Monte Cook's Design Thoughts On Spellcasters

[Andre]

If I may suggest, don't try to define encounter - instead define a caster's refresh rate. With standard D&D, it's one day. Shortening the refresh rate allows casters to avoid the need to rest for the majority of a day to always be at full power. If you lower the refresh rate sufficiently (for example, a matter of minutes), you come close to providing the caster with full ability in every encounter (however you define encounter).

Focusing on whether a mechanic is truly "encounter based" seems to me to be a distraction from the issue Monte was raising, which is that a 24-hour refresh rate leads to certain "un-fun" types of gameplay and, therefore, changing this refresh rate (for some or all of a spellcaster's abilities) might enhance gameplay.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Monte Cook is moving more twords 'Free form' with a near infinite amount of everything. (Iron heros)

My stance is, dont play a cahracter if you dont 'fit the bill' (which is to say, dont play a Wizard if you dont want to play a know-it-all mythodical, aloof, uppity and mostly..old character. If you dont want to go around in a rage swinging a weapon, killing everything around then dont play a barbarian. Ect, ect) I think the problem stems from pop culture myself. People who see anime think they can go play a Ninja in 3.5 like they see in the show, be able to teleport around and dissapear as many times as they like, and shoot energy bolts at will, which is what I see the game turning into. (not to pick on anime, same goes for movies and books too.)

I offer this solution: Instead of trying to dismantle the magic system in the game, make new type of spell casters like warlocks.

---Rusty

 

[howandwhy99]

My thoughts are that this is potentially unbalancing in a similar way to how all spell point systems are unbalancing. The XPH was balanced upon combats per day; something I don't believe a DM should dictate. By letting the players choose the number of combats each day, psi-users become more powerful than their counterparts by choosing to rest more often.

In comparison, a Warlock, able to cast a damaging spell without limit, is going to be better off attacking smaller targets more often. Granted few players want to play easy contests over and over again, but it still grants that benefit. This doesn't seem so bad compared to Fighters who can just do the same thing, right? The real drawback comes in interest. Warlocks have been called dull.

Which would you prefer? A wizard capable of casting an infinite variety of magic, but only a few times per day? Or one that can only cast a small handful of spells an infinite number of times? I think the wizard is more interesting and more enjoyable to play by far. This could be my own thinking, however. I believe magic should be more than just another sword.

The article seems to want to combine the two archetypes. I have no problem with breaking new ground. If something works, go for it. I would just be wary of what spells a DM would consider allowable to be cast infinitely. As noticed above, Cure spells would be easily abusable. But in truth I think the current system would allow it. They already allow Cure wands and those completely changed the style of play.

 

[Gadget]

If I may suggest, don't try to define encounter - instead define a caster's refresh rate. With standard D&D, it's one day. Shortening the refresh rate allows casters to avoid the need to rest for the majority of a day to always be at full power. If you lower the refresh rate sufficiently (for example, a matter of minutes), you come close to providing the caster with full ability in every encounter (however you define encounter).

Focusing on whether a mechanic is truly "encounter based" seems to me to be a distraction from the issue Monte was raising, which is that a 24-hour refresh rate leads to certain "un-fun" types of gameplay and, therefore, changing this refresh rate (for some or all of a spellcaster's abilities) might enhance gameplay.

QFT

Thank you for making the point I was laboriously trying to make.

 

[Lanefan]

My stance is, dont play a cahracter if you dont 'fit the bill' (which is to say, dont play a Wizard if you dont want to play a know-it-all mythodical, aloof, uppity and mostly..old character. If you dont want to go around in a rage swinging a weapon, killing everything around then dont play a barbarian. Ect, ect) I think the problem stems from pop culture myself. People who see anime think they can go play a Ninja in 3.5 like they see in the show, be able to teleport around and dissapear as many times as they like, and shoot energy bolts at will, which is what I see the game turning into. (not to pick on anime, same goes for movies and books too.)

I offer this solution: Instead of trying to dismantle the magic system in the game, make new type of spell casters like warlocks.

Thank you. You just saved me the typing to say much the same thing.

Spell-refresh any more often than once a day is going to raise some serious balance problems, and this is being said by one to whom balance isn't everything. If they can refresh after every time something relevant happens...OK, let's take a recent example from my game:

Party is in mountains in winter, not quite sure where they're going; area is known to be very dangerous so party have taken some precautions (all invisible, a few pre-cast buffs, etc.). The following all happens in the same day (as fate would have it, the "encounters" are nicely separated):

First encounter is with an Earth Dragon (this is 1e, so not the same headache it'd be in 3e), party takes a bit of damage - nothing serious - and dragon is gone.

Second encounter is with a couple of rather tough wandering Frost Giants; party takes some more damage and some spells get used, giants gone.

Third encounter is with a magically guarded entrance to the underdark; someone walks through, a Demon gets summoned, party has to deal with Demon.

Fourth "encounter" amounts to a few glyphs and tricks in the passage, no big deal but it takes some spells to deal with.

Fifth encounter is some bigass piercers in a cavern, along with a few Drow guarding another passage. Party is hurting all round after this, and packs it in for the day (retreat to surface).

Now...if the casters had been able to reload after each encounter they'd have unlimited cures (in effect) and repeat access to all the spells they'd just used up...those 5 encounters would not have drained the party's renewable resources at all, and they'd be able to carry on and, with care, do the entire adventure in one go, re-invisibling and re-buffing each time. Ridiculous! (as it turned out, it took them 2 more tries to take and hold that cavern...)

