Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910
Results 271 to 292 of 292
  1. - Top - End - #271
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    I completely agree with this. And I'd say the same thing for more than just spells--if you have a scenario designed so that one player has to [hold button|do ritual|whatever] for multiple rounds without any (viable) choice, you've removed that player from the game just as effectively as if they were (temporarily) dead. If that lasts 10 seconds of real player time, that's not a big deal. If each round takes 20 minutes of player time, that's 40 minutes where they just did nothing. That's a recipe for people tuning out completely.
    To turn that on its headů these abilities are good for people who *want* to tune out combat, but still want to claim to be "contributing". So they have value, but should only be an option, not a requirement for any given effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    The only really viable way to do "casting times" with spells and D&D-style rounds is initiative count delay. It still goes off "this round," but 5 ticks later. (Exception: if your delay carries you to below init-count 1, it rolls over into next round.)

    This makes counterspelling a bit easier, makes attacking somebody mid-casting possible, etc. I don't know how desirable such mechanics would be, but it's a possibility.
    I love the oldschool "counter spell - with a sword!" feel. I'm confused as to whether I understand the intended implementation: did you just make Improved Initiative very important for caster builds, to keep them from getting a 1-round delay? And where do they reset to next round?

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    The issue is that that's fundamentally "Mother May I", and Mother May I is not a terribly fun or interesting game.
    Says you.

    A great number of games get categorized as "Mother May I". Many of them are pretty popular (difficulty: popular for non-D&D RPGs). Most of my favorite games tend towards the ones categorized as "Mother May I".

    It's fine that that style of design doesn't work for you, but it's not an objective statement of fact (as you are presenting it). It's just a different style.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Says you.

    A great number of games get categorized as "Mother May I". Many of them are pretty popular (difficulty: popular for non-D&D RPGs). Most of my favorite games tend towards the ones categorized as "Mother May I".

    It's fine that that style of design doesn't work for you, but it's not an objective statement of fact (as you are presenting it). It's just a different style.
    Would these "mother may I" games still be fun if there were actual rules that the players could use, and (pretend) an omniscient GM who *knew* all these rules, and could instantly refer the players to the appropriate section of the rulebook, even if the players hadn't memorized all the rules yet?

    That is, is it the game / system / world / whatever that is fun, or is it explicitly the "no rules, mother may I" aspect that *makes* it fun?
    Last edited by Quertus; 2021-03-09 at 11:09 AM.

  4. - Top - End - #274

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Says you.

    A great number of games get categorized as "Mother May I". Many of them are pretty popular (difficulty: popular for non-D&D RPGs). Most of my favorite games tend towards the ones categorized as "Mother May I".

    It's fine that that style of design doesn't work for you, but it's not an objective statement of fact (as you are presenting it). It's just a different style.
    I will never tire of the exaggerated offense of people who demand that everyone else's statements be explicitly qualified as not declarations of universal law. Yes, you can enjoy things I said are bad. If you actually enjoyed them, you'd just go do that instead of getting up in people's cases when they said they were bad.

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I love the oldschool "counter spell - with a sword!" feel. I'm confused as to whether I understand the intended implementation: did you just make Improved Initiative very important for caster builds, to keep them from getting a 1-round delay? And where do they reset to next round?
    Keep in mind that I spent little time thinking about it.

    I don't think Improved Initiative is any more useful than before; a caster wants to not have anybody act between the start of his casting and the end. This means only in round one is going extremely first best. So yeah, it is good, but if it is good enough to be "must have" is something I would need to test extensively (or see others do).

    As for the "reset" thing, all I was doing was ensuring that going very last wasn't desirable. The thought there is best done by example.

    Let us say your wizard goes on initiative tick 3 after rolling very poorly. (Remembering that D&D initiative runs from high to low.) If he casts a spell with a casting time of 6, he will spend tick 3, 2, and 1 of this round casting, and then the next round starts with whoever has the highest initiative taking his turn. That tick passes when that character's turn is done, then another tick (the fifth one the wizard spends casting), then a sixth, and then, finally, three ticks after the first person in initiative has gone, the six-tick casting time spell goes off.

