Monte Cook's Design Thoughts On Spellcasters

[eyebeams]

The main problem is that "resting" ain't so hot a balancing mechanism. This is how it works in about 50% of games:

"I'm out of spells. Let's rest."

"Okay." (DM rolls/checks for other hazards -- maybe there's a minor encounter) "You all rest."

It ain't all that onerous. The other 50% are "grindhouse" encounters that can't be avoided or delayed with rest. So half the time, the rest requirement is almost meaningless and doesn't delay fun at all. In fact, in terms of play time, resting is often quicker than continuing.

This is one of the problems of using an abstract, variable part of the game setting as a game mechanic. What really interests me about this article, though, is that Monte is basically arguing for the magic systems that were developed in the late 80s/early 90s in games like Ars and Vampire. In fact, the suggestion is basically structures like the path/ritual scheme of vampire's old Thaumaturgy system.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What really interests me about this article, though, is that Monte is basically arguing for the magic systems that were developed in the late 80s/early 90s in games like Ars and Vampire. In fact, the suggestion is basically structures like the path/ritual scheme of vampire's old Thaumaturgy system.

Rituals were a lot slower than most D&D spells as a rule, though, no? It does resemble the system, but I think stripping away most of the "zap" spells from D&D would leave spells that tend to still be more immediate than VtM rituals.

 

[brehobit]

I think the idea of the wizard/warlock hybrid has some merit.

I'd take it a step beyond that. I think the notion of casters being done this way is outstanding.

Mark

 

[SpiralBound]

monte raises a bunch of really interesting points, however I wonder about how hs proposed changes would affect the "feel" of the spellcasters. On a certain level it seems like what he's suggesting would make the activity of playing a spellcaster be more akin to playing a fighter. Not just more equal in the pacing of their usage, but more like a fighter in how one would play them. I'm not so sure that this is a good thing. Playing a spellcaster shouldn't feel like playing a fighter. using your disiplines should feel the same as using your long bow or your great cleave ability. when it gets to that point, then why not just play a fighter?

Now, some of his ideas are cool and I would like to try out a spellcaster structured as he describes to see if it indeed would feel like a fighter or if it would still feel distinctive as a spellcaster.

 

[frankthedm]

The main problem is that "resting" ain't so hot a balancing mechanism. This is how it works in about 50% of games:

"I'm out of spells. Let's rest."

"Okay." (DM rolls/checks for other hazards -- maybe there's a minor encounter) "You all rest."

It ain't all that onerous. The other 50% are "grindhouse" encounters that can't be avoided or delayed with rest. So half the time, the rest requirement is almost meaningless and doesn't delay fun at all. In fact, in terms of play time, resting is often quicker than continuing.

The problems:

1. Casters are balanced assuming 4 encounters a day. If that number is allowed to shink, it is unfair to non casters.

2. If the players are not able to rest when they try, the DM gets viewed as the bad guy. And when the late night fight does happen, chances are the front liners will be in thier bedshirts [chain shirt] so they get hosed for the casters.

3. If time is an important factor, things can literally go to hell when casters Spelldump / Sleep / Spelldump / Sleep / Spelldump / Sleep.

4. The DM is made to look really bad if the PCs enemies manage to kill them in thier sleep. Even if the tactic used was one the PCs used themselves, the DM is somehow the bad guy.

 

[Gargoyle]

Once they can afford wands and scrolls, that is. His argument is specifically about not forcing a player to have a character that's less fun to play for several levels, waiting on the good stuff.

True, and I understand that. My argument is that even when they can afford wands and scrolls to keep up with non-casters, that it's not an ideal situation. I'm not a fan of any class being equipment dependent to the point where they need magical gear to avoid being bored with nothing significant to do during part of the game. Being able to attack magically without spells seems like a nice solution.

 

[Graf]

Obviously it’s just a guy writing his thoughts out and not a design document but I’m not keen on the way that a couple of issues that are all mashed together in his post.

Buffs. Some people dislike them; other people dislike them too and complain about buff-teleport-kill that dominates some higher level games.
This is a fine thing to discuss. But it’s a separate issue from the other suggestions; you could just change buffs and be done with it.

Having wizards give up spells per day in exchange for a constant-attack ability is fine.
(They could just buy a wand and be done with it too but making it class ability would work as well).

But I’m not really sure that there is something “wrong” with the existing wizard class.
Some people, who don’t play preparation classes (wizards, archivist, cleric, etc) very well do blow through their spells and then demand rest. But they’re weak players.

I play a caster right now, and there are some combats where I do virtually nothing, and most combats there are rounds where I just bide my time and wait. Do I get to do kewl stuff every action and be awesome all the time. No. Does that bother me? I’m not twelve anymore, so no.

I’m not sure that I buy the “some people can’t play this class very well so we should get rid of it in exchange for something that’s idiot proof” is a very compelling argument.

 

[pawsplay]

I disagree with the problem and the solution. If I were writing 4e, I would dial back the spells per day. I'm still amazed that clerics get as many spells as they do.

I'm not advocating a return to 1 hp wizards with a dagger, though. I like a lot of changes in 3e. Spells flying everywhere is perhaps not one of them.

 

[eyebeams]

Rituals were a lot slower than most D&D spells as a rule, though, no? It does resemble the system, but I think stripping away most of the "zap" spells from D&D would leave spells that tend to still be more immediate than VtM rituals.

Some of them were, but many were fast effects that you just had to prepare ahead of time and could drop at almost any point afterwards (splinter servant), or they added an always-on innate ability (pavis).

 

[eyebeams]

The problems:

1. Casters are balanced assuming 4 encounters a day. If that number is allowed to shink, it is unfair to non casters.

2. If the players are not able to rest when they try, the DM gets viewed as the bad guy. And when the late night fight does happen, chances are the front liners will be in thier bedshirts [chain shirt] so they get hosed for the casters.

3. If time is an important factor, things can literally go to hell when casters Spelldump / Sleep / Spelldump / Sleep / Spelldump / Sleep.

4. The DM is made to look really bad if the PCs enemies manage to kill them in thier sleep. Even if the tactic used was one the PCs used themselves, the DM is somehow the bad guy.

Thing is, skipping through rest never *looks* like it's favouring spellcasters, since the spellcaster can recast healing and buffs on the party. As you say, there are a whole bunch of issues with the way the system plays out -- but it's a systemic problem. There's no real reason to punish players for resting and skipping, especially if they're camping in an area they've legitimately cleared during the adventure.