|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 2:04PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
The spellcasters in nearly all fantasy settings sacrifice nigh everything. They are weak in body, and their only power is Magic. Magic, which is useless, as it is in D&D now.
Mostly just curious, but where are you seeing these wizards? What setting has a spellcaster sacrifice everything, to be weak in body and unskilled with weapon, in order to master magic? It's not the majority of them.
Most of the settings I can think of allow their spellcasters to be fairly competent with weapons. I mean, there's obviously Gandalf. The Heralds of Valdemar are all psionic paladins, while the actual spellcasters of the setting can at least hold their own in a fight. Of the Shadowrunners with magical ability, about 90% could kill you just as easily with a gun or sword as with a spell. Sorcerers in the Belgariad don't sacrifice anything. Lina Inverse can use a sword, even though she has little reason to. Louie is a wizard who prefers punching people to casting spells.
I was watching someone play Lunar yesterday, just beating up some random cyclopes, and Nash and Mia were doing ~35 damage with staff attacks, compared to Alex and Kyle hitting for ~42. Crono and the gang lose nothing when they gain magic. Rosa from FFIV has a bow, Celes from FF6 has a sword, Brian from Quest 64 is a solo wizard who mostly makes staff attacks. Everyone knows how to fight.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 2:31PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
The spellcasters in nearly all fantasy settings sacrifice nigh everything. They are weak in body, and their only power is Magic. Magic, which is useless, as it is in D&D now.
Mostly just curious, but where are you seeing these wizards? What setting has a spellcaster sacrifice everything, to be weak in body and unskilled with weapon, in order to master magic? It's not the majority of them.
Most of the settings I can think of allow their spellcasters to be fairly competent with weapons. I mean, there's obviously Gandalf. The Heralds of Valdemar are all psionic paladins, while the actual spellcasters of the setting can at least hold their own in a fight. Of the Shadowrunners with magical ability, about 90% could kill you just as easily with a gun or sword as with a spell. Sorcerers in the Belgariad don't sacrifice anything. Lina Inverse can use a sword, even though she has little reason to. Louie is a wizard who prefers punching people to casting spells.
I was watching someone play Lunar yesterday, just beating up some random cyclopes, and Nash and Mia were doing ~35 damage with staff attacks, compared to Alex and Kyle hitting for ~42. Crono and the gang lose nothing when they gain magic. Rosa from FFIV has a bow, Celes from FF6 has a sword, Brian from Quest 64 is a solo wizard who mostly makes staff attacks. Everyone knows how to fight.
Harry Dresden: he can use a sword, kinda, and can melee scrap pretty well.
Michael Carpenter, Murphy, Charity Carpenter: Could all whip his ass no problems (barring the use of magic).
Harry Dresden: Terrible shot.
Murphy: Amazing with guns.
Dresden is a Wizard. He can scrap a bit because he is a big guy with a decent strength score and even a slight bit of skill. He can shoot a gun because anyone can shoot a gun. He isn't as good at these things as other people in the story because he spends the bulk of his time dealing with magical things. The others however don't spend their time doing that and instead spend their time training these other skills. So while dresden can do these things a bit he can't really compare to those that put the time and effort and training in to be great at it.
It isn't that you must be weak it is that you will not be as skilled as someone fully dedicated to being a fighter (those with main character syndrome need not apply).
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 2:39PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
It isn't that you must be weak it is that you will not be as skilled as someone fully dedicated to being a fighter (those with main character syndrome need not apply).
Exactly! A wizard shouldn't be as good at fighting as a fighter is, but an adventuring wizard, who tends to go on quests and get into a lot of fights, is still going to be an objectively decent fighter. A fifth-level wizard in any edition (with the possible exception of Next) can take a few hits and dish it out in return, and since wizards aren't actually weak or objectively bad at fighting, they shouldn't need super-convenient all-powerful magic to "balance" it.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 9:18PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
I hate the 'Vancian' system because each 'spell' is it's own exclusive set of rules that don't need to interact with any other of the rules, and they always work. You declare it, and it happens, any saving throw is done on the target's(s) side.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 9:42PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2008
|
Why is it a big deal DDN is using Vancian magic? Every edition of D&D I've ever played has always used Vancian magic (sorcerers as an exception in 3e, not a replacement of the wizards who still used Vancian).
