Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RealAlHazred" data-source="post: 6749918" data-attributes="member: 25818">Originally posted by rampant:I'm not assuming you're assuming that 24 is the standard and anything else is extra. I'm telling you that anything else is extra. Set the standard to whatever the hell you feel it should be, but make a standard. This whole bit where you leave it up to the DM, or random chance, or just the caprices of the game world to determine an important function of a class like how many powers/recipes it can learn is bad class design. It doens't matter how good or bad the numbers are when you compute the chances and statistics. If you're recall the bell curve concept for a moment you'll understand the problem a little better: Sure most artificers will be within that 1 standard deviation sweetspot where the number of extra powers you get/don't get aren't a huge anomaly. However that still leaves 30-40%, if I'm recalling correctly, out on the extreme ends, and that's assuming everyone has the exact same interpretation of the game's basic assumptions. Yes people can't muck with the rules too much and expect the game to not break, but there needs to be some wriggle room since not everyone is going to interpret things the exact same way especially since they saw fit to provide a price guide if you do wanna make magic items availiable for sale. What is so special about this idiotic wizard spell knowledge type system that people keep thinking it's not horribly horribly broken? Aside from it being less broken than Cleric casting, A spell book has no upper bound on what it can hold. Sure chances are miniscule this becomes a big deal, but at no point have I been able to find how many pages a spell takes up in the book, only a number of pages in the book, also even if there was such a thing, there;s nothign keeping either wizards or arties from getitng multiple books. I don't care how many throttles you do or don't have, throttles are the wrong tool for the job. Throttles need someone paying attention to them, running them up and down all the time, an external force controlling them. A well designed class will perform as designed without the DM checking it's vitals every session. I've DMd for 3e wizards and I hated it, always making sure I didn't drop too many scrolls, or not being able to use wizard enemies without developing insane defenses and contingencies on their spell books to keep the party wizard from dramatically increasing his spells known, or using a wizard with a similar spell list to ensure that the gains were minimal. One class's power/versatility should not vary that much. That's like fighters learning the maneuvers of each other fighter they kill, why do wizards and your artificer get to play Highlander the RPG? While the guys with swords get left out to earn their powers the normal way? No you haven't explained why I can't draw upon previous experience when it comes to your artificers and how they can get more spells known, I mentioned several examples that don't involve buying scrolls and are still functional under 5e rules. The only hting 5e doens't do in regards to this type of spell acquisition that 3e did is the whoel eeasy to buy scrolls thing, and honestly they both essentially leave it to the DM, there's just a bit of not-so-subtle encouragement to go one way over the other base dn the which edition you read. FOr example the two artificer party, each artificer can double theyr spells known by trading, nothing in 5e stops this, and it leads to a major boost of both of the artificers' personal versatility/power. Why is this acceptable to you? What makes you think that this is a good thing to enable? What are you actually trying to keep/preserve/accomplish with such a bloody awful and UNBALANCEABLE power acquisition system. Because yes it is unbalanceable, because it's either random or DM controlled, neither of which is a balanced class feature. </blockquote>

Verification