The Vancian spell casting system.

One change I would really like to see in 5e is the return of the Vancian spell casting system. The way 4e homogenized all the classes with powers really took away the flavor, and for me, much of the fun of playing a spell caster. While I understand the reasoning for doing this, I believe it was a poor decision. The system worked since the inception of the game, it should be brought back.
I don't want to see it return, personally.  At least not fully.  And I'd say the same about the powers system.  Somewhere between the two lies what I want, methinks, but I couldn't say precisely what it is.  I don't think non-caster classes should be several horribly jumbled pages of Powers soup, but I do think they should be able to perform spectacular feats within their own fields of expertise.  Meanwhile I also think casters should have basic magical abilities that they can perform at will so that they're not relegated to plinking with a crossbow or stabbing with a dagger after they've had their daily spellgasm.

And I'd like the spell lists to be pretty basic, with rules for creating your own spells.  We don't need 100+ pages of Animal's Ability Bonus, Improved Animal's Ability Bonus, Super Turbo Animal's Ability Bonus Hyper Championship Arcade Edition, etc. 
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
The system worked since the inception of the game, it should be brought back.



The fact that it didn't work and was finally abolished was the greatest success of 4E.  You liked it because you played spellcasters, but if you weren't one it meant you were out in the cold any time it came to doing something besides bust heads, and often not even then.

That said, the powers system does have pretty severe flaws regarding its lack of flavor and tendency for powers to feel too similar.  I proposed a system earlier today that I think captures the strong points of each system more effectively.  It's important that all classes have similar resources, but those resources don't have to all cover the same territory.
It did not work.  It made no sense.  It was not fun.  It was stilted and artificial-feeling.  I've played D&D since 1982, and I had fun in spite of that system, not because of it.  Every time I'd make a magic user, I'd wish for a spell I could use at-will. 

The death of Vancian magic is the primary reason I like 4E best.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
The thing is, preparing a limited supply of one-shot spells (the so-called Vancian system) is not merely a legacy feature of D&D, it is an element of the game that unites how the game has been played from 1974 through 2008. To be sure, there have been alternative methods proposed from the beginning and throughout. Still, the system does in fact work. (The same can be said of the combat system, i.e. rolling to hit against armor class and using hit points.)

If part of the goal of this iteration is to draw the fan base together, I don't see how creating an even newer system as the baseline does anyone any good. Provide it as a compatible alternative system in a supplement, sure, but eliminate how spellcasting has been handled for almost the entire history of the game? I would think there are better solutions to keeping all the players involved than that.
The thing is, preparing a limited supply of one-shot spells (the so-called Vancian system) is not merely a legacy feature of D&D, it is an element of the game that unites how the game has been played from 1974 through 2008. To be sure, there have been alternative methods proposed from the beginning and throughout. Still, the system does in fact work. (The same can be said of the combat system, i.e. rolling to hit against armor class and using hit points.)

If part of the goal of this iteration is to draw the fan base together, I don't see how creating an even newer system as the baseline does anyone any good. Provide it as a compatible alternative system in a supplement, sure, but eliminate how spellcasting has been handled for almost the entire history of the game? I would think there are better solutions to keeping all the players involved than that.



By its lonesome, it does not, in fact, work. At all. I can explain in detail why I said "by its lonesome" and analyze why it was fine in pre-3.X editions and why 3.X broke it to ****, but you're gonna have to accept that Vancian casting doesn't work if it isn't auto-nerfed by a score of varying mechanics.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
I would have to argue that if any party member is being excluded from helping to solve a problem that confronts the group, there's a fundamental flaw in the way the story is being run.  There are ways to keep casters from running amok and turning everything into a cake-walk if it becomes a problem in the older magic systems.  

I too would prefer to see the older system restored.  Specifically in some way that limits the cleric's ability to compete with the wizard in magey ways, and limits the wizard's ability to compete with the cleric in priestly ways.  I always liked the 2e method.  The cleric was a mini-fighter, sure.  But his offensive magic was limited in potency, (or if he was a cleric that focused on combat spells, his utility and healing was limited) and his spells topped out at 7th level.  The wizard could continue advancing to 9th level spells, to make up for his frail mage bones and his inability to hit the broad-side of a barn with his staff.  If you needed more casts of a certain spell than you could memorize in a day, the option to scribe yourself some scrolls or make a wand always existed.
I would have to argue that if any party member is being excluded from helping to solve a problem that confronts the group, there's a fundamental flaw in the way the story is being run.  There are ways to keep casters from running amok and turning everything into a cake-walk if it becomes a problem in the older magic systems.  

I too would prefer to see the older system restored.  Specifically in some way that limits the cleric's ability to compete with the wizard in magey ways, and limits the wizard's ability to compete with the cleric in priestly ways.  I always liked the 2e method.  The cleric was a mini-fighter, sure.  But his offensive magic was limited in potency, (or if he was a cleric that focused on combat spells, his utility and healing was limited) and his spells topped out at 7th level.  The wizard could continue advancing to 9th level spells, to make up for his frail mage bones and his inability to hit the broad-side of a barn with his staff.  



