D&D Next (5E) Updates, Pax East, and a Poll

[kitsune9]

I'm a fan of Vancian magic, but I'm always open to any new system if it's interesting.

 

[Ratskinner]

I voted "No, but make it an option."

My real answer would be more along the lines of "I don't care so long as its reasonable and flexible." I absolutely love the idea of including feats to gain "at-will" spells. I'd appreciate it if there's room for having casters that totally abandon the old system, which I always found contrived.

 

[jimmifett]

I personally hated vancian magic as presented in older editions. Thought it was an incredibly silly and arbitrary system limitation (like race/class restrictions in older editions)

If vancian MUST be part of the game , I don't mind a hybrid solution.
4e at-wills, 2/3/4 tiered number of school restricted encounters, ability score + lvl based number of vancian style prepared encounters, vancian style prepared level and abil score based dailies, and finally rituals.

Clerics shouldn't be doing vancian at all.

 

[Lwaxy]

In large part, because "choice" means the possibility the DM or the rest of the group wants to make a choice I didn't want. If I don't like Vancian magic, I'm going to be equally unhappy whether it's the only system, the default system my group chooses to use or one of a dozen alternative systems and my group chooses to use it.

So I then want a system which makes my preferred magic system the only choice, so those fools with different tastes don't select a system not to my liking.

So, then you make your own choice? Nothing says everyone in the group has to use the same style of magic, at least not if the GM is in any way flexible. If you define magic by the individuality of people, there can so many options to pick from. Just like the sorcerer and the wizard are now.

 

[Incenjucar]

Vancian casting is far too easy to tack on to a non-Vancian system to not provide it as an option. It would take all of an afternoon to design a Vancian variant for 4E. Most of the work would be checking up on the powers that let you regain or reuse other powers to make sure there isn't a huge exploit lurking somewhere.

 

[freeAgent]

I voted that yes, Vancian Magic should be core for those classes. That said, Paizo allows for casting unlimited Level 0/Cantrips. That prevents Wizards from ever having to dirty their hands with traditional weaponry if they desire. That seems like a good compromise to me.

 

[Yora]

If some people for inexplicable reasons want to play vancian spellcasters, they should do it. But please keep it out of my game!!!

 

[N'raac]

So, then you make your own choice? Nothing says everyone in the group has to use the same style of magic, at least not if the GM is in any way flexible. If you define magic by the individuality of people, there can so many options to pick from. Just like the sorcerer and the wizard are now.

If some people for inexplicable reasons want to play vancian spellcasters, they should do it. But please keep it out of my game!!!

Two counter viewpoints. Some gaming groups play a free for all structure, and that works fine for them. Others pick options and those are the options for the game as a whole, and that works fine for that group.

A lot depends on how modules are implemented. If they are structured to be campaign wide and mixing modules is not tested for balance, mix & match may be an issue.

It's interesting, though, that we suggest we ca just have each player choose their own style of magic. Let's assume we also have a module for the historical standard that armor and shield reduce your chances of being hit, and one for the common suggestion that it instead reduce the damage taken from a hit. Would we be OK with the Fighter deciding he prefers his armor absorb damage, but the Cleric deciding he prefers his armor to reduce the likelihood of being hit? Does the GM then pick separately for each opponent as well?

Finally, sometimes excessive flexibility runs counter to the tone/theme/feel of a specific campaign or setting. If this is an Arabian Nights setting, a heavily armored warrior is a poor fit. settings where certain magic styles work and others don't aren't really that hard to imagine.

A very common example across many editions - evil player characters.

 

[Alphastream]

Opening it up to only convention goers who must sign an NDA is not open; it's just a standard playtest.

Standard? I doubt anything about the current playtest has been standard, from the large numbers involved, to the approach/method, to the goals, to the way feedback is provided and used, and more I can't mention. On size alone there are very few companies, if any, that could have as large an initial playtest as Wizards has conducted.

It feels like WotC is trying to capitalize on the success of other company's playtests without actually doing the work of being open. I respect that they want feedback, but to call it open demeans the hard work of the companies who really did the work of doing open playtests and actively engaging their communities in a back and forth that produces a product that is connected with the fans.

Yes and no. Any of us would want to study what others have done before and build upon it. And it isn't that they are not being open. It is that they are starting early enough that the first playtests are testing things not yet ready for the actual open playtest to come later. That's a really important (and positive) difference. As others have said, the open playtest will happen - this isn't the open part.

 

[Primal]

I'm fine with that. Pathfinder does it. It works for wizards that have exhausted all their spells. I'm not fine with the encounters, at-wills and dailies etc.

Mike

I don't think you need to spend a feat in PF to do that; some schools automatically grant you an at-will attack power, but it's a limited resource (you can use it 3 + Int times per day). I guess those feats in D&DN most likely function like reserve feats from Complete Mage?