|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 5:11PM
#31
|
|
|
A magic user who only casts attack and defense spells is nothing more than a fighter with different descriptions for his weapons and armour. What makes a magic user special is all the spells that allow him to do things no other class can do. However, I hate vancian magic with a passion, I think it's the worst way magic can be handled in an rpg. There are much better ways to handle magic and I think it's time D&D actually tried one of them
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 5:24PM
#32
|
|
|
A magic user who only casts attack and defense spells is nothing more than a fighter with different descriptions for his weapons and armour. What makes a magic user special is all the spells that allow him to do things no other class can do. However, I hate vancian magic with a passion, I think it's the worst way magic can be handled in an rpg. There are much better ways to handle magic and I think it's time D&D actually tried one of them
When you're playing something as free-form as the baseline DDN, that's all anyone is. When you're playing something with that few rules, it all comes down to the descriptions, imagination, and creativity. You're right that a Wizard who's that limited isn't muh different from the fighter, but that's the point. At that core baseline, the difference between classes is more in the description than the mechanics.
You can have modules in core to flesh out more complexity. With a simple enough baseline, you can even have later modules with different resource systems. You say you don't like Vancian Magic. What if Vancian Magic was the wizard subsystem that showed up in the core book, but in a later splat book we got a Spell Points system that could be laid on top of the core wizard instead? Or what if for 4e players a splat book put out an At Will/Encounter/Daily module for classes to use? Imagine if something like this had been done in 3.5, and ToB was released as a new Fighter/Rogue/Monk module, rather than 3 new classes?
The point is, a simple streamlined baseline makes it easier to add in new mechanics as the game progresses. Vancian Magic does not qualify as that baseline. No complex resource/ability system will.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 6:08PM
#33
|
|
|
Vancian magic *is* very simple, at the core of it. Start of the day, prepare X number of spells. Then use them.
The problem with vancian magic isn't the mechanic, but the idea that the wizard has theoretical access to a huge spell list.
The core spell list for D&D needs to be as small as possible. Then rules modules need to add spells which expand the wizard, but also tactical maneuvers which expand the fighter.
Vancian magic in previous editions did not fail because of the vancian mechanic. The problem was that the wizard (and to a much greater degree, the cleric) became more powerful and flexible with each expansion. We don't know how a cleric accesses his spells, so for now I'm not holding my breath. But the Wizard looks like he can spend gold to add spells to his book. That's the part that worries me.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 6:16PM
#34
|
|
|
Vancian magic *is* very simple, at the core of it. Start of the day, prepare X number of spells. Then use them.
The problem with vancian magic isn't the mechanic, but the idea that the wizard has theoretical access to a huge spell list.
I think we're using different terms of simplicity. Yes, Vancian mechanics are easy to describe. However, they are complex in use. I could describe a endurance system for Fighters in two sentences just as well, but the fact is that adding it would be adding complexity to the class.
And yes, the mechanic is the problem. Because the mechanic by definition has the Wizard picking from a predefined list of narrow options. This goes against the free-form nature of the baseline DDN game that is all about making up random interesting effects and convincing the DM to let you do it.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 6:18PM
#35
|
|
|
All magic subsystems need to be modular, in that we need the ability to swap out the ones we don't like for ones that we do. No one should be stuck with vancian because they want to play a wizard, and no one should be stuck with power points because they want to play a psion. I'm all for different classes having different default magic subsystems (it gives WotC a chance to properly flesh them out, and it gives people a taste of new systems if they want it), but every caster class needs to be built so that the magic subsystem can be swapped out easily.
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.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 6:46PM
#36
|
|
|
I want a system where a simple and complex fighter can coexist. I want a system where a simple fighter and a complex wizard can coexist without one or the other being obsolete. I want a system that includes a non-Vancian spell caster alongside the Vancian wizard, with the two being separate classes.
And I want all of that to be core.
Would that be ok for you?
Most definitely.
But it wouldn't be a wizard.
The word wizard has a lot of baggage attached to it. It implies a learned spell caster with a wide variety of spells at his or her disposal. A master of magic.