None of what you mentioned served to keep casters in check in 2e and earlier. You haven't understood the underlying mechanics. Think hard about it. Why wasn't SoD spamming the norm? Why did the Fighter never lose ground to the spellcaster unless you went super deep into Immortal-level challenges? The answers to this aren't "oh noes, the wizard got spells because frail bones", that's BS. It's cold, hard math. Something that is entirely unrelated to the stuff you're talking about.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
I can surely try to address your reply, but I'm afraid I'm not quite getting the meat of it.
I must admit to being puzzled that you grant the system was "fine in pre-3.X editions" and yet assert that "it does not, in fact, work. At all." Granted, I'm an old-timer, and so my perspective is from pre-AD&D (Holmes plus the three original supplements) through 2nd edition. Even so, it certainly worked for me and people I knew without any need for being "auto-nerfed by a score of varying mechanics," and that seems to have been the experience of many who played the game. As I noted, there have always been alternative systems and people dissatisfied with it, but the system does work as judged by the successful and successfully fun games played by a generation of players.

So, while I know something as a lurker/outsider of players' beefs with 3.x spellcasters, I suspect it is not the system at such which was the problem, but I'll leave that to those experience with 3.x.

In any event, my point was that this part of the magic system is recognized and familiar with the largest range of players of the game, and I don't see any way to draw the fans/players together without its playing a role in the core of the game.
If memory serves, vancian casting was meant to "balance" spellcasters (Not sure how "You can turn your enemies inside out on a whim, but only 3 times per casting and you can only cast it once per day" was supposed to be balanced with "You can hit things with a sword. A lot," but I digress). Basically spellcasters only get a number of spells per day before they become useless, whereas fighters can keep their flatline of meiocrity going til the cows come home. However, this failed as soon as the phrase "The wizard's out of spells, lets rest for the day" was first uttered. Plus it's incredibly boring for the wizard to be like "Phenomal cosmic power, phenomenal cosmic power, magic missile, crossbow crossbow, crossbow, crossbow, Bueller, Bueller, Bueller, plastic bag, plastic bag, plastic bag."

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
I can surely try to address your reply, but I'm afraid I'm not quite getting the meat of it.



The cleric wasn't a mini fighter. What he was intended to be, in concept, from the mouth of the devs, was this:




What he WAS, by some arcane process of transmogrification, was this.



Likewise, there were no 'priestly ways' for the mage. That was a crock of **** introduced in 3.5 with the Arcane Disciple feat. And the advancement of the Cleric stopping at level 7 wasn't a balancing mechanism but a flavor choice, as spells of equal potency to the Wizard's level 9 monsters could be found in the Clerical list. And there weren't 'ways to keep casters from running amok', because the system had a score (a literal score, IIRC) of systems in place to keep casters balanced. You appear to be slightly confused about how the old editions worked. It's a bad thing to wish for the return of anything if you aren't aware of why it worked, when it worked, and how it worked. It leads to disaster.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
I must admit to being puzzled that you grant the system was "fine in pre-3.X editions" and yet assert that "it does not, in fact, work. At all." Granted, I'm an old-timer, and so my perspective is from pre-AD&D (Holmes plus the three original supplements) through 2nd edition. Even so, it certainly worked for me and people I knew without any need for being "auto-nerfed by a score of varying mechanics," and that seems to have been the experience of many who played the game. As I noted, there have always been alternative systems and people dissatisfied with it, but the system does work as judged by the successful and successfully fun games played by a generation of players.

So, while I know something as a lurker/outsider of players' beefs with 3.x spellcasters, I suspect it is not the system at such which was the problem, but I'll leave that to those experience with 3.x.

In any event, my point was that this part of the magic system is recognized and familiar with the largest range of players of the game, and I don't see any way to draw the fans/players together without its playing a role in the core of the game.



You misread me. Allow me to clarify.

Vancian Casting, by its lonesome = does not work. Has never worked. Will never work.

Vancian Casting, Plus System-Wide Nerfs = works.

Without the nerfed XP progression of wizards, without making Save or Dies useless because at a certain point you literally could not fail them, without a very specific system math with regards to HP that made the Fighter competitive, without the ability to perform interrupts on casters that would permanently skull**** their ability to cast, without etc. etc. etc., Vancian Casting was a total disaster. 3.5 removed all these limitations and screwed with the math, and the end result was Caster Supremacy. I am not talking from a point of view of like or dislike for Vancian Casting (I dislike it, but it 100% WORKED in 2nd Ed and older), but purely from a designer's standpoint. I'm really tired of people clamoring for the return of things they don't understand, and think it'd be nice to educate everybody on why the systems worked, and why they didn't, and why the current state of design makes it infeasible for them to return. Even the veterans who've played the game forever, because D&D is a game you can play for life without having an inkling of its inner workings.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
I've played 2e through 4e, and my experience is that old guard players really dig the vancian spell lists and the idea of accquiring tomes of arcane spells over time - differentiating themselves from other spell casters and the quest for ultimate arcane power, all that jazz.

I believe a mistake made regarding spells in the 4e design was that the 'flavor' and potential individuality of the Vancian system was lost in the homogenized power system. Instead of combing ancient tombs for powerful spells, players leveled and the powers were chosen, and it was done. Granted, the daily spells were still buried in there, but from a flavor perspective, simply calling them powers- just like all the non-magical user classes - really rubbed my older players the wrong way. 

