L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian - Page 7




What's on your mind?

  1. #61
    Registered User
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,677

    Ignore Crazy Jerome
    I can only see feats really working well this way if the feat list is carefully monitored and restricted to giving access to substantial abilities, worth having. That means no huge lists of piddly feats. While certainly possible, it is not something I would want to bet the farm upon.

 

  • #62
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Dragonblade's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,735

    Ignore Dragonblade
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Odhanan View Post
    And... it seems I'm out. Deal-breaker detected.

    It seems to me Monte is saying that feats in a 3rd edition sense will be part of the core-sans-modules. It is a non-starter to me. The mistake I'm seeing is that they're trying to make everyone happy with the core-sans-modules, from the get-go, rather than the core+this-or-that-module.

    I hope I misunderstand Monte's post here.

    Feats should be part of a module. Non-Vancian magic should be part of a module. Skills should be part of a module. Etc. Only the core of the D&D game should be the core of the system sans modules.

    The core of the game needs to be just that: the core of the D&D experience. Feats are not part of the core D&D experience, as all the pre-3e editions of the game demonstrate. If these guys can't figure that out, all the rest will suck for me, and a lot of other gamers out there I'm sure. It is "the" component of the game they should not botch.
    I don't see that at all from Monte's post.

    I think what we will see is a core where the "feat" based abilities are largely baked into the core classes as simplified pre-determined class features. For groups who play straight up core, you just accept whatever ability you get at each level. You don't see the "feats" behind the curtain, so to speak.

    For players/groups who want more advanced customization, they can then choose to swap out or customize those class-feature "feats" for different ones. I like this approach a lot, and think its the best way to go to make a simple game without a lot of choice and complexity for those who don't want it, but offers it for those who do, and still allow them both to play at the same table.

    I highly doubt that you'll see a 5e that is basically a recreation of Basic D&D, where feats are completely removed from the core experience and only available as an optional add-on. From a design standpoint, that would be a nightmare with massive balance repercussions. You'd essentially be creating two entirely different games, AD&D and 3e D&D, and it would defeat the unification edition goal of having two players play their preferred complexity style at the same table.
    Last edited by Dragonblade; Monday, 27th February, 2012 at 07:58 PM.

  • #63
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    Odhanan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bella Coola
    Posts
    3,088

    Ignore Odhanan
    My communities:

    As I said, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

    But honestly? All the talk of feats and stuff? Way to turn me off on the game. And I'm sure I'm not the only one (remember before you answer to this: this game is supposed to appeal to the BOTH of us, not just you).

  • #64
    Registered User
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)

    Mark CMG's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI 53147
    Posts
    8,738
    GM's DayCMG

    Ignore Mark CMG
    My communities:

    One idea were considering is a magical feat. These feats represent magical abilities that a character can use all the time. For example, we might have a basic feat called Wizard Mark.

    While I'm not sure that I agree with the implementation, I find it flattering that they are thinking about naming a feat after me.







    Wait, what?
    Fighting Fire - Ernie Gygax Relief Fund

    Please, help boost the signal!

    http://tinyurl.com/gygaxrelief

    As always,
    Mark CMG
    CreativeMountainGames.com

  • #65
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    Odhanan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bella Coola
    Posts
    3,088

    Ignore Odhanan
    My communities:

    3rd edition lite-4e Essentials is not going to work towards a "D&D Edition for all editions". It's been tried before. It might be called Castles & Crusades. Or D&D Essentials. True20. Or whatnot. This is not the market of 2000. This is 2012, and players interested in those play styles have sinced migrated back to their primary games, the question being "if I loved all these bits from AD&D and don't find C&C entirely satisfying for reason X or Y, why don't I just play AD&D itself?" And thus OSRIC, S&W et al. were born.

    Castles & Crusades Plus Pre-determined Feats is not going to cut it. Unless of course the whole point is to just go back to 2007 and get some Pathfinder gamers to play WotC's game, which is fine I guess in and of itself, but then don't take me AD&Der for a moron and don't call this the "big tent" or whatever.
    Last edited by Odhanan; Monday, 27th February, 2012 at 09:14 PM.

  • #66
    Registered User
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)

    Scribble's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Berlin NJ
    Posts
    7,243

    Ignore Scribble
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Odhanan View Post
    3rd edition lite-4e Essentials is not going to work towards a "D&D Edition for all editions". It's been tried before. It might be called Castles & Crusades. Or D&D Essentials. True20. Or whatnot. This is not the market of 2000. This is 2012, and players interested in those play styles have sinced migrated back to their primary games, the question being "if I loved all these bits from AD&D and don't find C&C entirely satisfying for reason X or Y, why don't I just play AD&D itself?" And thus OSRIC, S&W et al. were born.

