BerylBrightshade's blog listings. Feed Zend_Feed_Writer 1.10.8 (http://framework.zend.com) http://community.wizards.com/berylbrightshade But Enough about Wizards, ...Now for Something Completely Different
But in truth ranger, paladian, shaman, monk, and druid are specialized (or hybridized) versions of a core class. I think if we list fewer classes and make multi-classing more appealing, then this type of "class building" could be really cool. But one thing that stands in the way ( in my view) is serious front-loading of feat like abilities. For example, if we are going to make barbarian a build that starts as a first level fighter then every 1st level fighter cannot already be proficient with heavy armor.

Now I understand that WotC did some research before publishing 4th edition and found that most players don't like 1st and 2nd level characters, and that the 30 levels of play in 4th ed. were meant to be on the power level of like 5th through maybe 20th level of 3rd edition. In spirit I get what you were doing, and it seems that D&D Next (at least the first playtest) starts characters out with a little power bump as well. Actually from 3rd edition on 1st level characters have had considerably more power than in AD&D; measuring by skills, proficencies, and feats(which were new).

But what about the players that like the idea that a 1st level character has had NO adventures yet? How is a fighter that cannot afford breastplate already proficient with full plate? How can a wizard that can barely cast 1st level spells already write scrolls? It seems to me that it would be easier on the players if WotC would design the level progression in such a way that groups who want to start the game as village teens who've just picked up weapons and wands can do that by starting at 1st level (or maybe even level zero for the truly hardcore); then groups who want to play somewhat experienced adventures could just roll up 3rd or 5th level characters. It is easy to skip a few levels, especially for experienced players, but if the game is setup so that 1st level is already "seasoned" it is far harder for players to extrapolate below the preset minimum.


Well when I sat down tonight I was not planning on going into more "rules talk". I sort of had it in my head to type about the barbarian being a fun way to keep the game moving. Then I remembered the AD&D "kits" and got side tracked. Oh well, so this has been a side trek on buildable "mini-classes" and the need for a lower minimum power level. Like I always say, "just brain-storming".  
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:01:57 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/berylbrightshade/blog/2012/09/24/but_enough_about_wizards,_...now_for_something_completely_different http://community.wizards.com/berylbrightshade/blog/2012/09/24/but_enough_about_wizards,_...now_for_something_completely_different
But in truth ranger, paladian, shaman, monk, and druid are specialized (or hybridized) versions of a core class. I think if we list fewer classes and make multi-classing more appealing, then this type of "class building" could be really cool. But one thing that stands in the way ( in my view) is serious front-loading of feat like abilities. For example, if we are going to make barbarian a build that starts as a first level fighter then every 1st level fighter cannot already be proficient with heavy armor.

Now I understand that WotC did some research before publishing 4th edition and found that most players don't like 1st and 2nd level characters, and that the 30 levels of play in 4th ed. were meant to be on the power level of like 5th through maybe 20th level of 3rd edition. In spirit I get what you were doing, and it seems that D&D Next (at least the first playtest) starts characters out with a little power bump as well. Actually from 3rd edition on 1st level characters have had considerably more power than in AD&D; measuring by skills, proficencies, and feats(which were new).

But what about the players that like the idea that a 1st level character has had NO adventures yet? How is a fighter that cannot afford breastplate already proficient with full plate? How can a wizard that can barely cast 1st level spells already write scrolls? It seems to me that it would be easier on the players if WotC would design the level progression in such a way that groups who want to start the game as village teens who've just picked up weapons and wands can do that by starting at 1st level (or maybe even level zero for the truly hardcore); then groups who want to play somewhat experienced adventures could just roll up 3rd or 5th level characters. It is easy to skip a few levels, especially for experienced players, but if the game is setup so that 1st level is already "seasoned" it is far harder for players to extrapolate below the preset minimum.


Well when I sat down tonight I was not planning on going into more "rules talk". I sort of had it in my head to type about the barbarian being a fun way to keep the game moving. Then I remembered the AD&D "kits" and got side tracked. Oh well, so this has been a side trek on buildable "mini-classes" and the need for a lower minimum power level. Like I always say, "just brain-storming".  
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 Okay, Maybe we could bend the power curve a little  
 I've given it some thought, and there is a solid issue with mid-level (11th or so) wizards first coming into their own, but then quickly start (by 15th or 16th level) pulling away from the pack with just sheer power level.


