D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[Remathilis]

Me, I'm still baffled as to how saying that DM's should determine the baselines for their campaigns, and not WOTC, is somehow whiney player entitlement.

Because you said a while ago the DM doesn't determine that baseline, but the player's get to choose.

DM: All wizard's in my game are Vancian
Player: No! In the core book I get to choose a spell casting system as step 7 of chargen! I'm going use all encounter refresh magic!

If your advocating the DM has the right to say ALL WIZARDS VANCIAN and that the choice is up to him, we at least have that common ground. Then, we can argue whether WotC has a right to set a baseline as well.

 

[Hussar]

When its coupled with your other point of view, that players should get make whatever they want and DM's should just eat it and re-write everything to accommodate. Or not have any plan at all until they have a democratic pow wow and THEN start writing a campaign.

Both are equally ridiculous. I have a hard time separating them when it comes to your consistent, whiny, player entitlement rants.

Quote please? I never, ever said that. If you're going to start attributing things, at least take the time to read what's being written.

What I actually did say was that I didn't think WOTC should be the one to tell all D&D players that "This is the way you should play". Meh, I like to take ownership of my game.

-------

I look at it like this. Player comes to you (generic you, no one specific, just the DM) and says, "I want to play a wizard like Harry Potter". Not an unreasonable thing. Harry Potter's been around for more than 15 years. There's people in their late 20's now who grew up on the Potter books. And, to be fair, the flavor of a Harry Potter caster is D&D wizard. He belongs to a collegiate tradition, learned his magic from some form of master, studies magic and experiments, spends lots of time around dusty books. Sounds a lot like a traditional D&D wizard to me. Certainly doesn't sound like a Sorcerer (no innate magic) or a Warlock (no patron).

But, mechanically, it doesn't fit at all. The Harry Potterverse wizards are not Vancian casters. Closest fit would likely be an AEDU wizard, or a mana-point wizard. Either one would work fairly well.

Now according to TimASW, the player should shut up and not play the character he wants to play. By even bringing it to the table, he's a whiney, self-entitled git who just wants to munchkin his way through the game. I strongly disagree with this POV, obviously. But, just as strongly, others are saying that the default wizard MUST be Vancian. WOTC should also be telling this player that his concept is wrong. You cannot be, under default rules, what you want to be.

What I don't understand is why people want WOTC to do that. Hey, if the DM has a reason for this? Fine, no worries. The DM and the player can hash it out and come to some sort of understanding. No problems. But, why is having WOTC tell you what your game should look like a good thing? Why not break flavor (wizard=arcane researcher/sage/book guy in robes) from mechanics (Vancian/Spell Point/Whatever) and let the DM in conjunction with the player pick and choose.

I'd point something out here. This is exactly how clerics were done in 2e. Specialty priests were presented in EXACTLY this way. And generally, people point to 2e priests as the best version of clerics in D&D. Why not learn from the best?

 

[Sonny]

I may have gotten lost on the latest developments of D&D Next, but isn't the plan now to make the spell system customizible anyways? With all arcane classes able to switch out their default magic system for another type?

 

[drothgery]

I'd point something out here. This is exactly how clerics were done in 2e. Specialty priests were presented in EXACTLY this way. And generally, people point to 2e priests as the best version of clerics in D&D. Why not learn from the best?

Well, they were the best as in 'most interseting'. But there were, umm, huge power differences among different specialties and only the traditional healbot role kept people from noticing some of the roots of CoDzilla were there.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, they were the best as in 'most interseting'. But there were, umm, huge power differences among different specialties and only the traditional healbot role kept people from noticing some of the roots of CoDzilla were there.

Yeah, but that's just cause they didn't bother balancing them. It had nothing to do with the actual decision to make the mechanics in that way. There's absolutely no reason why you can't do both-- set the mechanics up so that you can easily insert the one you want into the class you want... *and* make each of those systems balanced against each other.

 

[drothgery]

Yeah, but that's just cause they didn't bother balancing them. It had nothing to do with the actual decision to make the mechanics in that way. There's absolutely no reason why you can't do both-- set the mechanics up so that you can easily insert the one you want into the class you want... *and* make each of those systems balanced against each other.

Sure there is; time and money (at least, if we want WotC to do it well). Each customization point doesn't just create a new set of options to playtest, it also creates a new set of interactions with every other customization point to playtest.

