New Rule of Three 11/29/11

[Wednesday Boy]

I thought the "Personal Preference" alert at the end about the Delay action was pretty interesting. I've personally never had immersion broken due to it and there are times when I'm glad they have it instead of just the Ready action. But I don't think I'd be upset if it disappeared in the future.

 

[Dire Bare]

I utterly and emphatically disagree with this case. I'm searching my brains to think of one mythic wizard who fits the ideas of D&D wizards rather than loremasters and masters of cunning and deception backed by mostly mind-altering magic (i.e. bards) or evil cursing beings who had made pacts offering their soul in exchange for power (i.e. warlocks). In fact I'd go so far as to say that the wizard in any edition (except 3e Batman Style) plays more or less like its mechanical inspiration; mobile field artillery for a fantasy skirmish wargame.

For the record, Merlin literally was a bard - and far more known for cunning and skill than for fireball. And Gandalf? Who met the balrog sword to sword and was known for the breadth of his knowledge and the cunning of his tongue rather than any flashy magic? Show me the D&D wizard that behaves that way - rather than the average bard.

We've had gamist class design in D&D right from the beginning. And in many cases it's helped.

(So I agree with your overall point even if I emphatically disagree with the detail).

I think you're overanalyzing it. Everybody, and I mean everybody, knows what a wizard is. It's an old, wise, mysterious person who casts magic spells. The D&D wizard takes that archetype and designs a class to support it, it does not design a "mobile artillery" class and then decide after the fact to assign "wizard" to it. And while the D&D wizard certainly has "mobile artillery" spells, the classic D&D wizard can also cast a much wider variety of spells than that.

Ask anyone on the street, even a fantasy fan, what a "seeker" is, or an "ardent", and you're likely to get blank stares. These archetypes began with class mechanics based on role/power source and then got a name and backstory added later (or so I assume).

 

[Jhaelen]

I think you're overanalyzing it. Everybody, and I mean everybody, knows what a wizard is. It's an old, wise, mysterious person who casts magic spells. The D&D wizard takes that archetype and designs a class to support it, it does not design a "mobile artillery" class and then decide after the fact to assign "wizard" to it.

Mhm. I don't know. I think you're putting too much emphasis on names.

The D&D wizard has been called magic-user or mage in previous editions. There's lots of other denominations that are typically used synonymously but describe different archetypes in D&D: sorcerer, incanter, enchanter, witch, warlock, necromancer, etc.

Just because the name given to a class doesn't trigger the 'correct' archetype in yout typical random person on the street doesn't mean it's not a valid archetype, particularly for an rpg.

Take the paladin for example: from someone not interested in fantasy stuff you'll probably get blank stares. Give it a different name, say knight, and they'll get an idea what it's about.

As long as you can find a bunch of (more or less well-known) characters in literature, movies, etc. to serve as examples for the 'archetype' it's fine to design a class around it, imho.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If they needed the "arcane defender" role/power source in order to come up with the swordmage, they're either severely lacking in imagination or haven't been playing D&D long, seeing as how that's a character concept that dates back to at least BD&D.

As an addendum, if they thought of "arcane defender," and figured it would look like the swordmage, they somehow lacked the imagination to see things like the abjurer builds that have been floating around, or the knowledge of how spellcasters defended allies in the game before.

Not to knock it too hard, of course -- swordmages came along early in the game, and they're abilities mesh with the powers system a lot more closely than martial dailies.

I don't think it's always a bad idea to have a class inspired from the intersection of role and power source. I DO think that such design necessarily draws inspiration from a mechanical place that centers on combat: how does an X look in their fights? This is because combat role is half the design of these classes.

I think that's part of the origin of the problem of 500 unique powers for every unique class, and has helped 4e gain many more classes than it needs, and many more classes that don't fit any reasonable narrative archetype -- just a mechanical hole.

Of course, you can do it right, too. Nothing about drawing inspiration from there means you have to end up with something lifeless like the Battlemind. But I think it's a point in favor of reducing the necessity of each class to have one and only one role. You don't need an entire class to be the "psionic defender" if, say, there was a "Psion" class that could occupy all the roles (just not all at once).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think you're overanalyzing it. Everybody, and I mean everybody, knows what a wizard is. It's an old, wise, mysterious person who casts magic spells.

Except that the only one of those to apply to D&D wizards is "can cast magic spells". Old? Not necessarily. Wise? Look to the cleric. Wizards can dump Wis. And don't have many skills in any edition. Mysterious? Not if they load up on evocation (as many do, especially in earlier editions). The rogue tends to be more mysterious.

And in just about every way with the arguable exception of age, a bard fits the classic wizard mould better than a wizard. Mysterious? Charisma is important. Wise? Possibly - certainly knowledgeable. Casts spells? Yup.

The D&D wizard takes that archetype and designs a class to support it, it does not design a "mobile artillery" class and then decide after the fact to assign "wizard" to it.

