PDA

View Full Version : [3.P] What mechanics and concepts have we outgrown?



Endarire
2010-11-18, 10:28 PM
Point of this Thread
We've come a long way from 3.0's release in summer of 2000. Since then, WotC and Paizo have learned a lot in terms of game design. Still, many feel the game needs changing.

Let's assume the game makers are trying to make the game as fun and balanced as possible while keeping the spirit of 3.P intact. Let's also assume that copyright related to 3.P is no problem.

What changes- mild or radical- would you propose?

In short, how would you tweak the mechanics of this game to improve fun overall? Why?

Favored Classes as a Penalty
Many have said the implementation simply doesn't work. Saying, "You lose experience for multiclassing," to the classes who benefit most from multiclassing (non-casters) feels like an insult.

Pathfinder's Favored Classes as a Bonus system helps slightly, but the simulationist in me says, "Scrap all systems that reward or punish people simply for single classing or multiclassing." Instead, let people take classes that best suit their concept.

Ability Tax and Character Scheduling
Don't make me plan my character just to qualify for X "in time." Don't require I choose between rock now/suck later and suck now/rock later. Let me rock at all levels.

People Don't Do 4 Fights Per Day
Really. They don't. To my recollection, I've never been in a group (aside from perhaps RPGA games) that had 4 fights per day on a regular basis. I've always had a small number of fights (random encounters, fights we pick), or a large numbers of fights (dungeon crawls).

BAB and Full Attacking Don't Work Like You Think
A Fighter3 upon becoming a Fighter3 gets HP, skill points, base saves, and BAB, but everyone gets these when gaining HD. A Wizard3 gets 2 new tricks- spells- that only a Wizard (or someone casting off the Wizard list) can do.

This happens every odd Fighter level: The Wizard gets a new spell level but the Fighter gets nothing special. Many non-casting classes have it better with more and unique class features.

When that Fighter becomes a Fighter6, suddenly he must choose between peak efficiency (full attack) and moving more than 5'. A Wizard can use a standard action spell at any level to produce a "level-appropriate effect." (The term "level-appropriate" is up to debate.)

Why can't we just cut the non-casting classes from the game?
It may seem harsh, but the most understanding people among us realize that Casters > Non-casters in terms of options, even at level 1. This gulf grows greatly at each new spell level, and each new spell level brings shiny new power.

The full casters can roughly keep pace with one another. Even Bards get Inspire Courage to boost Druids, Clerics, gishes, and pets. Mind you, they're also skillsmen and casters.

The main reason to be a non-caster in a caster-heavy party is to be at nearly full strength with the lights go out- I mean when the DM drops the group in an antimagic field or a Dead Magic Zone or a place with wild surges.

true_shinken
2010-11-18, 10:32 PM
Why can't we just cut the non-casting classes from the game?


Because then you are playing 4th edition.

Psyren
2010-11-18, 10:39 PM
Favored Classes as a Penalty
Many have said the implementation simply doesn't work. Saying, "You lose experience for multiclassing," to the classes who benefit most from multiclassing (non-casters) feels like an insult.

Pathfinder's Favored Classes as a Bonus system helps slightly, but the simulationist in me says, "Scrap all systems that reward or punish people simply for single classing or multiclassing." Instead, let people take classes that best suit their concept.


There is one "favored class" system I would keep - Racial Substitution Levels. These can be used to model the notion that "Kobolds are more likely to be sorcerers than wizards" or "Dwarves are more likely to be fighters than bards" without actively punishing dwarves who don't want to be fighters.

Endarire
2010-11-18, 11:47 PM
I would prefer to embrace this design philosophy:

Offer Incentives, Not Penalties
As humans out of character, we prefer positive reinforcement, the type that says, "Do this and..." instead of "Do this or..."

With this in mind, I prefer Pathfinder's skill system to 3.5's. Figuring skill ranks is far easier. In 3.5, heavy multiclassing led to skill point annoyances which did not add to the game.

JaronK
2010-11-19, 12:02 AM
I'd prefer to cut out the full casters. But really, as long as you're willing to pick a class power level, it works. The concept that's long dead is "as long as people have different concepts, it's okay if they're not at all balanced." Turns out that's not nearly as fun as having everyone playing the same game.

JaronK

LordBlades
2010-11-19, 02:09 AM
All classes should have meaningful class features

Many classes, even tier 1 (like clerics and wizards) advance no meaningful class features as you gain levels so it's pretty much a no-brainer that you should pick a PrC asap. Choosing wether you should use a PrC or not should be a meaningful choice, with advantages and disadvantages, not just an obvious one ('oh noes, if I pick a PrC I will lose my familiar advancement!').

If you have a cool design idea (RP wise) you should also take time to make it at least half-decent mechanics wise

Many PrCs fall into this cathegory, but also a few base classes (truenamer, monk). The roleplay idea behind them is pretty cool but the associated mechanics are so poorly thought that they usually result in an underpowered char (in many cases almost non-salvageable). Somebody who wants to roleplay a 'monk type' shouldn't be put at such as severe disadvantage vs sombeody who wants to roleply a 'wizard type'.

Identical means balanced, but balanced should not always mean identical

I think the 4th edition's approach to game balance was not the best (and WotC is starting to admiti it too). Giving everybody the same basic chassys has resulted in a pretty balanced game, but everything feels more or less the same (for me at least).
Some 3.5 classes however (most of tier 3 especially) have proven that you can have balance despite keeping radically different mechanics (a bard plays completely different than a warblade for example).

Fizban
2010-11-19, 03:09 AM
I disagree with even racial substitution levels. Having a penalty to overcome, such as juggling levels, having lower ability scores, or paying feat taxes, is bothersome. Having a barrier to overcome is not nearly as bad as being told, "you aren't this one specific race, so you can never ever do this awesome thing, ever." The Elven Generalist substitution is one of if not the worst of offenders in the category. Only elves can generalize? Really? The only description Humans even have is "adaptability" and they can't specialize in being adaptable. Champions of Valor has a ton of little substitutions with this or that bogus restriction, but at least that's a campaign setting book, so it can be that specific with it's fluff.

The reason to keep non-casting classes is because some people want to play non-casters. The solution is finding ways to sneak "level appropriate effects" into them without those players noticing, when the entire game is balanced around spellcasting. Literally: if the game mentions a "level appropriate effect," it actually means a spell that a pure spellcaster could cast, and all magic item costs are based on spell levels. It's almost elegant in some ways how relating everything to spellcasting ties the game together, except for the whole not including non-casters part.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-19, 03:10 AM
Ability Tax and Character Scheduling
Don't make me plan my character just to qualify for X "in time." Don't require I choose between rock now/suck later and suck now/rock later. Let me rock at all levels.

To expand on this a bit:

Yes to Prerequisite, No to Prerequisites
Prerequisites, as in more than one, don't work. Mr. Wizard can get to 17th level and learn meteor swarm, despite never having cast either a fire spell or an evocation before. To get a level-appropriate feat, Mr. Fighter has to have 6 feats, a Str and Dex above a certain value, and other miscellaneous things. The latter approach has to go. Same thing with PrCs: Too many prereqs for too little benefit. Which leads us to...

Level 6 is Not Magic, Prestige Classes are Not Prestigious
The whole idea that you have to stick a "[Skill] 8 ranks" prereq on a PrC to delay entry is pointless. While prestige classes started out as a way to differentiate people flavor-wise, now they're basically expected components of development to give you options that base classes don't; since that's the case, you shouldn't have to wait until level 6 to be a meat shield (Dwarven Defender), an evil paladin (Blackguard), and so on. Put together, these bring us to...

Scaling and Consolidation are Good
Flat options are useless. Casters grow exponentially, noncasters grow linearly at best, and that's mostly because feats are flat benefits (which, if you're lucky, build on each other in a feat tree) while spells and attendant feats combine exceptionally well. Don't make a feat that you can't get until 9th level, make one that you can take at 1st that scales up to that effect at 9th level. As part of that scaling, fold feat trees into one feat--TWF and TWD are all one feat, Archery is one feat, etc. 3e roughly maps to a model where level 5-7 is the peak of real-world human potential, so the "world's greatest X" should be able to do his schtick with a single feat, not a 6-feat tree that you can't complete until 18th level. And speaking of useless feats...

Not Everything Needs to Be Exclusive
3e seems to have instilled the philosophy that there needs to be feats (or PrCs or spells or whatever) that let you do particular things. Want to avoid an AoO with a bull rush? There's a feat for that. Want to subtract from attack and add to damage? There's a feat for that. News flash: if it's not making you measurably more powerful, you don't need to charge for it. Remove AoOs for most actions. Let fighters (and anyone else!) swap attack, damage, and AC on a 1-for-1 basis for free (also known as "make fighting defensively worthwhile more than 5% of the time"). Get rid of the whole cross-class skill cap, the multiclassing penalty, and anything else that arbitrarily says "no" to certain options.


Fixing 3e is something near and dear to my heart, but if I keep going I'll be here all night, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

arrowhen
2010-11-19, 03:39 AM
[color=blue]
[b]Why can't we just cut the non-casting classes from the game?

Because "dude with a big-ass sword who whacks thing with his sword and that's it" is a traditional fantasy archetype

Runestar
2010-11-19, 06:37 AM
Undead and constructs not getting constitution

The rationale has always sounded flimsy to me, but the greater issue, IMO, is that this tends to give them too few hp for their HD. To compensate, creators tend to just pile on the HD, which has knock-on effects like increasing their bab/saves/feats.

However, undead templated npcs like liches and vampires have little recourse, save for stacking of temp hp and house-ruling in unholy toughness (as was the case for many undead npcs in the paizo adventures). Heck, a dracolich can end up losing 1/2 to 2/3s of its hp, and has to contend with a +3cr adjustment as well?!?

Still, this solution is effective only on npcs with a good cha score. If I want to create a death knight fighter npc with 10cha, he would be stuck with 6.5xHD hp average. Talk about fragile. :smallannoyed:

Proposed solution - perhaps give them max hp/HD, bonus hp or reinstate some sort of virtual con score?

Removal effects are just no fun

Undeniably effective, but it just plain stinks when you get zapped by a green hag's evil eye and end up being dazed for 3 days straight. 3e is replete with tons of SoDs which pretty much remove a player from the game. I spend 1 hour driving down just to watch my friends play? :smallmad:

Proposed solution - MM5' god-blooded template addresses this issue somewhat by recommending that we "Keep the duration conditions such as paralyzed, dazed, or stunned short—they take a target out of the fight.
Longer durations are fine for dazzled, sickened, and other conditions that impose penalties."

This will probably entail giving just about every monster a complete overhaul.

Lev
2010-11-19, 07:06 AM
Why can't we just cut the non-casting classes from the game?
It may seem harsh, but the most understanding people among us realize that Casters > Non-casters in terms of options, even at level 1. This gulf grows greatly at each new spell level, and each new spell level brings shiny new power.

The full casters can roughly keep pace with one another. Even Bards get Inspire Courage to boost Druids, Clerics, gishes, and pets. Mind you, they're also skillsmen and casters.

The main reason to be a non-caster in a caster-heavy party is to be at nearly full strength with the lights go out- I mean when the DM drops the group in an antimagic field or a Dead Magic Zone or a place with wild surges.
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/presidential-facepalm--700x466.jpg
Ok, so what you are saying is that to balance magic, skill and combat, the 3 big factors in the game, you propose.... to have nothing but casters and get rid of the other 2.

{Scrubbed}

Hey! I've got an idea! Why not just eliminate Str, Dex and Con as well? 3 stat system! Give those stats only to monsters!


Jesus christ, DnD is a collective storytelling adventure game, you dream up personas, roleplay them, explore in dungeons and gather loot and such.

{Scrubbed}

How about making casters a little but more balanced downwards? Make magic not so predictable, or have it even just flat out have a failure rate? If skill checks get a failure rate, why not spells?

true_shinken
2010-11-19, 07:08 AM
{Scrubbed}
Tone it down a bit, mate. I agree with you that taking the non-spellcasters out would be a mistake, but no need to get agressive.

Lev
2010-11-19, 07:12 AM
Tone it down a bit, mate. I agree with you that taking the non-spellcasters out would be a mistake, but no need to get agressive.

But, but, he's just so wrong... :smallfrown:

Psyx
2010-11-19, 07:25 AM
D&D hasn't 'discovered' anything is outdated. The rest of the game industry did 25 years ago. It's just that D&D/d20 still exists in a timewarp where character levels, encounter-based XP, and a primitive skill system are all still acceptable.

LordBlades
2010-11-19, 07:32 AM
But, but, he's just so wrong... :smallfrown:

From a story point of view I agree with you. A fantasy story needs fighters, barbarians, rangers (or just generic bowmen) and rogues. These are well known archetypes, and many people would be disappointed to see them go.

However, from a mechanical point of view I can see his point: Druid, Cleric, Beguiler, Wizard party for example is on average much more balanced than the typical Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard.

true_shinken
2010-11-19, 07:35 AM
From a story point of view I agree with you. A fantasy story needs fighters, barbarians, rangers (or just generic bowmen) and rogues. These are well known archetypes, and many people would be disappointed to see them go.

However, from a mechanical point of view I can see his point: Druid, Cleric, Beguiler, Wizard party for example is on average much more balanced than the typical Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard.

So just go the other way around and nerf spellcasters. Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage/Bard works just fine along non-casters.

LordBlades
2010-11-19, 07:39 AM
So just go the other way around and nerf spellcasters. Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage/Bard works just fine along non-casters.


Both solutions are equally valid. He proposes removing the low end of the spectrum, you propose removing the high end of it. In both cases, the games gains in balance and playability, but loses some RP potential.

Psyren
2010-11-19, 07:41 AM
I disagree with even racial substitution levels. Having a penalty to overcome, such as juggling levels, having lower ability scores, or paying feat taxes, is bothersome. Having a barrier to overcome is not nearly as bad as being told, "you aren't this one specific race, so you can never ever do this awesome thing, ever." The Elven Generalist substitution is one of if not the worst of offenders in the category. Only elves can generalize? Really? The only description Humans even have is "adaptability" and they can't specialize in being adaptable. Champions of Valor has a ton of little substitutions with this or that bogus restriction, but at least that's a campaign setting book, so it can be that specific with it's fluff.

I agree Elven Generalist has dubious fluff, but it shouldn't be used to condemn the entire RSub system. It doesn't stop other races from making more sense. Kalashtar should be better Telepaths than everyone else. Spellscales should be better sorcerers and bards than bloody Star Elves. Kobolds should be better rogues than gnomes. And every last one of the DSP subs (http://dsp-d20-srd.wikidot.com/racial-specialty-levels) is phenomenal, both fluff and crunch.

true_shinken
2010-11-19, 07:43 AM
Both solutions are equally valid. He proposes removing the low end of the spectrum, you propose removing the high end of it. In both cases, the games gains in balance and playability, but loses some RP potential.

Why do you lose RP potential? You still have your wizards, sorcerers and clerics. They just can't hide behind an astral projection all day long while breaking wealth by level without even thinking.

Chrono22
2010-11-19, 07:51 AM
Pathfinder goes a looong way to solving some of the issues presented by the OP.

People ignore or houserule away ill conceived and inconvenient prerequisites.
There should not be a feat-tax on attaining basic functionality at your chosen specialty. Gateway feats are bad, they do not enhance the game in any way.

The mechanics should not try to preempt optimization, they just shouldn't support it.
Players are not created equal, and it logically follows their characters will not be either. Balance is a problem that has to be addressed by both the rules and the players. Talk about the issues and find a compromise.

