Important class abilities don't need to come into play every session, but opportunities to use them need to occur often enough for that class feature to feel useful. A Cleric doesn't need to have the opportunity to Turn Undead every session, but if it never came up at all, the Cleric player would feel justifiably slighted. Not every battle has cover for the Rogue to hide in, but if there never was any cover, the Rogue player would get annoyed.
As things currently stand, there is never an opportunity in LFR adventures for a Wizard to use his spellbook.
All the LFR adventures I have seen so far are designed to be played straight through without an extended rest. Some have been set up rather elegantly, some seem rather forced, but it is obvious that a voice has come down from on high saying "Thou shalt not take an Extended Rest."
The reason for this is obvious - LFR adventures are designed to be played in a short session. If PCs were allowed to take Extended Rests whenever they felt like it then there would be no need to conserve resources and the PCs would rarely, if ever, be challenged. The unfortunate consequence, however, is that the defining class feature of the Wizard has in effect been removed from the game.
I'm hoping that LFR writers will look at this (unintended, I hope) consequence and find ways to give the wizard his due. Perhaps the adventure could start out with a non-time critical investigative section, with a chance to prep for the time critical combat gauntlet at the end. Perhaps a dungeon crawl could include a special "Wizard's Study" room wherein the wizard could switch some prepped but not-yet-used spells before reaching the big boss finale. I'm sure clever writers can think of other ways, if they're thinking about the problem in the first place.
Thanks for your consideration.
Tony Hughes
The Wizard is the only controller (so far), yet other classes have controllery powers. Other classes have powers that affect multiple targets, other classes have powers that impose statuses, even if they don't have as many to select from. The really unique class feature of the Wizard is the spellbook. With preparation, a Wizard can configure his utility and daily powers from two (or three) possibilities to better meet the challenges of the day. Except that in LFR, the Wizard never gets the chance.
Important class abilities don't need to come into play every session, but opportunities to use them need to occur often enough for that class feature to feel useful. A Cleric doesn't need to have the opportunity to Turn Undead every session, but if it never came up at all, the Cleric player would feel justifiably slighted. Not every battle has cover for the Rogue to hide in, but if there never was any cover, the Rogue player would get annoyed.
As things currently stand, there is never an opportunity in LFR adventures for a Wizard to use his spellbook.
All the LFR adventures I have seen so far are designed to be played straight through without an extended rest. Some have been set up rather elegantly, some seem rather forced, but it is obvious that a voice has come down from on high saying "Thou shalt not take an Extended Rest."
The reason for this is obvious - LFR adventures are designed to be played in a short session. If PCs were allowed to take Extended Rests whenever they felt like it then there would be no need to conserve resources and the PCs would rarely, if ever, be challenged. The unfortunate consequence, however, is that the defining class feature of the Wizard has in effect been removed from the game.
I'm hoping that LFR writers will look at this (unintended, I hope) consequence and find ways to give the wizard his due. Perhaps the adventure could start out with a non-time critical investigative section, with a chance to prep for the time critical combat gauntlet at the end. Perhaps a dungeon crawl could include a special "Wizard's Study" room wherein the wizard could switch some prepped but not-yet-used spells before reaching the big boss finale. I'm sure clever writers can think of other ways, if they're thinking about the problem in the first place.
Thanks for your consideration.
Tony Hughes
I suspect this also also partly due to the simple matter of adventures currently being played for at the Heroic tier.
It doesn't strike me as particularly unusual that at the Heroic Tier the average adventure is a day-long affair. Conversely, as we get to Paragon and Epic, while module length may remain the same, I wouldn't be surprised if mods are geared more toward multi-day affairs (even if the number of encounters don't really change).
This could be in part because with multiple daily powers, it will matter a little less if you use them.
Conversly, the authors have to be careful not too include too many opportunities to take an Extended Rest, or else Daily Powers essentially become Encounter Powers - an issue we may already have to face at the higher tiers.
Conversly, the authors have to be careful not too include too many opportunities to take an Extended Rest, or else Daily Powers essentially become Encounter Powers - an issue we may already have to face at the higher tiers.