And if the wizard wasn't core, it certainly wouldn't feel like D&D.
"But guuuuuys, this isn't what I used to play!"
Appeal to tradition is nice and all, and nostalgia is a powerful driving force that WotC is exploiting as hard as they can. This much is clear, with Vancian spellcasting and "I swing my axe. Again." fighters. But that's not a good argument for creating a game that more than just grognards can enjoy.
Your wizard requires complexity, nuance and intelligence. I'm fine with that.
My fighter is a veteran, with a whole repertoire of combat maneuvers he's learned over decades that give him the versatility and expertise to challenge magic users in its utility and power.
Your nostalgia forbids that. I'm not fine with that.
You can play your fighter as a meatshield without taking away my maneuvers and martial powers. If I want to play a codified, balanced fighter with more than just an MBA, I have to ask the DM permission at every instance and every table. Do you see where one person is getting more screwed over here?
No, you misunderstand me.
When I said that it wouldn't be a wizard because of the baggage attached to the name, I wasn't just talking about D&D baggage, but the baggage accumulated through years of fantasy.
When you say wizard to non-D&D people, they think of folks like Gandalf, Harry Potter, Harry Dresden, Merlin, etc.
The word wizard has this kind of pop culture baggage attached to it, an implication of what exactly a wizard is.
Fighter, on the other hand, doesn't really mean anything outside of D&D. Sure, we have some D&D baggage attached to the name, but that's about it, and 4E certainly challenged a lot of that baggage.
If the fighter is supposed to represent the basic fantasy archetype of "guy who is really good with weapons" then I think he should be capable of a lot more than just making a melee basic attack. I think your veteran warrior is just as valid of an interpretation of the fighter class as the dumb meatshield is. I think a swashbuckler type character should be just as much a "fighter" and the heavily armoured guy wielding the huge axe.
( As for nostalgia, I'd like to point out I started playing D&D in college and my first edition was 4E. I'm just a fantasy nerd. )
Well, I don't agree that fighter is just supposed to be "guy who is really good with weapons." It helps to have played OD&D back in its original form to see this. The class was "fighting man" because it was basically the model for all the heroes of myth, legend, and fantasy literature. He's Gawain, and Arthur, and Conan, and Gilgamesh, Aragorn, etc.
I don't really agree that 'wizard' means anything like the D&D spell-slinging guy either. That's a VERY narrow view of magic users IMHO (and again, the OD&D class was magic user, as in ANYONE that used magic). Think about it. What spells did Merlin ever cast? None that I know of definitively in the old stories. At best he 'knew the future' and in some tales he might have by implication put Excalibur in the stone or at least engineered it happening. Gandalf? He did some magic, but it was all pretty modest. He's probably the closest you can get to a D&D wizard, but he never blows anyone up with a spell, never creates some powerful magic that wins the day, etc. Honestly if you go back and read your medieval epics and Kalavala and etc there's definitely magic, sometimes powerful magic, but you'll be hard pressed to find characters that blast things with spells. Even if they do it is some thing they specially cooked up way ahead of time for that specific situation. IMHO the 'bagagge' is pretty much entirely created by D&D itself.
I can perfectly well justify a very simple basic 'magic user'. There could be a LOT of options as to exactly what flavor of magic user it is, but there's nothing at all standing in the way of a simple magic user that has 1 or 2 tricks and improvises.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 6:56PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Even if they do it is some thing they specially cooked up way ahead of time for that specific situation.
Man ... you made me think of Circe there.
Circe villanous character who used deception and a feast to establish a sympathetic connection (ie via gluttony) to perform a transformation in to pigs, ie ritual magic (or alchemy).
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 7:23PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Well, yeah, you could make a magic user class that just has one or two simple spells that they cast over and over again at will.
But it wouldn't be a wizard.
The word wizard has a lot of baggage attached to it. It implies a learned spell caster with a wide variety of spells at his or her disposal. A master of magic.
Sure, your class could work as a mage, or a sorcerer.....but it would never be a wizard.