I guess there are probably several ways to 'fix' this so that PCs are more balanced with one another, but many of them seem artificial and/or unpalatable to me.


a) I don't think just getting rid of spells, or pulling down the overall power level of the spells themselves is a viable option. (with a few exceptions) If we have only Gandalf and Merlin to go by, magic should be potent, so D&D should embrace this idea of truly awe inspiring magic.


b) Giving other classes more choices and cool abilities is good, but this has been done  to great extent and the power gap still exists (comparing AD&D to 3.5). On this front, D&DNext has made Rogue skills easier to use for the most part, and introduced these power dice for fighters, both still good ideas, up to a point. I know we are playing a fantasy role-playing game, but when classes have overtly non-magical abilities that seemingly let them defy the laws of nature, everything starts to breakdown.


So what do I think we should do? If you read my first three posts, this might come as a surprise. I have two suggestions which could be used together, or apart.      


1) Maybe specialization should be the norm, and access to all the schools of magic should be rare. Maybe at first level a wizard has access to 3 or 4 schools, and you can pick more schools through feats or something. You could take this idea into hyperdrive if you broke the spells into more than 8 groups, think spell seeds from the epic level handbook. This idea seems realistic because we often think of wizards as an analog to mathematicians and scholars, and all professors specialize because there is just too much to learn to be a master of all fields.
Another way to look at specialization is even more of an analog to studying at a university. Maybe all wizards get a fairly well rounded education in their Bachelor of the Arts program, so that they have access to 1st to 3rd level spells of any school, then they begin to focus as they achieve a Master of Arts degree of understanding, picking only spells from five schools in levels 4 to 6. Finally, true focus is required to rap ones head around a true understanding of metaphyics so that a Doctorate of Wizardry is obtained with a focus in only three schools for spells of 7th to 9th level.


2) Maybe as a wizard goes up in levels she gains many more low level slots, and not so many high level slots. This way those high level spells are still there and maybe seem even more awesome, but a 20th level wizard cannot start every encounter just trying to decide between Meteor Swarm, Horrid Wilting, or Chain Lightning. At the same time it gives her access to more total spells, which would free up some 1st to 3rd level slots for those super handy utility spells. AD&D is actually closer to this paradigm than 3rd ed. In 3rd ed. a 20th level wizard has 4 slots of every level spell, while in AD&D she had 5 slots for 1st through 5th, and then 4,3,3, and 2 slots for 6th to 9th level spells. I say go further, especially since playing up to 30th level and beyond seems more the norm now. Maybe she should not get 9th level slots until 20th or 21st caster level.{and she would get her single 10th level slot at 25th level, with only one spell to choose: WISH ;) but that could be another post}
You could take this to an extreme and set it up to where at 1st level a wizard has no at-wills, then by 5th level cantrips are at-will, by 10th caster level her 1st level spells are at-will, etc. That would be cool.
   
 These ideas are just from brain storming, would like to hear what you think about this and my previous posts. (I promise not to be so snarky anymore).


Thanks for Reading


Beryl            
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:01:33 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/berylbrightshade/blog/2012/09/19/okay,_maybe_we_could_bend_the_power_curve_a_little http://community.wizards.com/berylbrightshade/blog/2012/09/19/okay,_maybe_we_could_bend_the_power_curve_a_little  
 I've given it some thought, and there is a solid issue with mid-level (11th or so) wizards first coming into their own, but then quickly start (by 15th or 16th level) pulling away from the pack with just sheer power level.


I guess there are probably several ways to 'fix' this so that PCs are more balanced with one another, but many of them seem artificial and/or unpalatable to me.


a) I don't think just getting rid of spells, or pulling down the overall power level of the spells themselves is a viable option. (with a few exceptions) If we have only Gandalf and Merlin to go by, magic should be potent, so D&D should embrace this idea of truly awe inspiring magic.


b) Giving other classes more choices and cool abilities is good, but this has been done  to great extent and the power gap still exists (comparing AD&D to 3.5). On this front, D&DNext has made Rogue skills easier to use for the most part, and introduced these power dice for fighters, both still good ideas, up to a point. I know we are playing a fantasy role-playing game, but when classes have overtly non-magical abilities that seemingly let them defy the laws of nature, everything starts to breakdown.


So what do I think we should do? If you read my first three posts, this might come as a surprise. I have two suggestions which could be used together, or apart.      


1) Maybe specialization should be the norm, and access to all the schools of magic should be rare. Maybe at first level a wizard has access to 3 or 4 schools, and you can pick more schools through feats or something. You could take this idea into hyperdrive if you broke the spells into more than 8 groups, think spell seeds from the epic level handbook. This idea seems realistic because we often think of wizards as an analog to mathematicians and scholars, and all professors specialize because there is just too much to learn to be a master of all fields.
Another way to look at specialization is even more of an analog to studying at a university. Maybe all wizards get a fairly well rounded education in their Bachelor of the Arts program, so that they have access to 1st to 3rd level spells of any school, then they begin to focus as they achieve a Master of Arts degree of understanding, picking only spells from five schools in levels 4 to 6. Finally, true focus is required to rap ones head around a true understanding of metaphyics so that a Doctorate of Wizardry is obtained with a focus in only three schools for spells of 7th to 9th level.


