Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinak" data-source="post: 6049107" data-attributes="member: 6694112">Oh, absolutely not. No solution will please everyone. I just think that trying to please everyone might please the least of all.I wasn't around for that, but totally can see it happening <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm    :-S" data-shortname=":-S" />So, for four iterations, we had both fluff and mechanics set in concrete. And when they told people that fluff was variable and it went over like a lead balloon.It doesn't necessarily follow, though, that the mechanics should be variable. It's entirely possible that people want the classes to come as a connected package of fluff and mechanics.Anecdotally, that's what I want and I know several other gamers that have the same tastes. Obviously, I don't expect everyone to agree, but we're out there.This is something I actually disagree with you on.I think that clerics using Vancian casting is one of the dumbest things in D&D. I don't like Vancian casting, I find the flavor that you have to prep your divine interventions jarring, and it just gets clunkier with domain spells and spontaneous heals in 3rd.But there's a cleric in my current game. He's enjoying himself and rebuffed my none-too-subtle suggestions that I'd allow a spontaneous casting variant. I wouldn't play a Vancian cleric myself, but I don't want to take that away from everyone else.And, if I did run a game where the flavor went too counter to the world, I could just say "there are no clerics" rather than "clerics here do not use Vancian casting." One tells you something interesting about the world, implying setting, raising questions, and creating hooks you can build on. The other feels more like a nit-picky house rule than a flavorful part of the setting, at least to me.At the end of the day, I'd rather have a Vancian cleric and spontaneous oracle/favored soul (both with flavor tied to their mechanics). But I'd still rather just have the Vancian cleric like OD&D than have a cleric without a mechanical identity.I think there are a couple of other reasons to oppose that level of customization.Off the top of my head, I'm already not keen on the number of decision points in character creation. Adding more straws to the camel's back is just asking for trouble.It also creates some natural balance concerns. Does a spontaneous wizard balance with a spellpoint wizard and a Vancian wizard and an encounter wizard? If they print one overpowered first level spell, for example, does the spellpoint wizard suddenly rule the world? It's not my main concern, but it is valid.My biggest concern is that it restricts design space. Can you have cure light wounds in a game with encounter or expertise dice clerics? How many ways can a class interact with every spell system to show their flavor?  What do you do with any ability that turns out to be broken under one particular magic system but okay under the others?As I said above, I don't even like Vancian casting, but those are all good reasons why divorcing the wizard from a mechanical base will weaken the class.If you wanted to switch all wizards to spell points or spontaneous casting or encounter-refresh, I think you'd actually have a very valid point here.However, I'm not asking to like all of the classes. In fact, I'm perfectly comfortable hating most of the classes as long as somebody likes them. I'm just asking that the classes define a character's mechanical identity and how that identity relates to their flavor, just like they always have.Cheers!Kinak</blockquote>

Verification