What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 21 to 30 of 140
Monday, 1st October, 2012, 04:08 PM #21
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Why 4e "scratch out name write another" works is that powers and class features are easily swappable while keeping balance. 4e fighter was just Martial Defender + style and Weapon and Shield style. The 4e ranger is just Quarry striker + TWF and Archery. Having your ranger take the fighter's power doesn't break the game nor effect lore that much.
But the Next sorcerer breaths fire for some reason. What do you swap out heritage for?
This is why I love this idea. Wizard is Tradition + Casting system. Sorcerer is Heritage + Casting system.My beard is hairy.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Monday, 1st October, 2012, 04:33 PM #22
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
Maybe this idea can be made to work for wizards. Maybe.
But how on earth is it going to work for sorcerers and warlocks? Those classes are pretty heavily tied to how their magic works. Warlocks especially - I can't imagine what a Vancian warlock would even look like!
And if all casting systems are modular, what's in the core? Does each class use a default system, which can then be swapped out, or what? I'm trying to picture some sort of ur-spellcasting system that is simpler than any of the different possibilities, and it just doesn't go.
I was enjoying each class having a different mechanic. It made them feel distinct. It was modular in the sense that you could just exclude certain classes - don't like spell points? Don't use the sorcerer.
Now I can envision DM's who just say, "Vancian for everything!" Which would be incredibly dull.
EDIT: Reading the column again carefully, Mearls always says 'wizard'. And in the first part of the column, he's talking about the big four. I am tentatively guessing that swapping out spell systems applies only to the wizard and cleric?
"All right, I am not the Shadow. You have nothing at all to worry about. Except, oh, wait, I'm pointing a gun at you."
Monday, 1st October, 2012, 04:34 PM #23
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
I may be missing the nuance, but how does having the options in the hands of the dm really change anything for the player? You still have all the same systems and options?
Monday, 1st October, 2012, 04:38 PM #24
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
Here's the thing... I suspect that even if this change goes through and the main part of the game doesn't not assign specific mechanics to specific classes... there still will be "defaults" for each class.
The difference being... rather than those mechanics appearing within the Class chapter, they will appear in whatever chapter or sidebar a "default" build of the game will be.
There are two ways to look at the organization. You either have in the Class chapter each spellcasting class be presented with one or more mechanics that the class "defaults" to, and then in the Magic chapter or in the DMG the instructions on how to "modularize" it by stripping out the casting mechanic you don't want and putting in the one you do (probably taking it from one of the other classes that is "defaulted" to it...
...or you don't assign the mechanics in the Class chapter at all, all the different mechanics to choose from appear in the Magic chapter (and additional instruction for world building in the DMG), and then DM and players go through and "build" the methods for spellcasting for their game at the very beginning.
Cause here's the thing...
Having the spellcasting classes list a default mechanic within the Class description itself is the equivalent of having the list of base deities to choose from in the Cleric chapter. We all KNOW that that list is going to be stripped out and replaced with a whole new set of deities (and their abilities) once the DM chooses his campaign world. So that "default" list of deities is there purely as a matter of convenience for those games where the "default" gets selected.
Which in previous editions made a little more sense, because the "default" game was probably going to be used by more players than I suspect any "default" D&DN game will be. Mainly because there are going to be SO MANY dials and knobs and buttons that the DMs will adjust, that you'd be hard-pressed to find a "default" game at all... just based upon the info that gets presented in each individual chapter.
And that's why I truly think what will end up happening is that each chapter in the Player's Handbook ARE NOT going to list a single "default" mechanic for every chapter's rules and then all the alternate modules to that mechanic are going to be stored away in an Appendix in the book... but rather most (if not ALL) of the modules will get presented within each chapter, with expressed instruction that the players and the DM will decide which ones they will use for their particular game.
And then in the Appendix? THAT'S where we'd see any and all "default" builds of the game, each one listing quite clearly the modules that are selected in order to play a "Basic D&D" type of game, or an AD&D type of game, or a 2E game, or a 3E game, or 4E game etc. etc.
Last edited by DEFCON 1; Monday, 1st October, 2012 at 04:49 PM.
Monday, 1st October, 2012, 04:46 PM #25
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
You get to choose exactly the way you want your game to be. So you can make your spellcasting classes have EXACTLY the same mechanics as they have now-- Vancian for Wizards, pseudo-Vancian for Clerics, encounter spells for Warlocks, spell (willpower) points for Sorcerers. The only difference is that rather than each of these mechanics appearing within the Class chapter in each of their respective classes... they all appear together back in (for example) the Magic chapter, and they each get assigned at the start of the campaign by the DM and players.
But just because YOU think a Vancian Warlock would be dull... doesn't mean every other player agrees with you. Perhaps there WILL be someone who LOVES both the Vancian mechanic AND loves the Story of the Warlock. So why shouldn't it be as easy as possible to combine those two things for that particular DM?
In the end... it comes down to what is easiest to do and to understand. Have each mechanic connected to each class in the Class chapter with instruction on how to swap the mechanics around? Or put all the mechanics together in one section with instruction on how to assign them to each of the classes you intend on having in the game?
And for that... I expect is where the playtesting is going to come in. Which way is truly easier to work with and grok? We'll have to wait and see.
Monday, 1st October, 2012, 05:12 PM #26
Lama (Lvl 13)
But, as I've lamented somewhat in other threads, that's not the paradigm these days. I think a significant plurality, if not a majority, of D&D consumers now want such options clearly spelled out. Mearls & Co. originally intended to make magic system part of the player's customization options -- choose Class A for Magic System B. But many folks wanted this customization to be on the campaign side.
In the WotC design paradigm, which favors greater integration than the TSR one, there is a distinct difference from a design perspective. The way the options are integrated and balanced is different. Siloing the powers in different classes creates different flavor for each one. For some, this is a tenable work-around. For others, particularly for folks who want a concrete set of rules to work with, it is not so workable. It creates cognitive dissonance if they refer to "wizards" at their table, but must use "sorcerer" to interact with anyone outside that group.
I think it very much behooves the design team to pay attention to issues of presentation in this way. If the guts of the system are not really that different (as you say, although I may not entirely agree), but the presentation makes it amenable to a larger audience, that's a win-win. We're dealing with people. "You're looking at it the wrong way," valid though it may be as a point of view, is simply not good marketing or presentation. As Twain said, "In matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."
Monday, 1st October, 2012, 05:15 PM #27
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Los Angeles, California
- Read 0 Reviews
ø Ignore Greg K
Monday, 1st October, 2012, 05:17 PM #28
Guide (Lvl 11)
Personally, I don't think its a big deal to have a "Magic User" class and let the myriad specialization routes take care of the rest. Others disagree.
Monday, 1st October, 2012, 05:25 PM #29
Monday, 1st October, 2012, 05:29 PM #30
Lama (Lvl 13)