MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
He was being sarcastic, you know. And I wouldn't call a game complete and usable if you have to haggle with the DM over every single thing on your character sheet.
D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)
He was being sarcastic, you know. And I wouldn't call a game complete and usable if you have to haggle with the DM over every single thing on your character sheet.
It doesn't. Nobody said it did. But having to choose everything makes it less a game and more an instruction manual on how to write a game. "Flexibility" in itself isn't a win-all quality - indeed, it can be a massive flavour-drain; the ultimately flexible game is a blank notepad.
Not that anybody's even saying it'll look like that. We haven't seen any of these optional modules yet, or how they'll work, how prevalent they'll be, or how they'll interact with the game. We're talking about a hypothetical.
Tovec
Explorer
I wanted to say that I don't think there shouldn't be a default (meaning I do think there should) but I also think that other options need to be real, they need to be visible and they need to be easy to use. If those three aspects don't exist the "optional rules" may as well not exist at all.
Now, as far as this goes..
To you, KaiiLurker, I'm assuming that it is like if I assigned an essay, you need to know what the essay is on and what the rules are when it comes to marking it. These are important you can easily write the essay without knowing exactly what I'm looking for. Similarly, if I said you need to make your character you need to be able to do it without a lot of (unnecessarily) back and forth with me.
For Hussar and me (at least a little) it is that no one cares which program you use to write that essay on. The contents of the essay are important, just as the contents of a character are. But the program you use to write the essay is what we are talking about. That is the difference here. We are not talking about the contents of the essay or character we are talking about the mechanics used. The program you use to write it is what we care about here.
So, with that established it is like we have the following situation. You want to make a sorcerer or write an essay. Without specification you want to be able to use MSword. That is fine too, as I probably use MSword to read the essay. Hussar is saying he doesn't like MSword and the only defense you are giving him is that everyone who likes simplicity MUST like MSword.
That isn't really important. What is important is that most of the time you can use MSword and assume I use MSword and everyone is good. However there is a problem. If I don't like or want to use MSword. I may demand that you submit the essay using wordperfect. Or I may run my course with the general understanding that I only accept wordperfect.
That is a new dynamic, and perfectly acceptable. It is even easy, because when you are writing your essay you know to write it in wordperfect. Note that no one is saying the context of the essay doesn't matter, we're saying the program/mechanics doesn't matter for the context of this discussion.
The difference here is key, suppose that I have specified that I only use wordperfect and then you approach me and tell me you prefer not to use wordperfect. Maybe you want (this one time as an exception) to use MSword. Maybe I'll find that acceptable and maybe I won't. That is what is at stake, the ability to approach at all. I can accept the validity of using MSword (for whatever reason you dislike wordperfect). Or maybe I can give an alternative that isn't wordperfect but isn't MSword either. That should be an option too.
It should be a real option. Previous systems that have tried something akin to this via "optional rules" provide very small, limited and hardly universal options at all. Meaning the conversion process is too hard to implement properly far too often.
Should there be a default? Yes. There almost certainly will be anyway. Should the setting's default be specified by WotC? Absolutely not. It should be defined by DMs or groups as a whole. Should individual players be entitled to play something different? Probably, but again that should be on a case by case basis more than an absolute right of the player.
The only real argument I see over and over from you KaiiLurker is that it would be easier to have a default. The arguments I see from Hussar are more compelling as it should in theory allow every campaign to have a default type with individual players possibly* (*I would argue if done correctly that this becomes Probably) play the exact system they want.
And above all, changing from MSword to wordperfect doesn't effect the contents of the character or essay, though it may affect the formatting.
After thought: Oh and all of this is equally true about HP (systems) too by the way.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Well, I don't think the analogy you use is appropriate, as it assumes a mechanic-flavor dissociation, something that has proven to be a bigger point of contention than vancian magic, many of us don't like dissociated mechanics, or at least not on D&D, (now having a default doesn't necessarily imply that mechanics are associated, but it is needed for it to happen, and like I keep saying, it isn't just any default but a good and simple default what I'm asking for).
Now I agree that options need to be viable, of course they need to be visible, highlighted, easy to use and balanced (but seriously I doubt the last one is possible without a heavy rewrite of each class and no modular mechanic swap will beat the value of a simple and integrated default).