    Castles & Crusades Plus Predeterminded Feats is not going to cut it. Unless of course the whole point is to just go back to 2007 and get some Pathfinder gamers to play WotC's game, which is fine I guess in and of itself, but then don't take me AD&Der for a moron and don't call this the "big tent" or whatever.
    There are an awful lot of people who still post to D&D sites and still argue and fight about D&D even when they proclaim not to like the current system. The fact that they're posting to the D&D website (to me at least) seems to indicate they still have some sort of connection with the brand.

    I think THESE are the people that WoTC is trying to appeal to.

    There will always be people who just don't like it, and want to play something else. I'm sure WoTC knows this. But the people who still post to D&D boards (usually about how bad the system is) tend to at least have reasons (valid or not) about why. Usually involving something the new system doesn't allow them to accomplish.

    Wizards is trying to give them a way to accomplish said thing.

    I guess only time will tell though whether or not those people have real concerns, whether the game can meet those concerns, or whether those people were just full of hot air and looking to hear themselves bitch (and thus will continue to do so, just changing what they bitched about.)

  • #67
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)



    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,271

    Ignore Hassassin
    Quote Originally Posted by Odhanan View Post
    As I said, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

    But honestly? All the talk of feats and stuff? Way to turn me off on the game. And I'm sure I'm not the only one (remember before you answer to this: this game is supposed to appeal to the BOTH of us, not just you).
    What is it you don't like about (was it 3e style) feats? Maybe they've fixed those things in 5e. No way to know yet.

  • #68
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    Odhanan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bella Coola
    Posts
    3,088

    Ignore Odhanan
    My communities:

    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.

    The only way the problem with feats is solved to is so I can turn this stuff off completely and forget it exists. Likewise with Skills. And on it goes.

    So really: if that's 4e lite for people who like 3rd ed and Pathfinder, I'm cool with it, really, but be forthright about it. Tell it how it is, WotC. Don't try to screw me into believing you actually give a crap about gamers like me by talking about Gygax and OD&D and AD&D every once in a while in your columns. That sure as heck ain't gonna cut it this time.

    The irony, and frustration really, is that I can see this, the modular D&D idea, actually working under certain conditions, with a certain understanding of the game, and the modules built to then decline this understanding of the game in different ways for different audiences. I can see it. But what I'm reading here? That ain't it. Nope. Not happening.

    So. There are people who have seen the playtest rules apparently, like Rob Conley (writer of the Majestic Wilderlands) or the RPG Pundit (of theRPGsite.com fame) who say that the columns don't reflect what they've seen of the core game (without going into details since they are under NDAs), and they're wondering what the heck is Monte Cook talking about. So my question from there is: what the heck is going on? Tell it like it is. Be straight about it. Explain. Because that starts to look like you guys (WotC) don't really know what it is you're doing.
    Last edited by Odhanan; Monday, 27th February, 2012 at 09:42 PM.

  • #69
    Registered User
    Lama (Lvl 13)

    kitsune9's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Hayward, CA
    Posts
    2,349

    Ignore kitsune9
    My communities:

    I'm a fan of Vancian magic--it will be interesting to see what WotC develops if they become committed to go this route.

  • #70
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)



    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,271

    Ignore Hassassin
    Quote Originally Posted by Odhanan View Post
    I don't like the fact they exist in the first place. Just like Skills.
    That's not a very useful answer. I presume it wouldn't help if they renamed feats "talents" and skills "proficiencies"?

    Do you hate any character options outside class? (Then class specific bonus feats could still be ok.)

    Do you hate the complexity they add? (Then a short list of simple feats could still be ok.)

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 7 of 22 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Jack Vance
      By Uller in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media Lounge
      Replies: 8
      Last Post: Friday, 18th January, 2013, 02:17 PM
    2. [5E] To Vance or not to Vance - That is the Question
      By Mercurius in forum D&D 5th Edition
      Replies: 88
      Last Post: Sunday, 15th January, 2012, 12:13 AM
    3. [5E] To Vance or not to Vance - That is the Question
      By Mercurius in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 4
      Last Post: Monday, 9th January, 2012, 05:16 PM
    4. Hybrid Vancian/Non-Vancian Spellcasters
      By rounser in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 7
      Last Post: Friday, 19th July, 2002, 06:11 AM
    5. Take that Vance!
      By widderslainte in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 25
      Last Post: Wednesday, 29th May, 2002, 09:51 PM

    Posting Permissions

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