D&D 4th Edition D&D Next (5E) Updates, Pax East, and a Poll - Page 2




Poll: Should the cleric and wizard use Vancian Magic as core?

+ Log in or register to post
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45
  1. #11
    Registered User
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)

    hemera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    221

    Ignore hemera
    Quote Originally Posted by Morrus View Post
    Well, for example the wizard feat in 5E/D&D Next which gives the wizard an "at will" attack. Something which goes outside the actual vancian mechanic.
    That is something that I would be down with. Vancian at the core, so it is true to most past editions but a modular approach for those who want a little something extra. (maybe at-wills, meta magic what have you)

    Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.
    --Marie Curie

 

  • #12
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    dm4hire's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Des Moines, IA
    Posts
    956

    Ignore dm4hire
    I voted for the optional rule. Vancian style represents such a small part of fantasy lit and it has always amazed me that it has stayed main stream for D&D all these years.
    DM4Hire

    "What doesn't kill you will probably turn you into a vampire, a werewolf, or a zombie." - Myself

    "This is Sky Captain. I'm on my way." - Joe "Sky Captain" Sullivan

    Currently reading Trailblazer.

    Currently recommending Desolation: Post-Apocalyptic Fantasy Roleplaying, Hollow Earth Expedition and Pathfinder RPG

  • #13
    Moderator
    Superhero (Lvl 15)

    keterys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Lynn, MA
    Posts
    7,360

    Ignore keterys
    I believe that Vancian _has_ to be an option in the game, for D&D Next to succeed on its goal...

    But I strongly believe that it should not be the default option for the initial very core classes, and should be in its own optional module (much like I imagine 4E powers will be, and we know miniature play will be). A new player should not have to deal with Vancian in order to play what they want to play - it's a style that doesn't match any modern literature, game, etc - not really even in D&D literature they might be used to nowadays. It also has inherent complexities that I feel are not good for introduction, and it eats up a lot of space.

    I think I'd suggest that a Mage or Sorcerer option that didn't use it as part of the easier intro classes, and cleric didn't at all, but the Wizard and Priest classes did.

  • #14
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    Anthro78's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Quad Cities, IA
    Posts
    19

    Ignore Anthro78
    Once again: it's not an "open playtest" if you have to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement to participate; that's just a playtest, kids. Please see Paizo for the proper way to do an open playtest.
    "Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten." - G.K. Chesterton

    "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Sir Winston Churchill

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." - Dom Helder Camara

  • #15
    Registered User
    Defender (Lvl 8)

    Alphastream's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    402
    I Defended The Walls!

    Ignore Alphastream
    Quote Originally Posted by brindy View Post
    What "open playtest"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthro78 View Post
    Please see Paizo for the proper way to do an open playtest.
    To be fair, that summary was probably written with the idea that the Open Playtest would be out at the time (perhaps right after PAX East, which could still happen). The summary could be wrong, but if so is likely because they are receiving really valuable feedback through their current playtest mechanics, in turn driving them to make changes before the larger playtest begins.

    I'm on an NDA, so I can't share what I would love to share about the playtest methodology (and I probably will never be able to do so, since their playtest methods are unlikely to ever be public knowledge). But, I don't recommend jumping to the conclusion that the methodology is lacking compared to Paizo's or any other RPG company's playtest.

    Keep in mind several things: A) There are non-public components to the playtest that are important. B) They received very good feedback from the NDA but open to anyone playtest at DDXP. C) They are working on a scale that is substantially different than that of other companies and with far bigger goals. D) Even when Wizards' open non-NDA playtest initiates, it will not be a 1:1 match of what Paizo or any other company has done previously.

    I'm a big fan of playtesting. I like various aspects of what Paizo did, and I like what has been done by other companies (I have and do playtest for several companies). Playtest approaches should vary based on the product, the goals, the audience, and many other factors. This makes it very difficult to say one approach is superior to another. To really do so you have to know a lot about the inner workings of an RPG company - as well as of other companies so you can run a comparison.

    My advice: enjoy all the games you can and enjoy the diversity amongst RPG companies. If you have the means to go to PAX East, do so. It will be a fantastic opportunity to be part of the process that shapes D&D (and which will likely influence all RPG companies in the future).

  • #16
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    Anthro78's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Quad Cities, IA
    Posts
    19

    Ignore Anthro78
    Quote Originally Posted by Alphastream View Post
    A lot of good stuff.
    I see your point, but the whole purpose of an open playtest is to open it up to the community and allow them to experience the game and give their feedback. Opening it up to only convention goers who must sign an NDA is not open; it's just a standard playtest. It feels like WotC is trying to capitalize on the success of other company's playtests without actually doing the work of being open. I respect that they want feedback, but to call it open demeans the hard work of the companies who really did the work of doing open playtests and actively engaging their communities in a back and forth that produces a product that is connected with the fans.

