Not to cause more division or start a flame war but, Pathfinder is currently outselling Dungeons and Dragons 4e. on Amazon .com. Pathfinder is #6 and 4th edition is #10 on the Fantasy gaming best sellers list. There are obviously multiple reasons for that, one being that 4e. support is ending with no new products for this year currently at least. To give insight as to the number of Pathfinder releases for 2013 let me sum up my observstions by saying Paizo is hawking some major numbers including, supplements, Campaign settings, miniatures, exet. it is a valid observation IMO that Pathdfinder has won over the 3.5 crowd and is gaining Major ground in the Fantasy gaming market. The game is fully supported online at no cost to the consumer and even expanded rules are a mouse click away and available. An online store is of course included for the Paper and pdf copies of the game. This info can be researched @D20pfpfsd.com/home the best sellers list can easily be seen @ Amazon.com, under the heading Fantasy Gaming best sellers. As a side note let me say that P.F. dominates much of the top 20 of the Best sellers list.
Yup, it's pretty easy to win a race against someone not running.
Kind of the point. 4th ed was more or less the 1st ediiton of D&D to exit the race that early in its edition cycle. In less than 2 years of being released PF "won" and that was while 4th ed was still in print and it may have been within 1 year/15 months.
When did the 4th ed printing cycle get cut in half? The haters were caling doom and gloom then but they also canceled the minis line and sure enough PF starts runing minis.
Read my post. It was in the Essentials release. Here:
Jan 9, 2013 -- 3:48AM, Brightmantle wrote: Not to cause more division or start a flame war but, Pathfinder is currently outselling Dungeons and Dragons 4e. on Amazon .com. Pathfinder is #6 and 4th edition is #10 on the Fantasy gaming best sellers list. There are obviously multiple reasons for that, one being that 4e. support is ending with no new products for this year currently at least. To give insight as to the number of Pathfinder releases for 2013 let me sum up my observstions by saying Paizo is hawking some major numbers including, supplements, Campaign settings, miniatures, exet. it is a valid observation IMO that Pathdfinder has won over the 3.5 crowd and is gaining Major ground in the Fantasy gaming market. The game is fully supported online at no cost to the consumer and even expanded rules are a mouse click away and available. An online store is of course included for the Paper and pdf copies of the game. This info can be researched @D20pfpfsd.com/home the best sellers list can easily be seen @ Amazon.com, under the heading Fantasy Gaming best sellers. As a side note let me say that P.F. dominates much of the top 20 of the Best sellers list.
Yup, it's pretty easy to win a race against someone not running.
Actually, according to the rumors, Pathfinder surpassed D&D in end 2010 or 2011, when Essentials get released, and all products would be produced with his design. Design that was heavily criticized by 4e fans.
I do not have played Vancian extensively but I know lots of magic systems that don't have at-will magic and they do it fine. I think that the LoF needs to get nerfed. But I think that the entire Cleric class needs a rework for balance purposes, especially the Arcanist deity. The more I think about the Cleric class, the more I think that it needs a rework. They have many spells and good Hit dice and armor and weapons and Expertise. They have too many uses of Channel Divinity, without talking about broken things like some Channel Divinity options, the Arcanist deity and Battlefield Concentration. Right now, I think that Clerics should be nerfed. And Wizards now are underpowered, so they need a buff. Also I suggested a module/dial that removes at-will magic and still maintains balance. Some people would like that. Right now I think that every damage dealer cantrip should be nerfed. Their big thing is not the at-wills, they shouldn't rely on them too much. The at-will cantrips should not overshadow their others spells. Personally, if I would make the magic system of D&D, I would make classic Vancian the standard for most classes (including Wizard and Cleric) and then the expected modules. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB their concept should be playable. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB as a own class, then it's a strong candidate to appear as a own class. I personally don't like folding classes into another ones. Basically when two or more classes are similar, you can do three things: Leave as it is, Fold then into one class, or Differentiate them. Of Course, this have very much to do with preferences. I would prefer a game with lots of flavorful and unique classes than few bland classes with no identity. There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
I don't think that Essentials was a smart move, but, in my opinion, one thing that Essentials and post-Essentials 4e do good are character concepts. I don't like the idea of folding classes into another class in the first place. Yes, I don't like the idea of folding the Warlord into the Fighter. Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different.
I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes.
First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless.
Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters.
Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters?
Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management.
Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun.
Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system.
Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
It became "official" late 2010 or early 2011 IDK which. The rumour is it was 6 months ealrier which would be mid 2010 roughly.
I'm not sure when it was announced 4th ed was going on a reduced production run, I'm guessig early 2011. Whatever the exact date was its only around two and a half years into 4th eds cycle. Thats not a good sign t he optimists took the marketing line "we are going to focus on quality".
