In article <tl0t039e4fd28gt0vpe08m0id4mb3805a8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Well, I don't mind seeing sorcerers and wizards being able to do
>something magic every round. I dislike the idea of magic users having
>to be magic misers. But a burst of magic missiles each round is too
>powerful.
I agree. In our hands it puts the wizard up with a non-specialist
archer, or a bit better; somewhat below a specialist archer, except
for targets with very high AC where the wizard is superior. Of course
some
targets are immune, but that applies to arrows too.
That's awfully good for a character who is not a fighter, and who
has all those other impressive spells.
The situation is greatly improved from v3.0, though, due to the
change in Haste: at least you don't get the two-fisted wand user!
>(That has to be my #1 complaint about D&D: "The spells are too
>powerful." If the spells were weaker, they wouldn't need to be
>rationed so tightly, they wouldn't be the unbalanced and over-balanced
>encounter-enders and campaign-busters that they are, and
>non-spellcasters wouldn't need sacks of magic items and comicbook
>superhero type special abilities at high levels to keep parity with
>the spellcasters.)
We are seriously thinking about trying the "each level of primary
spellcaster must alternate with a level of something else" variant.
I imagine it's going to break system assumptions right and left, but
it does seem as though it would fix a lot of problems.
>>We have had our share of interesting minor magic items, but the
>>slot limitations mean they tend to be discarded in favor of
>>boring essential AC, save, to-hit, and damage boosts.
>ouch.
Yeah.
Tillie insisted on getting her Cloack of Arachnidia back last night,
and nearly died through lack of the "boring" +3 protection she had to
give up to get it. Slurped into the embrace of a vampiric ooze,
yuchh. The encounters are all balanced against the assumption you
have around +3 to +5 saves and +6 to +8 armor class over what non-equipped
characters would naturally have.
>>Jon's _Worms_ party doesn't have a single magic item that
>>stands out for me as being part of a characterization: they
>>have tons of items and use them constantly, but it's all a big
>>blurry item pool.
>Again, ouch. It ought to be possible for a character's signature item
>to be "I don't have one. I have a bunch of minor magic things." But it
>isn't so good when every character has to be that character.
I don't think "has to be" is true, but for a relatively short, fast
campaign, permanent items are a poorer buy than expendables for
many purposes, and this leads to having no signature stuff, just a
mountain of expendables.
I have severe worries about the survival of my Worms game at this
point. There's an implicit contract between player(s) and GM when
playing D&D, it seems to me, that the GM will do something appropriate
for non-minimaxed PCs and the player will not minimax to a game-
busting degree. Episode #4 of _Worms_ broke the GM side of that
contract *badly*. It is hard to tell the player "don't minimax"
after throwing a CR16 at level 8 PCs. But once you've started down
that road, is there really a stopping point short of "every fight is
determined before it starts" outcomes?
Episode #5 really never posed any serious danger to the PCs; the
gladiatorial fights in particular were a joke. (The crowd didn't
like the PCs as much as the module thought they should, because
yes, the PCs won, but it was *boring.* Madtooth the great monster
never got to act at all; it just turned into a frog on the first
action of the first PC. Admittedly that was a bad die roll, but
still.)
But it's hard to tell the player "Back down a bit on the minimax"
when there might be another Episode #4 coming at any moment.
(And in fact, I think he *has* backed down some. The line between
enough minimax to survive and too much to be fun is very thin and
hard to spot. I'm not sure that for me there *is* such a line
past about level 12.)
Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