And if the wizard wasn't core, it certainly wouldn't feel like D&D.
Why wouldn't it be a wizard? Sure he's more limited in what he can do, but that just means you need to use more imagination, rather than relying on prepackaged spells to do all your thinking for you.
If martial abilities can be an optional rules module, than so can spells. Either way, all resource systems should be treated equally, you shouldn't have half the classes in the game relegated to being **** because their resources are optional.
I've rehashed this in my mind over and over, not just this part addressed above, but how to simplify the wizard.
The problem here is D&D baggage. It doesn't matter that it's not balanced that its more resource management or all the things that vancian casting wizards are in this playtest, its that this is what they always have been. I know this is a crap pile arguement, but its valid because D&D has been on the tables of players for over 30years, and for many to say, the wizard at core shouldn't be vancian is like saying the rogue's sneak attack should fall in the same category. It is a part of the class. Anything else doesn't feel like a wizard to a LARGE portion of the d&d player population and it would be bad business to blow that off. Most people who don't like vancian would have no problem playing a sorcerer that was non-vance, heck even most vance fans would probably play this sorcerer, but call it a wizard and you've touched a nerve. The wizard is a master of arcane tombs the sorcerer a master of arcane power.
...The only way to do it would be to have it in the build itself. That place on the sheet that says "Arcane Magic" that makes some players giddy and others cringe, that would have to be the variable. Letting someone say I want "elemental magic" or "telekenetic magic" or something else to create a balance option in the core setting.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 8:17PM
#39
|
|
|
Because a spell in inhereantly less flexable by nature of thr fact you put rules around it.
There are rules wrapped around sword and attacking, too. But if Magic Missile was going to be the core wizard's only spell, and the rest was meant to be improvised, why wouldn't they loosen up the description a little, to make it about the same amount of flexibility as a sword?
I would be fine with that. It is just it is harder and I frankly can't think of a way (I am sure someone can I just can't). Once you open the magic can of worms up it is hard to close it without closing it hard.
Ehhh, I think it is no harder to improvise with MM than with a sword.
I can easily see all sorts of called shots for instance. Hit the guy in the eyes and blind him for a moment, hit him in the hand and disarm him. Shoot a rope and break it, smash almost any small fragile item, etc etc etc. I agree, magic isn't bound by logic, so it can be easier to justify things, but if the basic function of your spell is pretty restricted then it probably isn't that much different from a sword really. Beyond that of course each character can equally improvise outside of his specialty or use skills or whatever.
Like others have said, perfect equality isn't needed. It would just be nice if both classes could be made equally simple for those who want that instead of one being much more capable AND more complex than the other.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 8:28PM
#40
|
|
|
Vancian magic *is* very simple, at the core of it. Start of the day, prepare X number of spells. Then use them.
The problem with vancian magic isn't the mechanic, but the idea that the wizard has theoretical access to a huge spell list.
The core spell list for D&D needs to be as small as possible. Then rules modules need to add spells which expand the wizard, but also tactical maneuvers which expand the fighter.
Vancian magic in previous editions did not fail because of the vancian mechanic. The problem was that the wizard (and to a much greater degree, the cleric) became more powerful and flexible with each expansion. We don't know how a cleric accesses his spells, so for now I'm not holding my breath. But the Wizard looks like he can spend gold to add spells to his book. That's the part that worries me.
Fundamentally, yes, it failed because EVERY wizard (and doubly so every cleric) had access to a long list of spells. The thing is even having FIVE spells is about 3 more spells than the options a fighter has (shoot it with a bow, hit it with a melee weapon). Thus the proposal of a one-spell wizard (though really a two-spell wizard would probably be closer to the goal) makes some kind of sense. At that point it doesn't matter what the magic system is really of course, though clearly such a wizard's magic should be at-will to some extent.
TBH I don't actually expect any such simple wizard to ever exist. I think it is more of a tool to understand why the corresponding simple fighter doesn't compare to the complex wizard. I'd assume if such a wizard WAS core it would not actually be used in play much.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
