Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Should bring back diverse spellcaster level design.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 8578247" data-attributes="member: 6796468"><p>[USER=59057]@UngeheuerLich[/USER], [USER=6794067]@Baron Opal II[/USER]</p><p>When you say "Fireball" is 3rd level and when you say "Fireball" is 2nd mystery it's still "Fireball". The column of numbers and also a chunk of what I read is meant to explain what they're losing out on is specific spell levels, but not -all- spell levels, and their spells when they increase level (from 2nd to 3rd at level 7 for example) are as strong as other casters at that level. 3rd level Mysteries -are- 4th level spells, and both Warlock and Wizard get them at 7th.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You're right that in 2e 7th circle Cleric spells weren't the same as 9th level Wizard spells in power. I feel like that was one of many (MANY) mistakes from early D&D.</p><p></p><p>But it's easier to maintain the spell-power parity but reduce spell-comprehensiveness. By cutting out a specific spell level you can put something in the class "As Strong" as that spell level, if that makes sense. But keeping the low levels and cutting the high levels means you have to replace the high end. Either following my example of pacing to give abilities at 5 and 13 which are meant to replace power gained at 15 and 17 (Unbalancing by being either too strong or not strong enough) or by backloading the class by giving them "Normal" spell progression early on, you need to grant them abilities at 15 and 17 (which a lot of characters will never see) in order to maintain parity.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's an issue, and one that people should be wary of. This, however, is not that. The intention is three-fold: </p><p>1) Make Wizards/Sorcerers the most comprehensive caster classes.</p><p>2) Create greater class fantasy in the other caster classes by taking away specific spell level gains to add in thematic abilities.</p><p>3) Help to foster a greater sense of difference between the spellcasting classes.</p><p></p><p>I like that you presume to know what I believe, here. That is really great for making sure that two people having a discussion are on equal footing and not at all off-putting.</p><p></p><p>Whether something is "Too Complex" is always going to be an arbitrary distinction applied to a system by an external observer. And it almost always comes from a lack of understanding of why something is complex to the degree that it is. In the rare event that it isn't based on lack of understanding the external observer can offer a simpler solution to attain the same goal.</p><p></p><p>For example, MMO designers who can critique each other's systems and craft a solution that is less complex.</p><p></p><p>If you think "These two classes have a similar progression in power that isn't exactly the same but they get a cool ability and we changed the name of how one of them does magic to show that difference exists" is too complex for the average new D&D player who also has to absorb that Warlocks and Wizards both get to cast spells but do so in wildly different progressions and recovery mechanics to the spellcaster that can also turn into a bear for no reason...</p><p></p><p>I think your expectations of new players might be a touch low.</p><p></p><p>This isn't crunchy, really. Way -less- Crunchy than Eldritch Invocations, at the very least.</p><p></p><p>It trades out a spell level in the class design for a class power equivalent to that spell level. The apparent complexity is, of course, a matter of understanding. </p><p></p><p>I'm glad I'm not wrong to want something.</p><p></p><p>Systems largely don't reach more fans or grow the base. Know what does? Advertising. Word of mouth. CelebriD&D.</p><p></p><p>You think the rules changes from 3.0 to 3.5 really made a huge difference in how the game was received between 2000 and 2003? You think Pathfinder in 2009 was such a super popular hit as to literally change the face of TTRPGs for the first time in literal decades by taking more than 3% of the pie for itself was because they had better systemization that made it -easier- for new players to join the hobby?</p><p></p><p>No. It had cool splashy art, an interesting world, it was advertised effectively, and it retained the core ideals of D&D 3.5 when 4e came out and shook things up.</p><p></p><p>Meanwhile 4e, which was basically a whole other game system, sold half again as many units in 2008 than 3e did back in 2000. Does that mean it's a better game and better received and it's systems design was better? </p><p></p><p>No. It got marketed to hell and back compared to 3e. They even did cutesy little animations like this:</p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]4UqFPujRZWo[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>And they spread those videos on Twitter and Facebook and any other platform they could get onto to increase word of mouth and engagement.</p><p></p><p>D&D is getting bigger for two reasons, and two reasons only.</p><p>1) Cultural Momentum.</p><p>2) Advertising.</p><p></p><p>Changing or adding systems does nothing to alter those two things unless you change the systems so -drastically- as to somehow undermine the cultural momentum.</p><p></p><p>Some of column A, some of column B. </p><p></p><p>Bear in mind, 5.5e is going to be something new that everyone, <em>including the brand new people who have to learn it</em>, has to learn. Whether that's a dozen small changes or a handful of large ones.</p><p></p><p>I like the accent you put on supplementation of the rules. Presents it as a house-rule type situation when it would, if followed through on the proposal, be a fundamental change that exists in the 5.5e rulebook.