|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 10:31PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Feb 21, 2012
|
I'm confident that most wizard fans aren't so strictly because they are munchkins, despite the frequent and fervent claims to the contrary.
Most of what you say is already true of AEDU. You get more Encounter and Daily power usages per respective interval as you level. You trade out old ones for upgraded ones (which is effectively scaling of powers based on level), and the higher level ones are more powerful than the lower level ones. At-Wills scale up at level 21. It's at least remotely similar.
That shouldn't be hard to balance at all.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:07PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I'm confident that most wizard fans aren't so strictly because they are munchkins, despite the frequent and fervent claims to the contrary.
Most of what you say is already true of AEDU. You get more Encounter and Daily power usages per respective interval as you level. You trade out old ones for upgraded ones (which is effectively scaling of powers based on level), and the higher level ones are more powerful than the lower level ones. At-Wills scale up at level 21. It's at least remotely similar.
Sorry, you're mistaken. Trading in your 1-die fireball for a 3-die fireball is not really comparable to having your one-die fireball upgraded to a 2-die fireball, being given a second 2-die fireball, and also being given a 3-die fireball.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:39PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Core has no meaning whatsoever to me. For the life of me, I have no idea why anyone would care outside of organized events.
The main reason to care is support. Looking at both 3E and 4E, classes and subsystems which were included in the PHB got drastically more support than classes that weren't. Virtually every single 3.5 book that was ever released included spells, even the ones centered around martial characters or otherwise had nothing to do with magic. Meanwhile, the number of books that supported Magic of Incarnum? Two. Magic Item Compendium and Dragon Magic, that was it. When psionics fared the best of all the non-core classes for support outside their book, and that was in the form of a feat or two in each other subsystem book, two prestige classes in Lords of Madness, and a Complete book that actually served to nerf them, it's pretty clear evidence that non-core classes and subsystems get pitifully low amounts of support compared to core.
In 4E, the amount of fighter and cleric support is obscene compared to literally everything else in the game, even the other core classes. PHB2 classes get a little more, but not much, PHB3 classes have basically been given the shaft entirely, with only the psionic classes even getting a single splat. Then Essentials came along and my opinion on that is an entirely different rant of its own.
The point is, being considered Core matters. A class, subsystem, or module that isn't considered the main one isn't going to get supported in future releases, or if it is it'll get the table scraps compared to the ones that are. This has happened in every previous edition of D&D, and it has happened for the same reason: you can't assume someone purchasing Tome of Battle also owns Expanded Psionics Handbook, so you spend two feats on it and call that support, while Vancian spellcasting gets that many feats along with two prestige classes and a variant class feature that work with it. Whatever modules are considered the main ones, which will be the ones in the core book and the ones the RPGA uses, will get ten times the support of anything that's not.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 12:17AM
#44
|
|
|
With luck "core" for 5E will mean exactly that that. The most basic and fundamental parts of the game. The parts that you cannot take away and still have a playable game.
6 attributes
Roll d20 + modifier to see if you succeed
Hit Points
Saving Throws
these are the Core parts of D&D to my mind.
Races: honestly I can see the game still being playable if players didn't have to select a race. Race is something that doesn't actually need to be mechanically reprisented to play the game. A player might look at his states and decide since he has a really high Dex, Int and Cha he must be an elf so he just says "I'm an Elf". Another player might look as his numbers and say "I'm a cursed warrior who looks like a man but has the head of a leopard." Giving mechanical benefits for race is fine and all but I don't see that it needs to be a manditory part of the game.
Classes: Class is one of those things that kind of is Core and kind of isn't. For D&D I think the idea of Class defining what your character can do is important enough to be Core, but I don't think Specific Classes should be core. The game can be boiled down simply to Warrior (guy who fights), Expert (guy with skills) and Spellcaster (guy with magic) everything else is just different combination of those three.
Magic: Magic is an option. I see no reason any specific magic system should be considered Core. Spellcaster classes should be designed with "As a spellcaster you can do magic. Go to chapter XX and pick a magic system for your character to use."
