|[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties

Marcel Beaudoin <marcel.beaudoin.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9A4B9E39579C8marcelbeaudoingmailc@130.133.1.4:

> From ENWorld:
>
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4047202&postcount=6
>
> *****
> One of the nice things about the roles is that they let you play around
> with power sources without messing up the basic structure of the game.
> You can totally do a no magic game with the PH by sticking to the
> fighter, rogue, warlord, and ranger. You wouldn't have a controller, but
> it is possible to create a martial one.
>

In 3.5 if none of my players wanted to play magic users, I would probably
take the focus away from that aspect.

-phy
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

phy wrote:
> In 3.5 if none of my players wanted to play magic users, I would probably
> take the focus away from that aspect.

Our current 3.5 party started out with no spellcasters, and no fighters
or clerics for that matter - we had two rogues and a monk. It turned out
to be a pretty interesting combination; the whole party could move
around stealthily, and when we got into battles we were all about the
maneuvering and flanking. We were light and fast. To survive without a
cleric we spent a lot of money on healing potions and wands (my rogue
added a few ranger levels and so got the ranger spell list despite never
being anywhere near able to cast the spells on her own).

Later on we picked up an artificier for a while, though he had to leave
the party again due to RL constraints, and the other rogue multiclassed
over to spellthief. We're still pretty nontraditional in our roles,
though; thanks to a combination of extreme dual-wielding and high
constitution score my rogue has wound up as the "brute fighter" of the
party and the monk's our magical artillery thanks to the helm of
brilliance he picked up a few adventures back. We still rely completely
on magic items for our healing.

I guess the key is to adapt one's playing style to match the
capabilities one has available, and hope that the DM is able to
accommodate that well. If we had tried to stick to the traditional roles
of our character classes we'd have been toast.

We're starting to plan our next campaign now, and it looks like this
time we're going to wind up with all three of us playing spellcasters of
various flavors. At least if that combination doesn't work out well
we'll die quickly.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

On Feb 22, 1:03 am, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk....TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Our current 3.5 party started out with no spellcasters, and no fighters
> or clerics for that matter - we had two rogues and a monk. It turned out
> to be a pretty interesting combination;

What a curious coincidence... when we first moved to 3.0, the first
party I ran was a rogue, a bard, and a monk. We quite enjoyed it,
because there was a different feel to the party and they still talk
about it.

We did the Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh and they were quite successful
at the first module (had more players for parts 2 & 3)
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

phy wrote:
> In 3.5 if none of my players wanted to play magic users, I would probably
> take the focus away from that aspect.

You would temporarily change how the game world *is*, for that
particular campaign, so that the world demographics are different, with
magic users being much rarer, relative to the previous campaigns and to
later campaigns that you will run taking place in the same world?

What a horrible thought...

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Peter Knutsen wrote:

> phy wrote:
>
>> In 3.5 if none of my players wanted to play magic users, I would
>> probably take the focus away from that aspect.
>
>
> You would temporarily change how the game world *is*, for that
> particular campaign, so that the world demographics are different, with
> magic users being much rarer, relative to the previous campaigns and to
> later campaigns that you will run taking place in the same world?
>
> What a horrible thought...
>

You don't have to change the *world*. You just change the focus of the
campaign. You alter the objectives, challenges and goals. the world
itself can remain the same. Much the same way you don't throw a 1st
level group against a Balrog... unless you are a dick of a DM.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Peter Knutsen <peter RemoveThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> phy wrote:
>> In 3.5 if none of my players wanted to play magic users, I would probably
>> take the focus away from that aspect.
>
> You would temporarily change how the game world *is*, for that
> particular campaign, so that the world demographics are different, with
> magic users being much rarer, relative to the previous campaigns and to
> later campaigns that you will run taking place in the same world?