 

[Lanefan]

I look at it like this. Player comes to you (generic you, no one specific, just the DM) and says, "I want to play a wizard like Harry Potter". Not an unreasonable thing. Harry Potter's been around for more than 15 years. There's people in their late 20's now who grew up on the Potter books. And, to be fair, the flavor of a Harry Potter caster is D&D wizard. He belongs to a collegiate tradition, learned his magic from some form of master, studies magic and experiments, spends lots of time around dusty books. Sounds a lot like a traditional D&D wizard to me. Certainly doesn't sound like a Sorcerer (no innate magic)

Except Potterverse wizards do have innate magic, as opposed to Muggles who do not; but it needs to be harnessed and trained otherwise the wizard's spontaneous castings end up doing more harm than good. (some examples: Harry's spontaneous magic before he's ever heard of Hogwarts; also the stuff Tom Riddle does while in the orphanage before Dumbledore finds him)

Sorcerers-with-implements (wands) is a better summary of casters in that setting.

Lan-"expelliarmus!"-efan

 

[Hussar]

Except Potterverse wizards do have innate magic, as opposed to Muggles who do not; but it needs to be harnessed and trained otherwise the wizard's spontaneous castings end up doing more harm than good. (some examples: Harry's spontaneous magic before he's ever heard of Hogwarts; also the stuff Tom Riddle does while in the orphanage before Dumbledore finds him)

Sorcerers-with-implements (wands) is a better summary of casters in that setting.

Lan-"expelliarmus!"-efan

Well, sort of. There is a "magic spark" that differentiates magic users from muggles, true, but, without any instruction, the magic user will never be able to use it.

Not a huge difference. Sorcerer with implements doesn't really work. After all, sorcerers are loners. They don't congregate in schools because their "talent" is entirely inherent. Flavour wise, wizard is far, far closer. But, I agree that mechanically, sorcerers probably fit a HP wizard better.

Which is my point. Why not be able to pick and choose? Why do we have to have defaults?

Because you said a while ago the DM doesn't determine that baseline, but the player's get to choose.

DM: All wizard's in my game are Vancian
Player: No! In the core book I get to choose a spell casting system as step 7 of chargen! I'm going use all encounter refresh magic!

If your advocating the DM has the right to say ALL WIZARDS VANCIAN and that the choice is up to him, we at least have that common ground. Then, we can argue whether WotC has a right to set a baseline as well.

No, that's simply your interpretation of what I said. Hey, if the DM wants to set the baseline, and he can convince his players to go along with it, then no problems. I see nothing wrong, to be honest, with the player in your example. But, maybe there are reasons why all wizards must be Vancian in this world. Granted, in 25 pages of posts, you nor anyone else has provided any compelling arguments as to WHY the DM should ram his preferences down his players throats and why should WOTC back up that DM, but, hey, everyone's game is different.

I wonder how impressed you'd be if they decided to set baselines that you didn't like. After all, wizards as Vancian is only that way because all casters were Vancian throughout D&D. There's no compelling reason why wizards in particular should be Vancian. What if all Clerics are now Vancian but Wizards are Spell Point casters, in order to differentiate Arcane from Divine casting? You support WOTC setting baselines, so, this should be perfectly acceptable to you. Or is it only that WOTC can set baselines insofar as you happen to like the baselines being set?

 

[MoonSong]

Well, sort of. There is a "magic spark" that differentiates magic users from muggles, true, but, without any instruction, the magic user will never be able to use it.

Not a huge difference. Sorcerer with implements doesn't really work. After all, sorcerers are loners. They don't congregate in schools because their "talent" is entirely inherent. Flavour wise, wizard is far, far closer. But, I agree that mechanically, sorcerers probably fit a HP wizard better.

Which is my point. Why not be able to pick and choose? Why do we have to have defaults?



No, that's simply your interpretation of what I said. Hey, if the DM wants to set the baseline, and he can convince his players to go along with it, then no problems. I see nothing wrong, to be honest, with the player in your example. But, maybe there are reasons why all wizards must be Vancian in this world. Granted, in 25 pages of posts, you nor anyone else has provided any compelling arguments as to WHY the DM should ram his preferences down his players throats and why should WOTC back up that DM, but, hey, everyone's game is different.

I wonder how impressed you'd be if they decided to set baselines that you didn't like. After all, wizards as Vancian is only that way because all casters were Vancian throughout D&D. There's no compelling reason why wizards in particular should be Vancian. What if all Clerics are now Vancian but Wizards are Spell Point casters, in order to differentiate Arcane from Divine casting? You support WOTC setting baselines, so, this should be perfectly acceptable to you. Or is it only that WOTC can set baselines insofar as you happen to like the baselines being set?

Ok, you've made your point across, Wizards have no right to set a default to wizards and all that. But how does that ttranslate to the warlock and sorcerer? tell me a good reason to justify inserting additional (and artificial) complexity to two classes that have never had it and that 90% of the time will be played with a single dial, because their fans like them -among other reasons- because they are simple and as D&Disms the only preconcibed ideas about them come from previous editions. Not giving us a default on those classes will only lead to an uneeded fracturing of sorcerer and warlock fans as we no longer will have a common ground, and it creates perverse incentives for sorcerer-hating DMs, up until now they can just say no upfront, or start to act on harassing way to have you build a wizard in all but name, not having a default casting method (which I must insist for the eleventh time is a major factor on balance) only gives them more weapons on their crussade. Don't like sorcerers? easy force your sorcerer players to play an extremely thinly diguised wizard instead!!! RAW will support that!! and will be way easier than them playing what they really want to play!! and then forbid sorcerers altogether because you've just made them no different than wizards!!.