Anti-abilities suck and are dumb
Being able to detect traps should not be a class feature. That should be something anyone can freaking do, provided they are observant enough. Proficiencies should not impart a penalty in their absence- they should provide a bonus when attacking, or reduce check penalties.

LordBlades
2010-11-19, 07:52 AM
Why do you lose RP potential? You still have your wizards, sorcerers and clerics. They just can't hide behind an astral projection all day long while breaking wealth by level without even thinking.

I see no other class that captures the flavor of generalist wizard (as in the guy that reads books all day and casts all kind of spells). Most vriants (dread necro, warmage, beguiler)are too focused on some aspects, while bard requres som e serious refluffing for that(basicly getting rid of most of the bard-ness).
Same goes for sorcerers(as in dudes with innate magical talent), you could refluff bards, but if you haven't imagined your sorcerer as a blaster or necromancer, youa re once again at a loss.

Clerics and druids are more or less covered, I give you that. You have adept and favored soul as cleric substitutes, and the spirit shaman makes a decent druid (flavor wise)

Lev
2010-11-19, 08:01 AM
Why do you lose RP potential? You still have your wizards, sorcerers and clerics. They just can't hide behind an astral projection all day long while breaking wealth by level without even thinking.
Freedom.

That's like telling a bookstore to only have books where all the fantasy characters are magical.

Morty
2010-11-19, 08:17 AM
I have to support the disagreement with the "Write non-casters out of the game" clause. I mean sure, everyone is aware of the balance problems here but seriously. It's not like a non-casting character will be a bumbling, useless fool overshadowed by the magic users since level one. Let's not blow things out of proportion.
I do agree with most of the other points, though.

Greenish
2010-11-19, 08:21 AM
A fantasy story needs fighters, barbarians, rangers (or just generic bowmen) and rogues.Not every fantasy story needs any of those.

In most games, though, they should be options.

true_shinken
2010-11-19, 08:57 AM
I see no other class that captures the flavor of generalist wizard (as in the guy that reads books all day and casts all kind of spells). Most vriants (dread necro, warmage, beguiler)are too focused on some aspects, while bard requres som e serious refluffing for that(basicly getting rid of most of the bard-ness).
Same goes for sorcerers(as in dudes with innate magical talent), you could refluff bards, but if you haven't imagined your sorcerer as a blaster or necromancer, youa re once again at a loss.

Clerics and druids are more or less covered, I give you that. You have adept and favored soul as cleric substitutes, and the spirit shaman makes a decent druid (flavor wise)

I see. I was not saying 'ban wizards', I was just saying 'tone them down'. Just ban/rewwrite the most problesome spells.

Kaww
2010-11-19, 09:12 AM
This has been proposed many times - give Wizard, Scorch and CoDzila bardlike spell level progression. Also make specialized casters (like DN,WM and beguiler) or find some made by other people. Reduce PrC min required lvl for fighter classes to 2nd or 3rd level.

If players wish to optimize they will keep up with casters...

Also as a good DM you should be able to balance a ninja and a wizard...

Erom
2010-11-19, 09:26 AM
I see. I was not saying 'ban wizards', I was just saying 'tone them down'. Just ban/rewwrite the most problesome spells.
One takes a lot more effort than the other. If you are trying to do a "rewrite" of 3e DnD, you really have to put in the sweat and tears and redo a lot of class designs (either on the high or low end). If you are just doing quick houserules for a single game, it's often easier to say "All classes from tier X are banned".

LordBlades
2010-11-19, 09:32 AM
Also as a good DM you should be able to balance a ninja and a wizard...

It depends. If the wizard is your typical batman control wizard, then you can give encounters tailored to the ninja skillset, where he could, in theory at least, shine. On the other hand, if the 'wizard' is something like master spellthief/wizard/unseen seer, he'll be able to do everthing the ninja does, except better+a lot of other stuff.

dsmiles
2010-11-19, 09:37 AM
Also as a good DM you should be able to balance a ninja and a wizard...

I can balance like a wizard, does that count? :smalltongue:

Seriously, though. I've completely outgrown the concept of optimization. I find that I have no need to do that to enjoy the game.

Kaww
2010-11-19, 09:41 AM
I can balance like a wizard, does that count? :smalltongue:

Seriously, though. I've completely outgrown the concept of optimization. I find that I have no need to do that to enjoy the game.

Aaah this comes when you start acting adult, not just being one... :smalltongue:
I can't enjoy a game in which I am completely powerless, low op is just fine, as long as I can mess around with other party members...

Erom
2010-11-19, 09:43 AM
Aaah this comes when you start acting adult, not just being one... :smalltongue:
I can't enjoy a game in which I am completely powerless, low op is just fine, as long as I can mess around with other party members...
This attitude frustrates me. It's an over-generalization to say that everyone who wants a balanced power level in a gaming system is immature.

Kaww
2010-11-19, 09:53 AM
This attitude frustrates me. It's an over-generalization to say that everyone who wants a balanced power level in a gaming system is immature.

NO! I do need a solicitor for this forum *face-palm*. Anyone who needs to scream I'm better than you I get to do everything is immature. If there is an agreement that the characters should be optimized it is perfectly mature to optimize and immature to ignore the agreement.

Imbalanced games are boring at least to me, and from what I read here it is boring to most of this playground. I'm a wizard playing with three new noobs playing monks! I rock! Is not anybody's vision of fun, except maybe for the wizard that has issues...

I had a player like the said wizard. I kicked him my first session as a DM. (Kicked him from the game, no PCs, NPCs, plants, animals, constructs or undead were harmed)

LordBlades
2010-11-19, 10:20 AM
NO! I do need a solicitor for this forum *face-palm*. Anyone who needs to scream I'm better than you I get to do everything is immature. If there is an agreement that the characters should be optimized it is perfectly mature to optimize and immature to ignore the agreement.

Imbalanced games are boring at least to me, and from what I read here it is boring to most of this playground. I'm a wizard playing with three new noobs playing monks! I rock! Is not anybody's vision of fun, except maybe for the wizard that has issues...

I had a player like the said wizard. I kicked him my first session as a DM. (Kicked him from the game, no PCs, NPCs, plants, animals, constructs or undead were harmed)


This .
IMHO the level of optimization should have no major impact in the enjoyment of a non-competitive story-based game. I for one enjoy very high powered game a lot (mainly because my favourite class is druid) but I've had awesomely fun low-ish power games.

The problems start occuring when somebody goes like 'hey, I'm sure my sword&board fighter will make a great addition to your full Tier 1 party'. Of course, the other way around is equally annoying.

PS: that doesn't mean it wouldn't be (much) better to have a system where 'guy who wants to play a fighter' isn't at a such big disadvantage compared to 'guy who wants to play a wizard'.

Psyx
2010-11-19, 10:23 AM
This attitude frustrates me. It's an over-generalization to say that everyone who wants a balanced power level in a gaming system is immature.

It's not even a generalisation. It's a patiently absurd-ism.

One would argue even that less mature players enjoy the exploitation that comes with an unbalanced system.

I don't think there is anything at all immature about wanting to see a well-balanced and designed system. Sure: We can do it ourselves and artificially restrict ourselves via gentleman's agreement, but we shouldn't HAVE to because of shoddy and thoughtless game design.

Psyx
2010-11-19, 10:24 AM
The problems start occuring when somebody goes like 'hey, I'm sure my sword&board fighter will make a great addition to your full Tier 1 party'. Of course, the other way around is equally annoying.

The other way around is worse!

Emmerask
2010-11-19, 10:27 AM
People Don't Do 4 Fights Per Day
Really. They don't. To my recollection, I've never been in a group (aside from perhaps RPGA games) that had 4 fights per day on a regular basis. I've always had a small number of fights (random encounters, fights we pick), or a large numbers of fights (dungeon crawls).


This is pretty much the only point I fully agree with you, we have about 4 fights per week (which is 10 days ^^)
So we just put spell regeneration to once / week and thats that :smallwink:

grimbold
2010-11-19, 10:29 AM
following the rules strictly
after you toss out the stricter rules everything is more balanced

LordBlades
2010-11-19, 10:34 AM
The other way around is worse!

Probably :smallsmile:
As my group usually plays high power, I'm more exposed to somebody wanting to bring a sub-par char than the opposite. We've had such a situation a few years back, when a very good friend of us wanted to join our ongoing game(really high power, druids, psions and the like). Dude sucks at building D&D chars, and is way too stubborn to take any advice, so he decides we need 'a true skill monkey' (apparently our bard/factotum/sublime chord was not enough) so he comes with a single class tiefling ninja.

Things got annoying fast. In combat he kept trying to melee stuff that was designed to challenge chars with 50-ish AC and 100+HP (he had something like 25 AC and 40 hp at that point) so he ended up dying/dead more oftne than not, and out of combat, his skill-monkey DCs were a good 10ish below the bard's.

dsmiles
2010-11-19, 10:35 AM
I don't think there is anything at all immature about wanting to see a well-balanced and designed system. Sure: We can do it ourselves and artificially restrict ourselves via gentleman's agreement, but we shouldn't HAVE to because of shoddy and thoughtless game design.

That was exactly my point. Trying to balance the system by uber-optimizing characters (so that the melee guys could keep up with the casters) got old fast (it took me about a year after 3.0 came out to get tired of it). Now it's more "what would make this character interesting" than what "would make this character into a godslayer."
The aforementioned gentleman's agreement is more of a "table rule" at my tables. Bring too much cheese, and it starts to get stinky, so to speak. Keep on bringing the cheese, and we'll ask that particular person to leave. Nobody I game with enjoys that anymore, we're all in our 30s and gaming (for us) is like other people getting together to watch the Superbowl or something. It's an activity we all enjoy, so we just meet up and enjoy it together. We're not "hardcore" or "competitive" gamers, and we simply don't see the need to take it to that level.

Psyx
2010-11-19, 10:47 AM
Probably :smallsmile:

It might be a bit of a chore to have a PC who is not up-to-par (Trust me on this: I run a long-running Nihon-based game where new characters join at about the equivalent power of level 5, and some of the party are about level 17!) but it can still be a lot of fun if they are not trying to compete on an even pegging. And it's only a chore for the GM and the player, really.

Whereas a player whizzing up the wall and playing a grossly overpowered character makes life HELL for the GM and annoys everyone else around the table to boot.

Callista
2010-11-19, 10:50 AM
I don't think spellcasters are a problem if the party works together. In the games I've played in, I've played spellcasters more often than not (I'm also partial to rogues and paladins), and in general I never looked like the most powerful character in the party even when the others were playing non-spellcasters. That's not because I refuse to optimize, but because I like to cast the behind-the-scenes kinds of spells where you're doing damage quite indirectly. At this point I'm playing a wizard that does hardly any damage at all--except for things like casting Haste on the party and then transposition-ing the barbarian into melee range for full-attack-plus-Haste damage. Yes, spellcasters are extremely powerful; but they're more powerful when they're making it possible for the rest of the party to be more powerful. Give the Rogue sneak attacks. Debuff the enemy. Shut down enemy spellcasters. Keep everyone on their feet and keep the enemy away from your friends.

Granted, I do play lower-level characters most of the time; the last time I played a PC above level 10 was about four years ago. But at least under these circumstances, it seems like a spellcaster's power, when used in a cooperative fashion, doesn't really make the game un-fun for anyone else. The barbarian's still covered in blood 'n' guts, the rogue still has his blades in someone's kidneys, and even the monk is making himself useful by getting the enemy spellcasters in a headlock while your cleric Silences them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: In a cooperative party, different power levels don't seem to matter nearly as much as it seems they might when you analyze the characters by themselves.

oxybe
2010-11-19, 11:28 AM
a game should not be based around the skill of "a good dm". it should be based around "an average dm" and have enough aids explaining how to run a game/session, describing player types/motivations and describing storytelling concepts to help a "bad dm" who wants to improve do so.

here's my list of beefs with 3.5 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9548763&postcount=28)

everyone in D&Dland can fight. the problem is "what else can they do?" and in the non-caster's case, it's not much.

my solutions:
-open up more options to the non-casters. the ability to make things alive dead is something all D&D classes can do, be you a fighter, a rogue, a cleric or a wizard. all of the fighter's "options" are entirely mundane and easily surpassed either by low-level spells that are easy to stock up on or simple magic items.

give the guy some sort of supernatural or extraordinary abilities to go up, over, around, under and through obstacles (or even enemies).

-one way to do the above is to consolidate the skill list, remove redundant/highly situational skills and open a large part of it to most PCs. 4th ed had the right idea when it comes to skills in D&D, though it's not quite as i would like it, but almost.

45 skills in a game where only 3/11 classes get access to 6+ points per level, and only one of those 8/11 uses int primarily is bad design.

-remove the "i win" spells. the spells that instantly surpass skills should go the way of the dodo. arcane lock and knock effectively tell anyone who took "open lock" to go **** themselves.

-this should help remove reliance on items that replicate spells since spells are the only real versatility out there.

-speaking of spells, destroy the old wizard/cleric/druid/etc... replace with dread necro/beguiler/warmage/etc... classes are an archetype and the old main casters either :

A) covered too many archetypes (wizard). it was one class meant to emulate Gandalf, Elminister, Tim the Enchanter, Dumbledore, etc... while the monk is pretty much specifically the Wuxia Martial Artist. the biggest problem is that you could mix and match the stronger aspects of Gandalf, Elminister, Tim the Enchanter, Dumbledore, etc... together since they were all covered by the one same class

B) has too many powerful abilities. to quote one Leeky Windstaff "i have class features more powerful then your entire class". the druid has a pet that's as good as a fighter, has the versatility of a full caster and can shapeshift.

-once you've got your archetypes you start removing/editing the problematic spells. some spells are really only a problem when used in conjunction with others. other spells, like the Save or Die/lose/suck should go. i've spent more sessions then i would like to admit playing my DS because i forgot to prepare/have cast on me "death ward" or forgot to restock on "stone to flesh" scrolls.

-give everyone something to do every turn. see: reserve feats, only built in. sitting out because you're suddenly a crossbowman in a fancy hat is not fun.

the old "Casters suck at first, rule late/non-caster rock at first, suck later" is not good game design. i shouldn't have to slog through the early game to have fun later, nor should have to change character mid-campaign to stay relevant.

give everyone toys.

Amphetryon
2010-11-19, 11:42 AM
People Don't Do 4 Fights Per Day
Really. They don't. To my recollection, I've never been in a group (aside from perhaps RPGA games) that had 4 fights per day on a regular basis. I've always had a small number of fights (random encounters, fights we pick), or a large numbers of fights (dungeon crawls)I guess my experiences are atypical, then. While it's true in the PbP campaigns I've seen - mostly because fights in that medium take a week and more, turning 4 fights/day into 1 day takes 2 months to play - MOST of the actual campaigns I've been in or run have had 4 - 5 encounters per day which required Initiative rolls and resource expenditure of some sort. Less than that, and the party tended to say 'let's press on', while with more than that, at least one party member is sufficiently tapped out that the group needed to rest.

oxybe
2010-11-19, 12:20 PM
the 4 fights a day thing seems to be entirely a group thing.

i've played in groups where we went through gauntlets. our current pathfinder game had us do one heck of a dungeon crawl. i think like... 6 encounters in a row, no rest. i'd have to check up on the GM's blog where he puts the campaign notes, but it was a slog. no one had any resources left.

i've had other groups where the 15 minute workday was the norm.

