Still doesn't stop the fact that instantaneous temeratues needed to melt steel would also instantly kill any living creature (no save)...
1st Edition: A missile which springs from the finger of the Magic-User. It explodes with a burst radius of 2" (slightly larger than specified in CHAINMAIL). In a confined space the Fire Ball will generally conform to the shape of the space (elongate or whatever). The damage caused by the missile will be in proportion to the level of its user. A 6th level Magic-User throws a 6-die missile, a 7th a 7-die missile, and so on.
2nd Edition: A fireball is an explosive burst of flame, which detonates with a low roar and delivers damage proportional to the level of the wizard who cast it--1d6 points of damage for each level of experience of the spellcaster (up to a maximum of 10d6). The burst of the fireball creates little pressure and generally conforms to the shape of the area in which it occurs. The fireball fills an area equal to its normal spherical volume (roughly 33,000 cubic feet--thirty-three 10-foot × 10-foot × 10-foot cubes). Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball melts soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Exposed items require saving throws vs. magical fire to determine if they are affected, but items in the possession of a creature that rolls a successful saving throw are unaffected by the fireball.
3rd Edition: The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
4th Edition: A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at your enemies and it explodes on impact.
Where is it obliterating steel? From what I see it has the potential to melt soft metals.
I was thinking item saves, but as I thought about it more the mere brittling of the steel would qualify as well. It was poor wording on my part, but at that point I figured that if they hadn't gotten the point (really? they're comparing the silliness of the burning temperature of fireball to what range of modifiers a fighter in light, medium, or heavy armor might need to jump up to a chandelier that could be 1 to 100 feet above them?), they weren't going to so I left it alone.
1st Edition: A missile which springs from the finger of the Magic-User. It explodes with a burst radius of 2" (slightly larger than specified in CHAINMAIL). In a confined space the Fire Ball will generally conform to the shape of the space (elongate
Still doesn't stop the fact that instantaneous temeratues needed to melt steel would also instantly kill any living creature (no save)...
1st Edition: A missile which springs from the finger of the Magic-User. It explodes with a burst radius of 2" (slightly larger than specified in CHAINMAIL). In a confined space the Fire Ball will generally conform to the shape of the space (elongate or whatever). The damage caused by the missile will be in proportion to the level of its user. A 6th level Magic-User throws a 6-die missile, a 7th a 7-die missile, and so on.
2nd Edition: A fireball is an explosive burst of flame, which detonates with a low roar and delivers damage proportional to the level of the wizard who cast it--1d6 points of damage for each level of experience of the spellcaster (up to a maximum of 10d6). The burst of the fireball creates little pressure and generally conforms to the shape of the area in which it occurs. The fireball fills an area equal to its normal spherical volume (roughly 33,000 cubic feet--thirty-three 10-foot × 10-foot × 10-foot cubes). Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball melts soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Exposed items require saving throws vs. magical fire to determine if they are affected, but items in the possession of a creature that rolls a successful saving throw are unaffected by the fireball.
3rd Edition: The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
4th Edition: A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at your enemies and it explodes on impact.
Where is it obliterating steel? From what I see it has the potential to melt soft metals.
well that's at most 1083 degrees C for copper. It's not as hot as napalm at 1250 degrees C, but more than a candle at 750 degrees C.
1st Edition: A missile which springs from the finger of the Magic-User. It explodes with a burst radius of 2" (slightly larger than specified in CHAINMAIL). In a confined space the Fire Ball will generally conform to the shape of the space (elongate
That's still 2000 degrees f for copper. 1760 for silver and 1945 for pure gold.
Even assuming one can destroy those metals at half those temperatures that means the fireball spell is creating temperatures that would do damage to creatures far in excess of the listed damages.
Even worse if I remember right 3.0 didn't have the no pressure line and did involve the 'chunky salsa effect'.
Other silly but amusing spells that aren't broken at their base use but get fun with people who have have a mathmatical bent... Lightning Bolt. Back when it bounced off of walls it was fun figuring out the perfect way to set it off to maximize the number of times it will hit an opponent while minimizing friendly fire. It was also amusing when there was an illusion of a T intercetion in a straight hallway. Caster fires a lightning bolt into a wall point blank and eats a dozen bounces... talk about chunky salsa.
That's still 2000 degrees f for copper. 1760 for silver and 1945 for pure gold.Even assuming one can destroy those metals at half those temperatures that means the fireball spell is creating temperatures that would do damage to creatures far in exces
That's still 2000 degrees f for copper. 1760 for silver and 1945 for pure gold.
Even assuming one can destroy those metals at half those temperatures that means the fireball spell is creating temperatures that would do damage to creatures far in excess of the listed damages.
Even worse if I remember right 3.0 didn't have the no pressure line and did involve the 'chunky salsa effect'.
Other silly but amusing spells that aren't broken at their base use but get fun with people who have have a mathmatical bent... Lightning Bolt. Back when it bounced off of walls it was fun figuring out the perfect way to set it off to maximize the number of times it will hit an opponent while minimizing friendly fire. It was also amusing when there was an illusion of a T intercetion in a straight hallway. Caster fires a lightning bolt into a wall point blank and eats a dozen bounces... talk about chunky salsa.
LOL yah, I've done the Lightning bolt thing more than once. Had a player one time backed into a corner (literally), everyone else is dead around him, all these monsters closing in and the room is juuuuuust small enough that a bolt would bounce from directly forward and kill him. He diagrams out this convoluted billiards-like shot from top corner to opposite bottom corner to rebound to...
Passed through the mob -6- times lol. I don't punish ingenuity, but the more outlandish an idea is, the heavier the mod. I told him Int -4 (the same I use on martial manuevers that are wayyyyyy out there) and he could hit the exact angle. He did. Something to the effect of 250+ damage, the table erupted in cheers. Fun was had by all.
LOL yah, I've done the Lightning bolt thing more than once. Had a player one time backed into a corner (literally), everyone else is dead around him, all these monsters closing in and the room is juuuuuust small enough that a bolt would bounce from
or maybe hit points involve you know minimising impact of fireball attacks so that you dont ever really get hit by them... Conan drops through the cracks in the floorboards so the raging blast is only felt as an after wave of heat .. a spark of which lights his furs before he swats it out...
You know D&D hit points that arent wounds actually help things.
or maybe hit points involve you know minimising impact of fireball attacks so that you dont ever really get hit by them... Conan drops through the cracks in the floorboards so the raging blast is only felt as an after wave of heat .. a spark of which
and the survey itself has made me feel even less hopeful. What I saw and what I experience in the playtest packet was a huge step backward in the progress that 4th edition made. It asked questions about spells for wizards and clerics which suggests to me that they are completely abandoning powers for fighters and other non-casting classes.
If we are supposed to be giving feedback on the playtest packet, what feedback can we give them about the fighter powers presented in the playtest?
Uh you mean "hit it" and "damage it on a miss"?
They ask questions about Wizards and Clerics, therefore Fighters must suck.
QED
If we are supposed to be giving feedback on the playtest packet, what feedback can we give them about the fighter powers presented in the playtest?[/quote]Uh you mean "hit it" and "damage it on a miss"?[/quote]They ask questions about Wizards and Cle
LOL yah, I've done the Lightning bolt thing more than once. Had a player one time backed into a corner (literally), everyone else is dead around him, all these monsters closing in and the room is juuuuuust small enough that a bolt would bounce from directly forward and kill him. He diagrams out this convoluted billiards-like shot from top corner to opposite bottom corner to rebound to...
Passed through the mob -6- times lol. I don't punish ingenuity, but the more outlandish an idea is, the heavier the mod. I told him Int -4 (the same I use on martial manuevers that are wayyyyyy out there) and he could hit the exact angle. He did. Something to the effect of 250+ damage, the table erupted in cheers. Fun was had by all.
And I don't have an issue with clever use of mechanics as persented. I mean, lets face it, most D&D players will not be more intelligent than their wizard. If the wizard knows his lightning bolt bounces off walls I would consider it bad roleplaying NOT to figure out how to bounce it effectively. Even if that just a matter of shooting it just behind the fighter at an angle so it misses him and bounce off and hits the thing he's beating on.
I do have an issue when one group (casters) has a massive library of effects that can be used in creative ways and another (non-casters) has basically nothing.
One rule we usually have is a "Bonus for being completely awesome" if you come up with a creative cinematic solution to a problem that requires a roll then you get a (small) bonus to that roll. You'll never get it for "I roll to hit the bad guy" but you might get it in the circumstance where you managed to finish off a huge magic immune baddy by luring him onto a narrow bridge and casting grease.
And I don't have an issue with clever use of mechanics as persented. I mean, lets face it, most D&D players will not be more intelligent than their wizard. If the wizard knows his lightning bolt bounces off walls I would consider it bad roleplaying
LOL yah, I've done the Lightning bolt thing more than once. Had a player one time backed into a corner (literally), everyone else is dead around him, all these monsters closing in and the room is juuuuuust small enough that a bolt would bounce from directly forward and kill him. He diagrams out this convoluted billiards-like shot from top corner to opposite bottom corner to rebound to...
Passed through the mob -6- times lol. I don't punish ingenuity, but the more outlandish an idea is, the heavier the mod. I told him Int -4 (the same I use on martial manuevers that are wayyyyyy out there) and he could hit the exact angle. He did. Something to the effect of 250+ damage, the table erupted in cheers. Fun was had by all.
And I don't have an issue with clever use of mechanics as persented. I mean, lets face it, most D&D players will not be more intelligent than their wizard. If the wizard knows his lightning bolt bounces off walls I would consider it bad roleplaying NOT to figure out how to bounce it effectively. Even if that just a matter of shooting it just behind the fighter at an angle so it misses him and bounce off and hits the thing he's beating on.
I do have an issue when one group (casters) has a massive library of effects that can be used in creative ways and another (non-casters) has basically nothing.
One rule we usually have is a "Bonus for being completely awesome" if you come up with a creative cinematic solution to a problem that requires a roll then you get a (small) bonus to that roll. You'll never get it for "I roll to hit the bad guy" but you might get it in the circumstance where you managed to finish off a huge magic immune baddy by luring him onto a narrow bridge and casting grease.
Is it weird that when I read "casting grease" I pictured a wizard in a casting room with John Travolta?
And I don't have an issue with clever use of mechanics as persented. I mean, lets face it, most D&D players will not be more intelligent than their wizard. If the wizard knows his lightning bolt bounces off walls I would consider it bad roleplaying
One rule we usually have is a "Bonus for being completely awesome" if you come up with a creative cinematic solution to a problem that requires a roll then you get a (small) bonus to that roll. You'll never get it for "I roll to hit the bad guy" but you might get it in the circumstance where you managed to finish off a huge magic immune baddy by luring him onto a narrow bridge and casting grease.
I do the same thing, although kinna in reverse. There's usually a negative mod (risk of failure because this isn't something you've trained at your whole life), but if it works then the effects are -very- worth the risk.