I say - keep what was good from the powers system for spell casters: At-will and Encounter 'Spells' (stop calling them powers), make the players work for their most coveted spells. So now you have a Vancian 'base' system, with the benefits we saw from 4e. Just my 2 copper.
The biggest problems of the Vancian System are:


1) When you run out of spells you become pretty much useless, especially if you are a Wizard (priests less so).


2) At high levels you have a lot of useless spells ans spell slots.


Granted, the homogenized powers system of 4e was not good for me, nor the encounter/daily powers system. 

A better system for 5e would be:

1) All classes having several at-will powers (not just 2-3, 'cause I like choice!)

2) A "powers" system for weapons combat (melee/ranged) that uses a recharge system similar to 4e monsters. So to make an example of one of my ideas:

 when it's your turn you roll a d10 and


on a 1, 2, 3 --> You can only use your at-will power


on a 4, 5, 6 --> You can use an encounter-equivalent power


on a 7, 8, 9 --> You can use a daily-equivalent power


on a natural 10 --> You can use an uber power.


In this simple way you have a sort of luck-based mini game when you really don't know what is going to happen next (as real combat should be) and the fact that you rolled a high number represents the fact that you found a lucky opening in your enemies.          

3) For spells I would use a slightly different approach from previous editions. I would have spells grow organically with the character.

What I mean is you having a spell and as you use a spell and level up you gain spell-enhancement slots for your spells so that they might inflict more damage,  have a larger area of effect, be tougher to resist, etc. so that you basically customize your spells based on your needs.

In this way spells will feel more personal and will always stay with you because they will always keep on being useful to you.   


Well guys, just my 2 cps ;) 
IMAGE(http://www.forum-signatures.com/wizard/Sigs/2010/final1329876348159.jpg)
I've played 2e through 4e, and my experience is that old guard players really dig the vancian spell lists and the idea of accquiring tomes of arcane spells over time - differentiating themselves from other spell casters and the quest for ultimate arcane power, all that jazz.

I believe a mistake made regarding spells in the 4e design was that the 'flavor' and potential individuality of the Vancian system was lost in the homogenized power system. Instead of combing ancient tombs for powerful spells, players leveled and the powers were chosen, and it was done. Granted, the daily spells were still buried in there, but from a flavor perspective, simply calling them powers- just like all the non-magical user classes - really rubbed my older players the wrong way. 

I say - keep what was good from the powers system for spell casters: At-will and Encounter 'Spells' (stop calling them powers), make the players work for their most coveted spells. So now you have a Vancian 'base' system, with the benefits we saw from 4e. Just my 2 copper.



They were called spells in 4e. And 'scouring ancient tomes' my ass, you leveled and went "DING", then added two/four spells to the spellbook. If you're talking purely about 2nd Ed design I agree with you, but what most guys are speaking of is 3.X.

---

@VanTrellen: So basically ToB's crusader for martials and Mutants and Masterminds power generation for spellcasters? That's needlessly complicated IMO. Just use either system for both, there's plenty of neat tweaks you could make to either to make classes distinct.

PS: Agree with more at-wills though. Choice is always good.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
I've played 2e through 4e, and my experience is that old guard players really dig the vancian spell lists and the idea of accquiring tomes of arcane spells over time - differentiating themselves from other spell casters and the quest for ultimate arcane power, all that jazz.

I believe a mistake made regarding spells in the 4e design was that the 'flavor' and potential individuality of the Vancian system was lost in the homogenized power system. Instead of combing ancient tombs for powerful spells, players leveled and the powers were chosen, and it was done. Granted, the daily spells were still buried in there, but from a flavor perspective, simply calling them powers- just like all the non-magical user classes - really rubbed my older players the wrong way. 

I say - keep what was good from the powers system for spell casters: At-will and Encounter 'Spells' (stop calling them powers), make the players work for their most coveted spells. So now you have a Vancian 'base' system, with the benefits we saw from 4e. Just my 2 copper.



They were called spells in 4e. And 'scouring ancient tomes' my ass, you leveled and went "DING", then added two/four spells to the spellbook. If you're talking purely about 2nd Ed design I agree with you, but what most guys are speaking of is 3.X.

---

@VanTrellen: So basically ToB's crusader for martials and Mutants and Masterminds power generation for spellcasters? That's needlessly complicated IMO. Just use either system for both, there's plenty of neat tweaks you could make to either to make classes distinct.

PS: Agree with more at-wills though. Choice is always good.

@Armisael



Just making suggestions ;)


Truth is I want a martial system that feels different from the magical system while making everyone happy.



At-will spells was a good addition for spellcaster in 4e and should definitely stay, but the way spells were homogenized into powers felt really...meh.

Neither I was crazy about the vancian system when I had "cure minor wound", "cure light wounds" "cure moderate wounds" etc... and the slots to cast them while really never using them ...not so good IMO.


Certainly the feature of players using ancient tomes for magical research was awesome, and my 2e wizards were always doing that so it should definitively have a come-back, but no rituals plz...not a big fan of those either.              
IMAGE(http://www.forum-signatures.com/wizard/Sigs/2010/final1329876348159.jpg)

In this simple way you have a sort of luck-based mini game when you really don't know what is going to happen next (as real combat should be) and the fact that you rolled a high number represents the fact that you found a lucky opening in your enemies.          
 


