|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:51PM
#421
|
|
|
This could be very interesting. Especially if you don't make it total spells known over all levels, but total spell LEVELS known over all levels.
Interesting indeed.
I'm kind of against this idea, as it could lead to the 5MWD being a bigger problem. Why not invest your spell level points into a few high level spells, blow your load, and call it a day? I like the idea, but I don't particularly like how easy it is to abuse.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:53PM
#422
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I just want to turn this discussion around.
Part of the reason I want to see limits is because I happen to like it when the game mechanics allow or even force the player to have to make difficult and interesting decisions as part of play.
No one questions whether feats ought to be a limited resource and players should be restricted to a few feats - and thus have to choose not to take some feats they might wish to have.
I see spell selection the same way. If a wizard can just copy any scroll they find into their spellbooks, with no limit or reason to choose - I find that boring and uninteresting.'
But if the wizard must choose, upon finding a scroll, whether he wants to make that spell part of his permanent repertoire - or just save it as a scroll to use once when he needs it - that is more interesting. And if part of that decision is the fact that copying that scroll into his book might mean that he can't put the spell he really wants in there later - we have a dilemma and we have a point in the game where the player must make a meaningful choice.
And this is a good thing, imho.
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:54PM
#423
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Cause mike while those things may make the wizard more frustrating to use they don't actually limit his power.
There's a difference between frustration and limitation.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:57PM
#424
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Cause mike while those things may make the wizard more frustrating to use they don't actually limit his power.
There's a difference between frustration and limitation.
I agree.
And, for example - losing all your spells when you get knocked out makes them frustrating.
Choosing which spells to learn (knowing that you always have the fallback of one spell per level when you level up to make sure you get that one key spell ) - I see a class that requires me to make choices.
Its not about simply limiting power. It is about limiting flexibility and requiring choices.
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:58PM
#425
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2012
|
You can disagree with it (and I fully understand why, up to a certain point) but the fact does remain that DMs are given free reign over all of the content that gets released. You can't ignore the effect different DMs will have on how the game plays, just as you can't try to account for every type of DM out there in the core system. All the core can really do is give a basic framework for running the game and some guidelines or tips.
As to Wizards, I'm 100% certain it is impossible to release a core class that is going to satisfy both parties (parties being the polarized Wizards are Awesome vs. Wizards Break the Game camps). That was, initially, what I thought was the major pull of D&D:N - they were going to give both camps the ability to play the version they wanted. That's looking less and less like the truth of it. It looks more like they're trying to cater to both at once, which I don't foresee ending well either. In other words, you either liked Wizards before or you didn't. No amount of calling eachother powergamers/stupid/wrong will change this.
I'm still rooting for the older version of Wizards to resurface, simply because it's not a style of caster offered anywhere else. D&D has never been lacking in shortcomings, but it remained a unique game in spite of (and likely because of) those very same shortcomings. It's something that keeps me playing it to this day, even when offered much more balanced/refined gaming systems as a choice instead. I think that is the nebulous "essence of D&D" that was getting thrown around so often when they started developing this newest incarnation. I also think they're straying far away from that as each playtest packet lands; everything becomes more codified and different with each passing day. There's ceremonial nods to old mainstays, and a lot of buzz words in the "developer updates" and the like, although I don't see a lot of follow-through any more. It seems more like they're just baking way too much in the core to allow the game to be as modular or inclusive as it initially claimed.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 10:00PM
#426
|
|
|
needing 1,000 gold worth of diamond dust and a dragons tear do limit the casting of a spell and as a dm you can change material components needed to fit your dm stlye. casting times that push his spell into the next round of combat allow enemies more chances to interrupt the casting and ruin the spell those are actually good things i love playing a mage. the old max number of spells known per level helped based off intelligence when you reached your max that was it. and a spell used to take up alot more pages than it does in modern editions of dnd causeing you to cart around a bookcase or hire a caddy. that gave balance to the class. so while people may complain that a fireball is abusive how often is one cast in a dungeon corridor unless hes infront and exposed.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 10:07PM
#427
|
|
|
the old max number of spells known per level helped based off intelligence when you reached your max that was it.
That was really the only thing that was dropped that I think may need to be brought back. It's largely been my experience that spell components have their cost shared by the whole party, and those which can't be bought end up being quested for because dragging along a wizard without them is like bringing an empty clip to a firefight.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 10:15PM
#428
|
|
|
one other problem with older editions that never got fixed before the whole 3rd edition changes were specialty wizards. some schools had so few spells it made them unplayable so you could by expanding some schools like elemental fire magic would due to the old rules result in opposition schools you couldnt cast at all so things like wish and fly could be limited by that method as well
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 10:28PM
#429
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2012
|
the old max number of spells known per level helped based off intelligence when you reached your max that was it.
That was really the only thing that was dropped that I think may need to be brought back. It's largely been my experience that spell components have their cost shared by the whole party, and those which can't be bought end up being quested for because dragging along a wizard without them is like bringing an empty clip to a firefight.
I think 2nd Edition did a ton of things right in regards to balancing the Wizard. I still think their "max spells known" lists were a little too generous at higher levels (but approaching correct at the lower level spells). All of the limitations on finding spells and casting spells, however? Spot on (imo).
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 11:40PM
#430
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I think Wizards need access to ALL spells in that there is an ability to keep them in a spellbook as they level or find them. However, I find it perfectly fair to limit the amount they can prepare and perhaps prepare less than what they can cast.
I agree.
I think it is also reasonable for some classes - lets say Fighters - to learn more options in some of their abilities - lets say Maneuvers - in a similar way.
And I find it perfectly fair to place limits on the amount they can know and prepare (although that limit may be lower than that of the wizard and the limit on how many thecy can prepare may be the same as the limit on how many they can know).
Carl
I think this is worth exploring. The wizard's got this big ol' library at home but can only take so many with him. So that'd add a new decision point: what spells does he leave the house with for that adventure.
I like the notion because it lets the wizard keep the full menu of spells they've come across. It also reinforces the idea that a mage is somehow a lot more powerful when at home - something D&D hasn't ever done that good a job with. What I don't really know is what premise does a wizard have for not just taking his library around with him, expecially at high levels.
|
|
|
