L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian

Minigiant · Feb 28, 2012

thedungeondelver said:
If I can switch off feats entirely and switch on Vanceian magic, then I'm OK with this...whatever.

Now, when I say switch off, I mean OFF as in just say "those things aren't included" fullstop. Not "now I must rewrite how characters are handled" because I could make 4e into AD&D using such a method. Doesn't mean I wanna go through the effort. (And I don't, and I won't.)

Then it's not a dealbreaker.

If classes were handled like this, would you be okay with it.

Wizard
1st level: Spellcasting, Familiar, Bonus spell or Module Bonus
2nd level:
3rd level: +5 HP or Module Bonus
4th level: Bonus spell or Module Bonus
5th level:

Feat Module: A wizard may choose a feat from this list if using the Feat module
Skill Module: A wizard may train a new Skill from this list if using the Skill module
Contact Module: A wizard may gain a new Contact if using the Contact module.

Ratskinner · Feb 28, 2012

thedungeondelver said:
If I can switch off feats entirely and switch on Vanceian magic, then I'm OK with this...whatever.

Now, when I say switch off, I mean OFF as in just say "those things aren't included" fullstop. Not "now I must rewrite how characters are handled" because I could make 4e into AD&D using such a method. Doesn't mean I wanna go through the effort. (And I don't, and I won't.)

Then it's not a dealbreaker.

To me, that sounds like the case. Although, to me, it also sounds like they are "off" unless the Group says they are "on."

Obryn · Feb 28, 2012

I would feel a lot better about the article if history hasn't shown that Mr. Cook tends to be a bit ... myopic? ... about Wizards and feats.

I remember that one of the stated design goals for Arcana Unearthed/Evolved (which I still love in many ways and ran until 11th level) was that (1) spellcasters were less powerful; and (2) other classes kept pace. It ... um ... just wasn't the case. By 9th level or so, the spellcasters in my game - using only the feats, spells, and classes in the core Arcana Evolved book, mind you - were running the show. By 11th, the game had collapsed.

I really want 5e to be something cool. I really don't want the rules to be mostly "stuff only wizards care about."

-O

Jack Daniel · Feb 28, 2012

Kingreaper said:
Would you be okay if "switching feats off" meant: "Instead of feats, each class gets a default class feature whenever it would get a feat: with some of the class features having a suspicious similarity to a feat"?

IE. no feat choices, but still feat-effects baked into the classes instead?

The advantage with that system is that it allows AD&D style characters to be relatively balanced with feat-based characters.

Would you approve?

This is the purpose of "baking in" feats. It keeps the with-feat characters balanced with the no-feats characters.

It can also be applied to skills. Baked-in skills would be something like a +1/+2 basic competency bonus to all skill rolls, except when there's a specific class bonus, while actual skill choices would remove the basic competency, keeping things reasonably close to balanced.

Yeah... no. If the core of the game just involves "baked in" feats and skills, but those things are still present "behind the curtain," then something has gone wrong. The core of the D&D experience, the simplest possible expressions of the game -- OD&D, D&D Basic, AD&D (especially 2e) with most of the fiddly options ignored -- is *not* a game about mechanically customized characters, or about characters built up with lego-bricks of abilities. And bonding the legos together with rubber cement doesn't change what the build is... uh... built from. (Bad analogy is bad. Give me a break, it's 2AM in my time zone and I'm on very little sleep right now.)

The point is, in a proper core to D&D, yes Fred the Fighter and Joe the Fighter should be pretty close to mechanically identical (assuming the same level and ability scores). How that's achieved is less important than the fact that it gets done, but "baked in" feats would only be on the marginal fringes of acceptable for those of us who prefer simpler, older expressions of the game where the differences between characters of the same class are entirely role-played and non-mechanical. We don't want to have to even deal with possibility that a player might want to customize something. As in:

PLAYER: "Can't I just swap out this...?"
DM: "Nope. The 'feats' module isn't being used in this campaign."

^
(This is not irony or satire. This is really what I want to be able to do with 5e. But, crap, if I ever actually have an exchange like this with one of my players, it means that that player is more interested in "building" a character than role-playing one, and I don't need to deal with that kind of metagame, immerson-breaking bad mojo at my table.)

Lanefan · Feb 28, 2012

Odhanan said:
I don't like the fact they exist in the first place. Just like Skills. I play AD&D First Ed now, primarily. One of the reasons I like this game is because I don't have to deal with all that BS at all. This is also the case of a lot of TSR-era fans out there.

We-ell, I guess I'd qualify as a "TSR-era fan", and I'm not at all fond of how 3e did feats and skills (and yes, I did my time in the 3e squadron, before anyone asks).

That said, a few years ago I sat down and rebuilt Monks and Bards for my 1e-style game as completely feat-based classes. And so far - somewhat to my amazement - it's working! (after some experimenting I realized the same idea would not work at all well for any other class)

I also don't have any problem with a very rudimentary skill system - all I use is Swim-Boat-Ride, roll a d10 for each to see how good you naturally are at it (racial modifiers apply in some cases e.g. Dwarves do not tend to swim well); stats of any kind don't make a difference and the roll is locked in forever*. And that's the key: it's locked in. It doesn't change with level, stats, or anything else*. You roll three dice during char-gen and that's it.