According to the first hand accounts I've read they wanted mobile artillery at Lake Geneva for their fantasy skirmish rolling game and decided that wizard fitted the bill. In exactly the same way the origins of the Cleric are Vampire Hunter when someone's Vampire character got too powerful. The wizard started life as mobile artillery and expanded from there.

 

[Plane Sailing]

According to the first hand accounts I've read they wanted mobile artillery at Lake Geneva for their fantasy skirmish rolling game and decided that wizard fitted the bill. In exactly the same way the origins of the Cleric are Vampire Hunter when someone's Vampire character got too powerful. The wizard started life as mobile artillery and expanded from there.

I see far too many people say that OD&D was just a minatures wargame with extra rules, or "It needed Chainmail miniatures rules for combat". All false. I remember OD&D well, I started playing in 1975. (I know you are not saying those specific things, but it is in the same ballpark)

There were plenty of fantasy wargames (or fantasy supplements for wargames) around before that time, and most of those certainly used wizards as magical artillery. However, that isn't why D&D has wizards. D&D has wizards because they are a classic fantasy trope.

Regards,

 

[Dire Bare]

Mhm. I don't know. I think you're putting too much emphasis on names.

The D&D wizard has been called magic-user or mage in previous editions. There's lots of other denominations that are typically used synonymously but describe different archetypes in D&D: sorcerer, incanter, enchanter, witch, warlock, necromancer, etc.

Just because the name given to a class doesn't trigger the 'correct' archetype in yout typical random person on the street doesn't mean it's not a valid archetype, particularly for an rpg.

Take the paladin for example: from someone not interested in fantasy stuff you'll probably get blank stares. Give it a different name, say knight, and they'll get an idea what it's about.

As long as you can find a bunch of (more or less well-known) characters in literature, movies, etc. to serve as examples for the 'archetype' it's fine to design a class around it, imho.

Except that the only one of those to apply to D&D wizards is "can cast magic spells". Old? Not necessarily. Wise? Look to the cleric. Wizards can dump Wis. And don't have many skills in any edition. Mysterious? Not if they load up on evocation (as many do, especially in earlier editions). The rogue tends to be more mysterious.

And in just about every way with the arguable exception of age, a bard fits the classic wizard mould better than a wizard. Mysterious? Charisma is important. Wise? Possibly - certainly knowledgeable. Casts spells? Yup.

I still think you guys are overthinking what I'm saying . . . or, more likely, I'm not communicating my point very well.

"Wizard" = classic literary and mythic archetype, "Seeker" =/ classic archetype. That's it.

Not saying that the seeker was a bad idea for a class or that the D&D expression of the wizard perfectly aligns with the mythic trope. Of course it doesn't. And yes, words like wizard, sorcerer, mage, necromancer, and warlock all overlap and circle the same mythic archetype (mostly).

When designing any edition of the game, did the designers create some sort of "mobile artillery" class and then wonder what to call it? I highly doubt it. They took the classic archetype of the wizard, and then wondered how to make it work in the D&D game. Archetype first, mechanics second.

The seeker worked the opposite way (I assume). The designers created a mechanical concept they felt needed to be filled, Primal Controller, and then designed the new archetype around the mechanics. Mechanics first, archetype second.

I'm not even saying that one approach is better than the other, in fact, I think using both approaches at different times is just fine. I was responding to a poster who I felt was confusing the two different sources of inspiration, "fluff" vs "crunch" basically, with the swordmage class.

There were plenty of fantasy wargames (or fantasy supplements for wargames) around before that time, and most of those certainly used wizards as magical artillery. However, that isn't why D&D has wizards. D&D has wizards because they are a classic fantasy trope.

This is where I am coming from.

 

[Leatherhead]

This article reminds me of something I would have done from the get-go with power sources.

Introduce a list of "generic" power source pool powers. Basically, all martial classes are good at hitting things with weapons, and they all have similar flavored abilities despite their role.

In practice: You could pick one of your own class powers, or a generic power which would be slightly less powerful (think of a pick between a level 3 class power or a "level 1" generic power). That way you could have things like fighters using a decent ranged attack when the flying monsters come out, or a inspirational boost from the dashing party rogue, without having to delve into multiclassing. A nice little perk that doesn't truly compromise the roles of the classes (class features are a big source of role mechanics), allows for a bit of character shaping without requiring complex planning, and helps jell the power source together.

 

[pemerton]

I thought the "Personal Preference" alert at the end about the Delay action was pretty interesting. I've personally never had immersion broken due to it and there are times when I'm glad they have it instead of just the Ready action.

The players in my game rarely Ready actions - I mostly use it for my monsters - but they Delay all the time, in order to make sure that the various effects the different PCs are generating come about in the right sequence.

And I don't find it immersion-breaking at all - quite the opposite! The turn-by-turn nature of cyclic initiative is potentially immersion breaking, because of its stop-motion/freeze-frame character. (My group came into 4e from playing Rolemaster, which has a lot of variant initiative systems, most of which involve a continous count rather than turn-by-turn.) The Delay action, by permitting variation/modification of the freez-frame, actually supports immersion, by helping bridge the gap between turn-by-turn mechanics and continuous action in the gameworld.