I never had that trouble either. Guess it depends on the group you're playing with.Since we're sharing input on this, I've never had that "problem" either.
Add me to this group. If all your wizard can do is cast spells, he is already beneath average survivability levels. I mean come on, these guys have high intelligence, right? Think outside of the box. Try something indirect.
Or better yet, plan better and use your resources more efficeintly.
|
I never had that trouble either. Guess it depends on the group you're playing with.Since we're sharing input on this, I've never had that "problem" either.
Neither have I. The 13th level wizard/druid in my current campaign is walking library of magical lore. He is never without a spell and hasn't been since about 3rd or 4th level. Even when he did run out of spells at earlier levels he had other things to fall back on.
|
In nearly a decade of running 3.X games, I almost never had a wizard complain about running through all their spells after 2nd or 3rd level, and even when they did, it didn't stop the entire game because he was always packing backup instead of demanding the whole party carter to his whims.In my time with the system, I've found the opposite true. As soon as that Wizard and even Sorcerer ran out of spells the game became "let's find a spot to rest so we can get our spells back for our caster..."
To each his own I guess.
That's why they make magic items like staves and wands... though I'm another of the "never seen this happen in my game" camp. The only time lack of spells slows my PCs down is when the Cleric is totally out.
That's why they make magic items like staves and wands... though I'm another of the "never seen this happen in my game" camp. The only time lack of spells slows my PCs down is when the Cleric is totally out.
More often it is the Cleric being out of spells that makes my group call a halt to the day, although sometimes the Wizard is the culprit.
Perhaps casters in my group don't rely on wands/staves as much as they should?
I also never had this problem,i alwais had a back up weapon until a can afford a wand and some scroll.
I'm with you Immora, that's not bad design...that's bad playing.
I've been playing 4e now since the quick start was released. It's a fun game. Limited, frustratingly linear, incredibly disaccosiated, but fun.
It's Basic D&D, a great way to get newbies in the fold. As such, I play 4e with my wife and kids.
My real gaming group is all 3.5/PFRPG, Advanced D&D - it's not everyones schtick.
That said, there is no RIGHT or WRONG way to play, the game is pretty self regulating in that respect. Besides, we have all the splatbooks to look forward to! In two years each class will have 100 different powers to choose from, at every level. Hell, they've just nearly doubled the amount of rituals since release.
On another note: Who playtests this crap? NONE of this mountain of errata was noticed during the "exhaustive" closed playtest? I'm returning my core books and waiting for the 4.1 reprint, this is just ridiculous.
That's why they make magic items like staves and wands... though I'm another of the "never seen this happen in my game" camp. The only time lack of spells slows my PCs down is when the Cleric is totally out.More often it is the Cleric being out of spells that makes my group call a halt to the day, although sometimes the Wizard is the culprit.
Perhaps casters in my group don't rely on wands/staves as much as they should?
That could be a problem of my DMing style too.. I don't hand out as much treasure and gold as I probably should. I like to keep my PCs on a tight leash. :)
|
I don't see how using a power is any different than colorful descriptions in combat.
then your not looking hard enough, colourful description = only fluff power = fluff and crunch. Would a colourful description ever allow you to do something extra unless the dm house rules/fiats it No. Do you powers allow you to do something extra, yes.
I wasn't very clear. Of course there are mechanical results. I don't think the repeated use of twin strike is any more exciting than "I swing my sword and warhammer". Both can be dressed up. Only now the action is restricted to a certain number of powers.
But I think you hit upon what is my problem here. The powers feel much more static to me. They were advertised as a way for all players to do something "cool" in combat. Instead they just feel repetitive to me.
And I am one of those DMs that add extra effects for the sake of flair. I like combat to be dynamic and dramatic. The formula doesn't work for me. I find it more stifling than exciting.
But I recognize this is a "me" thing. I am having trouble getting past the powers in that regard.
I totally agree with what you are saying. When I first got the books my group demanded we add a 3rd game to our rotation.
However, now that we've been playing for the better part of the summer, we almost always end up playing either my 3.5 campaign converted to alpha PFRPG or Star Wars Saga edition. The luster of the new system wore off and our other games were both more interesting and more fun.