A few games back one of my warrior players set to recieve charge from a rampaging Tyrannosaurus attacking this frontier city that had one of those spiky-pointed walls...
...by making a very tough str check (ie, -3) and using a sharpened log from the wall. He braced it against himself and the support beams holding up the archer platform around the wall. Natural 20. Impaled the Tyrannosaurus through it's mouth and then proceeds to do some other fun stuff, ending with him in the Rex's mouth (since it couldn't close all the way!) and driving his sword through it's tiny brain (attack -6, called shot). He effectively 2-shotted it, but did so in a manner that every person in the city who was defending saw his heroics. Virtually everyone refused to let him pay for anything under 100gp in value, and even then offered him (and him alone) 50% discounts on what they could get. Permanent home, title, the works.
At level 4. Some things -just- have to be adjudicated.
I do the same thing, although kinna in reverse. There's usually a negative mod (risk of failure because this isn't something you've trained at your whole life), but if it works then the effects are -very- worth the risk.A few games back one of my wa
There are entire classes on game design that now use the information gathered from the math and psych sides of science. I know because I took some of them in college...
I'll let you do the foot work. Here's a hint type "science behind game design" into www.startpage.com
Just so you know doing a search of that on that link reveals nothing but video game design course links and info, and video game design != traditional game design as video game design courses deal primarily with UI concepts and programming. (I know because I took some of those in college).
Perhaps you could provide me with the name college you attended so I don't have to spend days searching through endless search engine pages.
Just so you know doing a search of that on that link reveals nothing but video game design course links and info, and video game design != traditional game design as video game design courses deal primarily with UI concepts and programming. (I know b
That's still 2000 degrees f for copper. 1760 for silver and 1945 for pure gold.
Even assuming one can destroy those metals at half those temperatures that means the fireball spell is creating temperatures that would do damage to creatures far in excess of the listed damages.
Even worse if I remember right 3.0 didn't have the no pressure line and did involve the 'chunky salsa effect'.
Other silly but amusing spells that aren't broken at their base use but get fun with people who have have a mathmatical bent... Lightning Bolt. Back when it bounced off of walls it was fun figuring out the perfect way to set it off to maximize the number of times it will hit an opponent while minimizing friendly fire. It was also amusing when there was an illusion of a T intercetion in a straight hallway. Caster fires a lightning bolt into a wall point blank and eats a dozen bounces... talk about chunky salsa.
I think people have survived Napalm strikes so it's not all that silly.
I hope lighting bolt returns to bounce of the walls again. I loved it.
I think people have survived Napalm strikes so it's not all that silly. I hope lighting bolt returns to bounce of the walls again. I loved it.
There are entire classes on game design that now use the information gathered from the math and psych sides of science. I know because I took some of them in college...
I'll let you do the foot work. Here's a hint type "science behind game design" into www.startpage.com
Just so you know doing a search of that on that link reveals nothing but video game design course links and info, and video game design != traditional game design as video game design courses deal primarily with UI concepts and programming. (I know because I took some of those in college).
Perhaps you could provide me with the name college you attended so I don't have to spend days searching through endless search engine pages.
Nope wrong again. They have many classes on balancing games from a mathematical perpective and even entire classes on how to make games fun. You probably just took a programming class rather than a design class.
Where's Titanium Dragon when you need them...
Just so you know doing a search of that on that link reveals nothing but video game design course links and info, and video game design != traditional game design as video game design courses deal primarily with UI concepts and programming. (I know b
I think people have survived Napalm strikes so it's not all that silly.
I hope lighting bolt returns to bounce of the walls again. I loved it.
I doubt someone has survived a napalm strike...
Besides napalm burns at a temperature of 1500 degees, enough to soften steel given time but an order of magnitude lower than what would be required to create a similar instantanous effect.
I doubt someone has survived a napalm strike...Besides napalm burns at a temperature of 1500 degees, enough to soften steel given time but an order of magnitude lower than what would be required to create a similar instantanous effect.
As it is hot enough to melt steel (item saves), a minimum of...
This is the quote for melting steel. Even gold, copper, and silver (you know, the so called "low" melting temp metals) would melt after the point at which the human body ceases to function. There is no way to make a fireball that can melt metal that would no automatically kill a person in its radius.
An average fireball hitting an average NPC will automatically kill them (even on a save).
This is the quote for melting steel. Even gold, copper, and silver (you know, the so called "low" melting temp metals) would melt after the point at which the human body ceases to function. There is no way to make a fireball that can melt metal tha
Nope wrong again. They have many classes on balancing games from a mathematical perpective and even entire classes on how to make games fun. You probably just took a programming class rather than a design class..
Wow, really? You're going to tell me what classes I took in college? Unless you have access to my transcripts I'm going to have to assume I'm right on that particular point. I mean sure my design classes TOUCHED on traditional game design but was hardly the focus, much as my 3D Animation class TOUCHED on traditional ink and cel animation.
I'm just going to go ahead and ignore anything you have to say on the matter now, because once you start tying to re-write my life's history to suit your argument, you sort of lose all credibility with me.
Wow, really? You're going to tell me what classes I took in college? Unless you have access to my transcripts I'm going to have to assume I'm right on that particular point. I mean sure my design classes TOUCHED on traditional game design but was h
As it is hot enough to melt steel (item saves), a minimum of...
This is the quote for melting steel. Even gold, copper, and silver (you know, the so called "low" melting temp metals) would melt after the point at which the human body ceases to function. There is no way to make a fireball that can melt metal that would no automatically kill a person in its radius.
An average fireball hitting an average NPC will automatically kill them (even on a save).
and the saving throw was orginally the idea that you had the chance, no matter how small, to survive certain death.
This is the quote for melting steel. Even gold, copper, and silver (you know, the so called "low" melting temp metals) would melt after the point at which the human body ceases to function. There is no way to make a fireball that can melt metal tha
Nope wrong again. They have many classes on balancing games from a mathematical perpective and even entire classes on how to make games fun. You probably just took a programming class rather than a design class..
Wow, really? You're going to tell me what classes I took in college? Unless you have access to my transcripts I'm going to have to assume I'm right on that particular point. I mean sure my design classes TOUCHED on traditional game design but was hardly the focus, much as my 3D Animation class TOUCHED on traditional ink and cel animation.
I'm just going to go ahead and ignore anything you have to say on the matter now, because once you start tying to re-write my life's history to suit your argument, you sort of lose all credibility with me.
Since I have a B.S. in Game Software Development, yeah I'm going to tell you if your classes didn't have math balancing and fun oriented design then you weren't in the right classes. I'm also going to tell you there are classes specifically for those things which might also be why you didn't learn it.
Wow, really? You're going to tell me what classes I took in college? Unless you have access to my transcripts I'm going to have to assume I'm right on that particular point. I mean sure my design classes TOUCHED on traditional game design but was h
Ignoring the heat of the thread and providing my own reaction to the survey, here's my full disclosure on the "Additional Comments" that I submitted to WotC's survey (reformatted to be less painful to the eyes):
Everything is too vague and relies too much on DM experience to make it into an enjoyable experience.
Improvisation is mentioned, but treated almost hap-hazardously as an afterthought due to lack of guidelines and suggestions, especially in the character sheets, leading players to forget that the best thing about D&D and TRPGs in general is improvisation.
Spells are too open-ended and encourage more improvisation from the caster classes than from the non-caster classes (when the reason why non-caster classes used to be better was because they were the better improvisers).
Everything was a mess organization-wise, there was no justification for the differences in weaponry and armor other than what seems to be arbitrarily-determined stats, and other than weight limit and Strength checks, Strength turned out to be almost as bad a dump stat as Charisma.
It seems to reek of system mastery, and giving players false choices is ALWAYS a bad thing; Exercising creativity - not system mastery - should be the reward of playing,
Combat was way too insignificant or way too risky, exploration was very skewed with the Rogue being useless with most of his exploration-centric abilities (find traps, perception?), and the socialization aspects of the rules were still more roll-centric, with Charisma or Charm Person given higher regard than actual roleplaying.
Advantage/disadvantage works well with small die rolls, but the moment you're rolling more than 4 d20s in a single turn, it easily gets out of whack (30d20 is a very taxing thing to do, especially as a DM).
And like I said, it seems to be geared more towards experienced DMs, as improvisation was heavily required in order to make the monsters more interesting... yet there was no guideline or list of suggestions to make.
Overall, too much simulationist, not enough narrativist, and overall disappointed with this playtest, not because it lacks the balance of 4E, but because for me it failed to capture the most important aspects of D&D that justifies the simple fighter and complex wizard.
Without that justification, and with only a limited number of meaningful choices (all of which were embedded in a confusing array of prose texts), everything felt too short and there was no incentive to do anything outside the box, even with the "Improvise" action listed [which I believe is very bad because you then categorize and box in improvisation, which goes against the very definition of improvisation].
A simple suggestion: rather than establish improvisation as an action, sprinkle each action and check with suggestions on how to improvise with those checks. Instead of establishing rules, inspire creativity. Because last I checked, improvisation and creativity is the heart of D&D.
Ignoring the heat of the thread and providing my own reaction to the survey, here's my full disclosure on the "Additional Comments" that I submitted to WotC's survey (reformatted to be less painful to the eyes):
I answered the survey positively and gleefully voted for the spells that I feel are iconic of the Wizard.
As for the OP, I simply am not seeing how the Next rules are a step "backward." Sideways maybe...But not backward. The Vancian method is a method of casting just like power-based casting is. Both are very old concepts and nothing new (yes, power-based casting was around way before 4e in games nearly as old as D&D). One method is not better than the other...they are merely different. You can have your preferences (and most people do) but neither method is outdated in any way just because 4e decided to sidestep in a different direction momentarily.
Besides, what I'm seeing is not a purely Vancian method. It looks more like they plan on a hybrid of the two methods. You'll most likely gain a certain level of mastery with some spells (not just cantrips), and once you have mastered those spells completely you will be able to cast them like an at-will or encounter power (depending on the spell). As for the spells you have not mastered, you will be limited in number of times you can cast them (not much different than daily powers, really). I think they are trying to achieve the functionality of 4e's casting, but with the flavor of older editions so it feels more like D&D.
So who knows? I think there's way too much negative speculating going on right now, and I could be WAY off base with my own speculative musings, but I just think it's too early to get our chainmail undies in a bunch.
I answered the survey positively and gleefully voted for the spells that I feel are iconic of the Wizard.As for the OP, I simply am not seeing how the Next rules are a step "backward." Sideways maybe...But not backward. The Vancian method is a method
That´s great chaosfang, my comentary was on the same tone. I think it´s very important that we don´t shut up and silently accept this bad design choices. The time for coamplainting is right now.
That´s great chaosfang, my comentary was on the same tone. I think it´s very important that we don´t shut up and silently accept this bad design choices. The time for coamplainting is right now.
I answered the survey positively and gleefully voted for the spells that I feel are iconic of the Wizard.
