|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 2:00AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2008
|
Lady auralia, I cannot agree with this.
The only thing a self entitled tyrant and player will have in common is that they are gonna play dnd solo in a very short time.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 2:19AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
The self entitled tyrant is the logical extreme. The reality is probably a lot less rhetorical. What I'm saying is "I need to be free to say what has a place in my campaign world." I'm also saying "I need to have fun, too." If a player comes to me and demands that they use a system I find really annoying to mediate as a DM, even if those reasons are purely personal, then I have a right to say no. Maybe that's wrong to some people but I need to have fun too and usually there's a compromise out there somewhere. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm always open to compromise. Maybe to some people "compromise" means "give them whatever they want," but the fact of the matter is if I'm DMing I need to have fun, too. It's all well and good to throw around statements about people being jerks but I think we all know that those scenarios are pretty rare. It might be a my own experience but I find players tend to be more demanding in that way but that could be to do with the fact that there are usually 3-5 players for every one DM. Sorta slants the demographic.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 2:25AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
While the DM always has final say over any rule (house or otherwise), I have yet to see a single DM wield that as some sort of cosmic power to make players fall in line.
Usually, whenever there is such a conflict, the player and the DM will discuss the topic in a reasonable manner. If the player can convince the DM that it's not going to be an issue, then the DM will allow it, and if the player cannot do so then the DM will express reservations ... usually resulting in a trial run (to check whether perceived potential abuses manifest as real) or a kindly-worded ultimatum ("I don't really trust myself to be able to deal with the powers of an at-will spellcaster; it would throw off a lot of lore with how the world works, and I've seen it completely de-rail games in the past; I hate to say it, but I can't allow you to use spellcasting class/module X; if that's the only way you'll play, then I hate to see you go, but it really is for the best of the group.")
I have never in my years of gaming seen a DM power-trip and try to make the game less fun for the players. Whenever a DM bans something, it has always been because that DM honestly feels like the inclusion of one element or another would detract from the gameplay experience for everyone else.
And that is why I have no issue with the DM deciding which spellcasting module to implement: because only the DM knows what the DM is capable of handling, or what is appropriate for inclusion in the world that the DM has built.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 2:38AM
#34
|
|
|
So because people couldn't renamed their Sorcerer a Wizard, so designers said to hell with vancian Wizard in core?
Sounds like designers are making mistakes again.
République du Plateau, Montréal, Québec
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 2:43AM
#35
|
|
|
I'm kind of happy with this.
Hopefully, this modularity on casting mechanics will not just apply to wizards and vancian magic. I really want to get rid of those annoying encounter powers whenever I can.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 3:15AM
#36
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, the 5e default magic system still includes:
• Wizard vancian spells per-sleep (dailies)
• Wizard atwills spells per-round
• Traditions with signature school spells as atwills per-round (atwills)
• Traditions with signature school spells per-short-rest (encounters)
In other words, players seeking a “4e feel” will still find it using the default traditions.
So, it seems the three optional magic systems will be:
• Traditional spells: Vancian per-sleep, plus traditions with per-short-rest, plus per-round, as described above (≈ arcane magic)
• Spell points: like 3e Psion (≈ psionic magic?)
• Spontaneous open spell slots: like 5e Cleric (≈ divine magic?)
The article seems to refer to three optional magic systems:
• “Traditional D&D casting”
• “Spell points”
• “Slots”
Notably, the main spellcasting systems so far are:
• Slots prepared per sleep (daily)
• Slots prepared per short rest (encounter)
• Slots per round (atwill)
• Open slots (3e Sorcerer, 5e Cleric), prepared per sleep, but choosing spell spontaneously when casting
• Points (3e Psion), that refresh per sleep (but could instead refresh at each short rest)
The 5e default magic system already allows the first three systems, depending on tradition. This makes me think the “slots” refer to the open slots that the hero prepares per-sleep but whose spell the hero chooses spontaneously at the time of casting.
Now, all of the three systems will have atwills, and have the ability to recast signature school spells.
• Default has atwills and signature spells that can replenish per short rest.
• For spell points: atwills seem free, requiring no expenditure of points, but signature spells probably burn points but then refresh points at the next short rest.
• For spontaneous slots: atwills are free and dont expend a slot, but signature spells probably require a dedicated slot - that then refreshes at each short rest.
Like default, both spell points and spontaneous slots include atwills per-round and signature spells per-short-rest.
In sum, the three options for magic systems will be:
• Default: vancian per-sleep, plus traditions with per-short-rest
• Points, plus traditions that refresh points per-short-rest
• Spontaneous open slots, plus traditions that refresh dedicated slots per-short-rest
All magic systems include atwills per-round.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 3:17AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Happy Happy
Joy Joy
This will put A LOT of pressure on the DMG to be very good and informative. To remind the weaker DMs to to explain their beliefs.
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!
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 3:56AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
It seems a really interesting innovation for D&D. Cant wait to bite it 
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 4:09AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
wel what kind of variant spellcasting would we like to see ? let me begin with a slight variation on standard vancian i might like to see. it removes the set number of spell slots instead you have a total number totaling your total spell slots and a number representing your maximum spell level. adcancement would become somthing like :
| character level |
spell slots |
max spell level |
| 1 |
3 |
1 |
| 2 |
5 |
1 |
| 3 |
8 |
2 |
| 4 |
10 |
2 |
| 5 |
13 |
3 |
| 6 |
15 |
3 |
| 7 |
18 |
4 |
| 8 |
20 |
4 |
| 9 |
23 |
5 |
| 10 |
25 |
5 |
you still prepare spells like in traditional vancian but your spell slots are not set so for example a 5th level caster can prepare upto 13 spell levels. so he could chose to prepare 4 3rd level spells and 1 1st level spell but could also chose to instead learn 13 1st level spels for that day. or any other combination of spell slots as long as no spell is higer then 3rd level and the total does not exeed 13. optonal could be that if you spend 5X the spell level needed for a spell it becomes a encounter spell so for the value of 5 spell slots you can turn a 1st level spell into a encounter spell.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 4:24AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Wow, they are finally admitting the idea that the "Wizard is Vancian Only, F*** Everyone else" idea they had initially was pretty awful. I am looking forward to what this looks like. This is the first time in a long while they have mentioned modularity in a way that actually means modularity.
Could be a very wonderful news!
I'll judge if is so or not only when I can see how it is realised.
No more vancian.
No "edition war" for me, thank'you.
|
|
|
