Quote from: Lord HobieJ, do you somehow get off cursing on forums?

Lord Hobie

If you wish to address my point, feel free.  Otherwise, there is a thread on the subject of profanity in the off-topic forum I'm sure would be glad to have you.

I will utilize the language in whatever fashion I desire, thank you very much, and you'll find it goes poorly for you here if you attempt to dictate otherwise.  This isn't that kind of place.

"Dear Jesus, let armour provide DR."

Quote from: J ArcaneIf you wish to address my point, feel free.  Otherwise, there is a thread on the subject of profanity in the off-topic forum I'm sure would be glad to have you.

I will utilize the language in whatever fashion I desire, thank you very much, and you'll find it goes poorly for you here if you attempt to dictate otherwise.  This isn't that kind of place.

My question stands.

Lord Hobie

Quote from: John MorrowBecause most combats won't need more than 3 burning hands but most days will have more than 3 encounters, thus making the magic user have to choose when to use their 3 burning hands.  Per combat?  Let's start by using those burning hands.  Per day?  Should I be using those burning hands now or saving them for later?

Perhaps the latter isn't fun for a lot of people, but it's a pretty big difference.

The problem with that is, that for a caster, that burning hands, or whatever other spell, are his only real tools.  

A fighter with a greatsword can keep swinging those massive power attacks all damn day, the wizard on the other hand can't keep slinging spells all day, and is bloody useless at doing anything else.

This is why I've always preferred sorcerors (much better spells per day, more flexible in how they can use them), and why I fell in love with the warlock (can keep casting all damn day long if he likes), and even why I like clerics so very much (still decent in melee combat if built right, main spell is spontaneous cast).

Quote from: J ArcaneIf the DM decides to ignore those tools and instead do everything from scratch, of course it's going to take a long fucking time.  It'd take a long fucking time in any game if you went and wrote up every last piece of cannon fodder up like a full PC.

I used all sorts of tools when I ran my D&D 3.5 game, including the Monster Manuals, computer NPC generators, and the http://www.d20srd.org/ (I was the one who suggested the JavaScript in the Monster listings so that you could click on any roll and get a result, allowing a GM to run an counter from the monster page on that site).  I also ran quote a few spontaneous encounters.

A big tool that was missing was a good wandering monster table by environment.  I wound up adapting a database that I found to sort the monsters by environment and CR.  

The Monster Manual also didn't help all that much if you wanted an encounter with an NPC with a class.  There, the automated NPC creator helped a lot, but the quality of the results was still such that I often had to adjust them to make them fit.

Finally, running a monster in an encounter required reading quite a bit of information over carefully, with lots of loaded key words, to understand exactly what a monster could do during the encounter.

Was it unbearable?  No.  Did it seem a lot more difficult than it needed to be?  Yes.

And with respect to doing things from scratch, that also seemed much more difficult than it had to be.  The problem there was that everything interlocked so tightly that I never felt comfortable just fudging changes on the fly.  

Quote from: J ArcaneI mean seriously, do you really do that?  Because I can't even imagine GMing, like that, I'd never have time to do anything, in D&D or anything else for that matter.

I didn't write up every piece of cannon fodder like a PC but I think it's noticeable if none of the NPCs have feats (which are hard to fudge because there are rules to when a character can take feats and feat combinations).  I often just gave my NPCs "Improved Initiative" or the extra HP one because those were the easiest to deal with, leaving me to explain that to my players when they complained about the spectacular initiatives that my monsters always got (partially due to good die rolls, too).  I also gave them individual HP.  Spreadsheets helped with that.

Did I cope?  Yes.  Did I wish it was easier.  Yes.

Quote from: John MorrowI agree.  The problem with limiting resources to a single encounter eliminates any need for long term planning and it invites you to always start out using your biggest guns, since you'll get them back for the next encounter, anyway.

I happen to agree with you about the difference between the encounter vs. long-term models. Both can work; Champions largely works on the encounter model (since body damage is rare), and comic books are full of fights with basically fresh heroes taking each other on. Yes, there are sometimes fights with worn-out, beat-up heroes, and sometimes you take Body damage in old Champions: the model works well there.

Old D&D though worked on a model of attrition over time that in the right hands could make for very interesting challenges. Sure, your fourth level party can kill these orcs dead in melee combat, but you might take five or ten hit points damage in the process; can you spare those hit points more or do you want to use a spell that might be more valuable later instead? That's a good challenge.

But that's actually not what I was posting about. I was posting about the difference between game-units of refreshment (encounter, session, period of real time, adventure defined in one way or another) and imaginary units of refreshment (per period of time passed in the game, when certain actions are undertaken in the game, etc.). Almost everyone designing now, mainstream or indie, thinks that the former are better, and from the viewpoint of 'it's a game' it makes perfect sense. But I am developing a stronger and stronger preference for the latter, because I'm more and more convinced that what makes RPGs fun for me is keeping the imaginary world primary.

(That doesn't change the valid criticism made of old games that time bookkeeping can be a pain in the ass. One needs to find a way to make it less painful or move to different modes of refreshment; I just would prefer that if the different modes are taken they're pegged to imaginary units rather than game ones).

