How about an ability similar to the clerical way of "memorizing" spells? An invoker can memorize a bunch of spells, but burn them for a fireball spell, similar to how a positive aligned cleric can burn (substitute) a bless for a cure light wounds. This allows for more flexibility than a straight vacian system, and allows for more utilitarian spells to be memorized without withholding combat effectiveness. You could go more of an opposite route with a utilitarian specialty memorizing combat...
View full commentHow about an ability similar to the clerical way of "memorizing" spells? An invoker can memorize a bunch of spells, but burn them for a fireball spell, similar to how a positive aligned cleric can burn (substitute) a bless for a cure light wounds. This allows for more flexibility than a straight vacian system, and allows for more utilitarian spells to be memorized without withholding combat effectiveness. You could go more of an opposite route with a utilitarian specialty memorizing combat spells, but changing them out when they really need that illusion or transmute spell.
How about improvised magic as an option? This should be less powerful than planned magic. It is costed based upon the liklihood of the effect. Things that are likely anyway are easy and strange things are expensive. Maelstrom and GURPS both feature concepts like it. Examples are given for the most common cases (ie. iconic spells) and perhaps combat magic (which must be faster to draw upon both for the player and the character) must be of the pre-baked libraries (Vancian or Powers).
I know that this will likely be ignored (since I'm late to respond), but I have to comment. MC said: "As a fan of high-level play across the editions, I've never agreed fully with the idea that the game breaks down." He then went on to explain what he meant, but I think he fails to acknowledge what *I* mean when I say that the game breaks down. I think that the rules begin to apply less and less, that special extra-rule challenges come up more an more, and that hand waiving abounds as PC...
View full commentI know that this will likely be ignored (since I'm late to respond), but I have to comment. MC said: "As a fan of high-level play across the editions, I've never agreed fully with the idea that the game breaks down." He then went on to explain what he meant, but I think he fails to acknowledge what *I* mean when I say that the game breaks down. I think that the rules begin to apply less and less, that special extra-rule challenges come up more an more, and that hand waiving abounds as PC level increases. In short ... the game itself (the mechanics, the nuts and bolts) *do* break down and become less relevant and the DM is forced more and more to step outside of the game system (often way outside) in order to challenge the PCs in any reasonable way. I also think that these challenges that are not covered by the rules (or are covered but only by hasty, ill-conceived ... probably never playtested ... rules) can feel rather arbitrary and almost punitive to some players.
As long as EVERY STYLE OF PLAY at EVERY LEVEL/tier is completely OPTIONAL and NOT HARDCODED in the rules, I'm happy with it. Some examples (from D&D 3.0/.5-Play): - We once did some "resistance against the evil kingdom"-type of play with level one characters, which had much of the elements I would expect from the "have your own castle"-game. (we built a camp in the woods and started to recruit rebels from the other outcasts), but no one took the leadership feat or a "have your own...
View full commentAs long as EVERY STYLE OF PLAY at EVERY LEVEL/tier is completely OPTIONAL and NOT HARDCODED in the rules, I'm happy with it.
Some examples (from D&D 3.0/.5-Play):
- We once did some "resistance against the evil kingdom"-type of play with level one characters, which had much of the elements I would expect from the "have your own castle"-game. (we built a camp in the woods and started to recruit rebels from the other outcasts), but no one took the leadership feat or a "have your own base"-feat.
- One of my most cherished characters is a high level wizard, who does not hold any political power at all. Sure he travels the planes, but wherever he goes, he mingles with the common folk, visits the same taverns he did when he first started adventuring, being more of the "mysterious wanderer"-archetype. But if he would decide to, let's say, become involved in a mage academy and take a position of leadership, I don't want to wait 2 or 3 levels, before I can take the proper feats for that. Why?
Because, if I already am a powerful wizard and have the social skills necessary to hold an office, I shouldn't need to wait for some pseudo-balancing game mechanic.
I strongly feel that worldly posessions and political influence (etc.) should be independent of your character advancement. (aside from the necessary skills - I would expect a leading character to have some decent Charisma and some diplomacy/leadership skills) .
Sadly there is a contrary trend I see in many current RPGs - you often have to buy followers/money/special items with XP. (for balance reasons I guess).
But all these things are rewards, ASIDE from XP, that shape the kind of game you want to play. No matter what you own or do, level 10 wealthy-dictator is still less powerful, that level 20 beggar-monk. Minions or no minions...
PLEASE don't restrict this unnecessarily, just give the guidelines to make every type of play easy and viable.
