but a fair one.



> It's just an aesthetic issue. Some people like the mundane martial/magical caster image, and some people like the...



If you like the idea of player characters that can be either martial or magical, then you'd want a game where both sorts are viable: a balanced game.  If you just want mundane to contrast with the superior feats and abilities of those with magic - in a 'Harry Potter' sort of universe, for instance, or M:tA or Ars Magica for RPG instances - then there's no need for mundane to be PCs, there are more than enough muggle NPCs to provide the contrast.



> well I haven't even figured out what the image 4e presents is yet



Heroic fantasy.  The PCs in 4e - all of them - are heroes in a fantasy setting.  Not sidekicks or magic item caddies or healbots or meatshields.  Freak'n heroes who actually make a difference when they pull out the stops and do something heroic.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 21, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> So I suppose all of my comments that martial classes should be boosted, and my suggestion of several things that would make the martial daily issue palatable mere sentences after that quote, somehow mean I'm demanding fighters be inferior to wizards...?



Yes, by default, I suppose.  It may not be what you want or what you intend to demand, but it is what you are arguing for.



> I say again, I am perfectly happy to have fighters with abilities on the same power level as wizards' spells... I just don't think daily powers are the way to do it.



Well, the only way to deliver that that's worked so far has been giving them, and other martial classes, daily powers.  Which you objected to.

Now, 5e is supposed to be all modular and have something for everyone from every ed.  I would really like to see martial dailies and martial healing.  It makes it possible to balance martial and casting classes, obviously, but it also gives martial heroes 'plot power' - a chance to contribute meaningfully and dramatically at a critical moment.

Rather than demand that be taken away from those who like it, demand that an alternative resource-management/peak-power scheme be available that's balanced with both the 'vancian' casters as the 4e-style martial dailies.  Martial dailies have the virtue of being easily compared to vancian spells, mechanically, so balancing them should be fairly easy.  From there, it might be possible to work out other balanced resource schemes, and even attempt to balance the more traditional non-casters, and perhaps some less-traditional non-vancian casters, like the warmage or the original warlock.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 21, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes.  It may not be what you want or what you intend to demand, but it is what you are arguing for.




I strongly disagree.  You seem to think that all classes must be on exactly the same resource schedule to have parity, but as we saw in 3e with the T3 classes, you can have similar (but not identical) resource schedules and still be on roughly even footing.



> All three of those are perfectly reasonably rationales for any class that has dailies and doesn't have a specific hard-coded explanation of why they're dailies.  In 4e, that's everyone but the wizard - and even that could probably be argued.
> 
> Whichever of those three works for you, use it when you describe your character's use of a daily.




But that's exactly the point--they _aren't_ perfectly reasonable rationales, because they don't work all the time.

"You only get the right opening to use them at such-and-such a time" -> Why can't you re-use daily powers against stunned/dazed foes, who by nature would give you extra openings?  Why aren't such openings quantified, like flat-footedness or flanking for sneak attacks?

"It's very taxing to use those powers" -> Why can you use each power exactly once, without affecting other daily powers or any encounter or at-will powers?  How is it then _not_ taxing to use a stance for an entire encounter, or use a reliable power until you hit?

"They can only use them when it's dramatically appropriate" -> Why can you use daily powers only once on "bosses" and on mooks at all?  How do you determine what is dramatically appropriate?

The problem is that no one explanation was provided for martial daily powers that was subsequently consistently followed; actually, the problem is that no explanation is given at all, really, and we're left to come up with explanations for ourselves, which means the game itself (and different groups) won't treat them consistently.  As I mentioned, if they _had_ chosen a single, consistent explanation, then they could have stuck with that explanation for everything...and they would have had to use something besides daily powers to make that explanation make sense and fit every situation, in all likelihood.



> Martial powers can't use the psionic system, because then they'd be 'just like psionics,' and psion fans would demanding these martial upstarts step away from the power points and go back to their traditional bland sword-swinging.




1) This insistence that people who dislike martial daily powers must therefore want martial types to be boring is wrong.  I like resource management systems for martial types, and in fact like ToB quite a bit because (A) they use a different system from other power sources to drive home the difference, (B) they use encounter powers with recharge, which is much more explainable and much better at approximating openings/rhythm in combat, and (C) they can actually do things that matter beyond "damage + condition."  Those martial systems, however, have to make sense and should preferably be different from other resource management systems.

2) The 4e psionics system and all preceding psionics systems are different.  If it were up to me, a lover of psionics in every edition even if I'd hate to run them in 1e because they were completely borked, the martial types could have the 4e psionics system for their "fatigue" system or whatever, and the psionic types could go to a 3e-ish power points for daily power + maintain psionic focus for at will power + expend psionic focus for limited power mechanic.



> Varying flavor-wise is fine, and exploits are distinct from spells in terms of flavor.  They're also pretty distinct mechanically - exploits use weapons, tend toward untyped damage, are rarely close and almost never area; spells use implements, tend toward a wide variety of damage types, and are frequently close or area.
> 
> But there is a limit to how 'mechanically distinct' you can make two things before they become impossible to balance against eachother.  Vancian casting is way out on one end of that continuum, and if it's going to be included, the rest of the game is going to have to huddle over at that extreme.




Well, yes, if you consider "using a weapon against a single target within melee range" as a distinguishing feature of an entire power source to be a notable difference, there's quite a hard limit on possible mechanical distinction.  However, let's take a look at what nonmagical things a 12th-level martial adept can do, shall we?


Deflect attacks into opponents
Pick up and throw enemies
Attack without breaking stealth
Immobilize creatures
Gain DR
Make 4 attacks in a round
Deal Con damage
Follow enemies when they try to flee
Detect invisible enemies with hearing

Those aren't really things that magic does in 3e, generally, and they fit into a martial paradigm just fine.  On top of that, the nine ToB disciplines are very distinct, and you can generally tell what maneuver a discipline belongs to given its description, though there are a few areas of overlap.  Maneuvers aren't defined in terms of their range, or what you use them with, or their damage types; they can be made with any type of damage including ability damage, and they can be made at multiple ranges.  They're defined by their resource management mechanism, and the type of effects they can accomplish, which are quite different from all of the other resource management systems in 3e in both respects.

And yet, martial adepts, bards, totemists, full-list Vancian casters, binders, wildshape rangers, factotums, duskblades, and psionic warriors are all roughly on a par in terms of versatility and power, despite their different systems--and it is those different systems, as much as each system's effects, that make them feel and play quite differently.  Only two of those classes use daily resources, and those are psionics and Vancian casting, yet the other classes keep up just fine.



> Because taking dailies away from the martial archetype will return them to the inferior level of effectiveness they languished under prior to 4e.  There is no chance that 5e will insert some novel alternate resource-management system to give them power comparable to that of casters, because it's an openly-retro system.  It's to take bits from 'all editions,' not make radical changes to the common elements of the game.  Unless one of those bits is martial dailies taken from 4e, it's going to be 3e optimization tiers all over again, and martial classes will be on the bottom.




And encounter powers are in both 3e and 4e, and are quite popular for martial types in both editions--there are ToB haters, but there are psionics haters and sha'ir haters and plenty of other haters too.  Once again, "no daily mechanics" does not mean "boring one-dimensional fighters," it means "no daily mechanics," that's it.  What I'm arguing for, despite your assertions, is a system that makes martial types powerful and versatile while giving them a unique play experience relative to the different caster types.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 21, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> I strongly disagree.  You seem to think that all classes must be on exactly the same resource schedule to have parity



Very nearly the same, yes, perhaps even 'similar,' but /particularly/ with dailies.  I don't just feel that way because it makes sense, but because nothing else D&D has tried to balance the classes has ever come close to working.



> but as we saw in 3e with the T3 classes, you can have similar (but not identical) resource schedules and still be on roughly even footing.



Roughly the same resources, roughly equal footing, yes.  Makes a certain amount of sense, doesn't it.

Radically different resources, say T1 vs T3, radically imbalanced.




> But that's exactly the point--they _aren't_ perfectly reasonable rationales, because they don't work all the time.



Use the one that works for you at the time.



> The problem is that no one explanation was provided for martial daily powers that was subsequently consistently followed; actually, the problem is that no explanation is given at all, really, and we're left to come up with explanations for ourselves, which means the game itself (and different groups) won't treat them consistently.



"That's not a bug, it's a feature!"    Seriously, it is.  Rather than presenting exploits with one fixed rationale, and baking that into the power at the expense of mechanical consistency, playability, and balance, 4e just has exploits that are mechanically functional and balanced.  The represent what the player wants them to represent, in game.  It's a minor exercise in creativity, and I suppose, rationalization.  It lets one set of mechanics cover many different concepts of what a martial character can be.

Same goes for divine, and arcane (except, maybe, for the wizard).



> 1) This insistence that people who dislike martial daily powers must therefore want martial types to be boring is wrong.



I'm not saying it's what you want.  I'm saying that taking away martial dailies will leave the source under-powered and probably non-viable at many levels.  And, yes, that'd make playing one boring much of the time.  

See my notes, above, about modularity and the possibility of doing both.



> Those martial systems, however, have to make sense and should preferably be different from other resource management systems.



Systems are just abstract mechanics.  Making two things use different mechanics doesn't make them different in-game.  If one character has a katana that does 1d10 damage, and another had a katana that does 1d8 brutal 2, they both have katanas, and, for that matter, they both do 5.5 points of average damage.  The mechanical difference adds nothing, it's just an abstraction.

By the same token, a character can have a broadsword (+2, 1d10) or a warhammer (+2, 1d10) or a battleaxe (+2, 1d10), and the only mechanical difference is a keyword.  For that matter, one character could have a 'Saber' (+2, 1d8, high crit, heavy blade) and another a 'Backsword'  (+2, 1d8, high crit, heavy blade), and there's no mechanical difference, but they are historically different weapons - both modest 1-handed blades used by cavalry, though. 



> Well, yes, if you consider "using a weapon against a single target within melee range" as a distinguishing feature of an entire power source to be a notable difference, there's quite a hard limit on possible mechanical distinction.



Weapon vs Implement, yes, they're quite distinct.  And using weapons doesn't have to limit the martial source quite as much as it actually does in 4e.  4e was actually a little conservative in that regard.



> However, let's take a look at what nonmagical things a 12th-level martial adept can do, shall we?
> 
> 
> Deflect attacks into opponents
> ...



With the exception of CON damage, which is a mechanic that simply doesn't exist in 4e, exploits do just about all of that, too.  



> Once again, "no daily mechanics" does not mean "boring one-dimensional fighters," it means "no daily mechanics," that's it.



"No daily mechanics" would also mean no Vancian casting, which'd be lovely.  The game would be even easier to balance if no one had dailies.

But that's not it.  It's "No daily mechanics for the martial source, specifically."  And, yes, that relegates the martial source to inferiority, hypothetical systems that the nostalgia-mandated 5e is unlikely to adopt notwithstanding.



> What I'm arguing for, despite your assertions, is a system that makes martial types powerful and versatile while giving them a unique play experience relative to the different caster types.



The way you're arguing for it won't achieve that.  What you will get is a 'unique play experience' of wondering why you're not playing a caster and being effective like everyone else.  

Again, by all means, ask, argue for, even demand additional options for the martial classes, over and above martial dailies that are balanced with the returning vancian casting.  

There are a lot of us playing 4e martial classes and quite enjoying have the peak power and 'plot power' of dailies.  Please, stop trying to make us choose between continuing to play such characters, and adopting 5e.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 21, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Interesting read.  If Essentials really is  more AD&D than 3e, I'll have to get my hands on it--I play 3e and  some 4e now but I've always been a bit more of an AD&D fan.  Thanks  for the recommendation.




No problem and hope you enjoy.



> To be fair, it easily breaks accidentally _if_ you don't go in with AD&D assumptions in mind.




This.  I started out on GURPS using low magic worlds not D&D.   My reaction to D&D spells is therefore that of a kid in a candy  store.



WizarDru said:


> I find it interesting some of the arguments put  forth in defense or against the Vancian system.  Not that I find them  invalid in any way, just that in some cases they seem to point towards  other notions that might actually point that folks aren't necessarily  discussing the likes/dislikes of the Vancian system.




The Vancian System is seen as equivalent to classic D&D magic.  It certainly isn't the magic presented by Jack Vance.



> This led to the wizards being dependent on the fighters, not  unlike the archers on a battlefield needed protecting by  infantry...D&D did, of course, rise from wargaming roots and it  shows quite well, there.




That may have been the intent.   But that didn't mean it worked.  There's too much defensive magic even  in the earlier editions of AD&D.



> Are wizards and clerics in D&D anything like the characters  in fiction they attempt to emulate, at least in semblance?  Of course  not.  Because the needs of fiction and gameplay are not the same.   Gandalf, of course, isn't your typical wizard of legend.  Because  excepting Gandalf, most wizards would dwell in a tower or evil  crypt...they didn't go looking for adventure, they were the adventure  others sought out.




I consider the D&D classes to be  "adventurer classes".  And this is one reason I like the 4e ritual  rules - wizards of legend were much more into dribbly candlewax than  fireballs.



> The idea that vancian casters get too much flexibility begs  the question: do they get too much flexibility or do other classes get  too little (assuming that this is an issue)?




Both.  About a third of both 2e and 3e PHBs were devoted to spellcasting and it shows.



> but at the same time, 3E was more balanced than any edition before it, in terms of player parity.




Could you expand that claim please?



> That  wizard could easily take out the FIRST Umber Hulk.  It was the second  or third that was the problem.  By the time the party was escaping the  dungeon, he might be spent, while the fighter was still ready for  action.




This isn't actually the case except by grace of  the Cleric.  The fighter's hit points are strictly limited and that's as  much a cap on what the fighter can do as spells are on what the wizard  can.  And the  Umber  Hulk is CR7 with a reflex of +3 and a Will of +6 - let's assume a  7th level wizard facing it, specialist, Int 18.   A decent wizard can  turn it into something to be butchered with  Hideous  Laughter one time in two.  That's a 50% chance of effectively a  one round kill using one of his five second level spell slots.  (Sure  the fighter needs to finish it off.  But that's just mopping up - a job  fit for the druid's animal companion).  Alternatively if the Umber Hulk  is anywhere near a corner a simple Grease spell can cripple it.

And the only reason the Umber Hulk was a problem on the way out anyway was that it could bypass the Invisibility Sphere.



> The  rogue might have dealt more damage (with the help of flanks), but his  hit points dwindled and now he had to stay back.




And what prevented the fighter's hit points dwindling?  The cleric again?  Or the Wand of CLW?



> I liked the Sorceror an awful lot.  He showed that the Vancian system could be tweaked, just like other systems.




The  sorceror also happened to be cripplingly weak compared to the wizard -  being left in the dust at spamming top level spells one level in two (an  entire spell level behind) and only being about a match for the wizard  the other level in two.  It's only once you drop down to two spell  levels below the wizard's highest the sorceror has any advantage at all.



innerdude said:


> If, as a designer, you view the D&D ruleset  as primarily a vehicle to combat resolution, then removing the need for  that social contract probably seems like a high-minded, absolutely  necessary step for the game to evolve.




If as a designer you view the rules of an RPG as a vehicle for _conflict_ resolution I see nothing wrong with that. 



> At it's core, 4e's seductive undertones are, "Don't be beholden to the whims and fancies of DMs and players.




I  disagree.  To me at heart 4e's undertones are "We've actually done our  job properly this time.  Few people are going to be mechanically  disappointed by what they play, either by being outclassed or having to  cripple themselves.  And you, as DM, can put the time you would be  putting into faffing around with crunch to work out how to keep the game  on the rails into plotting, into NPCs, or simply into putting your feet  up."  To me 4e is actually far _more_ able to accomodate the whims and fancies of DMs and players than a less balanced system.



> I have zero problem with the goal as stated; I'm actually  drawn to it. I also think there are lots of ways to approach that goal  that D&D has yet to explore.




Inded.



> (If there is a flaw in this view, as Ranes states below, it's  the assumption that the need for inter-party "balance," and thus the  removal of a need for an active social contract governing "balance" in  playstyle, was important enough that other elements of robustness were  sacrificed, generally affecting groups that DON'T treat combat  resolution as the primary _raison d'etre_ of RPGs.)




What sort of elements of robustness have been sacrificed?  Because the 3.X magic system isn't _robust_.  Neither is the crafting or the ability to mechanically be a professional basketweaver.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> I strongly disagree.  You seem to think  that all classes must be on exactly the same resource schedule to have  parity, but as we saw in 3e with the T3 classes, you can have similar  (but not identical) resource schedules and still be on roughly even  footing.




It's just a lot harder work.  I'd be much  happier to play 3e with all T3 classes than I would 3e under most  conditions.  Hell, I _like_ all the T3 classes I know - and that isn't true for any other tier.



> But that's exactly the point--they _aren't_ perfectly reasonable rationales, because they don't work all the time.




It's as much a narrative mechanic as anyting.



> However, let's take a look at what nonmagical things a 12th-level martial adept can do, shall we?
> 
> 
> Deflect attacks into opponents
> ...




Ummm...   Nothing is things magic does in 3e generally.  But all have something  approaching equivalents.  But I do like the Bo9S - I'm just disappointed  how long it took 3.X to get there and how many people dislike the Book  of "Weaboo Fitan Magic".



> And yet, martial adepts, bards,  totemists, full-list Vancian casters, binders, wildshape rangers,  factotums, duskblades, and psionic warriors are all roughly on a par in  terms of versatility and power, despite their different systems--and it  is those different systems, as much as each system's effects, that make  them feel and play quite differently.  Only two of those classes use  daily resources, and those are psionics and Vancian casting, yet the  other classes keep up just fine.




On the other hand they got there more by luck than judgement given quite how any classes _don't_  balance with the tier 3 classes.  And this is the significant problem  for a game designer.  You should be able to cram most classes at least  into the same tier and that takes some pretty serious skill.  Skill that  the designers of 3.X didn't even come close to having (neither do the  designers of PF).  And even the 4e designers with Essentials didn't vary  the pattern too much, and it took them a couple of years and a much  more transparent system.


----------



## triqui (Apr 22, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> But if there are compelling archetypes for easy mode Wizards and hard mode Fighters, then OK perhaps.




Fine for me. It seems to be the 5e goal too


----------



## triqui (Apr 22, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Hm, why not make these class specific ressources something that all classes share? Let's say every class uses let's say "action points" to power their abilities? Every character gets a pool of action points and uses these to power their spells, rages, songs, maneuvers, etc.
> 
> The new Neverwinter MMO uses something like this for the daily powers of the characters.
> 
> -YRUSirius




Because making each class have their own spendable resources with their own recharge mechanic allow for greater variety.

Samurais can spend "resolve" for completelly different things than Ninjas can spend "ki". And it's perfectly possible give each mechanic a different recharge system. For example, a rogue's luck might recharge once per encounter, while a mage's essence might recharge when they meditate and memorize spells, or whatever


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 22, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Roughly the same resources, roughly equal footing, yes.  Makes a certain amount of sense, doesn't it.
> 
> Radically different resources, say T1 vs T3, radically imbalanced.




T1 and T3 classes don't have inherently different resource systems.  There are T1 and T3 Vancian casters and psionicists, the T1 casters simply have access to more spells/powers within their system.  An incarnate who could reshape and rebind melds each turn as a swift action, a martial adept who knew every maneuver in the book, a binder who could bind 10 vestiges at once, and similar would be higher-tier than the existing T3 classes, not because they used a different system, but because they used the same system more effectively.

And that's my point.  You seem to think that "using daily powers" inherently means "more powerful than any other resource system."  It doesn't.  It means it has different flavor and mechanical implications than other systems, that's it, and those different flavor and mechanical implications are preferable to a daily system to many people.




> Use the one that works for you at the time.
> 
> "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"    Seriously, it is.  Rather than presenting exploits with one fixed rationale, and baking that into the power at the expense of mechanical consistency, playability, and balance, 4e just has exploits that are mechanically functional and balanced.  The represent what the player wants them to represent, in game.  It's a minor exercise in creativity, and I suppose, rationalization.  It lets one set of mechanics cover many different concepts of what a martial character can be.
> 
> Same goes for divine, and arcane (except, maybe, for the wizard).




Just use whatever explanation works at the time?  Really?

Rogue: "We have them on the ropes, Mr. Fighter!  Shoot them with your Swarm of Arrows Technique!"

Fighter: "No, sorry, Mr. Rogue, I can't do that right now."

Rogue: "But they're running away!  Their backs are to you!  You have all the opening you need!"

Fighter: "Why would you think I need an opening to use my special techniques?"

Rogue: "...um, because when we were fighting them before, you said you needed an opening to use it and that's why you didn't keep using the same technique on multiple people?"

Fighter: "No, no, right now I'm too tired to use the Swarm of Arrows Technique.  Doesn't matter about the opening, I'm just too tired."

Rogue: "...but you can use the Finding the Horizon Technique on them just fine?"

Fighter: "Yep!"

Rogue: "...but only once?"

Fighter: "Yep!"

Rogue: "...and you'll be too tired afterwards to do it again, but not too tired for something else?"

Fighter: "Yep!"

Rogue: *facepalm*

You can go on and on about powers letting players get creative all they want, but there's a big difference between reflavoring a fire power to use a burst of light instead (because there's no mechanical or flavor difference worth noting) and trying to explain martial dailies, which _do_ have different implications based on the explanation you're using for why you can only use them once.



> I'm not saying it's what you want.  I'm saying that taking away martial dailies will leave the source under-powered and probably non-viable at many levels.  And, yes, that'd make playing one boring much of the time.
> 
> See my notes, above, about modularity and the possibility of doing both.




And what part of "there are ways to make martial sources equally powerful that don't involve 1/day restrictions on powers" isn't getting through?  I've mentioned several internally consistent, equally-powerful alternatives which you have seemingly dismissed out of hand as not being able to make the fighter powerful.  Why, exactly, would a fatigue-based system where you can re-use a single power multiple times instead of each power once, or an opening-based system where you can re-use powers on flanked/helpless/whatever enemies, or something like that not be as good as a daily system?



> Systems are just abstract mechanics.  Making two things use different mechanics doesn't make them different in-game.  If one character has a katana that does 1d10 damage, and another had a katana that does 1d8 brutal 2, they both have katanas, and, for that matter, they both do 5.5 points of average damage.  The mechanical difference adds nothing, it's just an abstraction.
> 
> By the same token, a character can have a broadsword (+2, 1d10) or a warhammer (+2, 1d10) or a battleaxe (+2, 1d10), and the only mechanical difference is a keyword.  For that matter, one character could have a 'Saber' (+2, 1d8, high crit, heavy blade) and another a 'Backsword'  (+2, 1d8, high crit, heavy blade), and there's no mechanical difference, but they are historically different weapons - both modest 1-handed blades used by cavalry, though.




I'm not seeing the relevance to the daily power issue.  Yes, mechanics are abstract.  Yes, mechanically-similar things can be flavored in the same way.  But when it comes down to it, you don't have one PC wielding a "dagger" (1d10 damage, high crit, heavy blade) or a "katana" (1d4 damage, finesse), because the mechanics don't match up with the in-game expression.  You don't have to have a one-to-one mapping between flavor and mechanics, but whatever flavor you have has to match the mechanics or it won't make any sense.



> With the exception of CON damage, which is a mechanic that simply doesn't exist in 4e, exploits do just about all of that, too.




I was referring to 3e maneuvers vs. 3e spells, not what 4e exploits are capable of, the point being that maneuvers and spells are defined by different mechanics and different ways of achieving the same mechanics, not just by superficial fluff on the same mechanics.



