|
1 year ago ::
Mar 24, 2012 - 7:57PM
#91
|
|
|
I've removed content from this thread because Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You're welcome to disagree but please do so in a respectful way! If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the "Report Post" button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 24, 2012 - 7:59PM
#92
|
|
|
Spellcasters should be reined in the easy way.
Don't make them stupidly overpowered in the first place.
It's not rocket science. You don't have to mess with arbitrary hosing mechanics to limit their broken power if you don't give them broken power in the first place.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 24, 2012 - 8:01PM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
But you weren't talking about 4e. You were saying people wanted wizards to be bland and flavourless.
I am saying that the options acceptable for a certain camp on these boards would make the game bland and flavorless for me. Thats #1.
Options #2 is that another set of options acceptable to another camp on these boards (definitely overlapping camp #1) would make the game a cartoon with little versimilitude for me.
I see these two camps as pretty strong forces on these boards. So I despair of finding a game that I will want to play and that they will also want to play.
You've done this before Kingreaper. If you don't understand or you think my statement is too generalized then ask a question. Or respond and if I perceive your response is interpreting what I said incorrectly then i will explain myself further.
Here is how your response sounds to me -- suppose someone said "I think 4e plays like WOW"
and someone else would respond - "No Way. You are lying. WOW requires a computer and a monitor and you press buttons and move your mouse. Retract! Retract!"
I think the second person is being silly if you ask me. Of course the game of 4e does not play using a computer. The correct way to read that sentence though is to understand what he is getting at or to ask. I would probably initially interpret it to me that there is so little DM judgment and so few hard magic powers that the game could easily be computerized. Now you might disagree and want to give a rebuttal but that would be a reasonable interpretation. Trying to be a stickler though and harp on the computer and mouse and monitor just makes a person sound silly.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 24, 2012 - 8:05PM
#94
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
yes, because having the wizard shore up all the game time by taking all the session looking for several pinches of sand, ground mica, guano, sulphur, a blade so he can get silver shavings off the odd coins he's got lying around, a small porcelain gnome statue, and whatnot makes for a much better session.
the other problem is... then what?
what happens when the wizard does have all that stuff on hand? how do you "reign" him in then?
None of that takes any longer than looting any other room or monster.
And the DM controls what spell components he has access to, just like magic items so it's no longer a matter of player picking spells that can be troublesome, or not falling back on "over powered" spells at every opportunity to preserve resources. Therefore people can stop complaining about spell casters "stealing" the rogues "time to shine" by casting knock at every locked obstacle. The spellcaster is forced to conserve resources so that spell can be cast after the rogue has had his turn at bat.
And they should bring back casting times. Reducing spells to swift, standard, or full round actions made spells to easy to get off.
And then the responsability is all on the shoulders of the DM, wich is NOT a solution. In fact, it actually worsen the situation...
Generally speaking, focusing on components is not a good idea. It's too swingy by nature, it requires a lot of bookkepping for only one character and is not really that fun. It's not a surprise that the components are almost never an issue with other games (and the majority of fiction).
Now, maybe for another kind of game it could actually work, but for a D&D style game... Nah, it's not going to solve anything...
Not to mention, as I pointed out above, if you balance the really good spells with really rare components, it means when the Wizard decides "Hey, I want to cats this spell. I need X", then the plot has to grind to a halt and the party has to go off and do something else.
aka, it would be another example of the plot being entirely dependant on what the Wizard wants to do.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 24, 2012 - 8:15PM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
aka, it would be another example of the plot being entirely dependant on what the Wizard wants to do.
Limits and compensatory reward are well ummm limited in modern rpgs because
- Its well established that there are allmost always workarounds that quit being clever way fast,
- a limit is another way of baking in show time in effect they become plot power
Some games like Fate for instance dont differentiate having a limit or an advantage.... when being known to be the best swordsman in all of france forces you in to pointless duels which prevent you from getting to your meeting with the king its a disadvantage and when manage to use it intimidate somebody or boost the impact of a given attack in a proof
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 24, 2012 - 8:21PM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
This is in fact a good suggestion. If the downsides were strengthened sufficiently would you be ok with wizards having hard magic and fighters not?
What do you want from "hard magic"?
Abilities that just work, no matter what? (ie. a spell called Sneak, which means no-one will notice you no matter what)
Abilities that perform a useful purpose, and make it very hard to fail, but don't necessarily achieve the goal on their own? (ie. a spell called Sneakyness, which makes you silent, invisible, scentless etc., meaning that people can only notice you with amazing perception: by noticing your effects on things around you)
Abilities that allow the impossible? (ie. a spell called invisibility. Makes you invisible, which is impossible by mundane means, but won't help much against things that smell, sense electrical impulses, or can hear you)
Thinks I would like...
1. Invisibility - gives you a real good sneak bonus and allows hiding in bright light. Standard to sustain.
2. Fly - maybe higher level and 3e but still there. Maybe require a standard action to sustain it + 10 minutes (1 encounter)
3. Knock - a good bonus to open locks and castable on someone else not just you.
4. Summoning - I'd never allow more than one summoned creature at a time and generally just for a battle.
5. Teleport/Dimension Door/etc... - Nerfed rangewise but still there.
6. Walls - Fire, Stone, (if force existed then it should be higher level).
7. Silence - aides sneaking with a bonus where sound would matter. Makes spells harder to cast due to lack of verbal ability. I'd allow spells just give the a minus to cast.
8. Dispel Magic
9. Anti-magic - I'd make it a contest of casters and not automatic
10. Mage Armor - I'd make it last as long as you spent a standard action to sustain it + 10 minutes (1 encounter).
11. Feather Fall
12. Jump - low level fly maybe
13. Levitation - I'd allow it to be used on others (allies) and on other things.
14. Telekinesis
15. ESP/Telepathy
16. Scrying - very limited range. Powerful wizards can see throughout a large city.
17. Disentegrate - here for the rock removal aspects and not the combat aspects.
18. Passwall - nerfed to a single wall 20 feet long by 10 feet deep by 10 feet wide.
19. True Strike - only on someone else and attack must occur before wizards next turn.
20. Divinations in general - make them like gather information rolls except using arcana.
21. Enchant - add a damage subtype to a weapon for 10 minutes (1 encounter)
22. Web - not sure I have a problem with this one in 4e.
23 Resist X - 1 round duration at lower levels. Maybe 10 minutes (1 encounter) at higher. (X is like Fire)
Things I would prefer not...
1. Stat boosts
2. Item boosts
3. Absolute Protections
4. Stoneskin (basically anything that negates the wizards core vulnerabilities)
5. Mirror Image (ditto)
This above is for the wizard. Cleric is another matter for another day.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 25, 2012 - 2:38AM
#97
|
|
|
I'm moving the discussion of whether or not statements should be taken to mean what the words mean to PMs, because it's cluttering things up.
Thinks I would like...
The only one of those I have a problem with is ESP. And that's just 'cause I think we need to leave room for the Psion.
Invisibility is fine to me, because it exists in the world, people will be aware of its existence, and thus may notice your presence, if you're not sneaky enough. Your version of knock is quite reasonable, etc. All seems fine to me.
EDIT: Sorry, I missed Mage Armour. I do not like Mage Armour. The low AC is always given as a wizard drawback; correct?
Drawbacks shouldn't be so easy to avoid.
Although, the fact it's Sus Standard does mean you can't stack it with any other Sus Standard effects, and it is limited to one fight even at high levels (that was the silliest thing about it, it was always on if you wanted it to be)
So, actually, it's not too bad. As long as the scaling is something like "You and one ally, you and two allies" etc. rather than making it more and more like the Wizard is wearing Armour++, that comes with no penalties, and protects against ghosts.
And mage armour is kinda iconic, so I suppose I'll have to live with it in some form or other.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 25, 2012 - 4:59AM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Thinks I would like...
1. Invisibility - gives you a real good sneak bonus and allows hiding in bright light. Standard to sustain.
This seems a good execution. Higher level greater invisibility should last less but be free to sustain: higher level threats won't have many troubles detecting you through other means, and a rogue will be as invisible as you - nay, better because of all-around stealthiness - when it comes to lower level threats. I like this.
2. Fly - maybe higher level and 3e but still there. Maybe require a standard action to sustain it + 10 minutes (1 encounter)
Two versions. Both higher level. Fly freely as a combat spell, and fly for long times as a non-combat spell (longer casting time, standard to sustain; not longer casting time and that's it because it leads to "cast it in the morning" spell lists).
However, you should give every class / character concept a way to interact with flying enemies at a certain levels. At least the option (if you want to ignore all relevant options, your funeral). Having no way to reliably hit and damage a flying creature sucks when there's people flying around every day.
3. Knock - a good bonus to open locks and castable on someone else not just you.
Weaken the target lock. Best of both worlds.
4. Summoning - I'd never allow more than one summoned creature at a time and generally just for a battle.
Agreed. 4E summoning is really good in my opinion and if you give summoned creatures the kind of powers you want wizards to have (i.e. "more than just damage + effect") then I bet you'd be good with it too.
5. Teleport/Dimension Door/etc... - Nerfed rangewise but still there.
I like 4E execution of these a lot. If you are not familiar, I'll give a quick rundown, it's really cool and I think you'd like it too.
6. Walls - Fire, Stone, (if force existed then it should be higher level).
Agreed. 4E execution of these is cool. They are not I win buttons but that's only because the whole system changed. Losing a turn in 3.5 meant you're dead, losing a turn to break through a wall in 4E means... you lost a turn. Not nice, I've done ugly things with monsters casting walls (oh sorry, cleric, no line of sight for you healing word...) but still manageable. If the system is solid, walls can be in.
7. Silence - aides sneaking with a bonus where sound would matter. Makes spells harder to cast due to lack of verbal ability. I'd allow spells just give the a minus to cast.
Agreed. This would be good for me too. Solid magic debuff (not annihilation), and solid stealth buff (not overshadowing). Also, I think this could be bard only.
8. Dispel Magic
Agreed. Note 4E has it too, although it's a bit DM-reliant (the spell itself just ends zones. I've always used it as an end magical effect out of combat, but YMMV).
9. Anti-magic - I'd make it a contest of casters and not automatic
No, I hate this. Dead magic zones, I get it (and make it a contest, sure). AMF? Not as much. It's just a big screw you casters button. 
10. Mage Armor - I'd make it last as long as you spent a standard action to sustain it + 10 minutes (1 encounter).
I'd give it as a class feature. Kind of a math fix, but flavorful and dispellable.
11. Feather Fall
Why not? I'd make it an encounter or at-will though.
12. Jump - low level fly maybe
There's a few creative jump-like powers in 4E I love in a couple different classes.
13. Levitation - I'd allow it to be used on others (allies) and on other things.
Low level vertical only fly needing concentration. I'm good.
14. Telekinesis
Why not?
15. ESP/Telepathy
As rituals it is in 4E too. I love Telepathic Bond for interplanar troop coordination. As in-combat spells... I can see it being used but it's hardly broken so why not?
16. Scrying - very limited range. Powerful wizards can see throughout a large city.
Limited range is cool. Leave crystal balls that enhance it as plot tools powerful magic items.
17. Disentegrate - here for the rock removal aspects and not the combat aspects.
Agreed. I've always ruled it the same way in 4E as in 3.5, but it'd be better to have it on paper. As long as it isn't an auto-kill for combat.
18. Passwall - nerfed to a single wall 20 feet long by 10 feet deep by 10 feet wide.
As a ritual, I can see this being very useful. As a combat spell I don't really get it, but why not? Support creativity as long as it doesn't become unfun brokenness.
19. True Strike - only on someone else and attack must occur before wizards next turn.
Seems good, but better for a cleric.
20. Divinations in general - make them like gather information rolls except using arcana.
I'd make them different in execution, but comparable in power. High level rogues should be able to sneak into Pelor's mansion and overhear a couple Solars talking about stuff. Or get a peek to Boccob's library.
21. Enchant - add a damage subtype to a weapon for 10 minutes (1 encounter)
Why not?
22. Web - not sure I have a problem with this one in 4e.
I like 4E version more than 3.5. I hate it when I'm playing a wizard and I don't have any chance of getting out of there because I don't have one of the two required ways to get out. Also, boring and limits creative descriptions.
23 Resist X - 1 round duration at lower levels. Maybe 10 minutes (1 encounter) at higher. (X is like Fire)
This is good. I'm all for short-lasting versatile buffs.
Also note: when I say "as a ritual" I refer to the fact that you should be able to cast it from your spellbook with some kind of cost and it shouldn't interfere with combat abilities, not that it should be something that is impossible to do in combat. Two versions of the spell, perhaps, or rules for casting all spells as rituals.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 25, 2012 - 6:17AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2011
|
"you can cast whatever spell you want, as long as it's on this list cause i'm only letting you find three pinches of sand, not any more."
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 25, 2012 - 9:35AM
#100
|
|
|
yes, because having the wizard shore up all the game time by taking all the session looking for several pinches of sand, ground mica, guano, sulphur, a blade so he can get silver shavings off the odd coins he's got lying around, a small porcelain gnome statue, and whatnot makes for a much better session.
the other problem is... then what?
what happens when the wizard does have all that stuff on hand? how do you "reign" him in then?
None of that takes any longer than looting any other room or monster.
And the DM controls what spell components he has access to, just like magic items so it's no longer a matter of player picking spells that can be troublesome, or not falling back on "over powered" spells at every opportunity to preserve resources. Therefore people can stop complaining about spell casters "stealing" the rogues "time to shine" by casting knock at every locked obstacle. The spellcaster is forced to conserve resources so that spell can be cast after the rogue has had his turn at bat.
And they should bring back casting times. Reducing spells to swift, standard, or full round actions made spells to easy to get off.
You're not making sense IMHO.
1st you say limit the wizard by what components he can get. OK, but then someone points out that this just makes the game about getting the wizard his components. So then you say "well, just make that easy and simple". So now what sort of limitation is it if it is easy and simple? If SOME of them, presumably the ones to do the really useful magic, are rare and hard to get, then once again the game is about getting the wizard his rare hard to find components. If that is NOT the case then the limitation is meaningless.
Furthermore if the idea is to just restrict the wizard to casting this or that highly useful spell 'now and then', well, isn't that was 4e already did with AEDU? It even HAS components for the really useful utility uses of magic (rituals).
The problem here is nobody can really explain why there's a need to put limiters on wizards that are not just plain straightforward no-nonsense limiters on how often spells are used and how powerful they are. It is that simple IMHO. The only reason to allow exceedingly powerful spells is so that the wizard will get to use them, at which point naturally he has to be able to overcome the other limiters that stop him from using them, whatever those are. Once he's done that, then he's just OVERPOWERED. No such system can ever produce satisfactory results by its very nature. It doesn't matter how you try to slice it and dice it. No such solution will ever really work. At best you will get some temporary unstable marginal balance that breaks as soon as the baseline assumptions under which it was constructed are deviated from much at all.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