</p><p></p><p>Honestly, Ezekiel, if you're worried about change for change's sake or complexity for complexity's sake or whatever you need to go to WotC and complain to them for putting out a new edition or a revised edition. I'm just suggesting a cool thing they could put into that revised addition that would be nifty to have.</p><p></p><p>Here's hoping they don't streamline it so hard we get 4.5e.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Steampunkette, post: 8578247, member: 6796468"] [USER=59057]@UngeheuerLich[/USER], [USER=6794067]@Baron Opal II[/USER] When you say "Fireball" is 3rd level and when you say "Fireball" is 2nd mystery it's still "Fireball". The column of numbers and also a chunk of what I read is meant to explain what they're losing out on is specific spell levels, but not -all- spell levels, and their spells when they increase level (from 2nd to 3rd at level 7 for example) are as strong as other casters at that level. 3rd level Mysteries -are- 4th level spells, and both Warlock and Wizard get them at 7th. You're right that in 2e 7th circle Cleric spells weren't the same as 9th level Wizard spells in power. I feel like that was one of many (MANY) mistakes from early D&D. But it's easier to maintain the spell-power parity but reduce spell-comprehensiveness. By cutting out a specific spell level you can put something in the class "As Strong" as that spell level, if that makes sense. But keeping the low levels and cutting the high levels means you have to replace the high end. Either following my example of pacing to give abilities at 5 and 13 which are meant to replace power gained at 15 and 17 (Unbalancing by being either too strong or not strong enough) or by backloading the class by giving them "Normal" spell progression early on, you need to grant them abilities at 15 and 17 (which a lot of characters will never see) in order to maintain parity. It's an issue, and one that people should be wary of. This, however, is not that. The intention is three-fold: 1) Make Wizards/Sorcerers the most comprehensive caster classes. 2) Create greater class fantasy in the other caster classes by taking away specific spell level gains to add in thematic abilities. 3) Help to foster a greater sense of difference between the spellcasting classes. I like that you presume to know what I believe, here. That is really great for making sure that two people having a discussion are on equal footing and not at all off-putting. Whether something is "Too Complex" is always going to be an arbitrary distinction applied to a system by an external observer. And it almost always comes from a lack of understanding of why something is complex to the degree that it is. In the rare event that it isn't based on lack of understanding the external observer can offer a simpler solution to attain the same goal. For example, MMO designers who can critique each other's systems and craft a solution that is less complex. If you think "These two classes have a similar progression in power that isn't exactly the same but they get a cool ability and we changed the name of how one of them does magic to show that difference exists" is too complex for the average new D&D player who also has to absorb that Warlocks and Wizards both get to cast spells but do so in wildly different progressions and recovery mechanics to the spellcaster that can also turn into a bear for no reason... I think your expectations of new players might be a touch low. This isn't crunchy, really. Way -less- Crunchy than Eldritch Invocations, at the very least. It trades out a spell level in the class design for a class power equivalent to that spell level. The apparent complexity is, of course, a matter of understanding. I'm glad I'm not wrong to want something. Systems largely don't reach more fans or grow the base. Know what does? Advertising. Word of mouth. CelebriD&D. You think the rules changes from 3.0 to 3.5 really made a huge difference in how the game was received between 2000 and 2003? You think Pathfinder in 2009 was such a super popular hit as to literally change the face of TTRPGs for the first time in literal decades by taking more than 3% of the pie for itself was because they had better systemization that made it -easier- for new players to join the hobby? No. It had cool splashy art, an interesting world, it was advertised effectively, and it retained the core ideals of D&D 3.5 when 4e came out and shook things up. Meanwhile 4e, which was basically a whole other game system, sold half again as many units in 2008 than 3e did back in 2000. Does that mean it's a better game and better received and it's systems design was better? No. It got marketed to hell and back compared to 3e. They even did cutesy little animations like this: [MEDIA=youtube]4UqFPujRZWo[/MEDIA] And they spread those videos on Twitter and Facebook and any other platform they could get onto to increase word of mouth and engagement. D&D is getting bigger for two reasons, and two reasons only. 1) Cultural Momentum. 2) Advertising. Changing or adding systems does nothing to alter those two things unless you change the systems so -drastically- as to somehow undermine the cultural momentum. Some of column A, some of column B. Bear in mind, 5.5e is going to be something new that everyone, [I]including the brand new people who have to learn it[/I], has to learn. Whether that's a dozen small changes or a handful of large ones. I like the accent you put on supplementation of the rules. Presents it as a house-rule type situation when it would, if followed through on the proposal, be a fundamental change that exists in the 5.5e rulebook. Honestly, Ezekiel, if you're worried about change for change's sake or complexity for complexity's sake or whatever you need to go to WotC and complain to them for putting out a new edition or a revised edition. I'm just suggesting a cool thing they could put into that revised addition that would be nifty to have. Here's hoping they don't streamline it so hard we get 4.5e. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Should bring back diverse spellcaster level design.
Top