I say this as a person who sat in front of the 4e book for hours before picking his class and race because it looked so tough as a choice, and now "meh' I don't even want to try out those other things i was thinking about.
I have to say I'm a bit annoyed with the amount of Errata put out already. Not sure how I'm going to integrate all of that.
In my experience it's not that tough. Print out a copy of the errata document (if you want to conserve paper, move all the text to a new document - there's a lot of margin space in the original errata) and keep it with your books. To assist yourself in finding it during a game, do one of two things:
a) If you don't mind marking up your books a little, place a little asterisk with a red pen or what have you next to each item in your books which has been errata'd.
b) If you would rather not mark your books, get a pack of those little post-it flags and insert them next to items in your books that have been errata'd. These are even cooler, since you can actually right the page # of the errata document that the change is located on.
Either way, when you look up something and see that little mark next to it, grab your errata document and read the changed rule. Of course, you should also read the errata document through ahead of time, just like you would your rule books so that the easy-to-remember things don't require looking up.
At least the mage can adventure all day now intead of going 'well I've cast my magic missiles, my Fireball, my shields been dispelled and I've only got cantrips left...basically I can't do anything else so can we stop now?' and the fighters amd rogues complaining that its only been an hour of the campaign day.Nothing personal, but I am so tired of that strawman. I rarely heard anyone complaining about their wizards running out of spells and that stopped the game, especially beyond 2nd level. It became a talking point last year when WOTC announced 4E and how it would fix all these "problems" that no one had until they started repeating them ad naseum.
3E made some great strides forward for Wizards. The class was originally a resource-management role, carefully doling out magic as the situation calls for it, and some players (myself included) really get a kick out of resource management. In 3E, they realized that 1)Resource management is hard, and 2) not everyone likes it. So they introduced the sorceror, who gets more spells per day and doesn't have to pre-prepare, and they give wizards access to better weapons (like the crossbow) and equipment (lovely, lovely alchemists fire) to supplement their spells. They even packed in more extra-spell magic items to address the problem, like wands and more scrolls in almost every treasure horde. In nearly a decade of running 3.X games, I almost never had a wizard complain about running through all their spells after 2nd or 3rd level, and even when they did, it didn't stop the entire game because he was always packing backup instead of demanding the whole party carter to his whims.
That being said, I can see how some people would enjoy the new powers system. I'm just tired of the overused lines about the 20-minute adventuring day; It's a poor argument to hide behind.
I have also been running games for well over 10 years having run the very 1st 3.0 edition of the new(it was new then) D&D and I assure you that the 'I'm running out of spells( prayers more importantly)' is still an issue for a number of players(clerics\mages and sorcerers). I'll admit it's generally more of an issue with certain players not spreading their resources but it's still an issue as the party will stop if the priests run out of healing and the mage has only cantrips left so I'd say its still a valid arguement!!
Generally the problem 3rd ed seems to suffer is the higher level spells\prayers(3rd level+) are too good and utility spells/healing are forgotten as the player unleashes spells\prayers that change the average mage or priest into an unstoppable force. Naturally certain players will work to combine the most effective groups of spells to change them into this combat monster but leave themselves short of resources after a single encounter. To a high degree its more of an issue with the PC's approach than with the system but because the options there they will do it.
In 4th edition they seem to have pulled the spells and prayers back a bit and changed them to a comparable ability with the new fighter,rogue or paladin and now the Spell\prayer can be cast in every encounter. Long term testing will tell however so I'm not completely convinced until the PC reach 20th level or higher.
|
It can be if that's all you want it to be. The rules support far more than that, though. A lot of people ignore this, for whatever reason. I think you may be falling victim to hearing them say it so many times that it starts to become true.
I'm trying, but for the most part my players balk at the "new" stuff (when the guidelines are in the DMG for traps,puzzles, skill-challenges), or argue when I make spot decisions and claim it is not RAW (when in the DMG it is an option or part of RAW). Which I find strange, since this seemed not to happen in similar situations with 3.5.
I think its a question of bringing back the players' mindsets that you can rp in this game. We'll see. I converted a rp'-intensive adventure from an old Dungeon where some of the main encounters are suicide to zerg. Will it teach them? /shrug..Who knows?