As for the OP, I simply am not seeing how the Next rules are a step "backward." Sideways maybe...But not backward. The Vancian method is a method of casting just like power-based casting is. Both are very old concepts and nothing new (yes, power-based casting was around way before 4e in games nearly as old as D&D). One method is not better than the other...they are merely different. You can have your preferences (and most people do) but neither method is outdated in any way just because 4e decided to sidestep in a different direction momentarily.
Besides, what I'm seeing is not a purely Vancian method. It looks more like they plan on a hybrid of the two methods. You'll most likely gain a certain level of mastery with some spells (not just cantrips), and once you have mastered those spells completely you will be able to cast them like an at-will or encounter power (depending on the spell). As for the spells you have not mastered, you will be limited in number of times you can cast them (not much different than daily powers, really). I think they are trying to achieve the functionality of 4e's casting, but with the flavor of older editions so it feels more like D&D.
So who knows? I think there's way too much negative speculating going on right now, and I could be WAY off base with my own speculative musings, but I just think it's too early to get our chainmail undies in a bunch.
I answered the survey positively and gleefully voted for the spells that I feel are iconic of the Wizard.
As for the OP, I simply am not seeing how the Next rules are a step "backward." Sideways maybe...But not backward. The Vancian method is a method of casting just like power-based casting is. Both are very old concepts and nothing new (yes, power-based casting was around way before 4e in games nearly as old as D&D). One method is not better than the other...they are merely different. You can have your preferences (and most people do) but neither method is outdated in any way just because 4e decided to sidestep in a different direction momentarily.
Besides, what I'm seeing is not a purely Vancian method. It looks more like they plan on a hybrid of the two methods. You'll most likely gain a certain level of mastery with some spells (not just cantrips), and once you have mastered those spells completely you will be able to cast them like an at-will or encounter power (depending on the spell). As for the spells you have not mastered, you will be limited in number of times you can cast them (not much different than daily powers, really). I think they are trying to achieve the functionality of 4e's casting, but with the flavor of older editions so it feels more like D&D.
So who knows? I think there's way too much negative speculating going on right now, and I could be WAY off base with my own speculative musings, but I just think it's too early to get our chainmail undies in a bunch.
13th Age has shown me that Vancian casting style isn't a bad thing The excellent thing they did with Vancian casting is that they adjusted the spells in a far better manner than how D&D Next handles it. Think of it as 4E's AEDU system, but with a twist: instead of getting 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power (+1 from your theme), and 1 daily (with the ability to swap it with one from your spellbook), you get spell slots per day, then you get to choose what types of spells you get. If you want weak yet all day spammable, you get at-wills only. If you want the more powerful ones, you get dailies. THEN you get the restriction that you can't prepare multiple spells of the same type -- easily explained that spell slots determine what spells you can retain in your mind (with simple spells easily retained, encounter and recharge spells more difficult to retain but easy to recall or re-read up on, and daily spells most difficult to retain in your mind) not how many times you can cast them -- resulting in a far more balanced system. Especially when considering how limited 13th Age's spell slots are.
Then add to the fact that there's an anti-5 minute workday mechanic built in, I've already seen how Vancian spellcasting can be balanced and fitting at the same time. Will D&D Next follow suite? We'll see...
13th Age has shown me that Vancian casting style isn't a bad thing :) The excellent thing they did with Vancian casting is that they adjusted the spells in a far better manner than how D&D Next handles it. Think of it as 4E's AEDU system, but with a
Nope wrong again. They have many classes on balancing games from a mathematical perpective and even entire classes on how to make games fun. You probably just took a programming class rather than a design class..
Wow, really? You're going to tell me what classes I took in college? Unless you have access to my transcripts I'm going to have to assume I'm right on that particular point. I mean sure my design classes TOUCHED on traditional game design but was hardly the focus, much as my 3D Animation class TOUCHED on traditional ink and cel animation.
Here are two online courses (at least, the free material that's still on the blogs) that were given that include discussions of both math and psychology in their material. Not requiring advanced math nor advanced psychology but they both discuss understanding and incorporating math and player psychology (the results of studies in those fields) into game design and game balance:
Note that the concepts covered apply to games of all sorts - board, card, RPG, computer, et al. (The courses themselves had the student assignments be about card and board games, since those can be easily prototyped.) Game Design - as a field - has evolved a lot in just the past decade or so, and a lot of those advances can be incorporated into RPG design. (Having one of a game's main requirements be 'to tickle nostalgia' can actually require deliberately ignoring some of those advances.)
Wow, really? You're going to tell me what classes I took in college? Unless you have access to my transcripts I'm going to have to assume I'm right on that particular point. I mean sure my design classes TOUCHED on traditional game design but was h
Then add to the fact that there's an anti-5 minute workday mechanic built in, I've already seen how Vancian spellcasting can be balanced and fitting at the same time. Will D&D Next follow suite? We'll see...
Exactly.
Quite frankly, I'm just looking for the most balanced way of making the game still feel like D&D without sacrificing playability. I really don't care how they end up doing the spells. All I can say is that so far, I'm not that freaked out by the spell system in Next. I see merit in both Vancian and AEDU so I'm cool with whatever direction they decide, as long as the game doesn't feel borked all to hell.
Exactly. Quite frankly, I'm just looking for the most balanced way of making the game still feel like D&D without sacrificing playability. I really don't care how they end up doing the spells. All I can say is that so far, I'm not that freaked out b
I find it interesting that the first lesson on the first link in Game Design -- the course one -- notes that roleplaying games are often not considered games. Among the many factors that constitute the definition is that 'a game is governed by rules' -- a mindset that Gygax warns about in the very first DMG.
I think I've discovered the big 'break' in the cultural divide.
I find it interesting that the first lesson on the first link in Game Design -- the course one -- notes that roleplaying games are often not considered games. Among the many factors that constitute the definition is that 'a game is governed by rule
I answered the survey positively and gleefully voted for the spells that I feel are iconic of the Wizard.
As for the OP, I simply am not seeing how the Next rules are a step "backward." Sideways maybe...But not backward. The Vancian method is a method of casting just like power-based casting is. Both are very old concepts and nothing new (yes, power-based casting was around way before 4e in games nearly as old as D&D). One method is not better than the other...they are merely different. You can have your preferences (and most people do) but neither method is outdated in any way just because 4e decided to sidestep in a different direction momentarily.
Besides, what I'm seeing is not a purely Vancian method. It looks more like they plan on a hybrid of the two methods. You'll most likely gain a certain level of mastery with some spells (not just cantrips), and once you have mastered those spells completely you will be able to cast them like an at-will or encounter power (depending on the spell). As for the spells you have not mastered, you will be limited in number of times you can cast them (not much different than daily powers, really). I think they are trying to achieve the functionality of 4e's casting, but with the flavor of older editions so it feels more like D&D.
So who knows? I think there's way too much negative speculating going on right now, and I could be WAY off base with my own speculative musings, but I just think it's too early to get our chainmail undies in a bunch.
13th Age has shown me that Vancian casting style isn't a bad thing The excellent thing they did with Vancian casting is that they adjusted the spells in a far better manner than how D&D Next handles it. Think of it as 4E's AEDU system, but with a twist: instead of getting 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power (+1 from your theme), and 1 daily (with the ability to swap it with one from your spellbook), you get spell slots per day, then you get to choose what types of spells you get. If you want weak yet all day spammable, you get at-wills only. If you want the more powerful ones, you get dailies. THEN you get the restriction that you can't prepare multiple spells of the same type -- easily explained that spell slots determine what spells you can retain in your mind (with simple spells easily retained, encounter and recharge spells more difficult to retain but easy to recall or re-read up on, and daily spells most difficult to retain in your mind) not how many times you can cast them -- resulting in a far more balanced system. Especially when considering how limited 13th Age's spell slots are.
Then add to the fact that there's an anti-5 minute workday mechanic built in, I've already seen how Vancian spellcasting can be balanced and fitting at the same time. Will D&D Next follow suite? We'll see...
And then, there will be people saying that's not Vancian (because wizards and it's subclasses use vancian to switch in and out your powers in 4e). I think it's a great idea on 13th age...it's actually a new idea, turning itself unique and fresh...that's what i want from 5e...new things, new paradigms, new concepts and new mechanics...not old mechanics for the sake of nostalgia
13th Age has shown me that Vancian casting style isn't a bad thing :) The excellent thing they did with Vancian casting is that they adjusted the spells in a far better manner than how D&D Next handles it. Think of it as 4E's AEDU system, but with a
I find it interesting that the first lesson on the first link in Game Design -- the course one -- notes that roleplaying games are often not considered games. Among the many factors that constitute the definition is that 'a game is governed by rules' -- a mindset that Gygax warns about in the very first DMG.
I think I've discovered the big 'break' in the cultural divide.
I already recognized that days ago (see my post on the scars of editions post-0D&D), and I suppose I subconsciously knew that years ago. Roleplaying -- a.k.a. improvisational acting -- has no rules outside of "you must play this part, and play it well". Games have a myriad of rules covering a variety of aspects of the game: X does Y, A does B, and so on. That's why you can say you can roleplay while playing chess, but chess inherently isn't an avenue for roleplaying.
The fact that most roleplaying games focus on roleplaying, often in complete ignorance of rules, means they can't possibly be considered games in the rules context. In general.
I'd say that each edition post-BECMI focused less on the roleplaying and more on the game aspect, culminating in 3.x's simulationist-centric -- and skewed -- "you must have X to do Y", or "if it's not in the rules, you can't do it" (a.k.a. Rules As Written). 4E can be argued as still rules-centric, but only when you look at it at a certain angle (namely, in the way that Mike Mearls introduced and formatted everything in order to make it more 3.5E-like, a.k.a. powers). When you look at 4E from a larger perspective however, it at least tries to return to its D&D roots by having the rules support improvisational play, by providing material that helps in improvisation, by pointing out time and time again that the DM has the final say on the matter, yet at the same time the DM is encouraged to say "yes" to the players, by providing guidelines on how to basically be a better DM if you're new to the hobby.
All of which might or might not be in D&D Next due to horrible formatting IMHO, but is laid plain and clear as day in 13th Age.
For D&D Next to really capture both the "old school" feel and the "new school" needs, it has to focus on a core mechanic and build around it, and that core mechanic should be what inspired D&D in the first place: improvisation. Not magic, not rules per se, not how you have all sorts of weapons or fighting styles. Improvisation has to be placed front and center, with magic as its lackey so to speak. The game should go back to its roleplaying, game-light aspect in terms of base concept (before writing the rules) then develop the system with improvisation always in mind. D&D Next should be able to teach DMs how to teach their players the fun of being risky, of doing crazy stuff, of how much better improvisation is to spellcasting.