> "No daily mechanics" would also mean no Vancian casting, which'd be lovely.  The game would be even easier to balance if no one had dailies.
> 
> But that's not it.  It's "No daily mechanics for the martial source, specifically."  And, yes, that relegates the martial source to inferiority, hypothetical systems that the nostalgia-mandated 5e is unlikely to adopt notwithstanding.
> 
> ...




That's fine, you can have the power of dailies.  I (and the other "please no martial dailies" folks) just want a consistent, believe, and mechanically unique way to achieve that power.



Neonchameleon said:


> It's just a lot harder work.  I'd be much  happier to play 3e with all T3 classes than I would 3e under most  conditions.  Hell, I _like_ all the T3 classes I know - and that isn't true for any other tier.




I agree about the T3 classes all being enjoyable.  And hey, the designers did it once (even if purely by accident ), they can do it again.



> It's as much a narrative mechanic as anyting.




And that's a large source of the problem, I think.  There are games and mechanics that attempt to actually explain the mechanics in-game; D&D is that sort of game, and most of the mechanics are like that.  Even if the mechanics don't make any sense by real-world physics, they're internally consistent.  There are games and mechanics that give players explicit narrative control over the game and their characters.  When the first kind of game introduces narrative mechanics, they tend to be universal--everyone in 4e has action points and healing surges, for instance.

Yet 4e martial dailies look almost like an attempt to give one power source narrative mechanics while other power sources have internally-consistent or simulationist mechanics--and then they act like those narrative mechanics are simulationist.  I would be perfectly happy if martial classes had something like fate points and the books said "Congratulations, as a martial hero you have plot protection, your powers are story-altering protagonist stuff."  But they don't; they shove narrative and simulationist powers and resource schemes together and don't bother to differentiate between the two.



> Deflect attacks into opponents
> Pick up and throw enemies/Wind Blast
> Attack without breaking stealth/Greater Invisibility
> Immobilize creatures/Hold Person
> ...




I should have been more clear there--the maneuvers accomplish the same general effects in ways that magic does not.  Magic can push people back and move them around slowly, but not quickly move enemies in whatever direction you wish; magic can give you extra attacks in a full attack action, and let people attack using off-actions (swift and immediate), but not give you multiple attacks on an off-action; magic can deal ability damage, and inflict poisons, but not deal Con damage without poison; magic can increase your speed, and teleport you out of turn, but not let you 5-foot step out of turn or follow enemies immediately.

The point is that martial and magical things can accomplish the same general effects, but they do so in different ways.  Magic can do lots of things martial stuff can't do as well, and martial stuff can do some things that magic can't do as well, and though magic has far too much of an advantage there, there _are_ things only martial stuff can do that set it apart thematically.



> On the other hand they got there more by luck than judgement given quite how any classes _don't_  balance with the tier 3 classes.  And this is the significant problem  for a game designer.  You should be able to cram most classes at least  into the same tier and that takes some pretty serious skill.  Skill that  the designers of 3.X didn't even come close to having (neither do the  designers of PF).  And even the 4e designers with Essentials didn't vary  the pattern too much, and it took them a couple of years and a much  more transparent system.




To be fair, the designers weren't trying to balance the 3e classes, they were trying to unify and upgrade the core while porting everything else over mostly unchanged.  The fact that they _should_ have tried to change things to keep them in rough parity is obvious in hindsight (and was obvious a year after release as well), but it wasn't really their design goal to do that.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 23, 2012)

So, Eldritch Lord - the problem with the system comes when other players deliberately point out potential issues, and then continue pointing them out time after time, using meta-game language in the game (use your Swarm of Arrows Technique) in character, in game, to create problems.

How is this not a player problem?  After all, you could say EXACTLY the same thing about Action Points.  You can use an AP to gain access to any feat for one round, for example.  So, why can't you keep doing that round after round?

4e powers are just that - meta-game effects.  They are no different than AP's.  The only thing you can do in combat that isn't a meta-game effect is a basic attack (either melee or ranged).  That's it.  

Now, some are a lot easier to map onto the fiction than others.  Most of the martial effects map directly onto the fiction.  But, that doesn't make them any less of a meta-game effect.  Shield Bash is still a meta-game effect.  After all, why can't I do it every single attack?

But, that's the point right there.  They are meta-game effects because round after round of the martial character doing EXACTLY the same thing, fight after fight, is not a goal of 4e D&D.  The goal is to give every character a variety of actions that they can perform and to allow a greater level of differentiation between one character and another of the same class.

The problem comes when players try to make the system something it isn't.  4e characters do not gain a selection of in-game effects.  They don't.  Powers don't work like that.  In prior editions, your selections were pre-defined  and largely pre-scripted.  If you wanted to trip someone, this is how you do it and if you don't meet the requirements, you cannot do it.  If you do meet the requirements, you can do it any time you want.

Which led to one  trick pony characters because it was almost always better to focus on one trick to the exclusion of anything else.

Some people think that's great and that the level of immersion gained by that system is worth it.  Some people don't.  But, both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.  You point out that 4e's powers can create illogical situations.  IME, it generally doesn't, but, I could see how it can.  3e's approach can lead to cookie cutter characters and hyper-specialization.  AD&D's systems were so baroque that they generally didn't see play.

But this:



			
				EL said:
			
		

> To be fair, the designers weren't trying to balance the 3e classes, they were trying to unify and upgrade the core while porting everything else over mostly unchanged. The fact that they should have tried to change things to keep them in rough parity is obvious in hindsight (and was obvious a year after release as well), but it wasn't really their design goal to do that.




I don't agree with.  Class balance was a primary goal in 3e.


----------



## variant (Apr 23, 2012)

Hussar said:


> How is this not a player problem?  After all, you could say EXACTLY the same thing about Action Points.  You can use an AP to gain access to any feat for one round, for example.  So, why can't you keep doing that round after round?
> 
> 
> 4e powers are just that - meta-game effects.  They are no different than  AP's.  The only thing you can do in combat that isn't a meta-game  effect is a basic attack (either melee or ranged).  That's it.




That's an argument against Action Points, not an argument for keeping the horrid 4e power system.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 23, 2012)

variant said:


> That's an argument against Action Points, not an argument for keeping the horrid 4e power system.



Nope, it's an argument for keeping the 4e power system _for those who want it_. I think that the last thing WotC wants is to create a 5e that would lose them the majority of 4e players.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 23, 2012)

variant said:


> That's an argument against Action Points, not an argument for keeping the horrid 4e power system.




Only if you insist that the only way to play an RPG is through deep immersion with the player having virtually no access to anything that isn't directly correlated in the game world.

OTOH, if you don't happen to play that way, then Action Points, Fate Points, Hit Points and a pointillist paintings worth of points work perfectly well at plausibly pleasing a plethora of players.


----------



## GSHamster (Apr 23, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Now, some are a lot easier to map onto the fiction than others.  Most of the martial effects map directly onto the fiction.  But, that doesn't make them any less of a meta-game effect.  Shield Bash is still a meta-game effect.  After all, why can't I do it every single attack?




I wonder if, rather than _de jure_ limits on how often powers could be used, the martial classes used a resource system that ended up giving a _ de facto_ limit on power consumption.

For example, you generate X resource a round, but the ability costs 5X resource, so you can only use the ability once every 5 rounds.

If the resource was skinned appropriately (ie Rage for a barbarian), I think that would be more palatable for martial classes that arbitrary per-encounter/per-day limits.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 23, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> I wonder if, rather than _de jure_ limits on how often powers could be used, the martial classes used a resource system that ended up giving a _ de facto_ limit on power consumption.
> 
> For example, you generate X resource a round, but the ability costs 5X resource, so you can only use the ability once every 5 rounds.
> 
> If the resource was skinned appropriately (ie Rage for a barbarian), I think that would be more palatable for martial classes that arbitrary per-encounter/per-day limits.




Oh sure.  You could certainly do this.  The cost for this though, is book keeping.  You have to make sure you keep track of the points each round.  It would work, but, I'm not sure if you have a net gain.  

The Bo9S mechanics use similar sorts of things.  The Crusader had a limited palatte of powers that would recycle once you use all the powers.  Other classes had other recharge methods.

I have to admit, I prefer simplicity myself, but, I could see this a nice compromise.


----------



## Darwinism (Apr 23, 2012)

I have to wonder; why are some people that have no issue at all with the utterly arbitrary 'Vancian' casting system, which equates to nothing more than narrative control, against the _exact same thing_ when it comes to Fighters?

There is literally no actual difference between a Wizard being able to cast Fireball once per day at 5 and a Fighter being able to do something only once a day at 5. Just one of those examples has been around for a bit longer, so people who're afraid of any sort of change flag it as threatening.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 23, 2012)

Darwinism said:


> I have to wonder; why are some people that have no issue at all with the utterly arbitrary 'Vancian' casting system, which equates to nothing more than narrative control, against the _exact same thing_ when it comes to Fighters?
> 
> There is literally no actual difference between a Wizard being able to cast Fireball once per day at 5 and a Fighter being able to do something only once a day at 5. Just one of those examples has been around for a bit longer, so people who're afraid of any sort of change flag it as threatening.



As I mentioned upthread, different people find different things plausible. For some, "martial" is inextricably linked with "repeatable".

And to be fair to the Vancian system, there is a plausible reason why spellcasters can only prepare or memorize spells once per day (i.e. after a night's rest).

At the end of the day, it isn't important that everyone plays the same game, as long as you can play the game you want. That means martial daily powers for those who want them, and other abilities for those who don't.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 23, 2012)

innerdude said:


> 4e .... where the rules in large part negated the need to have a social contract in place for optimization, conflict, and class balance "trouble."
> 
> If, as a designer, you view the D&D ruleset as primarily a vehicle to combat resolution, then removing the need for that social contract probably seems like a high-minded, absolutely necessary step for the game to evolve.
> 
> ...



I don't particularly see what combat resolution has to do with it. 4e has more robust social resolution mechanics than any earlier edition of the game that I'm familiar with.

And the idea that players should be able to build their PCs, and play them by the rules, even push a bit, and the game not break - that should be a basic design goal for _any_ RPG in which it is assumed that the players, rather than the GM, have primary responsibility for hurling their PCs into the throes of action resolution!

Anything less, in my view, leads to insipid, GM-controlled illusionism (or blatant railroading), in which the players' main contributin is simply to add colour by emoting their PCs and describing details of their actions that have little actual bearing on action resolution.

(I'm not saying that a game is fundamentally flawed if, for one group, with their own table preferences, one sub-component has to be excluded to make the game work. I've had this experience with Rolemaster - eventually, my group discovered that we couldn't make RM work if we didn't just ban much of the divination magic. But that still leaves the core of the game intact and working.)



innerdude said:


> you really have to have one or the other--players who agree not to stretch the limits of the rule system, or a rules system that keeps the players within highly codified limits of "stretching."



What survey of functional RPG designs are you basing this claim on?

I'm not saying that my survey is even approaching comprehensiveness - but I don't think  that Classic Traveller, or Runequest, especially requires players to either agree not to stretch the action resolution mechanics, or alternatively to be "highly codified" in their limits of stretching. (In Traveller, there is the whole "battle armour" issue, but that is going to be marginal except in a certain specific sort of campaign.)

Going into more abstract systems, I don't think HeroWars/Quest, or Maelstrom Storytelling, is going to break when pushed.

And there are all sorts of buffers you can build into a rules system to ameliorate the pressure that players bring to it - like giving them a reason not to always want to bring all their dice and bonuses to bear, and like setting stakes that are less than abject failure or death. (Call of Cthulhu is one example of a classic game that I think ticks both these boxes.)

It is a distinctive feature of D&D, I think, that it nearly always gives players an incentive to maximise their bonuses, in part because the stakes are always so high, and then has a tendency to break under that pressure. (Of other RPGs that I'm familiar with, Rolemaster probably comes closest to replicating this feature of D&D.) I'm currently GMing a 15th level 4e game, and it is highly noticeable that despite a lot of pressure from (at least a couple of) the players, there is only one ability (a feat from Dragon that lets the fighter immobilise marked targets whom he hits with a basic attack) that is currently on a house-rule watchlist.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> There are games and mechanics that attempt to actually explain the mechanics in-game; D&D is that sort of game, and most of the mechanics are like that.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I don't see what's objectionable about using narrative control metagame mechanics to balance ingame abilities. I understand that the Buffy game does this. And HeroWars/Quest is a game in which metagame mechanics can be spent either on character development or on boosting die rolls, which is somewhat analogous to choosing between process simulation and narrative control. And I published an idea along these lines in a HARP/RM online fanzine in 2007, based expressly on the idea that a PC could either opt for metagame/luck based success, or ingame/skill based success.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> and then they act like those narrative mechanics are simulationist.



Who are "they" in this clause? Nothing in the rule books calls out martial dailies as process simulation abilties. And treating them as essentially metagame abilities is a pretty obvious option for anyone familiar with the idea.

The rulebooks themselves somewhat gloss over the issue, in much the same way as D&D traditionally glosses over the issue of what hit points represent (if anything).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 23, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> T1 and T3 classes don't have inherently different resource systems. There are T1 and T3 Vancian casters and psionicists, the T1 casters simply have access to more spells/powers within their system. An incarnate who could reshape and rebind melds each turn as a swift action, a martial adept who knew every maneuver in the book, a binder who could bind 10 vestiges at once, and similar would be higher-tier than the existing T3 classes, not because they used a different system, but because they used the same system more effectively.




That said, I don't know Incarnates or Binders - but the Martial Adept _still_ wouldn't be tier 1.  He might be a very broken tier 2 but simply doesn't have the flexibility that makes the tier 1s impossible.



> And that's my point. You seem to think that "using daily powers" inherently means "more powerful than any other resource system." It doesn't.




What it means is that if a game is balanced on four encounters/day (which is pretty Fantasy ing Vietnam to borrow the rpg.net description) and daily powers are a substantial part of the class's power then the second you try for a less hack-and-slash game and take it down to a still-extreme two fights/day, the people focussing on daily powers can nova much much harder. 



> Just use whatever explanation works at the time? Really?
> 
> Rogue: "We have them on the ropes, Mr. Fighter! Shoot them with your Swarm of Arrows Technique!"




"Fighter": First I'm a Ranger.  Second, stop distracting me from my shot.  Third, I'll do that when you start swinging on every chandelier you see just because you did it that once.  They are running away.  It's not worth spending the next five minutes checking my bow for cracks just because you want me to shoot fleeing enemies in the back.  I'll stick to my normal rapid fire of Twin Strike.



> Rogue: "...but you can use the Finding the Horizon Technique on them just fine?"




Of course I can.  I have the time I need right now.



> And what part of "there are ways to make martial sources equally powerful that don't involve 1/day restrictions on powers" isn't getting through?




The part where it assumes that all games are simmilarly paced.  In 4e, most wizard powers are _not_ daily.  The potential nova spike is seriously flattened.  Most games have fewer encounters than dungeoncrawling, so a daily resource can be used more densely.



> Why, exactly, would a fatigue-based system where you can re-use a single power multiple times instead of each power once, or an opening-based system where you can re-use powers on flanked/helpless/whatever enemies, or something like that not be as good as a daily system?




You could have a daily fatigue based system.  But it's a matter of power density.  If a game is expected to have four encounters per day on average to balance daily powers against encounter powers, both an average of two and consistently tight dungeoncrawls of eight are going to cause serious problems.



> I agree about the T3 classes all being enjoyable. And hey, the designers did it once (even if purely by accident ), they can do it again.




But there's a lot more misses than hits.  And I'm not sure how balanced the T3 classes are by 4e standards.  They just aren't _absurdly_ unbalaned.



> And that's a large source of the problem, I think. There are games and mechanics that attempt to actually explain the mechanics in-game; D&D is that sort of game, and most of the mechanics are like that.




The single biggest, most important mechanic in D&D combat is Hit Points.  And those are the elephant in the room.  If I can accept hit points as a combat fundamental I have no problem at all with martial dailies.



> But they don't; they shove narrative and simulationist powers and resource schemes together and don't bother to differentiate between the two.




Like Legends of Anglerre (Spirit of the Century: Fantasy edition).  Plot points are used for narrative control or decent magic.



> magic can give you extra attacks in a full attack action, and let people attack using off-actions (swift and immediate), but not give you multiple attacks on an off-action; magic can deal ability damage, and inflict poisons, but not deal Con damage without poison;




To me these are distinctions without a difference.



triqui said:


> Because making each class have their own spendable resources with their own recharge mechanic allow for greater variety.




And a completely different set of ways stuff can go badly wrong.  Like any sort of drift away from the default average number of encounters per day completely disrupting class balance.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 23, 2012)

Darwinism said:


> There is literally no actual difference between a Wizard being able to cast Fireball once per day at 5 and a Fighter being able to do something only once a day at 5. Just one of those examples has been around for a bit longer, so people who're afraid of any sort of change flag it as threatening.




Mechanically, from a rules standpoint, you are correct.  They are functionally exactly the same.  The issue some folks have, though, is the contextual source within the narrative within the game.

Casters are, conceptually, people who control, channel, embody or otherwise direct supernatural forces.  Players accept the idea that a wizard channels some secret power source (which may be a magical gift, a birthright or just the product of years of esoteric study) that is not available to others.  It is generally very easy to accept, from a narrative standpoint, that access to those forces are limited, rarified or difficult.  Summoning food from thin air, creating a wall of fire or turning into a creature of pure wind are not things generally expected to be seen.

Martial abilities, however, are almost always from a natural source.  Often either the result of pure physicality or specialized training, it is rarely justified within the narrative why a martial character would restrict themselves.  One doesn't expect a person to animate a statue very often...but it can put you out of the narrative to see a wariror suddenly not use a technique a second time without justification.

Consider Rage, Lay on Hands and the Knight's Aura.  In terms of narrative, Rage makes sense.  You wouldn't expect someone to spend the entire day enraged.  The idea that it is exhausting makes intuitive sense.  Likewise the idea that a Paladin's boon from a deity is limited makes sense in that the deity set the limit and it reflects on the piety of the paladin.  The knight's aura is an example of a skill that makes sense.  The knight will always take advantage of people who are close enough to him to drop their guard.

By contrast, consider many of the fighter's dailies.  Stop Thrust (to pick one at random) allows the fighter to shift and attack someone who enters their range.  If he succeeds in the attack, which interrupts his target, he does damage and then immobilizes the attacker.  A powerful maneuver, to be sure, that is rightfully limited mechanically as a Daily power.  You don't want the fighter to be able to do this all the time...from a mechanical standpoint.  From a narrative standpoint, it doesn't really make any sense why he wouldn't use this technique as often as possible.  That's what I believe Eldritch Lord was driving at.  This doesn't apply to all techniques, obviously.  One could understand why Conan doesn't swing his sword with all his might with every blow, for fear of tiring or throwing out his arm.  But one wonders why he wouldn't use something like Shield Deflection or Bare Knuckle Rebuke as often as he chose to.  

Certainly, one can create a narrative reason for why he does so...but for some gamers, this narrative leap is one they have trouble making (or at least have the desire to make).  Regardless of whether I agree or not, I can understand why some gamers would have a problem with that notion and don't consider it unreasonable.  

Action points are a completely different animal, IMHO.  They are purely a narrative/plot tool to allow a gamer more control over the randomness of dice or allow for a more cinematic flavor.  They represent something above and beyond the norm that happens only rarely, both mechanically and narratively.  When John McClane jumps off a roof as it explodes, he might use that action point to remake a DEX roll or use a Second Wind to heal before he goes unconscious.  From a narrative standpoint, they represent a moment of dramatic fiction, in which 'cool story' trumps pure mechanics.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 23, 2012)

WizarDru said:


> Stop Thrust (to pick one at random) allows the fighter to shift and attack someone who enters their range.  If he succeeds in the attack, which interrupts his target, he does damage and then immobilizes the attacker.  A powerful maneuver, to be sure, that is rightfully limited mechanically as a Daily power.  You don't want the fighter to be able to do this all the time...from a mechanical standpoint.  From a narrative standpoint, it doesn't really make any sense why he wouldn't use this technique as often as possible.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> One could understand why Conan doesn't swing his sword with all his might with every blow, for fear of tiring or throwing out his arm.



I understand the general character of the concern with martial dailies, but I think that your examples highlight, for me, why I have trouble getting my head entirely around it.

Let's take Conan first. I assume that Conan _is_ swinging his sword with all his might every blow. REH tends to write him that way. The point of a power like Brute Strike isn't that the PC swings harder - rather, it's that the _player_ gets to choose that _this_ will be a strike that hits hard!

And when we look at a power like Stop Thrust - within the fiction, it is just another instance of the fighter doing what s/he does all the time - attacks people, including moving people, and gets in their way and stops them moving. It's nothing special.

Of course, _mechanically_ it is something special: it's off-turn damage, and it let's the fighter control movement without having to hit with an opportunity attack. But I'm sure that no one thinks that the world of 4e fights is a strange stop-motion world. The whole idea of "immediate reactions" and "opportunity attacks" is just a mechanical abstraction, intended to introduce some sort of mechanical fluidity to mirror, however inadequately, the ingame fluidity of attacking and moving. And Stop Thruts is just one of the mechanics that achieves this.

So, in the fiction, there _is not Stop Thrust technique_. There's just the fighter doing what s/he always does, attacking things aggressively, including those who try to move away or move past, and thereby dominating and controlling the melee.

I don't see how the "why can't you do it again?" objection can even get off the ground, unless someone really does think that the world of the fiction is a stop motion world, and hence really does think that Stop Thrust is an observable technique that defies the reality of those bizarre stop motion physics!



WizarDru said:


> Certainly, one can create a narrative reason for why he does so...but for some gamers, this narrative leap is one they have trouble making (or at least have the desire to make).  Regardless of whether I agree or not, I can understand why some gamers would have a problem with that notion and don't consider it unreasonable.
> 
> Action points are a completely different animal, IMHO.  They are purely a narrative/plot tool to allow a gamer more control over the randomness of dice or allow for a more cinematic flavor.  They represent something above and beyond the norm that happens only rarely, both mechanically and narratively.  When John McClane jumps off a roof as it explodes, he might use that action point to remake a DEX roll or use a Second Wind to heal before he goes unconscious.  From a narrative standpoint, they represent a moment of dramatic fiction, in which 'cool story' trumps pure mechanics.



In some games, action points do not have any distinctive fictional content - they are just dice manipulators, that permit failures to be turned into successes, or successes to be increased. In HARP, for example, using a fate point can grant +50 to a roll. Turning a roll of 40 into a roll of 90 by spending a Fate Point doesn't change the fiction from if a 90 had been rolled. Likwise in Burning Wheel - spending artha to add dice is not inherently different from having those dice in your pool to beging with, from some other mechanical source.

And most martial dailies are, in my view, not different from action or fate points at all. They do exactly what you say - permit the player control over the randomness of the dice (eg by giving more dice to roll, thereby tending to ensure a higher result) and/or permitting stepping out of the rigid timing mechanics. But as I've said, those timing mechanics only exist at the metagame level, unless you really think the fictional world of 3E and 4e D&D is a strang stop motion one.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 23, 2012)

Pemerton. You just clearly have different core assumptions than people who dislike martial dailies.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Pemerton. You just clearly have different core assumptions than people who dislike martial dailies.




But, this gets to the heart of why the discussion is so frustrating.

I really don't care which ruleset is more this or more that.  I really don't.  The primary criteria for judging any mechanic is, IMO how flexible is this mechanic?  If you have two mechanics, one can only do X, and one can do X and Y, then the second mechanic is better.  And, yes, I'd say objectively better.

With Martial powers, there seems to be two objections.  The first is probably easiest to deal with:  martial powers have quasi-magical effects.  Come and Get It is the poster child here.  Powers that have no obvious correlation to the in-game fiction.  As I said, the solution here is pretty simple, don't use those mechanics.  They aren't that common, you have at least three or four other choices at any level which do map directly onto the in-game fiction and the game will certainly not break or be affected in any way by their removal.