It can be if that's all you want it to be. The rules support far more than that, though. A lot of people ignore this, for whatever reason. I think you may be falling victim to hearing them say it so many times that it starts to become true.I'm trying, but for the most part my players balk at the "new" stuff (when the guidelines are in the DMG for traps,puzzles, skill-challenges), or argue when I make spot decisions and claim it is not RAW (when in the DMG it is an option or part of RAW). Which I find strange, since this seemed not to happen in similar situations with 3.5.
I think its a question of bringing back the players' mindsets that you can rp in this game. We'll see. I converted a rp'-intensive adventure from an old Dungeon where some of the main encounters are suicide to zerg. Will it teach them? /shrug..Who knows?
Trouble appears to be each character now has some new and defined Powers for combat and a much more limited set of options for non-combat gameplay which looks like combat is in and roleplay is out.
The Combat Powers are just a mechanic for combat same as Feats like Power Attack, Cleave or any of the others and if the Players can't relate to this you might want to ask them why they believe that roleplay isn't required with the 4th ed Characters.The area that i've seen has been knocked back is the Skill choices and options. The fact that a fighter has something like 6 Skills to choose from and three to choose makes most Fighter very cloned sadly especially as ALL the characters improve with their skills at half the level.
I am planning on increasing the skill options by about 6 extra skills including Profession and craft although the Prof and Craft will be handled slightly differently than the other skills.
|
|
To a high degree its more of an issue with the PC's approach than with the system but because the options there they will do it.
And that is one of the great differences between 3rd and 4th. In the former you have to evaluate which spells to memorize and which spells to cast at what time. This takes a lot of planning and thinking for the Wizard and Cleric.
If you have memorized your spells, you are stuck with them and have to use them as best as possible for combat encounter and RP situations.In 4th it is less ressource management than tactical consideration how and when to use a power during an encounter. This involves almost no planning but a lot of ad hoc evaluation of the combat situation.
So IMO playing a 3rd Wizard or Cleric includes a lot of STRATEGIC considerations that happen mostly out of game (in the time you take to mark the spells you memorize for the day or which scrolls to buy/write).
Playing a 4th Wizard includes a lot of TACTICAL considerations as powers have a more drastic effect on combat than in 3rd due to the various conditions you can inflict or the shifting, pushing, pulling someone around.
Thoughts on my thoughts?
Excellent point Tharen. Time for some thinking...
For those who adopted 4e early, has the game started to lose any of its luster?
No; it's still shiny.
If anyone takes a comparison between all spells from D&D basic to D&D 3.5 and the spells (or power or abilities) in 4th Ed, you'll notice that these spells are missing:
Cleric 1st level:
bless water
detect [alignment]
detect undead
deathwatch
hide from undead
protection from [alignment]Cleric 2nd level:
augury
calm emotions
consecrate
delay poison
eagle's splendor
make whole
owl's wisdom
status
undetectable alignment
zone of truthCleric 3rd level:
create food and water
daylight
glyph of warding
locate object
magic circle against [alignment]
obscure object
speak with dead
stone shape
water breathing
water walkThere's some much more to name here and no, rituals don't cover enough of it at all.
These spells are mostly not combat oriented and its these spells that are removed from 4th...
This is the one area of the game that I find needs to be expanded soon. Hopefully, a clever (or at least quick) 3rd party publisher will publish a Book of Lost Rituals as soon as the GSL is revised into something more sensible.
I'd ritualize the following:
(purify?) water
protection from [alignment] (as a more classic, literary-style circle of protection)
augury
delay poison
create food and water
glyph of warding
magic circle against [alignment] (see above)
speak with dead (at much higher level)
stone shape
water breathing (at much higher level)
water walk
daylight (with perhaps a combat/blinding version as a power)
I'd keep the following out of the game:
detect [alignment]
eagle's splendor
owl's wisdom
zone of truth
locate object
These could be hit or miss, because in 25 years I've hardly ever used them:
detect undead
deathwatch
hide from undead
calm emotions
consecrate
status
undetectable alignment
obscure object
To a high degree its more of an issue with the PC's approach than with the system but because the options there they will do it.And that is one of the great differences between 3rd and 4th. In the former you have to evaluate which spells to memorize and which spells to cast at what time. This takes a lot of planning and thinking for the Wizard and Cleric.