2) Maybe as a wizard goes up in levels she gains many more low level slots, and not so many high level slots. This way those high level spells are still there and maybe seem even more awesome, but a 20th level wizard cannot start every encounter just trying to decide between Meteor Swarm, Horrid Wilting, or Chain Lightning. At the same time it gives her access to more total spells, which would free up some 1st to 3rd level slots for those super handy utility spells. AD&D is actually closer to this paradigm than 3rd ed. In 3rd ed. a 20th level wizard has 4 slots of every level spell, while in AD&D she had 5 slots for 1st through 5th, and then 4,3,3, and 2 slots for 6th to 9th level spells. I say go further, especially since playing up to 30th level and beyond seems more the norm now. Maybe she should not get 9th level slots until 20th or 21st caster level.{and she would get her single 10th level slot at 25th level, with only one spell to choose: WISH ;) but that could be another post}
You could take this to an extreme and set it up to where at 1st level a wizard has no at-wills, then by 5th level cantrips are at-will, by 10th caster level her 1st level spells are at-will, etc. That would be cool.
   
 These ideas are just from brain storming, would like to hear what you think about this and my previous posts. (I promise not to be so snarky anymore).


Thanks for Reading


Beryl            
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 Wizards that cannot make rods, staves or wands? What The Feywild...
 I admit that in 3rd edition magic items seemed like an overly mundane part of the world, but jumping to the other extreme seems...well,  extreme. Now I'm not one of those people who thinks that 1st or 2nd edition AD&D is the holy grail of role-playing games, but when new rules don't fix something or in this case maybe make it worse, I like to look over the old rules and consider whether they ever needed fixing. In the late 80's and early 90's I played in a mostly 2nd ed, spice of 1st ed Drgonlance campaign. The reason being we had bought a set of the base books; PHB, DMG, & MM all 2nd ed, and the Dragonlance Adventures hardback which was actually 1st ed, and of course included Barbarians. ANYWAYS... I said that simply to lead into the fact that I'm more familiar with 2nd ed as a whole, so I'm going to compare magic item creation in 2nd ed to magic item creation in 3rd ed.

In 2nd ed AD&D wizards could not make scrolls or potions until they reached 9th level, and they could not make anything else until 11th level. In 3rd ed. you had to pick up item creation feats, but this started at 1st level when you got scribe scroll for free, then at 3rd level you could get Brew potion or Craft Wondrous item, and 5th level brings the options for Craft arms & armor or craft wand, craft rod is available at 9th, and finally forge ring and craft staff can be picked up at 12th level or higher. So you see that what happened in two stages as just an innate part of your class in 2nd ed was spread out and offered as optional feats in 3rd. So maybe there is a happy medium where making items is not listed as feats but as class abilities that you start getting every two levels starting with 9th and scribe scroll up to 21st level and wondruous items {and make sure these items are actually wondrous}

Again, this is just brainstorming, I had this on my mind today and didn't know really where I was going when I started typing. (as if that was not obvious)  

  Its worth noting that in 3rd ed. if a wizard picks every item creation feat he will only have 4 feats for other things (5 if your PC is human), so that you have spent most of your feats just trying to be as good as a 2nd ed wizard. Compare that to a fighter who gets 18 (19) feats, a mere 5 of which you could argue are needed to reclaim 2nd ed fighter traits (leadership for gaining followers, weapon focus twice and weapon specialization twice; why twice? I'm being nice...) but this goes back to my 1st blog entry


0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:13:36 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/berylbrightshade/blog/2012/09/10/wizards_that_cannot_make_rods,_staves_or_wands http://community.wizards.com/berylbrightshade/blog/2012/09/10/wizards_that_cannot_make_rods,_staves_or_wands What The Feywild...
 I admit that in 3rd edition magic items seemed like an overly mundane part of the world, but jumping to the other extreme seems...well,  extreme. Now I'm not one of those people who thinks that 1st or 2nd edition AD&D is the holy grail of role-playing games, but when new rules don't fix something or in this case maybe make it worse, I like to look over the old rules and consider whether they ever needed fixing. In the late 80's and early 90's I played in a mostly 2nd ed, spice of 1st ed Drgonlance campaign. The reason being we had bought a set of the base books; PHB, DMG, & MM all 2nd ed, and the Dragonlance Adventures hardback which was actually 1st ed, and of course included Barbarians. ANYWAYS... I said that simply to lead into the fact that I'm more familiar with 2nd ed as a whole, so I'm going to compare magic item creation in 2nd ed to magic item creation in 3rd ed.