4 fights a day seems like a good number for a challenging day, the problem comes with how resources are managed and recharged. 3.5 really lends itself to a 15 minute workday since many abilities require a whole other day to recharge and in the early game it's hard to reasonably determine when to save your resources and when not to.

later you have so many it's easy to blow 2-3 daily abilities (class features, spell slots, item uses, etc...) and still have more then a few left over

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-19, 12:28 PM
Undead and constructs not getting constitution

[...]

Proposed solution - perhaps give them max hp/HD, bonus hp or reinstate some sort of virtual con score?

Why go with a "virtual" Con score? Say "Con measures vitality, durability, and life force" in addition to what it says now. Bam, done. Living creatures' Con includes (among other things) their positive-energy-fueled life force. Constructs' Con is the life force of the elemental/shadow creature used to animate them. Undead's Con is the power of the negative energy animating them.

The Big Dice
2010-11-19, 12:29 PM
D&D hasn't 'discovered' anything is outdated. The rest of the game industry did 25 years ago. It's just that D&D/d20 still exists in a timewarp where character levels, encounter-based XP, and a primitive skill system are all still acceptable.

+1 to this. D&D was a dinosaur when TSR went under. WotC didn't learn anything from two generations of RPG development when they brought out 3.0, they just carried on with the same old baggage of a limited class/level character design format. With the throwback of fight-based experience.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-19, 12:38 PM
+1 to this. D&D was a dinosaur when TSR went under. WotC didn't learn anything from two generations of RPG development when they brought out 3.0, they just carried on with the same old baggage of a limited class/level character design format. With the throwback of fight-based experience.

To be fair, with the number of classes and ease of multiclassing, 3e's class and level format is much closer to a point-based system than the restrictive class system of AD&D. While there are plenty of other systems out there, for a game focused on killing things and taking their stuff, I think it works just fine. It's no GURPS or Riddle of Steel, but it's not trying to be.

Psyx
2010-11-19, 01:19 PM
To be fair, with the number of classes and ease of multiclassing, 3e's class and level format is much closer to a point-based system than the restrictive class system of AD&D. While there are plenty of other systems out there, for a game focused on killing things and taking their stuff, I think it works just fine. It's no GURPS or Riddle of Steel, but it's not trying to be.

Except it's not particularly 'easy' when it required near-encyclopaedic knowledge of 20+ books. 3.x D&D is only a modular system because we make it so by hitting it with sticks. It's flexible because we duct-tape together combinations of classes and 'dips'; not because it's a flexible, modular system.

As TBD says: D&D 3.x is essentially a relic of an age that kind of deserves to be lost. Loosing 'THACO' was akin to inventing the atl-atl, while the rest of the world moved on to automatic weapons.

Sindri
2010-11-19, 05:37 PM
Yes, D&D 3.x is clearly inferior to more modern systems, which is why none of us prefer it to other games and this discussion is not happening on a D&D dominated forum attached to a D&D based webcomic.

Sarcasm aside, I agree that the main problem with the PHB full casters is that they were intended to fill too many archetypes at once, allowing optimizers to take the best parts of everything. If there was a limit to the number of base classes, this might make sense, but the sheer number of splatbooks proves that this is not the case. My solution is to take the overpowered classes and split them up into several classes, each of which is even better at a single aspect but lacks abilities that don't fit.

A generalist wizard should have all schools available, lots of skill points, every knowledge skill, UMD, and other things that make them intelligent and versatile, but should lose power in exchange, probably by limiting them to bard-like (or less) spell progression.

If you want powerful spells, take Dread Necro, Beguiler, etc. and exchange versatility for 9th level spells.

Druid should be split into three classes, one that has spellcasting, a beastmaster type that has one or more very impressive animal companions (and possibly buffing ability), and one that is better than everyone else at shapeshifting but does nothing else.

Psyren
2010-11-19, 05:58 PM
+1 to this. D&D was a dinosaur when TSR went under. WotC didn't learn anything from two generations of RPG development when they brought out 3.0, they just carried on with the same old baggage of a limited class/level character design format. With the throwback of fight-based experience.

And yet they're still ahead of the pack financially. You can attribute that to brand legacy and inertia if you want, but if the game wasn't fun people wouldn't be buying the books.

MachFarcon
2010-11-19, 06:23 PM
I may be a minority here, but I enjoy all aspects of 3.5e. I have played casters, rangers, fighters, and a bard.

From a realistic standpoint, casters can't stand by themselves. Sure, a high-level wizard can kill things fire, ice, more fire, ect. But at best, they are looking at about 100 hp.

The "pointless" fighters can however, have an up of 260 hp. Also, In my opinion, it makes for a far more interesting story if everyone isn't magic-missileing everything.

Gametime
2010-11-19, 06:33 PM
You don't need a lot of hit points if you have reliable ways to never get hit. You especially don't need a lot of hit points if they represent the durability of a projection of yourself and your real body is secluded from harm on a demiplane of your own making.

The Big Dice
2010-11-19, 06:42 PM
And yet they're still ahead of the pack financially. You can attribute that to brand legacy and inertia if you want, but if the game wasn't fun people wouldn't be buying the books.

The fact that Hasbro is behind WotC, which means that D&D books are found in major bookstores, is what I attribute the sales share to. Having the backing of a multinational toy corporation behind your hobby game company doesn't hurt. And even then, D&D is very much supported by M:tG.

Though that said, there aren't really any serious studies that I know of that look at the market share and relative sales of roleplaying game publishers. Certainly not ones that have been made in the last 5 years or so.

Psyren
2010-11-19, 06:47 PM
The fact that Hasbro is behind WotC, which means that D&D books are found in major bookstores, is what I attribute the sales share to. Having the backing of a multinational toy corporation behind your hobby game company doesn't hurt. And even then, D&D is very much supported by M:tG.

Though that said, there aren't really any serious studies that I know of that look at the market share and relative sales of roleplaying game publishers. Certainly not ones that have been made in the last 5 years or so.

1) You don't really need a major market study to know D&D is at the head. That's like waiting on a market study to be sure Walmart is the king of retail. Some statistics are common knowledge.

2) D&D may have a lot of marketing power, but none of that could make up for it not being fun to play. Clearly it is, or people wouldn't be playing it, no matter how many stores they cram it into. Therefore they are doing something right.

I've seen your posting history. I know you're a fan of many excellent alternate systems, and rank many of them higher than D&D. That's fine, but you don't have to put D&D down to prove your love. Give the devil its due. The system may have some legacy baggage, but considering how much it went into 3.0 with, they've done a great job of trimming the hedges.

The Big Dice
2010-11-19, 07:34 PM
1) You don't really need a major market study to know D&D is at the head. That's like waiting on a market study to be sure Walmart is the king of retail. Some statistics are common knowledge.
Walmart being king really does depend what country you are in. Certainly, outside the US, it's not.

And as Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics. In fact, it is possible to prove that every single person alive now has a 50/50 chance of living forever by use of statistics.

2) D&D may have a lot of marketing power, but none of that could make up for it not being fun to play. Clearly it is, or people wouldn't be playing it, no matter how many stores they cram it into. Therefore they are doing something right.
Never underestimate the power of marketing. People still eat at a certain fast food chain, even though they know that the food sold there is barely nutritious, possibly half toxic and made from undefined parts of animals. That's all because of marketing and brand identification.

That said, the OGL was probably responsible for D&D making such a strong comeback. I've seen stuff over at rpg.net that suggests that because of the OGL, roleplaying in general underwent a surge of popularity unseen since the 80s.

For a while, everything was being adapted to the D20 system, including some games that probably shouldn't have. But then, the OGL also made Mutants and Masterminds possible, along with True20. So some good things did emerge from what looked like an era of original games dying to a very clever marketing ploy.

A ploy that WotC seem to have realised cost them more than it made for them, so it got dropped in favour of a new licensing system for 4th edition.

I've seen your posting history. I know you're a fan of many excellent alternate systems, and rank many of them higher than D&D. That's fine, but you don't have to put D&D down to prove your love. Give the devil its due. The system may have some legacy baggage, but considering how much it went into 3.0 with, they've done a great job of trimming the hedges.
I'd say they trimmed the hedges, but didn't realise that those hedges should have been uprooted so that people could enjoy the view that they blocked.

The biggest problem with RPGs is simply, publicity. Most RPG companies aren't particularly big and many don't even have full time staff. Outside of WotC and possibly White Wolf, game design is more often done as a labour of love than a salaried position.

And what that means it, it's up to the people who play games outside of the mainstream to tell other people about alternatives by word of mouth. Which is where people like me come in. If I can convince just one person to try playing a different game, then as far as I'm concerned I'm spreading the word about the great hobby we all partake in.

The Big Dice
2010-11-19, 07:39 PM
Apparently you seem to think that nobody can ever enjoy a game you don't personally like..

I have no problem with people enjoying any game they want to play. People acting like there's no other option, on the other hand, fills me with nerd rage.

Psyren
2010-11-19, 08:08 PM
Never underestimate the power of marketing. People still eat at a certain fast food chain, even though they know that the food sold there is barely nutritious, possibly half toxic and made from undefined parts of animals. That's all because of marketing and brand identification.

You've ignored a host of other important factors besides marketing. Taste? Ubiquity? Convenience? Price?

It's easy to attribute D&D's success to flash rather than substance, but it really isn't fair. It's also vaguely insulting to insinuate that D&D's many fans are being taken in by some kind of showy con, rather than playing a game with strong enough design to stand up on its own merits.

As for the OGL, it wasn't popular because it was free; it was popular because it was playable. Lots of other free game systems can be found on the web; many of them poorly-written and poorly-balanced. If being free was all a system needed to be good, Sturgeon's Law would cease to exist.


The biggest problem with RPGs is simply, publicity. Most RPG companies aren't particularly big and many don't even have full time staff. Outside of WotC and possibly White Wolf, game design is more often done as a labour of love than a salaried position.

And what that means it, it's up to the people who play games outside of the mainstream to tell other people about alternatives by word of mouth. Which is where people like me come in. If I can convince just one person to try playing a different game, then as far as I'm concerned I'm spreading the word about the great hobby we all partake in.

I have nothing against you promoting the systems you love; What I have a problem with are comments like

"D&D is a dinosaur"
"WotC hasn't learned anything from two generations of RPG development"

Neither are true, both are insulting and there isn't even mention of any different systems you've made it your mission to promote. It seems like you're more focused on demoting D&D than promoting any alternatives.

The Big Dice
2010-11-19, 09:04 PM
You've ignored a host of other important factors besides marketing. Taste? Ubiquity? Convenience? Price?

It's easy to attribute D&D's success to flash rather than substance, but it really isn't fair. It's also vaguely insulting to insinuate that D&D's many fans are being taken in by some kind of showy con, rather than playing a game with strong enough design to stand up on its own merits.
How did D&D become so popular once it got reprinted?

Certainly having large advertising displays in the doorway of Barnes and Noble when 4th edition was released didn't hurt. And the 3.5 PHB has been described as the biggest selling RPG book of all time, with tens of millions of copies sold.

And the reason it sold so many is because of a few factors. The D&D movie didn't hurt when it came to raising the profile of the game.
Especially as it came with a free taster of the 3.0 rule set on the DVD.

WotC were already a bigger company than pretty much anyone in the RPG field when they obtained the rights to use the D&D brand, and they were also able to publicise the release of the 3.0 and later 3.5 rules to an extent that other gaming companies can only envy.

Also WotC going round and buying up rival companies didn't hurt them. At least not at the time. Certainly, AEG are still dealing with the legacy of being bought up and then droppped unceremoniously.

Ultimately, D&D became so poular because WotC were able to push forwards a huge product profile, trading on an established marque and a distribution network that was already in place.

As for the OGL, it wasn't popular because it was free; it was popular because it was playable. Lots of other free game systems can be found on the web; many of them poorly-written and poorly-balanced. If being free was all a system needed to be good, Sturgeon's Law would cease to exist.
The OGL meant that people could publish a new game without having to go to the trouble of writing a new game. Look at Mongoose and Green Ronin to name but two companies that benefitted enormously from the OGL.

Games like Legend of the Five Rings, Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu and others were given an OGL makeover, and sold well because of it. In fact, for a couple of years it looked like the OGL was simultaneously the best and worst thing that had ever happened to roleplaying games.

The best because it meant that it was easy for a small company to release a game onto the market. But the worst because the D20 system was rapidly becoming ubiquitous. For a while it looked like D20 might become the Windows of RPGs.


I have nothing against you promoting the systems you love; What I have a problem with are comments like

"D&D is a dinosaur"
"WotC hasn't learned anything from two generations of RPG development"

Neither are true, both are insulting and there isn't even mention of any different systems you've made it your mission to promote. It seems like you're more focused on demoting D&D than promoting any alternatives.
Level based systems that gave experience for combat and that were focused on fairly mindless killing and looting went out of fashion in the mid 80s. TSR ended up dying because they were printing far more books than they were selling, because D&D quite simply wasn't giving people what they wanted.

Right there are concepts that have been outgrown, along with so-called Vancian casting and RPGs that are all about resource management rather than narrative.

In what way does that invalidate my comment that D&D was already a dinosaur when TSR went bust?

And I haven't been pointing out other options for games in this thread because the topic is about mechanics and concepts that are no longer relevant. So talking about how GURPS combat is more detailed, L5R social play is more subtle and Pendragon character design lends itself to playing the character rather than the class seems off topic.

Arbane
2010-11-19, 09:09 PM
TSR went bust for a LOT of reasons - 2nd Ed D&D being outdated being only one of many.

Psyren
2010-11-19, 09:21 PM
My point - which you have yet to acknowledge - is there is more to D&D than the marketing machine behind it. A thread like this one naturally focuses on what D&D has done wrong, but to truly answer that question we need to know what they've done right. Marketing is part of the answer to that, but it is not the only answer.

The same is true of d20; you mention all the third-party systems that chose to adopt its framework, attributing it all once again to d20's accessibility thanks to the OGL; still not acknowledging that just maybe another factor to that decision might be because d20 is a great mechanic to build a system around.

Also... you think the D&D movie helped D&D's popularity? The one with the Wayans brothers in it? :smallconfused:

Finally, neither D&D nor level-based systems have been outgrown. 4e is proving this even as we speak. I agree with you that Vancian needed to be taken behind the woodshed long ago, though.

Callista
2010-11-19, 09:53 PM
The D&D movie helped it sell? Dude... what in the world are you smoking?! The vast majority of us have rubbed it out of our memories and are in complete denial that it ever existed. That movie, if anything, was a PR disaster for D&D. It's not even so-bad-it's-good, it's just awful.

D&D sells because it's a fun game. Plain and simple.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-19, 10:30 PM
Except it's not particularly 'easy' when it required near-encyclopaedic knowledge of 20+ books. 3.x D&D is only a modular system because we make it so by hitting it with sticks. It's flexible because we duct-tape together combinations of classes and 'dips'; not because it's a flexible, modular system.

I wasn't referring to the ease of building a powerful, coherent character. I was referring to the fact that you can say "I'm a monk 4, I want to become a monk 4/fighter 1 instead of a monk 5" and not have to jump through the dual-classing/prime-requisite/variable-XP hoops of AD&D. It is a modular system, not nearly to the extent of most other games out there today, but much more so than the D&D of yore.

Again, not saying it's the best game out there or anything, just arguing against the assertion that it's the same game that we supposedly outgrew in the 80s.