You can have Vancian there, you can have AEDU system there, a Spell Point system or even a Feat based system. But none of them should be Core
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 12:24AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Core has no meaning whatsoever to me. For the life of me, I have no idea why anyone would care outside of organized events.
The main reason to care is support. Looking at both 3E and 4E, classes and subsystems which were included in the PHB got drastically more support than classes that weren't. Virtually every single 3.5 book that was ever released included spells, even the ones centered around martial characters or otherwise had nothing to do with magic. Meanwhile, the number of books that supported Magic of Incarnum? Two. Magic Item Compendium and Dragon Magic, that was it. When psionics fared the best of all the non-core classes for support outside their book, and that was in the form of a feat or two in each other subsystem book, two prestige classes in Lords of Madness, and a Complete book that actually served to nerf them, it's pretty clear evidence that non-core classes and subsystems get pitifully low amounts of support compared to core.
In 4E, the amount of fighter and cleric support is obscene compared to literally everything else in the game, even the other core classes. PHB2 classes get a little more, but not much, PHB3 classes have basically been given the shaft entirely, with only the psionic classes even getting a single splat. Then Essentials came along and my opinion on that is an entirely different rant of its own.
The point is, being considered Core matters. A class, subsystem, or module that isn't considered the main one isn't going to get supported in future releases, or if it is it'll get the table scraps compared to the ones that are. This has happened in every previous edition of D&D, and it has happened for the same reason: you can't assume someone purchasing Tome of Battle also owns Expanded Psionics Handbook, so you spend two feats on it and call that support, while Vancian spellcasting gets that many feats along with two prestige classes and a variant class feature that work with it. Whatever modules are considered the main ones, which will be the ones in the core book and the ones the RPGA uses, will get ten times the support of anything that's not.
This is true, but it needs to change.
If it does not, the modular paradigm is dead from the start. There are a good number of ways to change it, too:
- Producing splatbooks specialized by theme rather than by classes. No specific class support, but rather theme support. For instance, having a splatbook on Pirate campaigns with a lot of options for pirate and navy characters, rather than a lot of options for turning your fighter into a pirate. Themes, generic (open) feats that grant pirate-y powers, equipment, in general things that apply to all classes - past present and future ones - equally. It could lead to balance problems, but if the structure is solid enough the risk is reduced, and erratas can help avoid the most broken combinations.
- Introducing every new material with a list of possible retroactive support. For instance, when you introduce the Magic of Incarnum, you can take three four pages to specify which alternate class features, options and such can be used by the Totemist. Maybe he can trade a soulmeld for a certain druid feature, for instance. This requires having a strong enough base for the system - well balanced, modular and polished - that supports not only past material but also possible future material.
- Having each splatbook give inverse support: more support for newer material and less support for old material. For instance, AV 2 should have had much more support for avengers than for clerics. Post ToB/ToM 3.5 supplements should have had more manoeuvres and shadow spells than plain old sorcerer/wizard spells.
If properly implemented, this can change. If it doesn't change, then the modular options are doomed from the start: noone will like to play core only and if the edition doesn't support your playstyle an inch you're not going to buy any more material; this means every option should get virtually the same support.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 5:49AM
#46
|
|
|
I'm confident that most wizard fans aren't so strictly because they are munchkins, despite the frequent and fervent claims to the contrary.
Most of what you say is already true of AEDU. You get more Encounter and Daily power usages per respective interval as you level. You trade out old ones for upgraded ones (which is effectively scaling of powers based on level), and the higher level ones are more powerful than the lower level ones. At-Wills scale up at level 21. It's at least remotely similar.
Sorry, you're mistaken. Trading in your 1-die fireball for a 3-die fireball is not really comparable to having your one-die fireball upgraded to a 2-die fireball, being given a second 2-die fireball, and also being given a 3-die fireball.
He's not mistaken. It certainly is "remotely similar" as he stated.
Besides, the trade-off in 4E is that your teammates are now stronger and more valuable. In my RPG, I certainly enjoy teammates much more than sidekicks.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 10:28AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
|
i follow the three month - three book rule. If it's in the first three books, it's solid, if its out in the first three months, or the first three months of a reboot, then its part of the core environment and rules. After that, it starts to get weirder and weirder and I'm less likely to buy it because DMs are less likely to have the patience to read and approve it.