Now, the second issue is a bit stickier.  The idea the martial powers must be repeatable.  That if I can trip someone now, why can't I trip someone else six seconds later.  And I can probably get behind this criticism a lot better.  It's hard to justify, if you insist that every power is an actual technique that the fighter is attempting to do.

I think it's fixable though.  Essentials, for example, gives us martial characters with no Dailies.  Encounter powers don't seem to be a huge issue, or at least, not as much of an issue, so, it's certainly a problem that can be resolved.  The solution here is to simply make sure that the option of having martial characters that do not use daily effects is available out of the gate.

The problem is, earlier edition combat mechanics don't include a lot of the elements that are in 4e combat.  The focus on movement, for example.  Not that I'm saying earlier edition combats were static, but, rather, they are a lot less mobile than a 4e combat.  Mobility just isn't such a big deal in earlier editions.

I'm not sure how you could take, say, 2ed combat mechanics and make them about mobility.  

The goal here, should always be to find mechanics that can satisfy the broadest approach possible.  3e multiclass mechanics are more versatile than any other edition's multiclassing mechanics.  You can adapt 3e multiclassing to any edition without a lot of work - Gestalt rules for AD&D, and Substitution levels for 4e.  Thus, I'd prefer to see 3e multiclassing rules in 5e.

4e AEDU rules are more versatile than other combat mechanics.  Thus, I'd prefer to see them in 5e than, say, Vancian casting.  Unfortunately, for me, I'm going to get over ruled on this one, but, I predict that the Vancian casting we get will look a LOT like 4e wizards.  Maybe more dailies, less encounters, but, we'll see.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I think it's fixable though.  Essentials, for example, gives us martial characters with no Dailies.  Encounter powers don't seem to be a huge issue, or at least, not as much of an issue, so, it's certainly a problem that can be resolved.  The solution here is to simply make sure that the option of having martial characters that do not use daily effects is available out of the gate.



Rather, the daily abilities are not hard-wired into the martial classes. Essentials classes can take daily utility powers, but that would be a player choice instead of something which the rules require them to do.

I think another factor which makes the Essentials martial encounter powers more palatable to some people is that they are also repeatable (once you get more than one, anyway). The answer to, "Why can't you do it again?" is, "It takes a lot of effort and I don't have it in me to do it again right now. I need to rest for five minutes first."


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 24, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> That said, I don't know Incarnates or Binders - but the Martial Adept _still_ wouldn't be tier 1.  He might be a very broken tier 2 but simply doesn't have the flexibility that makes the tier 1s impossible.




Well, most of the late-3e material couldn't reach T1 simply because they had only 1 book of their resource system (or 1/3 a book in the binder's case), while psionicists had 2 books and a smattering of powers elsewhere and Vancian casters had spells in every frakking book.  If the PHB, all of the Completes, and all of the setting books had new martial maneuvers, they could do quite a bit more.  Again, it's the power and number of individual options that make the difference, not the resource systems used.



> What it means is that if a game is balanced on four encounters/day (which is pretty Fantasy ing Vietnam to borrow the rpg.net description) and daily powers are a substantial part of the class's power then the second you try for a less hack-and-slash game and take it down to a still-extreme two fights/day, the people focussing on daily powers can nova much much harder.




Another assumption on your part.  There's nothing inherent in non-daily systems preventing people from nova-ing.  If you had a fatigue-based systems like 4e psionics, for instance, where you could boost encounter-equivalent powers into daily-equivalent powers, you can nova just as well as the casters; if you have plot points or the equivalent which you spend to activate powers and otherwise exert narrative control, you could spend more points for a bigger effect.



> "Fighter": First I'm a Ranger.  Second, stop distracting me from my shot.  Third, I'll do that when you start swinging on every chandelier you see just because you did it that once.  They are running away.  It's not worth spending the next five minutes checking my bow for cracks just because you want me to shoot fleeing enemies in the back.  I'll stick to my normal rapid fire of Twin Strike.




So if you can practically guarantee a one-hit kill on enemies with your Swarm of Arrows strike, why would you limit yourself to Twin Strikes when they'd be less effective?  It can't be bow strength, since you can pull off your Swarm of Arrows strike and Horizon Distance strike and Pin Them To The Wall strike once each day, so surely your bow could handle two or three Swarm of Arrows strikes.  It can't be a matter of tiredness, since you can do Twin Strikes for a solid 2 minutes in combat without any loss of effectiveness.

If equipment maintenance were a thing, if there were penalties for spamming moves, if combat fatigue rules were implemented, if there were situational requirements for certain maneuvers, those would be sensible limitations.  1/day/maneuver, though, just doesn't work for many people.  If you absolutely _had_ to go with daily power slots, I'd at least prefer being able to mix-and-match powers to fit the tactical consideration--the 5e fighter would be the 3e spontaneous sorcerer to the 4e fighter's Vancian wizard, as it were--but I'd obviously prefer something not daily slot-based at all.



> You could have a daily fatigue based system.  But it's a matter of power density.  If a game is expected to have four encounters per day on average to balance daily powers against encounter powers, both an average of two and consistently tight dungeoncrawls of eight are going to cause serious problems.




This isn't actually an argument for martial dailies, since the martial types would be either nova-ing or running short of dailies just like the casters.  A martial fatigue system would be better in that instance, since powers could be rationed out for longer days just like how in AD&D dungeoncrawls--at least in my experience--wizards just spread out their casting to accommodate the less-frequent spell preparation, and for shorter days they could afford to take more risks/go all out/whatever (depending on how exactly fatigue worked) because they knew to expect shorter days.



> But there's a lot more misses than hits.  And I'm not sure how balanced the T3 classes are by 4e standards.  They just aren't _absurdly_ unbalaned.




Of _course_ there are misses.  This is WotC we're talking about. 



> The single biggest, most important mechanic in D&D combat is Hit Points.  And those are the elephant in the room.  If I can accept hit points as a combat fundamental I have no problem at all with martial dailies.




The difference between HP and martial dailies is one of granularity.  If all attacks dealt 1 damage and people had a handful of HP, HP would be much less acceptable, regardless of whether you personally view HP as physical health, luck, morale, divine guidance, or whatever else; the system would be far too rigid and unrealistic even compared to the very-abstract current system ("Why can I take exactly 2 dagger hits" etc.).  The randomness, range, and other aspects of the HP system help take the edges off the glaring abstraction and allow it to be more easily rationalized.

Likewise, if you take the 1/day/power martial power system and spread it out using a fatigue system or stunt system or plot system or whatever, the ability to use multiple different powers different numbers of times per day based on the circumstances helps people swallow the abstraction and obscures the fact that, at the end of the day (no pun intended), you're still restricting a certain kind of sword swing to limited uses for balance reasons.



pemerton said:


> I don't see what's objectionable about using narrative control metagame mechanics to balance ingame abilities. I understand that the Buffy game does this. And HeroWars/Quest is a game in which metagame mechanics can be spent either on character development or on boosting die rolls, which is somewhat analogous to choosing between process simulation and narrative control. And I published an idea along these lines in a HARP/RM online fanzine in 2007, based expressly on the idea that a PC could either opt for metagame/luck based success, or ingame/skill based success.




It's fine to use narrative/metagame mechanics to balance in-game abilities.  Plot points, action points, whatever you call them are fine even in mostly-simulationist systems.  The problems come in when the narrative/metagame nature of those resources impinges on the game world generally, and on believability specifically.

Action points affect die rolls; characters can only get a vague sense of "I'm lucky that important attack against the BBEG hit!" from use of action points.  Plot points affect the narrative; characters might find it a bit coincidental that they keep finding conveniently-placed hay bales to fall on, but that's all.  Daily powers take a metagame reasoning (we need to restrict use of this power for balance reasons...) and use it to create powers with metagame restrictions (...therefore you can use each one 1/day only...) that are visible within the game world (...so it's impossible to use the same trick more than once a day even if the situation would call for it, for no logical in-game observable reason).

There's a difference between mechanics which attempt to abstract the simulation (such as ToB's encounter-maneuvers-with-recharge, which try to model the ebb and flow of combat) that lend themselves to a particular rationale and accomplish their goal more or less elegantly and mechanics which don't have a particular in-game goal in mind and don't attempt to model a particular rationale.  Encounter powers are a much simpler alternative to tracking stances, openings, momentum, and that sort of thing; the single explanation of "you can't use it again immediately because you're out of position/the enemy has his guard up at the moment/similar" works well enough, even though there are corner cases (e.g. surprised opponents) that make it not work as well.  Daily powers have no such single explanation, and even if they did there's no in-game rationale daily powers serve that couldn't be better served by a different resource system.



> Who are "they" in this clause? Nothing in the rule books calls out martial dailies as process simulation abilties. And treating them as essentially metagame abilities is a pretty obvious option for anyone familiar with the idea.




The _lack_ of verbiage differentiates them, actually.  All of the powers' fluff describe in-game occurrences that seem mundane enough (e.g. Reaving Strike, Fighter 19: "You swing your weapon in a terrific arc, hitting with such force that your foe stumbles backward."), the powers aren't significantly different thematically from at-will and encounter powers (that is, there's no distinction along the lines of "encounter powers boost your attacks, daily powers negatively impact opponents because plot" or the like), and all of the other powers in the game are treated as if they are actually being used that way in-game.



> The rulebooks themselves somewhat gloss over the issue, in much the same way as D&D traditionally glosses over the issue of what hit points represent (if anything).




You mean aside from the definition of HP provided in each edition's DMG? 



pemerton said:


> Let's take Conan first. I assume that Conan _is_ swinging his sword with all his might every blow. REH tends to write him that way. The point of a power like Brute Strike isn't that the PC swings harder - rather, it's that the _player_ gets to choose that _this_ will be a strike that hits hard!
> 
> And when we look at a power like Stop Thrust - within the fiction, it is just another instance of the fighter doing what s/he does all the time - attacks people, including moving people, and gets in their way and stops them moving. It's nothing special.
> 
> ...




So the fighter is always doing fighter-y stuff, and is always attempting to control enemies' movements.  Why is Stop Thrust only ever successful once per day?  Why is any other daily power only ever successful once per day?  Why can a 17th-level fighter only push a target 3 squares and follow immediately (Mountain Breaking Blow) once per day, why can't he follow up every time he pushes someone?  Why is attacking and moving away again (Harrying Blow, Fighter 17) not something you can keep doing over and over again?  Mechanically, we know that being able to continue pushing someone away from the party or being able to keep out of range of an enemy's attacks is abusable, but narratively why _wouldn't_ you, say, keep away a squad of soldiers by continually attacking the nearest one and moving away so as not to be surrounded, or keep pushing soldiers away to keep them separated?



> In some games, action points do not have any distinctive fictional content - they are just dice manipulators, that permit failures to be turned into successes, or successes to be increased. In HARP, for example, using a fate point can grant +50 to a roll. Turning a roll of 40 into a roll of 90 by spending a Fate Point doesn't change the fiction from if a 90 had been rolled. Likwise in Burning Wheel - spending artha to add dice is not inherently different from having those dice in your pool to beging with, from some other mechanical source.
> 
> And most martial dailies are, in my view, not different from action or fate points at all. They do exactly what you say - permit the player control over the randomness of the dice (eg by giving more dice to roll, thereby tending to ensure a higher result) and/or permitting stepping out of the rigid timing mechanics. But as I've said, those timing mechanics only exist at the metagame level, unless you really think the fictional world of 3E and 4e D&D is a strang stop motion one.




And that point is a key difference between the two.  If you spend an action point to change a roll of 7 to a roll of 13 and thereby turn a miss into a hit, not this event could have happened anyway--there is no observable aspect of it in-game to make it different from any other lucky roll.  If, however, you have this really cool move that would be really handy against the goblins you're facing, but can only use it once, there's a disconnect between the metagame and the fiction.  That's what makes the one more acceptable than the other.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2012)

EL Lord said:
			
		

> And that point is a key difference between the two. If you spend an action point to change a roll of 7 to a roll of 13 and thereby turn a miss into a hit, not this event could have happened anyway--there is no observable aspect of it in-game to make it different from any other lucky roll. If, however, you have this really cool move that would be really handy against the goblins you're facing, but can only use it once, there's a disconnect between the metagame and the fiction. That's what makes the one more acceptable than the other.




Only if you insist that that cool move is something that the character distinctly knows in game and not simply a meta-game construct, identical to an Action Point.  The reason you can do that Daily NOW, is because the player has decided to influence the in-game fiction to determine that it happens now.  He cannot do it later, for exactly the same reason that you cannot change the die roll later.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 24, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> If, however, you have this really cool move that would be really handy against the goblins you're facing, but can only use it once, there's a disconnect between the metagame and the fiction. That's what makes the one more acceptable than the other.




A "really cool move" that is useful in all situations would be an At-Will ability, in 4e Martial terms. Anything else, such as a Stop Thrust, is situationally useful. Use it at the wrong time, and the blow it's trying to block goes straight through and kills you. Or scores the point, if you're a sports fencer. That's why you don't use a Stop Thrust all the time.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Only if you insist that that cool move is something that the character distinctly knows in game and not simply a meta-game construct, identical to an Action Point.  The reason you can do that Daily NOW, is because the player has decided to influence the in-game fiction to determine that it happens now.  He cannot do it later, for exactly the same reason that you cannot change the die roll later.



Yeah OK, I get the point of metagame mechanics like this. They were popularized by the Forge gaming scene for use in game designs highly focused on Narrativist play.

My question is: does the martial daily in 4e actually serve a legit Narrativist purpose?

In your average 4e combat, does giving the player the ability to choose when they blow their daily actually help them to address a premise and create a theme?

I don't think it does. In fact I think that question sounds deeply silly. Pretty sure the average 4e game is just a goofy fantasy dungeonbash, just like the average game in any other edition of D&D.

What the 4e martial daily does is make it easy to balance martial characters by doing it in the most obvious and boring way possible (imo).

I see it as *lazy* to throw "process-simulation" under the bus so readily to accomplish this design goal. And unwise when the goal is one that many D&D players say they don't really care about much anyway (class balance).


----------



## FireLance (Apr 24, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> I see it as *lazy* to throw "process-simulation" under the bus so readily to accomplish this design goal. And unwise when the goal is one that many D&D players say they don't really care about much anyway (class balance).



There are also quite a number of D&D players who say that they do care about class balance. While the relative importance of process simulation and balance is debatable, and may actually vary from gamer to gamer, I would say that neither is unimportant.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 24, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> You mean aside from the definition of HP provided in each edition's DMG?



Come over to the Falling Damage thread or the April 3rd thread (which is another hp/surge discussion) and I think you'll see that those essays leave room for a lot of variation in interpretation of hp!



Eldritch_Lord said:


> Daily powers take a metagame reasoning (we need to restrict use of this power for balance reasons...) and use it to create powers with metagame restrictions (...therefore you can use each one 1/day only...) that are visible within the game world (...so it's impossible to use the same trick more than once a day even if the situation would call for it, for no logical in-game observable reason).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



This is where I believe the crux lies.

I simply don't agree that martial dailies represent special techniques that are distinctive in the gameworld.

Take Stop Thrust again. That is a shift then attack (as a reaction) then immobilise. Contrast it to the following sequence of at-will manoeuvres - the fighter moves on his/her turn, to a square where s/he thinks an enemy might try to move past. The enemy moves past. The fighter takes an opportunity attack, hits and therefore stops the enemy's motion. Mechanically, these are different things. In the fiction, I contend that they are indistinguishable. Because in the fiction there is no such thing as an opportunity attack, an immediate reaction, etc. The fiction is not a world of turn-based attacks and movement.

What the daily does, in the case of Stop Thrust, is not to change the fiction, but to give the player an opportunity to exploit aspects of the metagame resolution methods (action economy, turns, movement rules etc) to produce a more desirable outcome, of his/her fighter hitting a moving target and pinning it down. But it doesn't change the fiction, any more than using a fate point to change a die roll changes the fiction.

Now if the retort is "It's still noticable that, 1x/day, the fighter gets lucky with his/her manoevring and pinning of foes", I would say that (i) the same pattern of daily luck would be visible in a system in which players got one fate point per game day, or even per adventure ("Every time we go on an expedition, there's always a haystack at the bottom of the first cliff you fall over!"), but (ii) just as random patterns of dice rolls would even that out in the fate point mechanic, so the random patterns of hitting and missing and NPCs drawing or not drawing oppy's and the like will even it out in the case of the fighter with Stop Thrust.

Furthermore, (iii) 4e has numerous mechanical features (it's feats, for examle, and it's item and class build rules too) which push in favour of specialisation. So a fighter built with one forced movement power probably has others, to maximise synergy. And then it's no longer the case that (for example) the fighter can only push and follow 3 times per day. Because somtimes the fighter pushes and follows using Footwork Lure. Sometimes the fighter pushes using an encounter power, and then follows using an ordinary move action. (And the difference between these is not discernible in the fiction, unless we assume that the fiction is about a stop motion world.) And it's not even observable in the fiction that only once per day is it a push 3, because sometimes the fighter uses Mountain Breaking Blow in a small room, and the maximum push is 1 or 2. Or sometime the fighter uses some other power in combination with an enhancer of some sort, and the push is greater than it normally would be, and now s/he is pushing 3 more than once per day.

Maybe the fighter in my game is unusually coherent in his build, but he uses Footwork Lure, 3 close burst attacks (Come and Get It, the 3rd level Sweep that adds STR to hit, and Battle Cry from the Warrior Priest paragon path), and one or two daily powers that give forced movement against multiple targets (Brazen Assault perhaps?). He gets out-of turn attacks via oppys, combat challenge, Jackal Strike, Strikebacks, and maybe one or two other things I'm forgetting.And his weapon of choice is a polearm (with all the usual stuff: Rushing Cleats, Polearm Momentum, Polearm Gamble etc). The fiction for this character is pretty simple: if an enemy gets even a little bit close, the fighter drags that enemy in with deft polearm work, and the enemy is not getting out again. He attacks fast, he attacks long, the 10' or 15' around him is basically a ring of polearm steel that he utterly controls.

Now I've got not doubt that it's possible to build a PC where the relationship between power choice, power usage and fiction maximises every possible point of strangeness, and minimimises the smoothness of the story. If people are building fighters whose fiction on every occasion is as corner case as (pre-errata) Come and Get It with a dagger against a group of pike wielders, then I can see where problems might arise. I don't know how many people are building such fighters, although I would think (like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] says) there are plenty of other options available.

I think rangers are pretty close to fighters in this respect, as far as the amenability of their dailies to being incorporated into a consistent fiction. I don't know rogues as well, and maybe they have more distinctively tricky things for their dailies? I've never heard rogues called out as a special case, though.

And as far as warlords are concerned, I would think it's obvious that heaps of their abilities - their healing, their granting of extra movement and attacks, etc - are working at the metagame level. Even more than Stop Thrust, these are powers that manipulate the mechancis, but in the fiction don't exist as distinct manoeuvres, but just reflect the extra "oomph" and coordination of a fighting team guided by a tactical genius.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> there's no in-game rationale daily powers serve that couldn't be better served by a different resource system.



I don't think there is any ingame rationale for martial daily powers. I think they're entirely a metagame device. The martial PC only knows that s/he is pretty hot at what s/he does, and every now and then it all comes together!



Bedrockgames said:


> Pemerton. You just clearly have different core assumptions than people who dislike martial dailies.



If you mean, assumptions about the desirability of metagame mechanics? Sure.

If you mean, assumptions about the desirability of metagame mechanics that are quite different in play from fate points? Sure.

But if you mean an assumption that martial dailies _are_ metagame in nature, then I'm not sure I agree. I mean, if someone could tolerate or even enjoy martial dailies were they metagame, but is put off _only because_ they've become persuaded that they are process simulation, then I would deny that I'm making a different assumption: rather, I'm telling that person that they can have what they want. That's there's no reason to read martial dailies as process simulation, and every reason to treat them as metagame.

In particular, as I've emphasised, the first step is to remember that the world of the fiction is not a stop motion one - the turn structure is just a mechanical device for adjudicating play.

(I would add - it's striking to me how quickly and easily the turn structure has been incorporated into the unstated assumptions many players make about the nature of the D&D world. Like hp as meat. Whereas earlier editions of D&D, even with their initiative roles, all had variations on continuous action in a round. As soon as you realise that the turn structure does not correspond to anything in the gameworld, it becomes obvious that a power like Stop Thrust can't easily represent any distinctive technique within the fiction - because in the fiction there is no such category of action as "immediate reaction", which makes sense only relative to the mechanical turn structure.)


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 24, 2012)

FireLance said:


> There are also quite a number of D&D players who say that they do care about class balance. While the relative importance of process simulation and balance is debatable, and may actually vary from gamer to gamer, I would say that neither is unimportant.



That's cool, I'm happy as long as that's recognized as basically the issue -- AEDU as a balancing technique, rather than AEDU as a narrativist technique.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 24, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> A "really cool move" that is useful in all situations would be an At-Will ability, in 4e Martial terms. Anything else, such as a Stop Thrust, is situationally useful. Use it at the wrong time, and the blow it's trying to block goes straight through and kills you. Or scores the point, if you're a sports fencer. That's why you don't use a Stop Thrust all the time.



My XP comment got cut off. I was going to say that what you describe here is another way to do dailies (or at least some dailies), for those who prefer process simulation over metagame mechanics.


----------



## Zustiur (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Only if you insist that that cool move is something that the character distinctly knows in game and not simply a meta-game construct, identical to an Action Point.



Wording plays a part in this. Calling them 'powers' or 'martial exploits' implies that they are learned or possessed in some manner. Not that they are ways of controlling the narrative.
Secondly; the fact you have to choose between them as you level up - effectively choosing what your character does or does not know how to do - contributes to the 'character distinctly knows' mentality. 
Thirdly; The fact you can choose when to use a power makes a huge contribution. With wizards there is no question that he's casting fireball because he (the character) wants to cast fireball. Yet with martial characters, you're saying that the character has no choice in whether he can lunge right now, or whether he can attempt a hit and run. The wizard's chance of success is determined only by the dice. The fighter's chance of success is determined by the dice, AND by 'fate' (where fate is the player's choice).

By forcing all character types to use the same AEDU mechanic, the game forces players to think differently about the situation.
In 0-3E, the fighter is trying his hardest all the time, and the dice determine the outcome.
In 4E, the fighter has to wait for the right opportunity in order to try his hardest. 
It's a question of where the limitation is coming from. With wizards, the character is limited by his own abilities. With fighters, the character is limited by something entirely outside of his own abilities. That discrepancy isn't sitting well with a lot of players. It makes sense for Vancian wizards to run out of spells. It doesn't make sense for fighters to run out of opportunities.

Whether a player likes it or not seems to boil down to, "Do you like, or dislike, being able to control the story as a player _in this metagame manner_?"
The more I read about martial powers and action points being the player's way of exerting choice onto the story, the less I like them. This thread is making more aware of why I don't like them.

If we are handing over control of combat outcomes to the dice, why are we then including mechanics that allow us to control the dice instead? Why not have the dice determine when an encounter or daily power kicks in, rather than the standard at-will attack? That would fit better with the idea that the dice are determining the outcomes of the combat. It would also resolve the issue of explaining why the opportunity only comes up occasionally - the dice only roll that way occasionally.


You'd be left with a interesting balance issue.
Fighters might be able to achieve their 'dailies' multiple times in a day because the dice rolled well, while wizards would be stuck with their daily limit, but would have control over when to use their powers.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 24, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Well, most of the late-3e material couldn't reach T1 simply because they had only 1 book of their resource system




Let me stop you right there.  With just the PHB (and the MM1) the big three (C/W/D) are already Tier 1.  The Artificer only knows its writeup and the DMG items.



