|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 3:11PM
#111
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Right...and I'm in favor of extending "all casting styles" to that same status. You have the option to remove casting styles, but every last casting style in the PHB is default for the game.
So if there are 5 different casting styles, you want 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style? What a jumbled freaking mess. What's more, those same 5 wizards can all use 5 different combat systems. Now it's gone from mess to unplayable and we haven't even gotten into all the other different systems with various options.
Why not?
The only people who would use it are the people who would choose to do so, why should they be prevented from doing so the way you describe?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 3:13PM
#112
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
I've played in an all wizard campaign before. Everyone went to school together, and we differentiated by spell list.
I've always wanted to do one where each player was a different school specialist.
Personal opinion...
I ran a Harry Potter inspired wizard's school campaign once where the PCs were students. Each specialization (this was 3.5) was represented by a house, so each PC had to choose a house (and thus specialty).
A cult of Vecna that included both a few instructors and some students were the primary antagonists.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 3:41PM
#113
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Right...and I'm in favor of extending "all casting styles" to that same status. You have the option to remove casting styles, but every last casting style in the PHB is default for the game.
So if there are 5 different casting styles, you want 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style? What a jumbled freaking mess. What's more, those same 5 wizards can all use 5 different combat systems. Now it's gone from mess to unplayable and we haven't even gotten into all the other different systems with various options.
Why not?
The only people who would use it are the people who would choose to do so, why should they be prevented from doing so the way you describe?
Why should we give up defaults so that a few people who can easily just add the options they want, have a mess that they can spend hours on creating their game. Why should bulk of us should be forced to go through many hours of pain so that a few can have the set-up that they want?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 3:42PM
#114
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I've played in an all wizard campaign before. Everyone went to school together, and we differentiated by spell list.
I've always wanted to do one where each player was a different school specialist.
Personal opinion...
I ran a Harry Potter inspired wizard's school campaign once where the PCs were students. Each specialization (this was 3.5) was represented by a house, so each PC had to choose a house (and thus specialty).
A cult of Vecna that included both a few instructors and some students were the primary antagonists.
That's awesome. Sounds like it was a fun campaign.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 3:54PM
#115
|
|
|
....I miss my legos 
I guess that is why I like Minecraft so much.
Its kinda like a mix of Legos and DnD.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 5:35PM
#116
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
....I miss my legos
I guess that is why I like Minecraft so much.
Its kinda like a mix of Legos and DnD.
The Lego video games in general are a lot of fun. My favorite is 3D Dot Game Heroes. It's basically Lego Zelda.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 5:58PM
#117
|
|
|
I moved out after growing up, and didn't take them with me...
Its sad, but I bought my nephews several hundred generic legos (the small ones) and let them do whatever they wanted and they stacked them straight up and made flat picture like things. I had to show them you could create 3D objects with them... it was sad...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 6:06PM
#118
|
|
|
... 5 diffferent players to all be able to simultaneously play a wizard of each different style ...
Okay, really -- how likely is that? Five wizards in one group? Rather rare, I would expect. But if the DM feels capable of handling it, then why not?
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...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 6:44PM
#119
|
|
|
I imagine the default verses non-default argument will continue until the books come out, at which point buth sideswill claim victory. Wotc isn't dumb, and the excitement that many and others have about a truly modular game needs to be harnessed. But, having a game for organized play is also valuable, and having a game for beginners, or those who don't want to think too much about rules is smart. So my guess is they'll use organized play as a default but couch it with enough disclaimers that everyone feels like there's no,default for them.
For instance, for experience defaulted to 10 encounters per level. But, they mentioned that you could change it, and said what would happen if you did. Default, but soft default.
And, from the Lego analogy - I always start the assembly process by hiding the instructions. That will be possible in next, I'm sure, even if it is through selective reading
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 7:13PM
#120
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
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.
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
