Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Realmslore
 RPG News & Releases
 Legends & Lore: Putting the Vance in Advanced
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Hawkins
Great Reader

USA
2131 Posts

Posted - 01 Mar 2012 :  17:19:23  Show Profile  Visit Hawkins's Homepage Send Hawkins a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
New article by Monte.

Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane

* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives

My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3745 Posts

Posted - 01 Mar 2012 :  17:48:28  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
-In my own games, I already use multiple forms of magic as a means to differentiate Wizards and Sorcerers (as well as Sorcerers making use of 'Bloodlines'). Wizards use 'Vancian' Magic, and Sorcerers make use of the Spell Point system discussed in Unearthed Arcana, that Psions also use (with all those other Arcane spellcaster classes using either one or the other, depending on which one the class seems more parallel to, Wizard or Sorcerer. I don't have many people who actually play in my games, but I haven't encountered any problems with having two different forms of spellcasting rules for different classes. A 'Feat Tree' of powers, as is discussed, works well enough- computer RPG video games use them and I don't hear too many complaints (not that I go out of my way to listen, being as that I don't play most computer RPG video games). As a third form of magic (Vancian and Spell Points), I could see it working. It would trade off volume for specificity. The guy can't cast X or Y, but he can cast Z, and can do it as often as he wants. Z can later be upgraded to Z^1, Z^2, Z^3, and so on, so he wouldn't lag behind, either. How might that idea mix with Vancian magic? Should a Vancian magician be allowed to take a magical feat that granted him Z as often as he wanted, and should he be allowed to upgrade Z? Also, if a class existed that was primarily based around magical feats, it should gain one every level (or however many levels) as things independent to normal feats. One of my biggest gripes about the Star Wars d20 game was that a Force using class used their skill points among regular skills and Force skills. So, they'd either have to ignore mundane skills to maximize their Force skills, ignore their Force skills to maximize their mundane skills, or split the points among both lists and be underpowered in both categories as compared to people who maximized one or the other.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium
Go to Top of Page

Hawkins
Great Reader

USA
2131 Posts

Posted - 01 Mar 2012 :  18:45:34  Show Profile  Visit Hawkins's Homepage Send Hawkins a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I actually prefer a spell points system (whether it be the one from Unearthed Arcana or Psionics), with the addition of the vitalizing spell points variant. That way it depicts how exhausting spellcasting can be (and how it is often described in many fantasy novels).

Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane

* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives

My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3745 Posts

Posted - 01 Mar 2012 :  19:00:59  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
-What is that variant, off-hand? If it has to do with connecting magic to health (HP), I hate that. In concept, it sounds alright, and even makes some degree of sense when you think about it. But, my two biggest gripes with Star Wars d20 are: The skills points, which I discussed in my first post, and Force powers costing Vitality Points, which also double as the equivalent of Hit Points. Just like with a limited amount of Skill Points having to be spread across two times the amount of skills hamstringing a Force-using character, Vitality Points being depleted by Force powers and attacks by enemies hamstrings Force-using characters. It would get to points where, after a round or two, as a low-level Jedi Consular, I was basically out of Vitality Points, without ever having been attacked, first.

-I made my own homebrew system that detached the Force from Vitality Points, and connected them to "Force Skill Points" instead. The only way I personally see to fix that as is, without rule modifications, is to give the class a hell of a lot more Vitality Points. But, doing that, it then can get unbalanced again if the character in question doesn't use those extra points for powers, and uses them more for HP.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium
Go to Top of Page

Hawkins
Great Reader

USA
2131 Posts

Posted - 01 Mar 2012 :  19:38:12  Show Profile  Visit Hawkins's Homepage Send Hawkins a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Quoted from d20SRD.org

Spell Point Variant: Vitalizing
In the vitalizing system, spellcasters can potentially cast a great number of spells in a day, but every spell cast is a potential burden on the caster’s health and vitality. Reaching for and directing magical energy is a dangerous and taxing exercise, at least as difficult as heavy labor or prolonged exertion.

This variant of the spell point system does not change the way a character prepares spells, casts spells, regains spell points, or any of the other rules from that system. However, the spellcaster’s pool of spell points represents a physical, not just mental, limit on his spellcasting power.

When a spellcaster’s spell point pool falls to half of his maximum or less, he becomes fatigued.

When his spell points drop to one-quarter of his maximum or less, he becomes exhausted.

For example, at 1st level Haigh the cleric has 3 spell points (2 from his level, +1 bonus point for high Wisdom). He enters a fight by casting bless on his allies, spending 1 of his 3 spell points. Doing this has no ill effect on Haigh, since he still has more than half of his maximum spell points remaining. If, during the fight, he then casts divine favor, spending another spell point, he now becomes fatigued, since he has only one-third of his spell points remaining. After the fight, he spontaneously casts cure light wounds on Kroh, spending his last spell point. Not only has he exhausted his spells for the day, but he has exhausted his body as well.

There are further rules on how to regain SP with rest and tying SP completely to a character's level of fatigue, but I do not think that I have ever implemented those.

Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane

* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives

My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)

Edited by - Hawkins on 01 Mar 2012 19:38:27
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3745 Posts

Posted - 01 Mar 2012 :  20:09:06  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
-As long as it doesn't, in effect, lower the amount of Hit Points, Skill Points, or other perishable, important counting things limited in number, things like that can add spice to a game. If they do, they just make things worse.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist

USA
11973 Posts

Posted - 02 Mar 2012 :  21:07:54  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins

New article by Monte.




Interesting. That gives me some hope. I favor Vancian magic, but I wasn't opposed to the general idea behind the spell reserve feats, which is in essence what it sounds like they're thinking of offering. What I hated was how in 4th edition a wizard basically only knows a handful of offensive and defensive effects. That's fine if you want to play a sorceror type character, and the 4th edition version of wizard to me makes for a better "sorceror" than the 3rd edition version.... but its not a wizard as I would term it (and its not a wizard as presented in realms novels either). I'll say I'm not favored of a spell point system, because what I've found in general is it tends to promote cheating just because people will "forget" to subtract the points. However, I can see where it can work if you can trust that that won't occur (but for that there's always psionics).

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3745 Posts

Posted - 02 Mar 2012 :  21:28:02  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
-Cheating happens regardless. As DM, I don't know how many spells your character is supposed to have. Casting an extra spell than you should be allowed is just as easy as "forgetting" to erase it from your list of memorized/castable spells for the day.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
4458 Posts

Posted - 02 Mar 2012 :  23:35:53  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas


Interesting. That gives me some hope. I favor Vancian magic, but I wasn't opposed to the general idea behind the spell reserve feats, which is in essence what it sounds like they're thinking of offering. What I hated was how in 4th edition a wizard basically only knows a handful of offensive and defensive effects. That's fine if you want to play a sorceror type character, and the 4th edition version of wizard to me makes for a better "sorceror" than the 3rd edition version.... but its not a wizard as I would term it (and its not a wizard as presented in realms novels either).


I think the v3.5 Reserve feats were a great addition, but too little, too late. As a 3E wizard progresses, he requires less and less of direct damaging spells. Most of the extreamly powerful (dare I say "broken") spells of later levels often don't deal HP damage at all. Reserve feats are great at low levels, falling into the "meh" area after 4th level spells are abundant, and finally into the "why am I spending an action dealing xd6 damaging effects?" levels of 13th plus.

What I find really funny is that while Reserve Feats are "meh" for wizards, they really step on the Warlocks toes......hard. The Warlock, by class definition, relies on his At-Will eldritch blast power. It might do pitiful damage and the range is crappy but the effects aren't bad and it's usable ALL the time. Then the wizard picks up one or two feats and *Bam!* he's a warlock too.

I guess when I read the article, I didn't think it was all that impressive. To me, Monte reaffirmed some notion that Vancian spellcasting (fire-and-forget with heavy planning) was somehow inherently rewarding or awesome and I've never felt that way. Seriously, never. The idea of being rewarded with great planning is fine and all......but then there's the downside, of preparing a spell that while might be great when thought about doesn't get used when really all you needed was another Fly spell or Web and instead you prepared Resist Energy. Simply put, I despise guessing games.

And Monte's idea of Reserve feats is interesting, yet for those of us who've heavily played 4E.......what's the lure? He's suggesting wizard have some innate, consistant ability to throw spells but it'll require some feat or character investment, something 4E guys get automatically. So where's the pull to play this? Also, lets hope the keep the idea of Rituals, though heavily modified from 4E. As a caster who's now apparently going to have to prepare spells all the time, I'd rather not have to decide between Haste and Locate Item, Scrying, or Teleport for preparation time. Better off keeping those things in the game, but non-combative in nature.

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas


I'll say I'm not favored of a spell point system, because what I've found in general is it tends to promote cheating just because people will "forget" to subtract the points. However, I can see where it can work if you can trust that that won't occur (but for that there's always psionics).



As LK said, cheating can happen regardless of rulesets. Spell Points does make some things easier to swallow and I can sorta see why it's easier to "forget" dropping stuff. A 3E wizard has to prepare multiple castings of a spell, and if they don't it's noticable if they cheat. Spell Points are a little more versatile and thus, easier to justify casting Fireball twice or something similiar.
Go to Top of Page

crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore

United Kingdom
1073 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2012 :  00:34:22  Show Profile  Visit crazedventurers's Homepage Send crazedventurers a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I guess when I read the article, I didn't think it was all that impressive. To me, Monte reaffirmed some notion that Vancian spellcasting (fire-and-forget with heavy planning) was somehow inherently rewarding or awesome and I've never felt that way. Seriously, never.

Horses for courses I guess, for me the true reflection on a magic user is when they are down to a few spells that on the surface 'don't work' against the enemy the magic user is facing, unless they are cast ingeniously. If the player pulls it off it is awesome and that is what magic is about, magic is special, its clever and it can do things that I as a real life person can never do (I as a real life person can learn to use a sword and can break into people houses if I wanted to and can build shelters and track if I had the knowledge, but I can't cast fireball or rope trick). If magic becomes ordinary and mundane and predictable and certainly not special, then what the point in playing the game?

Clever play and planning should be rewarded, that is the challenge of the game for me, because if you can choose want you want to cast as you go along the game becomes simple and boring and there is no forethought to the adventure, no thinking about the game. It then mirrors a console game with all the spells at will and not a pen & paper role-playing game that I recognise.

Its Vancian all the way for me, every day of the week for as long as I play D&D. It is a core principle of D&D from the first games that were run 40 odd years ago and has been until they changed the premise for 4E.

I suspect that the designers will go with more 'whiz-bang and shiny' at will abilites/rituals/spell slots to give magic-users 'more scope' but in essence everything else will also have more scope so they end up adding things to make the class 'more fun' and it isn't any more special than any other class or monster who also has lots more scope. It becomes a 'balanced' arms race where everything is more powerful but essentially the same as if you had left them alone in the first place.

As you can guess I voted for the bring back Vancian casting and get rid of all the at wills etc

Just my thoughts

Cheers

Damian

So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3745 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2012 :  01:03:44  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

What I find really funny is that while Reserve Feats are "meh" for wizards, they really step on the Warlocks toes......hard. The Warlock, by class definition, relies on his At-Will eldritch blast power. It might do pitiful damage and the range is crappy but the effects aren't bad and it's usable ALL the time. Then the wizard picks up one or two feats and *Bam!* he's a warlock too.

-One of the first Eldrich Blast augmentations that a character can pick is the one that increases the blast range to 120', isn't it?

quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers

Horses for courses I guess, for me the true reflection on a magic user is when they are down to a few spells that on the surface 'don't work' against the enemy the magic user is facing, unless they are cast ingeniously. If the player pulls it off it is awesome and that is what magic is about, magic is special, its clever and it can do things that I as a real life person can never do (I as a real life person can learn to use a sword and can break into people houses if I wanted to and can build shelters and track if I had the knowledge, but I can't cast fireball or rope trick). If magic becomes ordinary and mundane and predictable and certainly not special, then what the point in playing the game?

Clever play and planning should be rewarded, that is the challenge of the game for me, because if you can choose want you want to cast as you go along the game becomes simple and boring and there is no forethought to the adventure, no thinking about the game. It then mirrors a console game with all the spells at will and not a pen & paper role-playing game that I recognise.

-How would magic be becoming ordinary or mundane with "at-will" class abilities, powers, reserve power feats, or whatever else. Various monsters have always had "at-will" magical powers that they could always call on- in many cases unlimitedly. Beholders are one of the most magical creatures in the game, and one of the most predictable ones- you know they're going to float up, look at you with their anti-magic eye, and blast you with their magical beams. Does any of that make magic less special? Sorcerers and various other spellcasting classes in 3e had the ability to more-or-less cast spells as they went, provided they knew the spell(s) and had the ability to cast spells of that level. Did that make magic less special, their ability to theoretically cast spells on a 'as-needed' basic without necessarily preparing ahead of time.

quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers

Its Vancian all the way for me, every day of the week for as long as I play D&D. It is a core principle of D&D from the first games that were run 40 odd years ago and has been until they changed the premise for 4E.

-Appeals to tradition are usually not good arguments. Not recognizing the right of blacks in various basic ways was way it was for hundreds of years in American society. This new civil rights thing? Phooey! Blacks being denied various basic human rights was a core principle of America from the first settler 250 odd years ago and had been until they changed things in the 1960s.

-I'm obviously being exaggerating here, and you're allowed to feel however you want about things (I agree that many 'sacred cows' form the basis of the game, and removing/altering them would indeed fundamentally change it into something inherently different). People justifying whatever based on "that's the way it used to be!" arguments just peeve me.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium

Edited by - Lord Karsus on 03 Mar 2012 01:06:40
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
4458 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2012 :  04:38:36  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers


Horses for courses I guess, for me the true reflection on a magic user is when they are down to a few spells that on the surface 'don't work' against the enemy the magic user is facing, unless they are cast ingeniously. If the player pulls it off it is awesome and that is what magic is about, magic is special, its clever and it can do things that I as a real life person can never do (I as a real life person can learn to use a sword and can break into people houses if I wanted to and can build shelters and track if I had the knowledge, but I can't cast fireball or rope trick). If magic becomes ordinary and mundane and predictable and certainly not special, then what the point in playing the game?

Clever play and planning should be rewarded, that is the challenge of the game for me, because if you can choose want you want to cast as you go along the game becomes simple and boring and there is no forethought to the adventure, no thinking about the game. It then mirrors a console game with all the spells at will and not a pen & paper role-playing game that I recognise.

Its Vancian all the way for me, every day of the week for as long as I play D&D. It is a core principle of D&D from the first games that were run 40 odd years ago and has been until they changed the premise for 4E.


I guess I'm just not the sort of person that enjoys thinking outside the box all the time. A spell does what it's described for. Yes, there can be other ways of applying that spell, which can be fun, but there is a reason why 4E tightened up the spell's abilitiy a bit more. For example, I gamed with some people who truely believed that a simple casting of Detect Magic highlights magical items on invisible creatures, thus allowing a person to choose the correct square they're in and make an attack with a lessened penalty. No. Simply put, no. That's NOT how Detect Magic works, it doesn't circumvent a spell two levels higher just because that creature might be wearing magical items. It ended up beikng a big argument. Sure, it's thinking outside the box and I guess RAW it might work the way it's worded but honestly, there's stretching the rules and just down right breaking the dimensions of the game.

And as a DM, I love promoting and rewarding out-of-box thinking. Of using their spells/powers/etc in unique or varying ways that I might not have thought of. But with the sheer scope of spells in 3E, your going to have situations where over-lap occurs or something works different when in conjunction with something else and "whoops! Loophole."

Just for another example of some brokeness (one that's fairly basic), lets take a look at a Rune-Bomb. A wizard or sorcerer inscribes a scroll with Explosive Runes (3rd level Abjuration spell). They do this multiple times over the course of say....a week. Now, there is no limit to how many spells one scroll can have (that I'm aware of in 3E) so we'll say they put on 5 runes. After, the scroll is rolled up into a ball (or paper airplane if the mage fancies origami). Now each rune deals 6d6 which totals 30d6 in full if someone reads it. Here's the kicker, a mage casts Launch Item (0-level cantrip), a spell from the Spell Compendium. The spell sends the scroll and hits a creature, probably requiring a ranged touch attack. When the creature is struck with the scroll the mage casts a Quickened Amanuensis, which triggers writing-based magical traps, setting off 30d6 damage. The target would not be granted a saving throw because he's close enough to "read the text", being hit with it an all while each creature within 10 ft. needs a reflex save for half. No Spell Resistance is applied. It's force damage, so no resistances or immunities to fire apply. Basically, that monster is hosed barring horrible damage die rolled by the wizard. And all of that is easily within RAW. It's clever, but it's broken.

quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers


I suspect that the designers will go with more 'whiz-bang and shiny' at will abilites/rituals/spell slots to give magic-users 'more scope' but in essence everything else will also have more scope so they end up adding things to make the class 'more fun' and it isn't any more special than any other class or monster who also has lots more scope. It becomes a 'balanced' arms race where everything is more powerful but essentially the same as if you had left them alone in the first place.

As you can guess I voted for the bring back Vancian casting and get rid of all the at wills etc

Just my thoughts

Cheers

Damian



This is one of those "YMMV" type of things. I like playing spellcasters, I like using spells and being magical and I like that to mean something. But I don't think it has to be so limited that, when fighting mooks or enemies really not worth my effort that I should just sit out those battles to save my magic for important things. I don't think anyone enjoys pulling out a crossbow and shooting off a few shots that, in the end, just give me something to do but don't really effect the battle much. To me, that's not being a wizard, that's 90% town militia, 10% hedge-wizard with a few cheap parlor tricks.

Also, I never thought they should've brought down the wizard as much as they did with 4E. It's still one of, if not THE, best Controllers in the game and his versatility is only matched by the Druid (un-suprisingly). The wizard has so many options when it comes to spells that it's really hard to pin down. But they should've worked on building up non-spellcasting people to being special or unique. There are ways of spiffying up the Fighter to make him a great class, a specific (or versatile) class, and one that has it's own distinction aside from "I hit bad guy with pointy, sharp metal".

The Arms Race was undoubtedly started when encounters couldn't be solved without magical aid and where monsters could only be defeated with specific types of magic or magical buffs. With spellcasters being able to mimmic other classes abilities, fairly easy and repeatedly, is where non-spellcasting classes say....."um...why am I here?". I think implementing a special rule, something that says spells can only be prepared once might help the problem and if a spellcasting class wants more uses from that spell, well it'll have to be from a device.

Hopefully D&D:Next will come to some sort of balance for both sides here.
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
4458 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2012 :  04:41:15  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus

quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

What I find really funny is that while Reserve Feats are "meh" for wizards, they really step on the Warlocks toes......hard. The Warlock, by class definition, relies on his At-Will eldritch blast power. It might do pitiful damage and the range is crappy but the effects aren't bad and it's usable ALL the time. Then the wizard picks up one or two feats and *Bam!* he's a warlock too.


-One of the first Eldrich Blast augmentations that a character can pick is the one that increases the blast range to 120', isn't it?



Yea, but I don't think anyone ever really picked it. Mostly because you had to use your scant invocations for both at-will effects OR eldritch blast augmentation and the limited quantity required some specific choices early on. Mostly because there were better options than Eldritch Lance.
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3745 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2012 :  05:39:34  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

Yea, but I don't think anyone ever really picked it. Mostly because you had to use your scant invocations for both at-will effects OR eldritch blast augmentation and the limited quantity required some specific choices early on. Mostly because there were better options than Eldritch Lance.


-Really? I've played a Warlock twice, and picked that one first both times upon creation. The only other interestingly useful one was the other blow level blast shape invocation that allowed the Warlock to add his Eldritch Blast to melee attacks, effectively giving the character a +1d6 magical weapon at 1st level without costing any money. None of the other low-level invocations or Eldritch Blast modifications really seemed all that worthwhile to me, even at higher lower levels. Sickening or shakening opponents, or a few extra skill points/saving throw pluses. The ones that gave you Darkvision, or Water Breathing are good, but their usefulness depends on the campaign, and the campaigns I've been in never really utilized either ability much, with the exception of being able to see in the dark when relevant.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium
Go to Top of Page

Jakk
Great Reader

Canada
2165 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2012 :  05:53:28  Show Profile Send Jakk a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus

-In my own games, I already use multiple forms of magic as a means to differentiate Wizards and Sorcerers (as well as Sorcerers making use of 'Bloodlines'). Wizards use 'Vancian' Magic, and Sorcerers make use of the Spell Point system discussed in Unearthed Arcana, that Psions also use (with all those other Arcane spellcaster classes using either one or the other, depending on which one the class seems more parallel to, Wizard or Sorcerer. I don't have many people who actually play in my games, but I haven't encountered any problems with having two different forms of spellcasting rules for different classes. A 'Feat Tree' of powers, as is discussed, works well enough- computer RPG video games use them and I don't hear too many complaints (not that I go out of my way to listen, being as that I don't play most computer RPG video games). As a third form of magic (Vancian and Spell Points), I could see it working. It would trade off volume for specificity. The guy can't cast X or Y, but he can cast Z, and can do it as often as he wants. Z can later be upgraded to Z^1, Z^2, Z^3, and so on, so he wouldn't lag behind, either. How might that idea mix with Vancian magic? Should a Vancian magician be allowed to take a magical feat that granted him Z as often as he wanted, and should he be allowed to upgrade Z? Also, if a class existed that was primarily based around magical feats, it should gain one every level (or however many levels) as things independent to normal feats. One of my biggest gripes about the Star Wars d20 game was that a Force using class used their skill points among regular skills and Force skills. So, they'd either have to ignore mundane skills to maximize their Force skills, ignore their Force skills to maximize their mundane skills, or split the points among both lists and be underpowered in both categories as compared to people who maximized one or the other.


I agree entirely; I use much the same system, or have done in my playtesting while assembling my ruleset, and will do so when I finally get my campaign off the ground. And I agree again re: Star Wars d20 skills... and feats, to a lesser extent. But then, in d20 generally, I've never thought that characters gain enough feat slots since the first batch of supplemental feats in Sword and Fist.

quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins

I actually prefer a spell points system (whether it be the one from Unearthed Arcana or Psionics), with the addition of the vitalizing spell points variant. That way it depicts how exhausting spellcasting can be (and how it is often described in many fantasy novels).


I also like this variant; I'm still sentimentally torn between it and the Recharge Magic system, but I think the latter only works well in terms of flavour for sorcerers and divine casters, and to give it to sorcerers and not to other arcane casters significantly reduces the desirability of the wizard class, unless (and I'm not against this) you give the wizard more bonus feats. I wanted to respond to the points raised by the two of you re: existing mechanics, but I haven't yet read Monte's article; I'll do so tomorrow after my work meeting; right now, I need sleep.

Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.

If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic.
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
4458 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2012 :  05:55:44  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus

quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

Yea, but I don't think anyone ever really picked it. Mostly because you had to use your scant invocations for both at-will effects OR eldritch blast augmentation and the limited quantity required some specific choices early on. Mostly because there were better options than Eldritch Lance.



-Really? I've played a Warlock twice, and picked that one first both times upon creation. The only other interestingly useful one was the other blow level blast shape invocation that allowed the Warlock to add his Eldritch Blast to melee attacks, effectively giving the character a +1d6 magical weapon at 1st level without costing any money. None of the other low-level invocations or Eldritch Blast modifications really seemed all that worthwhile to me, even at higher lower levels. Sickening or shakening opponents, or a few extra skill points/saving throw pluses. The ones that gave you Darkvision, or Water Breathing are good, but their usefulness depends on the campaign, and the campaigns I've been in never really utilized either ability much, with the exception of being able to see in the dark when relevant.



It's called Eldritch Spear and it's 250 ft. (quite more impressive than 120). Lol, had to look it up, it's been so long. As for Hideous Blow (adding EB to a Melee attack), I felt it was only useful if your were going to be in Melee a lot and requires significant stat requirements in either Strength or Dexterity to be used with any good useage (definitly not the Warlocks' 3/4 BAB progression ).

The Shaken effect from Frightful Blast isn't too bad actually, a -2 to attacks, save, ability/skill checks for 1 full minute (10 rounds) can be devestating to melee-based monsters at that level. Sure, it becomes less effective at later levels and utterly useless against Undead and Constructs, but it's application for a low-level adventurer is pretty broad. Other useful invocations for 1st/2nd level are Breath of the Night (Fog Cloud spell at-will), Devil's Sight (see normally in both normal and magical darkness), Entropic Warding (a few abilities but also Entropic Shield), See the Unseen (nice, see invisbility at 1st level), and of course Summon Swarm, which while requiring concentration is interesting in and of itself. I just think these are a bit better than throwing your Eldritch Blast up to 250 (which is great for a ranged attacker using cover).
Go to Top of Page

TBeholder
Great Reader

2461 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2012 :  11:01:08  Show Profile Send TBeholder a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

This is one of those "YMMV" type of things. I like playing spellcasters, I like using spells and being magical and I like that to mean something. But I don't think it has to be so limited that, when fighting mooks or enemies really not worth my effort that I should just sit out those battles to save my magic for important things.
That, too. The main flaws of crude SP systems steam from the fact that they still assume that 1x Magic Missile from level 1 caster and 5x Magic Missile from level 20 caster are the same thing.
To really work, SP value should be not just f(spell level), but f(spell level, CL). And once casting level is explicitly accounted for, IMO variable power is a good idea. Without this, in a crude SP magic system, just like in Vancian, a high-level wizard have to do ludicrous overkills like wasting the whole 5x Magic Missile at a lonely rat or 10d6 fireball on a pack of shaggy dogs.
This also subsumes the whole "metamagic points" idea - any last moment options are much the same.
And common sense says if you have both preset spell-casting and completely "on the fly" spell-weaving, the former should be faster because part of the job is already done and most likely more efficient (less power wasted during this time).

People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch
Go to Top of Page

Marc
Senior Scribe

658 Posts

Posted - 05 Mar 2012 :  10:07:50  Show Profile Send Marc a Private Message  Reply with Quote
imho all basic magic should be at-will, forgetting spells the Vancian way could be a feat or an arcane tradition

.
Go to Top of Page

TBeholder
Great Reader

2461 Posts

Posted - 05 Mar 2012 :  11:13:09  Show Profile Send TBeholder a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Marc

imho all basic magic should be at-will, forgetting spells the Vancian way could be a feat or an arcane tradition
Basic, yes.
But if memorization is here, it has tactical advantages that outweight inconvenience frequently enough. Again, most likely it's efficiency (critically important on low levels) and casting time (growing with the spell level).
Also, this may be one of the factors that make the magic talent per se less important as long as one got good brains and isn't completely nonmagical (how these were called - "geldings"?). I'd like to try this angle.
The simple way to handle it: give the characters an extra attribute: "Magic Affinity". Affecting spellpoint recovery, research and checks on non-guaranteed spell applications like discerning magic auras. Elves get a bonus on this, dwarves get a penalty. There was a modifier in The Net Wizard's Handbook, only with separate stats we won't need to make everything check-based to use it. Add bloodline traits, random magic talents, certain elixirs, etc.
It allows to handle the matter without downright silly stuff like d20's "oh, now we know what to do with Charisma!" as well. I guess it's okay for MUDs, but FR fans shouldn't be very puzzled by this question, especially not after having such answer as lady Gayrlana.
It would also allow a good model for nonstandard magic users without diving even deeper than d20 sorcery into the same mess. With specific bonuses, easily yelds things like extraplanar and undead spellcasters' affinity to specific schools. FR-wise, there are spellsingers / spelldancers / whatevertheywillbecalledthenexttime.

People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
15724 Posts

Posted - 13 Mar 2012 :  21:19:22  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
When I read everything they were planning for 4e, I was very excited. It sounded like they were heading in a direction I was really going to like.

Then 4e came out, and it was a major let-down.

I like a lot of what Monte (and others) are saying, but not everything they talk about will make it into FR and D&D, and not everything that does make it in will look anything like what they set-out to do.

So, in other words, I will "wait and see".

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone

Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2025 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000