Rule of Three - June 26th

488 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rule of Three
6/26/12
by Rodney Thompson

You've got questions—we've got answers! Here's how it works—each week, our Community Manager will be scouring all available sources to find whatever questions you're asking. We'll pick three of them for R&D to answer.

Talk about this article here.

I don't wish to be mean, but it seems like I spent ten minutes reading all that, and I still don't think I've learned anything.  Am I missing something?

-Polaris
1. Thank You WotC, everyone we can drop the ignorant facing rule and it won't be house ruling... Of course at the same time the 20+ module game just turned into 20+ modules and 50+ optional rules. Have fun finding a game you like without having to do a 10 page interview with each DM.

2. Oh yay, the fighter gets to hit it and add a status effect...

3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
"Those are the perfect things for us to put in maneuvers, because players get to opt in to the complexity, and it makes it easier for the DM to remove them, or give bonus maneuvers out, on a campaign-by-campaign basis."

Honestly, before I continue, I again must state my dealbreaker on the matter: if martial maneuvers are to be made easier for DMs to remove, so should Vancian spells, tradition or no.

As for #3, I fail to see why they're having so much trouble in the first place.  Make a stable core with the ability for players to choose how they want to build their characters -- for example, 4E had a stable core combat system that, after Essentials, allowed players to choose between simpler, feature-centric characters and more complex, power-centric characters, all without having to break the bank -- then play off that.  If Magic Missile, Burning Hands, and Sleep all functioned well enough in a system paradigm that allowed wizards to be magical regardless of style [maybe "weak" abilities off the bat, but with additional benefits when placed in a Vancian spell slot, and a different set of benefits as defined by the class when boosted using spell points, allowing an Elementalist, Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock to use the exact same spell pool using different mechanics], then we'd have all of it "balanced" out.  You could grant those who dislike maneuvers extra "passive" features, and vice versa.

Oh riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  Feel now, math later.  Gotcha. 
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



Actually no.

If they had two modules one that was vancian, and one that was AEDU and when the DM started the game they had to pick one or the other (as in both equal, neither default). They would get all the players, they aren't doing that, so they will lose a huge chunk of their players me included...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



I am not so sure.  I think that Vancian casting had to be offered for some of you, but insisting that those of us that loath Vancian casting be stuck with it as a core mechanic IMHO gives lie to the idea that this is somehow the edition to appeal to everyone.  Not happy with Wotc's stance on Vancian casting AT ALL.  It's probably going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people.

-Polaris


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.


I personally would rather have Vancian casting as a module you can add or ban, just like how in this article it's been stated that martial maneuvers are easily added or removed by the DM as desired.

Because personally I dislike how X/day "me first" entitlement is supposedly balanced against at-wills by other means.

Let the player, not the system, define how simple or complicated his character is.

Let the DM and the system define what works and what doesn't in his campaign, and only in his campaign (so the system should define what works and what doesn't in a universal scale -- providing options and alternatives and what not -- while the DM defines what works for him in a global [campaign-sized] scale).

Equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Actually the maneuvre thing..while technically you could remove them overall....from how it reads looks to be meaning more of a.  "I don't like _this_ specific maneuvre...so I'm going to ban that maneuvre in my campain.  But these other ones are available....or instead able to say 'ok and you earn this maneuvre' without needing to pay for it.  Thats what I got on the talk of it.  Much like you can remove spells from the pool of available spells of a vancian caster..or give them such spells.

But overall..I get the feeling removing maneuvres completely...would be extreemly close to just taking out spells from a vancian caster...or making them survive on just 1'st level spells all the way through their career. 
Good to read, figured as much though.  I am all for an Optional Rule filled edition, but I keep coming back to the core ruleset needs to be mathematically tight. 

Check System?  Really glad to hear all that stuff will be core mechanics, or part of the Check System.  What's a Check System (my capitalization, btw)?  Are those Actions, you roll a d20 to do?  Or are they additional d20s you roll after you do an Action, like attack? 

Are Combat Maneuvers another subsystem?  Or are they a type of Theme (or Feat)?  I think the Fighter needs his own Rogue Scheme-like class feature, but buying into Combat Maneuvers could work if it didn't cost the character their Feats.  Kind of like spells are class feature of wizards, but not individual spells.  Combat Maneuvers could be the class feature of fighters, but not specific stunts.

Wizards will be wizards, wooot! 

And I am hoping Sorcerers are Encounter Based spellcasters rather than Spell Pool spellcasters.          


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



well a lot depends on what makes a wizard.
How big is the difrence if you pick class A or class B and add the same themes and backgrounds ?

so if you had a mage vancian, and a arcinist non vancian arcane caster class.
how much would either of them feal like a wizard when given the same backgrounds and themes.

and if a Dm doesen't like vancien casting he could just rule all arcane casters have to be build from the arcanist class. 


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



well a lot depends on what makes a wizard.
How big is the difrence if you pick class A or class B and add the same themes and backgrounds ?
 



That is true.  A non-Vancian Wizard by a different name would probably fly, but a repeat of what Wotc tried to do with the 3E sorcerer will likely be a dealbreaker for those of us that loath Vancian Magic.

-Polaris


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



well a lot depends on what makes a wizard.
How big is the difrence if you pick class A or class B and add the same themes and backgrounds ?

so if you had a mage vancian, and a arcinist non vancian arcane caster class.
how much would either of them feal like a wizard when given the same backgrounds and themes.

and if a Dm doesen't like vancien casting he could just rule all arcane casters have to be build from the arcanist class. 

Which I'd be fine with..but apparently having both classes available is 'too core' for the vancian haters, even though you could just as easily remove the class that has vancian.  And considering that having a single class that is correctly statted out and balanced for vancian casting....that you just easily remove completely....is 'too core' I think whatever would make them happy for it to be 'not core' is honestly too much for anyone who enjoys vancian to like.
Which I'd be fine with..but apparently having both classes available is 'too core' for the vancian haters, even though you could just as easily remove the class that has vancian.  And considering that having a single class that is correctly statted out and balanced for vancian casting....that you just easily remove completely....is 'too core' I think whatever would make them happy for it to be 'not core' is honestly too much for anyone who enjoys vancian to like.



This makes me openly wonder who (or rather what faction in this case) might be seen as narrowminded and unwilling to let other people play the game they like.

-Polaris
Vancian casting needs to change the spells “per day” mechanic to a “per 1-hour rest” mechanic. Then it becomes workable with nonvancian classes. 
Probably the people who think that having a properly statted out and balanced Vancian caster class available in the same spot a properly statted out and Balanced non-vancian caster class.....is a dealbreaker as Vancian is now 'too core'.  Even though its as easy as removing the class.


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



well a lot depends on what makes a wizard.
How big is the difrence if you pick class A or class B and add the same themes and backgrounds ?

so if you had a mage vancian, and a arcinist non vancian arcane caster class.
how much would either of them feal like a wizard when given the same backgrounds and themes.

and if a Dm doesen't like vancien casting he could just rule all arcane casters have to be build from the arcanist class. 

Which I'd be fine with..but apparently having both classes available is 'too core' for the vancian haters, even though you could just as easily remove the class that has vancian.  And considering that having a single class that is correctly statted out and balanced for vancian casting....that you just easily remove completely....is 'too core' I think whatever would make them happy for it to be 'not core' is honestly too much for anyone who enjoys vancian to like.



I'd rather have something along the lines of the rogue scheme. Where you can pick at creation vancian, sorcerer, or AEDU, or any other system you can think of. Then you can have the bookish wizard and not have to create an entirely different concept. They can even have the same spells (the encounter spells would be less powerful versions of the same spell)...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I'd rather have something along the lines of the rogue scheme. Where you can pick at creation vancian, sorcerer, or AEDU, or any other system you can think of. Then you can have the bookish wizard and not have to create an entirely different concept. They can even have the same spells (the encounter spells would be less powerful versions of the same spell)...



Indeed, Midnight (an OGL game during the 3e era) did something very much like this.  You could pick how you learned your spells, and then you could pick which attribute you used to cast magic independantly of each other.  I see no reason why something much like this couldn't be done with DDN.

-Polaris


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



well a lot depends on what makes a wizard.
How big is the difrence if you pick class A or class B and add the same themes and backgrounds ?

so if you had a mage vancian, and a arcinist non vancian arcane caster class.
how much would either of them feal like a wizard when given the same backgrounds and themes.

and if a Dm doesen't like vancien casting he could just rule all arcane casters have to be build from the arcanist class. 

