Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3781471" data-attributes="member: 4937">Here.&nbsp; Here.I'd like to add that this is in no way necessary to fix any existing problem with D&amp;D.&nbsp; In fact, it seems like a particularly risky decision, because it adds another modifer to what is in 3rd edition terms the DC of a saving throw.&nbsp; Historically, we know that modifiers to the DC of a saving throw can become extremely unbalancing.&nbsp; One question that obviously comes to mind is, &quot;If what you were going for was balance, and defence bonuses were too much outpacing magical attack bonuses, why not just bump up the magical attack bonus rather than adding a new device for increasing it?&quot; There is a certain amount of elegance in having a wizard have a 'wand +3' that corresponds to the fighters 'sword +3', but I don't think that is the really driving force here.&nbsp; I think that the really driving force her is make for more interesting 'drops' in a computer setting.&nbsp; This is bling largely for bling's sake. Some of the potential side effects of this bother me alot.&nbsp; For example, its not hard to imagine that a wizard will become something of a wand or staff specialist the way currently fighters have already been forced into being single weapon specialists (ei wizards will be strongly encouraged by the mechanic to concentrate thier spell lists on a single focus type for which they either have selected talents or else just have a sweet focus item.)&nbsp; I've always hated that side effect of weapon specialization, and I don't much like the idea of wizards now becoming spell specialists.&nbsp; This seems to me to be a case of limiting how you play a character unneccessarily - something Mearls says you are not supposed to do.&nbsp; Did anyone ever play a wizard and say, &quot;I'd rather be more of a one trick pony, and better yet, lets be good at one trick that isn't particularly flavorful.&quot;&nbsp; Most people I know who play wizard's do so because they want flexibility.&nbsp; If you just want to blow things up good, you'd play a sorcerer or take a class that avoids the Vancian magic system altogether. I'm also bothered by the implications of where they are taking the game.&nbsp; Between this and the 'all classes will get a combination of per day, per encounter, and at will abilities', it sorta implies a 'all classes are interchangable except for flavor' mentality.&nbsp; It seems like some of the things that I didn't like about the design of Iron Heroes (ei 'the only way to balance non-spell casters with spell casters is to make them all spell-casters'), only maybe even more so.&nbsp; That kind of abstraction seems ok for a Supers game, but I'm not sure I like it creeping into D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3781471, member: 4937"] Here. Here. I'd like to add that this is in no way necessary to fix any existing problem with D&D. In fact, it seems like a particularly risky decision, because it adds another modifer to what is in 3rd edition terms the DC of a saving throw. Historically, we know that modifiers to the DC of a saving throw can become extremely unbalancing. One question that obviously comes to mind is, "If what you were going for was balance, and defence bonuses were too much outpacing magical attack bonuses, why not just bump up the magical attack bonus rather than adding a new device for increasing it?" There is a certain amount of elegance in having a wizard have a 'wand +3' that corresponds to the fighters 'sword +3', but I don't think that is the really driving force here. I think that the really driving force her is make for more interesting 'drops' in a computer setting. This is bling largely for bling's sake. Some of the potential side effects of this bother me alot. For example, its not hard to imagine that a wizard will become something of a wand or staff specialist the way currently fighters have already been forced into being single weapon specialists (ei wizards will be strongly encouraged by the mechanic to concentrate thier spell lists on a single focus type for which they either have selected talents or else just have a sweet focus item.) I've always hated that side effect of weapon specialization, and I don't much like the idea of wizards now becoming spell specialists. This seems to me to be a case of limiting how you play a character unneccessarily - something Mearls says you are not supposed to do. Did anyone ever play a wizard and say, "I'd rather be more of a one trick pony, and better yet, lets be good at one trick that isn't particularly flavorful." Most people I know who play wizard's do so because they want flexibility. If you just want to blow things up good, you'd play a sorcerer or take a class that avoids the Vancian magic system altogether. I'm also bothered by the implications of where they are taking the game. Between this and the 'all classes will get a combination of per day, per encounter, and at will abilities', it sorta implies a 'all classes are interchangable except for flavor' mentality. It seems like some of the things that I didn't like about the design of Iron Heroes (ei 'the only way to balance non-spell casters with spell casters is to make them all spell-casters'), only maybe even more so. That kind of abstraction seems ok for a Supers game, but I'm not sure I like it creeping into D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification