|
9 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 4:07AM
#481
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Whoa. I gotta get me a chocolate spellbook; that sounds AWESOME.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 5:51AM
#482
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
Cautiously happy.
As part of making sure that the modular approach to casting is easy to use, we’ll provide world background and flavor for each system. This approach makes it easy to use all of the systems at once in your campaign—perhaps competing empires or arcane academies use markedly different approaches to magic—with a minimum of work. If you want to reskin things or change the story, you can do that if you want to.
This is the cautious part. After the Wartlock and Were-Dragon I am more than a little skittish about them providing background and flavour for me.
This breakthrough took place recently enough that you won’t see it in the very next playtest packet, but you should see it in the one following ones. If we do a good job with it, it should also provide a good model for what rules modularity will look like in D&D Next.
This is the Hopeful part.
This has long been a prime candidate for modularity, as contentious as it is.
This point bothered me a few seconds, but I think I would be okay with having a papyrus made spellbook if it allowed me to play a non vancian wizard.
I just hope it won't be chocolate made spellbooks, because I don't think I can roleplay a character who wouldn't eat it.
what i fear is that they will come up with competing wizard academies, with in game disputes between vancian and casters that use other systems.
instead of somthing like:
the wizard acadamie came to the relisation that difrent people reacted better to difrent kind of magical training, even thougn their training and casting might be sligtly difrent the wizard academy still conisders al of them wizards.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 6:07AM
#483
|
|
|
what i fear is that they will come up with competing wizard academies, with in game disputes between vancian and casters that use other systems.
instead of somthing like:
the wizard acadamie came to the relisation that difrent people reacted better to difrent kind of magical training, even thougn their training and casting might be sligtly difrent the wizard academy still conisders al of them wizards.
Why is that a fear? It would make a lot of sense. One only has to look at these message boards, not to mention the whole of human history to see that stong opinions and intolerance of difference is how we react especially in intellectual pursuits. I think a world with conflict between different magic traditions is far more realistic than one where the different traditions have an idylic, peaceful coexistence. Even if that were the case on the outside, I would expect internal, secret wars going on with stealth and intrigue within the ranks of the world's magical institutions. It just makes for better drama for one thing.
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 6:09AM
#484
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
what i fear is that they will come up with competing wizard academies, with in game disputes between vancian and casters that use other systems.
instead of somthing like:
the wizard acadamie came to the relisation that difrent people reacted better to difrent kind of magical training, even thougn their training and casting might be sligtly difrent the wizard academy still conisders al of them wizards.
I can actually either scenario existing just fine and being fun to play. I also see both scenarios existing in different subcultures within a game world and that being equally fun. Really, what you're saying to me is that we've got some cool options that will be fun to explore.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 6:15AM
#485
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
This breakthrough took place recently enough that you won’t see it in the very next playtest packet, but you should see it in the one following ones. If we do a good job with it, it should also provide a good model for what rules modularity will look like in D&D Next.
So, why not make it public as soon as it's workable, like how we got Weredragon and Wartlock three days later?
Giving us the pieces as they come together would provide an excellent model of modularity.
Why we aren't getting the rough approximation of 'nightly builds' is a mystery. I suspect it's the lawyers behind the convoluted download system to blame.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 6:35AM
#486
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Not in Dark Sun, no divine characters, period, that's called integrity.
And why are you playing in Dark Sun when you have someone that wants to play a cleric? Why, as DM, are you choosing options that your players don't want?
The answer is simple: "Because I want to run Dark Sun. If you insist on playing a cleric, Its not valid for Darksun. If you don't want me to run Dark Sun, then how about YOU DM and choose the world. The world I am inspired to run is Dark Sun at the moment. So if you won't agree to that stipulation then someone else will have to DM the game."
Again, I as a DM am just as entitled to fun as a player. The above DM will have his fun limited by not participating in the Dark Sun world.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 6:45AM
#487
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
And why are you playing in Dark Sun when you have someone that wants to play a cleric? Why, as DM, are you choosing options that your players don't want?
Because that's the campaign setting the DM wants to run.