Which I'd be fine with..but apparently having both classes available is 'too core' for the vancian haters, even though you could just as easily remove the class that has vancian.  And considering that having a single class that is correctly statted out and balanced for vancian casting....that you just easily remove completely....is 'too core' I think whatever would make them happy for it to be 'not core' is honestly too much for anyone who enjoys vancian to like.



I'd rather have something along the lines of the rogue scheme. Where you can pick at creation vancian, sorcerer, or AEDU, or any other system you can think of. Then you can have the bookish wizard and not have to create an entirely different concept. They can even have the same spells (the encounter spells would be less powerful versions of the same spell)...

But would it be as balanced?  All 3 could easily have the same exact flavor. But how easy would it be to actually make sure all 3 are just as balanced?

Why not produce all 3 as classes with flavor as similar as possible...but each one has the mechanical differences needed to make the 3 subsystems stay in balanced check with each other?

We already know they plan to do that earily to a degree.  They plan for the core classes from all the editions to be represented.  We know they plan to have a 3.5 Fighter..and a AEDU fighter..same with wizard.


The question really is whats easier to balance and design.  A single class capable of 3 different heavily varied methods of spellcasting..or 3 classes given a similar design..but have the proper mechanics to make it different?

Would it be enough to do that anyway and then just call the 3 different classes 'schemes' of the same base class?

So you pick wizard then pick the AEDU scheme...even though the mechanics..by neccessity..are so different it might as well be a different class? 
1. Thank You WotC, everyone we can drop the ignorant facing rule and it won't be house ruling... Of course at the same time the 20+ module game just turned into 20+ modules and 50+ optional rules. Have fun finding a game you like without having to do a 10 page interview with each DM.


      I am more worried that a large percentage of these rules will not be playtested, particularly not in combination with each of the others.  The odds of broken material seems quite high.


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



Actually no.

If they had two modules one that was vancian, and one that was AEDU and when the DM started the game they had to pick one or the other (as in both equal, neither default). They would get all the players, they aren't doing that, so they will lose a huge chunk of their players me included...


How do you know that there won't be both in the core? Where has it been stated that Vancian will be default? Both or all casting systems can be core, without any being considered default.

The latest RoT even states that they want Vancian for some casters and another system for other casters; it will just be a different class, in order to make balancing it easier.

So you choose to use wizards or you choose to use mages (names chosen at random) in your campaign; or you let each player choose which class/system to use.

I don't see why there is so much belly-aching on this issue; when WotC is trying to meet everyone's preferences, each in its own balanced mechanics.


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



Actually no.

If they had two modules one that was vancian, and one that was AEDU and when the DM started the game they had to pick one or the other (as in both equal, neither default). They would get all the players, they aren't doing that, so they will lose a huge chunk of their players me included...


How do you know that there won't be both in the core? Where has it been stated that Vancian will be default? Both or all casting systems can be core, without any being considered default.

The latest RoT even states that they want Vancian for some casters and another system for other casters; it will just be a different class, in order to make balancing it easier.

So you choose to use wizards or you choose to use mages (names chosen at random) in your campaign; or you let each player choose which class/system to use.

I don't see why there is so much belly-aching on this issue; when WotC is trying to meet everyone's preferences, each in its own balanced mechanics.



Because the RoT pretty much ruled out ANY possibility other than a Vancian caster as a core option for wizard.  For a lot of people that will be a deal breaker.

-Polaris


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



Actually no.

If they had two modules one that was vancian, and one that was AEDU and when the DM started the game they had to pick one or the other (as in both equal, neither default). They would get all the players, they aren't doing that, so they will lose a huge chunk of their players me included...


How do you know that there won't be both in the core? Where has it been stated that Vancian will be default? Both or all casting systems can be core, without any being considered default.

The latest RoT even states that they want Vancian for some casters and another system for other casters; it will just be a different class, in order to make balancing it easier.

So you choose to use wizards or you choose to use mages (names chosen at random) in your campaign; or you let each player choose which class/system to use.