Quote from: J ArcaneThe problem with that is, that for a caster, that burning hands, or whatever other spell, are his only real tools.

Correct.  There are ways to deal with that.  For example, give the magic users bigger guns so that the matter more when they are used, like they are at upper levels, and then give them unlimited cantrips that do things that support the other party members, like helping them avoid AoOs (of they still exist), +1 to hit, +1 to AC, etc.  I suspect that might be what they are actually doing, which would make some sense.

Quote from: J ArcaneA fighter with a greatsword can keep swinging those massive power attacks all damn day, the wizard on the other hand can't keep slinging spells all day, and is bloody useless at doing anything else.

Correct.  But is that really all we want a magic user to be?  A fighter who shoots magical bolts instead of arrows?

Quote from: J ArcaneThis is why I've always preferred sorcerors (much better spells per day, more flexible in how they can use them), and why I fell in love with the warlock (can keep casting all damn day long if he likes), and even why I like clerics so very much (still decent in melee combat if built right, main spell is spontaneous cast).

But also bear in mind that the fighter will never get to swing their sword and kill half of an army standing 300 feet away.  So there is a flip side to this parity issue and you'll notice there are plenty of complaints about how lame fighters are at the higher levels that match the complaints about how lame magic users are at the lower levels.

QuoteA big tool that was missing was a good wandering monster table by environment. I wound up adapting a database that I found to sort the monsters by environment and CR.

I wound up dusting off my 1e DMG, which remained useful throughout my 4 years of intensive 3e play.

Quote from: J ArcaneIf you wish to address my point, feel free.  Otherwise, there is a thread on the subject of profanity in the off-topic forum I'm sure would be glad to have you.

I will utilize the language in whatever fashion I desire, thank you very much, and you'll find it goes poorly for you here if you attempt to dictate otherwise.  This isn't that kind of place.

Just to be clear, I think J is doing that whole "excluded middle" thingy where the only options he is offering are use the shortcuts in the book or build a full PC entirely from scratch, but I have no problem with him swearing like a goddamn sailor when he does it.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe problem with that is, that for a caster, that burning hands, or whatever other spell, are his only real tools.  

A fighter with a greatsword can keep swinging those massive power attacks all damn day, the wizard on the other hand can't keep slinging spells all day, and is bloody useless at doing anything else.

This is why I've always preferred sorcerors (much better spells per day, more flexible in how they can use them), and why I fell in love with the warlock (can keep casting all damn day long if he likes), and even why I like clerics so very much (still decent in melee combat if built right, main spell is spontaneous cast).

Given the snippets we've learned, i suspect that all of this will be covered in feat trees. Want to cast spontaneously? Get a feat that allows you to with a *certain number* of spells. Want to cast per encounter rather than per day, get a feat that allows you to cast *insert spell here* that number of times per encounter. I really doubt that all spells will reset between each encounter, 'cos when you get to higher levels, it'll get silly. Therefore, you can build your spellcaster around certain abilities, rather like the Fighter gets a feat tree depending on what type of weapon he uses.

Could be wrong of course! Wild speculation is fun though.

Quote from: J ArcaneI mean seriously, do you really do that?

Not every monster, of course, but I do it quite often.

Did you miss the parts of Underworld and Wilderness Adventures and the Holmes-edited Basic Set that exhorted us to make up our own worlds, rules, monsters, and so forth? What the hell game are you playing, anyway?

This is part of why internet debate about D&D is basically hopeless unless people are willing to take the time to listen to each other. Too many books, too many editions, too many expectations, all of which are potentially defensible.

Mea culpa.  I was taken aback momentarily.  I have recovered.  Thank you.  

Lord Hobie

Quote from: CalithenaI was posting about the difference between game-units of refreshment (encounter, session, period of real time, adventure defined in one way or another) and imaginary units of refreshment (per period of time passed in the game, when certain actions are undertaken in the game, etc.). Almost everyone designing now, mainstream or indie, thinks that the former are better, and from the viewpoint of 'it's a game' it makes perfect sense. But I am developing a stronger and stronger preference for the latter, because I'm more and more convinced that what makes RPGs fun for me is keeping the imaginary world primary.

Ah, yes.  Very good point.  I do agree with that, too.

Quote from: ghost ratWell, maybe the new system is designed with that in mind and deals with it. I'm not against resource management, but a spell recharge time of one day seems pretty damn arbitrary. How is, say 3 burning hands a combat rather than 3 a day going to rock the world aside from making a mage less useless?

I'd expect casters will have two main types of abilities.

(1) Abilities that refresh per encounter.  This will probably include your basic blammies & abilities reminiscent of Reserve Feats from Complete Mage

(2) Major abilities that either refresh per day, or require an even more limited resource like Action Points (or SW: Saga force points) to use.

This would of course make wizards and sorcerers more or less redundant, and may even obviate the need for warlocks.

-O

obryn, I am amused by the fact that the spellcaster you envision for 4e dovetails quite nicely with the Warlock class from Encounter Critical.