4e is Vancian too. You had to chose which Dailies and Utilities to have prepared that day. Worked the same way, even if there's no "spell slots" it still followed Vancian rules (preparing spells, and being "pre-loaded" with spells you could only cast so often per day). Encounter spells were a little less Vancian-like since you had the potential to cast them multiple times per day, but were still Vancian in nature (they had to be pre-prepared).
So how is continuation of Vancian going to stop anyone from playing D&D? It's not a change, it's continuing the status quo. If you're playing D&D now, why stop?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 9:54PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
If you're playing D&D now, why stop?
Why would you assume that anyone on these boards is a current player of D&D, as opposed to an interested potential customer for a game that is not like previous editions?
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 9:59PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
Why is it a big deal DDN is using Vancian magic? Every edition of D&D I've ever played has always used Vancian magic (sorcerers as an exception in 3e, not a replacement of the wizards who still used Vancian).
4e is Vancian too. You had to chose which Dailies and Utilities to have prepared that day. Worked the same way, even if there's no "spell slots" it still followed Vancian rules (preparing spells, and being "pre-loaded" with spells you could only cast so often per day). Encounter spells were a little less Vancian-like since you had the potential to cast them multiple times per day, but were still Vancian in nature (they had to be pre-prepared).
So how is continuation of Vancian going to stop anyone from playing D&D? It's not a change, it's continuing the status quo. If you're playing D&D now, why stop?
I've tried to point this out to people as well.
4th Edition is even more limited Vancian than pre-4th Edition. The 2 At-Will spells basically equate to all the lowest level Vancian spell slots, with only two spells usable with those slots; while the (up to 4) Encounter spells roughly equate to the mid-level Vancian spell slots, with only 1-4 spells usable with those slots; and the Daily spells equate to the higher level Vancian spells slots.
Pre-4th Edition Vancian just held more options for the wizards, because they had the option to memorize a larger variety of spells that were only usable once per day. I could have memorized my spells in the same pattern as a 4th Edition wizard (and came close sometimes, when I knew exactly what I would be facing), if I had wanted to.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 11:26PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2008
|
If you're playing D&D now, why stop?
Why would you assume that anyone on these boards is a current player of D&D, as opposed to an interested potential customer for a game that is not like previous editions?
Touché! 
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 6:45AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Personally, I think that the best solution is, in addition to having at-will cantrips, MORE THAT 3 or 4!
is to have both encounter and daily spells of each level.
Then a wizard while preparing spell can choose power over sustainability.
Of course, 99% of wizards will choose power and again force 5MWD, but WotC can at least say: we tried and we gave you options.
There was a poll done. 3 out of 4 people never encountered the 5MWD with vancian casters in the group. Vancian does not equal the 5MWD. Some other issue like DM playstyle is the cause.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 2:13PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Of course, 99% of wizards will choose power and again force 5MWD, but WotC can at least say: we tried and we gave you options.
How can you say that? There are PLENTY of people on the forums pining for encounter powers and rallying against the 5MWD. I see plenty of candidates for those options. Remember, not every person will feel pressured to do soemthing because it may seem more powerful. Deffinately not 99%.
I'm one of them. I'd go 100% encounter and 0% daily because I loathe daily anything.
Personally, I think that the best solution is, in addition to having at-will cantrips, MORE THAT 3 or 4!
is to have both encounter and daily spells of each level.
Then a wizard while preparing spell can choose power over sustainability.
Of course, 99% of wizards will choose power and again force 5MWD, but WotC can at least say: we tried and we gave you options.
There was a poll done. 3 out of 4 people never encountered the 5MWD with vancian casters in the group. Vancian does not equal the 5MWD. Some other issue like DM playstyle is the cause.
LOL 1 in 4 isn't a statisticaly insignificant percentage. If 1 in 4 cars exploded when starting up, would you hop right in and turn the key? Well, 25% feel the same way about playing with Vancian...
|
|
|