> Another assumption on your part. There's nothing inherent in non-daily systems preventing people from nova-ing.




You don't have as much to nova. 



> If you had a fatigue-based systems like 4e psionics, for instance, where you could boost encounter-equivalent powers into daily-equivalent powers, you can nova just as well as the casters;




Because what you have there is a daily system.  It's the being on different recharge cycles that allows the novaing, not that one's powers the other fatigue.  A wizard in classic D&D can force most of a day's power through in short order.  A fighter doesn't have this choice to nova because he doesn't have such a pacing mechanic.



> So if you can practically guarantee a one-hit kill on enemies with your Swarm of Arrows strike, why would you limit yourself to Twin Strikes when they'd be less effective?




Which powers can practically guarantee a one hit kill?  And why would you save your strength?  That said, I'm going to reiterate that I think you want the Essentials Martial Classes - they generally have no daily powers and the encounter power essentials fighters and rangers get is Power Strike (+1[W] damage after rolling to hit and they can use it several times).



> Of _course_ there are misses. This is WotC we're talking about.




Surprisingly few balance misses in 4e.



> Likewise, if you take the 1/day/power martial power system and spread it out using a fatigue system or stunt system or plot system or whatever, the ability to use multiple different powers different numbers of times per day based on the circumstances helps people swallow the abstraction and obscures the fact that, at the end of the day (no pun intended), you're still restricting a certain kind of sword swing to limited uses for balance reasons.




Fair enough.



> So the fighter is always doing fighter-y stuff, and is always attempting to control enemies' movements. Why is Stop Thrust only ever successful once per day?




Stop Thrusts might be a bad example to use.



Libramarian said:


> Yeah OK, I get the point of metagame mechanics like this. They were popularized by the Forge gaming scene for use in game designs highly focused on Narrativist play.
> 
> My question is: does the martial daily in 4e actually serve a legit Narrativist purpose?
> 
> In your average 4e combat, does giving the player the ability to choose when they blow their daily actually help them to address a premise and create a theme?




It's about player empowerment.  A fatigue system might have been better (although it would have been a whole lot spammier).  On the other hand hard coding into the rules that fighters can do seriously cool things was absolutely needed from a metagame perspective after 3.X.



> What the 4e martial daily does is make it easy to balance martial characters by doing it in the most obvious and boring way possible (imo).




Most obviosu from a design perspective.  But the results at the table are a different matter.  A fatigue system normally leads to whole cases of spam as there's one trick that works better.  And a fatigue-and-cumulative-penalty sytem is an extra layer of bookkeeping.

QUOTE=Libramarian;5889266]That's cool, I'm happy as long as that's recognized as basically the issue -- AEDU as a balancing technique, rather than AEDU as a narrativist technique.[/QUOTE]

I've drifted the game into At will/Scene/Episode pacing.  The daily recharge has IMO not been good for anything.  (This goes for all editions).



Zustiur said:


> By forcing all character types to use the same AEDU mechanic, the game forces players to think differently about the situation.
> In 0-3E, the fighter is trying his hardest all the time, and the dice determine the outcome.
> In 4E, the fighter has to wait for the right opportunity in order to try his hardest.




Let me rephrase that statement.  In 0-3e _fighters can not pace themselves_.  And pacing yourself is one of the key skills of any sort of athlete.  Which means that in 0-3E, by "Trying his hardest all the time" fighters are not even close to fighting smartly.  Now a fatigue system (with the inherent spam) might have worked better.  But the ability to pace yourself is a vast leap forward over any previous PHB fighter.



> If we are handing over control of combat outcomes to the dice, why are we then including mechanics that allow us to control the dice instead?




Player empowerment?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 24, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> Wording plays a part in this. Calling them 'powers' or 'martial exploits' implies that they are learned or possessed in some manner. Not that they are ways of controlling the narrative.
> Secondly; the fact you have to choose between them as you level up - effectively choosing what your character does or does not know how to do - contributes to the 'character distinctly knows' mentality.
> Thirdly; The fact you can choose when to use a power makes a huge contribution. With wizards there is no question that he's casting fireball because he (the character) wants to cast fireball. Yet with martial characters, you're saying that the character has no choice in whether he can lunge right now, or whether he can attempt a hit and run. The wizard's chance of success is determined only by the dice. The fighter's chance of success is determined by the dice, AND by 'fate' (where fate is the player's choice).




I think that does a good job of explaining one aspect of the disconnect with martial dailies in 4e. I'd add that I think the issue could have been made much better, conceptually, if the daily exploits had all been built off of encounter power the PCs had already selected. If, for example, each encounter power had a "daily" level of achievement listed with it that could be obtained by spending a martial daily token (the number the PC gets is equal to the number of dailies he be able to expend at that level), then the system would have been a little easier to accept. The daily would more clearly fit in as an element of a chosen fighting style, just raised to be an exceptional success of that particular maneuver.

I think there are several other ideas that could have been incorporated for martial dailies that would have been better than the AEDU structure without being more than a step or two away from it. I think another would be to give the martial characters daily tokens again, let them choose their daily powers, and then use them by expending the tokens but allowing them to choose to use said daily multiple times as long as they have tokens to power it. Then the mechanic becomes a lot closer to 3e's rage in concept - exhaustion becomes an easier to rationalize reason for the limited uses.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 24, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I think that does a good job of explaining one aspect of the disconnect with martial dailies in 4e. I'd add that I think the issue could have been made much better, conceptually, if the daily exploits had all been built off of encounter power the PCs had already selected. If, for example, each encounter power had a "daily" level of achievement listed with it that could be obtained by spending a martial daily token (the number the PC gets is equal to the number of dailies he be able to expend at that level), then the system would have been a little easier to accept. The daily would more clearly fit in as an element of a chosen fighting style, just raised to be an exceptional success of that particular maneuver.
> 
> I think there are several other ideas that could have been incorporated for martial dailies that would have been better than the AEDU structure without being more than a step or two away from it. I think another would be to give the martial characters daily tokens again, let them choose their daily powers, and then use them by expending the tokens but allowing them to choose to use said daily multiple times as long as they have tokens to power it. Then the mechanic becomes a lot closer to 3e's rage in concept - exhaustion becomes an easier to rationalize reason for the limited uses.




A thing I've thought about be to give the Martial classes a larger variety of At-Will powers, including ones that could be used as interrupts or reactions. Then each one would have an associated encounter/daily-type ability that would activate when you exceeded the to-hit score by 4 or more. So You'd have the At-Will _Shield Bash_ and if you rolled high enough then you could get an extra effect, perhaps knocking someone over or dazing them for a round. So you would always have a chance of pulling off a special manoeuvre, but wouldn't be gauranteed it.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> That's cool, I'm happy as long as that's recognized as basically the issue -- AEDU as a balancing technique, rather than AEDU as a narrativist technique.




This I largely agree with.  AEDU is mostly a balancing technique.  D&D is about as Narrativist as it is Simulationist.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2012)

Zustiur said:
			
		

> If we are handing over control of combat outcomes to the dice, why are we then including mechanics that allow us to control the dice instead? Why not have the dice determine when an encounter or daily power kicks in, rather than the standard at-will attack? That would fit better with the idea that the dice are determining the outcomes of the combat. It would also resolve the issue of explaining why the opportunity only comes up occasionally - the dice only roll that way occasionally.




I think that this idea has legs.  

The major problem with this system though, is that it's fiddly.  Say you balance the "big effect" powers by giving each a sort of "activation threshold".  Instead of simply having a critical hit, you have a series of powers that activate if you roll above a certain number.

Cool idea actually.  I could see it being a bit problematic at higher levels of play.  If you have eight or ten different effects possible, then it could be a PITA to keep track of.  ((I rolled a 15, hrm, that means I could do this or this or this or this or this....))  Doesn't have to work that way, but it's an issue you'd have to be careful of.

I'd also key it to die roll only and not to total attack value.  Although, thinking about it, you could even simply have a single series of effects, the higher your total attack value, the bigger the effect.  The old 2e Grapple and Unarmed Combat rules had a similar table - your damage and chance for KO was based on your die roll, not an actual damage roll.

I could see this as a fairly easy modification of the existing power system.  You simply have a grid based on die roll.  As the PC gains levels, you add new powers to whichever number is applicable.  

Hrm... I think this could work.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> ... I could see this as a fairly easy modification of the existing power system. You simply have a grid based on die roll. As the PC gains levels, you add new powers to whichever number is applicable.
> 
> Hrm... I think this could work.




I did something similar with my hybrid Fantasy Hero/D&D/homebrew combat mix several years ago. Once you go there, it is also handy to leverage the Hero "burnout" mechanic instead of slots. That is, the upper ends of that die roll you mentioned can give you some nifty extras, but the lower end can give you some nasty side effects. You don't want it balanced 50/50 for nifty/nasty, but a little bit of nasty on the lower end gives ones pause.

Note that a nasty effect still allows this attempt to work. You hit for normal damage, but damage your sword in the process. Oops. You hit for normal damage, but burn out your magic missile conduit in the process, recharge only on rest. And so forth. Now you don't have to track slots at all, or even worry about pacing with at-will, encounter, 5 minutes, scene, daily, adventure, power points, etc. during the fight. Those only matter on recharge once something goes down or is damaged. Thus, a "daily" power is one that you can use at-will, same as any other, but any nasty results that diminish or burnout that power stay until the next major rest.

Ideally, such a system would also come with an option to let the player choose whether to risk the nasty for the nifty, or not. So in a short skirmish with a couple of orcs, the fighter can choose to use normal attacks and not risk any such damage. Go for the extras in a tough fight, risk the drawbacks--your choice.

In previous versions, this wouldn't work well in D&D, because about all a fighter had to fall back on was extra weapons. (That is, a wizard risks burning out a particular spell, while the fighter risk burning out his main weapon, there not being anything else attached to the weapon to burn out instead.) But in something built with 4E-style "powers", but balanced for repeatable "encounter" or "daily" options, this can work. Alternately, weapon usage or something else can be expanded to embody such effects, so that the fighter has multiple options to risk for such rewards. Perhaps "maneuvers" as they have discussed.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> This I largely agree with. AEDU is mostly a balancing technique. D&D is about as Narrativist as it is Simulationist.




It is not the AEDU that helps 4E support narrative play, though the player getting to pick *when* the EDU part happens does open up a little room.  The main thing about 4E powers that support narrative play is that they are effect-driven instead of process/result-driven.  (This is similar to how some of the early Forge Narrative play happened in Champions, with its effect-based mechanics.)  You could get at least 80% of the same result with all at-will powers, as long as they were effect-based powers.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 24, 2012)

I think it's worth pointing out that Essentials appears to have internalized the idea that Daily Martial powers did not sit well with some players.  I know I was confused when we realized that the Knight had no Dailies.  It bugged my wife, who had taken that class, because she found she suddenly lacked a 'big hit', similar to what she had with the 4E fighter.  

Which should highlight that different players see it as a problem or not.  When I played a 4E fighter, I didn't have a problem with the fact that I could only use 'Villain's Menace' once per day.  It was a 'boss-killer' and the meta-game nature of it didn't bother affect my enjoyment of the narrative.  I accepted it as a meta-game mechanic.  I don't see it the same as an action point, because the action point increases player agency and is far more utilitarian than a daily power: it can heal, it can harm and it can often be used to do something outside of the range of normal ability (at least with the DMs I game with, myself included).  It's also worth noting that action points accumulate, while dialies do not.  A daily is a special trick that can only be used once a day like a magic bean, while an action point is something that replenishes as the adventurer continues to adventure.

The argument that dailies are 'special moments' where the martial character simply does better than normal only applies if you ignore many of them don't emulate that behavior terribly well.  You only need to look at stances (of which there are currently 358, only 40 of which are NOT dailies).  You either have to accept the meta-game aspect or the fiction, for some people, makes no sense.  Aragorn can pass easily through dense terrain...once in a while, when he feels like it.  Sometimes Gimli can do amazing things against an unwary opponent, but other times he can't do anything but basic attacks.  For some players, that can break them out of the fiction of the game and they find that unsatisfying.

For my part, it doesn't bother me at all, but I can understand why some people would have a problem with it.  We periodically come to 'well, the rules don't say 'No' moments in 4E, where the rules have clearly been streamlined to make a faster playing game, even if it occasionally sacrifices believability to do so.  We usually just say, 'Hmm. Well, it makes things much easier if it works this way...let's say this happens and move on'.  I can imagine some groups are completely derailed by such events.

But as billd91 points out, the AEDU system (like the Vancian system) is not beholden to alternate implementations to address such concerns.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> T1 and T3 classes don't have inherently different resource systems.  There are T1 and T3 Vancian casters and psionicists, the T1 casters simply have access to more spells/powers within their system.



That's radically different resources.  



> And that's my point.  You seem to think that "using daily powers" inherently means "more powerful than any other resource system."  It doesn't.



It's just worked out that way before, quite consistently.  Limited-use abilities are compensated with greater powers.  When players find ways around the limitations, they become overpowered.  Even when they show restraint and don't, those abilities make them the star of the show.



> Just use whatever explanation works at the time?  Really?



Yes, really.  



> Rogue: "We have them on the ropes, Mr. Fighter!  Shoot them with your Swarm of Arrows Technique!"




Fighter: "Are you speaking in tongues again, Exnur?  I don't even carry a bow.  And another thing, why can't you ever remember my name?  It's insulting."  




> And what part of "there are ways to make martial sources equally powerful that don't involve 1/day restrictions on powers" isn't getting through?



The part where it's been tried many times and invariably and completely failed.




> Yet 4e martial dailies look almost like an attempt to give one power source narrative mechanics while other power sources have internally-consistent or simulationist mechanics



4e doesn't give detailed rationales of how any powers work.  The mechanics of a wizard preparing spells are one thing, but the nature of arcane magic is left entirely undefined, as is why an arcane daily is daily (it's not quite vancian memorization, since a wizard can prepare at-will or encounter utilities, and can still recharge his dailies without his spellbook, just not swap them around). Martial characters are said to be 'superhuman, not supernatural,' but no reasoning is given for some of their exploits being at-will and others 1/encounter.

That's all added by the player.  You choose to come up with rationales for arcane dailies that work for you, and rationales for martial dailies that don't.  That issue is entirely in your head.  The system is fine.  It's balanced, it's consistent, it's fairly easy to use.  If you can't figure out how to play a martial character, don't play one, but don't deny the rest of us the option to do so.



> To be fair, the designers weren't trying to balance the 3e classes, they were trying to unify and upgrade the core while porting everything else over mostly unchanged.



Balance has always been a goal of the game.  It's just a goal that prior eds failed badly at.  3e, perhaps even a little worse than AD&D, which, while positively crazy, at least could be used by the DM to pound casters out of a dominant position by sufficiently emphasizing their many weaknesses and limitations, or to build up an overshadowed character by dropping a sufficiently powerful an exclusive-use item in his lap.  In 3e, with commoditized magic items, new spells every level, and with concentration and save DCs susceptible to rampant powergaming, the top-tier was the exclusive domain of full casters.  In AD&D, balance was poor, but it at least didn't always break in the same direction, and there was not enough player control of character development to enable 'optimized builds.'
In 4e, balance still isn't perfect, and magic items still commodities and optimizing builds still an option, but at least the top tier of classes is a lot more diverse, with only truly benighted and un-supported classes like the Seeker out in the cold.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Only if you insist that that cool move is something that the character distinctly knows in game and not simply a meta-game construct, identical to an Action Point.  The reason you can do that Daily NOW, is because the player has decided to influence the in-game fiction to determine that it happens now.  He cannot do it later, for exactly the same reason that you cannot change the die roll later.






pemerton said:


> This is where I believe the crux lies.
> 
> I simply don't agree that martial dailies represent special techniques that are distinctive in the gameworld.
> 
> ...




As I mentioned earlier, and as Zustiur so eloquently expanded on, the disconnect between "This is real in the game world" and "This is a metagame thing" is a deal breaker.  Your wizard can use particular spells, he can talk about his powers in-game, he can strategize about using them, because they are game world artifacts.  Your fighter, though, is in some sort of hazy nebulous state where he just fights, and can do some things some of the time and can't do them other times for no particularly consistent reason.  You can tell your wizard to Fireball the goblins rushing towards you, but not tell your fighter to Stop Thrust the one getting away, because apparently fighters don't have individual techniques, they have dramatically appropriate openings.

It's that vague middle state that I really object to.  Completely disconnect the fighter mechanics from the game and make them purely dramatic/plot appropriate abilities, and we're fine.  Completely immerse them in the game and make them individual techniques, and we're fine.  Make them halfway immersed sort-of techniques that sort-of work some of the time, and that doesn't really do it for me.



Neonchameleon said:


> Let me stop you right there.  With just the PHB (and the MM1) the big three (C/W/D) are already Tier 1.  The Artificer only knows its writeup and the DMG items.




*sigh*

Once again, breadth of options.  There are 200-some spells for the wizard alone in the PHB; there are 180-some maneuvers for the swordsage in ToB.  The warmage came along late in 3e, but even with that much material to reference it only got some spells from the PHB and Complete Arcane, so a sorcerer with broader access does blasting better than the warmage.  The Big 5 have access to the most powerful things in 3e, the alternate systems only have access to one book: their own.  _Which_ one book it is really matters.



> You don't have as much to nova.
> 
> Because what you have there is a daily system.  It's the being on different recharge cycles that allows the novaing, not that one's powers the other fatigue.  A wizard in classic D&D can force most of a day's power through in short order.  A fighter doesn't have this choice to nova because he doesn't have such a pacing mechanic.




I believe you're being deliberately obtuse here.  By "daily system" I am, and consistently have been, referring to the 4e martial daily model where you get to use each power a certain fixed number of times per day.  Having a certain number of points to turn encounters into dailies, _similar to but not identical with_ 4e psionics, may be a daily system if it has a fixed number of points, or it might not if it works differently (e.g. you regenerate X fatigue points after each encounter, or you can spend HP/penalize defenses/whatever to gain more, or the like).



> Which powers can practically guarantee a one hit kill?  And why would you save your strength?




If you're facing minions, a 3-hit power can kill more than Twin Strike.  If you've already damaged some enemies, using a 4[W] daily power on them is better than using a 2[W] encounter power.



> Surprisingly few balance misses in 4e.




I would note for the record that 4e _is_ the edition where a mid-level character was built who could one-shot Orcus a week before the game was even released, where flurries of errata fixed and changed tons of material before Essentials came out, and where Twin Strike is the best striker at-will in the game. 


On a general note, we _do_ agree on the most important point, that fighters need a resource system to allow them to pace themselves, to strategize, to be balanced with other resource-system classes, and so forth.  We simply disagree on the best way to achieve it.  I want the martial resource system to be as explicable in-game as the other sources, to give a unique play experience, and to provide interesting mechanical options.  These don't seem to be priorities to you, but I'm arguing that 5e could come up with a martial subsystem that satisfies both your goals and my goals, it's just that that system isn't martial daily powers as expressed in 4e.  The aim of martial dailies is one I fully endorse, I just dislike the execution.


----------



## triqui (Apr 26, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Just use whatever explanation works at the time?  Really?
> 
> Rogue: "We have them on the ropes, Mr. Fighter!  Shoot them with your Swarm of Arrows Technique!"
> 
> ...




Doesn't this work as well for 3.X style of resources? I mean, a Paladin might be too tired to smite evil again, but can lay on hands. A Monk might find a new opening for his stuning fist, but he is just out of stunning fist charges.

I also like Iron Heroes approach or ToB/Bo9S approach. But I think you can find any martial system inconsistent, if you look at it. It's almost impossible to emulate correctly the flow of a real fight.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 26, 2012)

triqui said:


> Doesn't this work as well for 3.X style of resources? I mean, a Paladin might be too tired to smite evil again, but can lay on hands. A Monk might find a new opening for his stuning fist, but he is just out of stunning fist charges.




It does indeed.  I object to the barbarian's rage being daily, Stunning Fist's uses being daily, and other martial mechanics being daily just as much as 4e daily resources.  Smite Evil, Lay on Hands, the monk's Wholeness of Body, and similar are magical abilities, so while I object to them being daily on mechanical grounds because they're too weak for daily abilities and should probably be per-encounter or per-hour or the like, the flavor supports them being limited in use.  There are a few differences between the two that are important to note, though.

1) In 3e, the number of uses of rage, Stunning Fist, etc. are variable: they increase with level, you can take feats to get more, and they all use a different pool.  This means that there isn't a hard cap on uses per day, you can have same-level characters with different numbers of uses of their abilities, and so forth.  Repeatability of a particular schtick is helpful for making daily mechanics more tolerable.

2) Not everyone has daily resources.  If you want to be someone who has his best tools with him at all times, you can be a fighter or ranger.  If you want to be someone who can pull out the big guns, you can be a barbarian or paladin.  While, again, this is bad for mechanical reasons (having a resource management system is better than not having one for power, flexibility, and creativity), it allows people who don't like daily resources to play without them.

So while I don't particularly like martial daily powers in any edition, if 5e _has_ to base martial abilities on daily uses, I'd prefer a 3e-esque implementation over a 4e-esque implementation.



> I also like Iron Heroes approach or ToB/Bo9S approach. But I think you can find any martial system inconsistent, if you look at it. It's almost impossible to emulate correctly the flow of a real fight.




As I also mentioned before, many systems are good at approximating/abstracting their mechanics in a way that supports their chosen flavor.  ToB martial maneuvers are better at mimicking the ebb and flow of combat than 4e encounter exploits because you can recover them later, so the explanation "I need the right opening" actually works--if you're facing someone helpless you can keep using the same maneuver on them, if someone is open for a round because they're stunned or dazed you can take the opportunity to recover maneuvers, and so forth, whereas 4e encounter powers are one-shot deals.  Barbarian rages are better at mimicking fatigue than 4e daily powers, as the explanation "I get tired after using them" actually makes sense--you become fatigued after each rage, which generally penalizes you, and you can't rage again while fatigued.

Resource systems can be tweaked to make them more or less coherent, and to make them fit a particular flavor better.  Making all exploits in 4e [reliable] would make them fit the "need an opening" explanation better, and allowing some sort of in-combat recharge would do this as well.  Allowing you to re-use an exploit at the cost of some fatigue penalty would make them fit the "wears you out" explanation better.  If all daily exploits are [reliable], they're not actually strictly daily powers, since you can use them as much as you want until they work; the reliable keyword was a step in the right direction, but not quite enough, and the fact that they could only _work_ once a day is still a sticking point.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> Wording plays a part in this. Calling them 'powers' or 'martial exploits' implies that they are learned or possessed in some manner.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I don't agree that build choice implies ingame choice by the PC. When I roll up my PC, I choose where to put the stats. Clearly this is a choice being made by the player, not the character.

The rules have always suggested that items bought with starting money might reflect an inheritance - this also is not the character choosing things ingame (you don't generally choose your own inheritance), it is a player choice operating at the metagame level.

Likewise choosing a martial power - this can be you choosing how your PC will excel, rather than your PC choosing to learn a new technique.

As for the "power" wording, it's a bit like "hit points" - D&D has a long history of blurring the ingame/metagame boundary in some of its rules elements. Whether this is a strength or a flaw I'm not sure, but I think it does contribute to the flexibility of the system.



Zustiur said:


> In 0-3E, the fighter is trying his hardest all the time, and the dice determine the outcome.
> In 4E, the fighter has to wait for the right opportunity in order to try his hardest.
> 
> <snip>
> ...



In my view the 4e fighter is always trying hard. The player get to choose when trying becomes success.

And daily powers _do_ control the dice (among other things). They can give bonuses to hit, increase the crit range (which is analogous to increasing the chance of rolling a crit), or increase the damage range. They can do other things do, of course.