This sounds incredibly unfun. Like in a game I'm in, my psion just used his daily to hurl a goblin into an inferno and rather enjoyed doing it. If I missed my chance to do that because my d10 didn't roll high enough I'd have been incredibly... well ambivalent, but that's because I'm superchill. Were I actually prone to human emotions though, I would be decidedly cross.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
@Armisael: Yes, that's right - 2nd Ed for the spell sources. Given that the new rules are supposedly representing a throwback element (I know the preferred word is 'unified', but still).

In the end, I was very honestly not a big fan of 3.x - we played 3.5 for about three years, but it ended up being way too much of a grindfest at higher levels (this is just from our group's point of view). 4e was a breath of fresh air to me in a lot of ways, but combat was still slow, and we still lost much of the old narrative style of gaming that we had in 2nd Ed. due to the heavy focus on encounter-to-encounter mentality. 
@RPJesus: What VanTrellen meant wasn't 'roll to see if your power works', but rather 'roll to see if your power is online. If it is, go right ahead'. If your daily equivalent comes up, you can use it, no roll to control or anything. If it doesn't, you have to use your other options.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).

In this simple way you have a sort of luck-based mini game when you really don't know what is going to happen next (as real combat should be) and the fact that you rolled a high number represents the fact that you found a lucky opening in your enemies.          
 


This sounds incredibly unfun. Like in a game I'm in, my psion just used his daily to hurl a goblin into an inferno and rather enjoyed doing it. If I missed my chance to do that because my d10 didn't roll high enough I'd have been incredibly... well ambivalent, but that's because I'm superchill. Were I actually prone to human emotions though, I would be decidedly cross.



if your psion had used his last daily on  the goblin to hurl him into the lava and later on he would meet a tough opponent, wouldn't he be more cross because he had no daily left and used his last one on a useless goblin just to satisfy his ego?


Wouldn't he be more happy to have a chance to recharge said daily power to save his behind once more?     


IMAGE(http://www.forum-signatures.com/wizard/Sigs/2010/final1329876348159.jpg)
I can surely try to address your reply, but I'm afraid I'm not quite getting the meat of it.



The cleric wasn't a mini fighter. What he was intended to be, in concept, from the mouth of the devs, was this:




What he WAS, by some arcane process of transmogrification, was this.



Likewise, there were no 'priestly ways' for the mage. That was a crock of **** introduced in 3.5 with the Arcane Disciple feat. And the advancement of the Cleric stopping at level 7 wasn't a balancing mechanism but a flavor choice, as spells of equal potency to the Wizard's level 9 monsters could be found in the Clerical list. And there weren't 'ways to keep casters from running amok', because the system had a score (a literal score, IIRC) of systems in place to keep casters balanced. You appear to be slightly confused about how the old editions worked. It's a bad thing to wish for the return of anything if you aren't aware of why it worked, when it worked, and how it worked. It leads to disaster.




Straight from the 2e PHB, page 33. "The cleric class is similar to certain religious orders of knighthood of the Middle Ages:  The Teutonic Knights, Knights Templar, and Hospitalers.  These orders combined military and religious training with a code of protection and service."  Moving on along the page. "Clerics are sturdy soldiers, although their selection of weapons is limited."  I'm pretty sure Zeb Cook et al. knew what they was talking about with regard to the function of clerics in 2e. They wrote the stuff. Considering what Wikipedia tells me about the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar, and the Hospitalers, and the definition of the word solider, I'm going to have to insist that my description of a cleric as a "mini-fighter" is still apt.  As for priest spells of level 7 being on par with wizard spells of level 9, I'm going to have to disagree there too.  I'll grant you that Creeping Doom is, well, creepy.  But the only other damaging spells a priest is entitled to at that level is Firestorm (page 234) which can deal 2d8+1/level, Sunray (235) which can deal damage to  undead, and the reverse of Resurrection (Destruction), and Regeneration (Wither). 


 Wizards, however, at level 9 spells, receive Crushing Hand, Meteor Swarm, Monster Summoning VII, Power Word, Kill, Prismatic Sphere, Weird, and Wish.  I'm not going to include the level 8 spells for the sake of brevity.  (If you were referring exclusively to the difference between Monster Summoning VII which wizards get and Animal Summoning III, I'll leave the research on that to you)  I hope this list does something to show that these top tier spells are not equal in terms of offensive capability.  (Magey business).  Likewise the utility and restorative powers of the wizard do not come close to those of the cleric.  (Priestly business) 


 Now, aside from the remarkable power-gap that high level clerics and wizards eventually run into, there are ways the DM can inflict balance onto the spell casters in how they weave their story, the challenges spell-casting itself faces in the setting, the simple act of hunting down spell components that may or may not be available, and that the cleric isn't the final arbiter of if their spells are available - their deity and which spheres that deity allow you major and minor access to are.


 I apologize for that vulgar display of verbal nerd-vomit.  I recognize you have your beliefs.  But there's no reason to get nasty.  I'm not trying at all to tell you your tastes are wrong.  Merely discuss my own thoughts on the matter.

@Armisael: Yes, that's right - 2nd Ed for the spell sources. Given that the new rules are supposedly representing a throwback element (I know the preferred word is 'unified', but still).

In the end, I was very honestly not a big fan of 3.x - we played 3.5 for about three years, but it ended up being way too much of a grindfest at higher levels (this is just from our group's point of view). 4e was a breath of fresh air to me in a lot of ways, but combat was still slow, and we still lost much of the old narrative style of gaming that we had in 2nd Ed. due to the heavy focus on encounter-to-encounter mentality. 



Yeah, as long as we're doing 2e chat, I can get behind this. I don't think it will return though, because you can't swing designs like those in the modern age.

---

@Brucato:

Let me just cut you short with the quotes. They're irrelevant. Fluff can say that the bard is metal as hell from level 1 if it wants to, but if you can't do special magic music until level 3, it's lying. Mechanics are what matter, not fluff.

As for spell talk, you're not thinking properly. Creeping Doom/Insect Swarm is probably the single most overpowered spell in the whole edition, because if you cast it, nobody can cast anymore. Besides that, you're ignoring the summons. Remember fire elementals? Or setting specific spells? What about good ol' Harm? Slay Living (might be confusing it with the 3.5 version though, memory is hazy)? Yeah, the wizard list was centered around massive damage, but to say the Divines couldn't throw some heavy firepower around isn't very true.

Also, I apologize if I sounded nasty. I'm very tired (physically, not metaphorically), so my posts might be harsher than I intend them to be, especially since everybody in this thread has acted civilly and smartly. Now, to sum up my points:

-In 2nd Ed., you don't really need to do the 'nerf the caster with plot' thing, because the system more or less works everything out for you, if you follow it. In 3.5, you have to do this sort of adversarial DMing, or your meleers are SOL.
-While you CAN do these power countermeasures and plot-based anti-caster warfare with the new edition, it's not practical to try it. The gaming paradigms have changed. The world has changed. We have changed. If old mechanics are imported wholesale, or with the serial numbers filed off, it will be a disaster. Looking back is not the answer, here. To be honest, the best way to keep D&D as D&D is not to look back...but to look sideways. To ignore all previous editions, including 4e, entirely, except for a fair mechanical comparison, compared to the way modern systems work. If something fits with modern paradigms? Cool, add it. If it doesn't? Chuck it. Unfortunately, things like power countermeasures and anti-caster warfare have entered the book of Game Design as Very Bad Things. The odds of seeing anything like them is slim. Very slim.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
The biggest problems of the Vancian System are:


1) When you run out of spells you become pretty much useless, especially if you are a Wizard (priests less so).


2) At high levels you have a lot of useless spells ans spell slots.


Granted, the homogenized powers system of 4e was not good for me, nor the encounter/daily powers system. 

A better system for 5e would be:

1) All classes having several at-will powers (not just 2-3, 'cause I like choice!)

2) A "powers" system for weapons combat (melee/ranged) that uses a recharge system similar to 4e monsters. So to make an example of one of my ideas:

 when it's your turn you roll a d10 and


on a 1, 2, 3 --> You can only use your at-will power


on a 4, 5, 6 --> You can use an encounter-equivalent power


on a 7, 8, 9 --> You can use a daily-equivalent power


on a natural 10 --> You can use an uber power.


In this simple way you have a sort of luck-based mini game when you really don't know what is going to happen next (as real combat should be) and the fact that you rolled a high number represents the fact that you found a lucky opening in your enemies.          

3) For spells I would use a slightly different approach from previous editions. I would have spells grow organically with the character.

What I mean is you having a spell and as you use a spell and level up you gain spell-enhancement slots for your spells so that they might inflict more damage,  have a larger area of effect, be tougher to resist, etc. so that you basically customize your spells based on your needs.

In this way spells will feel more personal and will always stay with you because they will always keep on being useful to you.   


Well guys, just my 2 cps ;) 



A great post, and I agree the Vancian system it really helped to contribute to the 15 minute workday of an adventurer. Also, props on coming up with some form of system! I see so much theory being tossed around here, one might dare say I was sitting in a DnD philosophy course. Now then, what if we were to take the ideas of at wills / encounters / dailies and then apply the Vancian system to it? (This is of course just a system I'm throwing out there for ideas and tweaking.)

How about certain every level of spell 1-9th has a mixture of at-will/encounter/daily based off of their power/usefulness? Thus a spellcaster would pick a mixture of these powers to get their desired mixture of potency with reliability, and still retain the ability to have multiple ways of handling a situation with a wide variety of spells.
My impression of the new edition is that it has a very 'retro', or stripped down feel - that's why I'm focusing on the older systems: how to include elements from all the editions into a unifying, modular game - as its being described by the lead designers. 

Ultimately, all of us are speculating, but I don't think that 'looking back' is necessarily a bad thing insofar as the inspiration for modern game design. It's by those mistakes and game design troupes that we build the new paths. I would never recommend importing old designs whole sale, but having some familiar troupes sounds reasonable, even for 'modern' game design.

My impression of the new edition is that it has a very 'retro', or stripped down feel - that's why I'm focusing on the older systems: how to include elements from all the editions into a unifying, modular game - as its being described by the lead designers. 

Ultimately, all of us are speculating, but I don't think that 'looking back' is necessarily a bad thing insofar as the inspiration for modern game design. It's by those mistakes and game design troupes that we build the new paths. I would never recommend importing old designs whole sale, but having some familiar troupes sounds reasonable, even for 'modern' game design.




