Rule of Three - June 26th

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.

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



Not acceptable.

-Polaris



Too bad.

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 if they make a non-Vancian caster and call it 'Sorceror'...that's totally not okay?  Because it's not a wizard?

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

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



Not acceptable.

-Polaris



Too bad.




Yes it is.  It shows that the developers aren't actually serious about making a DND for all of us which is what was promised.  There are a LOT of people out there that want to play wizards but absolutely LOATHE the Vancian Magic system, and the developers are saying, "Go play some other game"

Seriously uncool.

-Polaris
So if they make a non-Vancian caster and call it 'Sorceror'...that's totally not okay?  Because it's not a wizard?




That depends. If it's a wizard in every respect BUT the Vancian casting, that would be fine.  If it's another 3E sorcerer type, absolutely not.

-Polaris
Yes it is.  It shows that the developers aren't actually serious about making a DND for all of us which is what was promised.  There are a LOT of people out there that want to play wizards but absolutely LOATHE the Vancian Magic system, and the developers are saying, "Go play some other game"

Seriously uncool.

-Polaris



Citation needed

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Yes it is.  It shows that the developers aren't actually serious about making a DND for all of us which is what was promised.  There are a LOT of people out there that want to play wizards but absolutely LOATHE the Vancian Magic system, and the developers are saying, "Go play some other game"

Seriously uncool.

-Polaris



Citation needed




It's in the article.  They refuse to include any wizard casting type but Vancian.  They are very clear about it.

-Polaris
Yes it is.  It shows that the developers aren't actually serious about making a DND for all of us which is what was promised.  There are a LOT of people out there that want to play wizards but absolutely LOATHE the Vancian Magic system, and the developers are saying, "Go play some other game"

Seriously uncool.

-Polaris



Citation needed




It's in the article.  They refuse to include any wizard casting type but Vancian.  They are very clear about it.

-Polaris



I saw that quote, but I missed the one where the developers are saying, "Go play some other game"

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
So if they make a non-Vancian caster and call it 'Sorceror'...that's totally not okay?  Because it's not a wizard?




That depends. If it's a wizard in every respect BUT the Vancian casting, that would be fine.  If it's another 3E sorcerer type, absolutely not.




So, for example, if it had bloodlines and then used your EUDA or whatever that acronym is (or your preferred casting method if that isn't it)...that would be too much because a wizard doesn't have bloodlines?

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

So if they make a non-Vancian caster and call it 'Sorceror'...that's totally not okay?  Because it's not a wizard?




That depends. If it's a wizard in every respect BUT the Vancian casting, that would be fine.  If it's another 3E sorcerer type, absolutely not.




So, for example, if it had bloodlines and then used your EUDA or whatever that acronym is (or your preferred casting method if that isn't it)...that would be too much because a wizard doesn't have bloodlines?



If it wasn't clearly a WIZARD with an alternate casting system, then it would be unacceptable.  Wotc tried the sorcerer bit before in 3e.  Not acceptable.

-Polaris
I saw that quote, but I missed the one where the developers are saying, "Go play some other game"



Isn't that what it amounts to.  They are saying, "We will only make Vancian wizards regardless of what many of our players will want."   This is tantamount to saying "go play some other game" since the Devs know it's a deal breaker for a lot of us.  Their own polls showed a deep schism on this issue.

-Polaris
So if they make a non-Vancian caster and call it 'Sorceror'...that's totally not okay?  Because it's not a wizard?




That depends. If it's a wizard in every respect BUT the Vancian casting, that would be fine.  If it's another 3E sorcerer type, absolutely not.




So, for example, if it had bloodlines and then used your EUDA or whatever that acronym is (or your preferred casting method if that isn't it)...that would be too much because a wizard doesn't have bloodlines?



If it wasn't clearly a WIZARD with an alternate casting system, then it would be unacceptable.  Wotc tried the sorcerer bit before in 3e.  Not acceptable.




So the complaint isn't that they aren't putting in a non-Vancian caster, the complaint is that the non-Vancian caster isn't good enough unless it is -exactly like a wizard-, which is another fancy way of saying 'an option for the wizard instead of a class-based mechanism'.