And isn't the DM dictating that the next campaign take place in Dark Sun guilty of the same misplaced sense of entitlement? The would-be DM isn't any more special in this process than the would-be players. The woman who wants to be the DM might really want to play in Dark Sun next, and the player might really want to play a Cleric. Neither is more right than the other, and so the two have to either reach a compromise, even if they compromise is one of them leaving, but that doesn't make anyone "right" in this situation. There is no "winning" to be had here. This isn's complicated, its conflict resolution 101. And let's not forget that this isn't like a decision to watch a movie, this is a decision that can effect everyone involved for quite a while, maybe months or years of real-world time.
The fact is the game can go on without one player. The game cannot go on without the DM. SO the DM has the deck stacked in her favor to choose the campaign setting when it boils down to it.
In reality I do not know many groups that would run into this problem.
DM: "I am thinking about running Dark Sun, do you guys want to play?"
Players: majority will say either yay or nay. the DM cannot run a game without players, but if she is OK with losing one or two there is no disruption to the game.
In reality the way this works is there is a group of friends commiting to a long term campaign. Everyone wants to play Dark Sun but one wants to play a cleric. The world does not allow clerics, and so that player chooses something else because they want to play with their friend.
It is rare that ONE player will insist the campaign change to accomodate their interests. If I had a player like that, and they left, they would be no loss to the group.
So often this "DM may I" argument degrades into a black or white issue which forgets that most people can work out minor problems like a player having to choose amongst the AVAILABLE options.
The player that cannot choose to play a DARK SUN alternate, AND would expect the group to shift for their needs is a problem player.
As a DM if I want to DM Darksun and my group hates the options, then I have to find another group for which to run the game. That has happened to me. I wanted to run Birth Right. Not one of my friends wanted to play in the setting. I found a group at the game store and ran it for them.
There were no bad feelings. I ran my Birthright game on Thursday night, and ran the main campaign for Forgotten Realms with my group of friends on Saturday Night.
People are just not that shallow.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 6:46AM
#488
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
Not in Dark Sun, no divine characters, period, that's called integrity.
And why are you playing in Dark Sun when you have someone that wants to play a cleric? Why, as DM, are you choosing options that your players don't want?
The answer is simple: "Because I want to run Dark Sun. If you insist on playing a cleric, Its not valid for Darksun. If you don't want me to run Dark Sun, then how about YOU DM and choose the world. The world I am inspired to run is Dark Sun at the moment. So if you won't agree to that stipulation then someone else will have to DM the game."
Again, I as a DM am just as entitled to fun as a player. The above DM will have his fun limited by not participating in the Dark Sun world.
Please, Dark Sun is full of clerics and druids, another divine class.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 6:51AM
#489
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
what i fear is that they will come up with competing wizard academies, with in game disputes between vancian and casters that use other systems.
instead of somthing like:
the wizard acadamie came to the relisation that difrent people reacted better to difrent kind of magical training, even thougn their training and casting might be sligtly difrent the wizard academy still conisders al of them wizards.
Why is that a fear? It would make a lot of sense. One only has to look at these message boards, not to mention the whole of human history to see that stong opinions and intolerance of difference is how we react especially in intellectual pursuits. I think a world with conflict between different magic traditions is far more realistic than one where the different traditions have an idylic, peaceful coexistence. Even if that were the case on the outside, I would expect internal, secret wars going on with stealth and intrigue within the ranks of the world's magical institutions. It just makes for better drama for one thing.
becouse many people want a wizard with alternative casting but the wizard feal.
if the campaign setting then sais that the real wizards don't see the "wizards" that use alternative casting systems as wizard wel you don't achieve that goal.
if they just wanted a class with a difrent casting system they could have played scorcerer or warlock, but they want a wizard with a difrent casting system not somthing that has a difrent flavor then the wizard flavor forced onto it.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 6:57AM
#490
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Wow, how personally insulting, but, after reading the type of poster such as yourself, well, it is not surprising.
3rd and 4t Ed definitely started a player entitlement attitude.
Not a chance! This was rampant in AD&D as well. If it wasn't I wouldn't have had a player blow up at me at a DEXCON convention for not allowing him to play his 10th level paladin with his KI RIN mount.
Brat players and Tyrannical DM's have been around since I started playing D&D in 1982. It is edition neutral and it is just as easy for me to limit the options I want in the campaign with AD&D as it is in 4e. Likewise a player can get just as angry about limiting their choices whether there is a token blurb about "DM this is YOUR world" in the beginning of the book or not. Edition does not change one's philosophy.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
