NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6256401" data-attributes="member: 87792">By the three seconds it takes me to read the power.  You're straining at gnats here while swallowing camels.And is entirely and completely unnecessary.  Why are we talking about makework again?And  that's a straw man.  I can write down what a new lightning power does  in seconds - I just need to visualise it, and then I use the existing  mechanics to write that down.  I can do this in less time than it would  take to look up Lightning Bolt to see what the entry actually said.Your  argument here is a double loss.  If Lightning Bolt is simple then I  don't need to look it up, I can just write down mechanics (which is what  powers are).  If Lightning Bolt is complex then I need to look the  thing up rather than just use the mechanics I need.  Either way, having  to look up Lightning Bolt to say "Line, 6d6 damage, Electrical Damage +  Stuff" is longer than jumping straight to the answer.So?  As long as it fits the monster, why is this a problem?The  thing is firstly that I object on principle to interesting monsters  being a subtype of wizard.  It makes them all boring - no more alien  than Star Trek aliens which are humans with prosthetic foreheads.  For  this to be done in the monster manual makes it mechanically dull and  tedious as far as I'm concerned.  Secondly, I don't have to  reinvent the wheel - I have a functional design language in 4e and can  use that.  Thirdly the method you're suggesting has well over a hundred  supposedly standardised parts.  The one we are using has only a double  handful and is still more flexible.To design 4e monsters you  don't need to remember over a hundred pre-packaged effects.  You imagine  the monster, ask "What would it do" and then write that down using the  flexible and powerful RPG design language the game gives you. Starting off  with "Nothing other than a spell uses spell mechanics" would be a damn  good start.  Wizards can use set spells.  But there's no reason that  anyone other than wizards should do this.  Ever.Aagggghhhhh!!!!!  I've played games with flexible spellcasting.  And the one thing that you really really  can not afford with flexible spellcasting is to be pedantic.  You think  that people faff around looking at 4e powers?  That sort of  modification increases the analysis paralysis exponentially.Fine.  Feed the spell books through a shredder.  Cut the wizard back to B/X spell levels - and those are all the spells in the game.  Because a spell is nothing other than a unique power that can be used only by a wizard (or sorceror).Powers are inherently more interesting than spells because powers are things that can do the unexpected rather than ending up in the wizard's spellbook.  So.   Now we've just established that you find the "Use spells" model boring  what is your solution?  Because the one you've offered so far has all  the disadvantages of the 4e solution and none of the advantages. Calling something a fireball does not save everyone time.   The only people it saves time for are obsessive D&D wonks who've  memorised the effects of fireball by edition and who know which edition  they are playing.  The average casual player might remember the rules to fireball.  They aren't going to remember the rules to Polymorph unless they happen to be playing a druid. Only if you want it to turn into technology.  Magic should never lead to the PCs being able to say "Magic doesn't work that way".  Once it's reached that point it's mundane. And the 2e Monstrous Manual fails compared to Monster Vault. Monster abilities that are in any way different from PC abilities should not be PC abilities.  To do so simply flattens the world and makes it less mysterious and less interesting.It gives DMs with one single D&D specific skill a  tool to play with.  And gets in the way of any who haven't invested in  that skill. Which means that in the single  case of spellcasting evil wizards who are using standard spells there is  a point in cross-checking their fireballs against the PCs fireballs.   When the Balor starts throwing Standard PC Issue Fireballs that's not a  bonus from familiarity, it's just plain blandness.  And when the evil  wizard throws a non-standard necrotic spell that the PCs would never  learn unless they swear their soul to Graz't, that's when things get  real.Which means that of all the spellcasters, the wizard is the  only one that gets any real benefit from making sure that the spells  match.  Clerical empowerment should be by their Gods, not all cloned.   Fighters?  Have different favourite tricks and different muscle memory -  but default patterns that will match up. And if the elf wizard is using a burning orb of doom it won't look and act just like a fireball.  And still doesn't get named.Or be more creative than to make all your enemies wizards who fireball people.Indeed they should.  But they shouldn't be  bog standard wizard fireballs.  This just reduces Pit Fiends to the  Star Trek Prosthetic Forehead Aliens.  I want more out of my pit  fiends.  I want their magic to be twisted rather than to hire them from  Central Casting.Yes it does.  It makes the world blander and the GM's job harder. For literally no benefit.Fireball is the wizard's signature fire spell.  It isn't the signature fire effect.  It is a signature spell of battle wizards.  And means a whole lot less if everyone else is using t and it's just the 3rd circle Fire Spell.I can tell you one  thing.  It doesn't just look as if the Death Knight is a wizard wearing a  silly skull helmet - which is what making it into a fireball would do.   And I can tell you another - if I'm DMing the Death Knight, deciding  what it looks like is part of my job.  And it will fit the theme of a Death Knight in the way that turning the Death Knight into a wizard clone would not.   I've never had this problem in 4e.  But this is because I start with my  fiction and my world - and look at the world to tell me what's going on  and the game mechanics to reflect that.  I don't look at the mechanics  first and foremost and assume the world is no more interesting than I  can fit into a set of standardised mechanics.Every  divine caster?  Why not.  Each divine caster should get spells from  their God.  In fact the thing that should make the wizard stand out is  that they don't.You've  had a problem making things look bland?  My 4e game had a wizard drop a  scorching burst on a nicely bunched set of PCs last night.  And if I  was off by 2 damage?  Big deal.  No one cares.  It also had an  undying elf throw a golden javelin like a bolt thrower in a straight  line, impailing three PCs and five NPCs in a single throw before the  ship sailed on.Which  should be an incredibly rare case except for wizards.  Even Clerics  should not share abilities anything like the amount they do.  And  wizards should be about secret lore anyway.All the nonsense about the specific tribal organisations is world specific.</blockquote>

Verification