I'm asking for something like this:
All Caps, bold type red font general warning at the start of class chapter about how the defaults are there for convenience and can be changed at your DM's initiative or how you can shift to something less simple with your DM's approval.
Sorcerer.
- general description
- start up proficiencies
- Bloodlines/power sources
- Default casting Mechanic
- general description
- start up proficiencies
- pacts
- Default casting Mechanic
- general description
- start up proficiencies
- Traditions
- Go to casting mechanics in magic chapter
Magic chapter
- Magic Overview
- Casting mechanic 1
- Casting mechanic 2
- Casting mechanic 3
- How to swap casting mechanics for non-wizards (including charts and stuff)
What you want is this:
Sorcerer.
- general description
- start up proficiencies
- Bloodlines/power sources
- Esoteric text saying how to use the casting mechanics at the magic chapter
- general description
- start up proficiencies
- pacts
- Esoteric text saying how to use the casting mechanics at the magic chapter
- general description
- start up proficiencies
- Traditions
- Esoteric text saying how to use the casting mechanics at the magic chapter
Magic chapter
- Magic Overview
- How to use the esoteric text on class chapters to apply casting mechanics
- Casting mechanic 1
- Casting mechanic 2
- Casting mechanic 3
Your idea saves a little work for people wanting to go into unnusual at the expense of everyone else, what I want saves a lo of work to almost everybody but those who really have/must/want/die for/need to do otherwise. Again Wotc shouldn't punish people wantng simple to catter to people wanting complex.
Edit: And without a solid default, the game will see little online play, and it has to be pretty damn good to convince my friends to switch from our current houserulled system.
Last edited:
Tovec
Explorer
Right, and point me to where I'm saying we shouldn't have a default, or where I'm saying that a default shouldn't be simple.
On the other hand, I AM saying that if options exist they need to be presented equally. Something that an "optional" or "go to back of the book to get X" system will not do. They will eternally be the default sorcerer is X and if you bug your DM you can play Y or Z. Nearly all "optional" rules work like this. That is why it can't be optional if it is going to work. It has to be standard and default, at least as directed by DMs/groups as a whole. It needs to be more like specialized wizards (in 3.5) than wounds(WP, again 3.5 afiak).
I am saying that they need to be EASY to swap in, or replace. You doubt this is possible. I doubt it is possible by your definition but I have seen it done. Though possibly not to the extent you are thinking. That is like saying any system of getting ability scores except rolling 3d6 six times can't work, as a default. There are many and they are varied. They all fall in the 3-18 range and thus work fine. They won't have the same outcome as 3d6 six times, but they aren't expected to. You seem to think they need to be balanced as 3d6 six times in order to be valid. 3d6 six times is surely easier, but defaulting that level of easy doesn't make practical sense as the default. And the game shouldn't by default assume you are following that baseline.
And I'm saying that if those options remain "options/at the back of the book" that they will not be fully developed. If the game assumes you to only have daily slots then it will be immediately broken when you are capable of casting a spell more than once a day. If the game assumes AEDU then you may be completely screwed by having daily slots. It cuts both ways. The big issue here is when the game is DEVELOPED without considering other options. The game is free to do that. But as previously mentioned (I forget who exactly said it) there are hundreds (thousands?) of wizard spells. There are six pages (I think they said, haven't confirmed it or anything) of warlock invocations. That is a problem. It means the warlock is undervalued and inherently weaker - assuming it starts out as powerful as the wizard.
You addressed none of these issues. You merely reiterated why you want a default to be easy and simple, and then incorrectly stated what I wanted.
Again, that lesser extent I was talking about.
Wizards use arcane spells with a given specificity. Sorcerers use the same spells, ostensibly all the "daily" spellcasters do too. The spells are limited by who is able to cast them, but that limit is artificial. I suppose you can argue this point but I don't understand why you would.
Anyway, all the spellcasters use basically the same list. Though they all cast spells differently. How would that be any different for 5e?
Assume that the fireball spell comes listed as
[h=4]Evocation [Fire][/h]
| Level: | Sor/Wiz 3 |
| Components: | V, S, M |
| Casting Time: | 1 standard action |
| Range: | Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level) |
| Area: | 20-ft.-radius spread |
| Duration: | Instantaneous |
| Saving Throw: | Reflex half |
| Spell Resistance: | Yes |
Level : [Version 1]/[Version 4] 3, [Version 2] (lvl4), [Version 3] (lvl 1)
Wow, oh my god, the changes are so dramatic. You were right.[/sarcasm]
The range can remain Long. The effects can remain the same. The duration, saving throw, spell resistance, the bulk (if not all) of the text below the spell all remain unchanged. The DC might change. But that would be covered in the minor conversion table required for the spell. Components too could theoretically be dependent on the mechanics, though I doubt they will be affected greatly.