I want to reaffirm that I agree with the idea of the combats being played through without an Extended Rest, it's just that I don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater regarding the Wizard's spellbook.
It's just been rather frustrating that the timer start's ticking from the first sentence of box text. There's been a couple of occasions already where I've realized from very early on in the module that my alternate daily would be much better for this adventure than my default -- but no chance to switch out. If there's no chance to change spells then the class feature is effectively nonexistant.
Look at your adventure flow; ensure that there's not too much game-world time passing from one encounter to another. Action points are meant to be earned, and the only way in which it's meaningful is if the players have the opportunity to hit milestones and use their extra action points in subsequent encounters. Most (if not all) of the action in an adventure should take place within a short period of time (a day or so). You don’t want characters taking extended rests after each encounter; this eliminates a lot of the resource decisions and usually means that combat encounters are much easier.
As a DM, I would allow players to choose their daily spells after the intro (or introductory encounter) is completed. Some scenarios do allow for the switching of spells, although it's not explicitly stated. Takes for example EAST1-1, which I just played yesterday. After PCs agree to go on "the mission" (don't want to spoil anything) they have to travel a week to get at the site of where they are going to adventure. Plenty of time to tailor a wizards spells based on the intro. The adventure itself (all of the combat / non combat encounters) takes place in the same day.
So I personally don't expect multi-day missions, even at paragon or epic tiers. I do expect that many adventuers will include travel time before the actual mission starts.
Wizards get a bunch of burst 1 powers. Wizards also like to go first because they get to dictate their opponent's actions through control, rather than reacting. If I take Improved Initiative and a damaging burst, I should be able to get the jump on the minions, not delay until I can hit more than 1 or 2 guys.
We played through two modules with a considerable number of minions in each fight. In the first, the optimal placement of a burst 1 hit 3 guys; the second best placement hit two; any other placement hit one. Hitting 3 guys is decent, though you should have more than one single square to choose from for it. In the second module, you could hit one guy at most even though there were more minions in that fight (thanks to the larger map).
I would like to add another Wizard complaint: quit putting all the minions two squares away from each other in all the fights.
I'll make sure to put all of my minions in a bunch for my next adventure. Shall I ask the DM to keep them immobilized in those squares, so as to maximise a wizard's ability to kill them quickly, just in case he loses initiative?
Sheesh, wizards flat out rock. I just don't see what the problem is.
First, there are a few skill challenges that are social and over time. This will allow a player to get an extended rest if they so choose (and losing the milestone, but hey)
Second, minion use is WAY UP in a lot of modules, and wizards have had a great chance to shine without much trouble. Sure, some of the placements are meant so that you don't win on turn 1, but others are not. In my groups, so far, one of the defenders has run way up, draws the attention of hte minions, takes the beating and then the wizard drops the bomb on the group. I think that's great design that if the party works together, they can get some major benefit out of having a controller (and probably would've TPK'd if they didn't have one at one point)
I want to reaffirm that I agree with the idea of the combats being played through without an Extended Rest, it's just that I don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater regarding the Wizard's spellbook.
It's just been rather frustrating that the timer start's ticking from the first sentence of box text. There's been a couple of occasions already where I've realized from very early on in the module that my alternate daily would be much better for this adventure than my default -- but no chance to switch out. If there's no chance to change spells then the class feature is effectively nonexistant.
I agree that the goal is valid.
But I don't agree that the problem exists (at least not based on the adventures I have handy).
But lets see (the adventures currently on my computer):
Agla1-1: Players are not given the opportunity to swap spells, although - aside from adventure railroading, I'm not sure why parties would rush out the same night rather than waiting for morning....
Bald1-1: Players are given tasks that must be completed the same day. No opportunity to swap spells is given to them.
Core1-1: Players must travel to location, giving them time to swap spells.
Core1-2: Players must travel to location, giving them time to swap spells.
Core1-3: Players are summoned unexpectedly and thus can't swap spells.
Corm1-1: Players must travel to location, giving them time to swap spells.
Dale1-1: First encounter unexpected (you can't plan for the unexpected), no chance to swap spells afterwards.