I don't see why there is so much belly-aching on this issue; when WotC is trying to meet everyone's preferences, each in its own balanced mechanics.



Because the RoT pretty much ruled out ANY possibility other than a Vancian caster as a core option for wizard.  For a lot of people that will be a deal breaker.

-Polaris


You are reading into the article an arguement to support your viewpoint.

He clearly states that they want a different casting system, just using a different class so that it can be balanced effectively: "While we are definitely excited about the idea of having different ways of casting spells, we also want to make sure that our classes stay balanced and functioning as intended." Rodney Thompson Rule-of-Three: 06/26/2012


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



Actually no.

If they had two modules one that was vancian, and one that was AEDU and when the DM started the game they had to pick one or the other (as in both equal, neither default). They would get all the players, they aren't doing that, so they will lose a huge chunk of their players me included...


How do you know that there won't be both in the core? Where has it been stated that Vancian will be default? Both or all casting systems can be core, without any being considered default.

The latest RoT even states that they want Vancian for some casters and another system for other casters; it will just be a different class, in order to make balancing it easier.

So you choose to use wizards or you choose to use mages (names chosen at random) in your campaign; or you let each player choose which class/system to use.

I don't see why there is so much belly-aching on this issue; when WotC is trying to meet everyone's preferences, each in its own balanced mechanics.



Because the RoT pretty much ruled out ANY possibility other than a Vancian caster as a core option for wizard.  For a lot of people that will be a deal breaker.

-Polaris


You are reading into the article an arguement to support your viewpoint.

He clearly states that they want a different casting system, just using a different class so that it can be balanced effectively: "While we are definitely excited about the idea of having different ways of casting spells, we also want to make sure that our classes stay balanced and functioning as intended." Rodney Thompson Rule-of-Three: 06/26/2012



He is clearly ruling out non-Vancian casters at the core, however, while saying that we can mix and match the equivalent things for fighters (manuevers and tactical rules).  Unless that changes, it's a dealbreaker for a lot of people.

-Polaris


3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...



And if it wasn't core, just as many who have been watching would of left anyway.  So in the end net loss/gain of zero...oh well.



well a lot depends on what makes a wizard.
How big is the difrence if you pick class A or class B and add the same themes and backgrounds ?

so if you had a mage vancian, and a arcinist non vancian arcane caster class.
how much would either of them feal like a wizard when given the same backgrounds and themes.

and if a Dm doesen't like vancien casting he could just rule all arcane casters have to be build from the arcanist class. 

Which I'd be fine with..but apparently having both classes available is 'too core' for the vancian haters, even though you could just as easily remove the class that has vancian.  And considering that having a single class that is correctly statted out and balanced for vancian casting....that you just easily remove completely....is 'too core' I think whatever would make them happy for it to be 'not core' is honestly too much for anyone who enjoys vancian to like.



I'd rather have something along the lines of the rogue scheme. Where you can pick at creation vancian, sorcerer, or AEDU, or any other system you can think of. Then you can have the bookish wizard and not have to create an entirely different concept. They can even have the same spells (the encounter spells would be less powerful versions of the same spell)...

But would it be as balanced?  All 3 could easily have the same exact flavor. But how easy would it be to actually make sure all 3 are just as balanced?

Why not produce all 3 as classes with flavor as similar as possible...but each one has the mechanical differences needed to make the 3 subsystems stay in balanced check with each other?

We already know they plan to do that earily to a degree.  They plan for the core classes from all the editions to be represented.  We know they plan to have a 3.5 Fighter..and a AEDU fighter..same with wizard.


The question really is whats easier to balance and design.  A single class capable of 3 different heavily varied methods of spellcasting..or 3 classes given a similar design..but have the proper mechanics to make it different?

Would it be enough to do that anyway and then just call the 3 different classes 'schemes' of the same base class?

So you pick wizard then pick the AEDU scheme...even though the mechanics..by neccessity..are so different it might as well be a different class? 