I'd rather that the characters compare as follows:
Wizard: Yay! I can finally create a huge ball of fire that can wipe clean an entire room of goblins! With magic! Fighter: Cool! Meanwhile, *I'll* be busy jumping on top of the goblin heads that are still alive as I kick down a wall, grab the hobgoblin by the neck and fling him off his throne!
then 15 levels later
Wizard: Bwahahahaha! I finally master the elements well enough to be able to twist reality and create a whirling vortex of death, as well as summon powerful demons! Fighter: That's nothing! *I* get to break iron meteors with my fist, and even destroy mountains with a single cleave of my sword! Demons are beneath me, and angels have their feathers all ruffled up when they hear my name. You twist reality? *Piff* I *redefine* reality!
Too anime? Tell that to the 3.5E spellcasters. Besides, most pre-4E games didn't touch high level, which is why the caster-noncaster parity clamor has never been as hyped as in 4E (even though 3.x has it worst, considering how tame 4E casters actually are). That, an Mr. Fighter pre-4E was essentially Iron Man/War Machine, as magic items often boosted them to supposedly the same level as casters at high level.
And then, there will be people saying that's not Vancian (because wizards and it's subclasses use vancian to switch in and out your powers in 4e). I think it's a great idea on 13th age...it's actually a new idea, turning itself unique and fresh...that's what i want from 5e...new things, new paradigms, new concepts and new mechanics...not old mechanics for the sake of nostalgia
Well, to be fair, aside from the AEDU restrictions on spell usage and the limitation on number of times you can "memorize" a spell, it works exactly like Vancian spellcasting in that you have the versatility of being able to switch around all your spells as desired. Except in 13th Age, you can't turn dailies into at-wills by virtue of number of spell slots available. Hence, the balance.
After all, the problem with Vancian spellcasting came in three forms: * number of spells per day * spell scaling * spell power on the justification that they are all daily spells
Retain the versatility via spell-swapping, and you still get Vancian. That's what they *tried* to do with 4E (the spell-swapping), but it's obvious that the fact that wizards have no say on what type of spells they can place in their spell slots was very.... disillusioning.
I already recognized that days ago (see my post on the scars of editions post-0D&D), and I suppose I subconsciously knew that years ago. Roleplaying -- a.k.a. improvisational acting -- has no rules outside of "you must play this part, and play it we
No I'm not being strung along like this. Either the stuff I want is in at release or this edition won't be for me.
OK, let's go over this again:
As far as we know, at least some modules (such as tactical grid vs Theatre of the Mind combat options) will be in on day 1.
I don't know about anyone else, but I expect there to be a playtest that explicitly asks us to compare and contrast some of the basic alternative modules.
Of course there are going to be other modules published in later books. I don't expect to be able to go ogre-hunting with an AK47 and a Jeep on day 1, or play a magical demigod-angel like Gandalf.
But 'wait for the modules' does not intrinsically mean 'wait until after the launch of the full game'.
Z.
No I'm not being strung along like this. Either the stuff I want is in at release or this edition won't be for me.[/quote]OK, let's go over this again:As far as we know, at least some modules (such as tactical grid vs Theatre of the Mind combat optio
I find it interesting that the first lesson on the first link in Game Design -- the course one -- notes that roleplaying games are often not considered games. Among the many factors that constitute the definition is that 'a game is governed by rules' -- a mindset that Gygax warns about in the very first DMG.
I think I've discovered the big 'break' in the cultural divide.
Yeah because if its governed by rules its not a role playing game, you know like 4E...
Yeah because if its governed by rules its not a role playing game, you know like 4E...
Well have fun with Charts & Tables TRPG. My group will be playing Dungeons & Dragons.
I don't think you're quite getting the key point here. The key point is; if not mechanics, what am I paying for? It's damn sure not the flavour, the flavour's incredibly badly-written. If I want good fantasy flavour, I'll go read a good fantasy novel - something by GRRM, or Brandon Sanderson, or Pat Rothfuss, or any of a dozen other authors. D&D's flavour is terrible as an exercise in flavour. It can be reasonable as an exercise in setting structure to co-operative storytelling, but even then, I generally prefer to find my own, than to use the defaults. I guess, in your case, it's the brand name, regardless of quality. You want to play D&D, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent a game that is - it sounds like you probably house-rulle the heck out of it anyway, until it's not D&D any more.
The other key point is: WHY should it be like that? What is the design decision that says it should be like that, and the Fighter's options should be different (regardless of what the differences are)? Why should a creature have spell saves, and what level should they be set at? Why should the fireball be that hot or that bright instead of twice, or half as much? What logic is there to the system? And critically, what is the logic to the fact that you seem quite happy to set tight statistical and game-mechanical bounds on the size, shape, temperature, brightness, and difficulty of evasion of a fireball, but NOT on the arc, height, speed and difficulty of evasion of a dude jumping off a balcony, swinging on a chandelier, and dropping on someone's head? Why are you utterly comfortable with mechanics for the former, but apparently disgusted with mechanics for the latter? Why is one perfectly D&D, the other, Charts and Tables RPG? What is the logic there?
I have no objection to fireball, per se. I'd like my wizard to be able to do it. But I'd like FAR more, for my fighter or my wizard to be able to come to the same table, in a public-play situation where the rules as written are used, and contribute equally. Not the same, but with similar enough effectiveness that I could have fun playing either, without having to rely on the grace of the DM to agree to what I was wanting to do. I want a logical, designed, well-thought-out set of game mechanics, around which I can build a story, and within which I can address fun tactical and strategic challenges. That's what I'll pay money for, or not if I feel that's lacking.
I don't think you're quite getting the key point here. The key point is; if not mechanics, what am I paying for? It's damn sure not the flavour, the flavour's incredibly badly-written. If I want good fantasy flavour, I'll go read a good fantasy no
Retain the versatility via spell-swapping, and you still get Vancian. That's what they *tried* to do with 4E (the spell-swapping), but it's obvious that the fact that wizards have no say on what type of spells they can place in their spell slots was very.... disillusioning.
You do realize in 4E PHB the wizard did have choices of which daily and encounter spells to prepare right? and later they even came out with a book option that further expanded the number of spells know. Please don't spread rumors that aren't true about 4E...
You do realize in 4E PHB the wizard did have choices of which daily and encounter spells to prepare right? and later they even came out with a book option that further expanded the number of spells know. Please don't spread rumors that aren't true ab
No I'm not being strung along like this. Either the stuff I want is in at release or this edition won't be for me.
OK, let's go over this again:
As far as we know, at least some modules (such as tactical grid vs Theatre of the Mind combat options) will be in on day 1.
I don't know about anyone else, but I expect there to be a playtest that explicitly asks us to compare and contrast some of the basic alternative modules.
Of course there are going to be other modules published in later books. I don't expect to be able to go ogre-hunting with an AK47 and a Jeep on day 1, or play a magical demigod-angel like Gandalf.
But 'wait for the modules' does not intrinsically mean 'wait until after the launch of the full game'.
Z.
Your 'wait for modules' is a little to close to WotC 'soon'...
No I'm not being strung along like this. Either the stuff I want is in at release or this edition won't be for me.[/quote]OK, let's go over this again:As far as we know, at least some modules (such as tactical grid vs Theatre of the Mind combat optio
Don't like this playtest? Give negative feedback and don't play it. Wait till next playtest is out. Is it good? No, reiterate. Yes, look, here comes what you want!
If a playtest that you liuke will never come out just take a look at a friend's core book of next. Is what you like there? Yes, play or stick with your game if you prefer. No, stick with your game.
That's ewasy, really.
My "wait for the modules" means:Don't like this playtest? Give negative feedback and don't play it. Wait till next playtest is out. Is it good?No, reiterate.Yes, look, here comes what you want!If a playtest that you liuke will never come out just tak
Don't like this playtest? Give negative feedback and don't play it. Wait till next playtest is out. Is it good? No, reiterate. Yes, look, here comes what you want!
If a playtest that you liuke will never come out just take a look at a friend's core book of next. Is what you like there? Yes, play or stick with your game if you prefer. No, stick with your game.
That's ewasy, really.
Maybe your not familiar with my reference.
WotC promised that the DDi tools would be out on release of 4E, this included a VTT, A character builder, and a character visualizer, they vaguely hinted at map makers and things like that. Now after the thing was late three months they started saying 'soon' when asked when it would come out. A stripped down simplified version came out last year. The character builder was late by about 1 year. The other parts never materialized.
So now when someone says "go SOON yourself" on the forums they are using profanity.
Maybe your not familiar with my reference.WotC promised that the DDi tools would be out on release of 4E, this included a VTT, A character builder, and a character visualizer, they vaguely hinted at map makers and things like that. Now after the thin
Retain the versatility via spell-swapping, and you still get Vancian. That's what they *tried* to do with 4E (the spell-swapping), but it's obvious that the fact that wizards have no say on what type of spells they can place in their spell slots was very.... disillusioning.
You do realize in 4E PHB the wizard did have choices of which daily and encounter spells to prepare right? and later they even came out with a book option that further expanded the number of spells know. Please don't spread rumors that aren't true about 4E...
Vancian entails that you get to choose the number of times you can cast a spell. If, in an average adventuring day, you had 4 instances of a situation where your prepared spell could be of use, memorizing that spell 4 times effectively makes it an encounter power (because you'd want to reserve each use of it). If in each instance, rounds were counted and fights lasted 2-3 rounds, the ability to cast the spell 8-12 times a day effectively made it at-will, like how a Wand of Cure Light Wounds effectively created at-will healing given its low gp cost and 50 casts per wand.
On the other hand, 4E PHB wizards can only choose 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 2 daily powers (only one of which can be prepared and used on a given day), and a third at-will if you were human (or a second encounter power [actually at-will-as-encounter power] if you were half-elf). You didn't have a choice rules-wise between getting at-wills, encounters or dailies: you took it all and you had to like it. Just like how you had no choice prior to PHB 3 for anything BUT 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily power at level 1 as any other class; there was no player input in the matter without DM houseruling, so even if you *liked* doing just basic attacks and improvisation galore, there was no real incentive for it. You NEEDED to take those powers, otherwise the DM would likely say "that's not a legitimate character" or worse the group would berate you for "doing it wrong".
D&D Next in this playtest hamfists to us both the classic Vancian brokenness *and* the restriction of player choice in character development. The latter is understandable, as we do not have the character generation rules yet. But the former, that is certainly a potential source of travestry for those who want balance, yet at the same time if we go the 4E route of enforcing the "you must take these types of powers", then you remove some of the most loved things about casters in D&D history: their versatility in built-in options, their "magic"-ness.
13th Age shows how you can have the good parts of Vancian spellcasting without the bad parts. By providing a more controlled form the slot mechanics and balancing the spells, you remove the problems of too many spells per day (turning dailies into at-wills), trap option spells (by allowing frequency of use to be a determining factor in gauging spell power within the same spell level), and wild spell scaling (like how D&D Next does it)... but at the same time, you still provide the iconic flexibility of Vancian spellcasting.