    What Wizards creates with 5e MAY be wonderful, but so far it's not an "open playtest" and calling it such smacks of dishonesty.
    "Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten." - G.K. Chesterton

    "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Sir Winston Churchill

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." - Dom Helder Camara

  • #17
    Registered User
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Gaming Tonic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indian Trail, NC
    Posts
    150
    Pathfinder D&D

    Ignore Gaming Tonic
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthro78 View Post
    Once again: it's not an "open playtest" if you have to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement to participate; that's just a playtest, kids. Please see Paizo for the proper way to do an open playtest.
    I am on an NDA as well so I will not elaborate on the specifics of that but the playtest will be open once WotC hammers out a few of the basic details. Those who have seen the playtest have reported (myself included) on the rough stage and how early on the edition is. If they released what I saw in December the fans would be in an uproar. If they released what was at the DDXP same reaction. Several posts I have read had the NDA's signed at the DDXP expiring in May. I do not know if that is true but if it is your answer to when open playtest is probably in those details. The announcement was less than three months ago that anything at all existed. I am sure the open playtest is right around the corner.

  • #18
    The Guvnor
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Morrus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    24,820
    Blog Entries
    4
    13th Age Superman Circvs Maximvs ENnies Pathfinder ZEITGEIST Doctor Who

    Ignore Morrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthro78 View Post
    I see your point, but the whole purpose of an open playtest is to open it up to the community and allow them to experience the game and give their feedback. Opening it up to only convention goers who must sign an NDA is not open; it's just a standard playtest. It feels like WotC is trying to capitalize on the success of other company's playtests without actually doing the work of being open. I respect that they want feedback, but to call it open demeans the hard work of the companies who really did the work of doing open playtests and actively engaging their communities in a back and forth that produces a product that is connected with the fans.

    What Wizards creates with 5e MAY be wonderful, but so far it's not an "open playtest" and calling it such smacks of dishonesty.
    They've made it clear that the open playtests are to come. They aren't calling the playtests so far open playtests; the open playtests begin some time in Spring (which is any time until mid-June).

    The above descriptions may have been written at a time when open playtests were expected to have started by now. They're just an old description I had lying around. So if it's anyone's fault, it's probably mine for reusing the description.

    There's no dishonesty going on.

  • #19

    Agh such constraining language use ...

    "Should the cleric and wizard use Vancian Magic as core?"

    Is limiting.

    I can envision a range of options:

    1) Only Vancian
    2) A mix of Vancian and non-Vancian
    3) Only non-Vancian (sorcerer model)
    4) Only non-Vancian (power point model)
    5) Only non-Vancian (4E daily/encounter/at will model)

    If the new edition is to be modular, wouldn't the design automatically provide all of those options?

    These seem much more useful questions:

    "Should a single casting model (e.g., Vancian) be presented as core, with other models (e.g., the sorcerer model) be presented as options?"

    "Should different casting models (Vancian vs. Sorcerer vs. Power Points vs. 4E) be given equal footing as core game features?"

    "If a single casting model is to be made core, should that model be Vancian?"

    And why limit to cleric and wizard? 4E doesn't seem to have caster (from a pure sense; how does 4E map into this question? Is the use of cleric and wizard intended, as in, should these classes be mapped into their 3E flavors, with an expectation of other casting classes (Sorcerer, Psion) existing that use other models?

    TomB

  • #20
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)

    qstor's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,976

    Ignore qstor
    Quote Originally Posted by Morrus View Post
    Well, for example the wizard feat in 5E/D&D Next which gives the wizard an "at will" attack. Something which goes outside the actual vancian mechanic.
    I'm fine with that. Pathfinder does it. It works for wizards that have exhausted all their spells. I'm not fine with the encounters, at-wills and dailies etc.

    Mike
    "I am a Ranger. We walk in the dark places no others will enter. We stand on the bridge and no one may pass. We live for The One. We die for The One." Marcus, Babylon 5

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. [PAX East] Going to PAX East? AEG/Thunderstone needs volunteers
      By Piratecat in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: Tuesday, 7th February, 2012, 10:10 PM
    2. Giant by Poll: Post-crash Poll #13: Hide modifiers revisited
      By Shade in forum General Monster Talk
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: Wednesday, 14th June, 2006, 04:55 PM
    3. Replies: 9
      Last Post: Thursday, 8th December, 2005, 03:04 PM
    4. POLL: Biblical-era Middle-East setting
      By Kamikaze Midget in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 48
      Last Post: Wednesday, 3rd April, 2002, 10:12 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
    •