If you have memorized your spells, you are stuck with them and have to use them as best as possible for combat encounter and RP situations.In 4th it is less ressource management than tactical consideration how and when to use a power during an encounter. This involves almost no planning but a lot of ad hoc evaluation of the combat situation.
So IMO playing a 3rd Wizard or Cleric includes a lot of STRATEGIC considerations that happen mostly out of game (in the time you take to mark the spells you memorize for the day or which scrolls to buy/write).
Playing a 4th Wizard includes a lot of TACTICAL considerations as powers have a more drastic effect on combat than in 3rd due to the various conditions you can inflict or the shifting, pushing, pulling someone around.Thoughts on my thoughts?
I totally agree, it was generally annoying as hell when you prepared your 3rd ed Wiz or Cleric( Wiz especially)for an undead adventure to promptly find out it's demons and most of your spells will do next to nothing in the adventure.
On the other end of the mage and cleric can waste a lot of game time choosing there spells in a 3rd edition game instead of getting involved in the story of the adventure.|
|
To a high degree its more of an issue with the PC's approach than with the system but because the options there they will do it.And that is one of the great differences between 3rd and 4th. In the former you have to evaluate which spells to memorize and which spells to cast at what time. This takes a lot of planning and thinking for the Wizard and Cleric.
If you have memorized your spells, you are stuck with them and have to use them as best as possible for combat encounter and RP situations.In 4th it is less ressource management than tactical consideration how and when to use a power during an encounter. This involves almost no planning but a lot of ad hoc evaluation of the combat situation.
So IMO playing a 3rd Wizard or Cleric includes a lot of STRATEGIC considerations that happen mostly out of game (in the time you take to mark the spells you memorize for the day or which scrolls to buy/write).
Playing a 4th Wizard includes a lot of TACTICAL considerations as powers have a more drastic effect on combat than in 3rd due to the various conditions you can inflict or the shifting, pushing, pulling someone around.Thoughts on my thoughts?
I totally agree, it was generally annoying as hell when you prepared your 3rd ed Wiz or Cleric( Wiz especially)for an undead adventure to promptly find out it's demons and most of your spells will do next to nothing in the adventure.
On the other end of the mage and cleric can waste a lot of game time choosing there spells in a 3rd edition game instead of getting involved in the story of the adventure.
Wow, I think you just solidified one of the things I hate about 4th edition. The characters don't have to do any research, they just run in, powers blazing. That's a bit.....extreme, I know. But there really isn't much need for prep time now.
Some times the planning is part of the fun. I was one of those guys who enjoyed Shadowrun when a good part of the game was planning how to pull off the run. In fact, I was okay with the idea that the planning session could take just as long as the actual run, if not longer.
|
Some times the planning is part of the fun. I was one of those guys who enjoyed Shadowrun when a good part of the game was planning how to pull off the run.
Unlike Shadowrun, D&D does not really have any recon elements. Sure - there is divination but that's not the same.
The identity of the big bad guy in D&D is often kept hidden so that the final fight will be a big surprise. In addition the use of the dungeon as a common setting makes scouting out the enemy and fighting them a singular event. Add to that the vast array of bad guys and environments closed to scouting (how many bad guys come into the "world" through hidden portals to other planes?) and it gets even more complicated.
I like planning as well but D&D just isn't the kind of game that lends itself to that particular play style.
|
|
Unlike Shadowrun, D&D does not really have any recon elements. Sure - there is divination but that's not the same.
I like planning as well but D&D just isn't the kind of game that lends itself to that particular play style.
