|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 2:24PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2007
|
Polaris, do you acknowledge that a balanced Vancian system has never been attempted in D&D? If so, why should you assume that it cannot be done? "They didn't do it before" is countered by "They never were trying."
It's like saying you can't, absolutely, under any circumstances learn to drive a car because you tried to learn to tie your shoes and never could.
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/cl...
I assert that a balanced Vancian magic system already exists.
So for those of us who dont have insider could you clarify what you linked?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 2:25PM
#42
|
|
|
Polaris, do you acknowledge that a balanced Vancian system has never been attempted in D&D? If so, why should you assume that it cannot be done? "They didn't do it before" is countered by "They never were trying."
It's like saying you can't, absolutely, under any circumstances learn to drive a car because you tried to learn to tie your shoes and never could.
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...
www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/cl...
I assert that a balanced Vancian magic system already exists.
So for those of us who dont have insider could you clarify what you linked?
Oh I'm sorry. Here is an example. The rest of the links where just to different schools of magic tomes that are similiar.
Tome of the North WindCovered in a thin patina of frost even in blazing heat, this tome unlocks the secrets of ice magic.
| Lvl 3 |
+1 |
680 gp |
|
Lvl 18 |
+4 |
85,000 gp |
| Lvl 8 |
+2 |
3,400 gp |
|
Lvl 23 |
+5 |
425,000 gp |
| Lvl 13 |
+3 |
17,000 gp |
|
Lvl 28 |
+6 |
2,125,000 gp |
Implement: Tome Enhancement Bonus: attack rolls and damage rolls Critical: +1d8 cold damage per plus Properties
- When you use a wizard cold power through this tome, and the target of the power is slowed, that target takes damage equal to your Constitution modifier if it moves while slowed.
- This tome contains two wizard daily cold powers. Both powers must be of a level equal to or lower than that of the tome. Choose these powers when you acquire the tome; they cannot be changed later. You can add these powers to your spellbook.
Power (Arcane, Cold, Implement)  Daily (Free Action)Choose a power contained in this tome and expend an unused wizard daily attack power of an equal or higher level. You gain the use of the chosen power during this encounter. The power is lost if you do not use it before the end of the encounter.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 2:27PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
What I keep seeing all over these forums, especially from a few posters, is the use of vancian casting as a straw man to hate on 5e as a whole. They point to how vancian casters have previously been unbalanced. They use this to make the logical fallacy that because it has not been done, it is impossible to do. From this they conclude that the designers obviously want a casters rule, fighters drool game. Completely ignoring the fact that they simply do not have the information available to make such a judgement with any accuracy. They have closed their minds to the game already without having seen it. Ironically they are using the same tactic to put down 5e that many people did with 4e by calling it an MMO, but I'm sure they would as 4e players vehemently oppose such a comparison. Calling on logical fallacies and invoking straw men does not support your position. It simply makes you look like closed minded individuals who use the general lack of information as an opportunity to spread their views while there is nothing to counter available yet. Open playtesting has not begun. It has been stated that vancian casting as well as other types are planned to be included. If you don't like it, don't use it. When your main argument against the possibility of balance is "vancian casting bad" without proof of how it will work specificly in 5e, not how it has worked previously, you really have no foundation of proof for your view.
Tradition can be used and the basis for progress, completely sweeping away the old does not guarantee progress, only difference. While I don't have any proof to show me that the next edition will show improvement, I also don't have any evidience refuting it. I will reserve my judgement for when I have information, but I choose to optimistic until I see something to change that. Choose the path of the intelligent person, keep an open mind. Having a closed mind has never led us to brighter futures.
BOOM! +1
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 2:32PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2008
|
The more I read the more I think the designers get it. They want to cater to different taste. Whether they will succeed remains to be seen, but I get it.
What I do not get is the negative comments in this thread. If a 4e type fighter is available and a simple AEUD sorcerer are made, shouldn't you be satisfied? I think the problems comes from a bias that vancian automatically=unbalance or vancian=unfun. If you do not like the Vancian system, do not use it. It ends there. You'll have lots of other options for casters.
So my question is: If you can ignore certain aspects of 5e, what is the problem?
Well said... I think they are on the right track... and I think that we all need to open our mind to different playing styles, and just don't use what we don't care for.
The Character Initiative
Show
Every time you abuse the system you enforce limitations.
Every time the system is limited we lose options.
Breaking an RPG is like cheating in a computer game.
As a DM you are the punkbuster of your table.
Dare to say no to abusers.
Make players build characters, not characters out of builds.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 2:36PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
For real data they'd need to do real professional polling. Which is expensive. Anything else has way too much selection bias.
Moderated by
ORC_Ragnar
on Feb 21, 2012 - 03:50PM
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 2:39PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2009
|
So far the "playtest" has had very little two-way interaction between designers and the community (the exception being the D&D Experience seminars).
That's because the general, public playtest hasn't started yet. All the current playtesters are under NDAs.
Trying to answer forum questions is impossible at this stage - we as the forum community don't have the full picture, and so anything they would answer would lack sufficient context. Which causes even more overreaction and hyperbole and alienation. It's really not a good plan to do that sort of communication until they have something specific to communicate, and when we have information in mostly its entirety. Or, at least, enough context to make sure we're not still using assumptions that aren't being used by the rest of the system.
So they should only begin to really communicate with us once every major decision has already been done, and it is too late to change important things?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 2:40PM
#47
|
|
|
@polaris
Options: 1. Vancian Wizard, 2. Non-Vancian Wizard, 3. Vancian Fighter, 4. Non-Vancian Fighter.
I can say - In my campaign #1 and #4. Why can't you say #2 and #3 for your campaign?
I'm not as strict as many on allowing options into the game, meaning I would allow #1,#2,#4. And a suped up #3 that wasn't vancian but something flavorful too.
When they show me that a non-Vancian Wizard and a 4e-style Fighter will be presented as options, I will be thrilled to eat me some crow. They are not giving those options any screen time and based on the Designers' own words, I cannot believe that they will even exist in the core game.
give me some links and some quotes and I'll help you understand the part where they say quite regularly this edition is entirely about options and that they will exist.
I understand they have said options will exist. Based on those same discussions, I don't believe that those options will include a non-Vacian Wizard (The Designers has said in multiple places that the Wizard WILL be Vancian) and a complex Fighter. The Designers want the Fighter to be the simple class that has few to no options, something you hand a new player. This is their stated design intent. I can only draw conclusions based on the information they have given me thus far. Some ephmeral options that may be released at some time well after initial rollout of Next doesn't mean anything to me if I can't play the class I want to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 2:44PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2006
|
Re: Balanced Vancian
No edition of D&D has tried to make a balanced Vancian system. Using prior, imbalanced Vancian systems as proof that the only possible result for Vancian systems is a logical error. If it hasn't been tried, there's no reason it can't be done.
I think there's a case to be made that balanced Vancian was tried and succeeded in D&D 4e, PHB 1. It was quite vocally opposed because it didn't contain any of the gamebreaking aspects.
It comes down to the question of what makes something "Vancian". Since D&D has never really reflected what Jack Vance wrote all that accurately, we can't really go to source. And of course, being novels, Jack's writing was mostly fluff. So comparing different editions:
1 - A wizard can cast more spells each day at higher levels than lower ones.
2 - A wizard can cast fundamentally more powerful spells at higher levels than lower ones. (Not just higher damage numbers.)
3 - A wizard who has down-time and has some foreknowledge of what he will encounter can prepare a different selection of spells, but must chose them from his limited personal selection (spellbook).
The first two are inherent in 4e's AEDU structure. There's a reason early 4e complaints often spoke the the fighter being Vancian now. The last one is covered by spellbook + ritual caster.
If we're going back to high level casters having 40+ spells/day, the fighter needs to be able to do some pretty insane things 40+ times per day.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 2:47PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
I understand they have said options will exist. Based on those same discussions, I don't believe that those options will include a non-Vacian Wizard (The Designers has said in multiple places that the Wizard WILL be Vancian) and a complex Fighter. The Designers want the Fighter to be the simple class that has few to no options, something you hand a new player. This is their stated design intent. I can only draw conclusions based on the information they have given me thus far. Some ephmeral options that may be released at some time well after initial rollout of Next doesn't mean anything to me if I can't play the class I want to play.
This paragraph shows not only that you couldn't give me quotes. and links to those quotes in context, but that you didn't even read the article we are discussing in this forum. The reason they have had such a hard time even trying to design a fighter is because they want to have all of those options available. Just because they aren't talking about certain things a lot doesn't mean they don't exist. Why talk about the things they know for a fact we want and waste time on telling us about systems they know we will enjoy. We can hear about them in the play test.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 21, 2012 - 2:55PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
If anyone wants to wager that there is not going to be a non-vancian magical caster class then I'm your huckleberry. I'm certain like deathly certain there will be such a class. No. It won't be called Wizard since that has been taken for the vancian arcane caster. Maybe it will be called Mage or Warlock or Sorcerer or ?.
I believe fighter is a tougher guess. But I do believe there will be a "powered" options for fighters. At least as a module.
|
|
|
