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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6054112" data-attributes="member: 7006">Here's the issues...On point 1) just roll a Sorcerer and call it Wizard:The same thing was suggested for 4E and many people hated that.  They wanted an archer Fighter and were told to roll a Ranger and call it "Fighter".  Many people rebelled.  So this idea is a non-starter I think.On point 2) ask the DM to switch out those features:Now we come down to presentation of the Player's Handbook.  And all of us trying to figure out what is the best way to present the information.There are two likely directions we can go.  The first option is that in the Class section, each of the spellcasting classes have described one specific method for casting spells.  Their "default" as it were.  Like in the earlier packets for example, Wizard uses standard Vancian, Cleric uses pseudo-Vancian, Warlocks use encounter powers, Sorcerers use spell points, Druids maybe have a whole nother method for casting spells.This seems to be a popular opinion with a lot of you.Then, what would probably be written back in the Magic chapter or even in the DMG are instructions (in a module sidebar) that explains how to trade out a class's casting mechanics for another class's mechanics (as agreed upon by the DM and players) to achieve the style of magic their particular campaign should have.The second direction is to not include actual casting mechanics in any class's description.  Rather, it goes into the narrative and class's Story about how one becomes spellcaster class X, why you do it, what's the method for acquiring and casting the magic, etc. but no actual game mechanics right there and then.  Instead, following the listing of all the classes we go right into the Magic chapter, where it lists out the 5+ different styles of casting mechanics, describes how they work, what the advantages and disadvantages are, and why certain classes might favor certain mechanics over others (for best exemplifying the class's Story).  This section also then gives the spell lists for each individual class as well (like was typical for all pre-4E games, where spell lists appeared back in the Magic chapter, rather than within the Class description.)So the question then becomes... which method for displaying the information is the easiest to understand, makes the most sense, and is least likely to annoy or piss off a larger precentage of the player-base?Because that's the real issue here.  Which group is bigger and/or more likely to put up a fuss (even going so far as to not actually play the game, because they felt they weren't being catered to?)  Those who think each class needs a defining casting mechanic that is listed within their class description because otherwise the class doesn't have an identity... or those who can't stand certain mechanics to the point that they'd freak out if its even hinted at that WotC thought certain classes "should" have them, because they made them the class's default (even if it was easy enough to swap out.)To tell you the truth... I don't know which group is bigger or more likely to put up a fuss.  Speaking personally though... if the goal of the game is to create an edition that can harken back to ANY previous edition of the game... I would not want to see defaults put in place that run counter to how certain editions ran those classes.  I'd rather keep everything more open and less defined, and then have chapters in the book that give examples of which modules to choose and use to recreate any specific past edition.  Do as little as possible to define the game by any specific edition's mechanics, but instead present the various options equally and let the player choose.Because it's all well and good to give the Wizard an "identity" by stating in its class description that its traditionally a Vancian caster (but that you can swap it out as a module if you want)... but that does you no good if that only makes like 20% of the player-base actually happy.</blockquote>

Verification