Psionics needs to be in the core - it was in 1e, but not in later editions, even though the monsters in every edition from the beginning had them. That seems like a bad idea to me. I waited so long for a decent psion in 4e that I never even bought a book, I would just check the hobby store and see if something had a psionicist and leave disappointed. I think many people are this way about whatever class they favor. Screwing up someone's favorite class can also kill the marketing of the whole product line. Everyone has their sacred cows, and by making a variant of that cow that is still sacred - rather than defiled, available, you can retain players who will buy scores of your books.
Options are Liberating
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 3:05PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Now in most/many campaigns.. I'm sure there will be modules banned. Vancian I'm looking at you. 4vengers will remove that one. Fighter daily module (if there is one) I will remove in my games.
If Vancian is player modular and designed to work in a balanced way next to other player systems, I would happily let a player use it.
Well I absolutely don't consider you the far extreme of 4e thinking. You are pro-4e but open minded. I think of you as my counterpart on the other side. Willing to discuss some things (and not others) but open minded either way.
While I don't doubt that WotC can come up with a vancian system that balances with the AEDU system, I seriously doubt that they can come up with a system that does that and also satisfies a clear majority of the 3E grognards.
Why?
In 3E, as Wizards gain in levels, they gain power three ways:
1) They get more low-level spells
2) Their low-level spells get more powerful
3) They get new spells, at higher levels, that are more powerful than the upgraded lower-level spells
Take away ANY of those, and I'm confident a lot of the grognards will be screaming about how it "isn't D&D".
I believe they have said they are making low level spells only get more powerful if put in a higher level slot.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 6:46PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
In 4E, the amount of fighter and cleric support is obscene compared to literally everything else in the game, even the other core classes. PHB2 classes get a little more, but not much, PHB3 classes have basically been given the shaft entirely, with only the psionic classes even getting a single splat. Then Essentials came along and my opinion on that is an entirely different rant of its own.
You make one of my earlier points. It doesn't matter what is defined as core. What matters is what is in the original 3 books and after that how soon something else appears. In 4e all books were officially core. So being core had no advantage. Even so being in the original PHB1 was best for support (at least in most cases).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 7:13PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
Now in most/many campaigns.. I'm sure there will be modules banned. Vancian I'm looking at you. 4vengers will remove that one. Fighter daily module (if there is one) I will remove in my games.
If Vancian is player modular and designed to work in a balanced way next to other player systems, I would happily let a player use it.
Well I absolutely don't consider you the far extreme of 4e thinking. You are pro-4e but open minded. I think of you as my counterpart on the other side. Willing to discuss some things (and not others) but open minded either way.
While I don't doubt that WotC can come up with a vancian system that balances with the AEDU system, I seriously doubt that they can come up with a system that does that and also satisfies a clear majority of the 3E grognards.
Why?
In 3E, as Wizards gain in levels, they gain power three ways:
1) They get more low-level spells
2) Their low-level spells get more powerful
3) They get new spells, at higher levels, that are more powerful than the upgraded lower-level spells
Take away ANY of those, and I'm confident a lot of the grognards will be screaming about how it "isn't D&D".
I believe they have said they are making low level spells only get more powerful if put in a higher level slot.
wrong second point om magic is wrong. Most low level spells end up beingworthless at higher levels. This is because they are either caped in terms of how many hit die they can affect or how many damage dice can be rolled. Also, the save dcs are level based and static which means high level monsters will have a high chance of saving against those spells. Higher level spells are stronger but that is because you are higher level, complaining about that is the same as complaining about a high level fighter having to many fighter feats or high attack bonus.
Balancing vancian style first at will or encounter just means you have fewer spells per day, but they are stronger spells. If one player wants to spend most rounds doing nothing, waiting to drop a big spell at the right moment, while another picks weaker spells that he can use every round, then I say let both Players go for it.
|
|
|