Drag1-1: Players are not given a chance to swap spells, but could be allowed to do so without harming storyline.
Luru1-1: Players must travel to location, giving them time to swap spells.
Wate1-1: Players are not given a chance to swap spells, but probably could be without harming storyline.
So several of these (4 of 10) already give the players ample opportunity to swap spells making the OP's objection moot.
Of those remaining, some could easily be changed via DM empowerment to allow the opportunity to swap spells - essentially starting the events of the module upon the following day rather than the same day.
And of the remaining four:
Agla: Could be rewritten to allow for spell swapping (push events back one day; players aren't aware of time factor at start).
Bald: Could be rewritten to have events be completed the next day rather than the same day.
Core1-3: Cannot swap spells and I see that as a desirable feature of the adventure as written. The players are pulled into something rather than seeking out that specific adventure.
Dale1-1: Players are caught off-guard by the initial encounter and can't prep spells for that. Lack of ability to swap spells driven by metagame need to prevent recovery as there is no real time pressure. Rewriting to allow recovery of spells possible but difficult.
Bottom Line: Most adventure either already allow for swapping of spells (4 of 10 in this sample) or could easily be modified to do so via DM empowerment (2 of 10) because there is no real time pressure. And some adventures appropriately do not allow wizards to swap spells.
To quote the OP:
Important class abilities don't need to come into play every session, but opportunities to use them need to occur often enough for that class feature to feel useful.
The class feature can be used in approximately half of the adventures (easily more with DM empowerment) and where it cannot be used there is often a good reason why not (e.g. Core1-3). If a feature is useable in half of the adventures (or more), you can hardly claim that it is never useful.
That said: I wonder if one could write some of the adventures differently so as to make it more useful.
Example: Start Dale1-1 with the following statement: "This adventure starts at the end of a long and difficult day of travel. Your characters have already expended their daily abilities (but not daily magic item uses) and lost four healing surges. However, you have two action points." Then play the starting encounters for the module, allowing the players to rest and regain abilities (and swap spells) before moving on to Encounters 4+.
In other words - what do people think of starting an adventure at other than fully rested and allowing a rest part way?
Carl
It may make the adventure less challenging though, and people are already claiming that LFR adventures are too easy...
Besides, the question is whether an extended rest after the adventure hook will really allow you to choose a better daily or utility power. It may be nice to have, but I have not yet had a situation with my wizard where, after the adventure hook, I suddenly thought : now THIS is a good adventure to have Sleep prepared...
Gomez
It is quite possible to add an extended rest to Dale1-1 half-way the adventure.
It may make the adventure less challenging though, and people are already claiming that LFR adventures are too easy...
Which is why I suggested starting 'unrested'. This has the unusual effect of making the first fight one of the hardest (no daily options, some healing surges gone, etc.). I.e. they still only get one daily for the whole adventure, etc.
Besides, the question is whether an extended rest after the adventure hook will really allow you to choose a better daily or utility power. It may be nice to have, but I have not yet had a situation with my wizard where, after the adventure hook, I suddenly thought : now THIS is a good adventure to have Sleep prepared...
Gomez
Probably true, at least at lower level. But the OPs point is that this is a useful feature of the class but one that he never gets to use. So arguing that it isn't useful doesn't really address his point.
Carl
Not only that, it has a highly inconsistent effect on various characters. Imagine two potential characters. One is a melee ranger who skimped on Con thinking to make up for it with careful play. He took a daily utility at level 2. He ends up with two healing surges and only encounter powers. The other is a con-maxing battlerager of the sort who is immune to minions (and theoretically, most battles) to begin with. he has 13 healing surges, and took an at-will utility at level 2. He still has his utility and 75% of his healing surges. The first guy ends up dramatically weaker because he didn't have the opportunity to mitigate his weaknesses through careful play as was his plan. The second guy can absorb the losses without blinking.
For my part, I would prefer the following:
1. Extended rest as an option with in-character consequences. Perhaps taking the extended rest lets the bad guys dig in and makes the next encounter more difficult. Perhaps it allows reinforcements to arrive and turns the next combat(s) into developing combats. Perhaps you have to earn the extended rest through a skill challenge.