(which I think is what you're probably doing, but just in case...)
yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, HOWEVER, not every opinion belongs in every discussion. If the premise of the discussion is not involved with your opinion, then all you do is waste your time, and the time of the readers in regards to the forum by expressing said opinion here. Repetitive behavior in such a manner is really the definition of insanity, afterall. Not only that, but threadjacking to unrelated opinions is generally a mark of rudeness and lower than average intelligence....
View full commentyes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, HOWEVER, not every opinion belongs in every discussion. If the premise of the discussion is not involved with your opinion, then all you do is waste your time, and the time of the readers in regards to the forum by expressing said opinion here. Repetitive behavior in such a manner is really the definition of insanity, afterall. Not only that, but threadjacking to unrelated opinions is generally a mark of rudeness and lower than average intelligence. Not saying you have lower than average, just that you give the appearance by threadjacking in such a way...Now, I do apologize for perpetuating this non-related subthread, and will not further play into it, but felt something did need to be addressed, out of respect, since you did see fit to post here.
Not to be overly contradictory, but I actually find Healing Surges and Action Points to be two of the big triumphs of 4e. Healing surges in combat must be triggered by powers, and represent the body's ability to sustain healing. Their internal reserve. Anyone can't just use them, they get 1 2nd Wind, and after that, must rely on powers or magic items, just like other editions. The real advantage of Healing Surges came in the between encounters area, when you could heal up without expending...
View full commentNot to be overly contradictory, but I actually find Healing Surges and Action Points to be two of the big triumphs of 4e. Healing surges in combat must be triggered by powers, and represent the body's ability to sustain healing. Their internal reserve. Anyone can't just use them, they get 1 2nd Wind, and after that, must rely on powers or magic items, just like other editions. The real advantage of Healing Surges came in the between encounters area, when you could heal up without expending everything you had. As for Action Points, you only get one a day, unless you reach a milestone, and its nice to be able to do a 4 move combo instead of only a 3 move combo (assuming you have a minor, a move, and a standard, plus 1 of any) periodically, and its also nice at higher levels, to have alternate effects based on using your Action Points.
Secondary Splat content has already always been optional...as is any rule in D&D anyway. I use Crit/fumble rules, but I color My fumbles by making a player or Me, back up the fumble with a 2nd d20 roll. On a 20, its just a miss and end of turn, 6-19 you grant combat advantage and end of turn, also Miss effects don't go off that normally would, on a 2-5 a 'Bad effect' happens such as dropped weapon, bow string breaks, chance to hit an ally instead, and on another 1, something "Really...
View full commentSecondary Splat content has already always been optional...as is any rule in D&D anyway.
I use Crit/fumble rules, but I color My fumbles by making a player or Me, back up the fumble with a 2nd d20 roll. On a 20, its just a miss and end of turn, 6-19 you grant combat advantage and end of turn, also Miss effects don't go off that normally would, on a 2-5 a 'Bad effect' happens such as dropped weapon, bow string breaks, chance to hit an ally instead, and on another 1, something "Really Bad" happens, the DM (or players, in the case of a badguy doing it) gets to move the Center of a Blast...Powers with effects that do one thing to allies and another to enemies reverse, etc... plus miss effects don't go off, because generally the power "Hit" someone else and all side effects of the power have to be done according to the new effective target, and grant combat advantage and end turn right away still.
This so old you might not be coming back to "check for input", but on the topic of weapon type vs. armor type you could break AC into 3 different ratings: piercing AC, blunt AC, and Slashing AC. If you wanted to... It would be like the list of defenses, one of the few things I loved about 4th ed PCs. Although I think there should be a defense or save connected to each ability score, and the save derived from INT should be used vs. illusions (which would be a little like 2nd ed. where...
View full commentThis so old you might not be coming back to "check for input", but on the topic of weapon type vs. armor type you could break AC into 3 different ratings: piercing AC, blunt AC, and Slashing AC. If you wanted to...
It would be like the list of defenses, one of the few things I loved about 4th ed PCs. Although I think there should be a defense or save connected to each ability score, and the save derived from INT should be used vs. illusions (which would be a little like 2nd ed. where extra-high intellegence made you immune to low level illusions.
Completely untrue. I have played all the editions and I like 4th edition quite a lot. My favorite edition is probably still 3.5, though I play a lot more 4e these days, along with non-WOTC games (Savage Worlds most prominently among them).
I've been gaming since 1980, and I've been DM-ing a Nentir Vale campaign for about 10 months. I have to say that, over all, I really enjoy 4th edition. The combats are fast-paced, entertaining, and often surprising. Because the powers are on the character sheet, I have NEVER had to pause my game to look up a rule (unlike 3.0/3.5). I do, however, have some distinctive concerns - First, 4.0 artwork in many cases is cartoonish and childish. (2nd ed had some great artwork.) When the head...