In 2nd ed AD&D wizards could not make scrolls or potions until they reached 9th level, and they could not make anything else until 11th level. In 3rd ed. you had to pick up item creation feats, but this started at 1st level when you got scribe scroll for free, then at 3rd level you could get Brew potion or Craft Wondrous item, and 5th level brings the options for Craft arms & armor or craft wand, craft rod is available at 9th, and finally forge ring and craft staff can be picked up at 12th level or higher. So you see that what happened in two stages as just an innate part of your class in 2nd ed was spread out and offered as optional feats in 3rd. So maybe there is a happy medium where making items is not listed as feats but as class abilities that you start getting every two levels starting with 9th and scribe scroll up to 21st level and wondruous items {and make sure these items are actually wondrous}

Again, this is just brainstorming, I had this on my mind today and didn't know really where I was going when I started typing. (as if that was not obvious)  

  Its worth noting that in 3rd ed. if a wizard picks every item creation feat he will only have 4 feats for other things (5 if your PC is human), so that you have spent most of your feats just trying to be as good as a 2nd ed wizard. Compare that to a fighter who gets 18 (19) feats, a mere 5 of which you could argue are needed to reclaim 2nd ed fighter traits (leadership for gaining followers, weapon focus twice and weapon specialization twice; why twice? I'm being nice...) but this goes back to my 1st blog entry


0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 I Want Cool Magically Bonus Effects     Okay, it probably would not make since to have a crit roll for fireball mean max damage, that does not seem fair, but maybe a +1 per die, or +2 to the save DC, or being able to partially shape the sphere, you know give it a bit of an oval to catch that one bad guy that was just outside your ring. Defensive spells could have caster checks as well, and critical success could mean being able to use a group spell on an extra person or getting an extra round or minute added to the duration. Of course if you can have critical success, then you should be able to have critical failure. If we assume that failure means your spell did not work in the case of offensive spells, then critical failure would have to affect your next action, like make a willpower check or you lose a standard action. That seems too harsh but you get the idea. If we are rolling just to check  for extras, and the offensive spell still goes off then maybe its misses the mark by 10ft (roll d8 see where the point of orgin is), or its a little weak, only a fifteen foot radius, or -2 to save DC. Personally I think tweaking the perimeters of the spells is more fun and interesting and just seems more "magical" than +2/-2 to the DC.    Hey, I'm just brainstorming in type here, think about it fellow sages and mages, and have a good Monday.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:29:13 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/berylbrightshade/blog/2012/09/09/i_want_cool_magically_bonus_effects http://community.wizards.com/berylbrightshade/blog/2012/09/09/i_want_cool_magically_bonus_effects     Okay, it probably would not make since to have a crit roll for fireball mean max damage, that does not seem fair, but maybe a +1 per die, or +2 to the save DC, or being able to partially shape the sphere, you know give it a bit of an oval to catch that one bad guy that was just outside your ring. Defensive spells could have caster checks as well, and critical success could mean being able to use a group spell on an extra person or getting an extra round or minute added to the duration. Of course if you can have critical success, then you should be able to have critical failure. If we assume that failure means your spell did not work in the case of offensive spells, then critical failure would have to affect your next action, like make a willpower check or you lose a standard action. That seems too harsh but you get the idea. If we are rolling just to check  for extras, and the offensive spell still goes off then maybe its misses the mark by 10ft (roll d8 see where the point of orgin is), or its a little weak, only a fifteen foot radius, or -2 to save DC. Personally I think tweaking the perimeters of the spells is more fun and interesting and just seems more "magical" than +2/-2 to the DC.    Hey, I'm just brainstorming in type here, think about it fellow sages and mages, and have a good Monday.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0 Wizards always losing ground team of adventurers. If we are still using attacks of opportunity, then casting in a threatened square ALWAYS provokes such attacks, no concentration check, no casting defensively, you're done. I'm not a masochist, I swear. My logic is that this total lack of defense puts the wizard's offensive "power rating" into perspective, forces the wizard to rely on his or her allies who will in turn want some magic stuff once said wizard makes it to the proper level.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:46:12 -0500 http://community.wizards.com/berylbrightshade/blog/2012/09/05/wizards_always_losing_ground http://community.wizards.com/berylbrightshade/blog/2012/09/05/wizards_always_losing_ground team of adventurers. If we are still using attacks of opportunity, then casting in a threatened square ALWAYS provokes such attacks, no concentration check, no casting defensively, you're done. I'm not a masochist, I swear. My logic is that this total lack of defense puts the wizard's offensive "power rating" into perspective, forces the wizard to rely on his or her allies who will in turn want some magic stuff once said wizard makes it to the proper level.
0 Comments - Leave a Comment
]]> 0