It would be as balanced as separate classes. Think about it. The wizard would get at-will powers, spellbook, and familiar. Then you pick a scheme: vancian - all daily spells, more total spell slots. ED (encounter, daily) -  an encounter spell every couple levels as well as a daily spell every couple of levels. Alternate between getting an encounter slot or a daily slot each level while losing your lower level spell slots as you progress past 3-5 encounter and 3-5 dailies. I'm not seeing a balance issue here...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
3e tried to let the vancian Wizard and the spontaneous Sorcerer both use the same spells. That approach failed, demonstrated extreme favoritism toward the vancian Wizard and neglect toward the nonvancian rival. It fractured the 3e player base.
1) I like this, and I think this is the way to do it, from a design mentality standpoint. Modules shouldn't be straight jackets. They should be things that parties use, in order to play how they want to. Not much more to say about this, though.

2) Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes! Keep Improvisation an option for everyone, but let Fighters use Manuevers that let them attack, and add a status effect. And if you don't want maneuvers in your game? Don't use them, and the game still functions.

3) Not sure how I like this, but, so long as I get an encounter-based Class, I'd be happy. I could see it as having a relatively static number of spells across levels that you can refresh during a short rest, or rotate out for another spell on the fly.

If I were part of the design team (hint, hint, Mearls, if you're reading this) I'd develop an enconter system, which in flavor, has several similarities to the Vancian system, but remains true to people's mechanical concerns over Vancian Casting. I've mentioned this system a couple times on the forums, but basically, it amounts to this: You get a certain number of spell slots in which you can prepare spells. While a spell is active, it occupies that slot, but the slot is vacated when the duration ends. When you take a short rest, you can ready any spells from your spellbook up to the number of vacant spell slots. Non-combat stuff like Comprehend languages is not "free," because the spell slot remains active for a full hour, the duration of the spell. That way, if a spellcaster wants to use one of their slots to read the note they found on the corpse of the Hobgoblin leader, that the party slew, that spellcaster has one fewer spell to use in upcoming encounters.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

3e tried to let the vancian Wizard and the spontaneous Sorcerer both use the same spells. That approach failed, demonstrated extreme favoritism toward the vancian Wizard and neglect toward the nonvancian rival. It fractured the 3e player base.



Really, I thought it was the other way around and the sorcerers were the ones making the wizard look funny...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
3e tried to let the vancian Wizard and the spontaneous Sorcerer both use the same spells. That approach failed, demonstrated extreme favoritism toward the vancian Wizard and neglect toward the nonvancian rival. It fractured the 3e player base.



Really, I thought it was the other way around and the sorcerers were the ones making the wizard look funny...



In 3e, the spontaneous Sorcerer was more powerful than the Wizard at low levels, but while the Wizard “quadraticized” at higher levels, becoming omnipotent, the Sorcerer became pathetic, with insufficient access to high level spell knowledge.

Despite the fact many 3e players preferred the nonvancian style, the designers continued to push the vancian-style heavy-handedly, including absurdly preferential magic items.
If you want a true difference between wizards, sorcerors  and warlocks make them do different things. 

Wizards take time to summon elementals and have scaling spells that take time (segments) to cast.

Sorcerors instantly summon spirits and cast spells that do not scale or have time requirements.

Warlocks use rituals to summon beings representative of their pact, they can cast spells that do not scale without time requirements or use a ritual to scale the spell effects.

 
If you want a true difference between wizards, sorcerors  and warlocks make them do different things. 

Wizards take time to summon elementals and have scaling spells that take time (segments) to cast.

Sorcerors instantly summon spirits and cast spells that do not scale or have time requirements.

Warlocks use rituals to summon beings representative of their pact, they can cast spells that do not scale without time requirements or use a ritual to scale the spell effects.

 



The thing is a lot of us don't want that.  A lot of us want to play a wizard without being shackled to a Vancian casting system we intensely dislike as a core game mechanic.  Having that wizard be called something else would be fine, but it should be clearly recognizable as a wizard.

-Polaris

The thing is a lot of us don't want that.  A lot of us want to play a wizard without being shackled to a Vancian casting system we intensely dislike as a core game mechanic.  Having that wizard be called something else would be fine, but it should be clearly recognizable as a wizard.

-Polaris



Oh dear... You're telling us that you won't play D&D Next because a vancian caster is labelled wizard?

The thing is a lot of us don't want that.  A lot of us want to play a wizard without being shackled to a Vancian casting system we intensely dislike as a core game mechanic.  Having that wizard be called something else would be fine, but it should be clearly recognizable as a wizard.

