|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 12:28PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
Over on LFQW, someone stated the (IMHO, reasonable) belief that all the following were acceptable
- A caster wizard
- A Gish wizard that was a peer of a pure fighter in laying down smack
- A Batman wizard that was a peer of a pure rogue in solving arbitrary problems
As long as (and this is the important part), these were build choices. So that you couldn't be a caster wizard, and change your spell selection on a daily basis to instead be a fighter. Or even worse, have the "I'm a fighter equivilent" spells as a small portion of your daily load-out. I think that's a perfectly reasonable goal. However, I'll note that it requires a fairly different fundamental design than we've typically seen. Normally, you want to build things for "Diminishing Returns". Basically, once you've taken Hurricane of Blades, the next best power you take won't be quite as good. So power tends to creep, not sprint. This encourages generalization (maybe I take the power that's best at keeping things from killing me, instead of the 2nd-best power for killing things). This is the pattern for free power selection (ie, a wizard choosing spells) The other approach would be to encourage specialization. Feat-chains that are actually worth chasing would be one example, or similar talent chains (more KotR-1 like here. Not familiar enough with actual SAGA to comment), or Gurp's spell system. Once you learn "fire lance", then you can learn "scorching burst", and then "fireball". Then you can learn "Delayed Fireball", and then "Meteor storm". The issue I see with specialization is that it requires the designers to basically hard-code the available paths, because they have to put in the Preq chains required to allow the next tier to be powerful enough to bother with the Preqs. Because for the system to work, you have to make the opportunity cost for "Polymorph Self (with stats)" high enough that knowing it precludes knowing Evard's Tentacles. Comments?
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 12:38PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
At some point I'd like to see a D&Dish implementation of the talent/skill/perk trees that are in some other games. Building an Evoker, or other specialist wizard, by going down a defined pathway (perhaps with a few branches still) would actually be pretty close to some of the Fighter structures that various editions have implemented.
3e's Warlock is the only thing I can think of that really had that sort of an approach, where much of what you do was modifications on the base Eldritch Blast ability - differences in targeting as well as different effects.
p.s. I still don't understand why Delayed Blast Fireball was ever seen as "higher/better" than Fireball...
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 12:44PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
p.s. I still don't understand why Delayed Blast Fireball was ever seen as "higher/better" than Fireball...
In 3e, just because it had a higher CL cap on the damage. *shrug* Lets pretend for the discussion it's actually a better spell. 
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 12:50PM
#4
|
|
|
I do like those ideas.
Previously I've pitched the idea of having a core set of spells that every wizard knows with some general basics. Then for anything else each spell learned is a feat, or the culmination of a feat chain.
So if you wanted to take Teleport then at level 1 you would spend a feat on Expiditious Retreat, then on Bink, then Dimension Door and finally Teleport and Teleport without Error. Now you have the ability to memorize any of those spells in your appropriately leveled spell slots. You might even give wizards a bonus feat at 5, 10 and 15 to pick one of those feats.
Another similar sort of idea would be granting Wizards access to only 1 school of magic, then they could get minor access to other schools by spending their Themes on them. So you could pick Evocation or Transmutation as your specialty, then as a Theme pick Necromantic Dabbler or something and learn to cast Necromancy spells of up to 3rd level or something along those lines.
Another thought was to make all spells beyond the basics the equivilent of magic items, you could give the wizard fireball when the fighter gets his +2 sword of orcslaying. The really game breaking spells would be artifact level items, so you can give the wizard teleport when you give the fighter his artifact intelligent sword.
I think one of the best chances for a balanced magic system without making the Caster Uber Alles Coalition cry too loudly about "Doesn't feel like D&D" is to allow the spells, then limit access. The problem with balance really does hugely compound when you can cast literally everything in the book unless you give up schools for even more power.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 3:18PM
#5
|
|
|
I would be interested in examining making Dread Necromancer/Warmage/Beguiler/Etc. the baseline for how arcane casting classes are set up, but it'll just never happen. Making classes more thematic is just way less important to people than doing things the way they've always been done.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 3:23PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2008
|
I've never liked tree structures because they almost always end up with one or two builds that are useful, and the rest are simply useless. The wizard class needs to be defined clearly so that all the abilities it has available can work together without restrictions. The wizard is not a gish, the gish needs its own class to be fully realized, and a wizard is not a utility monkey, that needs to be its own class (if it exists at all).
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
- Manwë, High King of the Valar
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 3:25PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
I've never liked tree structures because they almost always end up with one or two builds that are useful, and the rest are simply useless.
That is, IMHO, clearly an issue with the approach. Is it a bigger issue than "all casters know the same 12 spells, cause they're the best spells"? Does it result in a worse game than the other approach?
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 3:33PM
#8
|
|
|
I think it's pretty clear that the "all casters know all spells" method ala 2e/3e doesn't work at all. Limiting selection does help with balance to some degree, especially if it's a part of the characters mechanics and it's not just a matter of paying 1500g for a scroll to learn Evards. Yes, I know in theory 2e limited spells known, but it didn't really, it was expensive maybe if you wanted a bunch of tries with a low int, or rare if you couldn't find someone who knew it, but in the end if you really wanted a spell you got it.
It is an interesting thought to make caster spell power progression logarithmic instead of exponenial. Second level is obviously better than 1, but 7th is only a little worse than 9th. Then you're not hugely punished by losing a level or two of casting 3.x style, and it brings down the ceiling that melee has to be raised to.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 3:57PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
I think it's pretty clear that the "all casters know all spells" method ala 2e/3e doesn't work at all. Limiting selection does help with balance to some degree, especially if it's a part of the characters mechanics and it's not just a matter of paying 1500g for a scroll to learn Evards. Yes, I know in theory 2e limited spells known, but it didn't really, it was expensive maybe if you wanted a bunch of tries with a low int, or rare if you couldn't find someone who knew it, but in the end if you really wanted a spell you got it.
2E had a hard limit on spells known. It was not in any way an 'in theory' limit.
You could pick an individual spell, certainly. But (I don't have my 2E PHB on me, so this is off the top of my head), if you had a 16 Int, you could not learn more than six(remember, I made this number up, but it's around there) spells per level. Period.
If it was limited a little harsher (three to four spells per level, tops), or if you were using an incredible number of spells (such as allowing the entire Wizard's Spell Compendium), then you could actually see variance between wizards. As long as the list of 'these are the best spells' has more spells than you can actually take, you will see variance.
As to the actual topic; I think it's probably necessary to have mechanics with both diminishing and accelerating returns. That is to say, a return curve. You can't have a hybrid/multi-functon character if every mechanic is accelerating returns; specializing becomes the only path. On the other hand, if every mechanic is diminishing returns, you can't really build a specialist.
Off the top of my head, I'd probably say that entering into something should give diminishing returns, and then accelerate as you get the middle of it, and then diminish again at the end. So you have to pay a little bit of an investment cost to hybridize, but then earn it back over time. Thus going 1/1/1/1/1/1 would be horrible, but 8/8 would be fine.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 5:12PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
I think it's pretty clear that the "all casters know all spells" method ala 2e/3e doesn't work at all.
Oh but it does. It's meant to allow you to represent any type of caster you want. And it does that very well.
|
|
|
