D&D 5E Another D&D Next Playtest Survey

Manbearcat · Jul 19, 2012

prosfilaes said:
Vancian casting is not a mere rules construct. The fact that wizards have a wide variety of spells they can cast but have to limit their choices and study a few every day is a setting element.

<SNIP>

That I can choose to play such a character is a big part of the game for me, and is part of what defines D&D for me.

On neither of these would you get much disagreement.

Regarding the first, however, I suspect there is a large contingency of players out there whereby the setting element of "Vancian" versus "Spell Pool" versus "Spontaneous" versus "Spell Points" is relatively indistinguishable from one another with regards to its input on their play experience. That granularity of resource management does not affect them either because they've inductively evaluated it or actively played the different sub-types of resource management and determined that the meta-game input of the "button pushing" into the equation of "What is DnD" pales in comparison to the input of "how does this spell affect the world and what does casting it say about my character and the narrative in this scene." I've DMed all of the various sub-systems in S & P, UA, and house rules throughout 20 years and neither myself nor my players bat an eye if one is changed out for the other. But yes, Vancian does have a "setting affect" as source and means is certainly an input to flavor. Its just a smaller input to some (likely moreso to those who have actually played with different resource management schemes over the years...within DnD).

Regarding the second...ABSOLUTELY. People being excluded from their favored archetypes due to the rigid tastes of others (of whom their inclusion has no affect) is an appalling thought and I think such a thing imposed upon our community, or demanded by it, would speak very poorly of our weird, little world.

Cadfan · Jul 19, 2012

...not to mention, D&D spells have never been so situational that preparing the wrong spells really made you "useless" for the day, unless the DM was intentionally making a point to have an entire day of monsters immune to a particular attack, AND you were obsessed with that particular attack.

Between the incredible versatility of early edition spells that didn't do damage, the squirrely way spell resistances worked, and the sheer volume of spell slots, you had to almost try to end up in that situation.

I'd be interested in seeing a game that actually used that issue as a gameplay element, but D&D hasn't ever meaningfully been it. About the only example I can think of where that happens is prepping "sleep" at level 1 and then fighting undead... or maybe the "I didn't think we'd fight at all today so I only prepped Shape Stone so I could work on my mansion." Beyond that, you have to practically try to be so niche that you can't take all comers. And there's no incentive to build your spell list in that way, because while certain enemies are resistant to certain spells, vulnerabilities are much more rare, giving you a strong incentive to diversify even if you think you know what you're facing that day.

If you wanted to make a game where choosing the right spells each morning was a big deal, you'd probably want to make the effectiveness of spells much more swingy given varying types of enemies. And then you'd want to reward picking multiple spells of a particular type, instead of diversifying. And you'd want to cut back on complete utility spells that are as effective as the player's imagination of which are useful in virtually all situations (wall of force, etc). And you'd want to cut back on buffing spells that help other players, because they're as useful as your allies are, which, since your allies are PCs instead of a PC's expendable resource, is hopefully most of the time.

Zaran · Jul 19, 2012

Why?

I felt like my choices will determine what spells will be kept and what spells will be omitted. I want them all kept!

Ahnehnois · Jul 19, 2012

Falling Icicle said:
I would argue that it is the spells themselves that define D&D magic. Wizards casting fireball, lightning bolt, mirror image, fly and invisibility - those are what are iconic about the D&D wizard, not the technicalities governing the resource management of them.

I agree with that. A D&D wizard using spell points or a recharge mechanic or some piecemeal casting system is still a D&D wizard.

What I saw the poll as being about is deconstructing the idea of roles. A wizard's role could be virtually anything, depending on what spells he chooses. A mid-level D&D wizard that doesn't have access to fireball, polymorph, invisibility, charms, summoning, dispelling, true strike, prestidigitation, and so on at the same time in non-nerfed, functional form is not a D&D wizard, which I think this poll gave us a good opportunity to express.

functionciccio said:
Just a side note: one of my friends, who started playing with 4E, tried to answer the poll, but 90% of what was written made no sense to him.
Not a good way to attract 4E people.

90% of a poll of classic D&D spells covering most iterations of D&D made no sense to D&D players, and this is the poll's fault? If you don't recognize Otto's Irresitible Dance or Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion or Glitterdust or most of the spells on that list, it's going to be hard for you to answer any poll on the magic of D&D.

Tuft · Jul 19, 2012

functionciccio said:
Just a side note: one of my friends, who started playing with 4E, tried to answer the poll, but 90% of what was written made no sense to him.
Not a good way to attract 4E people.

Shows how much of a break with tradition 4E was....

Lord Rasputin · Jul 19, 2012

Agreed with many remarks here about ditching lesser/greater/superduper from the lists. I don't want a return of reversible spells, however. It simplifies matters to not have them, and more easily allows spell lists with one or the other. That my cleric can cast cure wounds does not automatically follow that he can cast inflict wounds. And those reversed versions were often ignored in 2e games. It also is easier to balance the single spell, and cleans up the spell description.

I'm no 4e fan, but a number of those spells need the 4e treatment of making them special abilities. Spectral hand, for example, is a great idea for a feat; the cure spells should be cleric special abilities instead, maybe tied to available turning attempts. Or, as Monte Cook once pointed out, if your wizard is always casting mage armor for all-day armor, why not make it a special ability and be done with it?

DEFCON 1 · Jul 19, 2012

Raith5 said:
OK, but the problem is that this is the path to creating a game which is already on my shelf. I just think there is a danger of here of D&DN creating something that captures past editions so well that there is no real need to buy it!

I take it then that you AREN'T one of the thousands of players who keep complaining about the fact that WotC doesn't "support" older editions of the game? Because based upon all those rantings we keep hearing, it tells us that yes, many players WILL buy NEW "old stuff", even if if they already have plenty of old stuff on their shelves.

So printing a new edition of the game (plus all the supplements) that can be functionally used by players of older editions (either in the new edition itself or easily ported to the old edition they are still playing) is not a mistake, but rather a strong money-making decision.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 19, 2012

Tuft said:
Shows how much of a break with tradition 4E was....

No. It shows how shallow "market research" is when it treats the name of something as universally "the thing." Of course, the problem of failure to understand the different concepts of identity, is hardly new with Next surveys.

tuxgeo · Jul 19, 2012

Random poll thoughts:

I couldn't choose many 4E spells because very few were listed; but I did choose "Lance of Faith" and "Sacred Flame" for the Cleric. I would have chosen "Freezing Burst" for the Wizard if I had seen it. (If it was there, I missed it.)

More low-level spells are iconic than we were allowed to select at those low levels. I would have marked many more 0-Level and 1-Level spells if I had had the chance.

Buff spells such as "Cat's Grace" probably won't be included in 5E due to the flatter math, so I didn't mark any.

I chose not to select favorite spells that would work as Rituals instead, such as "Comprehend Language." I still would like such spells to be included; but I had to limit the choices, and the "would-work-as-a-ritual" factor introduced a systematic bias into my answers.

Some of the spells were mis-leveled. I think they meant to do that, but that is a bad way to formulate control questions, IMHO, and may well warp the results of the poll.

Manbearcat · Jul 19, 2012

Crazy Jerome said:
No. It shows how shallow "market research" is when it treats the name of something as universally "the thing." Of course, the problem of failure to understand the different concepts of identity, is hardly new with Next surveys.

Oh how I'd like to XP this. Someone please XP this for me.