|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 1:11PM
#131
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Everyone of said spells can be shut down. Really if someone wants to have their character have the impact in the setting, rather than riding the rails of a pre-built story by the DM, it depends almost entirely on the DM. In the games I run, players are always the ones with the agency, spells or not.
However, there is a different standard of use for spells/codified elements than there is for uncodified elements. To pull off some cool improv, you have to get the DM to say 'yes'. To pull off a spell, you only need him not to say 'no'.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 1:13PM
#132
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
Everyone of said spells can be shut down. Really if someone wants to have their character have the impact in the setting, rather than riding the rails of a pre-built story by the DM, it depends almost entirely on the DM. In the games I run, players are always the ones with the agency, spells or not.
However, there is a different standard of use for spells/codified elements than there is for uncodified elements. To pull off some cool improv, you have to get the DM to say 'yes'. To pull off a spell, you only need him not to say 'no'.
How do you mean?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 1:48PM
#133
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Everyone of said spells can be shut down. Really if someone wants to have their character have the impact in the setting, rather than riding the rails of a pre-built story by the DM, it depends almost entirely on the DM. In the games I run, players are always the ones with the agency, spells or not.
However, there is a different standard of use for spells/codified elements than there is for uncodified elements. To pull off some cool improv, you have to get the DM to say 'yes'. To pull off a spell, you only need him not to say 'no'.
How do you mean?
If you ask the DM to let you improv some action, he will consider it, and must give his opinion. If he is even a bit not okay with it, you are likely looking at a 'no', or at least at a roll with the odds stacked against you. You have to convince him that your proposed action is reasonable. If you want to do the thing, you must get him to explicitly say, 'yes', even if that is qualified with, "I'll let you roll for it".
If you ask the DM to let you cast a spell, well, right off the bat, generally, you don't ask. If you've got Spider Climb prepared, the rules for Spider Climb are clear, you just say, "I'm casting Spider Climb." and then it happens. The DM does not have to consider it, and does not need to think about and present his opinion. If he does not wish for it to work, he must veto it. That means that he must have a certain level of disapproval, enough to act on, before he'll do it. And he'll have to feel fairly confident in his decision as well, after all, the books clearly state that this action is reasonable. A little discomfort isn't going to get most DMs to stand up and oppose written rules, and many would even consider it poor form to veto a spell if they had not previously considered the possibility and put in a counter-measure, say, grease on the wall, or something.
What I'm getting at is that if the DM really wants a thing to happen, it generally will. If the DM is really opposed to a thing happening, it generally won't. But spells(or to be precise, codified elements), take the middle ground, whereas improv has to surrender it.
You, personally, as a DM, might be super lenient and cool about these things, but even you have a middle ground where you're not entirely certain if something is appropriate, and in that space, spells rule and improv drools.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 1:54PM
#134
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
What would you like to see from the next edition of D&D?
Lose the flat math, take the best aspects of 3e and 4e and mix well. Make every class feel completely unique, not everone needs combat expertise (infact could we just get rid of it altogether). Drop specialties and backgrounds, free form feats and skill selection for everyone. The 3 base saves (fort, will, reflex) come back. Drop the modular approach.
Basically I would start of with 4e as a base, but give everyone a different subsystem, some vancian magic, some AEDU, some something new entirely, and encourage the players, DM, designers to constantly experiment with new abilities and classes, races. It would be a big bulky system, but for me very interesting.
Well, I think the designers also want each class to feel unique. So far, I think they have done a pretty good job on that. The biggest trouble seems to be Rogue vs Fighter, which is to be expected I think. Considering they are essentially the same archetype just stretched in different ways (martial fighting dude...fighter fights better, rogue is better at skills), it will take time to nail down something that makes each class feel unique. I look forward to seeing what the new packet has in store for them.
Why don't you like expertise? Why do you dislike the flatter math so much?
Freeform feats and skills IS what the playtest currently has. If you want, you can pick a premade background or specialty, but in both cases you are allowed (even encouraged) to simply make your own. What is the advantage in dropping examples for players who don't want to come up with their own (or for people who simply like having examples)?
Why do you like the 3 base saves over simply using Ability Scores? I think the new approach is simpler, more intuitive, and helps put an emphasis on all your stats.
What is wrong with modular? D&D has always been modular (they just haven't called it that). Every edition has had optional rules.
As you say, making "Give each class its own subsystem" into a dogmatic rule will make the system big and bulky, and that isn't an advantage. I think it is good that the designers aren't being dogmatic about things. If a class is served best with a new subsystem, they will do it. If it works perfectly with an existing subsystem, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 2:02PM
#135
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
Arithezoo - I'd like to see - in the core: All classes at-will based. No "per-day" or "per encounter" based anything. Character mechanics would reflect starting out as "farmer who just learned to fight" rather than "special guy who has been fighting a while". Every class would be able to focus on their speciality to the point where dumping enough features into the speciality would put you WAY ahead of the expected growth rate. +X items available but not necessary for advancement.
Thanks for answering!
At-will for everyone? I can't see it happening (as it seems a significant proportion of fans like daily resources), but it is easy enough to do on your own (I'll get to that at the end).
So you think the current Level 1 characters are too powerful in the playtest? This is also something that you can do on your own.
Well, at least you have 1, right? Currently, +X items are available but not necessary! Your cup is 1/4 full!
Now...the houseruling. Stop me if you absolutely have no interest in doing this.
As long as you like the mechanics for the non-daily/encounter resource classes, you can reflavor anything into any class. Take Wizard, for example. Use the Fighter as a template. Give him a few base spells; use 4E at-will powers as a baseline, perhaps. He then modifies his spells using "maneuvers" (call it something else), and Bob's your uncle. Now, if you hate the design of all the at-will classes, or if you want all classes to be at-will but different mechanically...then this won't help at all.
In terms of having characters start off weaker, I came up with an idea in another thread.
Have characters start with just race and background. Everyone must have their future class already picked out, which determines starting HP (For weaker starting heroes, reduce starting HP by 1 step). You gain all the normal background benefits (for weaker starting heroes, reduce the background benefits). Assign weapons and armor based on future class (for weaker starting heroes, reduce proficiencies). For future spellcasters, allow them to prepare 2 level 0 spells each day.
When they level up, they pick their class. When they level up again, they pick a specialty, and are now a 1st level hero!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 2:29PM
#136
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
Arithezoo - I'll send you a link later to a something I've been working on for a while. The classes I've built for it sound a bit like your suggestion, which may be a good or bad thing depending on perspective.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 2:31PM
#137
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2012
|
Pashalik_Mons that may work for the current game session/game but in past experience next game you play with the dm that spell will get banned
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 2:32PM
#138
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
Arithezoo - I'll send you a link later to a something I've been working on for a while. The classes I've built for it sound a bit like your suggestion, which may be a good or bad thing depending on perspective.
Ha ha awesome!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 2:41PM
#139
|
|
|
Pashalik_Mons that may work for the current game session/game but in past experience next game you play with the dm that spell will get banned
The inertia is against the DM in that regard, though. That sort of DM heavy-handedness is likely to grate on the players and make the DM unpopular if it happens repeatedly. The DM needs some sort of justification for banning a spell, while making a call on something not covered by the rules is simply being a DM.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 2:42PM
#140
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Pashalik_Mons that may work for the current game session/game but in past experience next game you play with the dm that spell will get banned
If the DM feels strongly enough about it to ban it, sure. But feeling strongly enough about something to step up and ban it isn't in the middle ground.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