Level based systems that gave experience for combat and that were focused on fairly mindless killing and looting went out of fashion in the mid 80s.

Not quite. The games that sprang up in the mid-80s that moved away from this system were made in response to D&D--the people who didn't want hack-n-slash dungeon crawls went off and made their own games. Games have gone on to do lots of different things, but the D&D model hasn't gone out of style; people have simply realized that making endless D&D clones and trying to do "D&D with vampires" or "D&D in space" or whatever just doesn't work and have instead made very different games to do different things. If the D&D model didn't work, people wouldn't still be playing D&D, and the reason no one else capitalizes on the hack-n-slash dungeon crawl (except for those making retro-clones or d20 variants) is that they'd be competing with the king of hack-n-slash dungeon crawls.


Right there are concepts that have been outgrown, along with so-called Vancian casting and RPGs that are all about resource management rather than narrative.

Once again, to be fair to Gygax and Co., Vancian casting was specifically adopted to be different from real-world magic and existing fantasy magic. The fact that now society is past the whole "D&D is Satanic!" phase and people want magic that does feel more "realistic" or more like contemporary fantasy doesn't automatically make Vancian an inherently bad system that should be thrown away.

Emmerask
2010-11-19, 10:30 PM
The D&D movie helped it sell? Dude... what in the world are you smoking?! The vast majority of us have rubbed it out of our memories and are in complete denial that it ever existed. That movie, if anything, was a PR disaster for D&D. It's not even so-bad-it's-good, it's just awful.

D&D sells because it's a fun game. Plain and simple.

There are two d&d movies, the second one was not better :smallbiggrin:

Callista
2010-11-19, 10:32 PM
See, I told you I was in complete denial!

Gametime
2010-11-19, 11:33 PM
The second one at least had the saving grace of starring Jeremy Irons as the villain and Jeremy Irons' Eyebrows as the villain's henchmen.

dspeyer
2010-11-19, 11:38 PM
There are two d&d movies, the second one was not better :smallbiggrin:

The Gamers II: Dorkness Rising, however, was awesome.

Coidzor
2010-11-19, 11:49 PM
^: Heck, I didn't even know there was a first one.
Sarcasm aside, I agree that the main problem with the PHB full casters is that they were intended to fill too many archetypes at once, allowing optimizers to take the best parts of everything.

Hell, "optimizers," nothing.

J.Gellert
2010-11-20, 02:31 AM
What mechanics and concepts have we outgrown?

1. Mandatory Magic Items / Treasure per level
"It's you, not your items" is true for most fantasy fiction in every medium. I don't know when D&D got so item-heavy, but I never liked it. And then it hit me, I didn't have to use it.

2. Vancian Magic
Obviously. This came a close second, for the same reasons as #1. You just don't see it in fiction. I spent about a year and a half experimenting with spell point systems (homebrewed/borrowed from other systems) until I decided it wasn't worth the effort to try and salvage D&D.

3. Character Classes
This happened shortly after having to work 2 base classes and3 prestige classes into a single character to really make the concept work. Nowadays the concept of character class is only fit for MMORPGs.

In this order, too, in a period of about two years. After #3 hit, I just switched to Mutants & Masterminds.

I'd say "never looked back since" but my players, while they enjoy M&M a lot, were never disillusioned with D&D to the degree that I was. I fear when the DM's scepter passes over I'll have to make a character build with 3 base classes, 4 prestige classes, and all magic items bought as grafts. For Tymora's sake...

true_shinken
2010-11-20, 07:21 AM
I guess my experiences are atypical, then. While it's true in the PbP campaigns I've seen - mostly because fights in that medium take a week and more, turning 4 fights/day into 1 day takes 2 months to play - MOST of the actual campaigns I've been in or run have had 4 - 5 encounters per day which required Initiative rolls and resource expenditure of some sort. Less than that, and the party tended to say 'let's press on', while with more than that, at least one party member is sufficiently tapped out that the group needed to rest.

I have that experience as well.

dsmiles
2010-11-20, 08:19 AM
2. Vancian Magic
Obviously. This came a close second, for the same reasons as #1. You just don't see it in fiction. I spent about a year and a half experimenting with spell point systems (homebrewed/borrowed from other systems) until I decided it wasn't worth the effort to try and salvage D&D.I actually managed to salvage magic. I simply threw out Vancian magic and all the Vancian casting classes. I replaced them with the casting mechanic from The Slayers d20, and the casting classes associated with that mecanic. Then I converted all the appropriate Vancian spells to that system and homebrewed a couple of PrCs (The Slayers didn't have enough PrC options for casters, IMO). Magic was supremely powerful, but very dangerous (to both the caster and the target). It took me about a month of pretty solid typing to get it all done, but in the end, it was worth it to hear a player shout, "Dragon SLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVE!" :smallsmile:

(And yes, he really did get up out of his seat and shout it. He even made a Hadoken-type hand gesture!)

Runestar
2010-11-20, 08:22 AM
I actually liked the vancian system, since it is quite intuitive and straightforward to use and keep track of in a tabletop game.:smallsmile:

dsmiles
2010-11-20, 08:29 AM
I actually liked the vancian system, since it is quite intuitive and straightforward to use and keep track of in a tabletop game.:smallsmile:

Intuitive and straightforward, yes. Horribly imbalanced, yes.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-20, 09:53 AM
3. Character Classes
This happened shortly after having to work 2 base classes and3 prestige classes into a single character to really make the concept work. Nowadays the concept of character class is only fit for MMORPGs.

In this order, too, in a period of about two years. After #3 hit, I just switched to Mutants & Masterminds.

I'd say "never looked back since" but my players, while they enjoy M&M a lot, were never disillusioned with D&D to the degree that I was. I fear when the DM's scepter passes over I'll have to make a character build with 3 base classes, 4 prestige classes, and all magic items bought as grafts. For Tymora's sake...

I am sorry, but I have to disagree. Yes, classless does have a distinct advantage for flexibility,though they need an even closer watch from the DM for power levels. But classless have an incredible learning curve that I for one find intimidating and almost make me not want to make a character. I bought the 3.5 players guide my self and made a character for myself. It took over a day of full on effort of looking through the book, but I did it. It was a half orc sorceress and I rolled my stats.
I own DC Adventures and Mutants and Masterminds 2nd Edition. I have yet to make a character with either, and I am now much more familiar now with the basic precepts of the d20 system.

Half-Orc Rage
2010-11-20, 10:57 AM
The thing with a classless system is that you can buy points across the board and do a little of everything. A class system really encourages teamwork and has the party rely on each other. Classes also represent archetypes that can resonate with the player; if a new player looks at my books, they can go "fighter, druid, thief, ranger . . ." etc. and get a sense of what that is, over buying 5 points of sword skill or whatever.

It's possible, you know, that someone could have had the books for GURPS, Vampire, and other games and actually preferred D&D.

dsmiles
2010-11-20, 11:02 AM
The thing with a classless system is that you can buy points across the board and do a little of everything. A class system really encourages teamwork and has the party rely on each other. Classes also represent archetypes that can resonate with the player; if a new player looks at my books, they can go "fighter, druid, thief, ranger . . ." etc. and get a sense of what that is, over buying 5 points of sword skill or whatever.I like Rolemaster/H.A.R.P. in that regard. It has classes, but they're so vague that it's nearly classless.

true_shinken
2010-11-20, 11:10 AM
Intuitive and straightforward, yes. Horribly imbalanced, yes.

That's not a fault of the vancian system. ad&d used vancian casting and was a lot more balanced.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-20, 11:22 AM
Intuitive and straightforward, yes. Horribly imbalanced, yes.

As shinken noted, it's the spells, not the system. The idea of fire-and-forget self-contained spells isn't a problem; that's what M:tG spells are, essentially, and that game is pretty damn balanced (with a few exceptions). 3e magic being too over-the-top comes from the WotC devs removing most of the limitations from the spells in AD&D and just generally not understanding the game, not the fact that you can cast X level Y spells per day.

BeholderSlayer
2010-11-20, 11:34 AM
Because then you are playing 4th edition.

Zing. This post wins.

TeqSun
2010-11-20, 12:09 PM
Because then you are playing 4th edition.
Sounds like a good solution to me. :smallsmile:

DementedFellow
2010-11-20, 12:57 PM
Alright I'll say it. Vancian spellcasting is stupid. I can't imagine a more laborious trend in gaming.

It's not the limited number of spells per day that I take issue with, it's the fact that let's say a wizard has prepared spells for a dungeon crawl. Wanting to cover all the bases, he prepared all different spells so that no two are alike.

He goes up to one door and finds it locked. He casts Knock. Problem solved. Then they go up to another door and it is locked. "I can't cast Knock. I suddenly don't remember anything about it."

Sure this is hyperbole, but it's been my experience that hyperbole tends to happen a lot at the table, regardless of the situation.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-20, 01:09 PM
He goes up to one door and finds it locked. He casts Knock. Problem solved. Then they go up to another door and it is locked. "I can't cast Knock. I suddenly don't remember anything about it."

You're preparing spells, you're not memorizing them anymore. Think of it as an archer who puts in his quiver one cold iron arrow, one silver arrow, one +3 arrow, and one +1 flaming arrow. He remembers how to use his cold iron arrow after firing it, he just can't use it because he doesn't have it anymore.

With all this Vancian magic hate I think someone should make a class actually based on the Vance books, whose spells are ridiculously-powerful weapons to be conserved rather than cast all the time and are semi-sentient entities that want to be released. The D&D adaptation doesn't do Vance justice.

DementedFellow
2010-11-20, 01:17 PM
You're preparing spells, you're not memorizing them anymore. Think of it as an archer who puts in his quiver one cold iron arrow, one silver arrow, one +3 arrow, and one +1 flaming arrow. He remembers how to use his cold iron arrow after firing it, he just can't use it because he doesn't have it anymore.

With all this Vancian magic hate I think someone should make a class actually based on the Vance books, whose spells are ridiculously-powerful weapons to be conserved rather than cast all the time and are semi-sentient entities that want to be released. The D&D adaptation doesn't do Vance justice.
When the result is the same, i.e. you can't cast it again, you're just arguing about semantics. I suppose I should have said, "Even though I just cast it moments prior, for reasons unknown I can't cast it again, even though I know how to cast the spell, but somehow I don't."

It just doesn't make sense from an IC perspective. It's an exercise in tedium.

Psyren
2010-11-20, 01:23 PM
When the result is the same, i.e. you can't cast it again, you're just arguing about semantics. I suppose I should have said, "Even though I just cast it moments prior, for reasons unknown I can't cast it again, even though I know how to cast the spell, but somehow I don't."

It just doesn't make sense from an IC perspective. It's an exercise in tedium.

Agreed, which is why I like the Spell Points system. The power source for magic and the knowledge of it should be kept separate.

bannable
2010-11-20, 01:26 PM
When the result is the same, i.e. you can't cast it again, you're just arguing about semantics. I suppose I should have said, "Even though I just cast it moments prior, for reasons unknown I can't cast it again, even though I know how to cast the spell, but somehow I don't."

It just doesn't make sense from an IC perspective. It's an exercise in tedium.

The problem is that you're thinking of a spell as something that is constructed on the fly. You would do better to think of spells in Vancian systems as an object. Using the previous metaphor of arrows, the reason you can't cast the spell a second time is not because you don't know how. The reason you can't cast the spell a second time is because you no longer have the spell: You just threw it at the dragon.

...and perhaps there is a misunderstanding as to what is meant by 'prepare', as well. Spells, in Vancian systems, are complex things which require complete concentration to prepare. You could think of a spell - even one such as knock - as something like a bomb. You don't just build a bomb when someone starts shooting at you, because you'll just get shot and die. You build it beforehand: You prepare the bomb in the event you need it.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-20, 01:31 PM
I think Vancian Wizard casting and Spontainius Sorcery casting fit each other very well actually. The wizard is hard work, reducing each spell to basic principles even if you can hold the power to cast each spell but once, reflecting years of training and study and a deep and abiding actual understanding of magic. The Sorcerer is the raw talent, a knack for magic. However, you don't understand why saying flipity gibbet and bobity boo while waving your hands makes a bold of lightning spring from your hands, you just do it. You havea greater capacity for magic, but no training, so you can't, say, adjust the waving of your hands slightly and say flibity giblet and poxity boot to make that bolt of lightning an exploding ball of fire.
Training verses Talent. It works for me. I don't mind other systems of magic, manna casting, casting from HP, all day, all night Warlock casting, even do it yourself design your own spells casting are all neat and cool ways to reflect magic. But Vancian magic isn't bad. It when mundane things, like swinging a sword that certain way, get Vancian that it ticks me.

Gametime
2010-11-20, 01:45 PM
When the result is the same, i.e. you can't cast it again, you're just arguing about semantics. I suppose I should have said, "Even though I just cast it moments prior, for reasons unknown I can't cast it again, even though I know how to cast the spell, but somehow I don't."

It just doesn't make sense from an IC perspective. It's an exercise in tedium.

It's not for reasons unknown. The arrows metaphor is an apt one. It's an issue of resources, not knowledge; you didn't pack the right spell, you don't have the right spell to use. You're trying to justify Vancian magic using a "mana" perspective; of course it doesn't make sense. You have to consider Vancian magic from a Vancian perspective.

Psyren
2010-11-20, 01:47 PM
It's not for reasons unknown. The arrows metaphor is an apt one. It's an issue of resources, not knowledge; you didn't pack the right spell, you don't have the right spell to use. You're trying to justify Vancian magic using a "mana" perspective; of course it doesn't make sense. You have to consider Vancian magic from a Vancian perspective.

When the only way for a system to make sense is from the system's own perspective, that indicates a problem to me.

At least they dropped the bloody thing in 4e.

Coidzor
2010-11-20, 01:49 PM
With all this Vancian magic hate I think someone should make a class actually based on the Vance books, whose spells are ridiculously-powerful weapons to be conserved rather than cast all the time and are semi-sentient entities that want to be released. The D&D adaptation doesn't do Vance justice.

So, what, add SAN damage from the spells whispering every so often? Roll a will saving throw to avoid casting a spell as soon as you see an enemy? Roll another for each spell to prevent them from casting themselves as soon as you've cast one? Roll a fort save to prevent being damaged by the spells upon leaving the caster's body?


Training verses Talent.

Of course, the problem there, is how you model those people who have both without extremely awkward qualifications for PRCs in time to stay relevant to party appropriate encounters...

hamishspence
2010-11-20, 01:52 PM
At least they dropped the bloody thing in 4e.

Alternatively, everyone got it- abilities that can only be used once per day. Though 4E Essentials has classes that don't have Dailies.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-20, 02:12 PM
Of course, the problem there, is how you model those people who have both without extremely awkward qualifications for PRCs in time to stay relevant to party appropriate encounters...
Yes, that is a sticky wicket. You could always go gestalt sorcerer//wizard, though that is by no means 'perfect' solution.

Psyren
2010-11-20, 02:13 PM
Alternatively, everyone got it- abilities that can only be used once per day. Though 4E Essentials has classes that don't have Dailies.

The hallmark of Vancian - having to predict in advance how many times you'd need a given spell on a given day during preparation - has indeed been dropped.

Sure there's 1/day stuff still, but the fact that every class has at-wills and 1/encounter stuff balances it nicely.

hamishspence
2010-11-20, 02:14 PM
Isn't it more like "Original Vance" though- very few dailies, each used once per day?