Yup, in that case, they're telling you you're not getting it.  But you're the one who defined the parameters, not them -- they seem to want to put a non-Vancian in.  You just won't accept it.  Which is, of course, your right...but there ya have it.

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

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?


Like Mike Mearls said, for $20 you could choose to buy a ready-cooked meal, a variety of viands and call it a meal, or the ingredients for a meal.

Default Wizard could have Vancian spellcasting as part of its features (ready-cooked meal) but a player could choose to either have it or not, and a DM could ban Vancian spellcasting entirely without significantly neutering the Wizard class (like how some claim that the lack of Fighter options has been refreshing and enabling... why not have a Wizard that is also refreshing and enabling?), then the said player could trade off that Vancian spellcasting for a different feature altogether, and in the end it still results in a character that he can call as a Wizard, without having to go through great lengths just to reflavor some other class as a Wizard.

Besides, wasn't balance the last thing they had in mind, given how they are leaving the math for later, and given how this was supposed to appeal to groups that had the DM handling "balance"?

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?


I saw this in the Binder, hated that class like hell.  And that was a subclass.  See the lack of love for Runepriests, Seekers, Shardminds, Vampires and the like.


I'd rather that it is a single class with three subclasses, each with a different style of play but still easily recognizable as "the guy with arcane magic".

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?


Actually I'd say it's the former, and not the latter.  Compare the 3.5 Fighter to the Warblade.  Two different classes, with the same flavor, but in both features and design, the Warblade clearly outstrips the Fighter in all but two aspects: feat acquisition, and basic attacks.  You could probably stat out a Fighter that's more powerful per hit, but the Warblade's capabilities were well above what the Fighter could ever achieve even if the Fighter had access to Warblade feats.

I recall a particular post that said that one 3.5E DM actually banned Warblades because it made the 3.5E Fighter OBSOLETE.

Now, compare the 4E Knight to the 4E Weaponsmaster.  Both are of the same class, options-wise the Weaponsmaster is superior to the Knight... and yet the Knight is still found to be relevant (and not made obsolete), simply because
* he has things that only he (and the Slayer) can do.  Some of their stances mimic Weaponmaster capabilities yes, but then they have additional class features as they increased in level, features that even hybriding will never grant to other classes
* he is not downgraded to the ultimate basic form.

I think if the D&D Next Fighter even remotely had 4E-ish stances and could switch up between the two, then his debut wouldn't have been so negative for those who didn't want improvisation to be a requirement for being able to do a whole lot of stuff that's supposed to be in the character sheet anyway.


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? 


Actually, the only difference between a Vancian wizard and a Powers wizard is that the Powers wizard gets to use at least one of his spell slots far more frequently than the Vancian wizard.  Otherwise they're almost completely the same.

I'd rather the comparison be in this manner:
If I pick Wizard as my class, I should be able to choose the manner upon which I cast my spells.
-> Vancian.  Spell slot based.  Most versatile, most limited.
-> Mana.  Spell point based.  Less spells available, almost as versatile as Vancian, and possibly more flexible.
-> Knowledge is power.  Check-based.  Lowest number of set spells, and spellcasting becomes more difficult the more often you use magic in succession.  Most flexible, but directly subject to DM approval for magical effect to be even possible.

Then you could have warriors as such.
-> Maneuvers.  Ability slot based.  Most versatile, most limited.
-> Fatigue.  Endurance point based.  Less abilities available, but has additional flexibility.
-> Improvisation-centric.  Basic attacks enhanced, everything else is improvisational.  Most flexible, but directly subject to DM approval for physical effects to be even possible.

Or something to that degree.  Then format the maneuvers in such a way that they do not duplicate spell format.  Maybe have them trigger on a hit, or on an attack, or SOMETHING.

Just no more of that "fighters are simple only, wizards are complex only."


Balance?  Wasn't that supposed to be the DM's job? /sarcasm
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
I saw that quote, but I missed the one where the developers are saying, "Go play some other game"



Isn't that what it amounts to.  They are saying, "We will only make Vancian wizards regardless of what many of our players will want."   This is tantamount to saying "go play some other game" since the Devs know it's a deal breaker for a lot of us.  Their own polls showed a deep schism on this issue.