Have you seen the rules? Because otherwise, that impression is based on hopes...hopes that are likely to get dashed, because the edition isn't going back to old mechanics, as confirmed by the developers themselves. I'd rather not assume anything about the edition yet.

PS: Also, I agree that looking back and taking what worked is fine. I just think that it has to be done without nostalgia. It's very easy to get rose tinted glasses on, and removing them is hard as hell.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).

if your psion had used his last daily on  the goblin to hurl him into the lava and later on he would meet a tough opponent, wouldn't he be more cross because he had no daily left and used his last one on a useless goblin just to satisfy his ego?


Eh, I guess, but I'm the first to admit that dailies are kinda flawed like that.


Wouldn't he be more happy to have a chance to recharge said daily power to save his behind once more?     


If he didn't have to spend 4 turns spamming mind thrust and praying to Ceiling Cat he rolls high enough to allow him proper tactical versatility, yeah, otherwise not so much.

Like, have you played Apples to Apples? You know that feeling you get when you submit a card, and then the card you draw would have been absolutely perfect? This is that feeling except like ten times worse because you have  the resource, it's just locked behind an arbitrary glass case with "4,5,6" written on it.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
My impression of the new edition is that it has a very 'retro', or stripped down feel - that's why I'm focusing on the older systems: how to include elements from all the editions into a unifying, modular game - as its being described by the lead designers. 

Ultimately, all of us are speculating, but I don't think that 'looking back' is necessarily a bad thing insofar as the inspiration for modern game design. It's by those mistakes and game design troupes that we build the new paths. I would never recommend importing old designs whole sale, but having some familiar troupes sounds reasonable, even for 'modern' game design.




Have you seen the rules? Because otherwise, that impression is based on hopes...hopes that are likely to get dashed, because the edition isn't going back to old mechanics, as confirmed by the developers themselves. I'd rather not assume anything about the edition yet.

PS: Also, I agree that looking back and taking what worked is fine. I just think that it has to be done without nostalgia. It's very easy to get rose tinted glasses on, and removing them is hard as hell.



I haven't seen the rules, but the impression I got was from the article written by the press rep for EN World whom was invited to play the early rules for 5th Edition: www.enworld.org/forum/news/316036-off-se...

Those were his words - making what was best from all the editions into a unified system, and the mention that the game felt very retro in its current form (may or may not be a design objective).

My impression of the new edition is that it has a very 'retro', or stripped down feel - that's why I'm focusing on the older systems: how to include elements from all the editions into a unifying, modular game - as its being described by the lead designers. 

Ultimately, all of us are speculating, but I don't think that 'looking back' is necessarily a bad thing insofar as the inspiration for modern game design. It's by those mistakes and game design troupes that we build the new paths. I would never recommend importing old designs whole sale, but having some familiar troupes sounds reasonable, even for 'modern' game design.




Have you seen the rules? Because otherwise, that impression is based on hopes...hopes that are likely to get dashed, because the edition isn't going back to old mechanics, as confirmed by the developers themselves. I'd rather not assume anything about the edition yet.

PS: Also, I agree that looking back and taking what worked is fine. I just think that it has to be done without nostalgia. It's very easy to get rose tinted glasses on, and removing them is hard as hell.



I haven't seen the rules, but the impression I got was from the article written by the press rep for EN World whom was invited to play the early rules for 5th Edition: www.enworld.org/forum/news/316036-off-se...

Those were his words - making what was best from all the editions into a unified system, and the mention that the game felt very retro in its current form (may or may not be a design objective).




Welock does have a point, they went to the trouble of hunting down 2 former game designers for a previous edition. We're going to see the reemergence of some of the old rules, however, we also have new game designers in the mix too. So either Wizards is going to have a lot of heated arguments or they're going to compromise, and maybe even clean up systems that already exist. That, or they might just make something that is entirely new. To be honest.. I wouldn't mind entirely new systems.
2 problems witn Vancian casting as done in older editions here are the problems and some sugestions if they would want to use Vacian system in 5th  

1) a warior player could exchange his sword and shield for a set of ponpons as soon as spells of spell level 6+ start flying, as from that point he was only there to chear on the casters.

this might not be a problem with the Vancian system, just a problem of a warior class that was so lousy compared to casters using the Vancian system.

2) to many spells known
DM described the tasks the players where about to set out on.

a huge pile of books would come on the table and the casters would spend 2 hours customizing their spells memorized list for the descrivbed task.

limit the spells known list, to maximum 5 spells of each spell level players can swap powers on their spell known list as a re training option when leveling.
I liked Vancian spell casting - I had for a while created some house rules for my 4e game where players could find spell books to add new at-wills, encounters, and daily spells to their book, and created a Vancian spell system for rituals.

That said, even in 2nd edition I didn't find it very balanced - the only balancing factor that really existed was the DM, primarily in just not letting a player find specific spells they may have been looking for, or limiting the amount of available spell components (you can only cast so many fireballs with limited bat guano).

