|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 10:43PM
#121
|
|
|
If the vancian caster is the only one who has spellbook rules, then it becomes a vancian only flavor mechanic.
But, why must it be that way?
It doesn't "must be that way" (or however the hell one is supposed to pull of that specific double negative), but look at what they've done in the past and how those mechanics reflect their views on the spellbook. Spontaneous casters don't get it in 3e (sorcerers and psions both don't have an equivalent of the spellbook), only the wizard got it in AD&D 2e (IIRC), and even in 4e Essentials (when the spellbook idea was reintroduced mechanically) the mage was the only one who got it. It's clear that a lot of people, the devs included, seem to see the ability to prepare only a portion of a much larger spell list as strictly the purview of the wizard.
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 11:50PM
#122
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2004
|
Instead of non-class linked spells or the "universalist" spell school. I suggest completely ditching them, cantrips included and make those things automatic class abilities and/or skills. Read magic, detect magic, identify, the little cantrip to clean mud off your boots, etc...
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 11, 2012 - 5:28AM
#123
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Instead of non-class linked spells or the "universalist" spell school. I suggest completely ditching them, cantrips included and make those things automatic class abilities and/or skills. Read magic, detect magic, identify, the little cantrip to clean mud off your boots, etc...
4e did most of that with the Arcana skill (instead of knowledge-arcana + spellcraft for 3e). I agree stuff like prestidigitation is a good cantrip to keep. I think it's appropriate to let characters not be limited in spell selection based solely on class. Let the concept dictate the fluff, and let the class mechanics provide the structure. I'm tired of being tied down in concept due to unnecessary limitations. If I want to play a white mage, let my character learn Cure * Wounds. Maybe it just so happens the Healing Domain for clerics lets them get a bonus, which still lets them be better healers overall.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 11, 2012 - 11:32PM
#124
|
|
|
As long as every class gets unique features outside of spells, I think this is the way to go.
Alright then, let's hear some ideas for "unique features".
I hope you won't count this as a cop-out, but:
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Wizard
Alchemist
Inquisitor
Oracle
Summoner
Witch
Each of these classes are full casters, yet they have plenty besides spell selection for features. Granted, 5e won't have classes have quite so many features, but there's a lot of cool ideas there. Cleric domains, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools, et al all grant other features besides spells or spell-enhancing features. Lots of unique flavor, even with shared mechanics.
Your link to Inquisitor goes to Cavalier and Oracle goes to Magus, just so you know.
Also, as to your previous quip about every version of Fireball requiring the same spell components... yes, unless you take a feat, or in a game that does not us MC, such as 4E.
You can hosuerule it out, but that is hardly the point. Or woudl you rather have your single spell list with an extra paragraph for how each of these spells are different depending on who casts them?
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 11, 2012 - 11:48PM
#125
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Or would you rather have your single spell list with an extra paragraph for how each of these spells are different depending on who casts them?
Couldn't this be implemented by making spell descripts as complete as possible, and each class modifies those descriptions in consistent ways?
For example, [Class A] may just ignore material components entirely, and [Class B] may universally substitute a specific damage-type.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:08AM
#126
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Or would you rather have your single spell list with an extra paragraph for how each of these spells are different depending on who casts them?
Couldn't this be implemented by making spell descripts as complete as possible, and each class modifies those descriptions in consistent ways?
For example, [Class A] may just ignore material components entirely, and [Class B] may universally substitute a specific damage-type.
Or just limit certain classes from even being allowed to pick spells that require material components above a specific value, and ignore the component requirement for those below that threshold (e.g.: Eschew Materials).
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:22AM
#127
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Okay, that's an interesting approach.
What would [Class A] lose? Identify and the various Ressurections?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:24AM
#128
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Your link to Inquisitor goes to Cavalier and Oracle goes to Magus, just so you know.
Thanks. Not sure how a cut and paste on those links got garbled, but I've updated them. I'll list them again for convenience: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, Witch
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:27AM
#129
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Okay, that's an interesting approach.
What would [Class A] lose? Identify and the various Ressurections?
Probably lose access to ritual magic for the most part.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 8:11AM
#130
|
|
|
This is something I posted on another thread:
"Why not make spells generic as hell, too, and let players and DMs work together to provide fluff?
Example:
L1 Spells:
1d6 damage per level (could be flavored as an energy bolt, spectral sword, energy drain, etc)
1d4 elemental damager per level + movement effect (fire damage + bull rush? ice damage + slow?)
Utility Spell that roughly replicates a +3 on an ability check
etc?
This seems like it would be kind of hard to get the "master" list down, but once you did, how could that not be incredible? Forcing players and DMs to work together to actually invest in spells? Sure, WotC would release spells in the PHB, and I'm sure their modules will have some, but as long as they leave the "spellmaking" process open and transparent, they're really just giving everyone idea of how to utilize the mechanic, right?"
My D&D Next Philosophy: In this age of user created content, Wizards needs to take a step toward embracing that. Modularity is certainly a start, but the best possible way for Wizards to encourage homebrew is to strip the mechanics of flavor, and to ensure that they are as balanced as possible. Players today should be able to start with a concept and build that character. They should not have to force it into narrowly-defined classes that restrict the ability to play the character you want.
|
|
|