Same thing more or less happened in the 3.5 days. The first year or two had the good books come out (assuming you like 3.5 of course), the later half quality tended to plummet.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
I do not have played Vancian extensively but I know lots of magic systems that don't have at-will magic and they do it fine. I think that the LoF needs to get nerfed. But I think that the entire Cleric class needs a rework for balance purposes, especially the Arcanist deity. The more I think about the Cleric class, the more I think that it needs a rework. They have many spells and good Hit dice and armor and weapons and Expertise. They have too many uses of Channel Divinity, without talking about broken things like some Channel Divinity options, the Arcanist deity and Battlefield Concentration. Right now, I think that Clerics should be nerfed. And Wizards now are underpowered, so they need a buff. Also I suggested a module/dial that removes at-will magic and still maintains balance. Some people would like that. Right now I think that every damage dealer cantrip should be nerfed. Their big thing is not the at-wills, they shouldn't rely on them too much. The at-will cantrips should not overshadow their others spells. Personally, if I would make the magic system of D&D, I would make classic Vancian the standard for most classes (including Wizard and Cleric) and then the expected modules. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB their concept should be playable. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB as a own class, then it's a strong candidate to appear as a own class. I personally don't like folding classes into another ones. Basically when two or more classes are similar, you can do three things: Leave as it is, Fold then into one class, or Differentiate them. Of Course, this have very much to do with preferences. I would prefer a game with lots of flavorful and unique classes than few bland classes with no identity. There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
I don't think that Essentials was a smart move, but, in my opinion, one thing that Essentials and post-Essentials 4e do good are character concepts. I don't like the idea of folding classes into another class in the first place. Yes, I don't like the idea of folding the Warlord into the Fighter. Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different.
I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes.
First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless.
Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters.
Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters?
Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management.
Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun.
Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system.
Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
How exactly are you defining balance? Because "balanced" has a pretty concrete definition.
No it doesn't. Just look at any one of the multi-hundred post threads on the subject.
Perfect balance means no deviation from the balanced state. This is enforced balance, and it is bad. It makes the game boring, and the devs have it exactly right in this regard. Everybody sits in their little box, and nobody can go outside of it for fear that someone's feelings might be hurt. Perfect balance is tic-tac-toe. And it's utterly pointless.
Now, once you dispense with the idea of perfect balance, then you get to the situation where imbalance can exist, but balance is still maintained. At first this appears to not make any sense at all: isn't it not balanced, if it's imbalanced? And the answer is "not really."
There are many different kinds of imbalance. Some are bad, some are good. Some are necessary, even. To illustrate, let's look at some of the good ones.
Fighters and Wizards don't have the same AC. This is an imbalance. But this is an imbalance that generates good gameplay, as the tactics of each reflect this imbalance, and variability is created. Of course, the meaning of this imbalance can vary widely. If nobody is attacking them, then the AC difference doesn't matter. If they're surrounded by big ogres, then the AC difference matters quite a lot.
These sorts of effects are transient imbalances, and they are the core of gameplay. In all genres. A situation presents itself, two entities don't have the same conditions, therefore an imbalance is generated. Entity one has to do something in order to capitalize on the imbalance or mitigate it, as does entity two. This is present in everything from chess to football. The important part is that it is, in fact, transient: change the conditions, and the imbalance can be meaningless or even reversed in value. The agency of the player is maintained - what the player does determines how the imbalance affects the outcome.
Structural imbalance, on the other hand, is usually what people mean when they say they want the game to be balanced. They want a level playing field, they don't want the end result dicated by one initial choice. A caster compared to a noncaster at high level in 3.5 is a good example of this. Structural imbalance is bad for gameplay, in all forms. Furthermore, structural imbalance that varies over time does not cancel itself out. It is not 'balanced' that a wizard is crap at low levels but godly at high levels in 3.5. It just means that there are two different structural imbalances. They each ruin the gameplay, but in different ways. With structural imbalance, the agency of the player is removed - it doesn't matter what you do, the result is always going to be skewed in one direction.
The important part is to figure out whether an imbalance you've found is transient or structural. And that's not a strictly objective consideration. The severity and prevalence of an imbalance go into this determination, and those are both variable and subjective. Severity can be mathematically determined, yes, but how much people care is subjective. Prevalence can be sampled and an expectation value determined, but each individual table is going to have its own campaign style with its own frequency, and the population behavior won't matter to it.
But to paint broad generalizations like "they don't care about balance" is flatly wrong, shortsighted, and ignorant.
Thing is, for many 4e fans, Essentials was not 4e.
I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5.
I think the hardcore 4th ed players got an ideal in their head about the perfect version of 4th ed (whatever that is) and anyhting that deviated from this ideal was bad and not 4th ed. Even if essentials was a blatant grab at the old school crowd (which I don't see as essentials is still 4th ed to me). Maybe it was the everything is core mentality that was pushed in 4th ed IDK. In 2nd ed and 3rd ed if you didn't like something you basically ignored it. Players Option books in 2nd ed I don't think were that popular or at least on the grognard sites they are not but you don't really see people claiming they are not second ad and they do not get blamed for TSR tanking and 2nd ed trundled on for another 4-5 years after them.
Thats probably why I am sceptical of the blame essentials mentality and to me they ither indicate 4th ed bloated to fast as there is really only so much you can do with XYZ damage and 20 odd status effects form a design point of view or 4th ed was in trouble in 2009 and essentials was a rush job to appeal to the 3.5 crowd which I doubt as the 3.5 crowd doesn't really like them either because its still 4th ed at the end of the day. I liked parts of essentials but I only dealt with it via DDI and I have never seen a dead tree format essentials book.