Even some of the lower level spells were quite unblanced - charm person was one of those, a level 1 wizard could have about 50/50 shot of charming a 9th level fighter if his wisdom was just average and he had no other wards against magic.  It might not have lasted very long, but it could last long enough.  And I had been in groups where the low level wizard would cast his 1-2 spells and the group would stop and rest. Or, if the group found a magic item, rather than risk testing it out themselves, they would stop - the wizard would switch up his magic spells - and then they would go adventuring again.  Sure some wandering encounters might happen if the party wasn't smart, but the fact that it seemed like a good idea to even attempt that bothered me.

I do not want to return to that aspect of the old days.  

That said, I think the BASE rules for 5th need to be very balanced, that way they can be used in conventions or other organized play.  Optional rules can go a bit overboard and leave it to experienced players and DMs to maintain in their games (though the optional rules shouldn't intentionally be unbalanced).

So my list of things I would be fine with seeing happen with wizards in 5th

- Wizards (or other casters) will always need to have some things they just cannot do or cannot do as effectively as other classes with magic, to ensure that they do not overshadow the others in the group.  Example - the "Knock" spell for opening doors should never be more effective than a rogues lock picking, to ensure that the rogue still has a valuable place in the group - however it can be made available so groups that don't have a rogue at least have an option.

- Wizards need to always have some "always available" abilities for both combat and non-combat to ensure they have "something to do" when they run out of memorized spells.  I think things like our current "At-Will" and "Encounter" system work fine for this, but I'd be happy with just magic missle.  I just  don't want to go back to days when the wizard was done with spells so the group decided to rest, even though the rest of them had abilities they could have used.

- Wizards should never be able to completely circumvent an encounter (combat or non-combat) alone while the rest of the group stands by.  Potential fix includes a "weakened" state for the wizard after casting some powerful spells - preventing him from casting spells again for a few moments, giving the group a chance to act and also making the wizard a target for enemies. It's ok for a wizard to be able to defeat an element of an encounter, just as I would expect a rogue to defeat an element of an encounter (Trap, locked door, etc). If the group needs to get into a castle, the wizard should not be able to just teleport them in - instead helping with pieces of the encounter - like casting a detect life type of spell to know where all the guards are, or using sleep to knock one set of guards out. 

- Non-Wizards need to have some capability to use some magic, to allow groups to opperate without a wizard.  It also helps maintain balance, since we have established that wizards may be able to cast spells that mimic other classes abilities.  They of course should have some limitations - perhaps not casting it as quickly, not having as powerful of an effect.  Ritual casting from 4e comes to midn. 
 
- Wizards still need a role - and that should be what they excel in.  In combat, I think the wizard should fill the "Crowd Control" or "Direct Damage" role - leave tanking, healing, and buffing to other roles.  Primarily focusing on either bringing large crowds of smaller critters down, or doing a good amount of ranged damage to single targets.   That said, through specilization or class ability selection, the wizard should be encouraged to pick one of them. 

- Just as fighters can increase combat options by finding new weapons, wizards should be able to find new spells.  

- Save or die spells are too swingy, so while they can return, they should remain an optional element so groups that want them can take them.  
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
I agree with many of your ideas, especially the ones concerning the need for casters to always be able to use some powers (granted, non-powerful ones) when they run out of memorized spells, the importance of making sure that parties without wizards can be efficient, and that wizards do not overshadow other characters, designing classes in a way that others excel at things wizards don't even at high levels. Additionally, I think that the spells of clerics must be useful.

if your psion had used his last daily on  the goblin to hurl him into the lava and later on he would meet a tough opponent, wouldn't he be more cross because he had no daily left and used his last one on a useless goblin just to satisfy his ego?


Eh, I guess, but I'm the first to admit that dailies are kinda flawed like that.


Wouldn't he be more happy to have a chance to recharge said daily power to save his behind once more?     


If he didn't have to spend 4 turns spamming mind thrust and praying to Ceiling Cat he rolls high enough to allow him proper tactical versatility, yeah, otherwise not so much.

Like, have you played Apples to Apples? You know that feeling you get when you submit a card, and then the card you draw would have been absolutely perfect? This is that feeling except like ten times worse because you have  the resource, it's just locked behind an arbitrary glass case with "4,5,6" written on it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to suggest the perfect system for magic, just made a suggestion ;)



The only point I was trying to make is that I don't like much dailies, I'd rather have a faster recharge rate for my most powerful attacks/abilities. However, setting things up saying that your X ability recharges after Y rounds creates some difficult bookkeeping (and I guess that's why in 4e game developers went for Encounter and Daily powers, because it's easy to keep track of when u can re-use them).


What I am asking is...being able to use daily powers (or their 5e equivalnet) more often (but not too often) because, after all, that's when my character shines (and can save some ass) IMO. 


An alternative would be to give character better at-will powers, but I'm afraid that then we would have a bit less variety (i.e. you'll be only be using/needing mostly at-wills instead of more rare and powerful attacks). 

Anyway, I hope 5e in the end will offer loads of freedom and variety, especially in the magic system.         
IMAGE(http://www.forum-signatures.com/wizard/Sigs/2010/final1329876348159.jpg)

Although I personally always preferred mana-based systems, you see I like resource management. I think this issue is actually really easy to solve. Basically a Vancian system that isn’t Vancian.