-Polaris



No, what they said is that you can play a caster that does not use Vancian magic - they are even excited about that possibility - but it will be called a different class name then "Wizard".

It may be called "Sorcerer" or "Artificer" or "Necromancer" or something else but it will be there.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I saw that quote, but I missed the one where the developers are saying, "Go play some other game"



Isn't that what it amounts to.  They are saying, "We will only make Vancian wizards regardless of what many of our players will want."   This is tantamount to saying "go play some other game" since the Devs know it's a deal breaker for a lot of us.  Their own polls showed a deep schism on this issue.

-Polaris



No, what they said is that you can play a caster that does not use Vancian magic - they are even excited about that possibility - but it will be called a different class name then "Wizard".

It may be called "Sorcerer" or "Artificer" or "Necromancer" or something else but it will be there.



Which means that if you want to be a wizard, you have to play it Vancian or not at all regardless of what a significant portion of the customer base might want.  Sorry, I saw how that worked in 3E.  Its a deal breaker.

-Polaris
No, what they said is that you can play a caster that does not use Vancian magic - they are even excited about that possibility - but it will be called a different class name then "Wizard".

It may be called "Sorcerer" or "Artificer" or "Necromancer" or something else but it will be there.


But why?  Because wizards must be Vancian and the only thing you can do about it is reflavor some other caster as a wizard?

Next thing you know, they be sayin' "Dwarves can't be wizards!  It was never meant to be!  GIT!" 
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
I saw that quote, but I missed the one where the developers are saying, "Go play some other game"



Isn't that what it amounts to.  They are saying, "We will only make Vancian wizards regardless of what many of our players will want."   This is tantamount to saying "go play some other game" since the Devs know it's a deal breaker for a lot of us.  Their own polls showed a deep schism on this issue.

-Polaris



No, what they said is that you can play a caster that does not use Vancian magic - they are even excited about that possibility - but it will be called a different class name then "Wizard".

It may be called "Sorcerer" or "Artificer" or "Necromancer" or something else but it will be there.



Which means that if you want to be a wizard, you have to play it Vancian or not at all regardless of what a significant portion of the customer base might want.  Sorry, I saw how that worked in 3E.  Its a deal breaker.

-Polaris



While it may be a deal-breaker, it's only because you're letting it be.  'I saw how that worked in 3E'?  So what?  There's no assurance that is how it will work in Next.  Sure it's a precedent, but there were myriads of problems with spellcasters that ultimately caused the problems associated with 3E, not 'Vancian casting'.

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

But why?  Because wizards must be Vancian and the only thing you can do about it is reflavor some other caster as a wizard?

Next thing you know, they be sayin' "Dwarves can't be wizards!  It was never meant to be!  GIT!" 



Why?  Because the designers realized that that is how the majority of players preferred it, I'd guess.  Yet, at the same time, they realized that the other players who they also want to represent prefer a different method.  So, they will create a different method and give it to another class so they don't run into excessive complications -- you know, the kinds of complications that make rulebooks unnecessarily long and do things like require 6 pages of text to explain how to read a power.

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

But why?  Because wizards must be Vancian and the only thing you can do about it is reflavor some other caster as a wizard?

Next thing you know, they be sayin' "Dwarves can't be wizards!  It was never meant to be!  GIT!" 



Why?  Because the designers realized that that is how the majority of players preferred it, I'd guess.  Yet, at the same time, they realized that the other players who they also want to represent prefer a different method.  So, they will create a different method and give it to another class so they don't run into excessive complications -- you know, the kinds of complications that make rulebooks unnecessarily long and do things like require 6 pages of text to explain how to read a power.




Their own polls did't show that.  At best for Vancian casting there was an even split and as I recall on their published polling results, Vancian casting was actually in the minority as the preferred casting system.

-Poalris

Their own polls did't show that.  At best for Vancian casting there was an even split and as I recall on their published polling results, Vancian casting was actually in the minority as the preferred casting system.




Just a guess, but I'd wager that that wasn't anytime in the last couple of weeks.