Zustiur said:


> Why not have the dice determine when an encounter or daily power kicks in, rather than the standard at-will attack? That would fit better with the idea that the dice are determining the outcomes of the combat.



Because it would produce suck-ier play? Because it would remove the control over play that the character currently enjoys, by getting to choose when to use daily powers.



Zustiur said:


> Fighters might be able to achieve their 'dailies' multiple times in a day because the dice rolled well, while wizards would be stuck with their daily limit, but would have control over when to use their powers.



That might be a fun game. It might be balanced. Are you familiar with the rules for Adrenal Moves in Rolemaster, which resemble this a little bit? You roll to initiate the move, and then to sustain it - every roll gets harder, and when you come out of the move you have penalties roughly proportional to how long you sustained it. This is something like a system of encounter powers for fighters with effectiveness linked to die rolls rather than player choice (although the player gets to choose when to try and initiate the move).

But it would be quite a different game from 4e.



WizarDru said:


> I accepted it as a meta-game mechanic.  I don't see it the same as an action point



This right here is the respect in which it's like an action point. Obviously it's not identical - whether one sees that as part of the charm of D&D (it has all these fiddly, focused metagame mechanics like saving throws (in pre-3E D&D), hit points, martial encounters and dailies, etc) or as a problem is a matter of taste. For me, at least, it's something I like about 4e. It gives play a type of invested visceral character that I think a more abstract action point system might lack.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> Your fighter, though, is in some sort of hazy nebulous state where he just fights, and can do some things some of the time and can't do them other times for no particularly consistent reason.  You can tell your wizard to Fireball the goblins rushing towards you, but not tell your fighter to Stop Thrust the one getting away, because apparently fighters don't have individual techniques, they have dramatically appropriate openings.



Huh? In the fiction, the PCs tell the fighter to stop the goblin. The fighter tries, and does or doesn't depending on the mechanical options available to the player, and how the dice roll.

At the table, the other players say to the player of the fighter, "Can you use Stop Thrust?" "No, already used it today." "Okay, does anyone have an interrupt that can get the fighter in front of the goblin so that when it keeps moving it will draw an oppy?" "Nope, out of them too." "Bugger. I guess the goblin will get away." That's one way of working out, via the procedures of the game, that within the fiction the figthter tried but failed to stop the goblin.

Maybe my table is radically diffrent from others', but at my table these sorts of conversations - in which the players do their best to deploy their avaialable mechanical resources to succeed in their goals for their PCs - produce emotional investment, immersion in the fictional situation, and help make the game worth playing. (And the best descriptions of this sort of play that I'm aware of in published RPG rulebooks are by Luke Crane in the Burning Wheel books, especially the Adventure Burner.)



Crazy Jerome said:


> It is not the AEDU that helps 4E support narrative play, though the player getting to pick *when* the EDU part happens does open up a little room.  The main thing about 4E powers that support narrative play is that they are effect-driven instead of process/result-driven.  (This is similar to how some of the early Forge Narrative play happened in Champions, with its effect-based mechanics.)  You could get at least 80% of the same result with all at-will powers, as long as they were effect-based powers.



AEDU on its own doesn't produce narrativism. I think it supports it to some extent, though, by giving the players a degree of control that supports player-driven PC protagonism. To use the example of an escaping goblin, when this happens (say, in Runequest) just because of a series of bad dice rolls, that's one thing. But in 4e, when it is the result of a whole lot of player choices about how to manipulate and spend their mechanical resources, and the priorities that those choices reflect, it an start to become something else.



billd91 said:


> I think the issue could have been made much better, conceptually, if the daily exploits had all been built off of encounter power the PCs had already selected. If, for example, each encounter power had a "daily" level of achievement listed with it that could be obtained by spending a martial daily token (the number the PC gets is equal to the number of dailies he be able to expend at that level), then the system would have been a little easier to accept. The daily would more clearly fit in as an element of a chosen fighting style, just raised to be an exceptional success of that particular maneuver.



I would have nothing against this, although I think it has cons as well as pluses - there are dailies like Comeback Strike, for example (2W damage and spend a surge) which have no obvious Enouncter power to piggyback on, and cause no narrative trickiness at all because they are very obviosly not tecniques but just metagame plays ("Now's when my guy Comes Back! Take that, you fiends!").

But as I've posted upthread, and many times on other threads, because of the other features of 4e that reward build specialisation (eg synergies with feats, power/build interaction, paragon path etc) there is _already_ going to be high level of coherence in the typical player's power choices, I think.


----------



## Zustiur (Apr 27, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Because it would produce suck-ier play? Because it would remove the control over play that the character currently enjoys, by getting to choose when to use daily powers.
> 
> That might be a fun game. It might be balanced. Are you familiar with the rules for Adrenal Moves in Rolemaster, which resemble this a little bit? You roll to initiate the move, and then to sustain it - every roll gets harder, and when you come out of the move you have penalties roughly proportional to how long you sustained it. This is something like a system of encounter powers for fighters with effectiveness linked to die rolls rather than player choice (although the player gets to choose when to try and initiate the move).



Just to be clear; I wasn't arguing that we should adopt that system for DND, merely pointing out that it would have made more sense when coupled with the 'powers represent an opportunity in combat' rationale.




> Maybe my table is radically diffrent from others', but at my table these sorts of conversations - in which the players do their best to deploy their avaialable mechanical resources to succeed in their goals for their PCs - produce emotional investment, immersion in the fictional situation, and help make the game worth playing. (And the best descriptions of this sort of play that I'm aware of in published RPG rulebooks are by Luke Crane in the Burning Wheel books, especially the Adventure Burner.)



I can't speak for other groups, but your group certainly differs from mine. Specifically; focus on the available mechanical resources does not help our immersion in the fictional situation. Quite the opposite. 
Speaking for myself, rather than my whole group; it's the focus on mechanical resources that makes 4E feel like a board game. 



> AEDU on its own doesn't produce narrativism.



Agreed.



> I think it supports it to some extent, though, by giving the players a degree of control that supports player-driven PC protagonism. To use the example of an escaping goblin, when this happens (say, in Runequest) just because of a series of bad dice rolls, that's one thing. But in 4e, when it is the result of a whole lot of player choices about how to manipulate and spend their mechanical resources, and the priorities that those choices reflect, it an start to become something else.




I do understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree.
I think narrativism would be better supported by martial powers all being at will, but with a reduced chance of success (to accommodate balance). Attempting something a second time and failing is part of the story. Not attempting something a second time because you did it earlier removes that event from the story. We don't say, "I attempt Strike of the Manticore, but only manage to achieve Twin Strike". We say, "Bugger, I'm out of powers. I guess I'll just use Twin Strike".
Technically there's nothing to stop you describing it the first way, but I'd be truly amazed to see a group that does play that way. I find nothing narrativist about being reduced to at will attacks. In fact it is generally a sign that the battle is dragging, and thus becoming boring. That never helps the story.


(Rightly or wrongly) I've always felt that DND was a system of rules that tried to approximate the real world chance of succeeding at manual tasks. Magic notwithstanding. AEDU does nothing to simulate the real world as I see it. If anything, I feel that AEDU reverses the situation; now the story has to approximate the mechanics, instead of the mechanics approximating the story.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> (Rightly or wrongly) I've always felt that DND was a system of rules that tried to approximate the real world chance of succeeding at manual tasks. Magic notwithstanding. AEDU does nothing to simulate the real world as I see it.



I think that D&D has always had exceptions to simulation. Saving throws in pre-3E D&D (as described by Gygax in his DMG) - 3E changed this, and made them simulationist (Fort, Ref, Will). Hit points. I see 4e's AEDU, at least for martial PCs, as extending the same metagame sensibilities that gave us classic D&D saving throws, and hit points, to the realm of "active" rather than just "passive" action resolution.



Zustiur said:


> I can't speak for other groups, but your group certainly differs from mine. Specifically; focus on the available mechanical resources does not help our immersion in the fictional situation. Quite the opposite.



I'll elaborate a bit, then - not to try and convert you (!), but to explain the dynamics of what I'm talking about.

Recently in my 4e game, the 5 PCs went through a busy day that took multiple sessions to play out. Here's just a list of the encounters that took place before the PCs got an extended rest - the PCs started the day at 14th level and reached 15th part way through (after encounter (f), I think):

a) Comp 2 L14 skill challenge (as a result of which each PC lost one encounter power until their next extended rest);

b) L17 combat;

c) L15 combat;

d) L7 combat;

e) L13 combat;

f) L15 combat;

g) Comp 1 L14 skill challenge;

h) L16 combat;

i) L14 combat;

j) L13 combat;

k) Comp 1 L15 skill challenge;

l) L16 combat (the L15 solo was defeated by being pushed over a bridge down a waterfall);

m) L15 combat (the solo returned later in the night, having survived the fall and climbed back up).​
Now, encounters (g), (h), (i) and (j) took place with no short rest between them - ie on the same suite of encounter powers - with one modest exception that I will explain.

Encounter (g) was the party sorcerer being pursued on his flying carpet by hobgoblin wyvern riders, and trying (and failing - 3 fails before 4 successes) to escape them.

Encounter (h) was the other PCs going to the rescue of the sorcerer (who crash landed about 100 yards from the other PCs) with the excpetion of the paladin, who stayed behind to guard the PCs' tower and gear from the hobgoblin phalanx that suddenly swept down from the hills. The culmination of (h) involved the hobgoblins loosing their pet chimera.

Once all the opponents of (h) were dead, but the battle with the chimera was still going on, I told the players that they could see something in the distance, red and fiery, and apparently getting bigger quite quickly. And I put a die down on the table with a "3" face-up. Now the players knew that their tower had, on an earlier occasion, been visited by a fire drake, and they quickly formed a hypothesis as to what was coming. Which incentivised them in their fight with the chimera. Then, in the same round that I turned my countdown die to "1", I also gave the players an unusual choice: as a standard action, they could regain two encounter powers or spend two healing surges. All, I think, or all but 1, chose to regain two powers - which meant they didn't attack the chimera - which meant it was still standing when the dragon arrived - which complicated the first round or two of encounter (i).

Encounter (j) occurred after the dragon had been defeated. The PC chaos sorcerer commenced an attempt to harness the chaotic elemental energies he felt were escaping from the dragon. By focusing the energies in a vortex of chaos (preparatory to imbuing himself with them) he attracted the attention of nearby mooncalves. In this encounter, the PCs had (from memory) 3 healing surges between them. And defeating the mooncalves ended up turning on making the right choices about which healing abilities to use when on whom, given that they were short on surges, short on healing abilities, and had one surgeless healing item that would suck a daily item use (we use pre-errata magic item rules). In short, it turned on making hard choice about the deployment of mechanical resources.

And for my group, at least, these sorts of situations - encounters which force hard choice after hard choice - generate emotional intensity and pressure. The stakes are real and vivid. The players don't have to _imagine_ that they are under pressure, because they really are under pressure - a mis-call on the proper deployment of a power can spell the difference between success or failure. (Of course the game will go on if a PC dies, but in quite a different direction from what the players expected or were, at the time at least, hoping for.)

In the early encounters ((a) through (f)), where the resources are reasonably plentiful and the stakes therefore lower, the pressure isn't quite the same (although in my view it's to the credit of 4e's design that even in these encounters it is still fairly easy, as a GM, to create pressure). But once the players realise that the PCs are under attack by hobgoblins on wyverns - and there's a second front (the phalanx, which was backed up by ogres) - and they brought a chimera - and the firedrake is returning - and now the sorcerer's gone and conjured up some mooncalves - the pressure mounts. There is pressure in the fiction. And the mechanics, which apply a pressure of resource management to the players, generate a corresponding pressure at the table.



Zustiur said:


> Speaking for myself, rather than my whole group; it's the focus on mechanical resources that makes 4E feel like a board game.



There are many ways, I think, that I could try and set out the differecne between an RPG like 4e and a board game. But probably the most obvious, to me, in this context is the nature of the stakes. In the RPG what is at stake is a product of, is generated by, gets its significance from, the shared fiction. A board game, at least for me, just can't generate the same emotional investment in the stakes as (for example) encounter (j), in which the party is at the end of its tether, yet has to fight on, because the chaos sorcerer couldn't restrain his desire for power. Or encounter (h), in which the paladin is left to singlehandedly hold off a phalanx of hobgoblins while the rest of the party try to save the sorcerer from the assault by wyvern riders.

In a boardgame there is no protagonism. Whereas in an RPG like 4e, manipualting the mechanics is what mediates the fiction to the players and allows them to exercise their protagonism, to push their PCs through the fiction.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 27, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Huh? In the fiction, the PCs tell the fighter to stop the goblin. The fighter tries, and does or doesn't depending on the mechanical options available to the player, and how the dice roll.
> 
> At the table, the other players say to the player of the fighter, "Can you use Stop Thrust?" "No, already used it today." "Okay, does anyone have an interrupt that can get the fighter in front of the goblin so that when it keeps moving it will draw an oppy?" "Nope, out of them too." "Bugger. I guess the goblin will get away." That's one way of working out, via the procedures of the game, that within the fiction the figthter tried but failed to stop the goblin.
> 
> Maybe my table is radically diffrent from others', but at my table these sorts of conversations - in which the players do their best to deploy their avaialable mechanical resources to succeed in their goals for their PCs - produce emotional investment, immersion in the fictional situation, and help make the game worth playing. (And the best descriptions of this sort of play that I'm aware of in published RPG rulebooks are by Luke Crane in the Burning Wheel books, especially the Adventure Burner.)




That example was in response to Hussar's and your assertions that exploits don't actually correspond to anything in the gameworld, but are simply ways to abstractly influence the narrative--see Hussar's "Only if you insist that that cool move is something that the character distinctly knows in game and not simply a meta-game construct, identical to an Action Point. The reason you can do that Daily NOW, is because the player has decided to influence the in-game fiction to determine that it happens now. He cannot do it later, for exactly the same reason that you cannot change the die roll later." and your longer example.

My point was that if you're going to treat exploits that way, you have a massive disconnect between the fiction and the game for tactical (and conversational) purposes.  Out of game, the wizard's player can talk about his various blasting spells by name and their various resource costs, and this maps to the fiction explicitly: you can say "I have one Fireball prepared today and one Shock Sphere that I can recover with a few minutes rest; I should easily be able to blanket the area with arcane energy and kill all the goblins," and that same explanation _means_ something both IC and OOC.

With exploits as a metagame construct, however, out of game the fighter's player can talk about his daily and encounter powers by name and their various resource costs, but this doesn't map to the game world.  If you ask the fighter's player if he can have his character move to the first group of goblins, use Sweeping Blow, move to the second group of goblins, use Rain of Blows, move to the third group of goblins, etc., he can tell you he's already used most of his encounters already and will have to do something else after Sweeping Blow.  In the fiction, the fighter somehow knows that he only has one multi-target power left and cannot in any way hit multiple goblins--it's not even that he'll go up to each group, try to hit goblins, and somehow only manage to hit one each time, it's that unless you're blatantly ignoring your power lineup your fighter knows _during the planning_ that he can't hit multiple goblins and he should have the wizard handle that even though he multiattacked two or three times in the battle already and should have a good handle on it.

As cheesy as the ToB maneuver names could sometimes be, a warblade being able to talk about his techniques meaningfully in-game made more sense than some vague "I can do fancy moves that do stuff" explanation.  If you take that tack, the casters get to know exactly what their powers are and how often they can use them, and classes get to know their class features (e.g. the rogue knows what he needs to do to get sneak attack), but the martial types can't talk about their exploits in-game, and so sometimes making plans in the fiction can make as much sense as a protagonist in a book holding off on a particular tactic because he knows there are still 100 pages left in the book and the author wouldn't let something like that succeed until things _really_ get desperate.

In attempting to fix the "exploit restrictions don't make sense in-game" problem, the solution makes something _else_ not make sense in the fiction.  "I can always try, but not always succeed" makes sense.  "Looks like I'll only get four good openings, better make 'em count" makes some sense.  "I'm too tired to pull off anything fancy" makes sense.  "I can't pull off the specific technique you need right now because mumblemumbleplotrelevantmumble" does not make sense.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 27, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> My point was that if you're going to treat exploits that way, you have a massive disconnect between the fiction and the game for tactical (and conversational) purposes.




To me a huge issue is how long a combat round lasts.  One minute, as in AD&D is to me utterly disempowering; my fighter only gets to react to an unfolding combat situation once per minute.  The six seconds of 3.x and 4e I can live with.  It's about right (a little on the long side) for an OODA loop - the time to glance round, work out what chain of actions you want to do, and execute it - and the decision part happens at a subconscious level or it wouldn't be quick enough.  "Move there, feint out the guy on the left, Falling Silk prepared combo, and sweep the blade round to be ready for the guy on the right."  It may be what is done but talking about it in terms of techniques isn't what happens at the time.

Six seconds is just too much to condense into an always-repeatable line.  (As is an entire loop in a complex situation).  And the answer to "Why not use pin the horizon" is probably best phrased as "This isn't a &*#$ing dojo.  You practice the katas in the dojo to have the muscle memory for when things get complex."  The wizard on the other hand needs three to four seconds saying silly things or wiggling his fingers to cast the spell and this isn't a problem.  If anything the fighter turns round and mocks the wizard for having to stand still for three seconds in combat, making himself a target.



> and so sometimes making plans in the fiction can make as much sense as a protagonist in a book holding off on a particular tactic because he knows there are still 100 pages left in the book and the author wouldn't let something like that succeed until things _really_ get desperate




I have never found this disconnect.  Ever.  What the fighter says is something like "I will hold the line here."  Or "I'll chase him down and then knock him off the roof."  The matter of _how_, being a matter of muscle memory and instinctive decisions is a level of detail further than most plans are made.  Planning to that level of detail is IME doomed to failure.


----------



## triqui (Apr 27, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> It does indeed.  I object to the barbarian's rage being daily, Stunning Fist's uses being daily, and other martial mechanics being daily just as much as 4e daily resources.  Smite Evil, Lay on Hands, the monk's Wholeness of Body, and similar are magical abilities, so while I object to them being daily on mechanical grounds because they're too weak for daily abilities and should probably be per-encounter or per-hour or the like, the flavor supports them being limited in use.  There are a few differences between the two that are important to note, though.




I'm not really convinced. Those abilities aren't spells (and certainly not vancian spells). I don't see how a Paladin can say "i can't smite that demon once again today, my faith/self confidence in my god/virtue isn't strong enough. I can heal you laying my hands on you, though. I haven't tapped that part of my god/virtue yet." It's not very organic either. I'd rather have the paladin have  a "devotion" score (or whatever fancy better name the devs might use), and then use those devotion points in healing, or smiting, or maybe turning undeads or deploying a holy aura against fear or whatever.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 27, 2012)

I can't help but feel that about half the fuss over this kind of stuff are literary disputes, rather than game disputes.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 27, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I have never found this disconnect.  Ever.  What the fighter says is something like "I will hold the line here."  Or "I'll chase him down and then knock him off the roof."  The matter of _how_, being a matter of muscle memory and instinctive decisions is a level of detail further than most plans are made.  Planning to that level of detail is IME doomed to failure.




We're not talking complicated plans here, we're talking about a simple question like "Can you, Mr. Fighter, attack all 6 of those goblins in 2 rounds before they get out of range, or should we have the wizard handle that?" and the answer being "No, I can't hit more than 4 of them, guaranteed, but I can't for the life of me tell you why."



triqui said:


> I'm not really convinced. Those abilities aren't spells (and certainly not vancian spells). I don't see how a Paladin can say "i can't smite that demon once again today, my faith/self confidence in my god/virtue isn't strong enough. I can heal you laying my hands on you, though. I haven't tapped that part of my god/virtue yet." It's not very organic either. I'd rather have the paladin have  a "devotion" score (or whatever fancy better name the devs might use), and then use those devotion points in healing, or smiting, or maybe turning undeads or deploying a holy aura against fear or whatever.




Again, it would be _better_ if they were non-daily, but smite and LoH at least have some flavor justification for being daily, even if it's a tenuous one, because they're divine magical effects just like the paladin's spells.  Personally, I like to make smites per encounter and give daily refills of the LoH pool in my paladin fixes and/or allow spending Turn Undead attempts to recharge both.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 27, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> We're not talking complicated plans here, we're talking about a simple question like "Can you, Mr. Fighter, attack all 6 of those goblins in 2 rounds before they get out of range, or should we have the wizard handle that?" and the answer being "No, I can't hit more than 4 of them, guaranteed, but I can't for the life of me tell you why."




Just asking the question the way you are is breaking my suspension of disbelief.

And for the record, the fighter can attack 1 person/round at range unless he really exerts himself with an action point (please tell me you don't need that fatigue mechanic justifying).  In melee a two weapon fighter can normally attack two targets and other people one - unless they have a burst 1 or something very rare like Rain of Blows (or Rain of Steel).  Come and Get It being the obvious exception.

The ranger can manage two at range on their standard action and _might_ get an interrupt for a third.  The essentials hunter gets effectively a burst 1 rain of arrows at will as their multiattack and no dailies.

It's actually pretty consistent through the whole of heroic.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 27, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Again, it would be _better_ if they were non-daily, but smite and LoH at least have some flavor justification for being daily, even if it's a tenuous one, because they're divine magical effects just like the paladin's spells.  Personally, I like to make smites per encounter and give daily refills of the LoH pool in my paladin fixes and/or allow spending Turn Undead attempts to recharge both.



It doesn't matter if they are divine effects, it's exactly the same:

"Why can't you smite the second demon?"
"I can only smite once per day!"
"Why is that?"
"It's a divine power that can be used only once a day."
"But why only once a day?  Your god doesn't want you killing more than one evil thing a day.  Is he ok with you dying because you can't use it a second time?  Maybe he isn't godly enough to be able to allow you to smite twice a day.  Oh, you mean if you get more powerful, you'll be able to smite twice a day, so it isn't a limitation on the power of your god.  So, you are just too tired then from using it once that you can't do it again?  No?  It's 24 hours regardless of how much rest you get.  And it's generally measured by the 24 hour period of the world so that if you use 1 smite a minute before midnight you can use another 1 minute after midnight?  That makes no sense at all.

And while we're at it, why when you pray for spells does your god only give you 3 of them?  Shouldn't he give you as many as you want to better defeat your enemies?  You aren't powerful enough to contain 4 spells?  How do you become more powerful?  BELIEVE harder?  And you are able to believe harder by killing people?

I'm telling you, man, this makes no sense at all.  At least the Wizard over there makes sense.  He simply is too stupid to remember more than 3 spells at a time....but his memory gets better the more he kills people.  On second thought, that doesn't make much sense either, does it?

Screw it, let's just kill some monsters."


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 28, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Just asking the question the way you are is breaking my suspension of disbelief.
> 
> And for the record, the fighter can attack 1 person/round at range unless he really exerts himself with an action point (please tell me you don't need that fatigue mechanic justifying).  In melee a two weapon fighter can normally attack two targets and other people one - unless they have a burst 1 or something very rare like Rain of Blows (or Rain of Steel).  Come and Get It being the obvious exception.
> 
> ...