2. A module with tougher battles but the option for an extended rest. The LFR formula of warmup fight, warmup fight, moderate difficulty fight (with at least one goblin hexer somewhere in there) is pretty tired. Dropping PCs directly into the fire with a hard fight right up front, perhaps followed up by an opportunity to rest, a warmup fight and a hard fight or, to really throw the formula for a loop, a second really tough fight followed by a pair of skill challenges to determine the direction of the story would be an interesting departure from the formula.
Then again, I really couldn't care less about the spellbook issue. My primary concern is that the "no extended rests" mandate is creating formulaic and increasingly dull mods.
Example: Start Dale1-1 with the following statement: "This adventure starts at the end of a long and difficult day of travel. Your characters have already expended their daily abilities (but not daily magic item uses) and lost four healing surges. However, you have two action points." Then play the starting encounters for the module, allowing the players to rest and regain abilities (and swap spells) before moving on to Encounters 4+.
In other words - what do people think of starting an adventure at other than fully rested and allowing a rest part way?
Carl
I would be highly annoyed with this kind of an introduction as it would seem soley designed to hose players and deprive them of their better abilities. I deliberately choose to ration my abilities and take risks based upon the amounts of non-renewable resources that I have remaining as well as the immediate tactical situation. To be told effectively, "You danced through a bunch of ogres absorbing OAs because you're a moron and lost four healing surges and then you and your whole party wasted your dailies on a group of minions" is insulting. I don't mind running into an encounter with the gas meter in the red, but it should be my choice to get into that situation and my choice to press on.
Somehow you seem to be on a tangent.
The question of what you spent the healing surges isn't really the point - it could equally be the case that you spent your healing surges fighting a Dragon.
Unless you never use your dailies or healing surges you can't claim the scenario is unrealistic. Especially in an adventure that starts as the players enter town: What else would you have been most likely to do then head to town after having expended those resources?
So, in a module that starts specifically with the players being accidentally caught up in an encounter while passing through town I don't see the fact that you conserve resources as being relevant. The point isn't that you pressed on with the 'gas meter on red'. The point is that you were caught off guard.
The objection that you feel it "seem[s] soley designed to hose players and deprive them of their better abilities." is a different matter and may be worthy of further discussion however.
I just don't think whether or not you typically conserve resources is relevant unless you never use them at all.
As for the adventures feeling 'formulaic' modules I think the problems run deeper than that and that allowing more resting won't change anything.
2. A module with tougher battles but the option for an extended rest. The LFR formula of warmup fight, warmup fight, moderate difficulty fight (with at least one goblin hexer somewhere in there) is pretty tired. Dropping PCs directly into the fire with a hard fight right up front, perhaps followed up by an opportunity to rest, a warmup fight and a hard fight or, to really throw the formula for a loop, a second really tough fight followed by a pair of skill challenges to determine the direction of the story would be an interesting departure from the formula.
Unless they increase the experience point budget for the adventures, one difficult fight is unusual and two is impossible (unless they cut the total number of encounters back to three or maybe even two).
Carl
If you would increase xp budgets, then you would level after every other adventure, which sounds to me as way too quick to enjoy your character.
Gomez
If you wnat to increase the number iof combats or the lethality of individual combats, I think what should be done is not base xp any longer on the xp of the monsters you fight, but set an xp cap and fill the adventure with monsters that grant at elast such xp, or more.
If you would increase xp budgets, then you would level after every other adventure, which sounds to me as way too quick to enjoy your character.
Gomez
I actually agree 100%, in principle. And, if your players agree, I would say that this falls under DM empowerment (I'd be hesitant to do this without player agreement).
But as an official approach I'm pretty sure WoTC wouldn't go for it.
Carl
Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator
I would like to add another Wizard complaint: quit putting all the minions two squares away from each other in all the fights.
Wizards get a bunch of burst 1 powers. Wizards also like to go first because they get to dictate their opponent's actions through control, rather than reacting. If I take Improved Initiative and a damaging burst, I should be able to get the jump on the minions, not delay until I can hit more than 1 or 2 guys.
We played through two modules with a considerable number of minions in each fight. In the first, the optimal placement of a burst 1 hit 3 guys; the second best placement hit two; any other placement hit one. Hitting 3 guys is decent, though you should have more than one single square to choose from for it. In the second module, you could hit one guy at most even though there were more minions in that fight (thanks to the larger map).
Speaking as a DM...thats why they are 2 squares away from each other. I try to make the fights even and minions are squishy enough already without making it easier to wipe them out by allowing a wizard to drop a "grenade" on them.
And for the record....DMs are not required to follow the layout of the battlemap to the letter. We can make modifications to better enhance the gameplay. So you may have a DM that likes to keep things interesting.
The issue is not xp and leveling. The core game assumes a number of encounters before leveling, not a number of adventures.
If you make all encounters tougher, you give out more xp with the same number of encounters. You can make more encounters, but you can also make the encounters (a lot) tougher so that you can put an extended rest between them.
And perhaps WotC doesn't care how many adventures you can play with your PC, but I do...
Gomez
If you make all encounters tougher, you give out more xp with the same number of encounters. You can make more encounters, but you can also make the encounters (a lot) tougher so that you can put an extended rest between them.
And perhaps WotC doesn't care how many adventures you can play with your PC, but I do...
Gomez
If you make the encounters tougher but keep the experience cap the same, you end up with fewer encounters per adventure and players will complain that the adventures are too short and insubstantial. Especially when they paid to play a full slot and the adventure ended in two hours.
If you make the encounters tougher but keep the number of encounters the same, you have to increase the experience cap for the adventure. If you give out more experience per adventure, you end up playing fewer adventures per level.
It's a question of which way you want to tilt the math: Shorter rounds or faster leveling.
(Bottom Line: The source of the problem is that WoTC took the already meteoric leveling of 3.5 and decided that wasn't fast enough and based the math on 8-9 encounters per level so you either need to figure two adventures per level or have mostly weak encounters).
But all this is better addressed in the other thread. Here it is relevant only in that the only way to make the game challenging is to either prevent extended rests OR start 'unrested' because the option of two very challenging encounters really doesn't work: it either has too few encounters (if that is all there is) or it won't fit the experience cap (if there are other encounters).
Personally, if we were dealing with house rules rather than RPGA rules I would probably do something like: A Wizard (or other character with a spellbook) can swap their daily during any short rest. (Obviously, this doesn't allow them to use any more dailies than they would have otherwise and all other restrictions are still in effect). This makes it useful but does not, imho, unbalance the class.
Carl
Unless you never use your dailies or healing surges you can't claim the scenario is unrealistic.
OT (lol)
My level 4 warlock has spent exactly 3 healing surges. Ever. And one of those was for a failed Endurance check in a skill challenge.
On topic: I've seen several adventures with lengthy travel at the start (for extended rests), but the only times I've seen an extended rest between the encounters it has been an unneeded surprise - "Oh great, we get an unexpected extended rest. Sure wish I'd used a Daily power then."
Bottom Line: The source of the problem is that WoTC took the already meteoric leveling of 3.5 and decided that wasn't fast enough and based the math on 8-9 encounters per level so you either need to figure two adventures per level or have mostly weak encounters.
Well, the real source of the problem is that campaign staff chose to/were forced to run the campaign strictly according to these rules, whether or not those rules fit the changed nature of a living campaign.
Past living campaigns had no problem saying that the XP a module gives out does not necessarily have any relation to how much XP the DMG says that a particular encounter should give. I think that's a better way to go.
The problem is that, if the letter of the laws conflict with the spirit the campaign wants, it simply becomes an exercise in coming up with a way for module authors to follow the letter of WOTC's rules while ignoring their spirit.
That way lies "The template only adds +1 CR, so I can get the CR I want, even if the abilities work so well with the base class that it effectively adds much more" or "Equipment isn't figured into CR calculations, so just give the creature better armor and have them drink a potion ahead of time."
One of the better facets of 4e is a recognition that what really matters is the end result of a creature's stats and abilities, not the process that got you there.
Unfortunately, from a module author's perspective, this removes a number of tricks in their arsenal to get the target numbers where they really want them to be.
