PDA

View Full Version : Too many systems of magic!



taltamir
2009-09-14, 08:13 PM
Ok party, arcane caster - check, divine caster - check, Incarna resistance - check, spell resitance - check, psi resistance - check, truenamer... HA! that was a joke, they aren't really dangerous... ok party, anything I am forgetting?

Seriously, How many systems of magic do we actually need? Oh, I forget the wu jen, and warlock, and a few others I am sure...

Zeta Kai
2009-09-14, 08:15 PM
Bio-magic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2487790#post2487790)? :smallwink:

Stegyre
2009-09-14, 08:15 PM
I think of it as a buffet: you may pick and choose the dishes you want and leave the others alone. In that regard, more options are fine, as long as no one feels that they are required to "eat" them all.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-14, 08:19 PM
You need monsters resistant to incarnum? Isn't incarnum mostly buff-type effects, and therefore would not be resisted?

taltamir
2009-09-14, 08:22 PM
I think of it as a buffet: you may pick and choose the dishes you want and leave the others alone. In that regard, more options are fine, as long as no one feels that they are required to "eat" them all.

Except, in this case the baffet is trying to eat YOU. You have to have a caster of every type to counter casters of that type.

Worse though, you, the player, have to spend DAYS reading source materials and understanding what is going on... for example: No I did not read about any incarnum resistance, I just assumed there is some.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-09-14, 08:28 PM
I like it. If I get bored with any abilities, I can track down a new one that interests me more. Basic definition: Arcane spont: Pick at level up, watch for running out
Arcane Prep: Pick at level up and start of day, watch for running out
Divine Prep: Pick at start of day, watch for running out
Martial: Pick at level-up, infinite
Incarnum: Shift as-needed, infinite
Initiator: Pick at level-up and shift as needed, infinite
Psionics: Pick at level-up, scale as-needed, watch for running out
Binder: Pick at start of day, infiniteThat's all off the top of my head, and I may be misrembering Incarnum, but each is different with different uses, and each plays differently. Variety is more fun IMHO.

Edit: You're worried about resisting. Well, off the top of my head: Arcane spont: SR, Saves, touch AC. Still not enough, but Arcane does everything and is borked.
Arcane Prep: SR, Saves, touch AC. Still not enough, but Arcane does everything and is borked.
Divine Prep: Same as arcane+martial, but weaker than arcane
Martial: AC+HP
Incarnum: AC+HP
Initiator: Martial+some saves and touch AC
Psionics: PR(SR qualifies thanks to transparency), Saves, touch AC. Arcane but balanced, though you need AC+HP for the PsyWar
Binder: see MartialAnd you probably can drop the SR, too. Nothing attacks any defense beyond what's listed in core.

Tavar
2009-09-14, 08:32 PM
Except, in this case the baffet is trying to eat YOU. You have to have a caster of every type to counter casters of that type.
No, you really don't. Every form of magic can be countered by any other. Unless you specifically choose to go against what is suggested in the books, in which case you're the only one you can really blame.


Worse though, you, the player, have to spend DAYS reading source materials and understanding what is going on... for example: No I did not read about any incarnum resistance, I just assumed there is some.
Only if you the player wants to do that specifically, and if you want to do it why is it a chore?

taltamir
2009-09-14, 08:34 PM
Bio-magic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2487790#post2487790)? :smallwink:

a cursory glance seems to show that basically you are a sorcerer that drains his own life to cast, resulting in the premature death of the player... There is actually PRECEDENCE for such in fantasy. However, while fairly suitable and cool for certain rare stories (AS THE ONLY SYSTEM OF MAGIC IN EXISTENCE), this doesn't seem like it would work in a game.

1. Nobody, ever, will use it unless it is the ONLY magic system in existence.
2. Even then, most would not use it since it is basically resulting in your death. Also I have no idea how a biomage could ever actually grow in strength, since practice makes perfect, and yet just 13 casts per level (as calculated by another) of the highest level spell results in your permanent death by level 10 to 20 depending on con.
3. You could play as an EVIL mage and drain the lifeforce of others... if it is the only magic system in existence and I am playing evil... sure why not!

So yea, if you wanted to nearly eliminate magic from your world, making it limited to a few dying heroes and villains, sure it could be quite a cool mechanic; I'd actually consider such a game. But generally, the penalties are way too harsh.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-14, 08:36 PM
No, you really don't. Every form of magic can be countered by any other. Unless you specifically choose to go against what is suggested in the books, in which case you're the only one you can really blame.