BeholderSlayer
2010-11-20, 02:14 PM
The hallmark of Vancian - having to predict in advance how many times you'd need a given spell on a given day during preparation - has indeed been dropped.

I, personally, rather like this part of it. That's just my opinion, though.

hamishspence
2010-11-20, 02:16 PM
You might, however, have to predict how many times you'll need rituals-(as opposed to spells) and take enough residuum from your stockpile to cover it.

(or, as a wizard, predict which of the two or three dailies for that level you'll need to prepare from your spellbook).

it's not Vancian- but it is Vance-like.

Psyren
2010-11-20, 02:28 PM
Isn't it more like "Original Vance" though- very few dailies, each used once per day?

*shrug* I wouldn't really know.


You might, however, have to predict how many times you'll need rituals-(as opposed to spells) and take enough residuum from your stockpile to cover it.

Rituals are largely plot-spells, and as such, your inability to cast them on a given day would simply necessitate a tweak to the plot itself. It's not the same as, say, being one magic missile too short to finish off the Shadow that's about to CDG the downed cleric.

hamishspence
2010-11-20, 02:33 PM
It's not the same as, say, being one magic missile too short to finish off the Shadow that's about to CDG the downed cleric.

Thanks to the "at will" system you'll always have some spells that can be cast- which is a good thing.


*shrug* I wouldn't really know.

I don't know about Vance's other books- but I have read the Dying Earth novels, and in those, being able to cast seven spells in a day was pretty impressive.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-20, 02:35 PM
The hallmark of Vancian - having to predict in advance how many times you'd need a given spell on a given day during preparation - has indeed been dropped.

Sure there's 1/day stuff still, but the fact that every class has at-wills and 1/encounter stuff balances it nicely.
My problem is every class getting it. Even pure mundanes like capital F Fighters.
Magic is different because magic isn't real and as long as it is consistent, how it works can be like the mathematician's answer, "it works very well, thank you."
But with mundanes, it feels much more iffy to me.

hamishspence
2010-11-20, 02:55 PM
From Martial Power II page 106:


From where does the fighter summon the strength for such fierce attacks? How does the rogue learn to perform feats of astounding agility? What hidden reservoir of spirit does the warlord tap when he or she steps forward and commands allies to strike as one?

The martial power source might seem as though it isn't a power source at all. A martial practitioner can't produce overtly supernatural effects, such as rays of blinding radiance or shields of invisible magical force. However, martial power does have a source, even if it's an inconspicuous one. Martial power is the combination of three qualities acting in concert: natural ability such as great strength or uncanny agility, the determination to act, and learned skill acquired through endless hours of practice. For a brief moment, the martial hero combines these three components in the performance of a move, maneuver, or feat of arms, exceeding the normal physical limitations of his or her body and training.

To put it another way, most people go through their lives using only a fraction of their true capability. Martial heroes have learned how to routinely exceed their normal limits and unlock more of their physical potential than anyone else. They can't perform magical deeds, such as teleporting through alternate dimensions or becoming transparent, but they can make leaps of astonishing speed and distance or take advantage of the smallest distraction to slip out of sight. With timing and skill, a wiry halfling hero can throw a harder punch than a human laborer twice his or her size, because the halfling knows how to dig down and use more of his or her potential than the bigger, muscular human. The human laborer might have more raw strength, but that human doesn't know how to use it the way the halfling does.

The components of the martial power source are present in all creatures. However, few creatures learn to exceed their ordinary limits on a regular basis. A big, strong blacksmith driven into an absolute fury can hit with great force, but that doesn't mean that an angry blacksmith's punch is a martial exploit. It doesn't have the precise power and split-second timing that a martial hero's attack routinely acheives. Consequently, martial heroes soon exceed the skills of common people, especially in their chosen fields of expertise.

J.Gellert
2010-11-20, 03:18 PM
That's a very confusing and long way to say "The halfling knows how to throw his weight in the punch, and hit where it hurts".

Now I don't mind confusing, but it suggests martial training makes you superhuman. It's not wrong, but I don't want it in my semi-European medieval fantasy.

Edit: I will elaborate a bit. "Feeling" is the most important thing for me, having created an entire campaign setting from nothing. And M&M helps me do it exactly as I want it - because M&M can do so many things. Yes it requires heavy DM oversight. But my players aren't "munchkins" so it's all great.

As for the Vancian system, good riddance. I'm not really into 4E, but I'm glad they ditched that, so I don't have to put up with Vancian magic if/when the 4E CRPGs appear.

Psyren
2010-11-20, 03:31 PM
Thanks to the "at will" system you'll always have some spells that can be cast- which is a good thing.

My point exactly - before 4e, WotC treated "at-wills" as a huge advantage that had to be offset by crippling weakness in other areas/spending feats.


I don't know about Vance's other books- but I have read the Dying Earth novels, and in those, being able to cast seven spells in a day was pretty impressive.

All well and good, but Dying Earth isn't D&D and never should have been.

Callista
2010-11-20, 03:31 PM
...if/when the 4E CRPGs appear.
Of course they'll come out. 4th ed. basically is a CRPG already.

Psyren
2010-11-20, 03:35 PM
Neverwinter (http://www.playneverwinter.com/) is slated to use 4e rules.

I wish they'd make something besides DDO that uses Eberron. :smallyuk:

And where's my Dark Sun/Gamma World CRPG?

Ormur
2010-11-20, 03:45 PM
I agree with many of the complaints about the clumsy jumble of features that the level based system of D&D 3,5 is. It's not a very elegant system compared to point buy.

However it's the only system I really know and despite it's counter intuitiveness and lack of verisimilitude it's a fun system to construct characters in. Levelling up is also a pretty fun aspect. I has a sort of charm complicated and flawed things sometimes have.

So I don't mind playing D&D but I'd like to try something more realistic like GURPS next time I'm a DM.

The Big Dice
2010-11-20, 04:14 PM
All well and good, but Dying Earth isn't D&D and never should have been.
Dying Earth came first. And Gygax used that system of magic because it fit his wargaming sensibility. Wizards were artillery, spells were ammunition.

Psyren
2010-11-20, 05:13 PM
Dying Earth came first.

That explains 1e, maybe 2e, but by 3e the system should have begun phasing out. UA and ToB were the future, it just took a little longer to get there.

The Big Dice
2010-11-20, 05:17 PM
That explains 1e, maybe 2e, but by 3e the system should have begun phasing out. UA and ToB were the future, it just took a little longer to get there.

3rd was built on baggage held over from earlier editions. The guy who purchased the rights to publish D&D had played AD&D in college. Going by the interviews with him on the DVD extras for the D&D movie, he wanted a game that felt like the game he played then.

Unfortunately, he got 3.0 and then 3.5.

BunnyMaster42
2010-11-20, 05:51 PM
He goes up to one door and finds it locked. He casts Knock. Problem solved. Then they go up to another door and it is locked. "I can't cast Knock. I suddenly don't remember anything about it."


It helps to imagine preparing spells as a sort of incomplete pre-casting of the spells in advance, and the spells themselves that you're actually casting are just you completing the spells you've prepared, adding the finishing touches like the target, what type of creature to summon, ect...

I'm not saying it makes Vancian casing make total sense, but it helps at least. It also makes some semblance of sense when you think about it. Spells are complex enough to require multiple pages in a spell book, even for power word-like spells, which seems to imply that you are just completing said spells when you actually cast them.

dsmiles
2010-11-20, 05:52 PM
It helps to imagine preparing spells as a sort of incomplete pre-casting of the spells in advance, and the spells themselves that you're actually casting are just you completing the spells you've prepared, adding the finishing touches I take it you've read the Amber Chronicles...:smallsmile:

Psyren
2010-11-20, 06:07 PM
Spells are complex enough to require multiple pages in a spell book, even for power word-like spells, which seems to imply that you are just completing said spells when you actually cast them.

Psst... You're not helping your case (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0306.html) :smalltongue:


3rd was built on baggage held over from earlier editions. The guy who purchased the rights to publish D&D had played AD&D in college. Going by the interviews with him on the DVD extras for the D&D movie, he wanted a game that felt like the game he played then.

Unfortunately, he got 3.0 and then 3.5.

3.5 gave us UA, and with it, a delightful farewell to Vancian.

dsmiles
2010-11-20, 06:16 PM
3.5 gave us UA, and with it, a delightful farewell to Vancian.Pssssst...don't forget MoI.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-20, 06:29 PM
Pssssst...don't forget MoI.
Or shadow magic, or Warlocks or even truenaming. 3.X has plenty of non vancian options if options if you are so inclined.

JaronK
2010-11-20, 06:43 PM
I've always assumed that was what preparing spells was... you go through all the motions that can be done in advance, and then only finish the spell off with that last bit when you cast it (the True Game series of books uses this concept for magic). It makes sense... the more experienced and higher level you are, the more spells you can prepare in that normal hour.

JaronK

Eldariel
2010-11-20, 07:06 PM
I've always assumed that was what preparing spells was... you go through all the motions that can be done in advance, and then only finish the spell off with that last bit when you cast it (the True Game series of books uses this concept for magic). It makes sense... the more experienced and higher level you are, the more spells you can prepare in that normal hour.

JaronK

That's what it's officially been historically too. You "precast" the spell when preparing it only leaving the finishing motions undone for when you actually use it. Of course, spontaneous casters kinda muck things up here, but I guess magic is just so inherent to them that they don't care.

Gametime
2010-11-20, 07:19 PM
When the only way for a system to make sense is from the system's own perspective, that indicates a problem to me.



I didn't say that. What I said was that the system doesn't make sense when considered from the perspective of a completely different system, which isn't unreasonable.

Power points, or mana, or what have you makes sense intuitively because we're used to the idea of "energy." You can do some strenuous activities, but eventually you'll run out of fuel. When you try to justify Vancian magic that way, of course it doesn't make sense. Vancian magic doesn't view spells as some big conglomerate of magical energy; spells are discrete packets of magic, wholly separate from other packets.

Imagine if the situation were reversed, and you were asking why a rifleman couldn't keep firing his rifle; I mean, he still has pistol bullets, so he's clearly not out of energy, and he knows how to fire his rifle. It totally breaks verisimilitude that he just inexplicably ceases to be able to fire his rifle in the middle of combat!

Vancian spells are ammunition; the magic isn't just inherent to you. It needs to be taken and controlled and managed. But the inability to look consistent when explained in entirely incorrect terms isn't unique to Vancian magic.

(When it comes to spontaneous casters, though, Vancian magic is silly. I'll agree with that.)

Psyren
2010-11-20, 07:36 PM
Or shadow magic, or Warlocks or even truenaming. 3.X has plenty of non vancian options if options if you are so inclined.

I meant "while still being a wizard/cleric."

Dante & Vergil
2010-11-20, 08:20 PM
There are some good points here, my favorite being too many prerequisites.


I actually managed to salvage magic. I simply threw out Vancian magic and all the Vancian casting classes. I replaced them with the casting mechanic from The Slayers d20, and the casting classes associated with that mecanic. Then I converted all the appropriate Vancian spells to that system and homebrewed a couple of PrCs (The Slayers didn't have enough PrC options for casters, IMO). Magic was supremely powerful, but very dangerous (to both the caster and the target). It took me about a month of pretty solid typing to get it all done, but in the end, it was worth it to hear a player shout, "Dragon SLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVE!" :smallsmile:

(And yes, he really did get up out of his seat and shout it. He even made a Hadoken-type hand gesture!)

I would like to see your system if that's ok.

dsmiles
2010-11-20, 08:43 PM
I would like to see your system if that's ok.Unfortunately, my hard drive crashed, and I have no access to the information digitally. I do have it on paper, and can scan it into a .pdf. It may take a while, my access to the scanner at work is spotty at best.

Coidzor
2010-11-20, 08:52 PM
Imagine if the situation were reversed, and you were asking why a rifleman couldn't keep firing his rifle; I mean, he still has pistol bullets, so he's clearly not out of energy, and he knows how to fire his rifle. It totally breaks verisimilitude that he just inexplicably ceases to be able to fire his rifle in the middle of combat!

Because of the whole limit per day. Not per preparation, but per day, without any kind of indication of it actually... inhibiting or stressing or exhausting the user.

Or how something that takes a small fraction of an hour can't be repeated the long way at will.

Gametime
2010-11-20, 09:23 PM
Because of the whole limit per day. Not per preparation, but per day, without any kind of indication of it actually... inhibiting or stressing or exhausting the user.

Or how something that takes a small fraction of an hour can't be repeated the long way at will.

You don't think the need to rest for eight hours before preparing spells is an indication that it requires a very specific mental state that can't be duplicated at will?

Coidzor
2010-11-20, 09:33 PM
You don't think the need to rest for eight hours before preparing spells is an indication that it requires a very specific mental state that can't be duplicated at will?

No, it just seems arbitrary and badly modeled.

You're not inconvenienced or altered in any other way.

And a cannon can be reloaded until it starts to warp and melt.

Half-Orc Rage
2010-11-20, 09:35 PM
What my friends always did with wizards was simple. You prepared whatever number of spells you could, say 10, and then you had that number of castings per day. So if you wanted Sleep an extra time, you could do it, as long as you weren't going over 10 total 1st level spells per day.

Granted, the average power gamer on here (excuse me, optimizer) would probably exploit the hell out of this, but it worked for us.

dob
2010-11-20, 11:40 PM
What my friends always did with wizards was simple. You prepared whatever number of spells you could, say 10, and then you had that number of castings per day. So if you wanted Sleep an extra time, you could do it, as long as you weren't going over 10 total 1st level spells per day.

So, your friends played wizards as sorcerers?

Callista
2010-11-21, 12:17 AM
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Why not just play a sorcerer?

Psyren
2010-11-21, 12:26 AM
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Why not just play a sorcerer?

My guess is they still wanted 9ths at 17 :smallwink:

Felhammer
2010-11-21, 12:42 AM
The real underlying problem with 3.x is that Wizards, Druids and Clerics have waaaay too much spell variety. If you can change everything about yourself every day, then you are too powerful.

People say Sorcerers are very powerful but that power comes at the cost of versatility. If everyone were like the sorcerer, 3.x would become much more balanced.

Having said that there are additional measures you can take to balance the game out.

1. The Druid's effective druid level is one-half his druid level for advancing his Animal Companion (or simply eliminate it).
2. Ban Natural Spell.
3. Ban all Divine Metamagic Feats .
4. Ban all Save of Die spells.


If you do that, then 3.5 becomes a much more manageable system. Just watch out for casters and scrolls! :)

Arbane
2010-11-21, 12:57 AM
Now I don't mind confusing, but it suggests martial training makes you superhuman. It's not wrong, but I don't want it in my semi-European medieval fantasy.

As opposed to being able to survive an angry ogre's club in the face without even a black eye?

(And yes. Obviously 4E martial types have excellent kung-fu.)

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-21, 01:24 AM
1. The Druid's effective druid level is one-half his druid level for advancing his Animal Companion.

There's no reason the druid even needs an animal companion; they can summon animal buddies all they want, and in AD&D only rangers had a particular affinity with animals. Give the ranger an animal companion at full effective druid level and remove the druid's.


3. Ban all Divine Feats.

Most of the [divine] and [wild] feats are fine; it's only Divine Metamagic that causes problem. I'd do a spot-fix rather than a blanket ban for these.

Felhammer
2010-11-21, 01:30 AM
There's no reason the druid even needs an animal companion; they can summon animal buddies all they want, and in AD&D only rangers had a particular affinity with animals. Give the ranger an animal companion at full effective druid level and remove the druid's.

