Non-Core Class Survivor: Round 16

[Victim]

Spell slots require one to learn: a) What sorts of things could be done, in general, by the class. b) What sorts of things you will pick out of that large list to be the things that you, specifically can do (perhaps for that day, perhaps for the level of power you have, and perhaps a combination of the two). c) How much of each "Resource Level" you have left, at any given time, before you can "Recharge".

Spell Point systems still require you to learn these three things, but b is simplified (since you don't have a diversity between what you can do at that level and what you can do that day, like you would with a Wizard, for example).

Warlock systems don't require you to learn the third one at all, and the second one is extremely simplified.

Hence, in increasing order of simplicity, we would have something like: Wizard, Cleric, Sorceror, Psion, Warlock.

Whether you like the latter classes or not, they are simpler, because there is less information that one has to learn, and less information one has to keep straight in one's head or on one's character sheet.

I disagree about the simplicity of spellpoints. They're far more loosely constrained than slots, so useage considerations have to consider the entire spectrum of a character's powers. The sorcerer casting a 9th level spell loses the ability to cast any one of his other spells. The sorcerer casting a 1st level spell loses the ability to cast another 1st level spell or a 0th level spell. On the other hand, the cost the psion pays is more complex. Spending 17 PP costs him another 9th level power, or 17 1st level ones, or 2 3rds and a 4th, etc. Manifesting a 1st level power may or may not impact his ability to throw another 9th level power.

In addition, the multitude of augmentation options introduce another layer of complexity.

 

[Particle_Man]

I disagree about the simplicity of spellpoints. They're far more loosely constrained than slots, so useage considerations have to consider the entire spectrum of a character's powers. The sorcerer casting a 9th level spell loses the ability to cast any one of his other spells. The sorcerer casting a 1st level spell loses the ability to cast another 1st level spell or a 0th level spell. On the other hand, the cost the psion pays is more complex. Spending 17 PP costs him another 9th level power, or 17 1st level ones, or 2 3rds and a 4th, etc. Manifesting a 1st level power may or may not impact his ability to throw another 9th level power.

In addition, the multitude of augmentation options introduce another layer of complexity.

I disagree, but this may be because of where we see "complexity" lying.

The high level wizard has, effectively, 10 boxes into which "spells" go from his spell book for the day. Thus one has to keep track of 10 different resource categories.

The Psion has, effectively, 1 box into which Powers go. It is a bigger box than any of the 10 boxes of the wizard, admittedly, but I would rather keep track of the one big box, especially if I have my "favourite" 2 or 3 combat powers for a particular combat (or perhaps for all combats) in that box, and will likely just use them again and again for that combat, thus not having to worry about the utilitarian powers at that time (similarly, at non-combat times I don't have to worry about the combat powers, and would likely have my favourite 2-3 powers for a particular situation (talking, getting past an obstacle, impressing the yokels, sneaking, etc.).

Augmentation isn't that complex, since it basically is "Power X souped up". Since no Psion will have all powers, and since some powers don't even get augmentation, that means that there is a small amount of powers a Psion has that even have augmentation. Most augmentations amount to "more damage" or "higher save DC" which is not hard to keep track of, for me at least. Also, in combat, if it is against the BBEG, then augmentation becomes easy since you "max out" (and pray that it is enough). Against minor opponents augmentation is also easy since you just don't augment. So while augmentation adds some complexity, I would say not too much.

If you present a brand-new player with either a spell-point system or a spell-slot system, I would submit that they would adapt more easily to the spell-point system. One resource pool to keep track of instead of 10.

And of course, the Warlock wins hands-down for simplicity. No resource pools to worry about! A mere handful of invocations to keep track of! None of the augmentation-complexity that the Psion might have. In fact, it is likely the only bad-guy NPC spellcaster I will ever use in high-level D&D games. Life is too short.

 

[Thanee]

If you present a brand-new player with either a spell-point system or a spell-slot system, I would submit that they would adapt more easily to the spell-point system. One resource pool to keep track of instead of 10.

While I wouldn't bet on it, I would actually guess the opposite... that the spell slots are easier to start out with. Sure it's 10 different levels, but effectively they are all the same thing, and you begin with only 2, anyways. But it's hard to say without being able to look at it through the eyes of someone not familiar with the concepts.

However, there certainly are very little beginner questions about the spell slots, so they can't really be problematic or anything.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Cith]

Spell points, spell slots, they BOTH work, and do so fine, side by side. Even warlocks' use-at-will point&slot free setup works. D20/D&D is a wonderfully flexible system, thankfully. Variety is a good thing. Really.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm kickin' the scout.

Because while it's a better ranger than the ranger, it's core mechanic is one that forces it to move and attack in the same turn. As someone who doesn't use minis or a battle grid, it's a hassle to deal with the guy's positioning every turn. Friggin' annoying mechanic.

 

[Barak]

I don't really get the "step-stab" criticism given to the scout. By that token, the barbarian is a "rowr-charge-hack-hack-hack" class, then?

So.. They've found a way to make a class that works better by moving on the battlefield, foregoing extra attacks for one possibly big payoff. Why exactly is that a bad thing, again?

 

[Jdvn1]

Voting almost seems pointless...

 

[Brian Gibbons]

Spell slots require one to learn: a) What sorts of things could be done, in general, by the class. b) What sorts of things you will pick out of that large list to be the things that you, specifically can do (perhaps for that day, perhaps for the level of power you have, and perhaps a combination of the two). c) How much of each "Resource Level" you have left, at any given time, before you can "Recharge".

Spell Point systems still require you to learn these three things, but b is simplified (since you don't have a diversity between what you can do at that level and what you can do that day, like you would with a Wizard, for example).

I could not disagree with this more.

Spell Point systems still require as much knowledge of what abilities you can use and as many careful choices about which ones you will actually use. The difference is that a Spell Slot system requires you to make many of those choices at the beginning of a day (often right at the beginning of a gaming session or even in advance), whereas a Spell Point system requires you to make those choices in the middle of combat, and again each and every round of combat.

Hence, in increasing order of simplicity, we would have something like: Wizard, Cleric, Sorceror, Psion, Warlock.

I would not argue about a Psion being more customizable and adaptable than any of the other cited classes due to the plethora of options, but it seems rather far-fetched to say that it's easier for a player to learn how to play a Psion than a Sorcerer.

Of the spell-casting classes listed, the Psion would be the last option I would give to a new player, since the wealth of options is likely to overwhelm them and paralyze the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

don't really get the "step-stab" criticism given to the scout. By that token, the barbarian is a "rowr-charge-hack-hack-hack" class, then?

So.. They've found a way to make a class that works better by moving on the battlefield, foregoing extra attacks for one possibly big payoff. Why exactly is that a bad thing, again

Moving complicates things by a bunch. Extra attacks don't really add much anyway, so forgoing them for a big payoff is something that almost any smart warrior with the available rescources should do. "Hmmm, I can attack again at -5 or deal +3 damage." Doesn't take a wizard to figure that one out.

Moving introduces the wonderful world of attacks of opportunity, combat reflexes, mobility, spring attack, exact positioning, whether jumping counts, whether falling counts, rough terrain, 5' steps for larger or smaller creatures, reach weapons, flanking, and terrain barriers. All of which is a MAJOR hassle if you're not one of those people who cares for minis or a battlemap.

Plus, the concept is slightly askew. You gain extra damage from momentum? And how does that fit into the role of someone who moves ahead quietly to see if there is any danger? And why doesn't the Barbarian gain MORE damage from his momentum?

I mean, it sounds cool. "Yay, mobile fighter!" It is awkward and rather nonsensical, though. At the very least, the class probably warrants a name change, to something like "Skirmisher" or whatever.

 

[Victim]

I don't really get the "step-stab" criticism given to the scout. By that token, the barbarian is a "rowr-charge-hack-hack-hack" class, then?

So.. They've found a way to make a class that works better by moving on the battlefield, foregoing extra attacks for one possibly big payoff. Why exactly is that a bad thing, again?

Well, it makes no sense.

Once secondary attacks are available, Skirmishing still isn't as good as full attacks for damage, so their main class feature doesn't help that much. And a barbarian with Spring Attack does melee skirmishing better anyway.

So the class is basically flitting around at the edge of a battle shooting ineffectually. That's real worthwhile.