I'd say this again depends on style of play. Use of rogues, clairvoyance spells, prying eyes, hit-and-run tactics, familiars (if the mage is bold enough)... I've seen plenty of such work that paid off substantially for players in the dungeon setting, across levels. I've had the more common experience that the BBEG was in fact not that hard of a battle, because by the time they got to it, the players had plenty of intel. As alleynbard noted, the planning for the end-battle was usually a lot of fun.
|
|
I'd say this again depends on style of play. Use of rogues, clairvoyance spells, prying eyes, hit-and-run tactics, familiars (if the mage is bold enough)... I've seen plenty of such work that paid off substantially for players in the dungeon setting, across levels. I've had the more common experience that the BBEG was in fact not that hard of a battle, because by the time they got to it, the players had plenty of intel. As alleynbard noted, the planning for the end-battle was usually a lot of fun.
Unlike Shadowrun, D&D does not really have any recon elements. Sure - there is divination but that's not the same.
I like planning as well but D&D just isn't the kind of game that lends itself to that particular play style.
Sure - it can be done. My point is that Shadowrun excels in this department. D&D has always been the game you play with little or no intel besides listening at the door. I know the tools are there to do much more than that but they are seldom used.
D&D has always been the game you play with little or no intel besides listening at the door.
It may be that D&D has always been the game *you* play with little or no intel besides listening at the door, but in 27 years of playing it, I have never played a game where intel wasn't our primary concern. This is another one of those "individual style" debates. Just because your experience says "D&D lacks intel" does not mean that anyone else's game lacked it. Every game has the capacity for all contingencies ... it the use of the game that causes lackings, not the game itself.
... it the use of the game that causes lackings, not the game itself.
I find this to be very true in most cases.
|
|
D&D has always been the game you play with little or no intel besides listening at the door.It may be that D&D has always been the game *you* play with little or no intel besides listening at the door, but in 27 years of playing it, I have never played a game where intel wasn't our primary concern. This is another one of those "individual style" debates. Just because your experience says "D&D lacks intel" does not mean that anyone else's game lacked it. Every game has the capacity for all contingencies ... it the use of the game that causes lackings, not the game itself.
I'd have to agree with that one. In my experience our rogue was more often a scout than thief. Being able to sneak up to a fortress, even scale the walls, and tell us about the defenses is invaluable, and still a whole lot of fun for the rest of us crossing our fingers that he won't get caught. There's still things the other players can do to scout as well - wizards or sorcerers have a large array of divination spells or buffs to give the rogue, druids and rangers can call upon woodland friends (even plants!) to gather clues, etc. If you've really never done that before, you're missing out on a huge part of what D&D has to offer.
In my experience, at least, scouting has never been a very great tactic to try and use. The scout almost always is detected through one manner or another (depending on their method of hiding) which results on all forces being put on alert, defeating the purpose of scouting them out in the first place. Even worse, the poor scout is often far away from allies, either resulting in their death, or forcing their allies to charge into a fully alerted camp to save their buddy.
Things tend to get messy. Now using divinatory magic, sure, that rocks; scouting always causes WAY more trouble at my tables that it ever avoids though.
Anyhoo, to a certain extent, 4E can still contain more strategic descisions. For one, Wizards still have limited Vancian casting. Secondly, if you have some prewarning of what you're going up against, nothing prevents your party from discussing their in-battle tactics before hand. Maybe you convince the Eladrin to give you a Fey Step wild ride to the back row where you're going to explode a nice big Close Burst into their back rank. You delay, pop over, and explode. Great strategy!
Cheers! :)
In my experience, at least, scouting has never been a very great tactic to try and use. The scout almost always is detected through one manner or another (depending on their method of hiding) which results on all forces being put on alert, defeating the purpose of scouting them out in the first place. Even worse, the poor scout is often far away from allies, either resulting in their death, or forcing their allies to charge into a fully alerted camp to save their buddy.
Must not be a very good scout - or a very forgiving DM.
Anyhoo, to a certain extent, 4E can still contain more strategic descisions. For one, Wizards still have limited Vancian casting. Secondly, if you have some prewarning of what you're going up against, nothing prevents your party from discussing their in-battle tactics before hand. Maybe you convince the Eladrin to give you a Fey Step wild ride to the back row where you're going to explode a nice big Close Burst into their back rank. You delay, pop over, and explode. Great strategy!
