|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 4:26AM
#41
|
|
|
Ah, "DM May I?" the catch phrase of the self-entitled, never had the guts to DM, player.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 4:35AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Feb 27, 2010
|
Ah, "DM May I?" the catch phrase of the self-entitled, never had the guts to DM, player.
My what a wide brush you paint with sir.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 4:37AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Saying hat this is a recent idea says that either no one is reading the forums or someone was actively fighting against this.
Because really if you were promoting modules for the game system and everyone is fighting over which module is 'core', the easiest thing to do in my eyes is swappable casting systems.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 4:41AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
This would be lovely, if it were up to the player to pick his favoured system. We're back to DM-may-I, again. This way is almost worse than the other - not only does it result in the writers having to write (balanced, though this seems a side consideration at best) mechanics for all 3 (or however many) systems for ALL the caster classes, it also results in the PLAYER who likes, say, spell point-based casting, having to beg for it from the DM. Putting the onus onto DMs like this to make all the decisions is something I don't like, probably because I'm coming from the very player-oriented Living Forgotten Realms mostly, in which this sort of thing simply wouldn't work.
It's like C_C says - this isn't game design. This is avoiding the difficult design decisions by passing them on to the DMs instead. And it's really distasteful, because what are we supposed to pay for, if not the designers making the difficult design decisions? It's a cop-out, and they should be able to do better.
Yep, back to DM-may-I. Let the player pick an option, if it is not specifically disallowed by the DM in the campaign... NOT make the player have to persuade the DM to allow an optional subsystem. The distinction is important, IMO. Please allow options as the default, with the DM, of course, able to disallow certain options in a specific campaign.
And for the record, I have DMed a months-long campaign, as well as the only Next playtest session our group could be persuaded to participate in.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 4:52AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2009
|
This is great news, in my opinion. I look forward to seeing it in the actual playtest.
As far as 'DM may I' goes, this is no worse than asking to play a Warblade, Psion or Alternate 'Base' Class in previous additions. Or asking to use Unearthed Arcana, or something from the AEG (D20 but not WoTC) line.
Players have the right to Ask, DM's have the right to say No. At that point, it all comes down to who, what and why. And those are going to be variable from group to group. No reason here to get up in arms, it's the same as it always was.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:05AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Yep, back to DM-may-I. Let the player pick an option, if it is not specifically disallowed by the DM in the campaign... NOT make the player have to persuade the DM to allow an optional subsystem. The distinction is important, IMO. Please allow options as the default, with the DM, of course, able to disallow certain options in a specific campaign.
Maybe I'm not understanding something but if something is optional, then it's optional for everyone including the DM. It's a fact (maybe an unfortunate one? dunno) that the decisions the DM makes about what they're going to use will have larger implications for the players and there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about that. If the whole point of the system is to be a simple core with lots of optional systems that hook in easily, then you're going to be in that place where the DM has the final say about those optional systems. It's a natural consquence of their ENTIRE approach to this edition. People don't seem to realise that, or at least they like to ignore that "optional" ultimately means "DM's choice." The lines might be drawn in different ways by different people but if the DM only wants one magic system for wizards then they're gonna pick one, probably with player input, and the others will be ignored or used on those rare ocasions where an exception is made. The only other way it'll go is if all these optional systems stop being optional. Just make 'em canon rules that everyone uses and all those optional modules can just have the word "optional" rubbed out and let it all be in the game at once. That might not be a bad thing, but it's not what they're going for.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:15AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
My initial responses:
Each method for casting spells does seem to come with setting implications. Also, it should be the setting that explains magical theory (if any), so supplying different settings with the ability to use different mechanics is kind of neat.
I knew that would be up your alley. I like it too.
The Warlock and the Sorcerer - if they exist at all - will need to be salient class concepts with their own reason for existence. They cant be just a different method for spellcasting. Ultimately a good thing for solid classes.
Nods certainly an implication though I think the non spell powers enabled as your second half becomes more dominant as you use its power to activate or fuel the spells (regulated by whatever technique) works for some... with other flavor for other kinds.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:19AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
My initial responses:
Each method for casting spells does seem to come with setting implications. Also, it should be the setting that explains magical theory (if any), so supplying different settings with the ability to use different mechanics is kind of neat.
I knew that would be up your alley. I like it too.
if you put it like that defiling and perserving for the darksun campign could be casting systems, so far i would have put them in the wizard traditions group
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:21AM
#49
|
|
|
As posted earlier, I suspect, the three optional magic systems will be:
• Default per-sleep spells
• Spell points
• Spontaneous open slots
All three of these options include the per-round atwills, and per-short-rest traditions.
So, what all three magic systems have in common is, they all refresh per-sleep.
• Default vancian slots, that the mage prepares per-sleep.
• Spell points that likely refresh per-sleep (as they do for the 3e Psion).
• Spontaneous open slots, that the mage prepares per-sleep (as the 3e Sorcerer and 5e Cleric do).
So, even with different magic systems, we are still looking at the vancian 24-hour sleep schedule, with about four encounters per sleep.
Only the signature spells of certain traditions are able to press on during a busy day with many encounters. At least, these traditions will be available regardless of the choice of magic system.
It seems to me, the spell points option is especially suitable to break out of the 24-sleep schedule, by allowing points to continually recharge during the day, especially while resting.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:21AM
#50
|
|
|
Players get to make decisions that effect their character...DMs get to make decisions that effect their campaign/setting. In both instances best practices are to actually share those decisions with the whole group. However that is rarely how it plays out. Someone said the DMs character is the world, and this couldn't be more true. Decisions that effect the feel, and mechanics of the whole world are the DMs to make. Period. If a player absolutely cannot abide by those decisions there are some options.
1. Discuss changes or exceptions with the DM and/or the whole group.
2. DM your own campaign where you get to make decisions like these.
3. Find a DM and/or group that more suits your own play-style/sensibilities.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