* - if someone really wants to improve at one of these during their adventuring career they can state their intention to do so and I'll handle it case by case.

This simply reflects reality. I, for example, don't know one end of a horse from another - nasty dangerous beasts they are, if you ask me - but put me in a boat and I'll have half a clue what to do with it because boats were part of my upbringing. I have friends who are the exact opposite.

Lanefan

Lanefan · Feb 28, 2012

KidSnide said:
I totally understand the motivation to minimize calculations and character sheet reference, but I find the archtype comment interesting. Are you opposed to options in class abilities? Or do you think that two fighters with the same level, abilities scores and equipment should be identical from a game mechanics perspective?

I'm not [MENTION=12324]Odhanan[/MENTION] but yes, I have no real problem with two such fighters - of the same race as well - being mechanically very similar or identical. Differences will (99% likely) arise in other ways: choice of weapon and-or armour and-or fighting style, personality and-or alignment, etc. to the point where it's really not an issue.

That said, sometimes they do work out very similar in play as well: I have such an example in my game right now. Two players rolled up characters, both rolled an ability score of 4 (very rare in my game), both decided to bring in really dumb (but really tough, also very unwise) Fighters with almost the same personality, and I need a program to tell them apart!

And, [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] just about everything in the 1e Unearthed Arcana came from something previously published in Dragon, either carried forward verbatim or tweaked en route.

Lan-"much relieved to have Intelligence significantly greater than 4"-efan

Sigdel · Feb 28, 2012

Oni said:
Wouldn't record my vote on the AW/E/D system.

Anyway, the one thing that I really like about the Vancian system, and the one thing that isn't really touched on in the poll, and the one thing that would really sway my opinion about any of the other styles is that the ability to expand laterally. That spells aren't just something that you learn when you level up, they're something you go out and find and can add to your repertoire. I enjoyed playing 3e style sorcerer on occasion, but the one thing that always disappointed me was finding new and interesting spells and just going meh, because they were useless. That one thing badly hurt the appeal of the class for me.

Kind of like a CCG or Pokemon. This is even more true for when you fight another caster. After the battle you get to keep his spellbook/deck/monsters and add them to your own.

Gotta catch em all!

Rogue Agent · Feb 28, 2012

Odhanan said:
The aim for the designers shouldn't be IMO whether to have the core be/reflect AD&D OR 3rd ed OR 4th ed. The aim should be to have the core be what is COMMON between these iterations of the game so that, THEN, with modules, you can recreate AD&D AND 3rd ed AND 4th ed by toggling them on and off.

I am absolutely convinced that when WotC uses the term "modular" that this is not what they mean.

Of course, I'm basing that on the belief that WotC's designers are not insanely bent on publishing a version of D&D which (a) would be more alienating to new players than any other edition of the game ever published and (b) would be almost impossible to support in any meaningful way.

I get that a lot of people think and hope and wish that this was what WotC meant by modular. And maybe it is. But like I say: I really hope WotC isn't embracing an idea that has never worked in the past and almost certainly will never work in the future.

AbdulAlhazred said:
The classic (at the risk of using a hackneyed term) old school argument is that skills and whatnot just get in the way. ALL PCs are reasonably competent and can do most things. Only a few very very narrow niche things are carved out. Thus any PC can climb an ordinary wall (maybe with a check of some kind) and a thief has a niche carved out, he can climb a sheer wall with no handholds (again with a check).

As your own example indicates, the argument collapses in on itself almost instantaneously. Once you've admitted any sort of dice roll into the resolution for these things (and post-1975 you have to if you're following the rules), then you quickly realize that 3E/4E-style skills actually leave characters just as competent (and frequently more competent) than they were before.

The idea that a Climb skill, for example, renders everyone without a Climb skill into an incompetent buffoon only works if you set the Climb DCs for basic tasks so high that characters without the skill can't make them. Which, of course, the game doesn't do.

The entire position is a strawman which doesn't actually apply to any edition of D&D ever published. (Except possibly under the interpretation that only thieves can climb walls in OD&D/AD&D, which is a highly dubious interpretation despite its historical popularity.)

Rogue Agent · Feb 28, 2012

Jack Daniel said:
...for those of us who prefer simpler, older expressions of the game where the differences between characters of the same class are entirely role-played and non-mechanical.

It's important to understand, of course, that this version of the game never existed for any class except the fighter.

And it hasn't been true for the fighter since 1985. (Arguably 1977, but most grognards will probably never accept that prestige classes originated in 1st Edition.)

Lanefan · Feb 28, 2012

Rogue Agent said:
It's important to understand, of course, that this version of the game never existed for any class except the fighter.

And it hasn't been true for the fighter since 1985. (Arguably 1977, but most grognards will probably never accept that prestige classes originated in 1st Edition.)

However, a Fighter who has gone on to become a Thief and thence a Bard (the first prestige class; and it was a bad idea then, too) is not just a Fighter any more, making the comparison pointless.

Also, two 1e Thieves (or two 1e Assassins, or two 1e Paladins) with identical stats, gear and race are going to be mechanically the same as well; remember that in 1e the Thieving skills advanced automatically by level, you didn't get any choice as to what went where.

Lanefan