Thoughts about silos

[Abstraction]

So, the new edition will definitely have something called "siloing" for magic casters. The idea being that a wizard, for example, would have groups of spells and spell-like abilities that he memorizes for at the beginning of the day and must follow whatever restrictions each of his "silos" places on spells available to fill them. I assume that sorceror would be similar, but fill the silos at will from his very limited number of spells or spell-like abilities known.

What do you think the odds are that ALL classes will have silo abilities? Fighter abilities that you pick this day, but then swap for something else tomorrow? We already know (at least I think we know) that all classes will have at-will, per-encounter and per-day abilities.

One model I'd like to see is that a standard wizard has 3 silos: offensive, defensive and utility. A first-level wizard would fill each silo with 1 spell. Each spell gives three types of uses, an at-will, a per-encounter and a per-day. If you expend the per-encounter, you cannot use the spell at all (even the at-will use) for the rest of the encounter. Similarly, if you expend the per-day, the spell is completely expended.

An example could be a fire spell that allows you to do a touch attack for 1d3 fire damage at will, or a ranged touch attack for 1d4/2 levels per-encounter, or an area-effect for 1d4/2 levels per day.

I would also like it if a wizard could "specialize" by swapping his silos as character creation. So I could have a war wizard with 2 offensive silos, 1 defensive, no utility. Or perhaps a crazy-mad destructo wizard with just 3 offensive silos.

What do you think? Likely?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think I'm already very very angry with the term "silo" and wish that particular piece of jargon would go forever.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I would also like it if a wizard could "specialize" by swapping his silos as character creation. So I could have a war wizard with 2 offensive silos, 1 defensive, no utility. Or perhaps a crazy-mad destructo wizard with just 3 offensive silos.

The whole point of silos was to avoid that.

 

[Oldtimer]

I think I'm already very very angry with the term "silo" and wish that particular piece of jargon would go forever.

I agree wholeheartedly. The game doesn't need more jargon.

 

[GreatLemur]

Okay, I missed the 4e update where somebody talked about "silos". I think I get the idea, but could someone point me to the source?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I got the impression that the word 'silo' won't be used in the rulebooks, it was just a term a designer used to describe separation of abilities into groups where you get to pick one ability from each group.

 

[breschau]

So, the new edition will definitely have something called "siloing" for magic casters. The idea being that a wizard, for example, would have groups of spells and spell-like abilities that he memorizes for at the beginning of the day and must follow whatever restrictions each of his "silos" places on spells available to fill them. I assume that sorceror would be similar, but fill the silos at will from his very limited number of spells or spell-like abilities known.

What do you think the odds are that ALL classes will have silo abilities? Fighter abilities that you pick this day, but then swap for something else tomorrow? We already know (at least I think we know) that all classes will have at-will, per-encounter and per-day abilities.

One model I'd like to see is that a standard wizard has 3 silos: offensive, defensive and utility. A first-level wizard would fill each silo with 1 spell. Each spell gives three types of uses, an at-will, a per-encounter and a per-day. If you expend the per-encounter, you cannot use the spell at all (even the at-will use) for the rest of the encounter. Similarly, if you expend the per-day, the spell is completely expended.

An example could be a fire spell that allows you to do a touch attack for 1d3 fire damage at will, or a ranged touch attack for 1d4/2 levels per-encounter, or an area-effect for 1d4/2 levels per day.

I would also like it if a wizard could "specialize" by swapping his silos as character creation. So I could have a war wizard with 2 offensive silos, 1 defensive, no utility. Or perhaps a crazy-mad destructo wizard with just 3 offensive silos.

What do you think? Likely?

I thought that was the very kind of Vancian thing they were trying to avoid by changing the spell system. Lumping per/day memorization onto the other classes would be a monumental leap in the wrong direction. It's more likely a port over of the Saga Force system, where you simply know the powers but can only use them per/encounter, you don't forget and you don't have to re-train every day.

If you went that route, you would just change the "oh, well, the wizards out of spells, let's camp" mentality to a "oh, well, the fighter picked lame maneuvers, let's camp."

 

[Abstraction]

The whole point of silos was to avoid that.

Well, it would nuts to only pick offensive capabilities. No mage armor, no teleport, no dispel magic?

 

[Cadfan]

I agree wholeheartedly. The game doesn't need more jargon.

I think its safe to say that the meaning and origin of "silo" will be about as important to understand as the meaning and origin of "Vancian."

Well, it would nuts to only pick offensive capabilities. No mage armor, no teleport, no dispel magic?

Its nuts, but people will do it. Or at least they'll do it partially.

Skill points are a (partially) siloed ability. They work out of combat, feats work in. Mostly. If there was a rule that let you exchange 10 skill points for a feat, what do you think the effect would be on the game? My guess is that certain players I know would suddenly have skill-less barbarians and sorcerors.

 

[Wormwood]

My guess is that certain players I know would suddenly have skill-less barbarians and sorcerors.

Dude, I'd play a skill-less Rogue in about two seconds flat.