Cheers! :)
I agree. I think 4th Edition provides for MORE strategy. Seemed like in 3.x Edition, it was "buff, move in, stand there toe-to-toe, hack, slash, blast, heal" rinse, repeat. Now, a lot of that stuff is still there (luckily), but 4th Edition has expanded the in-game tactics on the battlefield a bit to include a lot more variables in terms of movement and the options available via the powers themselves - especially for fighter-types.
In my experience, at least, scouting has never been a very great tactic to try and use. The scout almost always is detected through one manner or another (depending on their method of hiding) which results on all forces being put on alert, defeating the purpose of scouting them out in the first place. Even worse, the poor scout is often far away from allies, either resulting in their death, or forcing their allies to charge into a fully alerted camp to save their buddy.Must not be a very good scout - or a very forgiving DM.
Well, for pretty much every method of moving undetected into an enemy area, there are countermeasures against it. And sure, not EVERY countermeasure available will always be deployed against the party, but against the more common forms (sneaking about/turning invisible) you can expect some preparation. Unless the level of scouting is truly superficial, I really haven't seen many instances where the scout wasn't found out and either slain outright or forced to flee to his buddies with some angry residents in tow.
I also believe that this is an issue of perspective. For every game where the scout is discovered all the time, alerting the enemy, there's another game where gaining intel and recon is an important component.
In my latest game, a precursor to Red Hand of Doom, the characters were confronted by a Red Hand cell in their home city, plotting its downfall. They were able to locate the cell's home base, in the undercity, scouted the exterior, got some intel on the occupants and security, ambushed one of the Red Hand members, and gathered some information on what they were doing in the city.
Then they raided the home base through the front door, and penetrated straight into its heart. It was a tough battle, but they had a better idea of what they were getting into.
-Steve
Wow, I think you just solidified one of the things I hate about 4th edition. The characters don't have to do any research, they just run in, powers blazing. That's a bit.....extreme, I know. But there really isn't much need for prep time now.
Some times the planning is part of the fun. I was one of those guys who enjoyed Shadowrun when a good part of the game...
I generally find way too much game time is lost due to excessive planning in the games I'm part of in 3rd ed, so when I've planned a 3 hour adventure and by the time the PC's finish planning I've only got 2 hours to run it in I end up dropping parts of the adventure out to keep in time. Plus with the Wizard having double the choices of the other PC's there is still some planning required as well as Rituals to scry the target area.
As for research it still comes down to the Rogue doing a sneak in, have a look and sneak out bit which to me is better because before it was the mage casting invisibility and gaseous form and doing the rogues job.|
|
I'm with you Immora, that's not bad design...that's bad playing.
I've been playing 4e now since the quick start was released. It's a fun game. Limited, frustratingly linear, incredibly disaccosiated, but fun.
It's Basic D&D, a great way to get newbies in the fold. As such, I play 4e with my wife and kids.
My real gaming group is all 3.5/PFRPG, Advanced D&D - it's not everyones schtick.
That said, there is no RIGHT or WRONG way to play, the game is pretty self regulating in that respect. Besides, we have all the splatbooks to look forward to! In two years each class will have 100 different powers to choose from, at every level. Hell, they've just nearly doubled the amount of rituals since release.
On another note: Who playtests this crap? NONE of this mountain of errata was noticed during the "exhaustive" closed playtest? I'm returning my core books and waiting for the 4.1 reprint, this is just ridiculous.
I agree. The level of errata is just ridiculous. Does anyone else get the feeling that the "exhaustive" playtesting was more about PR than about actually fixing bugs in the game?
|
|
I agree. The level of errata is just ridiculous. Does anyone else get the feeling that the "exhaustive" playtesting was more about PR than about actually fixing bugs in the game?
I think it may have more to do with the game actually being released, discussed, played and disected at a much greater level than it would be during playtesting.
For example, CWM states in his D&D game, recon never played that big of an element, yet Ixancoatl states that it was essential.
Is either wrong? No - just different group gesalt - different thought processes applied to the same problem.
With the playtest, you had what - 10-20 tables testing the game? How much more diverse the thought when you have 1-2000 tables playing the game?
Just a thought - not trying to get WotC off the hook - they still have several other issues they need to fry in hot oil for ...