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

No, what they said is that you can play a caster that does not use Vancian magic - they are even excited about that possibility - but it will be called a different class name then "Wizard".

It may be called "Sorcerer" or "Artificer" or "Necromancer" or something else but it will be there.


But why?  Because wizards must be Vancian and the only thing you can do about it is reflavor some other caster as a wizard?

Next thing you know, they be sayin' "Dwarves can't be wizards!  It was never meant to be!  GIT!" 



I know what you mean.

Why can Wizards not heal and use swords as well as casting spells?

Why can Fighters not sneak around hiding in shadows and playing musical spells on their lutes?

Why can a Halfling not be the same size as a Goliath and teleport from tree to tree?

Oh, it is because DnD is some kind of retro roleplaying game from the 70's where you are locked into specific classes and races with their own mechanics.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

Their own polls did't show that.  At best for Vancian casting there was an even split and as I recall on their published polling results, Vancian casting was actually in the minority as the preferred casting system.




Just a guess, but I'd wager that that wasn't anytime in the last couple of weeks.




You think there would be a massive sea change in a couple of weeks when this issue has divided DND gamers since 1974.

I think not...and the polls I mention were done IIRC around March or so.  Plenty current for DnD trends.

-Polaris
So if they make a non-Vancian caster and call it 'Sorceror'...that's totally not okay?  Because it's not a wizard?




That depends. If it's a wizard in every respect BUT the Vancian casting, that would be fine.  If it's another 3E sorcerer type, absolutely not.




So, for example, if it had bloodlines and then used your EUDA or whatever that acronym is (or your preferred casting method if that isn't it)...that would be too much because a wizard doesn't have bloodlines?



If it wasn't clearly a WIZARD with an alternate casting system, then it would be unacceptable.  Wotc tried the sorcerer bit before in 3e.  Not acceptable.

-Polaris



So let's be clear here, what makes a WIZARD a WIZARD while not have vancian casting but at the same time not be a SORCERER?

You are saying you are happy with a WIZARD by another name (or class) that has AEDU or ANY other casting ability but it must still be a WIZARD - what is that exactly?
Oh, it is because DnD is some kind of retro roleplaying game from the 70's where you are locked into specific classes and races with their own mechanics.



Except for a LOT of us, DND has evolved (I think for the better) since the 1970s.  DND (or at least some forms of it) evolved too.  It would be nice for DDN to take this into account like we were told it would.

-Polaris
You are saying you are happy with a WIZARD by another name (or class) that has AEDU or ANY other casting ability but it must still be a WIZARD - what is that exactly?



I think it's clear enough.  It should be pretty much exactly like the wizard except it uses a different casting system.  To put it another way, as part of a ...dare I say... modular system, we should be able to pick the casting system of our choice (at least at the DM/Table level if not the player level).  That option is expressly being denied to us.

-Polaris
Oh, it is because DnD is some kind of retro roleplaying game from the 70's where you are locked into specific classes and races with their own mechanics.



Except for a LOT of us, DND has evolved (I think for the better) since the 1970s.  DND (or at least some forms of it) evolved too.  It would be nice for DDN to take this into account like we were told it would.

-Polaris



Even 4e was a class based system with each class (and race) having their own mechanics.

So really not seeing where the evolution away from DnD being a class based system is coming from?

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

You think there would be a massive sea change in a couple of weeks when this issue has divided DND gamers since 1974.



Yah...sorry, never heard one single person, of the hundred or so I have -personally- run games for, -ever- complain about 'Vancian casting' (although I did have a couple try out some variants from Spells and Magic that a couple of people liked also).  That's across 5 cities and 3 states.  Anecdotal, yes.  But still.

I think not...and the polls I mention were done IIRC around March or so.  Plenty current for DnD trends.




Yah.  I just found it.  That daily/atwill/etc stuff won by 9 percent.  However, on a breakdown, Vancian had more people who ranked it as '1' than any other entry, while At-Will was third (behind points-based).  It was only once they said 'The only kind you could use at all' that At-Will came out on top.  Also of note, fewer people HATED Vancian than At-wills, with a 9% point spread between them for ranks 4 and 5, and 7% on rank 5 (the most hated).