    Assuming the wizard wasn't attacked by that one person who went during his casting, or he managed to maintain concentration on the casting anyway, it goes off.

    The wizard's turn comes up again in initiative count 3, as on last round. If he chooses to cast only a 2-tick spell this round, it goes off on initiative count 1.

    It is also worth noting that holding action or even delaying your turn/initiative count to fall just after a caster would be a valid tactic to try to hit him while he casts.

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Would these "mother may I" games still be fun if there were actual rules that the players could use, and (pretend) an omniscient GM who *knew* all these rules, and could instantly refer the players to the appropriate section of the rulebook, even if the players hadn't memorized all the rules yet?

    That is, is it the game / system / world / whatever that is fun, or is it explicitly the "no rules, mother may I" aspect that *makes* it fun?
    I don't think it's explicitly the "Mother, May I?" aspect. I do think it is, however, things that the "MMI" aspect allows.

    Specifically:

    1) By not having rules for everything, it has less encouragement to focus on the game widgets, and more encouragement to focus on the fictional world
    2) By not having a rule for everything, the time spent looking up/discussing/etc. rules is minimized
    3) Since the results are generally determined fairly ad-hoc, they tend to be more palatable. By definition, at least one person at the table thinks that they are reasonable results

    This can all fail for certain types of groups, to be sure. Specifically, groups where you have players that have little flexibility in what they think "should" be. The less flexibility you have in that regard, the better it is to have an impartial source of truth - if one player won't back out of the "no, it's this" "no it's that" discussion, then it can go on interminably without an objective reference.

    Similarly, since "MMI" games de-emphasize the mechanical widgets, players who get a lot of their enjoyment out of manipulation of those (optimization, maximizing the system at a tactical level, etc.) won't enjoy them.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    I will never tire of the exaggerated offense of people who demand that everyone else's statements be explicitly qualified as not declarations of universal law. Yes, you can enjoy things I said are bad. If you actually enjoyed them, you'd just go do that instead of getting up in people's cases when they said they were bad.
    Nah, man, just basic social niceties to not unnecessarily take a dump on people's stuff. I mean, especially when using deliberately derogatory language, it's hard to understand being surprised when people call you on it.

    I'm really not sure what you're implying, though. Like, are you saying I don't actually enjoy those things? That seems like a really weird assertion to make.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Keep in mind that I spent little time thinking about it.

    I don't think Improved Initiative is any more useful than before; a caster wants to not have anybody act between the start of his casting and the end. This means only in round one is going extremely first best. So yeah, it is good, but if it is good enough to be "must have" is something I would need to test extensively (or see others do).

    As for the "reset" thing, all I was doing was ensuring that going very last wasn't desirable. The thought there is best done by example.

    Let us say your wizard goes on initiative tick 3 after rolling very poorly. (Remembering that D&D initiative runs from high to low.) If he casts a spell with a casting time of 6, he will spend tick 3, 2, and 1 of this round casting, and then the next round starts with whoever has the highest initiative taking his turn. That tick passes when that character's turn is done, then another tick (the fifth one the wizard spends casting), then a sixth, and then, finally, three ticks after the first person in initiative has gone, the six-tick casting time spell goes off.

    Assuming the wizard wasn't attacked by that one person who went during his casting, or he managed to maintain concentration on the casting anyway, it goes off.

    The wizard's turn comes up again in initiative count 3, as on last round. If he chooses to cast only a 2-tick spell this round, it goes off on initiative count 1.

    It is also worth noting that holding action or even delaying your turn/initiative count to fall just after a caster would be a valid tactic to try to hit him while he casts.
    Honestly, the overhead as a DM with this sort of thing would be way beyond what I'm willing to put up with. I'd have to
    * think in terms of actual initiative numbers, rather than just using the ordering.
    * remember state of actions between rounds
    * look up all the speeds for all the spells and incorporate that into my tactics.
    * do this for all casters (including characters with spell-like abilities) anywhere on the battlefield

    So not worth it for my particular case.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2░ N, 149.9░ W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Are you just pointing out a correlation, or are you suggesting there is causal relation between XP being strictly for monster-murder and the shift of casting times to starting and finishing on your turn during the round?