Well, for pretty much every method of moving undetected into an enemy area, there are countermeasures against it. And sure, not EVERY countermeasure available will always be deployed against the party, but against the more common forms (sneaking about/turning invisible) you can expect some preparation. Unless the level of scouting is truly superficial, I really haven't seen many instances where the scout wasn't found out and either slain outright or forced to flee to his buddies with some angry residents in tow.
Sounds like the DM is kind of a jerk, to me. If sneaking up to get a look at things is always ending up with a dead scout or everything on alert, he's being far too adversarial about it and probably using knowledge the enemy wouldn't always have.
I'm the opposite, I keep finding little nooks and crannies that just keep my interest bubbling over, so hasn't lost its interest yet!I am still preparing to run a 4th edition game but whilst for the Cleric and Mage the Powers are pretty much magic missile,magic missile or Bless, Bless for the other class's it's a whole lot more from what I can see.
I can't speak for the mage but I'm playing a cleric and I have to say that when it comes to using diverse abilities the cleric is great in that regards.
This is because the cleric's job is to keep the rest of the players operating like a well oiled machine and I take that job serously.
Thus my power choice on every round has a lot to do with whats going on. I use a Morning Star two handed and, all else being equal, I'd usually want to whack the enemy with the morning star. It does a good amount of damage and I can really lay down some descent smack down with it - but reality, for the cleric, is that my attacks are secondary to trying to help the party.
Thus my go to power is Righteous Brand as it allows me to use my big morning star - but it also grants an ally a +2 to hit. However I probably use that at most 1/4 of the time in a combat since other considerations trump me going for a good hit.
I use sacred flame a fair bit despite it being my weakest attack because It allows an ally to gain a free saving throw and getting my team out of detrimental saving throws is part of my job.
If we are running short on healing (and we always are) I'll go with healing strike as it allows me to grant an ally a healing surge if it hits. I can only do that once in a combat however.
I've found myself targeting the weakest mook because we were tapped out of healing and I could grant an ally a critical healing surge using Raven Queens blessing if I could take anyone down - the the weak mook being the obvious target even if tactically everyone else was concentrating on the big nasty monster to take it down before it killed us all.
Finally, sometimes, the cleric can help everyone else best not by helping them at all but by stepping up to the plate and really laying down the smack. Cascade of light does nothing for the rest of the party but it deals buckets of damage, I usually combo it with divine fortune to help insure it hits. If that monster absolutely must die NOW! before it gets to take another turn this is my go to power.
I'm loving playing my cleric and one of the things I like most about the cleric, in combat, is its really all about choosing the best power for the current circumstances. So my cleric does not do bless, bless, bless, he surveys the current tactical situation and chooses the power that is most appropreate for shifting the momentum back in my teams favour.
In nearly a decade of running 3.X games, I almost never had a wizard complain about running through all their spells after 2nd or 3rd level, and even when they did, it didn't stop the entire game because he was always packing backup instead of demanding the whole party carter to his whims.
That being said, I can see how some people would enjoy the new powers system. I'm just tired of the overused lines about the 20-minute adventuring day; It's a poor argument to hide behind.
In my experience it was never about actually running out of spells. After the first few levels you just don't run dry - it almost never happens.
My experience has been that the wizard player and even the rest of the party realize that the wizard is heavily tapped on his top tier spells. The really good stuff. Well if you don't know whats around the bend do you really want to head into the next encounter with a wizard thats substantially below par? I've found that this can really apply to all sorts of spells as well. I've had my players discussing calling it a day when the wizard was barely tapped at all - but he'd used wall of force. Wall of force is such a useful spell and its saved my players bacon so many times that the moment the wizard announces that its off the table as an option as its been used the rest of the players start to get ansy - can they really afford to go on when they won't have recourse to use that spell? Sounds dangerous - they could be setting themselves up for a character death if they do that. Its not like wall of force is unique in this regards. The wizard is a controller and its almost as if, every time he casts a spell, another tactical option just got removed from the parties play book. After three or four options have been taken off the table all of them are agreeing that they have to get out of here - its suicide, or at least potentially suicide, to press forward with the party mage short so many options in his bag of tricks.