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

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

Oh, it is because DnD is some kind of retro roleplaying game from the 70's where you are locked into specific classes and races with their own mechanics.



Except for a LOT of us, DND has evolved (I think for the better) since the 1970s.  DND (or at least some forms of it) evolved too.  It would be nice for DDN to take this into account like we were told it would.

-Polaris



Even 4e was a class based system with each class (and race) having their own mechanics.

So really not seeing where the evolution away from DnD being a class based system is coming from?



Did I say anything about DnD evolving away from a class based system?  You are putting words into my mouth and I don't appreciate that.  What I am SAYING is the idea that wizards could never wield swords, Dwarves could never be wizards, Demi-humans had level limits, etc, were things that DnD has been evolving away from.  In short, some of use aren't bound to the traditions of the 1970s and I think that's a good thing, and it IS something that the devs aknowledged in Jan when they promised to make a game for ALL of us.

I feel they are reneging on that promise here.

-Polaris

You think there would be a massive sea change in a couple of weeks when this issue has divided DND gamers since 1974.



Yah...sorry, never heard one single person, of the hundred or so I have -personally- run games for, -ever- complain about 'Vancian casting' (although I did have a couple try out some variants from Spells and Magic that a couple of people liked also).  That's across 5 cities and 3 states.  Anecdotal, yes.  But still.

I think not...and the polls I mention were done IIRC around March or so.  Plenty current for DnD trends.




Yah.  I just found it.  That daily/atwill/etc stuff won by 9 percent.  However, on a breakdown, Vancian had more people who ranked it as '1' than any other entry, while At-Will was third (behind points-based).  It was only once they said 'The only kind you could use at all' that At-Will came out on top.  Also of note, fewer people HATED Vancian than At-wills, with a 9% point spread between them for ranks 4 and 5, and 7% on rank 5 (the most hated).

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...




Which shows for something as iconic and fundamental as the wizard BOTH parties should be supported, but apparently those that don't like Vancian casting are going to be left out in the cold.  Not cool.

-Polaris

You think there would be a massive sea change in a couple of weeks when this issue has divided DND gamers since 1974.



Yah...sorry, never heard one single person, of the hundred or so I have -personally- run games for, -ever- complain about 'Vancian casting' (although I did have a couple try out some variants from Spells and Magic that a couple of people liked also).  That's across 5 cities and 3 states.  Anecdotal, yes.  But still.

I think not...and the polls I mention were done IIRC around March or so.  Plenty current for DnD trends.




Yah.  I just found it.  That daily/atwill/etc stuff won by 9 percent.  However, on a breakdown, Vancian had more people who ranked it as '1' than any other entry, while At-Will was third (behind points-based).  It was only once they said 'The only kind you could use at all' that At-Will came out on top.  Also of note, fewer people HATED Vancian than At-wills, with a 9% point spread between them for ranks 4 and 5, and 7% on rank 5 (the most hated).

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...




Which shows for something as iconic and fundamental as the wizard BOTH parties should be supported, but apparently those that don't like Vancian casting are going to be left out in the cold.  Not cool.




No, it shows that, since they were only going to tie one type of casting to each class, the plurality loved Vancian more and hated it less than AEDU and hence it won.  They will make a class for adherents to a different style also, and probably down the line more 'hotswappable' options will appear but not for the Core.  If you choose to see that as 'out in the cold', that is certainly your right.

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

About the wizard/vancian thing : the problem is that a class, in D&D, is traditionally both a rule subsystem and a "fluff" archetype.
Wizards are "the guys who studies magic" and, in 5E, use vancian spellcasting. If the future classes that don't use vancian spellcasting are also something else than "the guy who studies magic", for instance "guy born with magic powers" or "guy who made a deal with powerful creatures" or something else, then you can't divorce system and fluff - you can't have a wizard without being vancian.
"Guys who study magic" and g"uys who have magic in their blood" won't have the same class features (probably), and so make it impossible to play the character you want AND the magic system you want. If there are different features, refluffing won't work well.

