|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 2:32PM
#141
|
|
|
Off-topic, but I would be amused if this was the wizard progression:
Level 1
2 attack cantrips
4 Spell Slots
Level 2
Additonal 1 spell slot
Level 3
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 4
Nada
Level 5
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 6
Additional 1 spell slot
Level 7
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 8
Nada
Level 9
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 10
Additonal 1 spell slot
Yes, this would humor me greatly. I have no idea how the old spell slots worked (how many at what level, etc).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 2:45PM
#142
|
Date Joined:
May 20, 2011
|
Off-topic, but I would be amused if this was the wizard progression:
Level 1
2 attack cantrips
4 Spell Slots
Level 2
Additonal 1 spell slot
Level 3
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 4
Nada
Level 5
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 6
Additional 1 spell slot
Level 7
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 8
Nada
Level 9
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 10
Additonal 1 spell slot
Yes, this would humor me greatly. I have no idea how the old spell slots worked (how many at what level, etc).
And so I get back playing 3.5.
Ok, I was sarcastic. That is true, but said in an inappropriate way.
First of all, at least one slot each level is needed in my opinion. Cantrips (Yes, I know they are just renamed 4th edition at will powers) will have to be more than "i attack this way", that is what I understand you mean from "attack cantrip".
I do not much care when you give one, or when you give two, just make enouth spellslot to be usable, and not a "I make a fight, i end all my spells". I belive basic spellslot from 3.5 were actualy good. They became too much when you had high intelligence (not difficult to get at high levels) and a loat of bonuses given from magical items.
And I'd like the character still needs to study his cantrips somehow...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 2:48PM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Now there's something interesting in the Spellcasting is Dangerous section.
This is exactly the sort of mechanic that can give real, meaningful choice and depth to a game. I've seen a lot of people focus on the poor implementation of these sorts of systems in the past, and I've got this to say to them: It's not about the past, it's not about the future. It's not about repeating mistakes, it's about learning from them. Yes, the 3.5 concentration skill was a pointless tax at best. But we're not talking about doing that. Think bigger, think broader, think new.
A system where the Wizard can have a situationally-varying meaningful choice between unleashing the big gun and going for the smaller yet reliable shot is a very, very awesome thing. Took a big hit last round? Well, maybe you should devote your movement to repositioning behind your allies, and pop off the cantrip that doesn't have a failure chance. Or maybe you're the last turn before TPK, and you've gotta roll the hard six. Defensive tactics and spells amplify the potential effect of offensive spells later. Now you as the Wizard have to pay much more attention to your surroundings beyond "the orc will kill me in three hits" - how well you play determines whether you can get off that big blast.
This is good, this is so good. I can't wait to test it out.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 2:51PM
#144
|
|
|
Off-topic, but I would be amused if this was the wizard progression:
Level 1
2 attack cantrips
4 Spell Slots
Level 2
Additonal 1 spell slot
Level 3
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 4
Nada
Level 5
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 6
Additional 1 spell slot
Level 7
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 8
Nada
Level 9
Additional 2 spell slots
Level 10
Additonal 1 spell slot
Yes, this would humor me greatly. I have no idea how the old spell slots worked (how many at what level, etc).
And so I get back playing 3.5.
Ok, I was sarcastic. That is true, but said in an inappropriate way.
First of all, at least one slot each level is needed in my opinion. Cantrips (Yes, I know they are just renamed 4th edition at will powers) will have to be more than "i attack this way", that is what I understand you mean from "attack cantrip".
I do not much care when you give one, or when you give two, just make enouth spellslot to be usable, and not a "I make a fight, i end all my spells". I belive basic spellslot from 3.5 were actualy good. They became too much when you had high intelligence (not difficult to get at high levels) and a loat of bonuses given from magical items.
And I'd like the character still needs to study his cantrips somehow...
I'm not sure if my humor was not noticed, but I was actually basing that on 4th edition, because you technically got 4 spells at 1 (but could only use 2 in the same day, 1 encounter, 1 daily) and each of the other spots where I stated you gain 1 power is a utility power level, and each with 2 spell slots is either a level where you gain 2 encounter powers or 2 daily powers (again, you only get to use 1 of each in the same day at each level). I was really just being a bit silly.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 2:51PM
#145
|
|
|
Personally I think if they have to go back to vancian casting they need to separate out the spells as either combat or non-combat. Then have separate slots for each group. If it deals damage, its a combat spell, if it doesn't it isn't. You can still use your non-combat spells in combat and your combat spells out of combat.