Hence, from my experience, its really not so much about running dry - as you say wands and scrolls can address that its just that they rarely address whats really concerning the wizard and, by extension, the rest of the party.
Also I don't agree that the 5 minute work day was a non factor until 4E introduced it. The 3.5 archives have a bunch of threads that dealt with the topic, usually with brainstorming on ways to get around this. Its not an insurmountable obstacle - my favourite suggestion for handling this was that the BBEG should just leave if the players keep pulling out and he should take his treasure with him. Robbing the players of treasure and denying them the satisfaction of a clear win is something that was pretty effective at making my players at least think twice before going for hit and run tactics.
To a high degree its more of an issue with the PC's approach than with the system but because the options there they will do it.And that is one of the great differences between 3rd and 4th. In the former you have to evaluate which spells to memorize and which spells to cast at what time. This takes a lot of planning and thinking for the Wizard and Cleric.
If you have memorized your spells, you are stuck with them and have to use them as best as possible for combat encounter and RP situations.In 4th it is less ressource management than tactical consideration how and when to use a power during an encounter. This involves almost no planning but a lot of ad hoc evaluation of the combat situation.
So IMO playing a 3rd Wizard or Cleric includes a lot of STRATEGIC considerations that happen mostly out of game (in the time you take to mark the spells you memorize for the day or which scrolls to buy/write).
Playing a 4th Wizard includes a lot of TACTICAL considerations as powers have a more drastic effect on combat than in 3rd due to the various conditions you can inflict or the shifting, pushing, pulling someone around.Thoughts on my thoughts?
I think your basically spot on. I agree.
Wow, I think you just solidified one of the things I hate about 4th edition. The characters don't have to do any research, they just run in, powers blazing. That's a bit.....extreme, I know. But there really isn't much need for prep time now.
Some times the planning is part of the fun. I was one of those guys who enjoyed Shadowrun when a good part of the game was planning how to pull off the run. In fact, I was okay with the idea that the planning session could take just as long as the actual run, if not longer.
I agree with you on Shadowrun. Though a big part of it is just how lethal that game is - you get ambushed its often all over. However a good Shadowrun game has everyone involved in the planning. The problem with D&D in this regards is that a couple of classes can do all this strategic planning but most of the players at the table can't. This is really annoying if spells have to be rechosen during actual play becuase the mission perimeters have changed - or if the mage player is running late and did not manage to choose everything before showing up. Hence 4E design basically acknowledged that having a game system were a few of the players could hold things up for everyone else did not really fit well into the over all design. Shadowrun - at least the way we play it is the opposite. Planning is huge and everyone should know that going in. Either option is, IMO, really good but I don't like it when the two are mixed together because a little of A and a little of B results in half the players being bored and the other half being rushed.
Sounds like the DM is kind of a jerk, to me. If sneaking up to get a look at things is always ending up with a dead scout or everything on alert, he's being far too adversarial about it and probably using knowledge the enemy wouldn't always have.
Well, for pretty much every method of moving undetected into an enemy area, there are countermeasures against it. And sure, not EVERY countermeasure available will always be deployed against the party, but against the more common forms (sneaking about/turning invisible) you can expect some preparation. Unless the level of scouting is truly superficial, I really haven't seen many instances where the scout wasn't found out and either slain outright or forced to flee to his buddies with some angry residents in tow.
When I'm DMing I always make sure that the enemy is fairly good at detecting and dealing with any extensive scouting by a rogue type player. Definitely I'm being a bit of a jerk about it but I really want to keep the scout relatively near the party and have the whole group participate in the action. Having the scout check out whats in the room or down the hall is great. I've had some fantastic sessions where the door slammed closed and the whole party worked their butts off while the Ninja ran around trying to stay alive for just one more round so his buddies could save him.
However the larger scale version of this were the scout is off scouting out the enemy fortress is no go in my game. We have sessions that are around 3 1/2 hours long and its no fair to the rest of the players if me and the scout are playing essentially solo for an hour and 15 minutes of that. Its a group game and the whole group should get to play. 15 minute spotlight just on the rogue is fantastic - I like it when that happens and I hope it happens every session but much more time then that and this goes from being cool to being detrimental to every ones fun.