This, exactly.

taltamir
2009-09-14, 08:40 PM
This, exactly.

I thought "magic is magic is magic" WAS the alternate rules...

Still, overwhelming.

Tavar
2009-09-14, 08:42 PM
I thought "magic is magic is magic" WAS the alternate rules...

Still, overwhelming.

Nope, pretty much all of them are very clear about how they interact with Core Magic, and the only one that even offers being non-transparent(psionics) strongly advises against it as it's difficult to balance.

taltamir
2009-09-14, 08:46 PM
overwhelming in the sense of "read and understand them all so you can choose between them". Quite frankly I am at the "just pick one at random" stage.

lsfreak
2009-09-14, 08:49 PM
overwhelming in the sense of "read and understand them all so you can choose between them". Quite frankly I am at the "just pick one at random" stage.

Just don't pick Vancian or Truenamer, they're the two most broken ones. For completely different reasons.

EDIT: To be more productive, yes it's a bit overwhelming your first time through. But incarnum, binders, psionics, and invocations (especially DFA) are all worth learning. Incarnum and binders are probably the most overwhelming but also, imo, the best. Just take an afternoon to read through Incarnum or the binders and get the basics down, at least.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-14, 08:55 PM
Just don't pick Vancian or Truenamer, they're the two most broken ones. For completely different reasons.

EDIT: To be more productive, yes it's a bit overwhelming your first time through. But incarnum, binders, psionics, and invocations (especially DFA) are all worth learning. Incarnum and binders are probably the most overwhelming but also, imo, the best. Just take an afternoon to read through Incarnum or the binders and get the basics down, at least.

It took me two readthroughs of the Incarnum book to "get it", but it's now one of my favorite magic systems. I highly recommend it.

taltamir
2009-09-14, 08:58 PM
Just don't pick Vancian or Truenamer, they're the two most broken ones. For completely different reasons.

EDIT: To be more productive, yes it's a bit overwhelming your first time through. But incarnum, binders, psionics, and invocations (especially DFA) are all worth learning. Incarnum and binders are probably the most overwhelming but also, imo, the best. Just take an afternoon to read through Incarnum or the binders and get the basics down, at least.

Heh, right now I am vanacian... But the game I am currently playing only HAS Two systems. Clerics with smaller spell list. And single school wizards derivatives with benefits. I am playing a transmutation specialist called rearranger.

I know of truenamers and that they totally suck...
I know a mediocre amount about wizards, sorcerers, and clerics.
I do not know ANYTHING about: incarnum, binders, and invocations
I know next to nothing about: psionics

in which order do you suggest going over them? keep in mind I have a busy school schedule so it will probably take me a month just to find the time to go over ONE of those.

AmberVael
2009-09-14, 09:12 PM
I'd say go for Psionics next. It is really, really similar to the core spellcasting system, so it won't be hard to pick up.

Essentially:
Take spellcasting.
Instead of spell slots, give people power points.
Tada. You're done.

After that, go for Invocations. Also a pretty simple system.

You gain an ability. You can use it at will. Woohoo.

Then go for Binding. You pick out one or more sets of abilities per day, which really vary widely (anything from proficiencies to spell like abilities to skill bonuses).

Lastly, Incarnum. I love incarnum, but it really IS the most complicated system to learn (as it is entirely new and does have some complexity to it).
Basically? You choose new magic items every day. Except you also choose how good the magic items are, and possibly different aspects about them too.

lsfreak
2009-09-14, 09:13 PM
Invocations are very simple: at-will supernatural abilities that replicate spells. And you get to breath fire/launch bolts of magic unlimited times, and can modify them to some extent (make the bolt of magic into a cone and make it deal negative levels).

Psionics are pretty simple: Take Vancian magic, but instead of being able to cast Y spells of X level, you have a total pool of X spell levels that you can use on any spell you know (i.e. mana system). You also have two forms of "metamagic" for it - one is actual metapsionic feats, one is built-in augmentation for certain abilities.

Binders: You choose between one and four sets of at-will supernatural abilities (depending on your level). The complexity here is that there's so many different combinations; you kind of have to know from the beginning which ones you're going after in order to pick the right feats and such. Advantage is the class itself can be built to fill any role you can think of, short of full-blown batman.