    Also, having run Exalted 2E combat for several years, now, I can say the increasing initiative sounds cool on paper, but is a royal pain to run well in practice.
    The D&D shift away from xp/gp to xp/murder was a result of simplifying the game in certain aspects. Likewise a number of other magic system simplifications that reduced danger or restrictions happened at the same time. Both were a result of a 'make more fun' mindset that apparently didn't understand why things had originally been designed the way they had.

    We're still (in D&D) dealing with the fallout from those decisions with caster supremacy, 15 minute adventure days, 'guy at the gym', pc=murder-hobo tropes, and other issues. Not saying that the original was perfect or that some attempts at improvement haven't been made, but D&D is pretty much about casters and spells these days.

    For the initative thing... Bwuh? Counting up from 1 is harder than counting down from 30-something? The AD&D system wasn't perfect, you could happily & easily rework it to remove the 'negative is a bonus' thing for high Dex. But its counting up. As a bonus putting cast times back in could remove the good initative = bad idea when casting long spells. You know, that bit where casting a spell that finishes casting at the end of the round or like turns a good/fast initative score into a penalty because you take longer to get the spell off.
    Niven's Laws, #5
    If you've nothing to say, say it any way you like. Stylistic innovations, contorted story lines or none, exotic or genderless pronouns, internal inconsistencies, the recipe for preparing your lover as a cannibal banquet: feel free. If what you have to say is important and/or difficult to follow, use the simplest language possible. If the reader doesn't get it then, let it not be your fault.

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    The D&D shift away from xp/gp to xp/murder was a result of simplifying the game in certain aspects. Likewise a number of other magic system simplifications that reduced danger or restrictions happened at the same time. Both were a result of a 'make more fun' mindset that apparently didn't understand why things had originally been designed the way they had.
    I blame Dragonlance.

    And I think it's less "not understanding" (I mean, that mostly happened in 2e when Gary/etc. were still at TSR and in charge), and more "changing the game to support the primary way that people were playing it". AKA, Dragonlance.

    XP/GP is great for exploring a megadungeon when where/what the players do is mostly up to them (within said megadungeon). It lets players do their own balance of risk/reward and use their own knoweldge.

    It kinda works less well when the players are on a linear path.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    The only really viable way to do "casting times" with spells and D&D-style rounds is initiative count delay. It still goes off "this round," but 5 ticks later. (Exception: if your delay carries you to below init-count 1, it rolls over into next round.)

    This makes counterspelling a bit easier, makes attacking somebody mid-casting possible, etc. I don't know how desirable such mechanics would be, but it's a possibility.
    It used to be that way in 2E, but it adds complications of initiatives changing each round. It alters the power of effects where it matters if something happens at the start of your turn, end of your turn, start of opponent's turn, end of opponent's turn. Depending on the effect and initiative changes someone could suffer the effects of a spell two opponent turns in a row before he gets to do anything or possibly you never get to benefit from the effect you wanted because it ends before you got your turn again. It's a logistics problem. The magic system and spell effects would have to be written around it.
    Last edited by Pex; 2021-03-09 at 04:49 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by OgresAreCute View Post
    "Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons fifth edition, where the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter."

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    About variable initiative, I've been running a game with an alternate action point system instead, where you can stockpile spare action points across rounds. So in essence you can get tempos where you can cast a small spell each round and a big spell every three rounds, or save up and cast a big spell every two rounds, or even do actions which let you harvest spare AP more quickly than just waiting (somewhat limited, but there are things like 'Counter: gain AP when attacked')

    Not had that many combats in the system yet, but it does allow 'this action is big but costs 1.5 rounds' to coexist with options that you can use two or three times a round, without the accounting of having to recompute initiative order.

