Quote from: CabAnd live long enough you'll BE that great mage.

Well, the key point here is that this is an aesthetic preference. The long path of suffering to greatness. I've enjoyed this greatly at times in D&D but practicality dictates that having characters of equal level being roughly equally useful is the way to go for a solid design that leads to balanced play and better pacing.

This may mean that D&D will lose some of its eclectic charm for some (like you, it seems) but really, I don't think they'll turn back in that direction. There are still a lot of ways they can put flavor into each class that we haven't seen and will make their way in future edition. But having whacky progression dependant on classes is probably not going to be one of them.

And don't forget, a chunk of spells (20% I think) will still be per day and you can bet that they will be the tasty ones if the 4th edition design gets it right. It strikes me as an interesting compromise so far.

Quote from: SpikeWow, if that post doesn't cement your reputation as a 'one true wayist' than I suspect nothing will.  

Here is a clue bat strike for ya: Not everyone wants to play the fighter as the dull meatwad stopping the gribblies from eating everyone.

True, and the well played, thinking fighter (for example) can be a great character to play; my favourite character type I think. Takes some doing, but well worth it. But at the same time, if thats the party fighter then you'll have to shoulder some of the burden of hitting things sometimes!

QuoteNot everyone wants to play the rogue as the guy who doesn't get seen until he sticks a (poisoned? Who can tell? We ain't mind readers, Cab...) dagger into someone's back.

Also true, a rogue character can be played many ways too. You seem to think that I've implied that the rogue must only be played one way; I haven't, I've stated the way that I've seen the rogue played normally.

QuoteNot everyone wants to play a wizard who is three quarters charletan.

A wizard who is played as using his brain to stay alive until he's got enough spells to rely on isn't a charlatan. Odd thing for you to say there.

QuoteThis isn't WoW, there aren't supposed to be tankers and DPS'ser and healers and god forbid if you do something sub optimal (like a DPS warrior... heaven forfend) you won't beat that raid boss this week for his magic pants.

How peculiar; I argue that some character classes tend to be in a better position to use cunning than others, and suddenly you think I'm saying thats how all members of those classes should be played... Funny conclusion for you to draw, that one. You should step outside, get some fresh air, think for a bit.

Quote from: Consonant DudeWell, the key point here is that this is an aesthetic preference. The long path of suffering to greatness. I've enjoyed this greatly at times in D&D but practicality dictates that having characters of equal level being roughly equally useful is the way to go for a solid design that leads to balanced play and better pacing.

The premis of the argument I'm putting forward is that while the low mage might not be as combat capable as some other equivalent level characters, in the wider context of the game he can still be every bit as valuable to the party and as good to play. To blame vancian magic for percieved shorcomings in the mage character class seems to be rather missing the point.

Quote from: CabThus turning the mage into a rather bland second rate archer? Why?

Because even if I am functioning mechanically identically to a second-rate archer, I am a) contributing to the fight usefully, if not spectacularly, b) doing it with magic, which is crucial, and c) not having to rely on the GM's situational whim.

Quote from: SettembriniThis discussion reinforces my assertion that 4th edition will be the grandest of all Fantasy Heartbreakers.
I start to think of 4e as "beer, that is not bitter!", that is beer for people that don´t like beer.

I wouldn't go as far as that, but I would say that from what I've heard so far they're producing an RPG that simulates computer game action rather than an RPG for sustained campaign play. So much focus on board gaming, combat options and suchlike. For me it takes the worst elements of 3e and continues going off in a direction that leaves me cold. And its a shame, because the game engine they've got in d20 is basically sound.

Quote from: ghost ratBecause even if I am functioning mechanically identically to a second-rate archer, I am a) contributing to the fight usefully, if not spectacularly, b) doing it with magic, which is crucial, and c) not having to rely on the GM's situational whim.

Ahh, but you can (a) contribute to a fight usefully without that, (b) what of it, so a low level mage sometimes has to find alternatives to magic because he's still a novice, and (c) if your GM doesn't reward creativity, get a better one. Heck, if you're saying that 4th ed will have to program the game to the point where the GM can't make mistakes any more... Words fail me.

Quote from: CabThe premis of the argument I'm putting forward is that while the low mage might not be as combat capable as some other equivalent level characters, in the wider context of the game he can still be every bit as valuable to the party and as good to play. To blame vancian magic for percieved shorcomings in the mage character class seems to be rather missing the point.