Incarnum: You choose new magic items to wear every day, and can change which ones are stronger and weaker every round. The most complex system to figure out and probably the most complex in terms of options, because there's so many items to choose from. Again, there's some more complexities as well, but that's the very basics.

I'd definitely suggest going over Binders or Incarnum first. To me, binders have a much more magic-heavy feel and I prefer them. I like the Incarnum system better than the binder system, but I like the binder class better than the incarnate or totemist classes.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-14, 09:16 PM
Ok party, arcane caster - check, divine caster - check, Incarna resistance - check, spell resitance - check, psi resistance - check, truenamer... HA! that was a joke, they aren't really dangerous... ok party, anything I am forgetting?

Seriously, How many systems of magic do we actually need? Oh, I forget the wu jen, and warlock, and a few others I am sure...

I'd say one every year or so ought to do... except they're no longer releasing 3.5 sadly. Personally, I'm actually beginning to work my way through all the various means and classes and I'm wistful for when they still released more.

taltamir
2009-09-14, 10:15 PM
thank you for all the suggestions.

out of curiosity. How many people here use 4e and think I should just skip on mastering the various 3.5 flavors and start crunching on 4e instead?

arguskos
2009-09-14, 10:15 PM
thank you for all the suggestions.

out of curiosity. How many people here use 4e and think I should just skip on mastering the various 3.5 flavors and start crunching on 4e instead?
Eh, I vote 3.5. The depth and variety are greater there than on 4e. Oh, and we don't play 4e. :smalltongue:

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-14, 10:21 PM
Seriously, How many systems of magic do we actually need? Oh, I forget the wu jen, and warlock, and a few others I am sure...

Wu Jen use arcane spells, and Warlocks use SLA's which are like those used by many core monsters.

Ravens_cry
2009-09-14, 10:21 PM
There is a lot of life left in 3.5, what with all the books put out, and plenty of homebrew if you ever get tired of that. It's also really easy to come up with your own new material. Now, it's not balanced. But it can be fun, and that is what is important. Doesn't matter if your gamest, simulationest, narrativest, or all of the above, if you're grinning you're winning.

taltamir
2009-09-14, 10:22 PM
Eh, I vote 3.5. The depth and variety are greater there than on 4e. Oh, and we don't play 4e. :smalltongue:

we also don't play those other 3.5 magic systems :). So this is really for "the future".

Although, the way things are looking. We will be playing for a while.
But if we stop for some IRL reason, I wonder if I will find a new group that includes those exotic spell systems, or just uses 4e instead. Eh, I can just read them at leisure for now when i find time instead of really studying them. And if that happens I'll cross that bridge THEN.

That being said, seems like most people here prefer 3.5e :)

arguskos
2009-09-14, 10:24 PM
Actually, I use Arcane, Divine, Invocations, Binders, Shadow Magic, Truenami- ok I can't type that w/o laughing a bit, and Psionics (though rarely). The only things I don't really use are Incarnum and Tome of Battle (and I'd prefer to not go into my reasons, suffice to say I have them and they work fine for me). :smalltongue:

taltamir
2009-09-14, 10:27 PM
Actually, I use Arcane, Divine, Invocations, Binders, Shadow Magic, Truenami- ok I can't type that w/o laughing a bit, and Psionics (though rarely). The only things I don't really use are Incarnum and Tome of Battle (and I'd prefer to not go into my reasons, suffice to say I have them and they work fine for me). :smalltongue:

so wait... only sorcs and wizards are banned as written? I thought only the custom single spell arcanists and divine casters existed...
Ok, this changes thing. I should read up on some of those systems than.

arguskos
2009-09-14, 10:32 PM
so wait... only sorcs and wizards are banned as written? I thought only the custom single spell arcanists and divine casters existed...
Ok, this changes thing. I should read up on some of those systems than.
Spoilered for folk that aren't in one of my games.
Ok, here's the (mostly) complete class list for my games tal:
-Rearranger, Savant, Summoner, Beguiler, Bard, Warmage, Dread Necromancer
-Cloistered Cleric
-Elementalist Druid and Beastmaster Druid (I'll send you the details if you want them)
-Fighter
-Rogue
-Barbarian
-Paladin (and all the alignment varients)
-Ranger
-Monk (with like 4 different fixes so they don't suck)
-Knight
-Duskblade
-Dragon Shaman
-Dragonfire Adept
-Warlock
-Binder
-Shadowcaster
-Truenamer (only if someone REAAAAALLY wants it)
-Scout
-Swashbuckler
-Hexblade
-Ninja
-Spellthief
-Savant
-Mountebank
-Jester
-Battle Dancer
-Psion, PsyWar, Wilder are all available on a provisional, case-by-case basis only

*whew* I think that's everything.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 12:17 AM
Except, in this case the baffet is trying to eat YOU. You have to have a caster of every type to counter casters of that type.

