|
7 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 2:05AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Legends & Lore
Chaotic MagicalBy Mike MearlsAlignment and spells are the two subjects that Mike addresses this week. How is alignment treated in the overall rules system, and how are spells being balanced when compared to the abilities of those who don’t use magic? Find out.Talk about this column here.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 2:19AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Looks like alignment restricitons are gone. Prefer Paladins as LG but w/e. Detect Ecil.Protection form evil sound like good compromises.
One work around to save or dies. Have them but just nerf them.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 2:32AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2009
|
Looks like his take on alignment is in correspondence with what most people want. I hope paladins will still adhere to a codex, consequences for breaking said codex being harsh, but interesting.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 2:50AM
#4
|
|
|
Until the last paragraph, it was going so well...
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 2:55AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
I like how alignment-driven abilities focus on more concrete elements rather than hinging on the descriptor. I am glad to see alignment restriction as an optional tool as well, everyone win here.
I am less glad to see that getting the damage spells back to a position of prominence in the game is a key goal for spellcasting in D&D Next as i fear it will bring back arcane dominance on the battlefield, especially for spells that can damage multiple targets, they should deal less damage than single target spells.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 3:00AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Scaling damage spells were not broken in 3.5 so it should not be to hard ot have them convert over to D&DN. IDK if things like invasion fomr 3.5 will amke it through though.
The changes to con fomr 2nd ed to 3.0 also gave everyone more hit points. Direct damage scaling spells do not concern me as long as they are capped at a reaosnbaly level.Was in 1st ed or BECMI that had 20d6 fireballs and a level 19 spellcaster would get 10 magic missiles and one of those edioitns IIRC had 1d6+1 magic missiles.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 3:11AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
The Alignment talk made me happy, as it's not infused with the mechanics (*phew*) and even talk of them being brought in as per the DM makes me a bit more happy.
And while I'm not keen on magical spells dealing more damage, I hope they mitigate these to a 1/day usage or perhaps use a "lesser" version more often throughout the day. Also, I like that the Wizard doesn't have "I Win" buttons but rather has "I Win in 3 rounds" buttons. Something thats taken from 4E is the multiple-turn/save spell that slowly kills a target over multipul rounds and it's a direction I agree with.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 3:14AM
#8
|
|
|
This L&L had me outright dancing for joy, right up 'till the end.
If I don't like "save or die" effects I can just run my campaign without them?
So no options at all?
That will suck.
Is it REALLY so hard to include optional non-SoD boxes on the page for these creatures?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 3:21AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Ok for alignments not being mandatory as prerequisites. Then it's up to the DM if he wants to enforce them or not. Sounds sensible.
I don't understand how Detect Evil is supposed to work now. Does it mean it now acts as a detect undead / fiend? What if you have a non-evil undead? What if you have an evil vampire in disguise - will the spell detect it?
I'm not convinced by the approach to spells balancing where melee classes are there to buy time for casters loading their big guns. It makes the former feel ancillary and is prone to exploits in the hands of optimisers. I'd rather they keep the power level under check across the board, avoiding big spikes like this.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 3:40AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
While I liked the SoSoD concept from 4e, in practice I felt it fell rather flat. There was only a 20% chance it would ever reach the final stage even if you didn't get an extra save/eat the wizard, and that kind of sucked all the danger out of it. Now I guess saving against a wizard's spells is a lot harder than it was in 4e (unless the 4e wizard optimized for save penalties, but that's a whole nother can of worms), so it's slightly less of an issue, but then I'd really kind of like them to take those down a bit because the DCs were just much too hard. I've said this before, but a dragon has a 45% chance of making a strength save against a wizard. He has a STR of 23. If casters are going to get the option to target your worst save, then they shouldn't be outpacing your best save with level. But getting back on topic, if you fix that, SoSoD becomes a waste of time against all but the weakest saves. What about a delayed reaction without multiple saves? Fail your save and you'll turn to stone in three rounds, but you don't get extra attempts to not turn to stone (other than attempting to eat the wizard, or using some kind of counter-magic)?
|
|
|
