Community

Jan 10, 2013 -- 3:06AM, Zardnaar wrote:

 More or less agree I just dont think they will but 2 wizards in the core rules.

They don't have to. They can have swappable casting systems. Here's how it would look in the book:

Vancian Wizard Spells Per Day
Wizard                        -Spell Slots per Spell Level-
Level     1     2     3     4    5    6    7    8    9
1           2
2           3
3           4     2
4           4     3
5           4     3    2
6           4     3    3
...etc...etc...

AEDU Wizard Spells Per Day
Wizard   Spells
Level     Per Day
1           2 at-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily
2           1 utility
3           1 encounter
4           -
5           1 daily
6           1 utility
...etc...etc...

They could literally put these charts next to each other on the same page instead of putting a picture next to it.

The other alternative is to format the spells so that anyone can choose how they want to memorize them, and invdividual DMs could ban the ones they don't want. Here is an example:

Blink
3rd-­level transmutation
You blink deep into the Ethereal plane coming back in time to take action.
Requirement: You must be on a plane other than the Ethereal Plane to cast this spell.
Effect: You vanish from your current plane of existence and appear deep in the Ethereal Plane. At the start of your next turn, you return in a space of your choice that is within 10 feet of the space where you vanished. Unless you have magic that can reach across planes, you can affect and be affected only by things on the Ethereal Plane while you are absent.
At-will: You return at the start of your next turn and the spell ends.
Encounter: As At-will except after the first round roll 1d20 and on a roll of 11 or higher the spell repeats, on a roll of 10 or less the spell ends.
Daily: As Encounter, except the spell repeats until 1 minute is up, on a roll of 10 or less the spell doesn't blink the caster.

I like this the best as it allows the most customizability. Sure an at-will Wizard will have many many choices, but remember each of these choices is about 75% as powerful as other classes attacks. So they will have variety, but be weak in their individual actions. An encounter Wizard would have equal attacks to a Fighter, but only be able to choose one per round so they would be equal to the Fighter because they would have to choose a different spell each round. Some kind of simple rule to prevent the same spell from being memorized multiple times as encounter powers might be needed, or not. If they memorized as daily, you would simply have a standard vancian Wizard. If you mixed them up you would get an AEDU caster with some dailies, some encounters, and some at-wills. The at-wills wouldn't have to scale either because you could memorize any level spell as an at-will...

Jan 10, 2013 -- 3:27AM, Zardnaar wrote:

 The core lasses will be there but I don't realy see them doing 14 classes+ varients for each one and I don't see them making vairents for some and not others. That and varient classes tend to go in splats. The classes will be there, whether or not its your preferred type IDK.

 If they can't include core classe varients thats what I am meaning for some spellcasters can be vancian other do not have to be. If it is mixed I think these classes would be the best candidates for a 4th ed legacy.

Fighter
Rogue
Warlord
Warlock
Sorcerer

thats 5/14 and each edition could get kind of 25% of the classes and I was thinking 1st and 2nd are close enough for a 5/5/5 ratio. ATM the Monk and Cleric resemble the 3.5 classes atm, wizzie is pre 3rd ed and the current fighter and rogue seems influenced by 4th but they are kind of new.

Strangely they have almost done it with the Fighter and the Rogue. You can play a defender Fighter or a striker Fighter. You can play an assassin Rogue, a burglar Rogue, a thief Rogue, or a thug Rogue. So saying they can't do it is not true...

Jan 10, 2013 -- 3:46AM, Zardnaar wrote:

wouldn't eat up much space for that part. 4th ed wizard had 15 pages of powers though. TO get that page count down the wizard would be a shadow of the 4th ed one.

That's why I suggest the last option. I'd rather they just let the casters and DMs pick how the spell is memorized. Since a Wizard can only cast one spell per round and a spell takes an action, there won't be anything overpowered and really they might feel more like a Wizard because they have a variety of choices, but are no more powerful from round to round...

Jan 10, 2013 -- 3:06AM, Zardnaar wrote:

 More or less agree I just dont think they will but 2 wizards in the core rules.

They won't have any Wizard in the Core Rules,

Not a Vancian Wizard and not a Non-Vancian Wizard.

Each and every single class is an optional module which you can include in or exclude from your game.

There are no core classes.

Which is the evolution from "everything is core" which we are seeing in Next.

With only the very basic mechanics and systems in the core we get a similar effect, "nothing is core" being pretty similar to "everything is core" when you are sitting at the table.  What is played is up to the individual DM and their campaign.

I just hope that the careful monitoring and involvement of the design team in supplimentary material which made "everything is core" work so well is continued into Next.

My fear is that the "well, it's not core" attitude will result in another abomination. 

Jan 9, 2013 -- 4:19PM, Mand12 wrote:

Jan 9, 2013 -- 2:50PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Do you acknowledge that perfect balance is impossible, and affirm that you should always strive for the best balance possible?  Or do you use the truism to CYA, and dismiss any balance problems?

What you quoted, is both actually:

"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....

Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."

The CYA is the first two sentences.  But that last sentence, about it leading to a boring game, is indeed about striving for the best balance possible.

It's really not.  If perfect balance is impossible /and/ perfect balance is boring, then there's no danger of a game being boring because it's "too balanced," because it can't reach that perfectly-boring state.  It's an excuse to give up on delivering balance at all.  

Of course, there's no telling what an unachievable state might be like.  Perfect balance might make for an endlessly engrossing and enjoyable game or a boring one.  There's no perfectly balanced game to test.

Perfect balance isn't possible, it's true, but what that really means is that any game, no matter how well-done, might be improved upon.  Far be it from me to put a hopeful spin on anything, of course...

 With "best" meaning something other than "perfect."

Sure.  Perfection is impossible, so you strive to do the best you can.  That doesn't mean you have to back off from improving things for fear that they'll be 'too good.'