Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Bronzebeard

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8
121
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: June 21, 2015, 10:17:28 AM »

[Force] descriptor are special because of what they aren't: resisted by any DR or resistances

I know that's true. But can you refresh my memory as to where it is written?



As for the specific school mix of [Force] spells, that's not a problem at all (putting aside for the moment that nonmagical orbs of force make no sense).  Descriptors can cross school lines because they're not attached to certain schools, that's the whole point.  You can have [Fire] spells in Conjuration (to summon a fire elemental), Evocation (to set things on fire), Abjuration (to protect you from heat or cold), and Transmutation (to turn things into fire) without diluting or breaking the concept of either the schools or the descriptor.

I didn't say you can't spread the descriptors across the board, I said that the Force spells came up in the thread you linked as an 'anomaly' for appearing in more then one school, serving different purpose and being counterintuitive to the flavor of the usual spells in that school:
  • Quote
    For example, I think it would be much simpler if mage armor counted as an abjuration spell and an evocation spell, since it's energy out of nowhere and it protects you.
What I'm saying is - this doesn't matter. All that discussion is nice and all but it doesn't matter. Because at the end of the day if it's story related or flavorly designed then the only person(s) that are in touch with it are the players and the GM themselves. And we can't change that. We cannot penetrate the wall that is their imagination. It is theirs and theirs alone.
It's like explaining someone that they are seeing the color red wrong. V_V
 
And also, because the schools does not matter at all. Which brings us to:


Descriptors don't need to have rules text attached to the descriptor to have special attributes.  Attack spells with the [Force] descriptor are special because of what they aren't: resisted by any DR or resistances, and few to no special anti-[Force] spells or monsters exist.  Likewise, [Mind-Affecting] doesn't have anything attached to it except "only works on creatures with Int scores", but the complex interplay of it being a common creature type immunity plus the fact that [Mind-Affecting] spells tend to be character-changing or character-destroying and so gaining immunity to it is a priority makes [Mind-Affecting] spells something that you don't want to rely on too much.

The thing is, the schools are a flavor mapping first and foremost.  Having spells classified in-universe as "attack spells" or "debuff spells" or whatever isn't nearly as useful because when deciding what to focus their characters on, most people care about things like "I wanna be a shapeshifter" or "I wanna be a fire mage" or even just "I wanna be like Gandalf."  People don't want to choose to focus on attack/defense/buff/debuff/etc. spells, because this is D&D, everyone needs combat and noncombat spells and those who focus on just one or the other (like the warmage) don't measure up.
 Well-defined mechanical implementations should go to keywords and descriptors, leaving schools to be flavor-based.

To me it seems as if you're mixing between must have and should have. I think there's a very basic problem with the way you present your argument.
First off, I'm not the player. I'm not going to decide for her/him what he wants to play. I will provide and he will choose. In all the existing editions there are things that can or cannot be created by RAW, arcane spellcasting or different.
Second, the thinking of classifying spells as "attack" or "buff" are only for designing sake. They are not to be presented as such and are not grouped into schools of "offense" "defense" and the like. And yet, when you go on Optimization boards you encounter these very definitions - SoS, SoD, dmg, buff, HOT, heal, save, and so on.
Lastly, I don't agree with you that the warmage doesn't provide the goods. If the GM isn't bringing monsters with special abilities or defenses then the warmage is a great source of attack power.


...Look at Magic: the game is one of the most tightly-defined games out there, mechanically, with dozens of evergreen keywords, a stack-based order of precedence, specific game meanings to "may" and "choose" and "attack," and so forth  Its five colors, however, don't mean anything in and of themselves, and Black gets regenerate and delve instead of Blue's bounce and counters or White's token generation and banding purely because of the flavor attached to those abilities rather than any specific rules delineating what Black means and then slapping flavor on that later.

I much rather compare the colors to classes. Each have it's own unique feels and can power different range of 'abilities'. But it's up to you to use them.
Also, the example just proves that you have to have well defined rules.