Worse though, you, the player, have to spend DAYS reading source materials and understanding what is going on... for example: No I did not read about any incarnum resistance, I just assumed there is some.

It's called Spell Resistance. About 8 soulmelds even allow it. There's a feat that grants it, but its pretty damn useless (at least the Psionic version was able to block out an entire school of magic).

It doesn't even pop up if you're playing a meldshaper unless you are playing one of two specific builds (the DFA_Wannabe Totemist and a CN Incarnate).

Soulborn doesn't exist. This reduces the amount of reading you need to do with Incarnum.


out of curiosity. How many people here use 4e and think I should just skip on mastering the various 3.5 flavors and start crunching on 4e instead?

4E crunches like stale Goldfish. Moldly ones at that. PH3 may fix this if Dragon is any indication (maybe). But 3.5 has more crunch than 4E, easily.

If you want simple, cookie-cutter style classes that require nothing beyond a lite afternoon's read to play for the Core rules (splats introduce some new mechanics, but not much), then 4E is fine. If you want versatility in your system, play 3.5.

4E has a few good points (Barbarian, Artificer, Bard), but it has just as many bad (Wizard, errata nerfs ala MTG pre-Onslaught, stagnant class design within the core rules, being broken even with errata, the list goes on for a little while).

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-15, 02:13 AM
4E crunches like stale Goldfish. Moldly ones at that.

Hey hey HEY! :smallmad: Don't dis goldfish, man! Even stale they're pretty darn tasty. Make it Saltines or Cheez-its and I'd agree with you.


The issue I have with 4e's power sources is that when I have different subsystems, I want them to work differently. I like dealing with essentia, power points, spell slots, etc. If you think they're overly complex, I suppose you could go with 4e, but switching to it just because you don't like 3e's magic systems would be like playing 3e just because you couldn't keep the fighter's, ranger's, and rogue's powers straight.

taltamir
2009-09-15, 02:16 AM
i hope you mean the junk food and not the living animal :)

Yora
2009-09-15, 02:54 AM
My games have Wis-based Druid magic, Wis-based Priest magic, and Cha-based Witch magic. All based on psions with some class features and different spell lists.

Person_Man
2009-09-15, 09:43 AM
My 2cp is that you stay away from the Tome of Magic. It basically contains 3 different sets of magic rules, all of which are needlessly confusing and/or suck.

The "logical" progression of learning magic (in my head, at least) is core -> psionics -> tome of battle -> magic of incarnum.

Core (Vancian casting) is a miasma of different options and probably takes the longest time to master, but since it's core, 99% of games will feature it in some way.

Psionics is probably the easiest to learn. You have a pool of power points. Each power costs X points. You can improve the powers by spending more points, but you can never spend more then your total manifester level on any power. When you run out of points, you're done.

Tome of Battle is probably the most beloved and hated of the splat books. Each class basically gets a pool of manuevers. Stances are continuous, but you can only use one at a time. Maneuvers can be used once per encounter (and each class has a separate recovery mechanism, in case you want to use it more then once per encounter.

Incarnum basically gives you a pool of soul energy (Essentia) which you can shift between soulmelds (all day buffs) as a Swift Action. In addition, you can bind soulmelds to your chakra to gain new powers. Incarnum is the most complex of the four, but it also has the most flexibility.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 09:49 AM
i hope you mean the junk food and not the living animal :)

I did mean the animal, not the snack food. Personal issue.


The issue I have with 4e's power sources is that when I have different subsystems, I want them to work differently. I like dealing with essentia, power points, spell slots, etc. If you think they're overly complex, I suppose you could go with 4e, but switching to it just because you don't like 3e's magic systems would be like playing 3e just because you couldn't keep the fighter's, ranger's, and rogue's powers straight.