Allow wizards a small amount of at will powers, but no encounter. Have his daily powers be based on rituals instead, and call it spells per ritual (instead of spells per day). After eight hours of rest you can set your spells which would be cast in the exact same way that a 3.x wizard/cleric would cast them, but when you have say an hour of down time you can perform the ritual again, it's just less effective only restoring half you level in spell levels. Plus you can learn spells in the same way as 3.x. Bam, you have Vancian magic that isn't Vancian magic.

To make martial characters on par with this but feel different. Give martial characters tons of at will powers, some cause good damage and have a higher chance of hitting, and some cause less damage and have a lower chance of hitting. The weaker powers cause status conditions, say like fatigue, stunned, distracted, etc. These conditions are special when the opponent is in that condition the martial character can open up a can of whoop@ss and perform a special attack that is comparable in ability to an appropriate level wizard spell. Hence now your fighter types can go all day, and feel significantly different then a wizard.

Perfectly balance? Nooo, but it would be close enough.

Hey , WOTC guy, I'll write a draft for you if you like it. 
@ Scottevil912



Great post! I have to say that I generally agree with all the things you say.



I only disagree on one point. That Wizards need a role. Especially the "controller" role.


I'm saying that because I think that magic is about freedom, not restrictions, and for me Wizards should have loads of [balanced] spells that allow them to fill [almost] any role, depending on which spells they decide to memorize.


Why? Because I don't like the idea that D&D is designed around old style MMOs where you have the "holy trinity" and that's that. If I wanted that I'd go and play an MMO (and even latest MMO are slowly going away from that formula and going for more story-driven experiences)

  D&D is about role playing and using your imagination  and having such heavy restrictions on magic-users is, at least for me, like killing my imagination. After all, what is the harm in having a Wizard filling any role without being overpowered in what he does when he does it? Jealousy from other players?
IMAGE(http://www.forum-signatures.com/wizard/Sigs/2010/final1329876348159.jpg)
I would rather have a magic system that is balanced and can actually emulate magic in popular literature. Vancian magic didn't resemble anything except well Vancian magic.

The only reason that is almost worked (wizards still got very powerful at high levels, sometimes ridiculously so) in older editions were all the ways for the DM to kill the wizard if he was being a . Things like antimagic zones, low HP, rolling to learn new spells, low spells per day (until high levels), inability to use armor and most weapons, declaring your spell at the start of a round and any hit no matter how low the damage being able to disrupt it, the high degree of DM interpretation on Wish (and the standard of pretty much always trying to screw over the caster with it unless he drew up a legal document for it), etc.

3e removed a LOT of those controls. Even in earlier editions, all that happened was that at high levels wizards were extremely powerful, or DMs stepped in and it turned into a DM vs player contest, and that rarely turns out fun.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
@ Scottevil912



Great post! I have to say that I generally agree with all the things you say.



I only disagree on one point. That Wizards need a role. Especially the "controller" role.


I'm saying that because I think that magic is about freedom, not restrictions, and for me Wizards should have loads of [balanced] spells that allow them to fill [almost] any role, depending on which spells they decide to memorize.


Why? Because I don't like the idea that D&D is designed around old style MMOs where you have the "holy trinity" and that's that. If I wanted that I'd go and play an MMO (and even latest MMO are slowly going away from that formula and going for more story-driven experiences)

  D&D is about role playing and using your imagination  and having such heavy restrictions on magic-users is, at least for me, like killing my imagination. After all, what is the harm in having a Wizard filling any role without being overpowered in what he does when he does it? Jealousy from other players?





I just don't want wizards to do be able to do everything all at the same time.   There are likely ways to achieve that, but I recall how some things panned out in previous editions (admittingly more so in 3.5 with Clerics/Druids) I get worried.
 
I also wanted to make sure that if I'm saying that Wizards can do what other classes do (just not as well) there has to be something that Wizards do that other classes can try to do (just not as well).  
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
One change I would really like to see in 5e is the return of the Vancian spell casting system. The way 4e homogenized all the classes with powers really took away the flavor, and for me, much of the fun of playing a spell caster. While I understand the reasoning for doing this, I believe it was a poor decision. The system worked since the inception of the game, it should be brought back.

Non-Vancian powers make sense for fighters and other mundane types.

Vancian seems to fit spellcasters a lot better. Though they ought to be able to convert dailies to at-wills past a certain level.



2) A "powers" system for weapons combat (melee/ranged) that uses a recharge system similar to 4e monsters. So to make an example of one of my ideas:

 when it's your turn you roll a d10 and

on a 1, 2, 3 --> You can only use your at-will power
on a 4, 5, 6 --> You can use an encounter-equivalent power
on a 7, 8, 9 --> You can use a daily-equivalent power
on a natural 10 --> You can use an uber power.
 



Although I see your point adding an additional roll just to see what type of action you do is going to slow things down, which seems to be against the design philosophy of 5e
The more I think about it, the more "ok" I am with a return to Vancian spellcasting.

Vancian spellcasting was always D&D's "Thing" when it came to spell casting for wizards.  No other system I know of uses magic the same way.  

As long as the "base" system for the game has good balance between the character classes (so new DMs don't have that extra thing to worry about, and official games are "more fair" to run.)  
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
I never liked the Vancian magic system. It never made sense. Of all the old systems, that is the one aspect that seemed so against the idea of fantasy.
Sign In to post comments