Oh I totally agree Druids should NOT have animal companions for your exact reasoning but you know how people get when they start smelling nerf :smallsmile:



Most of the [divine] and [wild] feats are fine; it's only Divine Metamagic that causes problem. I'd do a spot-fix rather than a blanket ban for these.

Oops, my bad I meant Divine Metagamic. :smallsmile:

Susano-wo
2010-11-21, 01:40 AM
As opposed to being able to survive an angry ogre's club in the face without even a black eye?

(And yes. Obviously 4E martial types have excellent kung-fu.)

I know of nothing in any Dnd that indicates that anyone without pretty severe DR can take an ogre's club (angry or not) to the face without a black eye. :smallconfused:

faceroll
2010-11-21, 01:43 AM
The concept that's long dead is "as long as people have different concepts, it's okay if they're not at all balanced." Turns out that's not nearly as fun as having everyone playing the same game.

Speak for yourself.

Felhammer
2010-11-21, 01:52 AM
As long as people have their niche and others don't tread into it, 3.5 is wondrously diverse. :smallbiggrin:

Ravens_cry
2010-11-21, 02:50 AM
I meant "while still being a wizard/cleric."
Classes are generally, organization and region specific prestige classes beingexceptions, pretty much meta gaming concepts. I had a cleric who considered himself a paladin, being all about busting heads for his god. You could say in your back story you're a mage who discovered a way to use the same spell over and over, but at reduced potency. Also, you have to customize each spell to do this, so you don't get as many. There, possible back story for someone with the Warlock CLASS.

ffone
2010-11-21, 05:39 AM
Classes are generally, organization and region specific prestige classes beingexceptions, pretty much meta gaming concepts. I had a cleric who considered himself a paladin, being all about busting heads for his god. You could say in your back story you're a mage who discovered a way to use the same spell over and over, but at reduced potency. Also, you have to customize each spell to do this, so you don't get as many. There, possible back story for someone with the Warlock CLASS.

This is semantics. Nowhere does it say ONLY paladins can bust heads for their god - in fact that's what many clerics already do! In your campaign setting, the word 'paladin' could mean that walk of life - but it doesn't mean that the mechanical class ("character who gets smiting, fear immunity, spells and certain other stuff from a god and is LG") isn't a distinct 'basket' of supernatural abilities in the game world. Although you could certainly posit the existence of characters with ability sets other than those achievable by multiclassing (a cleric with lay on hands but not detect evil, etc.)

Likewise, calling a sorcerer a 'mage who learned how to cast the same spell over and over' is purely semantic. In-character you can switch the words around (some novels use 'sorcerer' or especially 'sorceress' just to mean wizard, especially older ones from the days of the 'Magic-User') but that's a different question from whether the game world contains Sorcerers ("guys who spontaneously cast thanks to lineage") and Wizards ("guys who study and prepare spells").

Many classes are metagame constructs (any imaginable hybrid of, say, barbarian and fighter could conceivably exist, not just the ones you get from multiclassing), but most of the Vancian casters aren't. They are specific spellcasting disciples readily 'visible' in-character to others. In the Ed Greenwood novels, some character have a good idea of what wizards and clerics are and can do, use the words 'cleric' and 'wizard' and they don't try to avoid using the names of spells like Fireball (for some reason many players seem to try to avoid using spell names in-character or referring to the concept of spell slots).

Ravens_cry
2010-11-21, 06:26 AM
Of course this is semantics, this is FLUFF. You could, in theory though I wouldn't want to do it, fluff a Fighter as a mage who uses direct damage melee magic.
A cleric is just a name for a certain class out of game, a cleric could be part of a Holy Order of Paladins of Palor, someone of strong convictions in something, or whatever.

Talking about the D&D novels just high lights a pet peeve, lazy writers who simply say "Oh that character is a Capital R Rogue, so now you know all you need to know about them." In character, you can or can not tell what class a charachter is, it's up to the describer.
"A kindly looking man in holy vestments walks up to you, holding a holy symbol madn touches you , and you rwounds close." Out of game, that could be any class that casts healing spells, not even necessarily cure X wounds, from an adept, to a bard to a cleric, to a druid.
You want to call yourself a wizard, boom you are a wizard, semantics be damned. If I can accept other forms of magic alongside Vancian casting,surely you can accept Vancian casting along other forms of magic.

Psyren
2010-11-21, 11:25 AM
Classes are generally, organization and region specific prestige classes beingexceptions, pretty much meta gaming concepts.

I was speaking from the player's perspective. You know, the person for whom metagame concepts would matter.

"I want to be a wizard, but I hate getting localized amnesia whenever I cast spells." You can refluff other casters all you want, but every one of them will fall short in some way (Psions have no spellbooks or gestures, Beguilers are limited to certain schools etc.) Or, you can use the spell point/recharge variants and just go to town.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-21, 11:37 AM
I was speaking from the player's perspective. You know, the person for whom metagame concepts would matter.

"I want to be a wizard, but I hate getting localized amnesia whenever I cast spells." You can refluff other casters all you want, but every one of them will fall short in some way (Psions have no spellbooks or gestures, Beguilers are limited to certain schools etc.) Or, you can use the spell point/recharge variants and just go to town.
If that's how you want to fluff Vancian magic, and don't want to deal with that. After all, each 'variant' its really just another class with the same name that is not designed to exist in the same world at the same time as the other classes that share that name. Basically your saying "I want to play something named in metagame a 'wizard' but operates so different as to be more different then many other classes not called wizard."

Psyren
2010-11-21, 11:43 AM
If that's how you want to fluff Vancian magic, and don't want to deal with that. After all, each 'variant' its really just another class with the same name that is not designed to exist in the same world at the same time as the other classes that share that name. Basically your saying "I want to play something named in metagame a 'wizard' but operates so different as to be more different then many other classes not called wizard."

Not so. The only difference between Spell Point and Vancian wizards is that they don't have to guess how much of a given spell to prepare in advance. They still have to study their spellbook, protect it from hazards, get spell access sooner than sorcerers with less spells/day, think about what they'll need for a given day of adventuring and what they won't, etc. What other class plays like that? Which one am I "operating differently as?"

Ravens_cry
2010-11-21, 11:50 AM
Not so. The only difference between Spell Point and Vancian wizards is that they don't have to guess how much of a given spell to prepare in advance. They still have to study their spellbook, protect it from hazards, get spell access sooner than sorcerers with less spells/day, think about what they'll need for a given day of adventuring and what they won't, etc. What other class plays like that? Which one am I "operating differently as?"
Many classes use prepared casting. Going to spell points I personally think is a bigger difference then a piece of equipment they must keep from harm. Others have to do the same thing, a cleric and their holy symbol. Though that is more replaceable, both are screwed in a dungeon if they lose it some how.

Psyren
2010-11-21, 12:01 PM
Many classes use prepared casting. Going to spell points I personally think is a bigger difference then a piece of equipment they must keep from harm. Others have to do the same thing, a cleric and their holy symbol. Though that is more replaceable, both are screwed in a dungeon if they lose it some how.

Exactly - both a Vancian and Spell Points Wizard/Cleric would be equally screwed in that circumstance. So how are they so game-alteringly different? Because one doesn't have to abuse Contact Other Plane every night?

Felhammer
2010-11-21, 01:17 PM
Spell points are so much more fun than Vancian magic... But so much more open to abuse... :smallsmile:

Ravens_cry
2010-11-21, 03:17 PM
Exactly - both a Vancian and Spell Points Wizard/Cleric would be equally screwed in that circumstance. So how are they so game-alteringly different? Because one doesn't have to abuse Contact Other Plane every night?
And my point is wizard is just a name. Do your fighters go around saying 'Hi I am a Fighter."? As other have mentioned, Vancian is easier to pick up and play, and when you open the PHB for the first time, you want to be able to say "Hey, I want to play that." Maybe not for some of the more experienced player, but none of us were always experienced. And, as mentioned, there are plenty of other options, including things that call themselves wizards, if you want none Vancian casting in D&D.

Susano-wo
2010-11-21, 03:31 PM
though I do agree with the "flavor to taste" class philosophy, I'd disagree that Vancian casting is easier to play than a mana system.

perhaps its harder to waste your spells in practice (casting too many high MP spells, or too many low MP spell), but how hard is it to say I know (or prepared if you still want to retain the wizard's versatility) this many spells, and can cast them until my MP runs out?

Of course, the pseudo-Vancian system breaks my brain, and is hard to me to justify in my head. I understand all the justifications, it just seems clunky and forced to me...so I tend to avoid talking about spell slots and usually I avoid mentioning spell names. But I tend to prefer sorcerors to wizards, anyway :P

Psyren
2010-11-21, 04:08 PM
As other have mentioned, Vancian is easier to pick up and play

Given the massive number of RPGs that use an MP system rather than Vancian, you'll have a hard time convincing me of this.


and when you open the PHB for the first time, you want to be able to say "Hey, I want to play that."
...
And, as mentioned, there are plenty of other options, including things that call themselves wizards, if you want none Vancian casting in D&D.

You're contradicting yourself here. You say that class shouldn't matter because nobody walks around saying "I am a wizard and he is a cleric." Then you turn around and say that players should be able to just open the PHB and say "I want to play that!" Does what the player wants to play matter, or not?

Spell Points gives the best of both worlds. I can be a Wizard without having to worry about "gosh, I prepared knock once today, but what if there's a second locked door?" "I have two 5th-level slots; I put Teleport in one to get us to the big bad's chamber, but what if I need a second one to get us out? But if I put Teleport there, I won't have Summon Monster V in case the fighter needs help!" Yep, time to Contact Other Plane again and see if the BB's lair can collapse on top of everyone.

In fact, they gave Clerics spontaneous healing precisely because of this problem. "I want to do something in combat besides heal, but what if the fighter gets dropped to -1 and all I have left is Bless?" and then WotC said, "okay, we can see how Vancian is silly here, so you can cure X whenever you want, but only if you're good!" Right, because evil clerics never use curing spells... "With my dying breath, I inflict moderate wounds on you, healthy paladin!"

Have I mentioned how ridiculous I find Vancian lately? :smallannoyed:

AstralFire
2010-11-21, 04:14 PM
That's 'cause it's a sloppy implementation of Vancian. I'd like to see someone mechanically do Vancian casting a lot more like what you see in either Dying Earth or the early Discworld novels.

The Glyphstone
2010-11-21, 04:19 PM
That's 'cause it's a sloppy implementation of Vancian. I'd like to see someone mechanically do Vancian casting a lot more like what you see in either Dying Earth or the early Discworld novels.

Seems like you could do something roughly equivalent with a bunch of Reserve feats and maybe 1 or 2 spell slots of levels 6+?

true_shinken
2010-11-21, 04:26 PM
"I want to be a wizard, but I hate getting localized amnesia whenever I cast spells."
I'd just like to remember that's not the 3.5 Wizard fluff - that's the AD&D Wizard.
3.5 Wizard actually does the greater part of the casting in the morning, when he prepares spells. The casting per se is just the smaller part of a grand ritual.

Psyren
2010-11-21, 04:39 PM
I'd just like to remember that's not the 3.5 Wizard fluff - that's the AD&D Wizard.
3.5 Wizard actually does the greater part of the casting in the morning, when he prepares spells. The casting per se is just the smaller part of a grand ritual.

Why can't wizards/clerics just start the elaborate "pre-casting" ritual again as soon as the slot is empty, instead of having to sleep 8 hours first? And if they're walking around with a "half-cast" spell hovering about them, why don't their heads detect as magic? It's all so inconsistent.

Then there's the casters like Beguilers that don't need elaborate rituals like this, who also don't have the excuse of magical blood heritage and what have you, but that's just a side peeve.

Callista
2010-11-21, 04:47 PM
Why can't wizards/clerics just start the elaborate "pre-casting" ritual again as soon as the slot is empty, instead of having to sleep 8 hours first? And if they're walking around with a "half-cast" spell hovering about them, why don't their heads detect as magic? It's all so inconsistent.Because you've only got so much mental endurance. Once you've prepared all the spells for your spell slots, you can't concentrate well enough to set up any more until you've rested. The spell slots don't represent empty spots in your brain; they represent how often you can go through the strenuous exercise of setting up a spell.

There's nothing stopping a wizard from leaving a spell slot empty and preparing a spell for it later in the day.

Wizards' heads don't detect as magic because the spell isn't active yet, just the way a charged capacitor doesn't discharge and can't zap anything until the circuit is closed. You can try to detect a current in one end of the capacitor all you like, but you won't get anything until you close the circuit.

dsmiles
2010-11-21, 04:49 PM
Because you've only got so much mental endurance. Once you've prepared all the spells for your spell slots, you can't concentrate well enough to set up any more until you've rested. The spell slots don't represent empty spots in your brain; they represent how often you can go through the strenuous exercise of setting up a spell.I prefer a more tangible fatigue effect. That's why I switched my magic to The Slayers d20.

true_shinken
2010-11-21, 04:53 PM
It's all so inconsistent.

It is inconsistent. It's also a lot better than 'I forgot how to do that'.
It's easy to find explanations for your questions, even if they are not adressed officially.


Why can't wizards/clerics just start the elaborate "pre-casting" ritual again as soon as the slot is empty, instead of having to sleep 8 hours first?
Because no mortal mind could handle that strain.


And if they're walking around with a "half-cast" spell hovering about them, why don't their heads detect as magic?
Because it's incomplete magic. A part of a spell is not magic per se; otherwise, bat guano would be pinging in detect magic all the time.

olentu
2010-11-21, 04:55 PM
Personally I wonder why by that explanation it is just as difficult to prepare a level 1 spell as a level 9 spell but is also more difficult to prepare a level 9 spell then a level 1 spell.

Gametime
2010-11-21, 05:01 PM
Why can't wizards/clerics just start the elaborate "pre-casting" ritual again as soon as the slot is empty, instead of having to sleep 8 hours first? And if they're walking around with a "half-cast" spell hovering about them, why don't their heads detect as magic? It's all so inconsistent.

Then there's the casters like Beguilers that don't need elaborate rituals like this, who also don't have the excuse of magical blood heritage and what have you, but that's just a side peeve.

It seems like your main problem with Vancian magic is that it doesn't work the way you think magic should. Which is perfectly understandable - I myself prefer the gameplay and management involved with spell points - but there's a difference between "Vancian magic makes no sense" and "Vancian magic doesn't make sense in the way that I want it to make sense."

Psyren
2010-11-21, 05:03 PM
Because you've only got so much mental endurance. Once you've prepared all the spells for your spell slots, you can't concentrate well enough to set up any more until you've rested. The spell slots don't represent empty spots in your brain; they represent how often you can go through the strenuous exercise of setting up a spell.

There's nothing stopping a wizard from leaving a spell slot empty and preparing a spell for it later in the day.


...None of which affects the wizard's energy or perkiness in any other way. You can even cast a spell in the morning and be good for an entire day of adventuring, yet somehow lack the energy/focus to recast that same spell until the next day.


It is inconsistent. It's also a lot better than 'I forgot how to do that'.
It's easy to find explanations for your questions, even if they are not adressed officially.

My problem is that the explanations are inadequate (see above.)



Because no mortal mind could handle that strain.


But they can handle the strain of a full adventuring day, crafting, knowledge checks etc.


Because it's incomplete magic. A part of a spell is not magic per se; otherwise, bat guano would be pinging in detect magic all the time.