Ditto. I was rather upset about the lack of variance between subsystems. Hopefully PH3's Psionic system will live up to the Dragon playtest.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-15, 04:13 PM
My 2cp is that you stay away from the Tome of Magic. It basically contains 3 different sets of magic rules, all of which are needlessly confusing and/or suck.

I don't know about that--binders aren't all that confusing (make a check, you have these powers for the rest of the day whether you succeed or fail), and almost make up for the meh of the shadowcaster and utter failure of the truenamer. So I wouldn't suggest going out and buying Tome of Magic just for the binder, but if someone else in the group already has it, then by all means learn (and learn to love) the binder.

TheThan
2009-09-15, 05:04 PM
I think the problem is that people are allowing anything others want as useable. So you end up with a world where there are 10 different magic systems.

Basically this is a bad idea. The basic 3.5 rules have ONE magic system, with two slight variants (spontaneous and prepared). The only difference is whether or not you prepare spells.

Other magic systems such as Pact magic, truename magic, psionics, Incarnum etc are all variant rules that clearly aren’t really supposed to be used with the standard magic system. They are designed to replace the core magic system with something different (not necessarily better or more/less powerful, just different).

For example its not unreasonable to create a game world where the only magic system in existence is Truename magic. This change creates a completely different feel for the way magic works in this setting (compared to everything else). Some may like it, some don’t.

Just because you can combine them doesn’t mean you should. The guys who made these systems must have figured that people would so they wrote in rules for how they interact with one another. But its clear when you look at how each class works that they shouldn’t interact with one another.

Person_Man
2009-09-15, 05:11 PM
I don't know about that--binders aren't all that confusing (make a check, you have these powers for the rest of the day whether you succeed or fail), and almost make up for the meh of the shadowcaster and utter failure of the truenamer. So I wouldn't suggest going out and buying Tome of Magic just for the binder, but if someone else in the group already has it, then by all means learn (and learn to love) the binder.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the fluff and crunch of the Binder (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=137.0). But I think it's a very fiddly, hard to learn class.

1) First, you must pick a vestige off of the list of every vestige that exists, limited by your class level (like a Cleric choosing spells). Except that unlike a spell, each vestige grants multiple abilities. Making the various permutations nearly endless, and making your choices (do I want to tank today? heal? scout?) somewhat opaque, especially at higher levels when you can bind multiple vestiges at the same time from a wider list.

2) Second, you must draw the vestige's seal. This takes 1 minute, OR 1 full round with a -10 to your binding check. (A rule with an exception).

3) Now you must summon the corresponding vestige. This takes another full round action. (Making it unlikely that you'd ever bind in combat, as it essentially takes 2 turns).

4) Make the binding check: (1d20 + effective binder level + cha modifier). The binding DC varies for each vestige according to their power, listed on a chart. There is no standard formula. (annoying bookkeeping).

5) If you succeed on the binding check, you get the vestige's powers. If you fail, you still get their powers (?) but have to follow the vestige's Influence. Each Influence makes you act in a different way according to the specific vestige description, and if you don't act in accordance with the Influence, you take cumulative penalties. (annoying roleplaying restrictions, and annoying bookkeeping)

6) Did I mention that most vestiges also have unique sub-requirements, like a material component, or not using certain other vestiges at the same time, or drawing a the seal out doors? Grrr. (annoying roleplaying restrictions, and annoying bookkeeping)

7) Good news, your vestiges you've chosen stay with you all day! (unless you have a feat which lets you expel it, another rule with an exception) Except that most of the cool powers you get are only available once every five rounds. So each time you use a power, you'll have to have a countdown die on the tabletop letting you know when you can use it again. (annoying bookkeeping).

8) But wait, there's more! There are feats and magic items which modify how you do each of these things - Expel Vestige, Rapid Pact Making, Improved Binding, Ignore Special Requirements, etc. (More exceptions to rules, many of which are basically "required" feat sinks for any binder build).

9) Also, don't tell anyone, but Binder abilities are all Supernatural. In a way I think this is acutally a good thing, as it frees you from many annoyances. But it also screws many DM balance tools, like Spell Resistance, Anti-Magic Field, Attacks of Opportunity, etc. (This could also be said of the Tome of Battle as well, or Psionics without transparency).

Again, I love the Binder fluff and concept. But I think that a much better way to execute it would have been:

1) As a full round action you bind one vestige from a list based on your binder class level. As you gain binder levels, you can bind more powerful vestiges.
2) Each vestige grants a cluster of powers, some of which are continuous, and the rest of which can be used At Will, which you retain until you are killed or bind another vestige.
3) The end.