The good way to make "wizards" and other magic users "modular" would be to have a basic "magic user" template and add to it a "magic system module" AND a "way you gained your power" module. The traditional wizard would be a "magic user" with the "vancian system" and "magic study class features", but you could have a "spell point system"+"magic study class features" wizard too.
Magic user template + magic system template + "magic source" template = all the arcane spell casters you can think of... This is what i would expect of a "modular design", not having dozens of predefined classes.


Now for something completely different :
"Maneuvers, on the other hand, are designed to let you do those kinds of things and make your normal attack, or do things that are more exceptional. Anyone can try to push the orc off the cliff, but the character with the maneuver gets to make an attack and push the orc for free (for 4E players, think about how tide of iron works)."
Happy to see that the designers seem, after months of work, to finally have understood how fighter powers in 4E were designed. Oups, I said the word "Power" rather than maneuver - everybody will now think it is totally irrealistic, video gamey and manga like for fighters to have them ! Silly me !
At least all these months of game design have been fruitful...
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !

You think there would be a massive sea change in a couple of weeks when this issue has divided DND gamers since 1974.



Yah...sorry, never heard one single person, of the hundred or so I have -personally- run games for, -ever- complain about 'Vancian casting' (although I did have a couple try out some variants from Spells and Magic that a couple of people liked also).  That's across 5 cities and 3 states.  Anecdotal, yes.  But still.

I think not...and the polls I mention were done IIRC around March or so.  Plenty current for DnD trends.




Yah.  I just found it.  That daily/atwill/etc stuff won by 9 percent.  However, on a breakdown, Vancian had more people who ranked it as '1' than any other entry, while At-Will was third (behind points-based).  It was only once they said 'The only kind you could use at all' that At-Will came out on top.  Also of note, fewer people HATED Vancian than At-wills, with a 9% point spread between them for ranks 4 and 5, and 7% on rank 5 (the most hated).

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...




Which shows for something as iconic and fundamental as the wizard BOTH parties should be supported, but apparently those that don't like Vancian casting are going to be left out in the cold.  Not cool.




No, it shows that, since they were only going to tie one type of casting to each class, the plurality loved Vancian more and hated it less than AEDU and hence it won.  They will make a class for adherents to a different style also, and probably down the line more 'hotswappable' options will appear but not for the Core.  If you choose to see that as 'out in the cold', that is certainly your right.




Except by your OWN ADMISSION that wasn't what the poll showed.  That is your interpretation of the poll.  Since non-Vancian casting actually beat out Vancian casting, it is correct to say that the plurality prefered non-Vancian casting. In any event, it CLEARLY showed the divide which means BOTH parties should have been included...or do you think that it's right to exclude an entire segment of DnD players?

-Polaris
Oups, I said the word "Power" rather than maneuver



I, for one, have no problem keeping a straight face at all when my player informs me he wants to 'utilize a melee at-will power while weilding a dagger', just as people around me have no trouble when I tell them I am about to engage in an involuntary personal protein spill. =)

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

Oh, it is because DnD is some kind of retro roleplaying game from the 70's where you are locked into specific classes and races with their own mechanics.



Except for a LOT of us, DND has evolved (I think for the better) since the 1970s.  DND (or at least some forms of it) evolved too.  It would be nice for DDN to take this into account like we were told it would.

-Polaris



Even 4e was a class based system with each class (and race) having their own mechanics.

So really not seeing where the evolution away from DnD being a class based system is coming from?



Did I say anything about DnD evolving away from a class based system?  You are putting words into my mouth and I don't appreciate that.  What I am SAYING is the idea that wizards could never wield swords, Dwarves could never be wizards, Demi-humans had level limits, etc, were things that DnD has been evolving away from.  In short, some of use aren't bound to the traditions of the 1970s and I think that's a good thing, and it IS something that the devs aknowledged in Jan when they promised to make a game for ALL of us.

I feel they are reneging on that promise here.

-Polaris



Sounds like they are making a game for all of us.

Just some of us dont want to play the game.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

Except by your OWN ADMISSION that wasn't what the poll showed.  That is your interpretation of the poll.  Since non-Vancian casting actually beat out Vancian casting, it is correct to say that the plurality prefered non-Vancian casting. In any event, it CLEARLY showed the divide which means BOTH parties should have been included...or do you think that it's right to exclude an entire segment of DnD players?