I don't see why the question is SoD-breaking at all.  In prior editions, "How many things can you hit in the next two rounds" had a definite answer that both the player and character knew, and it was consistent: if you could make 1 attack, or 2 attacks, or 3/2 attacks, you could just keep doing that.  It might require maneuvers or feats or class features, and it may vary from round to round, but in general if you max is X attacks, you can do that all day.  In real life, someone skilled with a weapon can generally tell you how many shots per minute or lunges per 10 seconds or whatever they can manage.  In 4e, sometimes the fighter can do 1, sometimes 2, sometimes 3, sometimes "however many are in reach," and the fighter _has no consistent in-world explanation why he can do 1 sometimes and 8 sometimes and only a limited number of times each._

Sweeping Blow hits everything adjacent, 1/encounter.  A 3e fighter with Whirlwind Attack, if asked "Can you go up and hit all those goblins?" says "Yes," and if asked "Can you hit that other group of goblins?" says "Yep, right away."  A 3e warblade with Mithral Tornado, if asked "Can you go up and hit all those goblins?" says "Yes," and if asked "Can you hit that other group of goblins?" says "Yeah, but I'll need to take a bit of a breather first."  A 4e fighter with Sweeping Blow, if asked "Can you go up and hit all those goblins?" says "Yes," and if asked "Can you hit that other group of goblins?" says "No."  If asked why, he says "...because?" and that's about it.

3e feats and maneuvers (combat maneuvers and ToB maneuvers) are just things a martial character can _do_.  You can count on them being able to pull that trick as many times as necessary given at most 1 round's notice.  You can plan tactically and strategically around the use of those abilities, as they are consistent, discrete, and known in-game.  Not so for 4e exploits.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> It doesn't matter if they are divine effects, it's exactly the same:
> 
> "Why can't you smite the second demon?"
> "I can only smite once per day!"
> ...




It makes plenty of sense, because it's internally-consistent.  While "It's magic, so it doesn't have to make sense" is a complete copout, "it's magic, so it follows a set of rules that happen to be different from the laws of physics" is valid.  You could have to recite the _Iliad_ while doing cartwheels to cast fireball, and that would be fine (as silly as that would look), as long as wizards know that's what they have to do to cast it and you cast a fireball if and only if you recite the _Iliad_ while doing cartwheels.

Compare:

Cleric prayer fluff: "Your god will intercede with you X+Y times per day, varying in power, and you must choose these intercessions during morning prayer.  Each of the X greater intercession may be called upon once per day, and each of the Y lesser intercessions may be called upon every few minutes."
Cleric prayer mechanics: "Your god grants you X spells per day, divided thusly among prayer levels, and Y spells per encounter, divided thusly among prayer levels.  Each spell can be cast once per day or per encounter, as noted."

This may not be how you personally would model divine intervention, but the explanation makes sense in game and the flavor matches the mechanics.

Wizard spell fluff: "You partially cast long and complicated spells to allow you to release them with a moment's notice later; they are complex rituals, and your mind can only hold X+Y spells of various circles at one time, some of which are easier for your mind to encompass than others.  Once released, a spell is gone."
Wizard spell mechanics: "You may prepare up to X spells per day, divided thusly among spell levels, and Y spells per encounter, divided thusly among spell levels.  Each spell can be cast once per day or per encounter, as noted."

This may not be how you personally would model arcane magic, but the explanation makes sense in game and the flavor matches the mechanics.

Fighter exploit fluff: "You are an accomplished warrior, with many techniques and tricks under your belt.  You have become a paragon of combat through endless hours of practice, determination, and your own sheer physical toughness, and have mastered the intricacies of combat with a skill that others simply can't match."
Fighter exploit mechanics: "You have X exploits per day, divided thusly among exploit levels, and Y exploits per encounter, divided thusly among exploit levels.  Each exploit can be used once per day or per encounter, as noted."

Whether or not this is how you personally would model martial prowess, the explanation for the mechanics doesn't make sense in game and the flavor doesn't match the mechanics.

Clerics and wizards can talk intelligently in-game about how their spell system works.  Fighters cannot do the same with their exploit system.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 28, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> I don't see why the question is SoD-breaking at all.  In prior editions, "How many things can you hit in the next two rounds" had a definite answer that both the player and character knew, and it was consistent: if you could make 1 attack, or 2 attacks, or 3/2 attacks, you could just keep doing that.




And AD&D broke my suspension of disbelief _hard_.  1 attack _per minute?_  There must be something weird going on there.  That one or two attack rolls were representative of an entire minute of fighting.  I couldn't kill three orcs in a minute whatever I did.  What was I doing?  Fighting through treacle?  Walking round with a portable slow zone?  Whatever, the number of people I could attack was not in any way a reflection of what I was actually doing in the battle.



> 3e was better.



YMMV as we'll see below.



> A 3e warblade with Mithral Tornado, if asked "Can you go up and hit all those goblins?" says "Yes," and if asked "Can you hit that other group of goblins?" says "Yeah, but I'll need to take a bit of a breather first."  A 4e fighter with Sweeping Blow, if asked "Can you go up and hit all those goblins?" says "Yes," and if asked "Can you hit that other group of goblins?" says "No."  If asked why, he says "...because?" and that's about it.



EXACTLY.  He says "... because?"   This to you is just fine when it's perfectly clear that the warblade has used _no other maneuver_ and therefore it's not a fatigue issue - he has half a dozen other prepared maneuvers (or am I thinking of the swordsage?  Same difference).  Mysteriously, you find the "... because?" answer fine for 3.X but not for 4e.  Where is the difference?



> 3e feats and maneuvers (combat maneuvers and ToB maneuvers) are just things a martial character can _do_.



Advice to a real life distance runner is "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Take one day of recovery for every mile raced"[/FONT]. I fail to see why actually needing rest times longer than six seconds is something you balk at on "realism" grounds.  A PC is under immense stress when giving it their all in combat - it's the 3.X untiring robots, and the just peachy in six seconds warblades and swordsages that cause me problems.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 28, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> if you're going to treat exploits that way, you have a massive disconnect between the fiction and the game for tactical (and conversational) purposes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> With exploits as a metagame construct, however, out of game the fighter's player can talk about his daily and encounter powers by name and their various resource costs, but this doesn't map to the game world.



Yes. It's like players comparing notes on hit points remaining, or (in a game that has them) remaining Fate Points: "You charge, you've got the Fate Points to handle it", which has no ingame analogue ("You look really lucky today!"??).

It's a general feature of metagame mechanics. Some like this, some don't mind it, some don't like it at all.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> we're talking about a simple question like "Can you, Mr. Fighter, attack all 6 of those goblins in 2 rounds before they get out of range, or should we have the wizard handle that?"





Neonchameleon said:


> Just asking the question the way you are is breaking my suspension of disbelief.





Eldritch_Lord said:


> I don't see why the question is SoD-breaking at all.  In prior editions, "How many things can you hit in the next two rounds" had a definite answer



I'm with Neonchameleon here. A _round_ is not something that exists in the gameworld. The turn structure and action economy of the game don't exist in the gameworld (it's not a world of stop-motion fighting).

It's true that, at the _metagame_ level, there's a definite answer to how many attacks the fighter can make next round. But this is equally true in 4e.



Crazy Jerome said:


> I can't help but feel that about half the fuss over this kind of stuff are literary disputes, rather than game disputes.



Intriguing. Can you elaborate?


----------



## Zustiur (Apr 28, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I think that D&D has always had exceptions to simulation. Saving throws in pre-3E D&D (as described by Gygax in his DMG) - 3E changed this, and made them simulationist (Fort, Ref, Will). Hit points. I see 4e's AEDU, at least for martial PCs, as extending the same metagame sensibilities that gave us classic D&D saving throws, and hit points, to the realm of "active" rather than just "passive" action resolution.



Yes, I should have said 'simulation with abstraction'. I wasn't trying to say "DnD was build THIS way, or with THAT in mind"; I was saying that it always felt to me like it had been built as a simulation of a fantasy reality. Yes, some parts are abstracted, but only because they have to be. Hit points always made sense to me, as did Vancian casting. The biggest disconnect I ever felt in earlier editions was the 'cure light wounds' being more effective at lower level than 'cure critical wounds' is at high level, and that didn't really bother me.



> a) Comp 2 L14 skill challenge (as a result of which each PC lost one encounter power until their next extended rest);
> 
> b) L17 combat;
> 
> ...



That is very revealing, in more ways than you might expect.
Some observations:
1) Your party is the same level as mine
2) We'll never get a level 7 combat.
3) With my players/characters, we would have TPKed by encounter G.
This means that 
4a) You (The DM) are a lot less nasty in terms of how you control the monsters, or
4b) Your players and their characters are a lot more effective than ours.

The level 7 encounter, and the regain encounter powers on a standard action thing make me suspect 4a is correct.
4b might also be correct, but I've not got enough information to go on.

The fact that after 5 battles the party was then able to survive 4 battles with no short rest means there is something very different indeed about the way your group plays.
To throw one example on the table; our party rogue is typically out of surges after the second, or maybe the third battle.
As mentioned in another thread; it was 4E where I first experienced the '15 minute adventuring day' problem. We typically wanted an extended rest after the 2nd battle, until the DM ridiculed us for it.

Mind you, party composition has always played a factor. We didn't have a leader in the party from level 4 to level 12. During that time we had 1 defender, 1 controller (who was built more as a striker) and 3 strikers.
In theory this meant we had lots of power to take down monsters quickly. In practice it meant we had no healing other than second wind and potions, and we went down just as fast, if not faster than the monsters.




> And for my group, at least, these sorts of situations - encounters which force hard choice after hard choice - generate emotional intensity and pressure.



Granted, but how do they role play it exactly? How do they deal with encounters and dailies, _in character?_



> There are many ways, I think, that I could try and set out the differecne between an RPG like 4e and a board game.



Of course there are hundreds of differences, I wouldn't ever claim otherwise. I was talking about how it feels when we're in combat. Story goes out the window until the combat is over, and then story resumes. Any interest I have in the situation is diminished during combat, despite some truly sterling role-play from the characters. 

As a side note, it's that same in battle character role play that is often our downfall. Due to the character backgrounds/personalities (and to a certain extent, the player backgrounds/personalities) there is little to no strategic or tactical coordination. This makes every battle a meat grinder, regardless of it's intended encounter level.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 28, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> 1) Your party is the same level as mine
> 2) We'll never get a level 7 combat.



Do you know H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth? I levelled the Tower of Mysteries up, from suitable for 7th-ish to suitable for 14th-ish.

One of the encounters in that module is a demon trapped in a circle (as I ran it, a yochlol). It _can_ get dragged into a bigger fight, but as my group played it it didn't. It tried to bargain, but they tricked its information out of it and then killed it.



Zustiur said:


> 3) With my players/characters, we would have TPKed by encounter G.
> This means that
> 4a) You (The DM) are a lot less nasty in terms of how you control the monsters, or
> 4b) Your players and their characters are a lot more effective than ours.



I'm going to guess a bit of (a) and a bit of (b).

I can't remember all the details, but at least one of those encounters happened in waves - the one with the wyvern-riders, phalanx etc - in that (for example) the chimera wasn't released until the third or fourth round, when it became clear to the hobgoblins that a phalanx with archers backing it up was not going to be enough to take down the paladin.

And because elements of the encounter were physically separated - there was the paladin dealing with the land-based forces, while the rest of the party were 50 squares or so away dealing with the air-based forces. So the opportunities for the NPCs to maximally focus fire were constrained.

Together with this "waves" approach, I tend (not always, but certainly often) to use more enemies of party level or lower rather than fewer enemies of higher than party level (the yochlol being one exception to this, obviously).



Zustiur said:


> The level 7 encounter, and the regain encounter powers on a standard action thing make me suspect 4a is correct.



The idea of limited power regaining is in DMG2, I think. I made the decision to offer the opportunity on the spot, because I thought it would introduce a bit of extra tension into the decision-making - preparing for the dragon while letting he chimera take free swings. And to that exent it worked.



Zustiur said:


> 4b might also be correct, but I've not got enough information to go on.
> 
> The fact that after 5 battles the party was then able to survive 4 battles with no short rest means there is something very different indeed about the way your group plays.
> To throw one example on the table; our party rogue is typically out of surges after the second, or maybe the third battle.
> ...



The PCs in my game are:

*dwarf fighter (multi-cleric)/Warpriest - strong, robust, polearm-wielding melee controller, with Athletics + Mighty Sprint is surprisingly mobile;

*elf ranger-cleric hybrid/Battlefield Archer - twin strike + some healing;

*tiefling CHA-paladin/Questing Knight - as robust as the fighter (lower hp, better defences, including Meliorating Armour), quite good damage output and more than one encounter AoE attack, some healing;

*drow chaos sorcerer (multi-monk)/Demonskin Adept - best damage dealer in the party (with a lot of close attacks - he uses the Flurry of Blows to stack on extra damage), some control also (inc from the Flurry of Blows), very mobile and a good selection of immediate actions that make him hard to hit;

*human tome wizard (multi-invoker)/Divine Philosopher - some reasonable control (Bigby's Icy Hand, Wall of Fire, Thunderwave, Twist of Space), the lowest damage dealer in the party.​
I try to spread the damage around, but they players are pretty good at focussing it on the two defenders. And the fighter, in particular, is very resilient: 126 hp, 14 surges, with a surge vaue of 34 (17 Con, Toughness, Dwarven Durabililty). And with multiple close bursts (encounter and daily), combat superiority, a lot of forced movement and knocking prone, etc, it is very hard for anyone to get away from him.

In the encounter sequence described above, the ranger was dropped to 13 hp and no surges by the fire dragon (Calastryx, from MV:TttNV), and then survived through the mooncalves, and the two encounters that followed that. The party did a fairly good job of protecting him, although at one point he did drop unconscious (but was revived with a surgeless healing potion from Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium).

As I said, I'm not the most vicious GM in the world, but I'm not a walkover either. The players play reasonably well.



Zustiur said:


> Granted, but how do they role play it exactly? How do they deal with encounters and dailies, _in character?_
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As a side note, it's that same in battle character role play that is often our downfall. Due to the character backgrounds/personalities (and to a certain extent, the player backgrounds/personalities) there is little to no strategic or tactical coordination. This makes every battle a meat grinder, regardless of it's intended encounter level.



My players don't talk about encounters and dailies in character. They talk about attacking foes, stopping them, locking them down etc.

They play with a fairly high degree of tactical coordination, although the paladin and wizard in particular are known for going solo a bit. But the others - especially the player of the sorcerer - are very good at following along and capitalising on openings. In character friction tends to come out more in Marvel superhero team style - wisecracks at one another's expense, for example, or ragging on a particular tactical choice, rather than actively subverting one another's efforts.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 28, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Advice to a real life distance runner is "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Take one day of recovery for every mile raced"[/FONT]. I fail to see why actually needing rest times longer than six seconds is something you balk at on "realism" grounds.  A PC is under immense stress when giving it their all in combat - it's the 3.X untiring robots, and the just peachy in six seconds warblades and swordsages that cause me problems.




i am just jumping into the discussion a bit bind here so forgive me if I am missing you or the other poster's intent, but if we are talking about encounter or daily martial powers my response wuould be this advice is to maintain optimal performance across the season. They are also talking about waiting till the next day r that evening i assume, so it isn't like you run  mile and rest immediately before trying another.

I used to box and compete in martial arts and I can support you and pemerton's statements that fighting (and this isjust sport fihting) is the most tiring thing you can do. After a fight you can be so tired that you can't do much of anything. And it is also true that you usually pick your powershots carefully because you wear yourself out if you throw bombs the whole time. But my issue with daily and encounters (aside from just not liking the mechanics themselves) is they are an artificial and rigid way to simulae this for two reasons: i can keep throwing power shotsif I want until i get tired (i can keep this up for about three boxing rounds--make that i once could), most "knock out" hits (which i am loosely equating with encounterrs  and dailies) are situationally dpendant (counter attacks for example where the person presents a good opening) and not doled out to a strict matmatical limit to each fight. So it just comes off to me as too gamey of a solution to the issue. For sure there were gamey elements before but we were able to ignore them or had learned to do so over the years. For me the answer isn't to add even more gamey and abstract components to a game that already strectches disbelief.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 28, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Intriguing. Can you elaborate?




X seems real to me, while (very similar in some ways) Y does not, is ultimately an appeal to a certain fantastical verisimilitude.  Yet, the feel has very little to do with the subject matter of the story, looked at, say, from a news reporter angle.  What really happened when Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser fought those thugs in Lankhmarr?  Just what were the events surrouding Conan and that incident at the tower?  And so forth.  Or if you prefer, think of an 11 year old learning to write a book report.  I know facts get left out in those formats, too, but there is at least an attempt to not color the events, but merely report them.  In those ways, a lot of sword and sorcery is very much the same, and there are a zillion LotR clones.

But of course, what we really like in the feel of the story is barely hinted at by such a report.  That fantastical X is acceptable while fantastical Y is not is because Author Z would tell it that way.  Thus, the dispute is over a literary convention, not the logic of the events in a newspaper.  

I've been quite open about this from my point of view, since 4E launched.  It was very clear to me that I liked 4E because it produced events that are in the tone of what Fritz Leiber might write--with some judicious tweaking, of course.  And then I compared 4E to BECMI on the same grounds, though the tweaking you had to do was a bit different in that case.  

It is also no accident that such a dispute should occur on the grounds that it does.  Read some of the older essays and letters from Poul Anderson, Zelazny, Leiber, etc. compared to some of their critics, and vice versa.  It's all about the tone of the story not seeming real because X happens this way or Y does not happen that way!  

Or, you might say, that of some of the 4E critics, that they don't think much of our taste in literature, and the favor is returned.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 29, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Or, you might say, that of some of the 4E critics, that they don't think much of our taste in literature, and the favor is returned.



I think I see what you mean (in general terms, at least).

I don't read a lot of fantasy (by fantasy RPGing standards!). I suspect I can list it all in this post: Tolkien, some REH, some Lovecraft, LeGuin's Earthsea, and (when they first came out) the original 6 volumes of Dragonlance. But that's not to say I don't have "literary" influences on my RPGing, but I think they are as much from films and comics (Claremont's X-Men especially) as from books.

I don't know how these influences factor into my gaming preferences. The thing that's always bothered me a bit about D&D in general is that combat via hit point attrition is not always that exciting. For me, at least, 4e introduces knew elements into D&D combat (movement, positioning, and other sophisticated "control" considerations) that make it not just hit point attrition - I see this as an alternative to RQ/RM-style criticals as a way of introducing excitement and dynamism.

The thing that I particularly can't get about 3E is (i) its mix of gonzo hit points with gritty skills and combat manoeuvres, and (ii) its seeming imbalance between mechanically-supported protagonism for different classes of character (and (i) and (ii) are not unrelated, I think). From my point of view, 3E is in an unhappy position between two approaches to fantasay RPGing that I can enjoy (although having played a lot of the RM/RQ side, I'm at present enjoying the other, 4e, side of the line).


----------



## pemerton (Apr 29, 2012)

<double post deleted>


----------



## Gorgoroth (Apr 29, 2012)

*the problem with 4e*

martial dailies is that they aren't MORE like the wizard spellbook, since they went that way. The spellbook would be just "fluff" explaining why one day you can cast this spell, and the other day this one, but you must pick at the start of the day, pseudo vancian style. 

A fighter should have access to at least a handful of dailies and encounters at each level. And ALL the at-wills. I'm serious. Why pre-prepare a certain martial daily once we're opened up more versatility. This would have made 4e way more fun for me, and less like a 4-button videogame. (not like there's anything wrong with that, but when I want to play a videogame I can play one anytime I want, including at work where we have mandatory RPG MMO playtime one whole afternoon a week). I HATE that I can only pick one encounter of a certain level. Why? A wizard may have to witness new spells, or research them, but a fighter might pick them up by watching enemies do it, or go to town and interact with NPCs who may teach them how. The monotony of endless repetition would have been spared. Combats would not have felt the same, level after level. You would spend less time tweaking the ultimate power combos and allow a more organic, "use as you see fit", sorcerer-style approach. If you can learn it, do it. If it's an encounter power, and you used it for that level, that's it, no more from that level for this battle. Same for dailies : in the midst of a combat, you know you have one level 1 and one level 5 daily left, for a BBEG end of the dungeon battle for example, and some unexpected foes show up, meaning you're much better off picking Combo "B" (let's say a stance) with a side of fried rice than your usual Combo "A" nova.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The thing that I particularly can't get about 3E is (i) its mix of gonzo hit points with gritty skills and combat manoeuvres, and (ii) its seeming imbalance between mechanically-supported protagonism for different classes of character (and (i) and (ii) are not unrelated, I think). From my point of view, 3E is in an unhappy position between two approaches to fantasay RPGing that I can enjoy (although having played a lot of the RM/RQ side, I'm at present enjoying the other, 4e, side of the line).




Every edition is a reaction the one before it.  The 3E you describe is, in fact, pretty darn good at handling a game with the tone of the 2E D&D novels (and related fiction), as well as the implied tone (but not the reality) of many 2E adventures.  At least it is through level 15 or so--after that, I suspect 2E might have been a better option, though I didn't play enough 2E to say, and certainly not high level 2E.  The suspicion is based on AD&D 1E doing a better job at higher levels, which I do have some experience with.  There weren't enough changes in 2E to have broken this 1E characteristic.

One of the interesting things about 5E, if they pull it off, is that instead of merely being a reaction to 4E, it appears they are trying to be a reaction to the whole past history of the hobby--not a blind clone or copy, but a reaction, with all that implies.


----------



## Zustiur (Apr 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Do you know H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth? I levelled the Tower of Mysteries up, from suitable for 7th-ish to suitable for 14th-ish.
> 
> One of the encounters in that module is a demon trapped in a circle (as I ran it, a yochlol). It _can_ get dragged into a bigger fight, but as my group played it it didn't. It tried to bargain, but they tricked its information out of it and then killed it.



Yes, I remember that one. I suspect that same encounter is how one of our players ended up with a familiar... which turned out 7 levels later to actually be someone else's familiar... i.e. a spy!



> The PCs in my game are:
> Fighter
> Cleric
> Paladin
> ...



Yep, that says a lot to me. Aside from the multiclassing and hybrid cleric, you have what I believe to be the best party composition available:
2 defenders, 1 of everything else.

Compare that to our 1 incompetent defender and 4 strikers... big difference.



> As I said, I'm not the most vicious GM in the world, but I'm not a walkover either. The players play reasonably well.
> 
> My players don't talk about encounters and dailies in character. They talk about attacking foes, stopping them, locking them down etc.
> 
> They play with a fairly high degree of tactical coordination, although the paladin and wizard in particular are known for going solo a bit. But the others - especially the player of the sorcerer - are very good at following along and capitalising on openings. In character friction tends to come out more in Marvel superhero team style - wisecracks at one another's expense, for example, or ragging on a particular tactical choice, rather than actively subverting one another's efforts.




Thanks for explaining. I can see how your group could get through that many encounters now. Perhaps then, part of the difference is that your group burns through their resources more slowly. Thus putting emphasis on resources works well for them. For us, putting emphasis on resources just shows us how screwed we are after the 3rd battle.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 29, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And AD&D broke my suspension of disbelief _hard_.  1 attack _per minute?_  There must be something weird going on there.  That one or two attack rolls were representative of an entire minute of fighting.  I couldn't kill three orcs in a minute whatever I did.  What was I doing?  Fighting through treacle?  Walking round with a portable slow zone?  Whatever, the number of people I could attack was not in any way a reflection of what I was actually doing in the battle.




I completely agree with the dislike of the 1 minute melee round.  I too didn't like how individual ranged attacks were individual attacks during a melee round but melee attacks were an abstract bunch of feints and retreats and wild swings and stuff.  However, AD&D was also a lot more abstract in general than either 3e or 4e; I could much more easily suspend my disbelief about attacks per melee round because you couldn't do anything else _but_ attack.  If I were trying to perform any 3e combat maneuver or ToB maneuver or 4e exploit in AD&D it would really shatter my WSoD because it was a highly granular mechanic in an abstract system.



> EXACTLY.  He says "... because?"   This to you is just fine when it's perfectly clear that the warblade has used _no other maneuver_ and therefore it's not a fatigue issue - he has half a dozen other prepared maneuvers (or am I thinking of the swordsage?  Same difference).  Mysteriously, you find the "... because?" answer fine for 3.X but not for 4e.  Where is the difference?