-Polaris



Oh dear... You're telling us that you won't play D&D Next because a vancian caster is labelled wizard?



That wasn't what was said.  What was said was that making the Vancian wizard the ONLY core option would be a deal breaker for a great many players.  I do not think having a non-Vancian option is too much to ask.

-Polaris
Personally, I love the Wizard archetype, but ... object to the “per day” mechanic.
A lot of us want to play a wizard without being shackled to a Vancian casting system we intensely dislike as a core game mechanic.  Having that wizard be called something else would be fine, but it should be clearly recognizable as a wizard.

-Polaris



Just do a 4e and refluff whatever the non-vancian class is as a Wizard yourself.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

The thing is a lot of us don't want that.  A lot of us want to play a wizard without being shackled to a Vancian casting system we intensely dislike as a core game mechanic.  Having that wizard be called something else would be fine, but it should be clearly recognizable as a wizard.

-Polaris



Oh dear... You're telling us that you won't play D&D Next because a vancian caster is labelled wizard?


No I think he's saying that we won't play D&D Next because Vancian casting as a wizard is the only way to go.  In other words, stuff that stay not because the player chose it, not because the DM chose it, but because the developers chose it... and of all reasons to choose it and only it as the only option for playing wizard, it just had to be for tradition's sake.  There's no "here are the different ways to be a wizard", there's only "this is the way to be a wizard, choose a different class if you don't want it."

The exact reason why I love Essentials isn't because the subclasses are simpler, but it's because it expands what is already in the game.  No longer are you tied to just one Fighter class, but you have a Fighter class-as-archetype, with subclasses having various packages.  No longer are you tied to just one Wizard class, but you have a Wizard class-as-archetype, with subclasses showing how you can play different types of Wizards [they may have different subclass names -- Witch, Bladesinger, Sha'ir -- but they're still Wizards nevertheless].

If martial maneuvers are a means to make a simple warrior complicated, then stat up a simple spellcaster and give Vancian spellcasting as a means to make the simple spellcaster complicated.  It's only fair. 
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
A lot of us want to play a wizard without being shackled to a Vancian casting system we intensely dislike as a core game mechanic.  Having that wizard be called something else would be fine, but it should be clearly recognizable as a wizard.

-Polaris



Just do a 4e and refluff whatever the non-vancian class is as a Wizard yourself.



We aren't being given that option.  Read the article again.

-Polaris
A lot of us want to play a wizard without being shackled to a Vancian casting system we intensely dislike as a core game mechanic.  Having that wizard be called something else would be fine, but it should be clearly recognizable as a wizard.

-Polaris



Just do a 4e and refluff whatever the non-vancian class is as a Wizard yourself.



We aren't being given that option.  Read the article again.

-Polaris



Not quite sure what article you're reading.

Q: "Will something other than Vancian be attached as an option or another class?"
A: "We think class."
Conclusion: They aren't giving us any non-Vancian of any kind!  WTF?

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

A lot of us want to play a wizard without being shackled to a Vancian casting system we intensely dislike as a core game mechanic.  Having that wizard be called something else would be fine, but it should be clearly recognizable as a wizard.

-Polaris



Just do a 4e and refluff whatever the non-vancian class is as a Wizard yourself.



We aren't being given that option.  Read the article again.

-Polaris



You mean the bit where they say:

For the moment, we're looking at big structural changes (like, for instance, how a character casts spells) likely requires a different character class. While we are definitely excited about the idea of having different ways of casting spells, we also want to make sure that our classes stay balanced and functioning as intended.



So just do a 4e and refluff whatever the non-vancian class is as a Wizard yourself.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

Not quite sure what article you're reading.

Q: "Will something other than Vancian be attached as an option or another class?"
A: "We think class."
Conclusion: They aren't giving us any non-Vancian of any kind!  WTF?




We are being told that the ONLY way to play a wizard is to play a Vancian wizard.  The other classes will be very different...and no refluffing a bard does NOT make it a wizard!  This isn't due to a DM requirement. It's because the Devs say so, and that runs contrary to all the promises of 'inclusiveness' they've made thus far.

-Polaris
So just do a 4e and refluff whatever the non-vancian class is as a Wizard yourself.



Not acceptable.

-Polaris