|
10 months ago ::
Aug 18, 2012 - 12:51AM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2001
|
Mmmmmmm. baked in flavour! Makes D&D sound like a tasty treat.
Much better than GURPS, which sounds like the sound you make when you throw up.
More D&D and less GURPS for me.
The baked-in flavor is only a problem in D&D if the flavor you want is baked-in to something that you're allegeric (i.e. that you don't think is fun). For some people, the wizard class is delicious cake, but the vancian resource management system is anaphylactic shock inducing peanuts. Now, you could fix this by removing the flavor. But you can also fix it equally well by letting people choose not to have peanuts.
There is what I want, and what I get. I would like spell points for clerics because I feel a cleric should be able to ask his god for what she needs in the instant (rather than trying to predict what she needs at the beginning of the day). My suggestion makes sense, it is reasonable, but that doesn`t mean my ideas for cleric spell casting should override many years of D&D design. I won`t go into shock if I don`t get my way. You shouldn`t either. If it is a big deal for you and your players, change it in a way that works for you.
that's funny seeing as the clerics spell casting looks nothing like previous editions...
Hey, that's right! they should so change it to what I like! Grrrrrrr.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 18, 2012 - 1:00AM
#72
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
I think that we should have the options of choosing any type of Spell caster casting by player choice and D.m. approval for his game. All being at the core of the game. Include all spell casting and let us choose the type (version) we want to use at character creation. Here ya go, now you choose and have fun. You like points? here you are, you want 4e casting? here enjoy, Vancain for you sir? ,right. Now Game on you guys together and have fun! Thats Modularity. Then there's no schizim between style in the same game when it comes to casting.
Exactly. They could even go so far as make Vancian the default and then let those of us that want to swap it out for something else able to do it...
Yes. Then tradition is carried forward as well as cutting edge progressive Gaming. You got it Lokiare.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 18, 2012 - 1:01AM
#73
|
|
|
I think that we should have the options of choosing any type of Spell caster casting by player choice and D.m. approval for his game. All being at the core of the game. Include all spell casting and let us choose the type (version) we want to use at character creation. Here ya go, now you choose and have fun. You like points? here you are, you want 4e casting? here enjoy, Vancain for you sir? ,right. Now Game on you guys together and have fun! Thats Modularity. Then there's no schizim between style in the same game when it comes to casting.
Exactly. They could even go so far as make Vancian the default and then let those of us that want to swap it out for something else able to do it...
Yes. Then tradition is carried forward as well as cutting edge progressive Gaming. You got it Lokiare.
I've been saying that since before the first play test packet...
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 18, 2012 - 1:09AM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2008
|
I think that there are two ways they can solve their modularity problem, less class flavor and each class has one unique way of doing things, or more class flavor but options for how you do things. Both design methods have advantages and disadvantages.
Another thing to consider is that if certain classes are capable of filling a wide variety of character concepts, then other classes can be more focused. For instance, if wizard can do a spell point magic-user, then sorcerer can be a lot more focused on doing unique sorcerer things. Not every class needs to be equally versatile in how it plays. Or another example, if fighter can be an archery expert, ranger has a lot more freedom in becoming a niche nature-oriented class because the archer concept is already covered just fine by the fighter. If the fighter can't do archery, then its important to keep the ranger from getting bogged down in nature stuff because there needs to be a way to make a simple archer character.
"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
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 18, 2012 - 2:21AM
#75
|
|
|
I'm choosing, however foolishly, to take this as hopeful.
They have a Spell Slot, Spell Point, and A/E/D/U caster now.
All they need to do is extract that from those classes, and make it so any casting class can be either Slot, Point, or AEDU. This early in the tests, I'm hoping they are just giving samples to test the water for these types of casting. By supporting these ideas, and gently and persitently insiting that they be offered as modules for all casters we may yet see flexible mechanics within class by beta.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 18, 2012 - 2:40AM
#76
|
|
|
I'm choosing, however foolishly, to take this as hopeful.
They have a Spell Slot, Spell Point, and A/E/D/U caster now.
All they need to do is extract that from those classes, and make it so any casting class can be either Slot, Point, or AEDU. This early in the tests, I'm hoping they are just giving samples to test the water for these types of casting. By supporting these ideas, and gently and persitently insiting that they be offered as modules for all casters we may yet see flexible mechanics within class by beta.
If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you...
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 18, 2012 - 3:23AM
#77
|
|
|
If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you...
I made the caveat as to my own potential foolishness in this belief.
I would call it hope, but I still think we are early enough in the creation process that things aren't stone set yet, and ideas that may become universal are only appearing in specifc classes/races, given the tiny body of choices available, and the general outcry for more classes to test, they chose to relase something else, in this case, they may be testing the water with the concept encapsulated before offering it freely...
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 18, 2012 - 8:29AM
#78
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
I'm choosing, however foolishly, to take this as hopeful.
They have a Spell Slot, Spell Point, and A/E/D/U caster now.
All they need to do is extract that from those classes, and make it so any casting class can be either Slot, Point, or AEDU. This early in the tests, I'm hoping they are just giving samples to test the water for these types of casting. By supporting these ideas, and gently and persitently insiting that they be offered as modules for all casters we may yet see flexible mechanics within class by beta.
This. Don't make ANY casting method a base method/default. Just under casting, have 'pick casting method A, B, C'.
Now WILL they?... It's possible but I'm not that hopeful.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 18, 2012 - 8:48AM
#79
|
|
|
I don't think they can really put a cohesive module in where each class can choose from vancian, spell point, encounter, etc. Take a look at how mechaincally entwined those mechanics are to the classes in question.
The Sorcerer gets X Willpower (by the way, I love it being called Willpower) and the use it to cast spells. But they also use it to activate bloodline powers--and I bet they expect quite a bit of your daily Willpower to be used on those, rather than spells. Further, spending X amount of Willpower for the day generates cool effects. Likewise, the Warlock's casting method has Favor being spent by both invocations and Pact powers.
It would not be a simple matter to add these to the Wizard--they'd need all kinds of additional abilities made for them that it'd be crazy. You're practically asking for 9 complete classes here (16 if you want to include the Cleric--25 if you include the future Druid and they cast differently, etc.). That's too much to reasonably ask them to do.
I think, instead, they are more likely to accept adding some text to the end of each class's description on how to refluff them into the other classes.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 18, 2012 - 9:41AM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
Getting back to the original point of the thread, that DDN has too much baked in flavor, I am scratching my head trying to figure out what makes the flavor any more baked in than it was in 4e.
The DDN Warlock's weapons, armor, and hp are about the same as they are in 4e. Both choose a pact and get special abilities related to that pact. DDN invocations are about the same flavor as 4e Warlock spells.
Setting the whole vancian/non-vancian casting issue to the side, what makes DDN have more baked in flavor than 4e?
|
|
|