No.  I said - AND LINKED - that the only time At-will won was when it was directly framed as the only possible casting option - ie, if there was one, and only one, method available.  Then I went on to show that in -every other category-, Vancian was preferred.  Since the condition for the only time At-wills won is not being imposed, it follows that Vancian is loved more (more results of 1 than any other casting style when viewed seperately on their own merits) and hated less (fewer results of 5 and 4+5 than at-wills).

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


Except by your OWN ADMISSION that wasn't what the poll showed.  That is your interpretation of the poll.  Since non-Vancian casting actually beat out Vancian casting, it is correct to say that the plurality prefered non-Vancian casting. In any event, it CLEARLY showed the divide which means BOTH parties should have been included...or do you think that it's right to exclude an entire segment of DnD players?



No.  I said - AND LINKED - that the only time At-will won was when it was directly framed as the only possible casting option - ie, if there was one, and only one, method available.  Then I went on to show that in -every other category-, Vancian was preferred.  Since the condition for the only time At-wills won is not being imposed, it follows that Vancian is loved more (more results of 1 than any other casting style when viewed seperately on their own merits) and hated less (fewer results of 5 and 4+5 than at-wills).




I read that link and I know a thing or two about polling.  That poll was also cut halfway in the middle because apparently the devs weren't getting the results they wanted and then put back up.  A LOT of people complained that the way the polls were done and phrased were slanted, and this was no exception.  It was greatly slanted in favor of Vancian casting both as the primary head to head and secondary option.  EVEN THEN, Non-Vancian casting still outperformed it.

At the very least the poll shows strong support for BOTH types of casting which means the iconic casting class (wizard) needs to support both of us.

-Polaris
Oh, it is because DnD is some kind of retro roleplaying game from the 70's where you are locked into specific classes and races with their own mechanics.



Except for a LOT of us, DND has evolved (I think for the better) since the 1970s.  DND (or at least some forms of it) evolved too.  It would be nice for DDN to take this into account like we were told it would.

-Polaris



Even 4e was a class based system with each class (and race) having their own mechanics.

So really not seeing where the evolution away from DnD being a class based system is coming from?



Did I say anything about DnD evolving away from a class based system?  You are putting words into my mouth and I don't appreciate that.  What I am SAYING is the idea that wizards could never wield swords, Dwarves could never be wizards, Demi-humans had level limits, etc, were things that DnD has been evolving away from.  In short, some of use aren't bound to the traditions of the 1970s and I think that's a good thing, and it IS something that the devs aknowledged in Jan when they promised to make a game for ALL of us.

I feel they are reneging on that promise here.

-Polaris



Sounds like they are making a game for all of us.

Just some of us dont want to play the game.



A lot of people that like 4e beg to differ.  Even Mearls admitted that 4e fans haven't been feeling the love.

-Polaris
I tend to agree fixing vancian casting on the wizard is probably not the best decision, if only because that component is probably the easiest concept to modularize. If I want a vancian sorcerer (which thematically is based on bloodline, not book-learning), why not? Why hard-code any casting mechanic to any given class? Present the different casting mechanics, and let the player decide which fits his/her character? Maybe I want a wizard that uses the clerics casting mechanic (which is essentially the 3.x sorcerer). What if my cleric wants to use the vancian casting system?

I ask WotC to please keep classes distinct, but the casting method isn't part of the deal. There should be more to the wizard than just "I cast spells", just like there needs to be more to the fighter than "I hit things". Example: since wizards are known for studying things, perhaps give wizards the "Knowledge (all)" skill bonus, where they can make a check to see if they know something about something. "You know, I read in a book once..." shouldn't be an uncommon occurance for a wizard on any given subject.

Sorcerers are known for their innate magic based on their bloodline heritage. Give them a feature based on that.

Now, let either class pick the style of casting: vancian, spontaneous, power points, et al. Is it that hard to split the casting mechanic from the class? I sure hope not.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.

I read that link and I know a thing or two about polling.  That poll was also cut halfway in the middle because apparently the devs weren't getting the results they wanted and then put back up.  A LOT of people complained that the way the polls were done and phrased were slanted, and this was no exception.  It was greatly slanted in favor of Vancian casting both as the primary head to head and secondary option.  EVEN THEN, Non-Vancian casting still outperformed it.



Ah, I getcha.  "No, at-wills were totally preferred."  Umm...no they weren't, and here's the data you cited.  "Well, see I know polling and it was totally skewed." 

At the very least the poll shows strong support for BOTH types of casting which means the iconic casting class (wizard) needs to support both of us.



It is supporting both of us.  Both of our preferred styles are being represented.  The one that is the most iconic, and also the most-loved and least-hated (according to highly skewed data) is being tied to one class, and AEDU is being tied to another.  Both of our playstyles are accepted, and even at the same table and in Core nonetheless (presumably)!  However, you refuse to see that as acceptable (and as I've said, that's your right) because you want the same options in the same class -- but they're not doing that!  So like I affirmed earlier, yes...by your own enforced definition you are being 'left out in the cold'.  But not because they are not trying to fit your playstyle, but because you refuse to work with them on it.  I don't like AEDU at all, but I'm not calling a dealbreaker because I'll be forced to let someone run it if that's the class they want to play.  Surely you're not so intractable as to meet me halfway on this.

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


I read that link and I know a thing or two about polling.  That poll was also cut halfway in the middle because apparently the devs weren't getting the results they wanted and then put back up.  A LOT of people complained that the way the polls were done and phrased were slanted, and this was no exception.  It was greatly slanted in favor of Vancian casting both as the primary head to head and secondary option.  EVEN THEN, Non-Vancian casting still outperformed it.



Ah, I getcha.  "No, at-wills were totally preferred."  Umm...no they weren't, and here's the data you cited.  "Well, see I know polling and it was totally skewed." 

At the very least the poll shows strong support for BOTH types of casting which means the iconic casting class (wizard) needs to support both of us.



It is supporting both of us.  Both of our preferred styles are being represented.  The one that is the most iconic, and also the most-loved and least-hated (according to highly skewed data) is being tied to one class, and AEDU is being tied to another.  Both of our playstyles are accepted, and even at the same table and in Core nonetheless (presumably)!  However, you refuse to see that as acceptable (and as I've said, that's your right) because you want the same options in the same class -- but they're not doing that!  So like I affirmed earlier, yes...by your own enforced definition you are being 'left out in the cold'.  But not because they are not trying to fit your playstyle, but because you refuse to work with them on it.  I don't like AEDU at all, but I'm not calling a dealbreaker because I'll be forced to let someone run it if that's the class they want to play.  Surely you're not so intractable as to meet me halfway on this.




You are getting everything you want regarding the wizard and I am getting nothing I want in spite of the fact that both our positions are well represented in the player base.

This is NOT meeting anyone halfway.  It's taking a large segment of your players and tossing them under the bus.

-Polaris
You are saying you are happy with a WIZARD by another name (or class) that has AEDU or ANY other casting ability but it must still be a WIZARD - what is that exactly?



I think it's clear enough.  It should be pretty much exactly like the wizard except it uses a different casting system.  To put it another way, as part of a ...dare I say... modular system, we should be able to pick the casting system of our choice (at least at the DM/Table level if not the player level).  That option is expressly being denied to us.

-Polaris



It's obviously not clear, what is "The Wizard".

The wizard to me is a guy that studies magic and unravels the mysteries of the universe, but at the same time has limit on what he can do. He spends part of his day in study, determining what the fates will throw at him today and pre-prepares himself by binding the mysteries of the universe to him, except for a small trigger that will bring them to bear in the circumstance he see's fit. (Vancian casting).

The guy that just wakes up and throws around a whole bunch of magics that are either inherently ingrained into his soul or are available as part of a pact with some other being that has determined what and how he can access that power, is a sorcerer.

But that is MY interpretation of a Wizard, what is your's more clearly and how do you want to see Wizard's portraid in DDN while not breaking MY view of what a Sorcerer is? You can have your cake and eat it, but I want my own slice - it goes both ways.