    If you really wanted to make sure 'I do nothing this round' wasn't accidentally optimal, split AP into active and banked and restrict the amount of AP each round that can be moved from active to bank to some smaller amount plus anything loaded directly into the bank by abilities. So a caster might build around having say smaller AP drain spells which they use to build up for a big control effect faster than if they just passed.

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre
    Honestly, the overhead as a DM with this sort of thing would be way beyond what I'm willing to put up with. I'd have to
    * think in terms of actual initiative numbers, rather than just using the ordering.
    * remember state of actions between rounds
    * look up all the speeds for all the spells and incorporate that into my tactics.
    * do this for all casters (including characters with spell-like abilities) anywhere on the battlefield

    So not worth it for my particular case.
    That's fair. I will point out that there's no need to change initiative count from round to round as I wrote it. The wizard goes on his same count every round, as normal, though which count he finishes casting on may change based on what spell he chooses. You don't need to remember a state from round to round unless the caster is starting in one round and finishing in another, and even then he just needs to know what count the first guy is going on to tell you when his spell will go off next round.

    But yes, tracking the DM-controlled casters has geometric increases to the work for the DM relative to the increase in work for tracking such things for a single player. Though for any creature or NPC caster, recording the casting time of the ability next to the ability itself would not be that hard.

    You do need to track individual initiative counts, but even that's not so bad as long as you just keep a marker to determine which two actors to place the spell's completion between.

    It's definitely more complexity, though, and I wouldn't fault anybody for disliking it. It is a straight nerf to spellcasting, and one that invites, as another poster put it, "I counterspell with my sword," though, which can have its own appeal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    For the initative thing... Bwuh? Counting up from 1 is harder than counting down from 30-something? The AD&D system wasn't perfect, you could happily & easily rework it to remove the 'negative is a bonus' thing for high Dex. But its counting up. As a bonus putting cast times back in could remove the good initative = bad idea when casting long spells. You know, that bit where casting a spell that finishes casting at the end of the round or like turns a good/fast initative score into a penalty because you take longer to get the spell off.
    In Exalted 2E, you roll "join battle" and that determines who goes on tick 1, and everyone else goes a number of ticks later based on relative successes to the guy who won the roll with the most successes.

    Every action has a Speed. Slower actions are higher Speed. You take your action, and then your turn comes up again a number of ticks later equal to your Speed. Tracking this can be a royal pain. (Admittedly, it has a number of other things to track that make it more complicated, still.)

    As to "high initiative" being a penalty when casting a longer-cast-time spell, I'm not sure how. Every system I've seen that has long-cast-time spells (e.g. D&D 3.5 where some spells have 1 round as a casting time) have the time when the spell finishes casting also be related to your initiative. If you roll a 30 on initiative and then cast summon monster V, it takes your full round, and you finish at initiative count 30 of the next round. If you rolled a 1, you'd not start until initiative count 1, and you'd finish at initiative count 1 on the next round. In both cases, everybody else gets a turn before you finish casting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    It used to be that way in 2E, but it adds complications of initiaves changing each round. It alters the power of effects where it matter if something happens at the start of your turn, end of your turn, start of opponent's turn, end of opponent's turn. Depending on the effect and initiative changes someone could suffer the effects of a spell two opponent turns in a row before he gets to do anything or possibly you never get to benefit from the effect you wanted because it ends before you got your turn again. It's a logistics problem. The magic system and spell effects would have to be written around it.
    The version I mentioned doesn't change initiatives each round. Your initiative is the same. You just start your action on your initiative, and finish it later in the round. Or sometime next round. There's a corner case here that I would need to more fully explore, but in general, I don't think what you're saying here reflects the model I am proposing.

    If you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be game to do so, but I don't want to bore you if you're not.
    Last edited by Segev; 2021-03-09 at 02:28 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #283
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    That's fair. I will point out that there's no need to change initiative count from round to round as I wrote it. The wizard goes on his same count every round, as normal, though which count he finishes casting on may change based on what spell he chooses. You don't need to remember a state from round to round unless the caster is starting in one round and finishing in another, and even then he just needs to know what count the first guy is going on to tell you when his spell will go off next round.

    But yes, tracking the DM-controlled casters has geometric increases to the work for the DM relative to the increase in work for tracking such things for a single player. Though for any creature or NPC caster, recording the casting time of the ability next to the ability itself would not be that hard.

    You do need to track individual initiative counts, but even that's not so bad as long as you just keep a marker to determine which two actors to place the spell's completion between.

    It's definitely more complexity, though, and I wouldn't fault anybody for disliking it. It is a straight nerf to spellcasting, and one that invites, as another poster put it, "I counterspell with my sword," though, which can have its own appeal.
    As a DM, I'm not worried about the initiative changing. But I do have to track all the numbers and can't do "cheats" like I currently do (when there's a tie between a player and a monster, shift the one that goes second down an initiative slot or the one that goes first up a slot) to preserve ordering. And I do have to track all the state--how many initiative ticks have elapsed since each person started casting, what is now invalid (did the target move out of range? Is he now dead? Etc) for everyone, including all the players. Because I have to realize what I can try to interact with. And players do too, if they want to "counterspell with their swords". Which tremendously adds to the shared global state that everyone has to pay attention to (if I go now, I'm going to end up in the fireball's radius when it goes off). All for what I see (personally) as basically no benefit.

    Honestly, rather than trying to impose mechanical costs like this, I'd rather just nerf the spells that cause the issues.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    As a DM, I'm not worried about the initiative changing. But I do have to track all the numbers and can't do "cheats" like I currently do (when there's a tie between a player and a monster, shift the one that goes second down an initiative slot or the one that goes first up a slot) to preserve ordering. And I do have to track all the state--how many initiative ticks have elapsed since each person started casting, what is now invalid (did the target move out of range? Is he now dead? Etc) for everyone, including all the players. Because I have to realize what I can try to interact with. And players do too, if they want to "counterspell with their swords". Which tremendously adds to the shared global state that everyone has to pay attention to (if I go now, I'm going to end up in the fireball's radius when it goes off). All for what I see (personally) as basically no benefit.

    Honestly, rather than trying to impose mechanical costs like this, I'd rather just nerf the spells that cause the issues.
    I will say that the purpose of this, to my mind, is not nerfing the spellcaster. It is a consequence, and perhaps a desirable one to some. I am also not pushing it as something I really recommend; I have limited problem with spellcasters as-is. I am more positing it as a solution to those who want something more crunchy to make spellcasting more tactical and tactically exploitable (by others).

    I don't know what your shortcuts are. For me, I list the actors in the combat with their initiative count next to them. If Alice and Bob both have a 17 on their init roll, and Alice has a higher dexterity, I list Alice first, and she goes first, but both are acting on initiative count 17. If I have to resort to a roll-off, instead, so be it.

    In this case, if Charlie acts on 20 and casts a spell that has a 3-action cost, I do need to determine if his spell goes off before or after Alice and Bob act. I'd use the same resolution methods I always do, most likely (check dexterity, then roll-off if still tied). But all I need to know is what count Charlie's spell finishes on, and I can place it in the right spot on the initiative list based on the counts recorded for each actor in the combat.

    I don't need to know how many initiative ticks have elapsed since Charlie started casting; on his turn, I put the marker in place for when he finishes, and so I know he's still casting until I get to that marker in the init order.

    You've got a good point on checking if something is now invalid; you could combat that by allowing targeting to be chosen at the end of casting, though. It's not even a buff or anything; that's how it works now, with casting starting and stopping in the same turn, or even with 1 round casting time spells (you decide where your summoned monster appears when you finish casting, after all, not when you start).

    The only issue you might have is that the changed state of the field makes the spell undesirable at this point, but that...either likely means just casting it forced a change, or you got unlucky.

    I don't see forcing global awareness to be higher across all players in the game as a bad thing. Increasing engagement when it's not your turn seems like a desirable goal in combat mechanics.

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    I will say that the purpose of this, to my mind, is not nerfing the spellcaster. It is a consequence, and perhaps a desirable one to some. I am also not pushing it as something I really recommend; I have limited problem with spellcasters as-is. I am more positing it as a solution to those who want something more crunchy to make spellcasting more tactical and tactically exploitable (by others).

    I don't know what your shortcuts are. For me, I list the actors in the combat with their initiative count next to them. If Alice and Bob both have a 17 on their init roll, and Alice has a higher dexterity, I list Alice first, and she goes first, but both are acting on initiative count 17. If I have to resort to a roll-off, instead, so be it.

    In this case, if Charlie acts on 20 and casts a spell that has a 3-action cost, I do need to determine if his spell goes off before or after Alice and Bob act. I'd use the same resolution methods I always do, most likely (check dexterity, then roll-off if still tied). But all I need to know is what count Charlie's spell finishes on, and I can place it in the right spot on the initiative list based on the counts recorded for each actor in the combat.

    I don't need to know how many initiative ticks have elapsed since Charlie started casting; on his turn, I put the marker in place for when he finishes, and so I know he's still casting until I get to that marker in the init order.

    You've got a good point on checking if something is now invalid; you could combat that by allowing targeting to be chosen at the end of casting, though. It's not even a buff or anything; that's how it works now, with casting starting and stopping in the same turn, or even with 1 round casting time spells (you decide where your summoned monster appears when you finish casting, after all, not when you start).

    The only issue you might have is that the changed state of the field makes the spell undesirable at this point, but that...either likely means just casting it forced a change, or you got unlucky.

    I don't see forcing global awareness to be higher across all players in the game as a bad thing. Increasing engagement when it's not your turn seems like a desirable goal in combat mechanics.
    I play with my nephews (who are of ages 14, 12, and 8). There's no way I could do this type of thing with them. Or the high school kids I played with over lunch. Etc.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    I play with my nephews (who are of ages 14, 12, and 8). There's no way I could do this type of thing with them. Or the high school kids I played with over lunch. Etc.
    If you say so. I think I'd have had more patience for it when I was a teenager, honestly, than I would now. Like I said, it wasn't something I put much thought into; it was a response to the notion that you can't have casting times longer than one action without keeping players out of the game for multiple rounds.

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    If I was going to make a caster that works how I want my fictional magic to work, it would be basically the 5E artificer with the infusions swapped out for knowing all of the rituals. Some Harry Potter at-will magic, some magic items of various types they can make, focus on being good at hitting things, potions or shooting people, and spending an hour to open a door if needed.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  18. - Top - End - #288

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I'm really not sure what you're implying, though. Like, are you saying I don't actually enjoy those things? That seems like a really weird assertion to make.
    I'm saying if you were confident those things were good, your defense of them would be "these things are good for reason X", not "how dare you say these things are bad".

  19. - Top - End - #289
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    The version I mentioned doesn't change initiatives each round. Your initiative is the same. You just start your action on your initiative, and finish it later in the round. Or sometime next round. There's a corner case here that I would need to more fully explore, but in general, I don't think what you're saying here reflects the model I am proposing.

    If you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be game to do so, but I don't want to bore you if you're not.
    The spell system would still need to be built around it. I'm not saying that's bad. Perhaps "built with the idea in mind" to sound less negative. It's important to avoid allowing anyone to get two turns in a row before another person acts as a matter of the rules. It's fine for a Power effect if successful deny someone else a turn, but that's a different topic. You're still changing how long it takes for the Power to take effect. It's an ok restriction there's a chance the opponent can interrupt the Power use because of how long it takes to use, but it can still a happen a start of turn/end may or may not take place during that time frame it takes to use the Power. For example. A goes on Init 5. B goes on Init 10. Round 1 A does a Power that takes 3 clicks so it happens on Init 8. Then B goes and does something. Round 2 A does a Power that takes 6 clicks. On Init 10 B does something that's instantaneous, going before A. A's Power goes off on 11, or perhaps not because B interrupted or not there or some reason the Power doesn't work anymore. A is sad for losing a turn because he didn't do anything and did not got to benefit from his Round 1 Power depending on the Power if it would have made a difference in Round 2. If you want to take this as a feature, then A needs to lump it and be more mindful of how long it takes to do things. Then the burden goes back to the game designer not to have too many things take too long to do, because it's no fun to have a Super Big Boom Power but you never get to use it because it takes too long and will always be interrupted.
    Last edited by Pex; 2021-03-09 at 05:18 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by OgresAreCute View Post
    "Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons fifth edition, where the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter."