Because martial adepts don't have a hard limit on their maneuvers.  Spend a round or two without using any maneuvers and you get them all back.  So where the 4e fighter doesn't have a good explanation for why he can't use his maneuver again, the warblade just takes a 6-second breather (which can still include any other action besides using a maneuver, including attacks and movement) and a crusader takes a 12-second breather (same caveat) and he can re-use any maneuver he used before.  As I've said before, there's a spectrum of believability from "Use X powers, each 1/day" and "Use X powers a total of X/day" one one end to "Use X powers a variable number of times per encounter" and similar towards the other end, and 4e powers are too far to the former end while ToB maneuvers are towards the more believable end.



> Advice to a real life distance runner is "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Take one day of recovery for every mile raced"[/FONT]. I fail to see why actually needing rest times longer than six seconds is something you balk at on "realism" grounds.  A PC is under immense stress when giving it their all in combat - it's the 3.X untiring robots, and the just peachy in six seconds warblades and swordsages that cause me problems.




3e martial adepts don't work for the fatigue explanation, they work for the "openings in combat" explanation.  Any mechanic to approximate battle fatigue would look nothing like a "use some number of times per encounter, recover with actions" system, and it really shouldn't.  Even if a system isn't explicitly made to emulate one sort of explanation (e.g. hit points as meat, ToB maneuvers as openings in combat), if it emulates it well enough it can suffice, though obviously building in a flavor explanation is best.



pemerton said:


> Yes. It's like players comparing notes on hit points remaining, or (in a game that has them) remaining Fate Points: "You charge, you've got the Fate Points to handle it", which has no ingame analogue ("You look really lucky today!"??).
> 
> It's a general feature of metagame mechanics. Some like this, some don't mind it, some don't like it at all.




Once again, if the fighter exploits were explicitly metagame and affected metagame things only, I wouldn't mind at all.



> I'm with Neonchameleon here. A _round_ is not something that exists in the gameworld. The turn structure and action economy of the game don't exist in the gameworld (it's not a world of stop-motion fighting).
> 
> It's true that, at the _metagame_ level, there's a definite answer to how many attacks the fighter can make next round. But this is equally true in 4e.




It's not a purely metagame thing.  Goblins can run 120 feet in 6 seconds.  A 6th level barbarian with pounce can make 2 attacks on a charge and can charge 80 feet in 6 seconds.  "From where you are standing now, is it possible for you to kill all four goblins before they run out of the [dungeon/canyon/etc.]?" is a question that that barbarian can answer purely with in-game knowledge: Yes, he can run and attack that fast, and if he strikes accurately enough he can down them all, because he knows he can charge that fast and he knows what he can do.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> g to treat exploits that way, you have a massive disconnect between the fiction and the game for tactical (and conversational) purposes.  Out of game, the wizard's player can talk about his various blasting spells by name and their various resource costs, and this maps to the fiction explicitly: you can say "I have one Fireball prepared today and one Shock Sphere that I can recover with a few minutes rest; I should easily be able to blanket the area with arcane energy and kill all the goblins," and that same explanation _means_ something both IC and OOC.



The explanation is really just "because the mechanics say so" it works easily for magic, because magic is arbitrary.  In fiction, heroic feats are also arbitrary, so it works fine for martial, as well, if the game is emulating fiction, rather than reality.

Since magic doesn't exist in reality, I'm not sure what else the game could be emulating.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 29, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> If I were trying to perform any 3e combat maneuver or ToB maneuver or 4e exploit in AD&D it would really shatter my WSoD because it was a highly granular mechanic in an abstract system.




The thing is that AD&D _magic_ isn't abstract.  There has to me always been this disconnect in D&D (pre-4e) where wizards and clerics get the focus and the cool stuff.



> 3e martial adepts don't work for the fatigue explanation, they work for the "openings in combat" explanation.




Oh nonsense.  "I'm going to automatically get exactly the opening I need for this technique if I simply attack all out for six seconds when I wouldn't if I used a Ruby Nightmare Blade - and the same opening never comes up twice in a row"?  What?  And that makes even less sense of Desert Wind or Setting Sun.

To me the class that worked well for "openings in combat" was the Crusader.  To the point that I wanted to play a White Raven Crusader for precisely that reason.



> It's not a purely metagame thing.  Goblins can run 120 feet in 6 seconds.  A 6th level barbarian with pounce can make 2 attacks on a charge and can charge 80 feet in 6 seconds.  "From where you are standing now, is it possible for you to kill all four goblins before they run out of the [dungeon/canyon/etc.]?" is a question that that barbarian can answer purely with in-game knowledge: Yes, he can run and attack that fast, and if he strikes accurately enough he can down them all, because he knows he can charge that fast and he knows what he can do.




If he strikes accurately enough... But seriously, you've just undermined your own question due to the Attack of Opportunity Rules.  What the barbarian needs to to is be able to get in position to threaten them all - if they try to run away then he's going to be attacking their backs anyway.  The answer doesn't revolve round whether he has a recharged close burst 1 power, it revolves round positioning.  If he has a CB1 power, he might get a _second_ swing at them.


----------



## Li Shenron (Apr 29, 2012)

Surmos said:


> Why is the Vancian system still so popular?




Because *it works*.


----------



## keterys (Apr 29, 2012)

I'm fine with the concept of some or all classes selecting some or all powers - whether that's through meditation, prayer, or studying a spellbook.

I'd love a way that dodged some of the pitfalls and flaws we've seen over the last few decades,though.

1) Wildly varying resource consumption causes strong imbalances
2) If you can use all or almost all of your resources in a small number of encounters, you can nova those encounters down far outside your theoretical average
3) Theoretical averages either don't apply or vary game to game to purely daily resource classes

Ie, 
A fighter and a wizard might compare if you look at 100 rounds and establish a median, but they don't if you look at 10, 5, or 200. This has often led to one dominating an encounter while another effectively sits it out. Repeatedly.

This can cause all sorts of hickups, where one encounter is trivial - perhaps even boring - because spells were used, while another is a TPK because spells weren't available. This is pretty much why the 15-minute day got coined. When your best options aren't available, you rest. If the game lets you. Of course, not being able to rest may cause friction between players and/or DM. This also results in changing the goalposts on #1, so some folks might think a class is fine, and other folks think it's BMX Bandit vs Angel Summoner all over again.

...

Personally, I'd rather that very few abilities were recovered on a "daily" basis. For example, let's say your wizard memorized his spells and got X mana points, then cast until he was down to 0, but he recovered them at some rate. And a fighter learned various stances and tricks as he leveled, but using them gave him fatigue points and he could do things without penalty up to X points. Now you can compare the two together, and have an idea of what they'll do. And why they can't do more? They're exhausted and should rest. Maybe they recover a point per round, even, so your fighter dives behind cover and drinks a healing potion for a round to get a point back, then charges into the fray, or the wizard asks his companions to hold the monsters off while he examines the room's wards for a round. 

And, of course, you can customize further - they don't need to work exactly the same. I only did that to show how it could work. But let's get away from:

A fighter can do 10 damage every round all day!
A wizard can do 50 damage for 4 rounds a day and 5 damage every other round!

Which totally works if you do 36 round days and your wizard is cool with using a sling for 32 of those rounds!


----------



## eamon (Apr 29, 2012)

keterys said:


> 2) If you can use all or almost all of your resources in a small number of encounters, you can nova those encounters down far outside your theoretical average!




PC Resource consumption is a critial factor, and I want it to matter.

If all the important resources "reload" every encounter; then every encounters starts off rather similar.  It makes it that much harder to provide some exciting diversity.  Some of the most memorable moments in any campaign I've seen arose from unusually (un)balanced encounters.  Sure, it's a little harder to DM, and I think that the degree to which its a good thing varies from group to group (so some flexibility here is a good thing), but I think that the wrong solution to the 5 minute adventuring day is to just make almost everything important recharge every encounter.

Also, to some extent, this kind of "spike" is unavoidable anyhow, at least if your game is a little freeform.  Beating the odds - or, putting it dramatically, _being heroic_ - often means being prepared.  This kind of preparation (a trick, a strategy, timing, the right tools) is a _really_ fun thing, and it's almost inherently impossible to just translate that kind of preparedness across encounters - and there you have the seed of a 5 minute adventuring day.


I agree that being a spellcaster shouldn't inevitably imply 95% downtime and 5% overpowered action.  I just don't think that the solution to the 5 minute adventuring day is to simply require all resources to recharge by the encounter.  If that's the solution, I think it's worse than the problem.

Also, class diversity makes things interesting.  Differing power recharge rates cater to different playstyles and provide for some tension. 

You can avoid the 5 minute forcibly by taking away the choices that let the players fall into that trap.  But the _best_ solution is inevitably going to involve the story, the world, and the DM.

I mean, seriously, a story in which it's OK and consequence-free to just rest for a whole day after every encounter isn't what I'm aiming for anyhow.

Isn't there some way we can mitigate this problem somewhat without going whole hog and just getting rid of daily powers?


----------



## keterys (Apr 29, 2012)

Some resources should certainly not be encounter-based.

I did mention a daily or per-level emergency button.
And a consumable - healing potion.
And nothing says they can't have mechanics for pushing past their limitations, that give lingering penalties.
Or even that their maximum pool of points degrades over time, as they continually exhaust themselves.

But any system that relies on modifying the story or PC complacence to moderate the power of a significant slice of the system has serious problems. So if one or more classes are entirely or almost entirely daily based, and one or more aren't... then it's a failure.

Of course, you could go the other way and give the fighter a similar set of daily resources (bursts of adrenaline, perfect opportunities, whatever), but I thought that was _more_ contentious.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 29, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> The explanation is really just "because the mechanics say so" it works easily for magic, because magic is arbitrary.  In fiction, heroic feats are also arbitrary, so it works fine for martial, as well, if the game is emulating fiction, rather than reality.
> 
> Since magic doesn't exist in reality, I'm not sure what else the game could be emulating.




No, it's not "just because the mechanics say so," it's because some people want martial exploits to be metagame mechanics.  You don't _have_ to have magic with names and martial stuff without; take a look at Wheel of Time, where the master swordsmen have evocative names for all their maneuvers (Heron Wading Through the Rushes, Parting the Silk, and such) while the channelers weave elements together to achieve what they want and only a few very powerful effects have specific names.

As long as you treat mechanics as having some actual manifestation in-game, it doesn't matter whether you call something magic "the _fireball_ spell" or "a spell to make a large explosion of flame" or whether you call a maneuver "the Whirlwind Attack maneuver" or "that thing you do where you swing your sword around and hit everyone around you."  They can be equally arbitrary or equally non-arbitrary.  That doesn't happen, however, if you treat one or the other as purely a metagame construct.



Neonchameleon said:


> Oh nonsense.  "I'm going to automatically get exactly the opening I need for this technique if I simply attack all out for six seconds when I wouldn't if I used a Ruby Nightmare Blade - and the same opening never comes up twice in a row"?  What?  And that makes even less sense of Desert Wind or Setting Sun.
> 
> To me the class that worked well for "openings in combat" was the Crusader.  To the point that I wanted to play a White Raven Crusader for precisely that reason.




The crusader was better at that, but the warblade does it fairly well too.  And in a system where the rogue can flank someone with no facing and hit some undefined "weak spot" for massive damage, that does a pretty good job of mimicking the ebb and flow of combat without getting into annoying fiddly bits.

It comes down to level of abstraction and edge cases, really.  Evasion is a good example: the flavor matches the mechanic well, and it works most of the time, but you have the edge cases of "rogue vs. fireball in 20-foot wide room" and "rogue can't actually move out of area but is fine."  The fact that when pressed the mechanic doesn't make as much sense doesn't mean it doesn't work in most cases.  On the other hand, you have a mechanic like 3e Diplomacy that doesn't work well: at a certain point, you can just talk to someone for 6 seconds and they become your devoted follower.  Even without any edge cases, the flavor (excellent negotiator) isn't really close to the mechanic (automatic mind control).

The ToB maneuvers are similar.  They work well most of the time, with the occasional edge case that pulls you out of things just like Evasion can.  I want to stress again that ToB is not my ideal implementation of martial maneuvers either; it just happens to be a common reference point that lends itself well to better WSoD, strikes a good balance between immersion and playability, and is a good starting point to be improved upon.



> If he strikes accurately enough... But seriously, you've just undermined your own question due to the Attack of Opportunity Rules.  What the barbarian needs to to is be able to get in position to threaten them all - if they try to run away then he's going to be attacking their backs anyway.  The answer doesn't revolve round whether he has a recharged close burst 1 power, it revolves round positioning.  If he has a CB1 power, he might get a _second_ swing at them.




Funny thing is, that actually argues for the 3e (or 4e Essentials) way of doing things.  An AoO-spec fighter in 3e, and presumably a Slayer in 4e, can use everything he has on any attack, whether a normal attack or an AoO, and sometimes even has extra benefits on an AoO.  So getting 2 AoOs is essentially the same as having 2 more attacks on your turn (with the exception that they're triggered, of course; "I can definitely kill all 4" and "I can definitely kill 2, then I can kill the others if I'm positioned right" have different tactical implications).

In contrast, a 4e fighter's AoOs are likely not good as his exploits damage-wise, even with Combat Superiority and Heavy Blade Opportunity.  The extra [W]s and riders can make a big difference, so "daily exploit that hits 2 people" and "make an AoO against 2 people" aren't the same thing.


----------



## Essenti (Apr 29, 2012)

Rather than relying solely on front loaded resources like vancian dailies or per encounter abilities, I think the game would really benefit from some form of resource that builds up during an adventuring day. Something that resets to zero or a low number after a rest. This would create a resource trade-off for resting, one that gives the players a reason not to favor the 15minute adventuring day.

Something I've been working on for little while and will be testing in a B/X game that is starting next week is using Motivation Tokens. (As a side note: I play multiple editions of the game, this week is 3.5, the week after next is 4.0, and I'm hoping we start up a 1e or 2e game again soon... they are all fun to play)

The following ideas are just what I have roughed in at the moment and will likely require tweaking until I figure out what works and what doesn't during play. 

A fighter gains a motivation token each time they incapacitate or kill an opponent. Thieves gain a token for each time they pull off a backstab or for each trap they disable. Spell casters earn a token after casting a spell. Basically, I'd award tokens for doing something that exemplifies your character class. 

Anyone can spend a token to improve their defenses for a round. 

Fighters and thieves (and because its basic, halflings, dwarves and elves) can spend a token to add damage to an attack or perform a maneuver without any penalties (like trip, disarm, bull rush, etc.)

Spell casters (including elves, gotta love basic) can spend a token to increase the range, area of effect, duration, or power of a spell.

No one can spend more than two points of motivation during a combat round. Motivation is reset back to zero after a rest.

What I am hoping to accomplish is giving the players a resource based reason to push ahead, one that is actually beneficial to them in some fashion.

At any rate, I don't as yet know if my proposed experiment will actually achieve what I want it to, although I do believe it has some potential. I'm sure something vaguely similar to this existing in a core book, even as a module, may induce nerd-stroke in particularly sensitive individuals. But I still think adding a resource that builds over the course of an adventure would be an interesting feature to see included in 5E.


----------



## SLOTHmaster (Apr 30, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> (Rightly or wrongly) I've always felt that DND was a system of rules that tried to approximate the real world chance of succeeding at manual tasks. Magic notwithstanding. AEDU does nothing to simulate the real world as I see it. If anything, I feel that AEDU reverses the situation; now the story has to approximate the mechanics, instead of the mechanics approximating the story.




This is honestly my biggest issue with AEDU. Yes it balances well, but it just doesn't feel right to play.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> The 3E you describe is, in fact, pretty darn good at handling a game with the tone of the 2E D&D novels (and related fiction), as well as the implied tone (but not the reality) of many 2E adventures.



I don't know the novels, and the only 2E adventures I know are the OA ones (which I've run bits and pieces of in Rolemaster) and a couple of Planescape ones - Dead Gods struck me as too railroady for words, but I have used one or two bits from Tales of the Infinite Staircase.

Are you saying that gonzo wounds/healing and spell, in combination with gritty spells and combat manoeuvres, is a fair description of 3E, _and_ is the vibe of those books/adventures? Or do they have a different vibe, which my description of 3E is missing (and this second thing is quite possible, because my description of 3E is also an explanation of why I've not played much of it, and is therefore not based on a lot of play experience with the system).



Crazy Jerome said:


> One of the interesting things about 5E, if they pull it off, is that instead of merely being a reaction to 4E, it appears they are trying to be a reaction to the whole past history of the hobby--not a blind clone or copy, but a reaction, with all that implies.



I must admit to not yet having a very good handle on what D&Dnext will be like.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> Yes, I remember that one. I suspect that same encounter is how one of our players ended up with a familiar... which turned out 7 levels later to actually be someone else's familiar... i.e. a spy!



That sounds kind of cool when you write it out. Was it good or bad in actual play?



Zustiur said:


> Aside from the multiclassing and hybrid cleric, you have what I believe to be the best party composition available:
> 2 defenders, 1 of everything else.
> 
> Compare that to our 1 incompetent defender and 4 strikers... big difference
> ...



You're making your party sound almost comically inept! Why is your defender so incompetent?

As to burning through resources, sometimes they will do it quite quickly (as far as daily powers go, for example) but othertimes can be very conservative. And they can shift their style of engagement fairly effectively too, amping up the aggression or the defence as the situation seems to demand.

After our session yesterday, the party has almost no dailies left (the wizard has Wall of Fire, the fighter Jackal Strike, and that may be it). The fighter and the paladin are around half their surges gone, and the other PCs have used probably 2 or 3 each (so probably one third gone). But each PC has just gained an action point, and the paladin's AC has increased by 1, due to his Meliorating Armour. They are currently beseiged in a temple with an army of hobgoblins outside (mechanically, I would be run the army as a mixture of minions and phalanx swarms).

They are not sure how to escape, but are tossing up between an Underdark retreat, using Phantom Steed to try and summon flying mounts (they have plenty of components, but would need a 15+ on the d20 roll), or just fighting their way out.

I would expect the fight to be fairly challenging, but with a fully bevy of action points, plus encounter powers back, I would expect them to be able to do it! They are definitely hard to take down. (The attempt I think would have to be resolved as a mix of combat and skill challenge.)


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Once again, if the fighter exploits were explicitly metagame and affected metagame things only, I wouldn't mind at all.



I understand that exploits are not explicitly metagame. In this way I think of them as like hit points - depending on one's take, they are either flexible or incoherent!

But what I'm missing, I think, is why you think they _can't_ be treated as metagame. In what way do they _not_ affect metagame things only? Maybe there are some rogue powers that I should have in mind but am forgetting about (I'm not really up on my 4e rogue knowledge), but for fighters they're basically more attacks, more damage and more knockback/down, and for rangers they're basically more attacks, more damage and more movement.

The damage boosts and knockback/down strike me as bascially dice manipulation - analogous to using an explicitly metagame option to reroll or boost damage dice - and the additional attacks seem to me basically to be manipulations of the action economy, which as I've said seems to be obviously metagame (because of it's stop motion implications if treated otherwise).



Eldritch_Lord said:


> It's not a purely metagame thing.  Goblins can run 120 feet in 6 seconds.  A 6th level barbarian with pounce can make 2 attacks on a charge and can charge 80 feet in 6 seconds.  "From where you are standing now, is it possible for you to kill all four goblins before they run out of the [dungeon/canyon/etc.]?" is a question that that barbarian can answer purely with in-game knowledge: Yes, he can run and attack that fast, and if he strikes accurately enough he can down them all, because he knows he can charge that fast and he knows what he can do.



What you describe here might make more sense in a system of continuous action - B/X and 1st ed AD&D were something like that, I played a version of 2nd ed AD&D that was something like that (Combat and Tactics, I think - and even core 2nd ed initiative was continuous action also, wasn't it?).

But in a turn-based system, it's more complex than that, because the barbarian's ability to catch the goblins depends not just on relative speeds but on who goes first in the initiative sequence. And brings into play the minutiae of the charge rules. And we haven't mentioned action points yet.

And that is even before we bring in the vagaries of the dice. So, in the fiction, the barbarian knows that on a good day he can catch and kill those goblins. Mechanically, maybe he can if he has an unexpended power and rolls well with his attacks and damage. And the player playing the PC has many ways to RP this, depending on the resources s/he has to hand, from "Don't worry, they're as good as dead" to "I'm not feeling that lucky, better get your bows and crossbows out if you want to stop them!"

I mean, this exact scenario has come up multiple times in my game (involving the ranger-archer rather than a barbarian). One time he had Biting Volley left, and killed the fleeing bad guy on a crit on a 19. Another time he had only Twin Strike left, but still managed to crit (on a 20) and bring down the fleeing bad guy. The RP and narration didn't have to change. I don't think he's yet brought down a fleeing bad guy using Combined Fire (a single arrow as a reaction to an allies ranged or area attack) but I could easily see it happening - the ranger has already acted, then the bad guy flees, but the wizard attacks with a readied Magic Missile and the ranger follows up with Combined Fire. The narration wouldn't have to change.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> You don't _have_ to have magic with names and martial stuff without
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As long as you treat mechanics as having some actual manifestation in-game, it doesn't matter whether you call something magic "the _fireball_ spell" or "a spell to make a large explosion of flame" or whether you call a maneuver "the Whirlwind Attack maneuver" or "that thing you do where you swing your sword around and hit everyone around you."  They can be equally arbitrary or equally non-arbitrary.  That doesn't happen, however, if you treat one or the other as purely a metagame construct.



I don't think I get this either. Why do encounters and dailies as metagame stop named martial manoeuvres? In the fiction, the fighter PC performs "Whirlwind Attack" - but on some occasions, its mechanical impact is limited to one target. (Or, if that seems too much trouble and/or too inane, the fighter player can use Passing Attack, say, as one manifestation of his/her PC's Whirlwind Attack, although if there are 3 or more adjacent enemies it will only ever hit two of them.)



Neonchameleon said:


> you've just undermined your own question due to the Attack of Opportunity Rules.  What the barbarian needs to to is be able to get in position to threaten them all - if they try to run away then he's going to be attacking their backs anyway.  The answer doesn't revolve round whether he has a recharged close burst 1 power, it revolves round positioning.  If he has a CB1 power, he might get a _second_ swing at them.



I think I agree with this, at least to the extent that the OA rules are part of the mechanics that break down the rigidiy of the turn sequence, and thereby (i) increase verisimilitude (it's not a stop motion world) and (ii) make more room for a range of non-process-simulation understandings of what is going on with limited use martial powers.

_In the fiction_, at least as I see it, there is no great difference between these mechanically different alternatives: (i) the goblins going first, the barbarian going second, giving chase and taking down only 1 goblin with a normal charge, or (ii) the barbarian going first, closing to threaten the goblins, the goblins then running away and the barbarian killing one with an OA but missing the others, or (iii) the goblins going first, the barbarian going second, giving chase and then attacking with a close burst charge power but killing only 1 goblin while missing the others.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> In contrast, a 4e fighter's AoOs are likely not good as his exploits damage-wise, even with Combat Superiority and Heavy Blade Opportunity.  The extra [W]s and riders can make a big difference, so "daily exploit that hits 2 people" and "make an AoO against 2 people" aren't the same thing.



But there are so many moving parts here - for example, what does hit point loss for goblins equate to in the fiction?