In the wider context of the game? Where skills are useful, for example? Exactly right, if you mean Decipher Script, craft, knowledge and profession skills, and assuming the mage has the right ones. He will, however, have precious few choices after taking Concentration, Decipher Script, Spellcraft and Knowledge(arcana). Everything else is cross-class.

Or do you mean non-combat spells? They can indeed be incredibly handy, or incredibly not, depending on circumstances.

Quote from: ghost ratIn the wider context of the game? Where skills are useful, for example?

No. I mean in that the best tool the player of a mage has is his own guile, which coupled with a couple of skills and (if you must) a decent intelligence modifier on a couple of class and non-class skills allows that character to contrinute in all kins of situations.

Quote from: CabNo. I mean in that the best tool the player of a mage has is his own guile, which coupled with a couple of skills and (if you must) a decent intelligence modifier on a couple of class and non-class skills allows that character to contrinute in all kins of situations.

Okay. Like what skills are you thinking of?

Quote from: CabI wouldn't go as far as that, but I would say that from what I've heard so far they're producing an RPG that simulates computer game action rather than an RPG for sustained campaign play. So much focus on board gaming, combat options and suchlike. For me it takes the worst elements of 3e and continues going off in a direction that leaves me cold. And its a shame, because the game engine they've got in d20 is basically sound.

Oh good!  I was beginning to worry we wouldn't hear any comparisons to video games!

-O

Quote from: CabThe premis of the argument I'm putting forward is that while the low mage might not be as combat capable as some other equivalent level characters, in the wider context of the game he can still be every bit as valuable to the party and as good to play.

The problem is that combats in D&D can take a long-ass time to resolve. The issue becomes whether it is fun for a player if his character becomes sub-optimal during what might be considered one of the highlight of the session.

Understand that I am not saying your tastes are wrong. This is an aesthetic preference. But unfortunately for you, I think a lot of players are going to be pleased if wizards get some more spellcasting to get involved in tension-filled fights. WotC designers seem to agree as well.

And sorry to repeat myself, but I really think the 20% of spells per day might be a compromise that will make the pill easier to swallow for those who share your concerns.

With every class getting their share of abilities per day, all WotC needs to do is to carefully identify ways for classes to shine and everybody should be happy and have their spotlight moments. You would still have to play smartly, you would still have ressources to manage, you would still run out of important abilities.

Quote from: obrynOh good!  I was beginning to worry we wouldn't hear any comparisons to video games!

-O

The extra focus on combat we've seen described in 4th ed so far makes this a valid comparison. Abilities per encounter, essentially a sort of re-set button at the end of each bit, is very computer-game.

Quote from: ghost ratOkay. Like what skills are you thinking of?

Take your pick. How do you plan to play this mage?

Quote from: Consonant DudeThe problem is that combats in D&D can take a long-ass time to resolve. The issue becomes whether it is fun for a player if his character becomes sub-optimal during what might be considered one of the highlight of the session.

I think thats one of the underlying problems; as combat has become more complex in D&D, the resolution of a fight takes longer, and longer. Spells are more complex, the precise positioning of characters is more important, there is no such thing as a 'general melee' any more. For all the engine running 3rd ed is essentially the same as in earlier editions (roll d20 against a total you need to hit, roll damage on other dice) fights do take a lot longer. Personally, when playing that game I've found that to be an advantage to those characters who are generally less combat capable. I've got more time to think about how to take action other than just hitting someone, I've got time to come up with a fight winning plan, whereas in a game of classic D&D your 'turn' comes around so fast, and theres so little emphasis on exact positioning there are fewer clear opportunities to exploit.

QuoteUnderstand that I am not saying your tastes are wrong. This is an aesthetic preference. But unfortunately for you, I think a lot of players are going to be pleased if wizards get some more spellcasting to get involved in tension-filled fights. WotC designers seem to agree as well.

And sorry to repeat myself, but I really think the 20% of spells per day might be a compromise that will make the pill easier to swallow for those who share your concerns.

With every class getting their share of abilities per day, all WotC needs to do is to carefully identify ways for classes to shine and everybody should be happy and have their spotlight moments. You would still have to play smartly, you would still have ressources to manage, you would still run out of important abilities.

I predict that we'll see a lot less creative play in 4th ed than ever before. If people don't need to think, a lot of them just don't.

Quote from: CabI predict that we'll see a lot less creative play in 4th ed than ever before. If people don't need to think, a lot of them just don't.

Can we count on you to hang around and show us how the greats do it? :tears: