Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6061711" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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 <em>your </em>definition but I have seen it done. Though possibly not to the <em>extent </em>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, that lesser extent I was talking about.</p><p>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.</p><p>Anyway, all the spellcasters use basically the same list. Though they all cast spells differently. How would that be any different for 5e?</p><p></p><p>Assume that the fireball spell comes listed as</p><p></p><p>[h=4]<a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#evocation" target="_blank">Evocation</a> [<a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor" target="_blank">Fire</a>][/h] <table style='width: 100%'><tr><td><a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#level" target="_blank">Level</a>:</td><td><a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/sorcererWizardSpells.htm#thirdLevelSorcererWizardSpells" target="_blank">Sor/Wiz 3</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#components" target="_blank">Components</a>:</td><td>V, S, M</td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#castingTime" target="_blank">Casting Time</a>:</td><td>1 <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardActions" target="_blank">standard action</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#range" target="_blank">Range</a>:</td><td>Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)</td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area" target="_blank">Area</a>:</td><td>20-ft.-radius spread</td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration" target="_blank">Duration</a>:</td><td>Instantaneous</td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow" target="_blank">Saving Throw</a>:</td><td>Reflex half</td></tr><tr><td><a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#spellResistance" target="_blank">Spell Resistance</a>:</td><td>Yes</td></tr></table><p>Now change "Level" to..</p><p></p><p>Level : [Version 1]/[Version 4] 3, [Version 2] (lvl4), [Version 3] (lvl 1)</p><p></p><p>Wow, oh my god, the changes are so dramatic. You were right.[/sarcasm]</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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..?</p><p></p><p>Actually, no it isn't [my idea] - not to nitpick.</p><p>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.</p><p>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 <em>slightly </em>and EQUALLY inconvenienced if it comes to it.</p><p></p><p>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).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6061711, member: 95493"] 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 [I]your [/I]definition but I have seen it done. Though possibly not to the [I]extent [/I]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][URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#evocation"]Evocation[/URL] [[URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor"]Fire[/URL]][/h] [TABLE="class: statBlock"] [TR] [TD][URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#level"]Level[/URL]:[/TD] [TD][URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/sorcererWizardSpells.htm#thirdLevelSorcererWizardSpells"]Sor/Wiz 3[/URL][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#components"]Components[/URL]:[/TD] [TD]V, S, M[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#castingTime"]Casting Time[/URL]:[/TD] [TD]1 [URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardActions"]standard action[/URL][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#range"]Range[/URL]:[/TD] [TD]Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area"]Area[/URL]:[/TD] [TD]20-ft.-radius spread[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration"]Duration[/URL]:[/TD] [TD]Instantaneous[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow"]Saving Throw[/URL]:[/TD] [TD]Reflex half[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#spellResistance"]Spell Resistance[/URL]:[/TD] [TD]Yes[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Now change "Level" to.. 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 [I]slightly [/I]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). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)
Top