I'd argue that the best solution isn't for module authors to learn new 4e tricks to give harder combats while purportedly giving the right xp, but rather a recognition that the standard xp rewards don't necessarily work in a living campaign.
I've seen several adventures with lengthy travel at the start (for extended rests), but the only times I've seen an extended rest between the encounters it has been an unneeded surprise - "Oh great, we get an unexpected extended rest. Sure wish I'd used a Daily power then."
Seconded. I haven't been a player when that happened, but I remember DMing one session where the players got an extended rest after the first fight. The players who spent their action point and/or their daily were happy about that. I vividly recall one of my players who had spent neither, and he wasn't too happy about that. It wasn't really a big deal, but as amysrevenge says - an unneeded surprise.
And as to CORE1-3...
CORE1-3 Minor Spoiler
There is the possibility of an extended rest in there. If the players succeed at both parts of the skill challenge, they get the benefit of an extended rest while traveling to the island. If they fail on either or both parts, they're up all night either figuring out where they are or keeping the boat from sinking (or both).
Speaking as a DM...thats why they are 2 squares away from each other. I try to make the fights even and minions are squishy enough already without making it easier to wipe them out by allowing a wizard to drop a "grenade" on them.
I am asking for the ability to hit more than 1 guy, not to hit 4-9; constantly seeing everyone 2 squares away from each other is metagaming (it is not just the minions that are specifically spread out) and frustrating for a wizard.
Wizards should be able to be proactive in their control. That is why we take Improved Initiative, so we can drop the bomb on the bad guys and make them react to it rather than delaying until they bunch up right next to our guys (where our bursts and zones present a hazard to the party and we have to keep asking people if it is okay to attack their characters).
The one module gave a choice between hitting three minions or one minion and an actual enemy with a burst 1. This is good. The second module, with half-again as many enemies on the map, only offered the choice of hitting one guy because everyone was two or more squares away from each other. Even when it makes sense for the enemies to be spread out over the map you can still have a few guys that are closer together.
Besides, how big a problem is a Scorching Burst when a warlock can eliminate every minion on the map with a minor action?
Sure there are rituals for scrying and the like, but if you know that there's a dragon in the cave what are you going to do about it? The fighter still swings the sword the same way, and you probably can't just up and buy some kind of resistance potion or the like. No one has spells that deal with those kinds of things to any level that they can do anything about. So you just wasted a ton of cash to find out relatively little of value as I'm sure you already assumed there were monsters in cave.
So D&D is now reduced to kick in the door style of play. There are traps in the room? Well it's faster to bash them down rather then to have the striker waste round after round in a skill challenge while we're also fighting other monsters. Watch out if they fail though, because then it explodes and somehow continues to function despite exploding.
LFR may not be allowing a lot of extended rests, but at the same time allowing them isn't going to really make your wizard any better in the end.
I am asking for the ability to hit more than 1 guy, not to hit 4-9; constantly seeing everyone 2 squares away from each other is metagaming (it is not just the minions that are specifically spread out) and frustrating for a wizard.
It may well be frustrating for a wizard, but in now way is it metagaming.
People who live in a world where others can cast spells that damage multiple targets are more than smart enough to realize that their odds of survival are far greater when they spread out. This is not metagaming, this is using common sense.
Exception: If unintelligent creatures start to use such tactics, then you can wave the metagaming flag. But otherwise it is no more metagaming than wearing armor so you are harder to hit with a sword is metagaming.
Carl
Exception: If unintelligent creatures start to use such tactics, then you can wave the metagaming flag.
It actually was Zombies in the module I am referencing. And given the in-module description of where they came from, it makes even less sense for them to be so specifically arrayed around the map. Similar situations happen when the party surprises an enemy; they have no idea you are there but just happen to be spread out 2 squares.
Other (most?) modules are fine. Hitting 2-3 enemies in a burst 1 is golden, minions or not. We played through two modules the other week where you could not hit more than one minion but you could hit a minion and a real bad guy (and, on top of that, in one fight you had a choice of any of the three main bad guys while still clipping a minion).
