Community

Problem with an AEDU model caster for basic is that it would probably have to be in addition to the Wizard as Wizards are such an integral core piece of D&D that everyone expects to always be there. This means we still need to consider how the basic wizard will play as it almost certainly will be included. Since basic characters do not differ mechanically from other editions, the only way to simplify is to make and reduce choices for players. The best way to do this with a vancian caster is to choose his spells, or use a much smaller spell list. I'm more on the side of the second as it allows for some variety while still removing overly confusing or complicated spells and making the overall choices more straightforward and simple. You could even go as far as to choose the level of spell the character takes at each level, or give a specific set of options at each level, maybe even a binary choice so second level you'd choose between say Burning Hands or Thunderwave. This would mean players would be choosing from a much smaller pool each level while still being mechanically consistent and having some choice as to what spells they have.

The wizard resouce management really isn't that complicated, it's far from unlearnable for a new player. It's simple enough to pick up if explained well (currently not in the plytest). The real complexity comes more in how to DM and rule certain spells that are vague or open ended. And I just said AEDU, really it goes for any non-wizard caster. The Wizard is just a staple of D&D and not having it in basic would be almost offensive to many fans. So This is why I support a wizard with only simple spells included, possibly only certain spell choices each level, as well as a non-vancian caster in Basic. I really do beleive we need a non-vancian caster in Basic, but having a version without Wizard, I'm not so fond of that.

Most players I've met have had no real problem udnerstanding the basic concepts of spellslot, spellbooks, and spell preperation, as long as they were explained properly. So long as next keeps those three concepts simple enough then there is no need to simplify the vancian caster for basic. You could get rid of rituals though, as rituals aren't really needed. This would mean characters could still be ported between basic and standard just ritual versions of a spell would only be usable in standard.

Anyways so long as we keep the ide of spellslots, spellbooks, and spell preperation simple enough these concepts can be learned fairly quickly by new players. So then on top of that the spell choices could be reduced and only include fairly straigh-forward spells (aka no Trap The Soul, Wish, etc.). Doing these two things should allow a new player to pick up a wizard, perhaps not a child, or someone who get's easily confused, but the average player could. Most of the Wizard is to hard comes from the vast amount of options available as well the absolute versaility of the various spells and huge degrees to which wizard bends, uses, and test the system.

That said, for sake of simplicity, there needs to be a non-vancian option for csting included in basic. Not everyone who wants to run a caster will want to deal with the amount of resource management involved in vancian. Both options need to be included imo.

MM already answered this in his L&L article.

Alternate Magic systems will be available with an advanced module.

Final Fantasy 1 style spell slots with a a variable prepared list taken from a larger known/available list which is derived (in different ways for different classes) from a larger class list is the Standard system. With Rituals danglign off to the side, not quite spell slots, yet not available to anyone without spell slots.

This is part of why I've accepted that I'm not the target audience for the Basic or Standard versions of the upcoming game... In fact, I would not be surprised if the "one D&D to rule them all" was only going to show up in the Advanced modules. Fire and Forget is a pidgeonhole. The pseudo-spell-point system of spellslot prep vs spellslot castable may have a little more flexibility, but it dumps out the actual fire and forget part... however, this horse is dead. If you were hoping it was going to take you somewhere else, I'm sad to say, it seems it simply isn't so. 

The game may yet be very good at what it does, but, as with all entertainment, one must ask themselves if it is what it does is what they want. 

TLDR: Don't get mad, it's just a game, and it is highly unlikely anyone will force you to buy or play it.


 

Feb 6, 2013 -- 5:51AM, justmike1976 wrote:

and its not a final fantasy 1 version of magic as it came out in 1987, thats 8 years after the adnd launch

Final Fantasy 1
You have spells arranged by level.
This level is related to but not the same as the level of the caster.
You have a limited number of slots of each level to fill with your spells.
You then have limited number of castings of spells of any particular level, you may use these castings for any of the spells which occupy that spell level.


AD&D
You have spells arranged by level.
This level is related to but not the same as the level of the caster.
You have a limited number of slots of each level to fill with your spells.
When you cast a spell, it is erased from your memory and may not be cast again until you re-prepare it, unless you prepared it in multiple slots.

Which of these is DDN?