It's like you turned all the 4E Wizard powers into spell slots, and then told the player: "Alright, here are your 5 level 1 spell slots, and here are your spells. You can't take the same spell twice, but if you want to do something more than once per day, there are encounter spells you can pick, and if you want spells that are usable all day, go for the at-will spells".
By the way, I believe you are referring to the Mage from Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and not the Wizard, because the Wizard only got his spell flexibility via Arcane Power, and had no way of swapping encounter powers prior to that book. The Mage on the other hand, could swap encounter powers from the get-go.
You do realize in 4E PHB the wizard did have choices of which daily and encounter spells to prepare right? and later they even came out with a book option that further expanded the number of spells know. Please don't spread rumors that aren't true ab
Retain the versatility via spell-swapping, and you still get Vancian. That's what they *tried* to do with 4E (the spell-swapping), but it's obvious that the fact that wizards have no say on what type of spells they can place in their spell slots was very.... disillusioning.
You do realize in 4E PHB the wizard did have choices of which daily and encounter spells to prepare right? and later they even came out with a book option that further expanded the number of spells know. Please don't spread rumors that aren't true about 4E...
Vancian entails that you get to choose the number of times you can cast a spell. If, in an average adventuring day, you had 4 instances of a situation where your prepared spell could be of use, memorizing that spell 4 times effectively makes it an encounter power (because you'd want to reserve each use of it). If in each instance, rounds were counted and fights lasted 2-3 rounds, the ability to cast the spell 8-12 times a day effectively made it at-will, like how a Wand of Cure Light Wounds effectively created at-will healing given its low gp cost and 50 casts per wand.
On the other hand, 4E PHB wizards can only choose 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 2 daily powers (only one of which can be prepared and used on a given day), and a third at-will if you were human (or a second encounter power [actually at-will-as-encounter power] if you were half-elf). You didn't have a choice rules-wise between getting at-wills, encounters or dailies: you took it all and you had to like it. Just like how you had no choice prior to PHB 3 for anything BUT 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily power at level 1 as any other class; there was no player input in the matter without DM houseruling, so even if you *liked* doing just basic attacks and improvisation galore, there was no real incentive for it. You NEEDED to take those powers, otherwise the DM would likely say "that's not a legitimate character" or worse the group would berate you for "doing it wrong".
D&D Next in this playtest hamfists to us both the classic Vancian brokenness *and* the restriction of player choice in character development. The latter is understandable, as we do not have the character generation rules yet. But the former, that is certainly a potential source of travestry for those who want balance, yet at the same time if we go the 4E route of enforcing the "you must take these types of powers", then you remove some of the most loved things about casters in D&D history: their versatility in built-in options, their "magic"-ness.
13th Age shows how you can have the good parts of Vancian spellcasting without the bad parts. By providing a more controlled form the slot mechanics and balancing the spells, you remove the problems of too many spells per day (turning dailies into at-wills), trap option spells (by allowing frequency of use to be a determining factor in gauging spell power within the same spell level), and wild spell scaling (like how D&D Next does it)... but at the same time, you still provide the iconic flexibility of Vancian spellcasting.
It's like you turned all the 4E Wizard powers into spell slots, and then told the player: "Alright, here are your 5 level 1 spell slots, and here are your spells. You can't take the same spell twice, but if you want to do something more than once per day, there are encounter spells you can pick, and if you want spells that are usable all day, go for the at-will spells".
By the way, I believe you are referring to the Mage from Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and not the Wizard, because the Wizard only got his spell flexibility via Arcane Power, and had no way of swapping encounter powers prior to that book. The Mage on the other hand, could swap encounter powers from the get-go.
I looked it up its 2 daily and utility spells. Each time you level up you and gain a daily or utility spell you get 2 and prepare one. Then they came out with the book option (instead of the orb, wand, or staff) which allowed you to know even more spells. They were very versatile especially if you chose the book option... Also you can change out a spell every time you level which on average was about once every 12 encounters or something like that... 4 encounters per day equals 3 days per level...
You do realize in 4E PHB the wizard did have choices of which daily and encounter spells to prepare right? and later they even came out with a book option that further expanded the number of spells know. Please don't spread rumors that aren't true ab
So now when someone says "go SOON yourself" on the forums they are using profanity.
I've been here long enough now that I prefer profanity to hyperbole.
Z.
yeah, you weren't here from the inception of 4E then, because WotC incompetence is a repeating pattern...
I've been here long enough now that I prefer profanity to hyperbole.Z.[/quote]yeah, you weren't here from the inception of 4E then, because WotC incompetence is a repeating pattern...
I looked it up its 2 daily and utility spells. Each time you level up you and gain a daily or utility spell you get 2 and prepare one. Then they came out with the book option (instead of the orb, wand, or staff) which allowed you to know even more spells. They were very versatile especially if you chose the book option... Also you can change out a spell every time you level which on average was about once every 12 encounters or something like that... 4 encounters per day equals 3 days per level...
Point taken, but you explicitly stated the PHB 4E Wizard having the ability to swap out encounter powers out of the box, without clarifying that it was UTILITY ENCOUNTER POWERS that could be swapped. Hence, my reaction.
Seriously, 4E's the first TRPG I've learned, so I *think* you don't need to preach to the choir.
Here's my point though: yes, we get it, Vancian spellcasting stays. Now the devs better *fix* Vancian spellcasting, because the fix is already 30+ years overdue.
Point taken, but you explicitly stated the PHB 4E Wizard having the ability to swap out encounter powers out of the box, without clarifying that it was UTILITY ENCOUNTER POWERS that could be swapped. Hence, my reaction.Seriously, 4E's the first TRPG
So now when someone says "go SOON yourself" on the forums they are using profanity.
I've been here long enough now that I prefer profanity to hyperbole.
Z.
yeah, you weren't here from the inception of 4E then, because WotC incompetence is a repeating pattern...
OK, there you go again, professing to know better than other people where they were and what they did, thought and knew.
The age of my user account is not the full extent of my gaming experience, or my knowledge of the D&D development cycle. Shocking, huh?
But don't let that stop you ignoring, invalidating, hectoring, browbeating, and generally annoying other users.
Z.
I've been here long enough now that I prefer profanity to hyperbole.Z.[/quote]yeah, you weren't here from the inception of 4E then, because WotC incompetence is a repeating pattern...[/quote]OK, there you go again, professing to know better than othe
No more and no less than the Wizard needs a fireball rule.
You want to give me shapeable fireballs with no hardcoded maximum ranges?
Well...if you insist...
No, but imagine your DM telling you: "today humidity is pretty high so your fireball does only 1d6 damage".
No more and no less than the Wizard needs a fireball rule.[/quote]You want to give me shapeable fireballs with no hardcoded maximum ranges?Well...if you insist...[/quote]No, but imagine your DM telling you: "today humidity is pretty high so your fire
At the temperatures needed to melt metals (even those with low melting points) the human brain stops functioning and blood boils. Basically it becomes a DIE spell (no save).
more physics fail....
Thermodynamics, people, learn it!
Being exposed to a temperature does not mean that a thing instantly becomes that temperature.
I'm feeling like I'm the only one who made a save vs physics...
I would hate to try to figure out what temperature you would need to get steel to melting point within 1 second. Lets just agree to call it 'a lot'.
First you figure out how much steel you have, then using its specific heat determine how much energy it takes to heat it up to melting point from ambient, then using its heat of fusion determine how much energy it takes to melt it, then determine how much total energy a fireball delivers during its casting, determine the rate at which the steel absorbs the heat (via conduction, convection, and radiation from the fireball), taking into account the steel's geometry, and you can figure out whether a fireball will melt steel.
Doing that properly involves graduate-level understanding of heat transport, by the way. I can vouch from personal experience.
Depending on the geometry you may need a computer simulation as a "closed" mathematical solution could not be available.
more physics fail....Thermodynamics, people, learn it!Being exposed to a temperature does not mean that a thing instantly becomes that temperature.[/quote]I'm feeling like I'm the only one who made a save vs physics...I would hate to try to figure ou
No more and no less than the Wizard needs a fireball rule.
You want to give me shapeable fireballs with no hardcoded maximum ranges?
Well...if you insist...
No, but imagine your DM telling you: "today humidity is pretty high so your fireball does only 1d6 damage".
I just imagined my DM telling me this. I wondered why I was playing with such a ****.
No more and no less than the Wizard needs a fireball rule.[/quote]You want to give me shapeable fireballs with no hardcoded maximum ranges?Well...if you insist...[/quote]No, but imagine your DM telling you: "today humidity is pretty high so your fire
As it is hot enough to melt steel (item saves), a minimum of 212 Fahrenheit sounds about right.
I'm a little late to the party but I got about this far before I had to mention something. 212°F isn't even hot enough to cook a pizza (375°F-425°F for about 10-15 minutes cooks a frozen pizza). Paper doesn't burn until 451°F. The melting point of Steel is 2500°F.
That fireball has to be freaking hot.
I'm a little late to the party but I got about this far before I had to mention something. 212°F isn't even hot enough to cook a pizza (375°F-425°F for about 10-15 minutes cooks a frozen pizza). Paper doesn't burn until 451°F. The
I answered the survey positively and gleefully voted for the spells that I feel are iconic of the Wizard.
As for the OP, I simply am not seeing how the Next rules are a step "backward." Sideways maybe...But not backward. The Vancian method is a method of casting just like power-based casting is. Both are very old concepts and nothing new (yes, power-based casting was around way before 4e in games nearly as old as D&D). One method is not better than the other...they are merely different. You can have your preferences (and most people do) but neither method is outdated in any way just because 4e decided to sidestep in a different direction momentarily.
Besides, what I'm seeing is not a purely Vancian method. It looks more like they plan on a hybrid of the two methods. You'll most likely gain a certain level of mastery with some spells (not just cantrips), and once you have mastered those spells completely you will be able to cast them like an at-will or encounter power (depending on the spell). As for the spells you have not mastered, you will be limited in number of times you can cast them (not much different than daily powers, really). I think they are trying to achieve the functionality of 4e's casting, but with the flavor of older editions so it feels more like D&D.
So who knows? I think there's way too much negative speculating going on right now, and I could be WAY off base with my own speculative musings, but I just think it's too early to get our chainmail undies in a bunch.
13th Age has shown me that Vancian casting style isn't a bad thing The excellent thing they did with Vancian casting is that they adjusted the spells in a far better manner than how D&D Next handles it. Think of it as 4E's AEDU system, but with a twist: instead of getting 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power (+1 from your theme), and 1 daily (with the ability to swap it with one from your spellbook), you get spell slots per day, then you get to choose what types of spells you get. If you want weak yet all day spammable, you get at-wills only. If you want the more powerful ones, you get dailies. THEN you get the restriction that you can't prepare multiple spells of the same type -- easily explained that spell slots determine what spells you can retain in your mind (with simple spells easily retained, encounter and recharge spells more difficult to retain but easy to recall or re-read up on, and daily spells most difficult to retain in your mind) not how many times you can cast them -- resulting in a far more balanced system. Especially when considering how limited 13th Age's spell slots are.
Then add to the fact that there's an anti-5 minute workday mechanic built in, I've already seen how Vancian spellcasting can be balanced and fitting at the same time. Will D&D Next follow suite? We'll see...
This is exactly how I imagined the best way to do it, most (most not all, some spells just can't be balanced at an at-will) spells have a at-will, encounter and daily listing, with differeing levels of power and you select them based on that. So my at-will sleep affects one creature and first slows the enemy then next turn puts them to sleep, as an encounter it might do the same but affects a group, or puts a person to sleep with out the slow, while the daily affects a group and puts them to sleep on a failed save. This would allow the player to decide how they want to do it, also keep the idea of scaling based on spell level.
Anyway 13th age does sound more along the lines of the kind of a game I'll like so, I guess I'll look into it when it is released.
13th Age has shown me that Vancian casting style isn't a bad thing :) The excellent thing they did with Vancian casting is that they adjusted the spells in a far better manner than how D&D Next handles it. Think of it as 4E's AEDU system, but with a
Here's my point though: yes, we get it, Vancian spellcasting stays. Now the devs better *fix* Vancian spellcasting, because the fix is already 30+ years overdue.
No. For those of us that want to use it, it doesn't need fixing. For those that hate it, they are banning it anyway. Like Mike Mearls said. We know who is going to use this and we are making it for them. If you water down the vancian mage with 4e design then nobody will want it. The vancian haters won't accept it and the vancian lovers won't either.
Their design philosophy (and I believe Mike Mearls said it was) needs to remain - we design the components for the people that are using them. If we design a grid module we don't worry about the theatre of the mind people. And the reverse as well.
5e will be a big game. Bigger I think than it's predecessors. Then you cut away the fat you don't like. What's left is the game you want to play. And don't worry. There is plenty for me to cut too. But I'm not whining because I have to cut some things.
No. For those of us that want to use it, it doesn't need fixing. For those that hate it, they are banning it anyway. Like Mike Mearls said. We know who is going to use this and we are making it for them. If you water down the vancian mage with
Here's my point though: yes, we get it, Vancian spellcasting stays. Now the devs better *fix* Vancian spellcasting, because the fix is already 30+ years overdue.
No. For those of us that want to use it, it doesn't need fixing. For those that hate it, they are banning it anyway. Like Mike Mearls said. We know who is going to use this and we are making it for them. If you water down the vancian mage with 4e design then nobody will want it. The vancian haters won't accept it and the vancian lovers won't either.
Their design philosophy (and I believe Mike Mearls said it was) needs to remain - we design the components for the people that are using them. If we design a grid module we don't worry about the theatre of the mind people. And the reverse as well.
5e will be a big game. Bigger I think than it's predecessors. Then you cut away the fat you don't like. What's left is the game you want to play. And don't worry. There is plenty for me to cut too. But I'm not whining because I have to cut some things.
Telling players to cut out half the core classes because they don't like the mechanics really isn't going to fly. If they really are set on this whole "no modules for classes, pick a new class" then 5e is going to be just as divisive as 4e was, and it will likely crash and burn just as hard.
No. For those of us that want to use it, it doesn't need fixing. For those that hate it, they are banning it anyway. Like Mike Mearls said. We know who is going to use this and we are making it for them. If you water down the vancian mage with
I find it interesting that the first lesson on the first link in Game Design -- the course one -- notes that roleplaying games are often not considered games. Among the many factors that constitute the definition is that 'a game is governed by rules' -- a mindset that Gygax warns about in the very first DMG.
I think I've discovered the big 'break' in the cultural divide.
Yeah because if its governed by rules its not a role playing game, you know like 4E...
4e is not governed by rules. Rather, it is filled with suggested guidelines for play. Some people elect to follow those guidelines strictly. Others do not.
Yeah because if its governed by rules its not a role playing game, you know like 4E...[/quote]4e is not governed by rules. Rather, it is filled with suggested guidelines for play. Some people elect to follow those guidelines strictly. Others do no
So now when someone says "go SOON yourself" on the forums they are using profanity.
I've been here long enough now that I prefer profanity to hyperbole.
Z.
yeah, you weren't here from the inception of 4E then, because WotC incompetence is a repeating pattern...
I have to agree. I have very little faith in WOTC now. The transition to 4e was handled terribly, and frankly I think some of how much the edition would change was misleading. Whether one likes the changes or not is irrelevant. WOTC bungled the transition.
Though it appears I am getting a game closer to what I want in D&D, I fear that WOTC may be bungling again by over reacting. I honestly feel like WOTC tells CLOSETRUTH but then lies by omission sometimes.
When the folks at Paizo discuss development, I feel like I know at least 90% of what they say will manifest.
When WOTC speaks I feel like it is a 3/4 deal. I don't always know whether they are speaking from the PR department or the Development department.
I've been here long enough now that I prefer profanity to hyperbole.Z.[/quote]yeah, you weren't here from the inception of 4E then, because WotC incompetence is a repeating pattern...[/quote]I have to agree. I have very little faith in WOTC now. Th
I am really disappointed by all the promises that WotC broke like announcing a Ravenloft book and the blue balling us. Or instead of releasing a new setting every year they just rehashed the god awful Forgotten Realms setting twice.
I don't think 4th edition was perfect and could have used some improvement but they are going backward instead of forword. I would have liked to see them make more radical changes like ditching alignment and classes completely. Or cut down the number of classes dramatically and making them broad like star wars saga did. Getting rid of the 6 ability scores and just replacing them with the bonuses would have been nice to since the ability scores are depreciated anyway. Instead they are going back to the old editions and rehashing them.
I am really disappointed by all the promises that WotC broke like announcing a Ravenloft book and the blue balling us. Or instead of releasing a new setting every year they just rehashed the god awful Forgotten Realms setting twice. I don't think 4th
I am "very satisfied" as is my entire group. Literally, the only thing I dislike so far is the existence of daily resources, but that's not a dealbreaker and never has been. Why is this game fitting us so perfectly, but is evidently just offending everyone else?
Then again take a look at your join date... And look at the peoples who actually liked 4e or who played it for that matter. Thats why. A huge boom in pre 4e players suddenly signed up for the Playtest just so they can have their oh so precious clone of what ever edition of D&D they want. And right now it looks like 2e.
Then again take a look at your join date... And look at the peoples who actually liked 4e or who played it for that matter. Thats why. A huge boom in pre 4e players suddenly signed up for the Playtest just so they can have their oh so precious clone
That's what 4e Martial Exploits allowed for. They weren't 'psuedo-magical'.
To be fair, some of them kind of were. The majority of them weren't so bad, but there were a couple that clearly crossed the line.
Still, to say that martial maneuvers shouldn't be allowed because they're too magical would be like saying Vancian spells shouldn't be allowed because they're overpowered. Just don't include the obviously magical maneuvers, and don't include the overpowered spells, and everything should be fine.
The problem with 4th edition was the fact that all you had to do was remove the name of the power and the powersource and they were exactly the same.
That is what a "lot" of people have a problem with. We don't want fighter's to have powers and we don't want the difference to be that thin.
To be fair, some of them kind of were. The majority of them weren't so bad, but there were a couple that clearly crossed the line.Still, to say that martial maneuvers shouldn't be allowed because they're too magical would be like saying Vancian spel
The problem with 4th edition was the fact that all you had to do was remove the name of the power and the powersource and they were exactly the same.
That is what a "lot" of people have a problem with. We don't want fighter's to have powers and we don't want the difference to be that thin.
False- that they were the same. We know the Casters and Caddies proponents dont want noncasters to have cool stuff to.
BS!
It was X + X plus slide or push or some other effect.
False- that they were the same.We know the Casters and Caddies proponents dont want noncasters to have cool stuff to.[/quote]BS!It was X + X plus slide or push or some other effect.
The problem with 4th edition was the fact that all you had to do was remove the name of the power and the powersource and they were exactly the same.
That is what a "lot" of people have a problem with. We don't want fighter's to have powers and we don't want the difference to be that thin.
False- that they were the same. We know the Casters and Caddies proponents dont want noncasters to have cool stuff to.
What I have put in bold is subjective.
Some people thought, myself included, that what melee people had was already cool.
What you think is cool and what others think are cool is purely subjective.
False- that they were the same.We know the Casters and Caddies proponents dont want noncasters to have cool stuff to.[/quote]What I have put in bold is subjective. Some people thought, myself included, that what melee people had was already cool. Wha
by that logic Xun, all casters were the same since they used the same basic layout for spell descriptions.
And more than a few cross-over spells. But don't bother xun with logic otherwise he might have to admit that the opinions he spews as holy truth are just as much opinions as the rest of ours are.
And more than a few cross-over spells. But don't bother xun with logic otherwise he might have to admit that the opinions he spews as holy truth are just as much opinions as the rest of ours are.
example...when i played 3.5, i was mocking the system by casting the same exact spell as the wizard with my sorcerer after she did, to prove my point that sorcerer and wizard played the same...
example...when i played 3.5, i was mocking the system by casting the same exact spell as the wizard with my sorcerer after she did, to prove my point that sorcerer and wizard played the same...
As a fighter, I enjoyed the "damage + effect" setup of 4e more than the "damage only" setup of prior editions.
There was actual meaningful choice every round. I remember playing 3.x and doing the same thing over and over. It wasn't fun for me.
As a fighter, I enjoyed the "damage + effect" setup of 4e more than the "damage only" setup of prior editions. There was actual meaningful choice every round. I remember playing 3.x and doing the same thing over and over. It wasn't fun for me.
i also enjoyed my luchador fighter (brawler fighter with monk unarmed strike), who could hit people in the face then grab them, then drag them around the battlefield and throw them at my enemies.
i also enjoyed my luchador fighter (brawler fighter with monk unarmed strike), who could hit people in the face then grab them, then drag them around the battlefield and throw them at my enemies.
@mex - no, you didn't do that! All characters were the same, remember?
There were no unique concepts like luchadores.
/sarcasm off
Actually, that concept sounds awesome! Now I want to try it!
@mex - no, you didn't do that! All characters were the same, remember? There were no unique concepts like luchadores. /sarcasm offActually, that concept sounds awesome! Now I want to try it!
i also enjoyed my luchador fighter (brawler fighter with monk unarmed strike), who could hit people in the face then grab them, then drag them around the battlefield and throw them at my enemies.
Wait a minute my paladin NEVER had a power close to that I thought all the powers were the same darnit- I want my drag and throw power too:P
(just kidding i was happy with my pally and how it played differently from other defenders)
Wait a minute my paladin NEVER had a power close to that I thought all the powers were the same darnit- I want my drag and throw power too:P(just kidding i was happy with my pally and how it played differently from other defenders)
example...when i played 3.5, i was mocking the system by casting the same exact spell as the wizard with my sorcerer after she did, to prove my point that sorcerer and wizard played the same...
Cool. Three spells later when you could no longer do that because you have a small fraction of the known spells of the wizard, you realized that you were wrong.
Cool. Three spells later when you could no longer do that because you have a small fraction of the known spells of the wizard, you realized that you were wrong.
I am "very satisfied" as is my entire group. Literally, the only thing I dislike so far is the existence of daily resources, but that's not a dealbreaker and never has been. Why is this game fitting us so perfectly, but is evidently just offending everyone else?
Then again take a look at your join date... And look at the peoples who actually liked 4e or who played it for that matter. Thats why. A huge boom in pre 4e players suddenly signed up for the Playtest just so they can have their oh so precious clone of what ever edition of D&D they want. And right now it looks like 2e.
Wow, the "your join date tells me everything about you" argument totally works every time!
I've played 2e, 3rd, and 4e, thanks. I had forum accounts here for 3rd and 4e, but I had not played any D&D for over a year before this playtest, so I forgot my name and password.
I liked and played 4e. I liked and played 3rd. I liked and played 2e. This playtest absolutely is not a clone of 2e. Not even close. Oh, and my opinion is not less valid because I got a new screen name for the playtest.
Then again take a look at your join date... And look at the peoples who actually liked 4e or who played it for that matter. Thats why. A huge boom in pre 4e players suddenly signed up for the Playtest just so they can have their oh so precious clone
Wow, the "your join date tells me everything about you" argument totally works every time!
I've played 2e, 3rd, and 4e, thanks. I had forum accounts here for 3rd and 4e, but I had not played any D&D for over a year before this playtest, so I forgot my name and password.
I liked and played 4e. I liked and played 3rd. I liked and played 2e. This playtest absolutely is not a clone of 2e. Not even close. Oh, and my opinion is not less valid because I got a new screen name for the playtest.
Obviously your join date and the fact that you got a new screen name does not make your opinion less valid. The fact that you disagree with me makes your opinion less valid.
(just in case there was any doubt that was a joke- heck I don't even know what your opinion is\
Obviously your join date and the fact that you got a new screen name does not make your opinion less valid. The fact that you disagree with me makes your opinion less valid.(just in case there was any doubt that was a joke- heck I don't even know wh
Obviously your join date and the fact that you got a new screen name does not make your opinion less valid. The fact that you disagree with me makes your opinion less valid.
Win.
Also, my opinion is that the playtest is awesome, and my group loves everything about it except the existence of daily resources.
Win.Also, my opinion is that the playtest is awesome, and my group loves everything about it except the existence of daily resources.
Nah - how do you run out of infinite scrolls/wands?
Infinite scrolls and wands don't exist in any incarnation of the game.
Eternal Wands from Magic Item Compedium. You have been served :P
Heh. A daily item hardly counts as infinite in the sense that it was used. But very nice try
Infinite scrolls and wands don't exist in any incarnation of the game.[/quote]Eternal Wands from Magic Item Compedium. You have been served :P[/quote]Heh. A daily item hardly counts as infinite in the sense that it was used. But very nice try :)
I am "very satisfied" as is my entire group. Literally, the only thing I dislike so far is the existence of daily resources, but that's not a dealbreaker and never has been. Why is this game fitting us so perfectly, but is evidently just offending everyone else?
Then again take a look at your join date... And look at the peoples who actually liked 4e or who played it for that matter. Thats why. A huge boom in pre 4e players suddenly signed up for the Playtest just so they can have their oh so precious clone of what ever edition of D&D they want. And right now it looks like 2e.
Do I get from that you feel that people who liked D&D for 30 years but hated it for only the last 4 shouldn't come here and have their voices heard?
I hate to tell you, they already made 4th ED, a 5th ED, with only 4th ED fanbase feedback isn't getting a game that the majority want made.
Then again take a look at your join date... And look at the peoples who actually liked 4e or who played it for that matter. Thats why. A huge boom in pre 4e players suddenly signed up for the Playtest just so they can have their oh so precious clone
Why should fighters have those special pseudo-magic powers? That's not what they're for. If you want magic, play a wizard, or perhaps a fighter-wizard. Fighters are there for those who want a big lump of muscle in a big lump of armour, smashing things with a big lump of metal; it's simple, direct and very different from how mages operate. Smudging the boundaries between classes may suit some people, and the rules should allow for some smudgery, but starting from that makes the existence of separate classes redundant.
Uh... maybe you should actually study some history sometime. Maybe take a look at ancient combat techniques such as Jiu Jitsu, Taijutsu, Pancrase, and even some more modern systems such as SAMBO? Yeah, ancient warriors were far more than just big lumps of muscle smashing things. Look at knights even, they were trained from youth and their techniques involved far more than just swinging a sword and smashing things.
Warriors just swinging a sword and smashing things may be classical D&D, but it's not in the least historically accurate. Combat manuevers reflect that, but so sorry it conflicts with your caster uber alles philosophy.
Since when do tactics=special powers?
Uh... maybe you should actually study some history sometime. Maybe take a look at ancient combat techniques such as Jiu Jitsu, Taijutsu, Pancrase, and even some more modern systems such as SAMBO? Yeah, ancient warriors were far more than just big l
example...when i played 3.5, i was mocking the system by casting the same exact spell as the wizard with my sorcerer after she did, to prove my point that sorcerer and wizard played the same...
Cool. Three spells later when you could no longer do that because you have a small fraction of the known spells of the wizard, you realized that you were wrong.
I think you're missing the point: the Sorcerer played the same as the Wizard. The Wizard had greater variety of spells and greater versatility in spells, but that theory only applies pre-3E and at low levels of 3.x, because * at higher levels you had so many spell slots that unless the DM does something to significantly drain your resources, you were effectively casting your low-level spells at-will * most of the good utilitarian spells were pretty low in the spell level ranks, and a significant number of spells lasted for hours, so preparing a couple of scrolls, wands and an extra spell slot or two permanently assigned to them was pretty much the norm
That means that unless you were really playing the rogue-one-day-fighter-the-next-then-wizard-after-that spell-swapping nature of the wizard, most of the time that spell list is going to be quite static, because spell swapping and too high variance in the prepared spells per day is TOO MUCH BOOKKEEPING.
Hence, the Wizard easily becomes interchangeable with the Sorcerer when it comes to spell play.
Honestly, even when I *know* I can do a lot of spell-swapping via Vancian spell slots, because I tend to pick spells that *almost always, if not always* work (coming from a CRPG player mind you, so no "DM can solve everything"), the only advantage going Wizard instead of Sorcerer was basically in metamagic feats + earlier spell acquisition.
Cool. Three spells later when you could no longer do that because you have a small fraction of the known spells of the wizard, you realized that you were wrong.[/quote]I think you're missing the point: the Sorcerer played the same as the Wizard. The
example...when i played 3.5, i was mocking the system by casting the same exact spell as the wizard with my sorcerer after she did, to prove my point that sorcerer and wizard played the same...
Cool. Three spells later when you could no longer do that because you have a small fraction of the known spells of the wizard, you realized that you were wrong.
Am going to have to count the number of times you two cast what to figure out the differences in your classes. wow.. how bogus and utterly lame that is.
Cool. Three spells later when you could no longer do that because you have a small fraction of the known spells of the wizard, you realized that you were wrong.[/quote] Am going to have to count the number of times you two cast what to figure out th
example...when i played 3.5, i was mocking the system by casting the same exact spell as the wizard with my sorcerer after she did, to prove my point that sorcerer and wizard played the same...
Cool. Three spells later when you could no longer do that because you have a small fraction of the known spells of the wizard, you realized that you were wrong.
Am going to have to count the number of times you two cast what to figure out the differences in your classes. wow.. how bogus and utterly lame that is.
One of the theories I recall from the 3e forums was that there was a slate of obvious-best/generally-useful spells that 'any' wizard would memorize and 'any' sorcerer would have to know, and that other more situational spells would be handled with scrolls, and, thus, sorcerers and wizards would be basically the same - apart from wizards getting new spell levels earlier, getting bonus feats & making their own scrolls vs sorcerers getting more spells/day.
IMHO, while that's nice for a theoretical examination of optimized versions of the two classes (which we did a lot), the Sorcerer diverged for a more psychological reason. Choosing spells/day is something you do a lot, at moments when you're dealing with practical success/failure challenges and can fine-tune over the course of a level. Thus, the preassure on the player of a wizard to gravitate towards 'best' spells is constant and overwhelming. The Sorcerer, OTOH, chooses spells known only when leveling up, a time when you're thinking about character concept and development, it's a lot easier to make the choice for less practical (and often more 'fun' reasons), then, you play it out for a level and work with what you have, quite possibly finding outside-the-box entertaining uses for your choice. So, my feeling was that wizards did tend to play the same, while sorcerers could break out of the mold and make good build-to-concept characters.
Meaning for 5e? Well, another reason to have alternatives to Vancian casting, I suppose.
Cool. Three spells later when you could no longer do that because you have a small fraction of the known spells of the wizard, you realized that you were wrong.[/quote] Am going to have to count the number of times you two cast what to figure out th
I am "very satisfied" as is my entire group. Literally, the only thing I dislike so far is the existence of daily resources, but that's not a dealbreaker and never has been. Why is this game fitting us so perfectly, but is evidently just offending everyone else?
Then again take a look at your join date... And look at the peoples who actually liked 4e or who played it for that matter. Thats why. A huge boom in pre 4e players suddenly signed up for the Playtest just so they can have their oh so precious clone of what ever edition of D&D they want. And right now it looks like 2e.
Do I get from that you feel that people who liked D&D for 30 years but hated it for only the last 4 shouldn't come here and have their voices heard?
I hate to tell you, they already made 4th ED, a 5th ED, with only 4th ED fanbase feedback isn't getting a game that the majority want made.
No they should have their voices heard but they shouldn't still be stuck in the 70's and 80's. And I don't want a 4e clone out of 5e, not at all, but 4e shouldn't be forgotten completely. But please, for the love of all that is good, WotC and playtesters, come up with something that isn't outdated by 15 years. All I'm hearing is this old school stuff nothing new at all. And I appreciate old school D&D, but there is a reason I don't play it.
Then again take a look at your join date... And look at the peoples who actually liked 4e or who played it for that matter. Thats why. A huge boom in pre 4e players suddenly signed up for the Playtest just so they can have their oh so precious clone
And I appreciate old school D&D, but there is a reason I don't play it.
It's called 'lack of taste'. Fortunately, it can be overcome with a hefty dose of class.
Only if you meet the attribute requirements for that class. Otherwise you're stuck playing fighter.
It's called 'lack of taste'. Fortunately, it can be overcome with a hefty dose of class. :-P[/quote]Only if you meet the attribute requirements for that class. Otherwise you're stuck playing fighter.
The problem with 4th edition was the fact that all you had to do was remove the name of the power and the powersource and they were exactly the same.
That is what a "lot" of people have a problem with. We don't want fighter's to have powers and we don't want the difference to be that thin.