It starts at level 2 - allows switch to one level 1 daily or one level 2 utility - at 560 gp.
I was originally considering defensive staff (+1 to alll defenses), but mnemonic looks pretty good.
Well, the real source of the problem is that campaign staff chose to/were forced to run the campaign strictly according to these rules, whether or not those rules fit the changed nature of a living campaign.
Past living campaigns had no problem saying that the XP a module gives out does not necessarily have any relation to how much XP the DMG says that a particular encounter should give. I think that's a better way to go.
WotC decided LFR will comply with the letter and spirit of the D&D rules they designed, developed and published, other than the minimum number of changes necessary for a shared world campaign, each one of which they must approve. If our adventures do not comply, they will not be approved and published.
Without this degree of oversight, I doubt a RPGA living campaign would have been approved, and if they are dissatisfied with how LFR is run, there will probably never be another living campaign approved. Good news is WotC R&D is happy with LFR and groups of designers are playing the adventures. The days of volunteer gamers designing the campaign structure and processes themselves are gone.
I don't know how often we will see a squad of minions grouped tightly together waiting for a wizard (controller) to come and knock them down. That would push the encounter towards an easier challenge, which in some cases, might be ok.
I think rituals may see more employment as the adventures continue and we gain more perspective on what is reasonable to expect. The concern with making a particular selection critical to success is that what happens to the groups who don't have access to it. I suppose as long as they could go buy a ritual scroll during the adventure, then it would still be ok to do (although some gamers won't like the money expenditure).
Offering an extended rest, particularly near the start of the adventure is possible although currently it is discouraged. Often, however, in my long experience, when gamers start an adventure, they generally want to do something right then. If you tell them, it starts at 10 pm and they are expected to go to bed (extended rest), quite often some will want to sneak off and do some scouting or whatever, chewing up play time and splitting the party. It is hard to manage that in adventure design without a time pressure to do this now!
Perhaps informative blurbs so the wizard players make spell choices based upon the blurb?
Keith
Perhaps informative blurbs so the wizard players make spell choices based upon the blurb?
Keith,
I think that is a good idea.
Maybe if the blurb were to be a thumbnail of the initial character briefing in the module, or maybe even if it were that briefing, instead...
Or, maybe, the adventure background, since that appears to be something that would/should be shared with the players anyhow.
Either one would make for a longer blurb, but it would give players a better feel for where the module is going, and let wizards and swordmages with a spellbook have a better idea of what they might be facing.
It actually was Zombies in the module I am referencing. And given the in-module description of where they came from, it makes even less sense for them to be so specifically arrayed around the map. Similar situations happen when the party surprises an enemy; they have no idea you are there but just happen to be spread out 2 squares.
Other (most?) modules are fine. Hitting 2-3 enemies in a burst 1 is golden, minions or not. We played through two modules the other week where you could not hit more than one minion but you could hit a minion and a real bad guy (and, on top of that, in one fight you had a choice of any of the three main bad guys while still clipping a minion).
In the case of zombies, I'll agree. I play creatures according to their intelligence and typical zombies are not going to have the foresight to consider bursts and blasts.
On the other hand, whether or not a creature expects to be attacked isn't necessarily relevant. I would expect an intelligent party to learn that its not a good idea to move around bunched inside of a blast radius and intelligent opponents can do likewise (SOP back in the days of old school wilderness wanding monsters was to never travel close to one another than a single fireball radius. Newer players, with the loss of random wilderness encounters and the reduced likelihood of ambush seem to have forgotten such wisdom. But good for the players is good for the NPCs). Specifically, avoiding the radius to a wizard at-will is just good sense.
Carl
I really think we are arguing in the wrong direction if we need to actually change how me write adventures just so wizards can use their spellbooks.
Gomez
why do you need to have a specific opportunity to swap them?
I'm sure later-level adventures will set up situations allowing extended rests. Probably just before fighting a lvl 19 solo... like that beholder eye tyrant in the MM.
You can choose them at the beginning, however you have little to no idea if you'll be facing fire creatures or constructs, leaving you with no info to base your choice of sleep or flaming sphere off of.
That's what the blurb is for. ;)