Imagine in a Fate Point game, the fighter player knows that if s/he spends a Fate Point on an attack it will probably kill a typical goblin, but if s/he doesn't it probably won't. What story does s/he have his/her PC tell, within the fiction, about his/her goblin-killing capabilities? Maybe "I might one-shot it if I'm lucky!" Well, the 4e fighter player can say the same thing - after all, the bonus damage on a crit from a lucky OA attack roll will probably compensate for the extra dice that an encounter or daily power might have generated.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Are you saying that gonzo wounds/healing and spell, in combination with gritty spells and combat manoeuvres, is a fair description of 3E, _and_ is the vibe of those books/adventures? Or do they have a different vibe, which my description of 3E is missing (and this second thing is quite possible, because my description of 3E is also an explanation of why I've not played much of it, and is therefore not based on a lot of play experience with the system).




The former one is it.  It's not a perfect fit, mind, but it is pretty close.  The railroading is often part of it, though you could get the same vibe in an adventure with relatively little rails.  I hesitate to use the term here, but it is almost a "pretense" of grit, by the way hit point narration and arms are handled, but with magic one way to bail out of a bad situation, and talk or resourse manipulation the other.  

I'd use a specific example to illustrate, but it has been awhile since I read any stories of that type, and they tend to all blend together in my head.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I'd use a specific example to illustrate, but it has been awhile since I read any stories of that type, and they tend to all blend together in my head.



You're not making me regret my lack of familiarity with this particular (sub-)genre!


----------



## Zustiur (Apr 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> That sounds kind of cool when you write it out. Was it good or bad in actual play?



Very good, until we realized just how royally we'd been screwed. There's nothing quite like knowing that the party warlock has been working for an evil demon lord... without meaning to! And it wasn't even the demon lord she _thought_ she was working for...



> You're making your party sound almost comically inept! Why is your defender so incompetent?



Well, two examples spring to mind immediately:
1) What armour do you expect a Paladin to wear? If you guessed 'Hide armour' you'd be right in this case... I eventually pointed out that having a high AC was a key part of being a defender. The trick is to draw the enemy attacks and make them miss, not just take damage all the time.
2) He has a terrible tendency to act more like a beserker than a paladin. Just finished the encounter, half the party down, the paladin charges around the corner into the next encounter...

If I had to summarize the overall issue, it's that we're a roleplay heavy group in a combat heavy game. In too many cases, the characters are held back mechanically by their roleplay decisions. Things like the paladin not wearing platemail, and the rogue never taking a second wind.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> What armour do you expect a Paladin to wear? If you guessed 'Hide armour' you'd be right in this case
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



It sounds like someone needs to help that paladin rebuild as an Avenger! Or something like that.

The roleplay from my group is mostly focused on how the PCs hook into the setting and the various factions/forces in play, rather than on quirks of characterisation (although there are a few of them - eg the paladin of the Raven Queen always sleeps standing up, because there will be time enough to be on his back when he's dead). And while not everything is mechanically optimised, there are no serious attempts to push _against_ the mechanics. 4e just doesn't support that sort of play very well, I don't think.


----------



## Asphere (Apr 30, 2012)

I sort of liked the 4E version of Vancian magic (different spells had different cool downs - once per day, once per encounter, at-will) but I disliked the variety of spells one had to select from - one of the big reasons I abandoned it.  Also, maybe I am wrong, but I don't remember counter spell being in 4E.  It could be cool to have a Vancian magic system where a caster could spend spell slots on spells with different cool downs where powerful daily spells cost more slots than weaker at-will spells.  I suppose for verisimilitude one could argue that encounter spells are simpler and can be relearned in a 30 minute time frame, whereas daily spells need a long drawn out ritual to put to memory because of their complexity. 

All that said I have never had real problems with Vancian magic - but most of my players aren't min/maxers and we are more into the story.  What is the issue with it?  OP at high levels and weak at low levels would be my guess.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 30, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> Because *it works*.




For a given value of work.

Considering the huge number of alternative systems that have been introduced that are not vancian, right from the get go, I'd say that "it works" is perhaps only true for some people.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 30, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> No, it's not "just because the mechanics say so," it's because some people want martial exploits to be metagame mechanics. You don't _have_ to have magic with names and martial stuff without; take a look at Wheel of Time, where the master swordsmen have evocative names for all their maneuvers (Heron Wading Through the Rushes, Parting the Silk, and such) while the channelers weave elements together to achieve what they want and only a few very powerful effects have specific names.
> 
> As long as you treat mechanics as having some actual manifestation in-game, it doesn't matter whether you call something magic "the _fireball_ spell" or "a spell to make a large explosion of flame" or whether you call a maneuver "the Whirlwind Attack maneuver" or "that thing you do where you swing your sword around and hit everyone around you." They can be equally arbitrary or equally non-arbitrary. That doesn't happen, however, if you treat one or the other as purely a metagame construct.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> You're not making me regret my lack of familiarity with this particular (sub-)genre!




Mission accomplished!

It's not all awful, but having read a bunch of it as "easy reads" when I couldn't get anything better, it would be way down the list of any recommendations I would make. Plus, the playstyle influences run the other way, too. That is, giving the style of play you seem to like, I doubt you'd care for those works. Why read that stuff, when you could read something like Poul Anderson's "Kingdom of Ys"--an excellent RQ inspiration?

I'm an odd bird in that respect, in that my "natural playstyle" was there all along, but emerged slowly. I used to have a strong simulationist, railroading, fudging streak, which interfered with my natural playstyle until I could work it out. Plus, I read a lot, and can get some cheap enjoyment out of some fairly pedestrian work, when in the right mood. I'd rather read a third-rate fantasy novel than watch a second-rate TV show.  So I've got more actual experience with such play and their influences than one would normally expect out of someone who now doesn't care for it much.


----------



## Essenti (Apr 30, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> I think this is what milestones were meant to be. (Exploited most viciously by the warforged vampire knight with meliorating armour). It wasn't enough.




I fully agree, action point/milestones were not enough, they were a very poor mechanic for the purpose of avoiding 15 minute adventuring days. In fact, you actually reset your action point to 1 after a rest, which could cause the players to decide to rest sooner. It was an interesting mechanic, but it was not truly designed to persuade or reward avoidance of the 15minute adventuring day.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> When it comes to preventing people running away, the Weaponmaster Fighter has an _awesome_ rider on his OAs.



The fighter in my game is, overall, a more effective controller than the wizard - although the wizard has some tricks with conjurations and zones that the fighter can't emulate, and also Twist of Space.



Neonchameleon said:


> I think this is what milestones were meant to be.  (Exploited most viciously by the warforged vampire knight with meliorating armour).  It wasn't enough.



I think milestones work OK for a group that is, in any event, inclined to push on rather than rest. I wouldn't say that they incentivise pushing on, but rather that they blunt the edge of it somewhat.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I read a lot, and can get some cheap enjoyment out of some fairly pedestrian work, when in the right mood. I'd rather read a third-rate fantasy novel than watch a second-rate TV show.



Whereas I read very little fiction these days - nearly all the reading that I do is (more-or-less directly) for my work.

But I may have been known to watch the odd second-rate TV show!


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (May 2, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I understand that exploits are not explicitly metagame. In this way I think of them as like hit points - depending on one's take, they are either flexible or incoherent!
> 
> But what I'm missing, I think, is why you think they _can't_ be treated as metagame. In what way do they _not_ affect metagame things only? Maybe there are some rogue powers that I should have in mind but am forgetting about (I'm not really up on my 4e rogue knowledge), but for fighters they're basically more attacks, more damage and more knockback/down, and for rangers they're basically more attacks, more damage and more movement.
> 
> The damage boosts and knockback/down strike me as bascially dice manipulation - analogous to using an explicitly metagame option to reroll or boost damage dice - and the additional attacks seem to me basically to be manipulations of the action economy, which as I've said seems to be obviously metagame (because of it's stop motion implications if treated otherwise).




There are some exploits that you can easily treat as purely metagame in effect; any +X attack or +X[W] damage or similar purely numerical manipulation effects are easily explained that way.  Your continuous action example bear this out well: the difference between getting a lucky crit on one attack and using a +2[W] power or between hitting with both Twin Strike attacks and missing all but two Sweeping Blow attacks isn't all that noticeable, and as someone noted earlier having multiple similar powers can hide this effect.  But when you get past pure numbers and get to things like pushing or stunning or moving more than your speed or hitting everything in reach, the disconnect between the fiction ("here's stuff you can do") and the mechanics ("...but only once per day") is irritating.

Making enemies attack themselves (Bloody Path, Rogue 15), becoming invisible or just hiding amazingly (Hide in Plain Sight, Rogue 16), getting free attacks against people who attack your allies (Strike of the Watchful Guard, Fighter 19), immobilizing someone (Dizzying Blow, Fighter 5), and similar are all things that martial characters can do that can't just be treated as metagame things without some serious inconsistencies.  The rogue can hide so perfectly that he can remain unseen in broad daylight in the middle of an open field...until he moves, then he can't do that again for a day?  The fighter can pick one enemy and take advantage of every opening...but can't do that to anyone else that day?

Anything with that kind of obvious observable effect, with those kinds of obvious tactical advantages, are things that characters would notice and try to take advantage of--if I were a rogue and could turn invisible if I didn't move, I'd use it all the time to sneak in somewhere, wait until a guard left, move to the next room, wait until the guard left, etc.--yet they just can't use their abilities for no obvious, satisfactory (to me, at least) explainable reason.  If you can hide _that well_, why only some of the time?  If you can guard someone _that well_, why only some of the time?  If there were some sort of in-game limitation without such an arbitrary usage restriction such as "need to Bluff to HiPS, -10 penalty per use against someone who just saw you do it," or if there were some sort of metagame counter to the metagame restrictions (daily exploits are usable 1/day, spend an action point to re-use), they would be more palatable, but as it stands the contrast between the character being able to go all day on pure grit and adrenaline doing awesome stuff by the fiction and the character being able to pull off awesome tricks only on a per-day basis by the mechanics is jarring.



> I don't think I get this either. Why do encounters and dailies as metagame stop named martial manoeuvres? In the fiction, the fighter PC performs "Whirlwind Attack" - but on some occasions, its mechanical impact is limited to one target. (Or, if that seems too much trouble and/or too inane, the fighter player can use Passing Attack, say, as one manifestation of his/her PC's Whirlwind Attack, although if there are 3 or more adjacent enemies it will only ever hit two of them.)




The named vs. unnamed maneuvers point was in response to the earlier assertion by several people that you're not actually doing a specific thing in-game, you're just "fighting" and the exploits are what happens when you do.  If your fighter has a Parting the Silk maneuver that he talks about, you'd expect that that maneuver _does_ something particular in the fiction.  It's kind of disingenuous to say "Oh, I use Parting the Silk a lot, it's just that I only hit with it very rarely" to justify a daily usage of the maneuver.  Yes, it makes sense that harder maneuvers are less likely to succeed, but if you tell a player "You can try X a lot but it isn't likely to work often," he'd probably expect a mounting-penalty system or a random-opening system, not a hard cap that he has to work around to justify things in-game.



Neonchameleon said:


> I disagree that the warblade does it in practice any better than the AEDU fighter.  But tastes vary.




The recharge, and by extension being able to pick the right maneuver for the situation, is the key point.  Use a maneuver once, you can do it again.  Have a maneuver that works well against highly mobile foes or larger foes or very damaged foes, you can keep using it.  "I know how to do X, so whenever a situation comes up where X is useful, I can do X" makes much more sense, and is more useful in play, than "I know how to do X, but it'll only work once."



> This.  You're pushing hard at one edge case for AEDU from my perspective.  It's not wholly meta and not wholly IC - but a decent compromise.




I don't think it's an edge case.  The example you quoted, of 3e Diplomacy not making sense in game, is a believability issue many times it's used, not just once in a blue moon.  Likewise, the issues with martial dailies doesn't come up every single time my group plays 4e and a martial character uses a daily power, but it comes up enough to be a big sticking point for us.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 2, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> overall issue, it's that we're a roleplay heavy group in a combat heavy game. In too many cases, the characters are held back mechanically by their roleplay decisions. Things like the paladin not wearing platemail, and the rogue never taking a second wind.



I don't see how taking or not taking second wind is exactly an RP decision.  Is he just terribly aggressive or something?  

Two things about the paladin eschewing platemail:

1) Optimizer observation:  Why not just play an Avenger?

2) Something that's been bugging me forever:  Armor dependency.  Armor just is not a must-have in very much fantasy fiction.  Knights in shining armor are a cliche, sure, and a nice image, so the option of wearing armor certainly makes sense, and it should have some benefit.  But, it shouldn't be a must, and armor or no armor shouldn't be dictated by something as basic as class.  If the Paladin wasn't forced to wear heavy armor, the Avenger would be downright redundant.  Well, more redundant.  If fighters weren't forced into heavy armor (and forced to be incompetent out of combat), there'd be no problem coming up with swashbuckler and duelist type characters.


----------



## Daztur (May 2, 2012)

Armor dependency can be annoying, not so much for genre emulation reasons for me (see Conan's speech about how much he values wearing heavy armor), but because it makes fighters (who I like to play like modern action stars) the clumsiest members of the party and takes a lot of cool action hero stunts that are fun to play off the table. Sucks to have a fighter who's worse than the party wizard at swinging from chandeliers and whatnot.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 2, 2012)

Yeah.  Armor's not nearly that debilitating for, say, Athletics in 4e, than it was for a 3e fighter trying to separately keep up Climb, Jump, and Swim.  The penalty is lower, and there are way to further reduce it beyond just getting armor made of some fantastically expensive material.  But, it's still head to toe metal, which does not fit for some character concepts.  The solution of cleaving off a whole class just to be a 'light armored' version was never attractive, and in 4e (because classes didn't share power lists) burdensome to the developer.

Interestingly, in AD&D, heavy armor was only inconvenient at low levels.  Once you got the magic stuff it was pretty easy-wearing.


----------



## Daztur (May 2, 2012)

Yeah 3.Xed was the most punitive to heavy armor since it was the only one that gave much of a  about that kind of realism.


----------



## Zustiur (May 7, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> I don't see how taking or not taking second wind is exactly an RP decision.  Is he just terribly aggressive or something?
> 
> Two things about the paladin eschewing platemail:
> 
> 1) Optimizer observation:  Why not just play an Avenger?




Not taking second wind can be an RP decision - the character becomes so focussed in combat that she forgets about her own health. She has to literally be ordered to heal herself, otherwise she'll just keep fighting. Especially if her brother (the paladin) is in any sort of trouble.

Likewise with the paladin himself; the player's intention was to play up the halfling's agility by having an agile paladin, but that really doesn't work well in a typical 4E game. Everything about him is paladinic, except for eschewing plate, and for being stupid enough to push on in pursuit of a single orc when the party is badly wounded. He's nothing like an avenger in other ways.
Also, this game started the month after the books were released, so Avengers didn't come out for a long time after.


----------



## Akaiku (May 7, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> Likewise with the paladin himself; the player's intention was to play up the halfling's agility by having an agile paladin, but that really doesn't work well in a typical 4E game. Everything about him is paladinic, except for eschewing plate, and for being stupid enough to push on in pursuit of a single orc when the party is badly wounded. He's nothing like an avenger in other ways.




What other ways? A palidin is a holy warrior in plate. A pursuit avenger is a holy warrior in cloth who runs after that one orc whilst his party gets knocked around. And happens to be dex/wis.

He's a pali in the high cha way? In the lay on hands way?


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 8, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> Everything about him is paladinic, except for eschewing plate, and for being stupid enough to push on in pursuit of a single orc when the party is badly wounded.



That sounds exactly like an Avenger.

It's one of the long-standing weaknesses of D&D that it takes an entirely different class to model a concept, but without armor (or with armor).  Fighters are fine.  Fighter without much armor?  Uh, we'll have to kludge together some kind of 'duelist,' maybe?  Paladins are OK.  Paladin without armor, er.. have an Avenger.  Wizards are a little broken, we can't possibly have them in armor... etc, etc...  

It makes a lot less sense now that heaviest armor no longer equates to best AC.



> Also, this game started the month after the books were released, so Avengers didn't come out for a long time after.



OK, that I can see.


----------



## dagger (May 8, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> Because *it works*.




Yes it does


----------



## Tallifer (May 11, 2012)

One problem with Vancian magic arises in sandbox games. The party rarely has to have more than one or two encounters in one day, so the wizard is usually fully charged and able to dominate an encounter.


(Now of course this negative thought may just arise from the peculiar circumstances of a campaign I recently suffered wherein the dungeon master gave different experience points according to contribution: the wizard therefore got more experience points every session. There were all sorts of other crazy unfair things happening in that campaign, so perhaps in a better run sandbox, Vancian magic is not such an issue.)


----------



## Eric Tolle (May 12, 2012)

Daztur said:


> Yeah 3.Xed was the most punitive to heavy armor since it was the only one that gave much of a  about that kind of realism.




Pretty much whenever there was anything that was "realistic" and punitive, it was designed to screw over the martial classes. Magic Users get screwed over, or even get any of the limitations they had in AD&D? Naaah, It's Maaaagick! 

I honestly think that the designers of 3rd Edition must have been beaten up by jocks in school.


----------



## Zustiur (May 13, 2012)

Holy-late-reply Batman. I've had a busy week.



Akaiku said:


> What other ways? A palidin is a holy warrior in plate. A pursuit avenger is a holy warrior in cloth who runs after that one orc whilst his party gets knocked around. And happens to be dex/wis.
> 
> He's a pali in the high cha way? In the lay on hands way?




In the sense that he is a defender despite having 8 intelligence. He doesn't go after one target like an Avenger, he goes after all the targets - trying to draw them all to him. Plus the lay on hands stuff.



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> That sounds exactly like an Avenger.



Admittedly, I've never seen an Avenger in game, so perhaps they're more paladnic than I think, but from what I've read of them, they sound very different to me.
However, I still  maintain that he's nothing like an Avenger. This paladin behaves the way he does because he's a complete nitwit, not because he's overly zealous in combat. His need to be in the fray is driven by his stupidity, not by his holy battle oaths.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 14, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> n an Avenger in game, so perhaps they're more paladnic than I think, but from what I've read of them, they sound very different to me.



Mechanically, they are, unarmored vs heavy armor is just the tip of the iceberg.

But conceptually they are both violent religious zealots who smite the enemies of their gods.  The Avenger smites a little harder, the Paladin issues glowy challenges.  They fill different roles in the party, use different mechanics, but they're both weapon-wielding wrath of god types.

Were armor choice not so traditionally hard-coded into class in D&D in general, and role not so hard-coded into class in pre-Essential 4e, the Avenger could easily have been a Paladin build or sub-class instead of a class in its own right.  Indeed, there /is/ an 'Avenging Paladin' build in the PH1.  



> However, I still  maintain that he's nothing like an Avenger. This paladin behaves the way he does because he's a complete nitwit, not because he's overly zealous in combat. His need to be in the fray is driven by his stupidity, not by his holy battle oaths.



Well, Avengers can be stupid, if you want, but they shouldn't be foolish (WIS primary).


----------



## qstor (May 17, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Also, personally anyway, having the ability to learn and release a magical effect feels more like a spell.  Having an ability I can use as many times a day as I want feels more like a super-power.




Exactly!!

Mike


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 18, 2012)

Eric Tolle said:


> Pretty much whenever there was anything that was "realistic" and punitive, it was designed to screw over the martial classes. Magic Users get screwed over, or even get any of the limitations they had in AD&D? Naaah, It's Maaaagick!
> 
> I honestly think that the designers of 3rd Edition must have been beaten up by jocks in school.



Never mind that Redgar kept getting killed as part of a writer's revolt against white male fighters.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 19, 2012)

EmbraCraig said:


> So that'll come under the "Rewards System Mastery" column to some people I guess - I see it more as "assumes or requires system mastery".  I don't see that as a good thing - if a new player rocks up to a game and wants to play a Wizard because he thinks they're cool, I don't want to have to say "Probably better not... have you thought about swinging a hammer around? That can be fun too.  Yes, those people are playing casters. They've done their time, so they're allowed to have more fun than you"




Why are they having more fun? Because they get choices? I think it's a good thing that there are options for people who want more complex tactical decisions, and options for people who don't want to stress about it. There are days I want to play the wizard, days I want to play the sorcerer, and days I want to play the guy with the big club, and frankly I don't think 3E provides great options for playing an effective guy with the big club.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, Eldritch Lord - the problem with the system comes when other players deliberately point out potential issues, and then continue pointing them out time after time, using meta-game language in the game (use your Swarm of Arrows Technique) in character, in game, to create problems.




That's exactly why D&D 4 is considered board-gamey. If I'm doing a Swarm of Arrows, it should be a swarm of arrows, and plausibly usable when a swarm of arrows would be usable. It shouldn't be some meta-game technique that's governed by out of game rules.



Neonchameleon said:


> They are running away.  It's not worth spending the next five minutes  checking my bow for cracks just because you want me to shoot fleeing  enemies in the back.  I'll stick to my normal rapid fire of Twin Strike.




Whether or not the character should spend the next five minutes checking her bow for cracks is not a character decision. It should be a player decision, and it may be a no-brainer if the enemies are getting away with the Sapphire of Leng that the PCs have been promised forty times the value of the bow for.



Darwinism said:


> I have to wonder; why are some people that have  no issue at all with the utterly arbitrary 'Vancian' casting system,  which equates to nothing more than narrative control




It's not just narrative control. It's part of the physics of the game world. It's no different then humans needing air or elves not needing sleep; it's the way the world works.



> There is literally no actual difference between a Wizard being able to  cast Fireball once per day at 5 and a Fighter being able to do something  only once a day at 5.



I see a big difference between a fighter only being able to get off only six shots from a six-shooter before reloading and a fighter only being able to get off six kicks to the head before "reloading". You give me a consistent in-world reason why the fighter can only do something once a day, I'll be fine with it. If a character has a ki pool and can only pull so much from it, that works, but you have to give such an explanation that feels right.



> Just one of those examples has been around for a  bit longer, so people who're afraid of any sort of change flag it as  threatening.



I think that shows that you're not listening to the people who object to it.

---

This whole thing sounds a lot like a lot of other arguments. I won't accept these abilities as narrative metagame effects. I understand that many 4E players accept and thrive on that, but as for me, and many other 3E/PF players, it doesn't work for us. Period.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 19, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Yes. It's like players comparing notes on hit points remaining, or (in a game that has them) remaining Fate Points: "You charge, you've got the Fate Points to handle it", which has no ingame analogue ("You look really lucky today!"??).




I don't take hit points as a metagame mechanic; hit point damage is real  damage and someone with enough points in the Heal skill can eyeball  pretty closely how much more damage someone can take. Yes, the two of us have been around this block before, and I have to acknowledge that that takes some willful denial of how hit points work in D&D, but I've made my peace with that. 

Fate points are a different matter. I like giving the player a little more flexibility and safety room, but if people started saying things like "You charge, you've got the Fate Points to handle it", it would really rub me the wrong way. If it were imbedded enough into the fabric of D&D, I probably _would_ justify it in game; there's no reason people, especially people charged with fate, in a D&D world couldn't sense other people charged with fate.



> It's a general feature of metagame mechanics. Some like this, some don't mind it, some don't like it at all.




Thank you. There certainly is a line here, and it gets a bit tiring for both sides to keep arguing as if the other side is being willfully obstinate or blind.


----------



## pemerton (May 20, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> I like giving the player a little more flexibility and safety room, but if people started saying things like "You charge, you've got the Fate Points to handle it", it would really rub me the wrong way.



Whereas if I was playing a Fate Point game, I would find it bizarre for the players to not plan together around their available Fate Points, as a particular instance of the general phenomenon of planning around their available resources.



prosfilaes said:


> There certainly is a line here



I think hit points, and 4e limited martial powers, are designed to somewhat straddle that line. (Whether it works or not is a different matter, obviously).

For me, that's a distinctive feature of D&D.


----------