View full commentI've been gaming since 1980, and I've been DM-ing a Nentir Vale campaign for about 10 months. I have to say that, over all, I really enjoy 4th edition. The combats are fast-paced, entertaining, and often surprising. Because the powers are on the character sheet, I have NEVER had to pause my game to look up a rule (unlike 3.0/3.5).
I do, however, have some distinctive concerns - First, 4.0 artwork in many cases is cartoonish and childish. (2nd ed had some great artwork.) When the head of a war-hammer is as big as the warrior's body we have a problem. Second, there is, in some cases, a complete dismissal of verisimilitude. Characters, for example, have action points and the ability to completely heal themselves during an extended rest. Where did this come from? I want to be clear; I'm not saying that these abilities are necessarily bad; I just want some sort of in-game rationale so that I can more effectively suspend my disbelief. I'm not looking for "realism;" I'm looking for consistent, integrated fantasy. Third, with its release, Wizards apparently forgot that D&D is a role-playing game. Compare 3.0 and 4.0 Forgotten Realms material. Wow, what a difference! The earlier edition offers an artistic achievement, while 4.0 offers only some region-related powers. When it comes to world-building, I don't know of any gamer with the attitude "if it doesn't empower my character, it's not important." Wizards has since made amends with a satisfying development of Nentir Vale, but I'm afraid the damage has already been done.
In sum, I would recommend these improvements - verisimilitude, artwork, and an integrated, highly developed campaign setting.
I agree with all of this up until when you discuss 4th edition. When you released 4th ed, the game didn't radically change, people kept playing the old editions. Both of my groups attempted to play 4th, we played for over a year trying to force ourselves to like it. It was unbalanced, and unflavored. In the interest of streamlining, you made every class feel the same. By crapping out dozens of sourcebooks within the first year and a half, you made things unbalanced. please do us all a...
View full commentI agree with all of this up until when you discuss 4th edition. When you released 4th ed, the game didn't radically change, people kept playing the old editions. Both of my groups attempted to play 4th, we played for over a year trying to force ourselves to like it.
It was unbalanced, and unflavored. In the interest of streamlining, you made every class feel the same. By crapping out dozens of sourcebooks within the first year and a half, you made things unbalanced.
please do us all a favor, don't include ANYTHING from 4th edition in this new edition, and MAYBE people will play it.
Lots and lots of people love 4E. Actually, much of the modern fan-base for D&D is 4E players. Lots and lots of people hate 3.5. You're preferences are not everyone's. Sorry.
View full commentLots and lots of people love 4E. Actually, much of the modern fan-base for D&D is 4E players.
Lots and lots of people hate 3.5.
More on realism... Let me say that I once ran a seminar at GEN CON called "What's Wrong with '3E'". My goal was to bring fans of 2nd edition and 3rd edition together for a great debate, to see if we could iron out what should be changed for a 4th edition. Sean Reynolds was there, and I remember him saying my point about gold and magic items was good (I made that point, and invited the audience to make theirs, and I wrote on a easel-pad people's ideas for what was wrong, and right, about...
Let me say that I once ran a seminar at GEN CON called "What's Wrong with '3E'". My goal was to bring fans of 2nd edition and 3rd edition together for a great debate, to see if we could iron out what should be changed for a 4th edition. Sean Reynolds was there, and I remember him saying my point about gold and magic items was good (I made that point, and invited the audience to make theirs, and I wrote on a easel-pad people's ideas for what was wrong, and right, about 3rd edition).
I wish I could work for WotC. Like you, Mr. Cook, I've designed "my own separate rule-books". I'd like to see from a 5th edition, "just a game that upsets fewer of the players", because for me, running D&D has been a labor of love. Ever since I ran the games for friends in high school, I "just don't want to see players disappointed". I really believe that you should make a new edition "when enough demand for it is clear", not to answer any market or budget forces, and whenever you do make a new edition, it shouldn't "be a totally new game" as I once read you said maybe you'd like for a 4th edition. You'd take the game in some really new direction. I want the game to be as much like it always was as it can be, and with 4th edition, I see quite a different game there without your getting involved.
Think about what the characters in the settings want, and what they need. Changes to the game really affect their world. Elves having no level limits, for example, means that because they're so much longer-lived than humans, they civilizations would be far more powerful. This would have altered the entire history in the settings, such the elves of Faerun never losing their forests and leaving for Evermeet. I find that when you as DM care about the characters like I do, as such, all of play really benefits, and I won't ever demand my players use rules that will end the legitimacy of their characters' pasts and histories. Again, sorry for being harsh.
View full comment