Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Texicles" data-source="post: 6059971" data-attributes="member: 6694608">I appreciate the thought you've put into this, and I agree with your distaste for the "pipedream" variety of thread, because I remain excited for 5e. As for my notes, let me preface by saying that I like 4e (not to the exclusion of other editions), and that undoubtedly colors my views. I also use "cool" as a simplistic way of saying powerful, damaging, interesting, etc.I have no problem with giving Fighters "Maneuvers" and other non-casters "maneuvers." If casters are going to have access to At-Will spells (good imo), but keep their cool stuff Vancian, then non-casters should get cool, limited stuff too. Everyone wants their class to be at least a little interesting and balanced in the combat pillar. If you give casters, through at-wills, the magical equivalent to poking someone with a sword, while retaining their ability to do more impressive damage and/or feats (in the classic sense, not the RPG mechanic) with limited resource spells, then you have to compensate the Fighter or Rogue, who have always been able to poke someone with a sword. Big M, little m, as long as non-caster classes have a suitable list of things to choose from, call it whatever you like.I'm not a fan, however, of things like stealth and defuse device making your list for Rogues. This isn't a case of x or y should/shouldn't get z, as much as the kind of z that x or y gets. Vancian magic, as a game balance paradigm is applicable outside of comat. The Rogue's ability to stealth around, pick locks, disarm traps, etc., or the Fighter's ability to batter down doors with his face, are non-combat equivalents to poking someone with a sword. While the casters get cool toys like Telekinesis or Commune, a pure Rogue or Fighter will never get to do those sorts of things, so their less cool toys should have less limited use. I also have reservations about creating a dichotomy between spells and EDs because of the hybridy-type classes. Let's look at the Paladin as an example. Ostensibly, the Paladin will have some spells/channels/whatevers and a weapon with which to wade into the fray. The importance of each of these distinct aspects of the class can vary, but I don't think anyone would argue that Paladins get to do a little of both reasonably well. I think things like Glancing Blow (not unreasonable for a Paladin to have) and Lay on Hands are disparate enough concepts that the mechanics by which we allow/limit them should be different.I'll also weigh in on the power sources thing. I think DEFCON 1 has the right of things insofar as things (especially the term "arcane") are pretty arbitrary as they sit, and calling all magic "magic" is a viable solution. It lacks flavor, but leaves a lot of room or DMs/players to make their own fluff. Another option might be to expand the arbitrary nomenclature while doing away with anything other than the fluff. It's still arbitrary, but gives DMs/Players a slightly better jumping off point for their own ideas. Say, for example, in the class description for Druids, say that they use "Natural Magic" and leave it at that. Then in some other chapter, you describe what "Natural," "Psionic," "Bardic," "Elemental," etc. magic generally fluffs like. If a table wants to ignore it, they can. If they want to expand it to be a limitation, like don't do x or you'll lose your powers, they can. Anything in between is also acceptable.</blockquote>

Verification