|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 2:31AM
#121
|
|
|
Maybe there needs to be something more in this "loosely balanced" definition.
[snip]
It's probably feasible to create somewhat broader spells than what we saw in 4E without going back to these extremes. If we're talking about things like mid-level illusions with somewhat broad effects but some clear limitations when we say "loosely balanced," then probably we're not even in a place that requires asterisks. If we're talking about low-level illusions that are very broad or about spells of any level like summon and polymorph that can be used for a wide range of effects, then I expect that "loosely balanced" will be a euphemism for "requiring constant attention and subject to wild exploitation by experienced players."
If you change the spell enough so that DM input isn't required, then it doesn't need to be marked as 'DM Input Required', so I agree with you there.
If you characterize spells that I would call 'loosely balanced, requiring DM Input' as 'requiring constant attention' and 'subject to wild exploitation'... don't use them. That's the point of the system. It separates spells that require DM input from those that don't require it.
Think about it for a moment - if, when presented with a spell that requires your adjudication, you characterize that adjudication as 'requiring constant attention' and you characterize a spell which can be used in many different ways as 'subject to wild exploitation'... you probably want to stay away from spells that aren't marked as balanced - OR - only allow 'loosely balanced' spells into your game on a case-by-case basis. So... stay away from them. But let others, who don't see occasional DM adjudication as 'constant attention' and don't see open-ended as 'subject to wild exploitation'... let them have the spells they like.
I see your point, but if this kind of system happened, shouldn't it be somewhat user-friendly? If the asterisk just means, "Requires some thought," well, that covers a lot of territory. Being able to create a few open-ended illusions is about as powerful as the DM lets it be, because he determines how NPCs react. Being able to turn into a rust monster or treant is different, because it might be the silver bullet for an encounter. Being able to create your own plane of diamonds is even more different, because it changes how the world works in a fundamental way.
I would know to handle spells case-by-case (not that I'd be eager to play a game in which I had to do that, but at least I'd know), but I think a lot of people would see asterisks as carrying a uniform meaning. Which is still technically what you're proposing, except that the meaning is rather broad.
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 ::
May 12, 2012 - 4:09AM
#122
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2004
|
Someone mentioned skills being the martial approach to gaining the same sort of effects spells do - something I very much agree with.
Even if skills end up being something like special boons when attempting certain things, like climbing, what if non-casters got 'advanced skills?' Casters focus on their spells and get better spells, while non-casters focus on skills and get better skills. Epic skills could include cloudwalking (an advanced form of acrobatics), climb anything (I seem to recall a picture of adventurers climbing a tornado in a recent article), read thoughts (epic insight), Chewbacca defense (epic bluff), etc.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 4:13AM
#123
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Chewbacca defense (epic bluff), etc.
I thought Chewbacca would be referenced in a auxiliary use for Intimidation (let the wookie win)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 5:31AM
#124
|
|
|
I see your point, but if this kind of system happened, shouldn't it be somewhat user-friendly? If the asterisk just means, "Requires some thought," well, that covers a lot of territory. Being able to create a few open-ended illusions is about as powerful as the DM lets it be, because he determines how NPCs react. Being able to turn into a rust monster or treant is different, because it might be the silver bullet for an encounter. Being able to create your own plane of diamonds is even more different, because it changes how the world works in a fundamental way.
I would know to handle spells case-by-case (not that I'd be eager to play a game in which I had to do that, but at least I'd know), but I think a lot of people would see asterisks as carrying a uniform meaning. Which is still technically what you're proposing, except that the meaning is rather broad.
I'd say it would be 'asterisk' means it requires no thought. Guaranteed safe for any campaign. The other spells would be accompanied by advice on how to use them equivalent to the advice in the various DMGs since the game was first published. I don't think it would help too much to have different markers for the different ways a spell might mess up your campaign if you're not paying attention - but if that's necessary to get the weird spells included, I'd be game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 5:41AM
#125
|
|
|
I'd say it would be 'asterisk' means it requires no thought. Guaranteed safe for any campaign. The other spells would be accompanied by advice on how to use them equivalent to the advice in the various DMGs since the game was first published. I don't think it would help too much to have different markers for the different ways a spell might mess up your campaign if you're not paying attention - but if that's necessary to get the weird spells included, I'd be game.
Oops, I switched that around. Anyway, I think everything else I can think to say at this point expressly goes against what you're asking for in this thread, so I'm out.
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 ::
May 12, 2012 - 6:22AM
#126
|
|
|
Meh, was a passing idea. I think it would be cool if they did it. I'd be ecstatic if they just put in the super-restricted keywords n' dice spells, but also had a system that, even if it's not that close, is at least close enough to TSR D&D that I can convert material without too much trouble.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 11:26AM
#127
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Chewbacca defense (epic bluff), etc.
I thought Chewbacca would be referenced in a auxiliary use for Intimidation (let the wookie win)
It's a good idea :P.
Though it mostly means trying to win an argument by arguing so senselessly that they stop arguing althether because of how annoying it is.(from a joke on South Park, a lawyer using the reasoning that Chewbacca living on Endor means that OJ Simpson is not guilty)
Reference-http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 1:29PM
#128
|
|
|
Expect TPKs, lots of them.
The game is built on a scam. You get +1? The monster gets +1. You get a fancy spell? The monster gets a fancy defense or attack. You are on a treadmill and there is no good way off it. So our unbalanced spells mean the monsters get more powerful too, and that means more dead parties.
Also expect more cakewalks. And that too is bad for the game.
The poker player dies and in the afterlife finds himself in a poker game and is dealth a royal flush. The betting is aggressive and he wins all the money. New players appear and he again gets that royal flush and cleans them out in one hand. And then a third set of player, and a third royal flush, and a 4th... By the time they are betting entire countries, he gets a little bored and announces "I'll sit this one out.".
"Nope. You have to play every hand."
"I should be able to do what I want in Heaven." he objects.
"True, but what makes you think this is Heaven?"
We too get bored, and fairly quickly, by constant automatic success. We need challenge or we walk away from the game. So we can't have these super spells that mean automatic wins. We turn a d20 roll into a coin flip, one where neither side is desirable in the long term.
And the mechanical problems are massive as well. A quick look at the character opt boards shows that the players will be doing just about anything to get these spells. So there will be lots of hard work to keep these spells out of the "wrong hands". And 4e tells us that can only be done badly.
So you want it done anyway? What's the benefit? We only have so much time and energy. Why in the world should we devote some of that to ways to make the game worse?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 2:19PM
#129
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
So you want it done anyway? What's the benefit? We only have so much time and energy. Why in the world should we devote some of that to ways to make the game worse?
So that the people who want that 'worse' game will spend money on the system that we theoretically enjoy and play. This leads to us getting more content for this theoretically enjoyable game, and its worth having some mechanics that we don't like in the game because otherwise we'll have a set of core books and nothing else.
And I like that treadmill. +1 Attack doesn't really set me apart from the new +1 Defense monster, but it raises me above the +0 Defense monsters and gives a sense of progress that I can now adequately deal with this +1 Defense monster where I couldn't before.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 12, 2012 - 3:04PM
#130
|
|
|
I like my idea of having all of the spells/powers being completely balanced, but at the bottom have some notes with "(optional)" that would allow the player with the DMs permission to try things that don't fit squarely in the rules...
|
|
|