Changing the focus is not the same as changing the world. A group of
wizards is more likely to get involved in intrigue at a magic school,
or end up on a quest looking for some highly specialised magical
thingy than a group of all warriors. Warriors would be more likely
to end up in armies, as guards/escorts for some vital mission, etc.
That's what changing the focus is. It simply makes sense to adapt the
adventures to the characters.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Peter Knutsen <peter RemoveThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> phy wrote:
>> In 3.5 if none of my players wanted to play magic users, I would probably
>> take the focus away from that aspect.
>
> You would temporarily change how the game world *is*, for that
> particular campaign, so that the world demographics are different, with
> magic users being much rarer, relative to the previous campaigns and to
> later campaigns that you will run taking place in the same world?
>
> What a horrible thought...

Or he *might* -- and this may be a strange idea -- just have adventures
and scenarios that do not involve wizardy-type PCs. It's not that the
world has fewer wizards, just that they aren't *here*.


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies RemoveThis @kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies RemoveThis @gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

On 21 Feb 2008 20:33:14 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin <marcel.beaudoin RemoveThis @gmail.com>
scribed into the ether:

>From ENWorld:
[snip]
>The one stumbling block is that the game expects fighters to wear heavy
>armor, but you could get around that by building a simple house rule (a
>fighter in light armor gets a flat bonus to AC to make up the gap).
>*****

I take it they are revamping the max dex mechanic...a dex monkey fighter in
light (or no) armor was always viable before 4E...

Giving an arbitrary bonus to a light armor fighter would seem a bit dumb.
If you can get the same protection by fiat, why not go with the light armor
no matter what? Even if the old max dex mechanic is gone, just having it be
lighter will have advantages for encumberance, skill checks, etc.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Peter Knutsen <peter RemoveThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote in
news:47beda2b$0$15879$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk:

> phy wrote:
>> In 3.5 if none of my players wanted to play magic users, I would
>> probably take the focus away from that aspect.
>
> You would temporarily change how the game world *is*, for that
> particular campaign, so that the world demographics are different,
> with magic users being much rarer, relative to the previous campaigns
> and to later campaigns that you will run taking place in the same
> world?
>
> What a horrible thought...
>

Everyone else except you understood my point.

-phy
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Tetsubo wrote:
> You don't have to change the *world*. You just change the focus of the
> campaign. You alter the objectives, challenges and goals. the world
> itself can remain the same. Much the same way you don't throw a 1st
> level group against a Balrog... unless you are a dick of a DM.

Or you've inserted a high-level NPC wizard into the party to deal with
the Balrog on the PCs' behalf.

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=740
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:B2Ivj.64129$Ly.19217@pd7urf1no:

> Tetsubo wrote:
>> You don't have to change the *world*. You just change the focus
>> of the
>> campaign. You alter the objectives, challenges and goals. the world
>> itself can remain the same. Much the same way you don't throw a 1st
>> level group against a Balrog... unless you are a dick of a DM.
>
> Or you've inserted a high-level NPC wizard into the party to deal with
> the Balrog on the PCs' behalf.
>
> http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=740

To me, that is the horrible thought.

-phy
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Tetsubo wrote:
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> You would temporarily change how the game world *is*, for that
>> particular campaign, so that the world demographics are different,
>> with magic users being much rarer, relative to the previous campaigns
>> and to later campaigns that you will run taking place in the same world?
>>
>> What a horrible thought...
>
> You don't have to change the *world*. You just change the focus of
> the campaign. You alter the objectives, challenges and goals. the world
> itself can remain the same. Much the same way you don't throw a 1st
> level group against a Balrog... unless you are a dick of a DM.

Sure, that would work just fine.

It's just that many people are incapable of perceiving the intrinsic
wrongness of a temporary world change, and therefore might actually
commit it.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

phy wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <peter DeleteThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote in
> news:47beda2b$0$15879$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk:
>
>> phy wrote:
>>> In 3.5 if none of my players wanted to play magic users, I would
>>> probably take the focus away from that aspect.
>> You would temporarily change how the game world *is*, for that
>> particular campaign, so that the world demographics are different,
>> with magic users being much rarer, relative to the previous campaigns
>> and to later campaigns that you will run taking place in the same
>> world?
>>
>> What a horrible thought...
>>
>
> Everyone else except you understood my point.

Most of PK's posts should be read with the assumption that the PCs form
a random sample from the world's population. You know, that kinda sounds
like Warhammer FRP.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties