Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 3791901" data-attributes="member: 1003">Correct. Just to be clear to Doc_Klueless (whose name is very appropriate for this thread <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />), (1) silos are not new to 4e (all versions of D&amp;D have them), and (2) it's not just applicable to spells.&nbsp; You might &quot;silo&quot; class abilities too, so that a Fighter could get &quot;1 combat feat and 1 skill-use related feat&quot;, or a Rogue could get three Skill Point pools: one for Social Skills, one for Tumble/Balance/Escape Artist, and one for Open Locks/F-R Traps/Search. etc.It's really a question of just how 'interchangeable' your discretionary resources are.&nbsp; There are already barriers in 3e to perfect conversion (you can't just cash in a Feat for 8 Skill Points to spend however you choose, or vice versa), so what the designers are really saying is that in 4e there will be more barriers (aka, more silos) between various character development and action choices and resource allocations.A &quot;one silo&quot; leveling system would be a system where you cash in XP (a universal currency) to buy BAB, Saves, Spell Progression, etc. a la carte.&nbsp; D&amp;D doesn't use this philosophy, but rather has classes that &quot;silo off&quot; various progression tables.&nbsp; They're (mostly) not inter-changeable; to advance your Fort Save you have to advance everything one level.&nbsp; The genius of the Feat system was that you get to have some wiggle room in that, but in a somewhat controlled manner.&nbsp; You could improve your Fort Save by +2 relative to your class and level peers, but not +10.3e wizards have a spellcasting system with nine &quot;horizontal silos&quot; .&nbsp; Any 1st level spell can be swapped for any other 1st level spell, but not a 2nd level spell.&nbsp; Arcana Unearthed did away with this restriction by allowing the player to &quot;weave&quot; lower level spells into higher ones, or tear down higher spells into lower spell slots.&nbsp; A 20th level magister could memorize 20 9th level spells or 536 1st level spells (I made those numbers up), as he chose.&nbsp; There was only one silo.&nbsp; But there was still a &quot;spellcasting silo&quot;, since you couldn't use spell slots for anything except casting spells.&nbsp; I expect that 4e will impose a vertical siloing on top of the 9 horizontal silos to create sort of a &quot;grid&quot;, where you can't exchange the &quot;at will&quot; Kill Things With Fire ability for your &quot;per day&quot; Do Useful Stuff spells.Taking the Arcana Unearthed philosophy to its natural conclusion, Psionics uses a &quot;one silo&quot; system of power points.&nbsp; Fighters have a &quot;one silo&quot; feat system.&nbsp; Every &quot;feat&quot; costs &quot;one feat&quot; (there isn't even a word for the currency, since it's always &quot;one&quot;).&nbsp; Some feats are better than others though, which is why they have pre-requisites.&nbsp; I considered a system where there were no pre-requisites and no automatic feat progression; you just bought Feats with XP (instead of leveling) .... but that way lies GURPS.The &quot;problem&quot; with this, however, is that you can over-specialize; being wildly effective in narrow setting, but leaving big gaps in capability in what &quot;the party&quot; is capable of.&nbsp; You can leave yourself (and the people who rely on you) very open to certain threats.&nbsp; Also, if you don't know what you're doing, you can &quot;under specialize&quot; and make a very ineffective character.&nbsp; Imagine a Fighter who spent all his Feats on Skill Focus ....So, by increasing the number of silos, the 4e designers accomplish two things:1. Characters are more predictable in what they can do.&nbsp; By allowing for choices only intra-silo, and not inter-silo, you can say with 100% certainty that an 8th level Fighter will be able to do X, Y and Z.&nbsp; This is good for DM's and the guys who write adventures.2.&nbsp; Characters are more predictably bad-ass.&nbsp; By removing the choice to spend all your Feats on Skill Focus, newb players and casual gamers who have not made a study of &quot;effective character builds&quot; will not be able to shoot themselves in the foot.&nbsp; They will be &quot;protected&quot; from the side effects of not memorizing enough Fireballs.Neither of these changes are good for the inveterate tinkers and rule hackers.&nbsp; The guys who are &quot;do builds&quot; are the RPG equivalent of pre-Ubuntu Linux users.&nbsp; Or better yet, big iron UNIX admins.&nbsp; They don't want protection, they want control.&nbsp; More silos means a loss of some of that control.&nbsp; It's an inevitable trade-off.I think it will be more accessible to more users, and the DM (the Network Admin of the dining table) will have an easier time riding herd on his PC's.&nbsp; What remains to be seen is whether the game is still fun for &quot;the d20 hackers.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 3791901, member: 1003"] Correct. Just to be clear to Doc_Klueless (whose name is very appropriate for this thread :)), (1) silos are not new to 4e (all versions of D&D have them), and (2) it's not just applicable to spells. You might "silo" class abilities too, so that a Fighter could get "1 combat feat and 1 skill-use related feat", or a Rogue could get three Skill Point pools: one for Social Skills, one for Tumble/Balance/Escape Artist, and one for Open Locks/F-R Traps/Search. etc. It's really a question of just how 'interchangeable' your discretionary resources are. There are already barriers in 3e to perfect conversion (you can't just cash in a Feat for 8 Skill Points to spend however you choose, or vice versa), so what the designers are really saying is that in 4e there will be more barriers (aka, more silos) between various character development and action choices and resource allocations. A "one silo" leveling system would be a system where you cash in XP (a universal currency) to buy BAB, Saves, Spell Progression, etc. [I]a la carte[/I]. D&D doesn't use this philosophy, but rather has classes that "silo off" various progression tables. They're (mostly) not inter-changeable; to advance your Fort Save you have to advance everything one level. The genius of the Feat system was that you get to have some wiggle room in that, but in a somewhat controlled manner. You could improve your Fort Save by +2 relative to your class and level peers, but not +10. 3e wizards have a spellcasting system with nine "horizontal silos" . Any 1st level spell can be swapped for any other 1st level spell, but not a 2nd level spell. Arcana Unearthed did away with this restriction by allowing the player to "weave" lower level spells into higher ones, or tear down higher spells into lower spell slots. A 20th level magister could memorize 20 9th level spells or 536 1st level spells (I made those numbers up), as he chose. There was only one silo. But there was still a "spellcasting silo", since you couldn't use spell slots for anything except casting spells. I expect that 4e will impose a vertical siloing on top of the 9 horizontal silos to create sort of a "grid", where you can't exchange the "at will" [I]Kill Things With Fire[/I] ability for your "per day" [I]Do Useful Stuff[/I] spells. Taking the Arcana Unearthed philosophy to its natural conclusion, Psionics uses a "one silo" system of power points. Fighters have a "one silo" feat system. Every "feat" costs "one feat" (there isn't even a word for the currency, since it's always "one"). Some feats are better than others though, which is why they have pre-requisites. I considered a system where there were no pre-requisites and no automatic feat progression; you just bought Feats with XP (instead of leveling) .... but that way lies GURPS. The "problem" with this, however, is that you can over-specialize; being wildly effective in narrow setting, but leaving big gaps in capability in what "the party" is capable of. You can leave yourself (and the people who rely on you) very open to certain threats. Also, if you don't know what you're doing, you can "under specialize" and make a very ineffective character. Imagine a Fighter who spent all his Feats on Skill Focus .... So, by increasing the number of silos, the 4e designers accomplish two things: 1. Characters are more predictable in what they can do. By allowing for choices only intra-silo, and not inter-silo, you can say with 100% certainty that an 8th level Fighter will be able to do X, Y and Z. This is good for DM's and the guys who write adventures. 2. Characters are more predictably bad-ass. By removing the choice to spend all your Feats on Skill Focus, newb players and casual gamers who have not made a study of "effective character builds" will not be able to shoot themselves in the foot. They will be "protected" from the side effects of not memorizing enough [I]Fireballs[/I]. Neither of these changes are good for the inveterate tinkers and rule hackers. The guys who are "do builds" are the RPG equivalent of pre-Ubuntu Linux users. Or better yet, big iron UNIX admins. They don't want protection, they want control. More silos means a loss of some of that control. It's an inevitable trade-off. I think it will be more accessible to more users, and the DM (the Network Admin of the dining table) will have an easier time riding herd on his PC's. What remains to be seen is whether the game is still fun for "the d20 hackers." [/QUOTE]

Verification