Really having a default forces DM's to be upfront to the changes they make, and it leads to a more honest and open realtionship and communication between players and DM's -this is more important for players that can only do so online- right now when I find a DM that says "no sorcerers" or "on this game sorcerers are x" I know well before hand what it is about and I know that if I apply I won't get to play one. On a world with no default it becomes and endless list of "wizards are x, sorcerers are y, warlocks are z, clerics do a, druids do b, bards do c...." lost among a very detailed list of modules being used, for every single game, or more realistically the total removal of said upfront statements at all, which will lead to more needless conflicts.

Wanting to put sorcerers and warlocks on the same train as wizards and is a solution to a problem nobody -or almost nobody- ever had, and only contributes to dilute what a sorcerer or warlock means, not to mention the balancing issues on both classes which haven't being able to compare to wizards, without a suitable default they'll be harder to balance propperly, and WotC won't be able to make sorcerer and warlock players happy, which will translate on two groups not having a reason to change editions.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, you've made your point across, Wizards have no right to set a default to wizards and all that. But how does that ttranslate to the warlock and sorcerer? tell me a good reason to justify inserting additional (and artificial) complexity to two classes that have never had it and that 90% of the time will be played with a single dial, because their fans like them -among other reasons- because they are simple and as D&Disms the only preconcibed ideas about them come from previous editions.

If that is true, then 90% of the time, people will play sorcerers with non-vancian casting. What's the problem here? I'm saying that you have the ability to choose. You want X, and can have X. What happens if WOTC defaults to something you don't like?

Not giving us a default on those classes will only lead to an uneeded fracturing of sorcerer and warlock fans as we no longer will have a common ground, and it creates perverse incentives for sorcerer-hating DMs, up until now they can just say no upfront, or start to act on harassing way to have you build a wizard in all but name, not having a default casting method (which I must insist for the eleventh time is a major factor on balance) only gives them more weapons on their crussade.

Ok, couple of points. Number one, it's been presumed throughout this thread that all casting will be balanced against each other. No option is better than another. And no amount of rules can save you from a douchebag DM. Besides all that, in all the years I've been on En World, I've never once seen anyone actually complain about the sorcerer or the warlock. I'm thinking that this is a pretty big hypothetical.

Don't like sorcerers? easy force your sorcerer players to play an extremely thinly diguised wizard instead!!! RAW will support that!! and will be way easier than them playing what they really want to play!! and then forbid sorcerers altogether because you've just made them no different than wizards!!.

Really having a default forces DM's to be upfront to the changes they make, and it leads to a more honest and open realtionship and communication between players and DM's -this is more important for players that can only do so online- right now when I find a DM that says "no sorcerers" or "on this game sorcerers are x" I know well before hand what it is about and I know that if I apply I won't get to play one. On a world with no default it becomes and endless list of "wizards are x, sorcerers are y, warlocks are z, clerics do a, druids do b, bards do c...." lost among a very detailed list of modules being used, for every single game, or more realistically the total removal of said upfront statements at all, which will lead to more needless conflicts.

Wanting to put sorcerers and warlocks on the same train as wizards and is a solution to a problem nobody -or almost nobody- ever had, and only contributes to dilute what a sorcerer or warlock means, not to mention the balancing issues on both classes which haven't being able to compare to wizards, without a suitable default they'll be harder to balance propperly, and WotC won't be able to make sorcerer and warlock players happy, which will translate on two groups not having a reason to change editions.

Ok, I'm still rather baffled by this. There is virtually no mechanical difference between a sorcerer and a wizard in 3e. Both are strongly Vancian casters. The only real mechanical difference is the rate of gaining spells. Complaining that allowing Vancian sorcerers will "dilute" what a sorcerer means is pretty out there. I mean, looking at the two classes, what real differences are there mechanically? They have exactly the same spell list, exactly the same recharge mechanics (must sleep 8 hours), and their spells do exactly the same thing. Again, the only real difference is that a sorcerer gets less spells to choose from.

This is not a huge mechanical hurdle.

If the various forms of casting are not balanced, then that is a failure on the part of WOTC. All three systems need to be developed in tandem and need to be kept in balance. Having one a default and then tack on another two as afterthoughts is the fastest way to have underdeveloped options that are never properly utilized. Instead, why not have all three systems balanced against each other?