They're magic enough to power spellfire or reserve feats, or be eaten by an Essence Reaver (guano can do none of those things), but not magic enough to be detectable? :smallconfused:

true_shinken
2010-11-21, 05:06 PM
Stuff
I won't argue with you. I'll just point back to Gametime here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9810428&postcount=152).

Callista
2010-11-21, 05:08 PM
...None of which affects the wizard's energy or perkiness in any other way. You can even cast a spell in the morning and be good for an entire day of adventuring, yet somehow lack the energy/focus to recast that same spell until the next day.It doesn't seem odd to me at all. I'm an engineering major in my last year, and I'm taking some heavy math classes. Even when I've been working for eight hours and my brain absolutely refuses to handle another equation, nothing is stopping me from going out for a jog--which, in fact, is often exactly what I do, since it's a great way to de-stress after all the sitting and calculating. I imagine it must be like that for a wizard... only with Fireballs instead of integrals.

Psyren
2010-11-21, 05:11 PM
It seems like your main problem with Vancian magic is that it doesn't work the way you think magic should. Which is perfectly understandable - I myself prefer the gameplay and management involved with spell points - but there's a difference between "Vancian magic makes no sense" and "Vancian magic doesn't make sense in the way that I want it to make sense."

I'm willing to admit that my vision of what magic should be is my biggest problem with Vancian. But if this thread is truly about "here are the things we are glad that D&D left behind," it's perfectly reasonable for me to put Vancian casting on that pile.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-21, 05:18 PM
Training verses Talent. It works for me. I don't mind other systems of magic, manna casting, casting from HP, all day, all night Warlock casting, even do it yourself design your own spells casting are all neat and cool ways to reflect magic. But Vancian magic isn't bad. It when mundane things, like swinging a sword that certain way, get Vancian that it ticks me.

I actually used this as a background for how Wizards came into existence. Essentially a really weak group of Sorcerers decided that they would map out all of the spells each of them knew, and try to figure out how they work rather then just using them. After about 400 years the first wizards who didn't start out as sorcerers started, and had access to about level 3 spells. It took 3,000 years to get to tier 9 spells, with every single spell (and hundreds of weaker spells that don't work as well) created by some wizard or another spending a lifetime on one or two spells.

And I actually like Vancian magic. The older fantasy stories don't have a lot of the wizard just flying around nuking things; they used a spell once every blue moon, and used things like alchemy or divination or rituals most of the time. Vancian is a fine system for direct use magic; my problem is the game doesn't provide much in the way of rituals or other complex forms of magic that take a long time until epic level.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-21, 07:47 PM
Personally I wonder why by that explanation it is just as difficult to prepare a level 1 spell as a level 9 spell but is also more difficult to prepare a level 9 spell then a level 1 spell.

That part, at least, made a lot more sense in AD&D. Spells took 10 minutes per spell level to prepare, so preparing a 9th-level spell took 9 times as long to prepare as a 1st-level spell and preparing your full repertoire could take over a day.

Coidzor
2010-11-21, 11:40 PM
Because you've only got so much mental endurance. Once you've prepared all the spells for your spell slots, you can't concentrate well enough to set up any more until you've rested. The spell slots don't represent empty spots in your brain; they represent how often you can go through the strenuous exercise of setting up a spell.

And yet you don't take a penalty on concentration checks or mental ability score checks. Or will saves. Or anything that would actually indicate you're less able to concentrate or that your mental fortitude was compromised. Hence, the complaint is about the inconsistent feel of the system.



Wizards' heads don't detect as magic because the spell isn't active yet, just the way a charged capacitor doesn't discharge and can't zap anything until the circuit is closed. You can try to detect a current in one end of the capacitor all you like, but you won't get anything until you close the circuit.

But the spell is active because it's prepped and ready and all it needs is the command word and occasionally gestures. If their head is a wand, it should detect as a wand.


It is inconsistent. It's also a lot better than 'I forgot how to do that'.
It's easy to find explanations for your questions, even if they are not adressed officially.

Because no mortal mind could handle that strain. Grasping at straws here, considering you already admitted it's inconsistent and arbitrary.


Because it's incomplete magic. A part of a spell is not magic per se; otherwise, bat guano would be pinging in detect magic all the time.

What actually differentiates it from a wand, really?


It seems like your main problem with Vancian magic is that it doesn't work the way you think magic should. Which is perfectly understandable - I myself prefer the gameplay and management involved with spell points - but there's a difference between "Vancian magic makes no sense" and "Vancian magic doesn't make sense in the way that I want it to make sense."

Wrong. It's that it doesn't make sense as presented. You're having to 1. go outside of the source, 2. invent justifications for something, and 3. take something that was inspiration for the system as explicit canon.

Merely because you prefer it that way does not make everyone else incorrect in pointing out its flaws.

Swordguy
2010-11-21, 11:41 PM
The single most outdated concept, that game companies must move away from, is that they can write rules designed to be played by the spirit of what the game designers intended.

What the last 15 years of internet communities have shown us is that a sizable percentage of gamers derive a great deal of pleasure from finding ways to exploit or break systems, and whether they mean it in terms of pure theory or actual practical use, the breadth of the internet makes it possible to communicate these ideas so far and wide not only can anyone pick them up easily and use them in their home game to "break" it (for whatever motive) , but that a game can be considered "broken beyond repair" inside of 6 months of release. That kills games.

If anything, games need to be written more and more technically, with as little fluff text intersecting the actual rules as possible. Desiring players to stop trying to find holes in a system is a lost cause, and asking them to just start playing by the "spirit" of the game is no longer a reasonable expectation. The holy RAW is, evidently, everything.

Abandon the concept that gamers will play by the spirit of what you intended (say, playing with a meatshield Fighter, Skillmonkey rogue, healbot Cleric, and blaster Wizard) and start writing the rules tightly from a Technical Writing perspective, all the while understanding the full import of the consequences of the rules you've actually written down, and you'll solve many, if not all, the symptoms being discussed in this very thread.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-21, 11:53 PM
Abandon the concept that gamers will play by the spirit of what you intended (say, playing with a meatshield Fighter, Skillmonkey rogue, healbot Cleric, and blaster Wizard) and start writing the rules tightly from a Technical Writing perspective, all the while understanding the full import of the consequences of the rules you've actually written down, and you'll solve many, if not all, the symptoms being discussed in this very thread.

I wouldn't say the issue is RAW being considered holy writ, but rather that the spirit of the rules and the actual mechanics don't match up. People will play the way you intended if the way you intended them to play actually works well. In AD&D, a meatshield fighter worked because they could actually tank to a degree, healer clerics worked because you either prepped healing spells or combat spells, skillmonkey rogue worked because they were the only ones who could do it, and blaster wizards worked because SoDs were ineffective against high saves while HP damage was great against much lower HP totals. When 3e came around, the designers changed up a bunch of things, to the point of revising the core mechanic wholesale, and then playtested things the way they thought the rules worked rather than playtesting the way they actually worked.

If the designers had sat down, taken a thorough look through the rules, playtested 1-20 multiple times with many different characters, and so forth, chances are good they'd have said "Huh, that's funny, SoDs are better than damaging spells now; let's fix that so things work the way we wanted them to." The fact that the fighty/sneaky/healy/blasty party doesn't work all that well any more is due much more to lack of adequate design work on the part of WotC than the prevalence of the internet; the web just made finding those flaws easier.

Swordguy
2010-11-21, 11:57 PM
I wouldn't say the issue is RAW being considered holy writ, but rather that the spirit of the rules and the actual mechanics don't match up.

Oh, I agree. That's kind of what I meant with the whole


"...start writing the rules tightly from a Technical Writing perspective, all the while understanding the full import of the consequences of the rules you've actually written down."

thing. I guess I shouldn't have expected it to be obvious what I intended, but should have been more clear about what I actually wrote, yeah? Guess it's tougher than I thought... :smallamused:

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-22, 12:02 AM
Oh, I agree. That's kind of what I meant with the whole



thing. I guess I shouldn't have expected it to be obvious what I intended, but should have been more clear about what I actually wrote, yeah? Guess it's tougher than I thought... :smallamused:

Well, since you focused on RAW and the internet and threw that last part in at the end, I thought you considered it a side issue, whereas I see the latter as much more relevant than the former.

Swordguy
2010-11-22, 12:08 AM
Ah, an unfortunate miscommunication, I assure you! I tend to write in the classic style - premise, point X, point Y, point Z (if needed), overall conclusion. What I put on the end of a post tends to be the important part.

Thusly:

Write what you actually mean, not what you intend, and you save a lot of gamers a lot of virtual internet ink in rules arguments, questionable or unintended powergaming, and confusion. QED.

bannable
2010-11-22, 01:07 AM
What actually differentiates it from a wand, really?


The spells held in a wand are - essentially - already cast, just contained. Prepared spells are spells that have not yet been cast. You might liken a prepared spell to do-it-yourself desk where you have all the pieces together, but haven't quite finished screwing everything together.


Wrong. It's that it doesn't make sense as presented. You're having to 1. go outside of the source, 2. invent justifications for something, and 3. take something that was inspiration for the system as explicit canon.

Says the guy that has been talking about doing away with the system entirely? The problem here, as I see it, is that Vancian magic - as a concept -
is something you either don't want to understand or can not understand, but more than that, that you refuse to accept anything that isn't based around the concept of "mana" or "spell points."

Your entire argument in this post revolves around hand-waving away the idea of Vancian magic and then questioning the oddities that this brings up. It's like trying to discuss the Big Bang theory while refusing to allow quantum mechanics into the discussion. Why can a wizard only cast so many spells? Because he runs out of ammunition. Why does he have to prepare his spells? Because he doesn't have the ability to cast them on the fly - something, which, you will notice comes to sorcerers at a cost of variety.

Coidzor
2010-11-22, 01:44 AM
The spells held in a wand are - essentially - already cast, just contained. Prepared spells are spells that have not yet been cast. You might liken a prepared spell to do-it-yourself desk where you have all the pieces together, but haven't quite finished screwing everything together.

Funny, everyone else has described them as already partially precast as part of the ritual of preparation. And if they're as active a presence as the proponents of vancian magic say they are, then that's plenty of magic for at least a faint aura considering how many a wizard can have whizz-banging around in there.


Says the guy that has been talking about doing away with the system entirely? The problem here, as I see it, is that Vancian magic - as a concept -
is something you either don't want to understand or can not understand, but more than that, that you refuse to accept anything that isn't based around the concept of "mana" or "spell points."

I understand it well enough, X writes Y spellslots into X's mind, space can't be used again until X has rested. As I said though, the way it's reflected in the system shows itself as poor and inconsistent to my sensibilities. Thanks for the personal attack though.

Nor have I actually mentioned "mana" or "spell points." I have mentioned the idea of "fatigue" though, if that idea is really so offensive to you.

And of course I want to do away with it, I dislike it. My personal feelings on the matter don't invalidate my arguments anymore than your personal feelings on the matter do.


Your entire argument in this post revolves around hand-waving away the idea of Vancian magic and then questioning the oddities that this brings up.

No, it doesn't. In one instance in the post I asked why one poster was trying to justify something he just admitted was inconsistent, that doesn't revolve around hand-waving away the idea of Vancian magic.

In another point I posed the question, again, that if vancian casting is supposed to drain the caster, then why is it not actually modeled in the system? To which I received either no reply or had it stated to me that losing the spell slots for the arbitrary length of time + resting was sufficient modeling with no attempt at justifying the statement.

In another I made a comparison between the spells in a wizard's head and a wand in continuation of another point someone else brought up about why wizards' heads don't detect magically for the spells carried around in them due to their discrete identities, which actually depends upon the vancian system of having spells being carried around inside the caster's metaphysical self.


It's like trying to discuss the Big Bang theory while refusing to allow quantum mechanics into the discussion. Why can a wizard only cast so many spells? Because he runs out of ammunition. Why does he have to prepare his spells? Because he doesn't have the ability to cast them on the fly - something, which, you will notice comes to sorcerers at a cost of variety.

More like trying to create an equation when two people have a part of it but one party won't share their part of the equation and instead states that it just is without saying what it is.

The problem with bringing up ammunition is this, you have not adequately explained what the ammunition is. If it's mental fortitude, then why isn't the character fatigued? If it's space in the brain, why is it based on an arbitrary length of time+rest rather than the old bit of just enough rest to bring the mind back to equilibrium? Hell, I didn't even really bring up the last count, but while we're on it, why can't he cast a spell directly out of his book? It takes him 1 hour to prepare all of his spells, no matter how many of them there are, and this includes pre-casting them and waiting for the last screw to be put into place. So casting a spell in such a way would take somewhere between 1 second and 1 hour plus normal completion time.

Gametime
2010-11-22, 01:46 AM
Wrong. It's that it doesn't make sense as presented. You're having to 1. go outside of the source, 2. invent justifications for something, and 3. take something that was inspiration for the system as explicit canon.

Merely because you prefer it that way does not make everyone else incorrect in pointing out its flaws.

I actually mentioned that I don't prefer Vancian magic to spell points, and did so in the very post you quoted, so please don't try to ascribe to me a false motivation for this discussion. I am arguing about the justification for Vancian magic because I believe it has been misrepresented in this thread, not because I prefer it to any other options or believe it to be free of flaws.

As near as I can tell, there isn't any good "justification" for spell points. I am, at least, quite sure that they never explain the explicit workings of magic, in regard to either Vancian casting or spell point casting. In every book I've read, it's been left quite vague. Sometimes setting-specific books get into it more, but the core books don't really address the issue.

Spell points are easy to justify. We're used to having a resource and depleting it steadily. It's easy to grok and it intuitively just makes sense. Vancian magic isn't quite as easy. It requires a lot more thinking to understand why on earth things would work this way. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense. Nor does it mean that only Vancian magic needs to be justified outside of what is said in the books; spell points aren't explicitly explained either, but we have an easier time of reflexively explaining away that sort of mechanic.

Also, "canon?" What exactly is the "canon" of spell points? The only text I can find about it refers solely to the mechanics of it. The in-game "canonical" justification is completely lacking. Both of us are basically inventing justifications for different systems of magic; I don't see how that proves Vancian magic doesn't make sense.




In another point I posed the question, again, that if vancian casting is supposed to drain the caster, then why is it not actually modeled in the system? To which I received either no reply or had it stated to me that losing the spell slots for the arbitrary length of time + resting was sufficient modeling with no attempt at justifying the statement.

It is modeled in the system. The drain just only affects preparing spells. Callista's explanation is an apt one.


It doesn't seem odd to me at all. I'm an engineering major in my last year, and I'm taking some heavy math classes. Even when I've been working for eight hours and my brain absolutely refuses to handle another equation, nothing is stopping me from going out for a jog--which, in fact, is often exactly what I do, since it's a great way to de-stress after all the sitting and calculating. I imagine it must be like that for a wizard... only with Fireballs instead of integrals.

Spellcasting is a unique action. It draws upon resources not utilized by other activities. It's related to your intellect, but it's nothing so mundane as just thinking. Spellcasters, in preparing spells, are taking advantage of a distinct faculty that doesn't necessarily impact bodily well-being.


The problem with bringing up ammunition is this, you have not adequately explained what the ammunition is. If it's mental fortitude, then why isn't the character fatigued? If it's space in the brain, why is it based on an arbitrary length of time+rest rather than the old bit of just enough rest to bring the mind back to equilibrium?

The ammunition is spells. They're discrete packets of magic. In the process of preparing them, you are shaping the raw energies of magic into spell form so that they may be launched later.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-22, 02:00 AM
Are you guys really arguing about the logical justifications for a fake and anti-logical system? Magic isn't real; if there were justifications for it that were actually logical they would prove it was real. Any system you make is going to be fake.

The best you can hope for here is consistency, and both systems have it. If you made magic based on how many eyelashes you had it would be just as realistic and logical as Vancian or Mana spell systems.

Psyren
2010-11-22, 03:24 AM
The best you can hope for here is consistency, and both systems have it.

Vancian: either casting spells gives your wizard laser-guided amnesia, or it mentally taxes him in a very specific way that in no way impairs him from performing any other mental or physical task.

How on earth is that consistent? :smallconfused:

bannable
2010-11-22, 03:28 AM
Funny, everyone else has described them as already partially precast as part of the ritual of preparation. And if they're as active a presence as the proponents of vancian magic say they are, then that's plenty of magic for at least a faint aura considering how many a wizard can have whizz-banging around in there.

The point of Vancian magic systems is that prepared spells are not actually spells. They are most of a spell, but most of a spell does not magic make, if you will.




I understand it well enough, X writes Y spellslots into X's mind, space can't be used again until X has rested. As I said though, the way it's reflected in the system shows itself as poor and inconsistent to my sensibilities. Thanks for the personal attack though.

This, again, shows you don't actually understand the concept of Vancian magic. I believe Gametime explained this rather well: preparing a spell is nothing as simple or mundane as thinking, and as he said, Callista's explanation was a good one. A good way, perhaps, to obtain a better understanding, would be to actually read Dying Earth, or another series that uses a similar system (such as Amber), because as far as I can tell all of your arguments are stemming from ignorance. This isn't an attack on you, Coidzor, but an observation, and I believe that unless that can be addressed, you'll find any answers we try to give you to be lacking.



In another point I posed the question, again, that if vancian casting is supposed to drain the caster, then why is it not actually modeled in the system? To which I received either no reply or had it stated to me that losing the spell slots for the arbitrary length of time + resting was sufficient modeling with no attempt at justifying the statement.

See Gametime's post; I believe he addressed this well.



In another I made a comparison between the spells in a wizard's head and a wand in continuation of another point someone else brought up about why wizards' heads don't detect magically for the spells carried around in them due to their discrete identities, which actually depends upon the vancian system of having spells being carried around inside the caster's metaphysical self.

You said it yourself. The prepared spells are inside the caster's metaphysical self. (or, as an Amber fan might say, hung) The wizard is not a wand. As I said before, wands (in this case) can be likened to containers of already cast spells, and using the wand would be equivalent to releasing it. The wizard, however, does not actually perform magic per se until the actual act of casting.


The problem with bringing up ammunition is this, you have not adequately explained what the ammunition is. If it's mental fortitude, then why isn't the character fatigued? If it's space in the brain, why is it based on an arbitrary length of time+rest rather than the old bit of just enough rest to bring the mind back to equilibrium? Hell, I didn't even really bring up the last count, but while we're on it, why can't he cast a spell directly out of his book? It takes him 1 hour to prepare all of his spells, no matter how many of them there are, and this includes pre-casting them and waiting for the last screw to be put into place. So casting a spell in such a way would take somewhere between 1 second and 1 hour plus normal completion time.

The ammunition is spells. It is not mental fortitude, it is not space in the brain, and it is not a book. All three of those things only show that you are still approaching Vancian magic from the perspective of spell point systems w hen the two systems are fundamentally different concepts. If you want to understand Vancian magic, you can not try to put it in terms of resource expenditure of any resource other than spells.


why is it based on an arbitrary length of time+rest rather than the old bit of just enough rest to bring the mind back to equilibrium?

This, in particular, has an easy answer. Because that is how the mechanics here work. The thing about magic is that it is, well, magic. It is by definition an abstract concept. There is a reason the phrase "A wizard did it" is used as a humorous non-explanation: magic does not have to be intuitive, or logical, or really even make sense. It doesn't need an explanation because it, by definition, defies it. The thing that a "magic system" aims to achieve is none of these. The aim is, as Tvtyrant has pointed out, consistency.


Vancian: either casting spells gives your wizard laser-guided amnesia, or it mentally taxes him in a very specific way that in no way impairs him from performing any other mental or physical task.

How on earth is that consistent? :smallconfused:

The use of the word "memorization" in the context of Vancian magic is a misnomer and lends itself to misunderstanding. Spells are prepared to be cast, they are not memorized. Preparing a spell is like beginning a project and leaving out key parts until the last minute. It is a complex, time-consuming task, which requires skill, ability, and concentration.

edit: replied to psyren and clarified some things

Tvtyrant
2010-11-22, 03:30 AM
Vancian: either casting spells gives your wizard laser-guided amnesia, or it mentally taxes him in a very specific way that in no way impairs him from performing any other mental or physical task.

How on earth is that consistent? :smallconfused:

That is perfectly consistent. Inconsistency would be something like it either tires you out or gives you laser guided amnesia, your choice. In this case they abandoned one and switched in the other one, which is inconsistent between editions (but switching to a different system altogether would be even more so) but is not internally inconsistent.

What your arguing (and most of the people here) is not consistency but logic. Logically magic would make you exhausted in all aspects, not just magical ones. But logic and consistency are not the same; something can be illogical but internally consistent (which is going to be true here on both sides, since they are as I said fake). As long as the Vancian system works the same every time and doesn't contradict it's own rules it is consistent.

Psyren
2010-11-22, 03:45 AM
That is perfectly consistent. Inconsistency would be something like it either tires you out or gives you laser guided amnesia, your choice. In this case they abandoned one and switched in the other one, which is inconsistent between editions (but switching to a different system altogether would be even more so) but is not internally inconsistent.

So it consistently defies logic?

bannable
2010-11-22, 03:48 AM
So it consistently defies logic?

You do realize this is magic you're talking about, right?

Psyren
2010-11-22, 03:52 AM
You do realize this is magic you're talking about, right?

By Jove, you're right! Why bother giving it rules at all? It's not supposed to make sense!

Tvtyrant
2010-11-22, 03:54 AM
So it consistently defies logic?

....And somehow ripping pieces of energy out of yourself and throwing them at people seems more logical? Seriously, you get stronger the more pieces of yours soul/energy you rip out. Magic does not make sense, because it is not real.

They are both internally consistent systems however, which was the point of much of this argument. I don't particularly love actively dislike Vancian magic, but if your arguing something is inconsistent or illogical burden of proof falls on you.

turkishproverb
2010-11-22, 03:55 AM
So it consistently defies logic?

Actually, it makes sense.

Look at it this way:
I can only do so many mathematical/chemicial problems of a certain complexity a day (Really. After that I just can't think in that matter). If I calculate those (lets say based on glue to paper consistencies with different chemical makeups) , and use the calculations to make a number of piñatas of a specific effectiveness, and then someone breaks the piñatas, I need to take a rest before I make more. It doesn't mean I need to re-remember how to do math, it means what I've built with the math is already used up, and I need rest before I can think in that manner again. Even if I write the "recipe" down it'll only have so much effect, I'll still need to out and out sleep before I can do it again after a certain point.

bannable
2010-11-22, 04:19 AM
By Jove, you're right! Why bother giving it rules at all? It's not supposed to make sense!

Magic is, by definition, illogical. Various magic systems (such as Vancian magic, or spell points) are, however, consistent.

edit: 4am is perhaps too late, hrm...

dsmiles
2010-11-22, 05:20 AM
Vancian: either casting spells gives your wizard laser-guided amnesia, or it mentally taxes him in a very specific way that in no way impairs him from performing any other mental or physical task.

How on earth is that consistent? :smallconfused:DOWN WITH THE VANCIAN OVERLORDS! (Switch to The Slayers d20, we have cookies!)

turkishproverb
2010-11-22, 05:21 AM
DOWN WITH THE VANCIAN OVERLORDS! (Switch to The Slayers d20, we have cookies!)

*puffs cigar*

Eh, they're both fine choices. Whatever floats your boat.

dsmiles
2010-11-22, 05:40 AM
*puffs cigar*

Eh, they're both fine choices. Whatever floats your boat.I like The Slayers d20 better. It, IMO, makes magic more powerful and also adds a sense that magic is a force too powerful for mere mortals to screw around with without consequences. Nonlethal damage as a fatigue mechanic, and the ability to lose control of a spell kind of hooked me, and I've never looked back. Also, the fact that wizards are basically just blasters with a few utility spells in that system. They can't do everything with magic, as opposed to: They have to agree not to do everything with magic. Plus, the cookies. I'm really partial to cookies, you know.

turkishproverb
2010-11-22, 05:47 AM
We're all partial to cookies. :smallbiggrin: And I'm easily willing to admit, 3.5/3.0 is hardly my favorite magic system (partially for the bad fluff, and partially for the erm...one-sided mechanics). I don't have a real problem with Venetian magic as a concept though. Mostly because I understand the concept behind it well enough.

dsmiles
2010-11-22, 06:00 AM
We're all partial to cookies. :smallbiggrin: And I'm easily willing to admit, 3.5/3.0 is hardly my favorite magic system (partially for the bad fluff, and partially for the erm...one-sided mechanics). I don't have a real problem with Venetian magic as a concept though. Mostly because I understand the concept behind it well enough.Oh, I understand the concept of only being able to cast so many spells per day, I just dislike the localized amnesia feel of it, and prefer the fatigue option. But what does fatigue affect in standard DnD magic? Nothing, that's what. I'm sorry, but when I've been doing strenuous mental gymnastics all day, I get tired, and that affects a lot of other stuff that I do. DnD Vancian casters only get tired in a certain portion of their brain and it only affects their ability to cast spells. I don't feel that this is an appropriate mechanic for dealing with mental fatigue.
Plus, I feel like there should be collateral damage. I cast a 20 ft radius fireball in a 10ft x 10ft room, and the only thing that gets hurt are the creatures? Ridiculous. I cast a cone of cold and the area isn't covered in ice? Preposterous. I cast meteor swarm and the landscape is unharmed? Inconceivable!
Come to think of it, I use a lot of the mechanics from The Slayers d20. Mental combat, embarrassment damage, collateral damage, knockback. Huh, I guess the only thing I use from regular DnD is the name and some of the classes.

true_shinken
2010-11-22, 08:19 AM
I like The Slayers d20 better. It, IMO, makes magic more powerful (...)
Oh, just what we need! Making casters more powerful!

dsmiles
2010-11-22, 08:21 AM
Oh, just what we need! Making casters more powerful! Yeah, but with that power comes a price. You can literally kill yourself if you cast too much without rest.

true_shinken
2010-11-22, 08:26 AM
Yeah, but with that power comes a price. You can literally kill yourself if you cast too much without rest.

Doesn't matter when it's an Astral Projection with contingent Revivify doing the spellslinging for you.

Adding such a harsh penalty to spellcasting just means that all good spellcasters have some way to circumvent it (if those ways exist, and in out context they do) else your suspension of disbelief goes flying out the window.

dsmiles
2010-11-22, 08:29 AM
Doesn't matter when it's an Astral Projection with contingent Revivify doing the spellslinging for you.Unfortunately, the spells in the Slayers are almost all blaster spells. There are very few utility/buff/travel spells. Contingency, revivify and astral projection are not part of the system. Neither are wish/miracle/gate/etc.

Psyx
2010-11-22, 08:36 AM
And yet you don't take a penalty on concentration checks or mental ability score checks. Or will saves. Or anything that would actually indicate you're less able to concentrate or that your mental fortitude was compromised. Hence, the complaint is about the inconsistent feel of the system.

We're also talking about a system where one can be bludgeoned within an inch of one's life (say from 200HP down to 1HP) with no negative effects either.

Before 'sorting out' wizards mental fatigue, D&D needs to sort out its wound system.

true_shinken
2010-11-22, 09:44 AM
Unfortunately, the spells in the Slayers are almost all blaster spells. There are very few utility/buff/travel spells. Contingency, revivify and astral projection are not part of the system. Neither are wish/miracle/gate/etc.

Well, then is does not make magic more powerful, does it? :smallamused:

dsmiles
2010-11-22, 10:39 AM
Well, then is does not make magic more powerful, does it? :smallamused:More powerful = more damage, higher damage caps, higher save DCs (for me, of course I always liked the blaster wizard to begin with). More powerful does not necessarily mean more versatile.

true_shinken
2010-11-22, 11:58 AM
More powerful = more damage, higher damage caps, higher save DCs (for me, of course I always liked the blaster wizard to begin with). More powerful does not necessarily mean more versatile.

In this case, I'm afraid it does. Throw a Slayers Wizard against a D&D Wizard. Let's see who wins. Now, 'it makes direct damage magic more powerful'. That I can agree with.

Psyren
2010-11-22, 12:19 PM
Getting back to D&D - I think 4e magic is closer to Recharge than the other two variants.

Terumitsu
2010-11-22, 02:31 PM
We're also talking about a system where one can be bludgeoned within an inch of one's life (say from 200HP down to 1HP) with no negative effects either.

Before 'sorting out' wizards mental fatigue, D&D needs to sort out its wound system.

I'm pretty sure there is that 50 HP threshold save or die when that happens. But that rule seems to be largely ignored.

That said, Your getting reality in my Fantasy game with larger than life Heroic people.

But that's neither here nor there, really, as it looks like everyone so far has been bantering opinions over what they like/don't like and are arguing why their house-rules are better than anyone else's.

I think I have something that talks about just this sort of thing somewhere. It's mostly that I've seen signs of this all throughout this thread and I think it needs to be addressed:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

That said, as entertainment is purely based upon opinion, nobody is ever going to be truly right or wrong. Yes, we can agree that the fighter needs work and sure wizards can be OMGWTFBBQ powerful with the application of a few broken spells but as a whole, I think the real issue is that we need to remember we play games to have fun. Now, I'm sure someone is going to come up and say "But you can't have as much fun with the mess the rules are" or something similar in spirit or intent. That is a perfectly dandy opinion to have as long as you don't try to force it on me. Sure, RAW is not perfect. It was made by humans as fallible as any of us. I don't hold it as holy writ and I fiddle with it as I see fit myself. But that said, it at least gives us a framework to use. Really that's what I like about DnD. You can do just about everything you set your mind to with it and the gameplay encourages creativity... At least in my experience. Your mileage may vary. That isn't to say I turn up my nose at other systems though but that's falling off the topic of this post.

To roll it all together, I think that if we are going to have a thread discussing mechanics and concepts that are outdated, then I think the way it was done earlier what with the mechanic or concept being highlighted and then the explanation as to why one's opinion is that way. That way, any who read the thread can read the idea and the reasons and then decide for themselves if they agree or disagree. Otherwise this endless cycle of banter is just going to go on and on and benefit nobody.

And now, I'm going to make a short apology as I fear I might have come across as a bit condescending and maybe irrational. Possibly even self-contradictory. It's mostly because topics like these annoy me to no end as it's just an opinion war rather than based on solid, cold fact. And before you say that it's a fact that fighters suck at such and such level while wizards suddenly rock at this or that level because of these or those reasons, that's opinion. Yes, I may agree but that doesn't change it into fact. Heck, how you play is related to opinion. But now I'm going back into rant mode so I should stop there.

As to get back on topic, the main thread topic that is, I use the spell point variant with casters getting fatigued when they expend 75% of their pool for the day and exhausted when they expend 95%. It works for me.