It's always been that way.
Take away flavor and all you have is damage and/or some effect. Thats it. I'm tired of hearing that lame excuse. Say we are playing, well any edition, a fighter hits an enemy and does 1d8+STR MOD thats it plain and simple, then a wizards shoots a magic missile and does 1d4 damage, strip away the flavor of the spell and its just damage. No matter what edition, its the same. Flavor makes or breaks.
It's always been that way. Take away flavor and all you have is damage and/or some effect. Thats it. I'm tired of hearing that lame excuse. Say we are playing, well any edition, a fighter hits an enemy and does 1d8+STR MOD thats it plain and simple,
But please, for the love of all that is good, WotC and playtesters, come up with something that isn't outdated by 15 years.
I really don't think that's likely. The longest running edition so far has been what, 12 years?
You get what I'm saying though... People keep throwing up all the "good" ideas and I've seen them all before. I understand the game will remain the same in someway but dang. It doesn't have to be the same game as it was in 1989.
I really don't think that's likely. The longest running edition so far has been what, 12 years?[/quote]You get what I'm saying though... People keep throwing up all the "good" ideas and I've seen them all before. I understand the game will remain th
But please, for the love of all that is good, WotC and playtesters, come up with something that isn't outdated by 15 years.
I really don't think that's likely. The longest running edition so far has been what, 12 years?
You get what I'm saying though... People keep throwing up all the "good" ideas and I've seen them all before. I understand the game will remain the same in someway but dang. It doesn't have to be the same game as it was in 1989.
Actually, in a few ways, there really aren't many differences between AD&D 2e (the earliest edition I can still recall) and 4e. The differences that do exist are really just in the details of the subsystems like skills and such.
I really don't think that's likely. The longest running edition so far has been what, 12 years?[/quote]You get what I'm saying though... People keep throwing up all the "good" ideas and I've seen them all before. I understand the game will remain th
Honestly I'm really not getting the "if edition X hasn't been around for more than Y years, the ideas it introduced should be scrapped". Because if that was the case, then D&D 0E (1974-1977?) should be scrapped, because it's been around for roughly as long as D&D 4E -- if not shorter than 4E's timespan, or at most a year longer than 4E. But if you scrap D&D 0E's innovations, then might as well scrap D&D altogether, given how every edition is based off it.
As for "remove the fluff and it's all the same", let's see:
* several classical spells did XdY damage (sometimes with a +Z to damage). Sometimes to HP, sometimes to ability scores, sometimes to level, but it's still all the same. * several infamous spells did "save or get screwed" (suck/die/petrify/etc.) * some spells did both * some spells just said "screw you DM!" (no save effects) * some spells had a hidden DM message: "screw you players!" (DM-adjudicated effects that are encouraged to be as bad to the players as possible when outside the rules-as-written... like Wish) * and several other spells were like +A(dB, sometimes with +C) to D, for E amount of duration
All non-casters pre-4E, on the other hand, were tantamount to this:
* hit and deal XdY+Z damage * make a check and, if the DM is nice, end up with monsters getting screwed * get a spell, or spell-like ability (often from either a class feature or a magic item), or extra feat
That's.... pretty much it, I suppose.
Honestly I'm really not getting the "if edition X hasn't been around for more than Y years, the ideas it introduced should be scrapped". Because if that was the case, then D&D 0E (1974-1977?) should be scrapped, because it's been around for roughly
Honestly I'm really not getting the "if edition X hasn't been around for more than Y years, the ideas it introduced should be scrapped". Because if that was the case, then D&D 0E (1974-1977?) should be scrapped, because it's been around for roughly as long as D&D 4E -- if not shorter than 4E's timespan, or at most a year longer than 4E. But if you scrap D&D 0E's innovations, then might as well scrap D&D altogether, given how every edition is based off it.
As for "remove the fluff and it's all the same", let's see:
* several classical spells did XdY damage (sometimes with a +Z to damage). Sometimes to HP, sometimes to ability scores, sometimes to level, but it's still all the same. * several infamous spells did "save or get screwed" (suck/die/petrify/etc.) * some spells did both * some spells just said "screw you DM!" (no save effects) * some spells had a hidden DM message: "screw you players!" (DM-adjudicated effects that are encouraged to be as bad to the players as possible when outside the rules-as-written... like Wish) * and several other spells were like +A(dB, sometimes with +C) to D, for E amount of duration
All non-casters pre-4E, on the other hand, were tantamount to this:
* hit and deal XdY+Z damage * make a check and, if the DM is nice, end up with monsters getting screwed * get a spell, or spell-like ability (often from either a class feature or a magic item), or extra feat
That's.... pretty much it, I suppose.
The years running argument for an edition's superiority or inferiority to another edition is just crap. It fails to take into account so many other variables that it completely fails as an accurate metric of success or failure.
The years running argument for an edition's superiority or inferiority to another edition is just crap. It fails to take into account so many other variables that it completely fails as an accurate metric of success or failure.
The impression I recieved out of the play test is everything is on the table in regards to porting features found in 4E over to casters, but the same approach is not taken for the martial characters. Hopefully this is due to the playtest being incomplete. Any martial character should be the equivalent of the martial arts character, e.g. shaolin monk, that is romanticized based on extraordinary ability. Whether the ulimate mechanic for martial characters is maneuvers, class abilities, feats, doesn't really concern me as long as the martial character has a set of tools to choose from similar to casters spells.
There were some other throw backs to thiefs being the only ones to open/disable traps, but once again it was a limited play test.
The impression I recieved out of the play test is everything is on the table in regards to porting features found in 4E over to casters, but the same approach is not taken for the martial characters. Hopefully this is due to the playtest being incomp
But please, for the love of all that is good, WotC and playtesters, come up with something that isn't outdated by 15 years.
I really don't think that's likely. The longest running edition so far has been what, 12 years?
Part of that was a dead edition because there was no support or new books put out, so you really can't count it as that. Basically from 2E to 3E there was a huge gap where nothing was done...
I really don't think that's likely. The longest running edition so far has been what, 12 years?[/quote]Part of that was a dead edition because there was no support or new books put out, so you really can't count it as that. Basically from 2E to 3E t
The problem with 4th edition was the fact that all you had to do was remove the name of the power and the powersource and they were exactly the same.
That is what a "lot" of people have a problem with. We don't want fighter's to have powers and we don't want the difference to be that thin.
It's always been that way.
Take away flavor and all you have is damage and/or some effect. Thats it. I'm tired of hearing that lame excuse.
Comparing fighters and wizards in 4e, it's not even true. Strip source and name from the fighter's attack powers and wizards. You'll have no problem telling them apart:
The fighter's powers are all weapon powers, and virtually all melee or close burst 1 doing untyped [W] damage. The wizard's powers are all implement powers, run the gamut of close burst, close blast, ranged, area burst, area blast and area wall, and mostly do typed damage.
They are litterally, factually, different. Even if you were to further strip out weapon (and [W]) and implement references, the differences would /still/ be obvious.
OTOH, there were many spells of earlier editions that were shared by two or more classes.
It's always been that way. Take away flavor and all you have is damage and/or some effect. Thats it. I'm tired of hearing that lame excuse. [/quote]Comparing fighters and wizards in 4e, it's not even true. Strip source and name from the fighter's at
Here's my point though: yes, we get it, Vancian spellcasting stays. Now the devs better *fix* Vancian spellcasting, because the fix is already 30+ years overdue.
No. For those of us that want to use it, it doesn't need fixing.
Thjat is a bit of a simplification, at least for some of us. I love the strategical and tactical aspects behind the Vanacian system, although I do agree with most posters that those aspects are rarely played to the fullest. If you have ever played with players AND a DM who embrace that aspect to the fullest the wizard was a lot more powerful than a sorcerer, but that really required players who researched, and DMs that wrote adventures that involved and rewarded said research (and to include stuff that was not so rare that a scroll could not solve it). My problem with the Vanacian system is with the 'going nova' effect, and the fact that the game can seriously slow down at high levels when all the spellcasters start discussing which spells to prepare while the non-casters had to twiddle their dumbs. Hence, I don't mind the Vanacian system on principle, but I would like some kind of fatigue mechanic that prevents casters from going nova unless absolutely necessary.
As for my opinion on the current itteration, I really like some aspects and ideas, but I am not happy with the current implementation due to one or two things that greatly impact my fun: going nova, imbalance between damage output, to-hit rolls, defenses and hit points. I would not play the current itteration outside playtests, but I am well aware it still is very much a work in progress
No. For those of us that want to use it, it doesn't need fixing. [/quote]Thjat is a bit of a simplification, at least for some of us. I love the strategical and tactical aspects behind the Vanacian system, although I do agree with most posters tha
That's what 4e Martial Exploits allowed for. They weren't 'psuedo-magical'.
To be fair, some of them kind of were. The majority of them weren't so bad, but there were a couple that clearly crossed the line.
Still, to say that martial maneuvers shouldn't be allowed because they're too magical would be like saying Vancian spells shouldn't be allowed because they're overpowered. Just don't include the obviously magical maneuvers, and don't include the overpowered spells, and everything should be fine.
The problem with 4th edition was the fact that all you had to do was remove the name of the power and the powersource and they were exactly the same.
That is what a "lot" of people have a problem with. We don't want fighter's to have powers and we don't want the difference to be that thin.
Yes if you gank out important parts of a system, I'm referring to a power as a system with the fluff and mechanical parts collaborating to create something greater, and don't replace it you can complain that those functions which were enabled by the removed parts you will be correct in the most literal sense.
But to use a analogy, you buy PC, don't like the screen or keyboard, remove them, then notice the PC isn't working as was promised, then call for tech support you know what you will get?
Best case scenario detailed instructions on how to re-connect your screen/keyboard.
To be fair, some of them kind of were. The majority of them weren't so bad, but there were a couple that clearly crossed the line.Still, to say that martial maneuvers shouldn't be allowed because they're too magical would be like saying Vancian spel
example...when i played 3.5, i was mocking the system by casting the same exact spell as the wizard with my sorcerer after she did, to prove my point that sorcerer and wizard played the same...
Cool. Three spells later when you could no longer do that because you have a small fraction of the known spells of the wizard, you realized that you were wrong.
Am going to have to count the number of times you two cast what to figure out the differences in your classes. wow.. how bogus and utterly lame that is.
One of the theories I recall from the 3e forums was that there was a slate of obvious-best/generally-useful spells that 'any' wizard would memorize and 'any' sorcerer would have to know, and that other more situational spells would be handled with scrolls, and, thus, sorcerers and wizards would be basically the same - apart from wizards getting new spell levels earlier, getting bonus feats & making their own scrolls vs sorcerers getting more spells/day.
Also how metamagic works for each class. They are functionally very similar, but still two mechanically different classes.
Cool. Three spells later when you could no longer do that because you have a small fraction of the known spells of the wizard, you realized that you were wrong.[/quote] Am going to have to count the number of times you two cast what to figure out th