Maybe it was the essentials length as a rubbish 3rd ed book was a stand alone product. THe next one might be better just wait and see.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
The design goals of Essentials were different from the original 4e design goals. Remember that every product that came after was released under Essentials design. One of the ones who disliked Essentials could give you a better view on the subject. I can talk about my preferences another time, but people really didn't liked.
I do not have played Vancian extensively but I know lots of magic systems that don't have at-will magic and they do it fine. I think that the LoF needs to get nerfed. But I think that the entire Cleric class needs a rework for balance purposes, especially the Arcanist deity. The more I think about the Cleric class, the more I think that it needs a rework. They have many spells and good Hit dice and armor and weapons and Expertise. They have too many uses of Channel Divinity, without talking about broken things like some Channel Divinity options, the Arcanist deity and Battlefield Concentration. Right now, I think that Clerics should be nerfed. And Wizards now are underpowered, so they need a buff. Also I suggested a module/dial that removes at-will magic and still maintains balance. Some people would like that. Right now I think that every damage dealer cantrip should be nerfed. Their big thing is not the at-wills, they shouldn't rely on them too much. The at-will cantrips should not overshadow their others spells. Personally, if I would make the magic system of D&D, I would make classic Vancian the standard for most classes (including Wizard and Cleric) and then the expected modules. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB their concept should be playable. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB as a own class, then it's a strong candidate to appear as a own class. I personally don't like folding classes into another ones. Basically when two or more classes are similar, you can do three things: Leave as it is, Fold then into one class, or Differentiate them. Of Course, this have very much to do with preferences. I would prefer a game with lots of flavorful and unique classes than few bland classes with no identity. There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
I don't think that Essentials was a smart move, but, in my opinion, one thing that Essentials and post-Essentials 4e do good are character concepts. I don't like the idea of folding classes into another class in the first place. Yes, I don't like the idea of folding the Warlord into the Fighter. Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different.
I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes.
First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless.
Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters.
Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters?
Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management.
Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun.
Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system.
Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
How exactly are you defining balance? Because "balanced" has a pretty concrete definition.
No it doesn't. Just look at any one of the multi-hundred post threads on the subject.
Perfect balance means no deviation from the balanced state. This is enforced balance, and it is bad. It makes the game boring, and the devs have it exactly right in this regard.
Perfect balance is, indeed, impossible. Thus, the idea that it might theoretically be 'bad' or 'boring' is irrelevant - no matter how hard you try for balance, it won't be /perfectly/ balanced. At the imperfect levels of balance we have to work with, complex, better-balanced games give more viable/meaningful options than equally complex but poorly balanced ones, because they have fewer 'trap' options and no (or few & swiftly errata'd) overwhelmingly superior ones.
While the impossibility of perfect balance is fine, as far as it goes, what really matters is what you take from that truism. Do you acknowledge that perfect balance is impossible, and affirm that you should always strive for the best balance possible? Or do you use the truism to CYA, and dismiss any balance problems? The L&L articles that so much as acknowledge that balance might be a design consideration seem to come down on the side of dismissing it. The game can't be perfectly balanced, so don't complain when it's not balanced, at all.
If that sounds cynical, BTW, that's because I'm self-admittedly very cynical. ;(
Thing is, for many 4e fans, Essentials was not 4e.
I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5.
It's similar to the attitude that 4e "wasn't D&D." You have a substantive change in direction, and that can feel like a completely different thing, rather than just a different take on the same thing.
To the extent that 4e could be put in the same set as other eds of D&D, putting Essentials in the same sub-set as 4e isn't unreasonable. Though 4e pre-Essentials and 4e post-Essentials do have some important, fundamental differences in design & design phillosophy - and in marketing. And, the 'failure' of 4e and ascendency of Pathfinder (in terms of sales) does coincide with the torch being passed from core 4e to Essentials. FWLIW, commercial success not being a strong indicator of quality for RPGs...
The design goals of Essentials were different from the original 4e design goals. Remember that every product that came after was released under Essentials design. One of the ones who disliked Essentials could give you a better view on the subject. I can talk about my preferences another time, but people really didn't liked.
I think thats what I don't understand. not sure if they stated wht 4th eds design goals were or if people kind of projected there own thoughts onto it. Essnetials seems balanced if a little boring and from what I have heard essentials characters won't create massive problems balance wise in a 4th ed game. Balance being a key goal of 4th ed I suppose.
All sorts of weird stuff go tried out in 2nd and 3rd ed in splats and alot of it doesn't match up with the usual D&D clices and tropes. Did 4th ed fans become very reactionary due to the edition wars? Anything that was different was bad? Thats what I don't get. Maybe Players Option was better recieved in the 2nd ed days, and 3.5 trundled on for another 5 years after 3.0 and essentials was more compatable with 4th ed than the 3.0 books were with 3.5.
Thats why I think there were other factors at work with essentials. Crap D&D books are nothing new.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