Now, if you want to pander to instant gratification and set things up so the party never have to rest or be patient in an adventure, go right ahead...but at someone else's table, please.

Lanefan

 

[Gadget]

Thank you. You just saved me the typing to say much the same thing.

Spell-refresh any more often than once a day is going to raise some serious balance problems, and this is being said by one to whom balance isn't everything. If they can refresh after every time something relevant happens...OK, let's take a recent example from my game:

...

Now, if you want to pander to instant gratification and set things up so the party never have to rest or be patient in an adventure, go right ahead...but at someone else's table, please.

Lanefan

Yes, well, if anyone was suggesting such a thing, than you would have a point, wouldn't you? But the article I read was suggestiing giving spell casting types certain (unspecified, but minor) 'always on' or easily refreshed magical abilities, and still keeping (or perhaps making even more restrictive) the x a day spells that require resource mangement and strategic planning.

So, idealy, the best of both worlds. This was just some thoughts on Spell design that Monte had, and not even remotely implemented; yet I find it amusing that people will invent straw men to attack by comming up with a very poor implimentation of Monte's rather vauge ideas, all while crying 'the sky is falling'.

 

[ruleslawyer]

In response to that:

1) As an Iron Heroes DM, I can say that per-encounter use limits already exist in at least one d20 fantasy game, and they work pretty well.

2) The party will always have to rest; it's just that the reasons will become the normal reasons that people rest on real-life expeditions and in real-life battles: To heal up (whether sore muscles or lacerations), get some sleep and food, and stay warm.

3) I hardly think that Monte would be so daft as to assume that individual spell effects like healing would not be changed to fit with a x% fire-and-forget/y% at-will spell system. (In all probability, cure spells would be on the fire-and-forget side of the equation.) Thus, "unlimited cures" and "repeat access to all spells" seem rather like strawmen to me.

4) For the nth time, Monte isn't saying that parties shouldn't have to rest or practice resource management (in fact, he says quite the opposite), but that the party's pace should not be dictated by the rate of expenditure of spell slots. As a DM who has experienced the negative effects of precisely that phenomenon, I agree.

 

[JohnSnow]

Monte Cook is moving more (towards) 'Free form' with a near infinite amount of everything. (Iron hero(e)s)

My stance is, dont play a (character) if you dont 'fit the bill' (which is to say, dont play a Wizard if you dont want to play a know-it-all (methodical), aloof, uppity and mostly..old character. If you dont want to go around in a rage swinging a weapon, killing everything around then dont play a barbarian. Etc., etc.)

Wizards are old? Where do the rules say that? Oh, wait...they don't.

If you want to get to "fitting the bill," the problem is this: D&D only models D&D-type fantasy well. 90 percent of that is due to the magic system. D&D's system is very good at properly modelling a spellcaster that has to prepare ahead of time, can cast explosive artillery spells, and would dominate the world they live in, except that there aren't very many of them, for no particularly good reason.

It also only models well a system with 2 types of magic: arcane and divine. Some people love the dichotomy of that. Others, myself included, HATE it. I don't see how you could have a spellcaster who can reanimate a dead body, transform himself (or someone else) from one form to another, but can't heal wounds. It's a gamist ruling that violates my suspension of disbelief.

I don't want anime-esque spellcasters. I have no problem with spellcasters with limited spells known. I have no problem with casters who can cast any spell back in their lab. I just don't like spell slots or even the "daily spell list" thing. It doesn't jive with the form of fantasy that I want my game to emulate.

I know, "Don't play D&D, blah, blah, blah." Sorry, but I play D&D (well, that's not actually true, I had to abandon it because I hate the magic system and the multiple magical item dependency). I play Iron Heroes, but I think of my game as D&D because to me, it's one version of what the D&D rules should support - fantasy RPGing.

I encourage the designers to come up with anything they can to make the game more fun for more people. Don't tie us forever to spell slots simply because that was the only way Gary could think of to limit the power of spellcasters back in 1975.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Laefan- Im glad you agreed with me on the first part and didnt agree with the second.

Ok, so the fitting the bill was a slightly flismy pretext. But I always try to use a role playing example rather than a mechanical example. The simple truth is, popele look to the mechanics firts and the flavor last, which is why you see 'Such and such class is broken/weak' thread all the time on forums all across the internet.

What I dont like about iron heros is that you are a super hero. there are tons of back up stats and it makes pc really tought to bring down. (Like in Rifts. Infact, Iron heros and Iron thores, agruable stole from the Paladium system)

What I dont like about super hero-ish systems is that powrer gaming isnt a issue, its the main concept.

In any event, support the idea to make alt. spell casters istead of trampling on a perfectly good ground concept.

Sorry for any typos in advance.

---Rusty

 

[reanjr]

I've been saying this for years...

I've been saying this for years, but of course when Monte Cook says it people pay attention.

I created a system that broke magic into three categories (it was a spell point system):

Magicks: as many times as you want, whenever you want, no cost. Spells like Read Magic and Detect MAgic went in here along with simple attack spells (1d4 + 1/4 levels damage on close ranged touch attack)

Spells: Close to standard spells. Most spells went in here. Also included scaling spells.

Dweomers: Special case spells that are more plot elements than actual spells, such as Wish. These required quite a bit of time, effort, and/or resource expenditure to use and would never be used in combat.

Also (this was a spell point system, but you can just as easily use a spell slot in place of spell points), there were a couple of spells that a duration of "Invested" including Mage Armor. Basically, you spent the points to cast the spell and it had a permanent duration, but you did not get the spell points (spell slots) back until you canceled the spell.

It was a very fun system to design and play.