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    The spell system would still need to be built around it. I'm not saying that's bad. Perhaps "built with the idea in mind" to sound less negative. It's important to avoid allowing anyone to get two turns in a row before another person acts as a matter of the rules. It's fine for a Power effect if successful deny someone else a turn, but that's a different topic. You're still changing how long it takes for the Power to take effect. It's an ok restriction there's a chance the opponent can interrupt the Power use because of how long it takes to use, but it can still a happen a start of turn/end may or may not take place during that time frame it takes to use the Power. For example. A goes on Init 5. B goes on Init 10. Round 1 A does a Power that takes 3 clicks so it happens on Init 8. Then B goes and does something. Round 2 A does a Power that takes 6 clicks. On Init 10 B does something that's instantaneous, going before A. A's Power goes off on 11, or perhaps not because B interrupted or not there or some reason the Power doesn't work anymore. A is sad for losing a turn because he didn't do anything and did not got to benefit from his Round 1 Power depending on the Power if it would have made a difference in Round 2. If you want to take this as a feature, then A needs to lump it and be more mindful of how long it takes to do things. Then the burden goes back to the game designer not to have too many things take too long to do, because it's no fun to have a Super Big Boom Power but you never get to use it because it takes too long and will always be interrupted.
    Ideally, A is going to have allies who try to keep B from hitting him or otherwise screwing up his spell every turn. A might also deliberately bluff with non-spells or the like to try to get B and his allies to waste actions trying to prevent him from using a "big spell" when A isn't actually expending anything but his action; trading his action for several of theirs is actually a bit of a tank or control tactic, and risky, but if A's allies can't protect him, it's a valid one to let A's allies get better action economy.

    Yes, spells would need to be written with the casting times in mind as balance factors.

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    I'm saying if you were confident those things were good, your defense of them would be "these things are good for reason X", not "how dare you say these things are bad".
    They did explain why those systems are good: They enjoys them. OK those exact words were not used but that was the general idea.

    I can here it now, pointing out that doesn't explain why its good. So what? Pretend for a moment that you are sick and are offered two types of medicine for it. The first has about even odds (half and half) of curing you and we can explain exactly why it works when it does and why it doesn't when it doesn't. We have no idea why the second works but it has cured everyone who has ever taken it. I'd pick the second, how about you? Its not a perfect analogy (for one RPGs have less side effects) but the point remains: We can measure how well a system works because its goal is to entertain so we can just ask ourselves if we were entertained. Once we know that the theory crafting is secondary.

    And there are a bunch of little qualifiers in there. Like to get a good measurement you should do large studies (I don't think anyone here could do that though) and there could exist role-playing games with different goals (I don't have any good examples) and of course studying why may not change the results but is not without value (such as: sometimes I enjoy it for its own sake).

    In conclusion: "In matters of taste there can be no disagreement."

    Does anyone have a different pretty way of saying different people like different things?

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2021

    Default Re: The cost of magic

    None.

    The more often a specific spell is used the harder it is to succeed. Start adding negatives to their die rolls, or lower the save dc. Gets pretty hard quickly. If the player wishes to cast a spell despite they think they may not succeed on, they can sacrifice some amount of hp (that you can figure out based on spell) to gain advantage on the roll. Long sleep resets negatives.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •