Also I don't think that roleplaying is all about chatting 7 hours about the weather, and I don't think that roleplaying = social interaction. Basically I think that all this games shares what is necessary to be an RPG. But, I think that some video games that are currently not considered RPGs are RPGs, such as Assassins' Creed or Red Dead Redemption or GTA. In that point or the video-game industry still thinks that RPGs must have things like mages or spells, or there is some marketing going on (after all, classifying an game in one genre or another can have impacts in the sales, target public and that stuff).
There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different. I've long advocated supporting both the Points of Light setting and settings full of magic items. I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes. First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters. Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters? Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management. Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun. Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system. Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
I prefer the DM to have total control over how raise deads/ressurections/etc work. It doesn't really matter how the spell is written currently, it's how you wish to implement it. I also feel it's fair to warn the players before their first game how you will treat these spells.
In my games, I have Raises available but expensive. It's going to cost some coin for the components. I like to have everything story driven, however. If you lose the fight against the orcs because of bad luck/bad dice/slight miscalculations/good idea that didn't work/etc., then instead of killing you immediately they might take you captive with sinister intentions. If you play your cards right, they just might get your chance to escape.
Unless they made just obviously bad choices, I don't want to permanently destroy that character. But I do want them to stay on their toes. So far, it's worked and let to some great stories.
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll!
FWIW I treat the variety of raise dead spells as gate spells which open a portal into the Land of the Dead where the party may then enter to retrieve the lost soul and bring them back to its body. This offers opportunities in side quests, as the soul is invariably held in some region of the Spirit Realm which is designed around them, meaning that they face that characters worse fears, vulnerabilities, faults, or hubris they carried with them in life. The party can choose whether such an excursion is worth the risk, as some of them may perish in the process. Should they succeed, the spirit and body are reunited, and a recovery period is endured as the character returns to full health. I treat this recovery period as the character having only his bloodied HP total as max, which rejuvenates at a rate of 25% per game session (i.e. bloodied HP total upon their return, 75% of max the next session, 100% of max at some point during the following).
FWIW I treat the variety of raise dead spells as gate spells which open a portal into the Land of the Dead where the party may then enter to retrieve the lost soul and bring them back to its body. This offers opportunities in side quests, as the soul is invariably held in some region of the Spirit Realm which is designed around them, meaning that they face that characters worse fears, vulnerabilities, faults, or hubris they carried with them in life. The party can choose whether such an excursion is worth the risk, as some of them may perish in the process. Should they succeed, the spirit and body are reunited, and a recovery period is endured as the character returns to full health. I treat this recovery period as the character having only his bloodied HP total as max, which rejuvenates at a rate of 25% per game session (i.e. bloodied HP total upon their return, 75% of max the next session, 100% of max at some point during the following).
To keep the dead character player active allow him to be battling to save himself against those otherworld adversaries who manifest his aspects... don't emphasize the part of the quest where they are apart because that is harder to game he might even get to use the famous "What took you so long" quip when they meet up.
The process and quest could be significant enough to garner a fair amount of experience points doubly fun if you have it be a level up. Heros of legend who come back are often greater because of it.
Excellent insight, I do indeed allow the dead character a participatory role in the quest. The party obviously has a finite amount of time in which to choose on embarking on such a quest, which is usually during or immediately after the session in which they died. I have, in the past, actually allowed the "dead" player to run this session (that I have written), having immense fun watching them embellish the "downsides" of their character's personality as they assail the rescuing party. It's impressive to see just how willing a player is to punish their own party if the context is their own fantasy.
Excellent insight, I do indeed allow the dead character a participatory role in the quest. The party obviously has a finite amount of time in which to choose on embarking on such a quest, which is usually during or immediately after the session in which they died. I have, in the past, actually allowed the "dead" player to run this session (that I have written), having immense fun watching them embellish the "downsides" of their character's personality as they assail the rescuing party. It's impressive to see just how willing a player is to punish their own party if the context is their own fantasy.
Cool ... my way has most of the fighting to get out... so the party is able to operate as a party.. but the players own insight int to his inner spiritual landscape is pretty tempting awesome
