|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 1:10PM
#21
|
|
|
Proposal: spells don't have levels - they are just spells.
That could be cool.
But I think some uber spells don't scale down well. Or at least not to level 1.
The D20 BESM magic book actually had a decent fix for that. They gave each spell a cost in spell points (which spell slots were converted to), and a skill DC to cast it correctly. So a skilled mage could cast a spell that would be otherwise higher in level than she could normally cast, but it would likely consume most of her spell poitns.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 1:11PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Seriously though, has anyone else played Chrono Cross? If you're curious as to how a Vancian-ish system can be balanced and awesome, go play it. Now, it's admittedly not a direct comparison, as a large part of the fighters-vs-casters balance was taken up in the mechanic that you had to use weapon attacks to gain power to use casting your allocated spells, but the balance within the grid itself is applicable.
Eh, I'd love to play Chrono Cross, but I can't find it anywhere. 
www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksi...
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 1:29PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Seriously though, has anyone else played Chrono Cross? If you're curious as to how a Vancian-ish system can be balanced and awesome, go play it. Now, it's admittedly not a direct comparison, as a large part of the fighters-vs-casters balance was taken up in the mechanic that you had to use weapon attacks to gain power to use casting your allocated spells, but the balance within the grid itself is applicable.
Eh, I'd love to play Chrono Cross, but I can't find it anywhere.
www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksi...
That needs a Playstation. :P I want an Android or XBox 360 or PC remake. :P
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 ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 1:54PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Seriously though, has anyone else played Chrono Cross? If you're curious as to how a Vancian-ish system can be balanced and awesome, go play it. Now, it's admittedly not a direct comparison, as a large part of the fighters-vs-casters balance was taken up in the mechanic that you had to use weapon attacks to gain power to use casting your allocated spells, but the balance within the grid itself is applicable.
Eh, I'd love to play Chrono Cross, but I can't find it anywhere.
www.amazon.com/Chrono-Cross-Playstation/...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 2:15PM
#25
|
|
|
I don't agree with this whole quadratic nonsense. When your character levels your attacks should get more powerful, that's linear. It doesn't matter if you also get more spells to choose from or use in a 'day'. How many are you actually going to use anyway?
The real problem with getting more high level spells and having your lower level spells scale, is the average damage per attack action is higher than the (pre-4e) martial classes because the spells are not all equal, and if you have enough of the better than average spells per day you can get away with just using those.
4e solved this with giving all classes the same fixed mix of low, medium and high damage powers, all relatively linear to your level (assuming you trade out low level powers for highers ones as you level, etc.)
5e vancian seems to solve it using spells slots. The spells slots equate to the same fixed mix of low, medium and and high damage powers that 4e power rules gave you, except they are more flexible, in that you don't have to trade out spells, you just have to trade out spell slots as you level. The books don't need multiple types of fireball, just one spell that scales with spell slot level.
I see these approaches as mostly equivalent. I could even imagine a martial character using a slot system. To me it would be logically the same as the existing 4e system.
Of course, I'd also like to see classes that don't use this tiered slot/power system, that are still balanced. For example, perhaps a more traditional martial class that doesn't have fixed # of actions per day, but possibly a host of at-will like actions and a few per-encounter actions (or based on some other mechanic that limits them), but with the math done right so it comes out to about the same average damage output over an encounter as the other classes.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 2:55PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Of course, I'd also like to see classes that don't use this tiered slot/power system, that are still balanced. For example, perhaps a more traditional martial class that doesn't have fixed # of actions per day, but possibly a host of at-will like actions and a few per-encounter actions (or based on some other mechanic that limits them), but with the math done right so it comes out to about the same average damage output over an encounter as the other classes.
From your mouth to the dev's ears let it be so.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 3:24PM
#27
|
|
|
The warblade from Tome of Battle has a great at-will/ encounter system. I hope it is looked at when they begin to design the 5e fighter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 3:26PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
The linear vs quadratic topic isn't just about damage output, but versatility. Giving casters a spell to solve mundane issues lessens the need for a mundane solution. There shouldn't be low level spells that work better than an equal level class's ability. Knock is certainly a prime example, but so is Silence and Invisibility. All are traditionally low level (2-3 depending on class), and essentially make rogues obsolete in the utility area. Comprehend languages/Tongues makes any skill in decipher script/linguist obsolete. There shouldn't be spells for everything, or that trivialize encounters at minimal cost.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 3:49PM
#29
|
|
|
I don't agree with this whole quadratic nonsense. When your character levels your attacks should get more powerful, that's linear. It doesn't matter if you also get more spells to choose from or use in a 'day'. How many are you actually going to use anyway?
The 'quadratic' notion goes far beyond the power of individual spells cast during combat.
- Long-duration buffs (possibly with Extend Spell) can stretch to the next day. "An hour per level" means something different when you're 18th level than it did when you were 4th level.
- Information gained via divination on a non-adventuring day can be helpful later without sacrificing any slots during an adventuring day.
- Summons can last more than one day (e.g. 3E's Planar Binding series), again confering the benefits of a caster's best spell cast yesterday.
- Buffs can combine synergistically. What was once a short-term buff can last for several combats at higher levels. Buffs also ignore action ecconomy - you can gain the benefit of a spell without casting it during combat.
- Synergies emerge. Cloudkill is cool, but it's much cooler with Forcecage and possibly Dimensional Anchor.
- Action economies change. Summoned monsters can cast, and Quicken Spell can squeeze multiple casts into a round.
These examples focus on the 3E rules because I remember them pretty well. There may be other examples of quadratic growth that I can't recall, but these seem pretty serious to me.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 25, 2012 - 12:13AM
#30
|
|
|
Proposal: spells don't have levels - they are just spells.
That could be cool.
But I think some uber spells don't scale down well. Or at least not to level 1.
The D20 BESM magic book actually had a decent fix for that. They gave each spell a cost in spell points (which spell slots were converted to), and a skill DC to cast it correctly. So a skilled mage could cast a spell that would be otherwise higher in level than she could normally cast, but it would likely consume most of her spell poitns.
I don't think it is much different from having spell levels. You still seem to categorize spells with "spell points", instead of levels. As for uber spells, why not changing the structure of those spells?
For instance, Raise Dead is a poweful spell, right? But what if we make it work like an Animate Corpse with limited duration at 1st level, and increase the duration and recipient number according to how much power is sacrificed while casting the spell and then maybe finally raise an actual being when a very big portion of mage's power is spent?
Power Word: Kill? Rendering a target unconcious for a very brief time at 1st level, scaling up to outright killing a being with enough power sacrificed.
Maybe in this way, most of the similar spells are eliminated down to their basic magic, giving you a much smaller but individually better defined list of spells.
|
|
|
