Spell Philosophy you would like to see

[boredgremlin]

No, what he's saying is you shouldn't try to sell a TV with a full suite of modern hookups and another with nothing but those two little screws in the back on the same shelf, for the same price.

Even more, you should not restrict some of your stores to selling only the antiques.

Nobody is talking about doing that. We're saying that you might not be able to use your favorite toy in every game.

Spells are tools, a good spell caster knows which tool to use in which situation. Thats part of the fun.

Saying "i cant charm a zombie, thats not fair I love charm, i should be able to use it on everything. I'm going home" is just ridiculous.

Its like the little block game that babies have. Your trying to stick your square charm peg in the zombies round hole. Half the point of the wizard is that he's the guy capable of looking down and saying.....

"gee this is a square, i need a round one. Fireball..... .thats nice and round for the zombies".

 

[Mattachine]

Some folks are, however, saying that they like categorical immunities in some cases.

"Zombies immune to charm" is not a categorical immunity, but "undead are immune to mind-affecting" is a categorical immunity, and it makes swaths of PCs no better than a hired man-at-arms, despite their abilities.

A robust spell system, one that avoids the conjuration-is-better-than-evocation and one that avoids categorical immunity weakness, is good enough for me.

 

[satori01]

Nobody is talking about doing that. We're saying that you might not be able to use your favorite toy in every game.
".

To not be able to use an ability might be a bit severe, to reduce the effectiveness of an ability, is a more balanced design. 3e DR was much better designwise than 1e blanket immunities (I.e." no piercing damage, you must have a +1weapon to even hurt this gargoyle").

1e encourages the golf bag method, which is fine but sometimes you want to play the Greatest Swordsman in the land and not switch weapons , which you could do in 3e. 1e you better have one of each type of weapon, especially if you get swallowed....not fun, if you want to play the dedicated exclusively to the sword fighter.

For Vancian spell casters like clerics and wizards it is even worse because you do not have the chance to grab a different spell from the golf bag. The "spell is a tool in the toolbox " philosophy of design encourages a generalist style of play and a devotion of resources to divination magic so correct spells can be selected.

That is fine and a fun way to play, but sometimes you want more, and nothing is worse than having the system deny you that more.

Again the point of "not every toy working" is flavor and interesting encounters...which can be better achieved by specific monster design than categorical nerfs.....there is no reason to regress in game design.

 

[boredgremlin]

To not be able to use an ability might be a bit severe, to reduce the effectiveness of an ability, is a more balanced design. 3e DR was much better designwise than 1e blanket immunities (I.e." no piercing damage, you must have a +1weapon to even hurt this gargoyle").

1e encourages the golf bag method, which is fine but sometimes you want to play the Greatest Swordsman in the land and not switch weapons , which you could do in 3e. 1e you better have one of each type of weapon, especially if you get swallowed....not fun, if you want to play the dedicated exclusively to the sword fighter.

For Vancian spell casters like clerics and wizards it is even worse because you do not have the chance to grab a different spell from the golf bag. The "spell is a tool in the toolbox " philosophy of design encourages a generalist style of play and a devotion of resources to divination magic so correct spells can be selected.

That is fine and a fun way to play, but sometimes you want more, and nothing is worse than having the system deny you that more.

Again the point of "not every toy working" is flavor and interesting encounters...which can be better achieved by specific monster design than categorical nerfs.....there is no reason to regress in game design.

I dont agree. casters always have more tools unless for some reason they specifically chose NOT to have more tools. Kind of a fighter who wants to be the best bare handed boxer and use that in combat without going monk levels. If your wizard absolutely must choose nothing but mind control then you have limited yourself because of a character flavor choice. In which case isnt dealing with the potential consequences part of that flavor?

LOL and i wouldnt call it regressing. I would call it reviving a classic.

 

[satori01]

If your wizard absolutely must choose nothing but mind control then you have limited yourself because of a character flavor choice. In which case isnt dealing with the potential consequences part of that flavor?

LOL and i wouldnt call it regressing. I would call it reviving a classic.

Not many people played a 1e Illusionist, because it was clearly inferior to the Magic User. It makes no sense to "revive a classic" that was under utilized even when the class was contemporary because it was sub-optimal. Humans have pretty good fairness/sub-optimal/non equitable small group detection skills...so why make a choice clearly sub-optimal that almost assuredly will be detected, when through other means...the shared goal of flavorful encounters ;where sometimes you may not be able to bring your 'A-game', is still achieved.

In the meantime I am going ' revive another classic" by putting on Norse Garb, grab a broadsword, and go a viking to a neighbors house and plunder beer and whatever other sundries I desire

 

[boredgremlin]

Not many people played a 1e Illusionist, because it was clearly inferior to the Magic User. It makes no sense to "revive a classic" that was under utilized even when the class was contemporary because it was sub-optimal. Humans have pretty good fairness/sub-optimal/non equitable small group detection skills...so why make a choice clearly sub-optimal that almost assuredly will be detected, when through other means...the shared goal of flavorful encounters ;where sometimes you may not be able to bring your 'A-game', is still achieved.

In the meantime I am going ' revive another classic" by putting on Norse Garb, grab a broadsword, and go a viking to a neighbors house and plunder beer and whatever other sundries I desire

Of course there is. EVERYONE doesnt have to like it. Just enough people have to like it. Theres a bunch of classes. Not everyone like to play every class. They dont have to for it to be a worthwhile addition.

LOL and who wouldnt want to go a viking if they could get away with it?