|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 7:20PM
#121
|
|
|
I don't mind having all the magic systems available, but I think it likely that if a table wants more than two systems in the group, the DM will sit down with everyone and talk it out. And for organised play, I expect WotC will narrow it down to two or three somehow.
So you are saying the DM is gonna ban the Warlock and Sorcerer if the Wizard shows up?
Because we already have 3 different casting systems in the game Warlock is AE, Sorcerer is Will Power, Wizard is Vancian. There is literally no difference in play. Each casting system will be tied to the character that uses it. There won't be any more adjudication for the DM than allowing players in the same group to play a Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard...
That's not at all what I said. Working from the recent information that magic systems may be decoupled from the class (for at least one round of playtesting), it would be quite possible for a DM to have only one or two magic systems and not have to limit the classes that can use magic.
I was replying to the part where you said it would be confusing or too hard to run more than two magic systems at the same table. We can already run 3-4 at the same table with the Warlock, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Cleric, so that part of the point is moot...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 11:13PM
#122
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
The hype about the modular design approach just doesn't catch fire in my mind. It's always been a modular game. They encouraged people to house-rule it and make it their own and we have. The core books created a basic DNA and from there a vast variety of species evolved. The only thing that is different now is that they will take the most popular "house-rules" and lend them official support. To what end? I admit I'm cynical.
Will the rule books be easier to read? I can't believe it for a minute. Fatter book full of distractions. Just post the modules in the DI so people can give their money directly to WoTC without killing more trees.
Can it really make the game easier/better to play? If you didn't like something about the previous games you ignored it or made something up. Today you don't even need to make things up because there are hundreds of sites where people do the work for you for free because they love this stuff. Are they hoping that people will be content with just a few modules that WoTC provides and supports? Or are they in fact looking to monetize an untapped natural process that the original makers of this game encouraged and nurtured?
Why the desire to make your favorite rules official if it is only optional anyway? In organized play you can't have all these options. At private tables the DM or players can still over-rule the modules you just can't live without. You can't leverage the stance of the company against a group of private interests who want to play "their" game.
Balancing, balancing and more balancing. It took enough time and revisions and errata ("Damn it I just bought an updated book!") to keep up with the standards that they set in past editions. The one thing they need to focus on balancing is character advancement and high level campaign design that won't break the game. WoTC, just work on getting that right and you will have the gratitude of the fan base and they will throw piles of money at you. Let the geeks worry about geeking out over a new module that THEY are trying to design because that is what they will do anyway. They do all the work and it's for free! They make your product better for you and other players because they have to. It's in their nature. It's a labor of love.
But then you couldn't charge us for it...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 1:43AM
#123
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I think the best way to handle multiclass is with the specialites, if each Specialaity ran for 6 levels, you could choose to get a smidgen of another class every so often. Something like a Holy Warrior speciality could be used with the Fighter to make a Paladin, or a Woodsman speciality to make a Ranger.
While I think theres a place for a generalist type character class (The Rogue is probably best at it) I think the game works much better if Characters have defined roles, places where they shine. Which is one of the cool things about the combat tactics/rogue schemes and i hope the magic traditions. I think they should add something like Dogmas to the cleric class, that fullfil the same kind of personalisation options as the Combat Tactics. A dwarf protecor plays very differently than a human archer for example.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 2:09AM
#124
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Small Size - its seems fairly self evident to me that hobb-halflings cant use greatswords - at least not those made for humans. If memory serves me right a longsword should be about 1 and half times the lenghth of your arm and a greatsword should come up to your shoulders. A sword does most of its damage from its weight, a small person would have great difficulty wielding a sword that weighs a sizeable portion of his/her own weight and height, regardless of their strength.
In game terms it seems reasonable that a halfling can not use heavy weapons, I'd take it one further and suggest that it would take two hands to wield most medium sized weapons. The halfling weapon training seems to make up for the lack of access to heavy wepons imho, perhaps too much.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 3:31AM
#125
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
I don't mind having all the magic systems available, but I think it likely that if a table wants more than two systems in the group, the DM will sit down with everyone and talk it out. And for organised play, I expect WotC will narrow it down to two or three somehow.
So you are saying the DM is gonna ban the Warlock and Sorcerer if the Wizard shows up?
Because we already have 3 different casting systems in the game Warlock is AE, Sorcerer is Will Power, Wizard is Vancian. There is literally no difference in play. Each casting system will be tied to the character that uses it. There won't be any more adjudication for the DM than allowing players in the same group to play a Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard...
That's not at all what I said. Working from the recent information that magic systems may be decoupled from the class (for at least one round of playtesting), it would be quite possible for a DM to have only one or two magic systems and not have to limit the classes that can use magic.
I was replying to the part where you said it would be confusing or too hard to run more than two magic systems at the same table. We can already run 3-4 at the same table with the Warlock, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Cleric, so that part of the point is moot...
Actually, I found that having the sorcere warlock and wizard at the table made it very difficult, and I spent way too much time having to look up and remember how it worked for each player. (Since they were even more clueless than myself on how thier own charachters worked)
Also,the cleric and wizard magic systems work the same way, they just have different lists of spells. I'm honestly rather curious why Orisons and Cantrips are given two different labels.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 5:08AM
#126
|
|
|
Actually, I found that having the sorcere warlock and wizard at the table made it very difficult, and I spent way too much time having to look up and remember how it worked for each player. (Since they were even more clueless than myself on how thier own charachters worked)
Well no offense to your players, but that seems like a special circumstance that is not generally applicable. Most players will know how their own character's work or will be able to figure it out after the first session or two. By your logic, it is "difficult" to have every player play a different class at all since you'd have to look each of them up separately.
Also,the cleric and wizard magic systems work the same way, they just have different lists of spells. I'm honestly rather curious why Orisons and Cantrips are given two different labels.
They don't cast spells the same way. Clerics prepare X number of spells per day but are free to mix and match their spell slots as they choose to cast those prepared spells. For example, a first level Cleric prepares two different cleric spells, but could choose to cast one of those spells twice in the same day. Wizards don't work like that.
As for Cantrips / Minor Spells and Orisons. Just tradition, and a relatively hardmless one at that since I doubt there will be any rules that one to refer to both types of minor spells collectively.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 5:15AM
#127
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
Actually, I found that having the sorcere warlock and wizard at the table made it very difficult, and I spent way too much time having to look up and remember how it worked for each player. (Since they were even more clueless than myself on how thier own charachters worked)
Well no offense to your players, but that seems like a special circumstance that is not generally applicable. Most players will know how their own character's work or will be able to figure it out after the first session or two. By your logic, it is "difficult" to have every player play a different class at all since you'd have to look each of them up separately.
Also,the cleric and wizard magic systems work the same way, they just have different lists of spells. I'm honestly rather curious why Orisons and Cantrips are given two different labels.
They don't cast spells the same way. Clerics prepare X number of spells per day but are free to mix and match their spell slots as they choose to cast those prepared spells. For example, a first level Cleric prepares two different cleric spells, but could choose to cast one of those spells twice in the same day. Wizards don't work like that.
As for Cantrips / Minor Spells and Orisons. Just tradition, and a relatively hardmless one at that since I doubt there will be any rules that one to refer to both types of minor spells collectively.
It's really not a special circumstance at all. Not all players are expert rules lawyers, and I've never played a game of D&D where all players understood all their options equally well.
The difference between the Cleric and Wizard spell casting system is so negligable as to be ignored.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 6:16AM
#128
|
|
|
It's really not a special circumstance at all. Not all players are expert rules lawyers, and I've never played a game of D&D where all players understood all their options equally well.
I would assume that there is a fairly wide gulf between a rules lawyer and someone with familiarity with their own character. Now sure, when you gain a level, a non-involved player might not understand / know what options they have available, but outside of that, there is only so much that a single class can do on a day to day basis.
Basically, the problem you describe is either not really much of a problem OR it is a problem that is so broad that it would cover all classes and not just spell casting ones. If your table has a problem with a Wizard and a Sorcerer at the same table from rules complexity, then it probably would have a problem with a Fighter and a Rogue and likely a Paladin and a Barbarian at the same table as well.
The difference between the Cleric and Wizard spell casting system is so negligable as to be ignored.
Sure, at first level there is not much of a difference, but assuming that spell progression continues as it looks like it does, then at tenth level you'll see a very large difference in how they cast spells at the table. The cleric will likely have a wider variety of optional spells that he can cast that are only of limited usefulness or require specific circumstances to be useful. A cleric can prepare those types of spells with less potential waste than a wizard, assuming the cleric has at least one generally useful spell at each / most levels, he'll be fine. The Wizard can't do that.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 6:30AM
#129
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
You are mixing up so many different issues, and talking in such hyperbole that I have no idea what you are actually trying to say.
If every martial class had a different system for dealing with Combat superiority dice, then yeah I would agree, that could get confusing pretty quick.
Spell selection, and magic systems, are two very different things, and you seem to be conflating them.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 7:56AM
#130
|
|
|
You are mixing up so many different issues, and talking in such hyperbole that I have no idea what you are actually trying to say.
I am extrapolating based on what you said. You said:
Actually, I found that having the sorcere warlock and wizard at the table made it very difficult, and I spent way too much time having to look up and remember how it worked for each player. (Since they were even more clueless than myself on how thier own charachters worked)
Now, I look at this as simply being two players who didn't understand their characters'. I don't especially care why they didn't understand, but I do believe that most people would get the hang of their character after a session or two. However, the point I believe you were trying to make is that because they didn't understand their characters, they relied on you to understand for them and that took time. However, if, let's say, the Wizard player wasn't there or did understand her character, then the Sorcerer would still not understand and would still be relying on you. Also, it is possible that the Sorcerer player might not have understood the Fighter class either, or the Cleric, or the Rogue, etc. and she might have still been relying on you for help.
Basically, from your description, it doesn't sound like the problem had anything to do with running two magic systems at the same table and instead it sounds like the problem was giving these two players two different classes, neither of which they understand properly.
Spell selection, and magic systems, are two very different things, and you seem to be conflating them.
Or maybe I am viewing "magic systems" more broadly than you (or maybe more broadly than most people). I see the Cleric and the Wizard as using two different magic systems that are very similar. By the same token, I see the magic system that the Sorcerer uses (ie. daily refreshing spell points) as also being a very similar magic system.
|
|
|