See how easy that is compared to the parade of Rule (with Exception) -> Rule (with Exception) -> Bookkeeping Hassle -> Rule -> etc, which typifies 80% of 3.X material.

Godskook
2009-09-15, 05:22 PM
9) Also, don't tell anyone, but Binder abilities are all Supernatural. In a way I think this is acutally a good thing, as it frees you from many annoyances. But it also screws many DM balance tools, like Spell Resistance, Anti-Magic Field, Attacks of Opportunity, etc. (This could also be said of the Tome of Battle as well, or Psionics without transparency).

Su abilities are affected by anti-magic fields...did you mean that they're extraordinary, or brain fart?

Starbuck_II
2009-09-15, 05:32 PM
No, you really don't. Every form of magic can be countered by any other. Unless you specifically choose to go against what is suggested in the books, in which case you're the only one you can really blame.

Not exactly.
Shadow Magic has +4 dispel resist (you take -4 penalty to dispel them samething).
And has unique "spells" that are immune to classic counters (like see invisible doesn't help vs Dancing Shadows (personal useage to make you 50% concealment...yes immune to targeting effectively invisible).

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-15, 05:49 PM
Ok, so no targeting. You can still make melee attacks, ranged attacks, and area attacks against them. It never says you don't know what square they're in. I'd place that around Mirror Image in terms of power, maybe Greater Mirror Image.
And shadowcasters are generally seen as suck, so +4 dispel resist doesn't concern me.


Just because you can combine them doesn’t mean you should. The guys who made these systems must have figured that people would so they wrote in rules for how they interact with one another. But its clear when you look at how each class works that they shouldn’t interact with one another.

I've never seen alternate rules replace base casting, nor seen any indication that this should happen. Could you elaborate?

lsfreak
2009-09-15, 05:56 PM
And has unique "spells" that are immune to classic counters (like see invisible doesn't help vs Dancing Shadows (personal useage to make you 50% concealment...yes immune to targeting effectively invisible).

It's an exact copy of something that already exists. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/displacement.htm)
EDIT: Okay, not exact copy. At high levels it affects multiple people.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-15, 06:09 PM
It's an exact copy of something that already exists. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/displacement.htm)
EDIT: Okay, not exact copy. At high levels it affects multiple people.

You do realize Displacement lets you still be targeted. It doesn't.

lsfreak
2009-09-15, 06:25 PM
You do realize Displacement lets you still be targeted. It doesn't.

Rereading, the only thing 50% miss allows that total concealment doesn't is AoO's (which, admittedly, I forgot about). And possibly spells with "Target: One Creature," but that's iffy because you still know exactly where the target is and you still have line of effect.

taltamir
2009-09-15, 06:35 PM
Again, I love the Binder fluff and concept. But I think that a much better way to execute it would have been:

1) As a full round action you bind one vestige from a list based on your binder class level. As you gain binder levels, you can bind more powerful vestiges.
2) Each vestige grants a cluster of powers, some of which are continuous, and the rest of which can be used At Will, which you retain until you are killed or bind another vestige.
3) The end.

See how easy that is compared to the parade of Rule (with Exception) -> Rule (with Exception) -> Bookkeeping Hassle -> Rule -> etc, which typifies 80% of 3.X material.

but then, they would have had to make more material, or worse, LESS books. Less books means less money.
Everything from WoTC works that way.
For example, most of the spells can be distilled to "choose energy type, choose ray or blast or cone, or orb, modify level up or down depending on type. Choose V,S,M component, write a bunch of unnecessary fluff, etc". You could easily condense a lot of the material down to a fraction of its size.

Kylarra
2009-09-15, 06:41 PM
but then, they would have had to make more material, or worse, LESS books. Less books means less money.
Everything from WoTC works that way.
For example, most of the spells can be distilled to "choose energy type, choose ray or blast or cone, or orb, modify level up or down depending on type. Choose V,S,M component, write a bunch of unnecessary fluff, etc". You could easily condense a lot of the material down to a fraction of its size.
Why even go that far?

Choose range. Choose target(s). Roll Dice. If successful, deal damage.

There. I've reduced the game to its core. Not counting SoDs, but hey you weren't talking about those.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-15, 06:48 PM
Rereading, the only thing 50% miss allows that total concealment doesn't is AoO's (which, admittedly, I forgot about). And possibly spells with "Target: One Creature," but that's iffy because you still know exactly where the target is and you still have line of effect.

Actually, targeted spells (Target: 1 creature) don't work because you don't know where they are: you just know what square they are in.
You lack line of sight.
See Dancing Shadows covers you in shadow (not Darkness-like but real magical stuff darkness).
You can't see them, but you know they are there (assuming light in every square but them).

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-15, 06:51 PM
Anticipate Teleportation. Baleful Transposition. Burrow. Death Pact. Ebon Eyes. Flipping randomly through the Spell Compendium, these are simple examples of non-redundant effects added.

taltamir
2009-09-15, 07:20 PM
Anticipate Teleportation. Baleful Transposition. Burrow. Death Pact. Ebon Eyes. Flipping randomly through the Spell Compendium, these are simple examples of non-redundant effects added.

there are about 3 or 4 spells i know of that give the same effect as ebon eyes more or less.

Besides, spells obviously have VARIETY. but there is plenty of unnecessary inflation.

The DMG for example has a simple list of simple crafting rules, from which a lot of things spring. Cost is per skill / attribute, increase 50% if wrong affinity slot is used (aka, goggles of str), double price if no slot is used (aka, ioun stone of strength)...
All the ioun stones, and every item giving a buff to an attribute or skill could be eliminated from the list and replaced by a half page crafting mechanics rule.

I am not saying reduce the versatility, i am saying "say the same thing with less words". aka, remove the PADDING. And there is lots and lots of padding.

Actually, that would be a good project for me... rewrite the PHB with better organization, simplicity, and a minimum of words WITHOUT changing the actual rules or content... only remove redundant content. I bet i could work wonders.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-15, 07:23 PM
Then, as you earlier stated, WotC would make less money. And they wouldn't pay their designers as much, and they wouldn't pay their stockholders as much; but since the consumers wouldn't pay as much that trade is even. More importantly, WotC wouldn't pay Hasbro as much, and Hasbro would step in to "fix" the "problem", and then we'd have bigger concerns than extraneous padding.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-09-15, 09:26 PM
I think the problem is that people are allowing anything others want as useable. So you end up with a world where there are 10 different magic systems.

Basically this is a bad idea. The basic 3.5 rules have ONE magic system, with two slight variants (spontaneous and prepared). The only difference is whether or not you prepare spells.

Other magic systems such as Pact magic, truename magic, psionics, Incarnum etc are all variant rules that clearly aren’t really supposed to be used with the standard magic system. -snip-

I would argue heavily against the bold portion there. I would go so far as to say it would be better to just ban core casting (that is, arcane and divine), leaving only the odd balls around. It would stop some of the sillier RAW abuses with Gate chains and fast flowing time planar creations. Sure, Psionics might get one or two similar breaks, but not nearly as much as straight casting.

Of course, I see Psionics and Maneuvers as being basically spells for nearly all purposes, save the occasional AMF for maneuvers and Dead Magic Zone for both of them. The other bits emulate some small piece of the core pie, with the two soul-flavored styles being farthest from the core set-up.

Also, all dual casting classes minus Mystic Theurge would like to have a word with you.:smalltongue:

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-16, 12:04 AM
Don't get me wrong, I really like the fluff and crunch of the Binder (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=137.0). But I think it's a very fiddly, hard to learn class.

Binder isn't really any harder to learn than core casters, they're just new and different and the others are old and familiar. For comparison:


1) First, you must pick a vestige off of the list of every vestige that exists, limited by your class level (like a Cleric choosing spells). Except that unlike a spell, each vestige grants multiple abilities. Making the various permutations nearly endless, and making your choices (do I want to tank today? heal? scout?) somewhat opaque, especially at higher levels when you can bind multiple vestiges at the same time from a wider list.

As a core caster, if you want to tank, you have to prepare a bunch of specific spells (mage armor, shield, true strike, etc.) that are completely different from what a controller would prepare (glitterdust, web, etc.) that are completely different from other roles--and if you want to dabble in several roles, you have the whole gamut of spells to pick from. You have either your entire list to choose from in the case of a divine caster or a whole heck of a lot of spells in the case of a wizard. As a binder, if you want to do a given role, bind one or two vestiges and you're set.


2) Second, you must draw the vestige's seal. This takes 1 minute, OR 1 full round with a -10 to your binding check. (A rule with an exception).

3) Now you must summon the corresponding vestige. This takes another full round action. (Making it unlikely that you'd ever bind in combat, as it essentially takes 2 turns).

So, your binder says "I draw the seal and make the pact" the same way a core caster says "I prepare spells." The in-game length of the action is essentially meaningless unless you're trying to bind in combat...which isn't mandatory or a really good idea, and is something core casters can't do.


4) Make the binding check: (1d20 + effective binder level + cha modifier). The binding DC varies for each vestige according to their power, listed on a chart. There is no standard formula. (annoying bookkeeping).

Again, look up the DC, make the roll, and you're done.


5) If you succeed on the binding check, you get the vestige's powers. If you fail, you still get their powers (?) but have to follow the vestige's Influence. Each Influence makes you act in a different way according to the specific vestige description, and if you don't act in accordance with the Influence, you take cumulative penalties. (annoying roleplaying restrictions, and annoying bookkeeping)

This is a roleplaying restriction, but like all roleplaying restrictions, it's as annoying or empowering as you make it. And while it's something you have to keep track of, it's not really any more fiddly than a core caster's buffs or a martial character's feats. "I have a -2 to X for the rest of the day" is as hard or easy as "I have +2 to Strength for X hours" or "I have a -X penalty to attack in exchange for a +Y bonus to Z."


6) Did I mention that most vestiges also have unique sub-requirements, like a material component, or not using certain other vestiges at the same time, or drawing a the seal out doors? Grrr. (annoying roleplaying restrictions, and annoying bookkeeping)

Again, the RPing thing is subjective. Special requirements are on the same level of annoyance as material components: Only a subset actually matter mechanically (non-interacting vestiges, costly materials) and they can be removed with a single feat.


7) Good news, your vestiges you've chosen stay with you all day! (unless you have a feat which lets you expel it, another rule with an exception) Except that most of the cool powers you get are only available once every five rounds. So each time you use a power, you'll have to have a countdown die on the tabletop letting you know when you can use it again. (annoying bookkeeping).

...which differs from other buffs/debuffs or recharges (like a dragon's 1d4+1) how? Again, different, but no more difficult.


8) But wait, there's more! There are feats and magic items which modify how you do each of these things - Expel Vestige, Rapid Pact Making, Improved Binding, Ignore Special Requirements, etc. (More exceptions to rules, many of which are basically "required" feat sinks for any binder build).

Metamagic. Item creation feats. DC boosters. CL boosters. Spell modifiers. None of these are required, but they do make their respective classes better--and the above binder feats are only necessary if you're swapping vestiges in the middle of combat, which you rarely should do.


9) Also, don't tell anyone, but Binder abilities are all Supernatural. In a way I think this is acutally a good thing, as it frees you from many annoyances. But it also screws many DM balance tools, like Spell Resistance, Anti-Magic Field, Attacks of Opportunity, etc. (This could also be said of the Tome of Battle as well, or Psionics without transparency).

But, in the binder's favor, none of the abilities are powerful enough that a DM needs special "screw class X" abilities like SR.


Again, I love the Binder fluff and concept. But I think that a much better way to execute it would have been:

1) As a full round action you bind one vestige from a list based on your binder class level. As you gain binder levels, you can bind more powerful vestiges.
2) Each vestige grants a cluster of powers, some of which are continuous, and the rest of which can be used At Will, which you retain until you are killed or bind another vestige.
3) The end.

The existing chain of actions:
1) With 1 minute, you bind one vestige from a list based on your binder class level. As you gain binder levels, you can bind more powerful vestiges.
2) Each vestige grants a cluster of powers, some of which are continuous, and the rest of which can be used every 5 rounds, which you retain until you are killed or bind another vestige.
3) The end.

The only differences are binding time (which doesn't matter in combat unless you go out of your way to use that) and the frequency of your abilities, which is a minor concern next to all the round-by-round details a core caster would have to keep track of.


See how easy that is compared to the parade of Rule (with Exception) -> Rule (with Exception) -> Bookkeeping Hassle -> Rule -> etc, which typifies 80% of 3.X material.

While I agree that it could have been made much simpler...so could the core casters which you're comparing them to! The binder may be unintuitive to someone used to Vancian casting, but it isn't nearly as difficult or complex as you're making it out to be.