Basically nothing changes by altering which mechanic is used, you still look up your spells in the spells section of the book. The only thing that changes is HOW you cast them that day, which remains unchanged from day to day. And if done correctly it should be able to seamlessly change from vancian to AEDU if the DM changes.
Why is it only wizards have a "go to casting mechanics chapter", thing? I find that a little odd. Sorcerers and Warlocks deserve to be simple but you gotta work at it if you want to be a wizard. I guess that is part of the love of "complex" casters right? Because no one could love wizards and not love going out of their way..?
Actually, no it isn't [my idea] - not to nitpick.
Mine is more like yours, with a default and all. But with sidebars of some type right in the class description saying how to convert that system into another one. Or maybe leaving all the casting mechanics parts of the class descriptions blank, with a note referring to a minor section at the end of the class section which gives all information. Put in a completely different chapter if only absolutely necessary. Even then I don't expect these conversions or entire descriptions to take too much room either way, so it will be a small chapter.
Again, I expect this conversion process to be easy, if it is not easy it is not doing its job. I don't want anyone to be inconvenienced. Or rather for everyone to be slightly and EQUALLY inconvenienced if it comes to it.
But ideally, right in the class description, probably as a minor box at the bottom or something. Don't like X? Try Y or even Z. X still works well? Try Y or Z next time and compare the differences. Something like that, like I said - more specialist wizard, less wizards use psionics (pp).
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Well, TBH it was more aimed at what Hussar claims to want: no class has default casting mechanics listed inside the class description, at most a suggestion, everybody goes to magic chapter to see how to cast spells. (In other words zero class-mechanics integration). The part on my propossal about wizards not having a default castign mechanic was a concession on what Hussar argues (and it kinda sounds like a good point), that having a default mechanic (vancian) on wizards will alienate a significant number of players and that given the unity approach, Wotc is better off by not taking a side as a "winning side". I have said earlier that it is probably ok, for wizards, that they better leave the other caster classes alone or at least give alternatives on a way that doesn't disrupt the simpler defaults sorcerer and warlock players have come to expect, because I have yet to know of any sorcerer player that really craves to fire-and-forget spells or a warlock player doesn't want at-will abilities.
Anyway my propposal wasn't out of lack of love for wizards, but actually the opposite: "You don't get a default mechanic to cast spells, but rather you get so many to chose from that they ocupy a chapter of their own, and it is explained how others can convert their default mechanic to be like one you can just plug and play" in other words every mechanic listed on the magic chapter would be a mechanic expressely made and balanced for wizards, then the rest of the chapter says how to modiffy numbers in order to jump from a mechanic to another for other classes (warlocks and sorcerers), though again I doubt any sorcerer player will ever bother as oppossed to a huge number of wizard players who are eager to switch between them, I bet only the most dedicated optimizers will ever think of meddling with it, DM's are better off by upfront banning sorcerers altogether than making them into something no sorcerer player will want to play and the rest of the sor players easilly fall into "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
I really wish you'd stop trying to speak for every sorcerer player out there, because you aren't. Why not just say it the way that you really mean... "DM's are better off by upfront banning sorcerers altogether than making them into something I won't want to play."
Hussar
Legend
Again, we're not talking about every single thing. We're talking about one pretty darn specific thing.
And, none of you seems to have a problem with variations on the casters. You just want the casters to have a set default and then a sidebar or something similar to allow variation. Me, I'd rather there be no default, but, at the end of the day, it's probably not going to make that much of a difference.
A point I would like to make though, having played almost exclusively online for almost ten years, I really, REALLY don't think that having defaults makes that much of a difference. I have played and DM'd a lot of online games, and, I have to admit to never having seen what KaiiLurker talks about. But, then again, I don't do PbP, so, maybe that's where I'm missing things.
But, in any VTT game, you always have a list of changes to fit with the given setting. Exactly the same as you have in a face to face game. I've never noticed a particular difference.
