|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 3:49PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2012
|
Instead of regurgiating the last 40 years of "spell schools", "spells", and "spell levels" wipe the slate clean and start new.
It is afterall supposed to be a new edition. Yes?
Have new "schools" where each has it's own spell list, rituals, implements, etc. Do not have "spell levels", just have spells, and have the spells scalable, to cut down on the number needed. Want your spell to have a greater effect, put it in a higher vancian slot, use more mana points, etc.
I like this.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 3:50PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2012
|
So, given that those of us who aren't edition warring (seriously, it's STILL EDITION WARRING if you complain about an edition by negatively comparing it to your favorite without explaining how it can be postively changed) agree that there were issues with 4th AND 3.X (and previous editions) in terms of similarity between classes, let's move on.
How can Next DEAL with these similarities?
Personally, in the case of caster classes, I propose that we implement totally modular casting systems.
A Vancian, Spell Point and AEDU system, totally independent from class.
Each class can have baked in elements (spellbooks for Wizards, bloodlines for Sorcerers, pacts for Warlocks) which would have their own feat and option support.
But each class would have an "insert power source here" gap into which Vancian, Spell Point, AEDU (and potentially other) systems are inserted.
These power systems would be totally free from baked in elements, but would have their own feat and option support, this means that NO MORE feats and options need be written than for a Vancian only Wizard, Spell Point only Sorcerer and AEDU only Warlock, but totally opens up the options for everyone.
This allows individual DMs and Players to tailor the classes to suit them WITHOUT ADDITIONAL DESIGN demands on Wizards.
Surely, this answers the needs of both "sides" in this debate and offers an opportunity for everyone to get what they want...
Without Wizards having to do any additional writing.
And I like this even more. Maybe combine the two ideas? Let players and DMs customize from a modular system. And then do the same thing for the other classes. In fact, get rid of classes altogether and use this modular system for combat, spells and skills.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 3:58PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
In 3.X Warlocks were arcane in name only and shared nothing with Wizards or Sorcerers. Sorcerers were clearly alternate arcane casters. In 4E Sorcerers and Warlocks were arcane in name only and shared nothing with Wizards.
Go ahead and keep the word "arcane", but separate the spells of the three classes. There is plenty of prior edition precedent for it, and quite frankly I feel it is lazy and bad game design not to separate them.
You missed the point of my post. Even if it was in name only, they were arcane and we can't throw anything out because that's upset those that want all the old editions traditional things.
IMO, I'd make one general list for the arcane classes and then give a smaller limited list of class unique spells for each class. It cuts down on the bloat and the issue of trying to make three different whole list without overlap. I don't think we can get truely different list for every caster class.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 3:59PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2009
|
I vote for unique spell lists. If they both need fireball are they really different enough?
I need to look again at the 4e sorc, but if all of those were unique... they have a lot of stuff they can pull from.
They should be mechanically different- its a huge aspect of what makes them different classes.
If not its just a variant wizard (like it was in 3e)
Honestly I realy like the 3 options presented for classes- vancian wizard, spell per day sorc, encounter warlock-
but I'd like to see more options, and ways to adjust them.
Can the warlock be made into a vancian class by adjusting his invocations into "spell" power level? and losing some dice off his main blast? If so you've got tons to work with and people can really customize how they want.
I think we need the ability to customize classes- not from a min max perspective (as i hate that) but from a "this is how i see my character" perspective.
Already the DM has the ability to change a lot about the game- players need that power too for their own characters.
DnD isn't suposed to be a game that has to answer questions with "no you can't" the process shouldn't be overly complex either. (add a die here, lose a die here- etc should be enough)
My goal is to see a system that presents 4-6 major casting classes and ways of customizing them so they can fluidly move between eachother- while keeping unique spells/invocations etc
Then hopefully we can start seeing other classes modeled off of them. I personally don't get Vancian for magic, but it works fantastically in my mind for a gadget-engineer. You get 1 blast with your item and then you have to repair it? Perfect imo. A few gadgets that work at-will and i think it's good. Maybe trade out the spellbook for something similar...
Anyway you get the idea. I hope they do end up letting us see the nuts and bolts so we can make things like that happen. I hate that if I want a setting that supports steampunk I feel like I have to play a non-dnd game. =/
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 4:01PM
#35
|
|
|
In 3.X Warlocks were arcane in name only and shared nothing with Wizards or Sorcerers. Sorcerers were clearly alternate arcane casters. In 4E Sorcerers and Warlocks were arcane in name only and shared nothing with Wizards.
Go ahead and keep the word "arcane", but separate the spells of the three classes. There is plenty of prior edition precedent for it, and quite frankly I feel it is lazy and bad game design not to separate them.
You missed the point of my post. Even if it was in name only, they were arcane and we can't throw anything out because that's upset those that want all the old editions traditional things.
IMO, I'd make one general list for the arcane classes and then give a smaller limited list of class unique spells for each class. It cuts down on the bloat and the issue of trying to make three different whole list without overlap.
I and I think others would argue that "bloat" of three different lists is what is needed. It was in 4E, and 2/3rds of it was in 3.X. We don't have any other editions with both Sorcerers and Warlocks for comparison. Homogenizing them goes against precedent.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 4:35PM
#36
|
|
|
There need not be "bloat".
You can just tag spells in the spell lists with individual classes.
The default would be that all classes can access all spells, but you can "turn on" the "limited spells by class" module and then cut away all the ones not tagged to a specific class.
Then everyone gets what they want, again without any extra effort from Wizards.
If we want Wizards to pick up on these ideas we need to make sure that they are practical!
Just like my modular caster system.
No need for bloat, just a hard wall between baked in class mechanics and casting system.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 5:11PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
I and I think others would argue that "bloat" of three different lists is what is needed. It was in 4E, and 2/3rds of it was in 3.X. We don't have any other editions with both Sorcerers and Warlocks for comparison. Homogenizing them goes against precedent.
So every caster need it's own list? Well you have a list for every arcane class then a list for every divine class, then you have a list psionic class, then you have a list for every primal class... (who knows what we'll end up with) So lets say we end up with 15 spell casting classes and none of those have overlap? I don't see any way to avoid bloat if every caster gets it's own 100% unique list.
Sorry, I don't see why we can't have common elements shared between classes, if for no other reason than to get rid of overlap.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 5:19PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
Personally, in the case of caster classes, I propose that we implement totally modular casting systems.
Can't please everyone... I wouldn't like that at all. For one I think it would be too complicated, for another I like having flavor and mechanics tied together, I think it makes for a better game.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 5:28PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Personally, in the case of caster classes, I propose that we implement totally modular casting systems.
Can't please everyone... I wouldn't like that at all. For one I think it would be too complicated, for another I like having flavor and mechanics tied together, I think it makes for a better game.
Yep, can't please everone because I wouldn't like it at all is it's not a totally modular casting systems. I also am not a fan of mixing flavor and mechanics. I think they should be as FAR apart as possible. I'd rather have a complicated game over one that we aren't all going to like.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 5:33PM
#40
|
|
|
Could you two please explain how integrated flavour with casting systems is an advantage?
I'd like to understand so that I can modify my suggestion as much as possible to include everyone's preferences.
Because it'd be unfortunate to simply assume we can't find a way to agree without at least talking about what is causing the issue and attempting to find common ground.
|
|
|