So you would get 2 combat spells and 2 non-combat spells.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 2:52PM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
will 5e be easier to houserule than some other game. Thats the bottom line. Because needing to houserule a bit is something I assume will be necessary.
If Next is executed according to its intended design, you shouldn't need to houserule, at least not in the traditional sense. Current houseruling involves essentially making up your own rules to cover for errors, oversights, or even simple differences of opinion regarding the printed rules.
With Next, if all goes according to plan, you shouldn't have to houserule your way out of things you don't like. You just choose not to use them, as the entire edition is expecting you to do, and choose to include things that you do want.
So no, houseruling shouldn't be easier in Next. It will be gone. And replaced with something better.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 2:56PM
#147
|
|
|
So no, houseruling shouldn't be easier in Next. It will be gone. And replaced with something better.
Houserules 2.0?
As long as people are playing D&D, they will be houseruling SOMETHING. I've already got a significant document brewing with plenty of houseruling concepts and ideas that I prefer over to what they have been discussing.
Pretty sure houseruling and homebrewing will be alive and well.
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 ::
May 14, 2012 - 3:01PM
#148
|
|
|
Not sure what the reflavouring issue is? Or maybe I should say I don't see it as an issue at all.
The reflavoring issue is this. If they tie spells' mechanical effects too closely to their in-story special effects, then it becomes harder to alter the in-story special effects without affecting the mechanics (at which point you're no longer refluffing and are now actually modifying rules).
No matter what if you make the fireball an angry flaming chimp you have changed game rules.
. . .
Although I say they should just have detailed guidelines on how to create your own spells. Like extremely detailed. More than a page or two. That way you don't need to reflavor when you can just as easily make your own.
The whole point of reflavoring is to take an existing spell, weapon, armor, etc. and really make it your own. The point is not to change any mechanical aspects, and it certainly isn't to create something new from whole cloth. Your own words clearly indicate that you have missed the point of reflavoring. Frankly, I'm getting sick of having to explain it.
No I understand the point . . .
We'll see.
. . . and I also understand it has no effects on mechanics.
So far so good.
So basically what you are saying is that spells work exactly the same every time they are cast. Ignore the improvisational uses of the spell.
Nope. Already off track. Reflavoring doesn't require ignoring improvisation. A reflavored spell simply has different improvisational possibilities. You gain some, but you lose some at the same time.
"I am going to 100% promise you that, especially if you are a veteran player or DM, we will include stuff in the next iteration of the game that you will ignore. In fact, I'm going to come out and say that we want you to ignore parts of the game" -Mike Mearls, "These Are Not the Rules You're Looking For", "Legends and Lore", 3/26/2012
Just sig it and move on. It's not the "I win" button you think it is, especially on this particular issue. Reflavoring means ignoring the fluff and creating your own (which the quote says we can do, and which we already know we can do) while maintaining the mechanics (the quote says we can ignore the mechancis too if we want to. great, but we don't want to. We just want to change the fluff). If the mechanics get tied up too much into the fluff, you end up having to alter or ignore rules in order to alter the fluff.
They should just have detailed guidelines on how to create your own spells. Like extremely detailed. More than a page or two.
Agreed. Those guides should be there for people who want to create new spells. Guides for creating new spells has nothing to do with refluffing because refluffing doesn't involve altering mechanics. A fact that you have already claimed that you understand.
That way you don't need to reflavor when you can just as easily make your own.
By the very nature of the two tasks, refluffing is easier than creating a new spell.
These guidelines will also help so you can make those reflavoring changes and make it so they can be used improvisationally.
No the guides for creating new spells will not do that. The guides you mentioned on how to handle improvisation (which definitely needs to be in the book) will do that.
However you cannot complain when changing things in the game rules changes the balance.
That's not a refluff issue. That's an improv issue. Clever players have been screwing the balance of multiple editions just by improving. The only thing that holds that in check is an experienced DM who knows when to either say "no" or "yes, but. . ."
. . . if it were present there would be literally no reason for reflavoring but hey whatever.
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 ::
May 14, 2012 - 3:02PM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
@Mand12
I just hope that they don't leverage "interruptable spells" as a balancing factor towards Vancian spells.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 3:02PM
#150
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
In regards to re-flavoring:
The only way changing flavour matters is if you play the style of game where it can be creatively used. If you don't play that way and prefer a more 4e style magic system where the mechanics are key, why couldn't you just re-flavor in 2 seconds as you did before and ignore the creative use?
Basically what I have been saying all day on this subject.
|
|
|