Transmutation isn't about buffs, it just has a lot of them because changing your form to be better at grappling/swimming/etc. is a common mythological theme, and offensive Transmutations like flesh to stone and disintegrate are just as iconic.  Evocation isn't about instantaneous spells, it just has a lot of them because evoking things like fire and lightning that don't stick around for a while is a common mythological theme, and longer-lasting Evocations like flaming sphere and daylight are just as iconic.  And so on. 
Like I said above, modular mechanics belong in descriptors, not schools.  Partly because having smaller more defined chunks is more elegant and easier to write, so for instance having generic rules for [Teleportation] spells, which all just bring something from point A to point B and optionally the reverse, requires a lot fewer exceptions and special cases than having generic rules for Conjuration, which can teleport, summon, call, or create things.  Partly because the whole benefit of modular mechanics is in combining them, so when making a spell that, say, summons a demon in a terrifying burst of fire and brimstone, you can make it a "(Summoning) [Chaotic][Fire][Fear][Evil]" spell and offload most of the common mechanics to those; making it a "Conjuration and Enchanement and Evocation" spell can't do most of the mechanical heavy lifting because again the schools are too broad to have lots of mechanics attached and having a three-school spell defeats the whole purpose of having schools.

Which brings us to the same point, that spell schools are meaningless.



Well, this was pretty much what I was referring to.  There are a sizable number of spells that are in the "wrong" school.  If we're not paying attention to the spells that are traditionally in each school, and the dividing lines they've picked for those schools, then the "school system" is pretty vacuous.  It's just some dividing lines for spells at some very general level.  It's hard to have too strong an opinion against that.

Agreed.
What would happen if we remove the schools altogether?



There are two other more general issues with the D&D schools as they are set up, which are kind of what has led me to mostly ignore them in recent years.  Well, that and I've noticed that nobody who hasn't played a lot of old school D&D doesn't tend to put much weight on them.  First, is that they have a kind of scientific aura to them.  They imply a fairly rigorous college of magic feel to them.  That works in some settings, doesn't in others.  It implies that Wizards all have a pretty scientific typography for magic, as a whole, which does tell you a bit about your game world.

I didn't understand that. Could you explain again?



And, maybe if that's the case a custom thematic spell list along the lines of the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage might be a more fruitful thing to do.  That also might smooth out the fact that all schools are not, as they stand now, created equal.

I really don't like the custom spell list. It means that new spells, usually, don't enter retroactively to your list. And, that you as the player has less of freedom for pick and mix your class. It is the easiest way to handle it, I'll give it that.

122
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: June 16, 2015, 09:52:20 AM »

I read the thread linked by you. Seems familiar  :eh

Part of the discussion revolves around whether a specific spell would be more fitting in this school or the other.
The second part of the discussion tries to make order in the way the schools are parted. Is it better to have 7? 6? 5? Opposite schools and the like.

Yet both take the fluff as the reasoning for a specific sorting.

I think that the fluff reasoning is irrelevant, for me, for now, for this discussion. That's because there's a difference between trying to understand the fluff of the spell (like ketaro's Orb spell analysis) and later implementing the crunch for it.

As an example, force spells came up later in the discussion. They appear as few spells in the Abj. Con. & Evo. schools. Yet, the common description that is "force" is simply an adjective and entitles no special attributes.This is a result of trying to understand the storyline and only later aligning the rules accordingly. While I try to brainstorm rules and only after, and consequently, think up the description of the associated spells.
You said it yourself - what does it matter that the divine spells also have the school differentiation? It's unnecessary clutter.
I think that the game would benefit better from a well-defined mechanic implementation preceding any lore or story or theory driven reasoning for school mapping.



I really like the schools map you created, the thought behind it is very well put together and explained. Though some of the pairings presented are connections I do not agree with.
The opposition schools diagram is one of the things I based off of when thinking up the school compass I posted earlier (I still have the books). But as explained earlier – while you reasoned that Illusion and Divination are opposites because of their themes – I look on their implementation, and bonus compatibility:

Granting bonus Spell Focus when casting transmutation conflicts with it's buffing nature. Having longer duration for damaging evocation spell is irrelevant if they are instantaneous. And so on.
Hence why I separated the schools in a certain way. From there on I can extrapolate forward and have modularity in the system.
Maybe I'm not making sense to you, but in my head it's making sense.

This goes against "continue to base it on school thematics rather than most common game effect". Does this makes sense?


(click to show/hide)

I'll take your word on it.  :D Haven't run the math on the subject.

123
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: June 10, 2015, 08:38:46 AM »
Compare to Ars Magica: you can make a D&D-style wizard by specializing in one verb (for Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination,  and Transmutation) or one noun  (for Enchantment, Illusion, and Necromancy), or by taking some subset of Creo/Muto/Rego + Auram/Aquam/Ignem/Terram (for Evocation).  Each combination has a broad yet strong theme, and when coming up with new spells it should be fairly simple to pick the one school it should belong in.  I can't think of any settings where the schools as they are wouldn't be at least generally applicable flavor-wise.

The inconsistent or unintuitive part of the schools is the various bad or un-updated school assignments for certain spells, not the school system itself.  Mage armor being neither an Abjuration (by virtue of being a protective spell) nor an Evocation (by virtue of being a [Force] spell) isn't a problem with Abjuration, Conjuration, or Evocation metaphysics, it's due to the fact that mage armor originally gave you an actual suit of armor made of force (scale armor, specifically) and they didn't change the school when it went from "conjuring up a suit of armor" to "creating a generic force field." Same thing with "Orb of fire is totally a Conjuration even though fireball is an Evocation because...um...shut up!" and "Healing is Conjuration now, because Necromancy is icky!" and all the other WotC changes and inventions that didn't go in the right school.  Yes, the designers ended up doing a lot of "When in doubt, stick it in Conjuration or Transmutation" with 3e, but really, WotC devs making terrible decisions is nothing new and doesn't (or at least shouldn't) reflect badly on the framework that was around long before them.

I knew that it might be something to that effect. I'm not that familiar with WotC histoire. It's interesting to learn.

Still, answer me this: Would you, personally, divide arcane magic to different groups then those handed down from earlier editions? Do you think a different partition of the spells would be better for d20?


(click to show/hide)


Not really.  9th level means 5th level spells, which means being able to influence the economy pretty significantly on a small scale (major creation and fabricate), travel to anywhere in the multiverse on a whim (teleport and plane shift), treat death as a speed bump (raise dead and magic jar), have bunches of totally loyal minions (dominate person and summon monster V), be exceptionally well-informed (sending and contact other plane), and more, and that's just core-only clerics and wizards.  Keeping your own or your loyal subjects' HP topped off is hardly "a bit much" in comparison.

The spells are all costing you something – spell slots. It's not much. And granted, the economy is pretty much screwed anyway with the existence of any one of those above. Yet, What I'm implying is that having a spell (even air walk) with no attached cost (i.e. at will) will completely mess up day to day life as we know it.

124
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: June 07, 2015, 08:16:41 AM »
Classifying spells into schools allows you to hang other mechanics on said division.  Instead of having a class feature affect "spells that change a person physically or mentally" or "spells that protect against things" you can key that class feature to Transmutation or Abjuration spells;

Yeah, I remember the shadowcaster PrC in races of stone. But in 4e that division was completely ignored. Anything else of note?



Although this also goes on my list of things where it seems like there's little upside to the amount of work it'd take to change it.
I get what you're saying and I agree with you on it. But, seeing as this is a theoratical discussion - what would you do if given enought time and tasked with "correcting" this issue.
I ask this in such a way because I do want to read what you have to say about it.



Pathfinder made 0 level spells infinite cast, and most agree it was a good change though they sadly ditched Cure Minor Wounds as a spell because of health issues.

I can see a system where casters might be limited on their highest level spells (per day limit), and a little less limited on their middle ones (per encounter limit), and then finally having complete mastery of their low levels (no limit).
I would prefer this to PF system, since as it stands now anyone with a cantrip can cure hunger and end droughts... :rolleyes I could understand if this kind of power kicked in at say... 5th level or something (or 9th, maybe), but not at 1st...
Even at 9th level, any cure spell/will is a bit much.

125
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: [3.5] Non-vancian casting
« on: June 07, 2015, 08:16:18 AM »
It means that if I'm not limited by time, then I can cast any spell that I want until I will successfully cast it. The fizzle-risk-factor will be meaningful only for actions being used in combat. That's a pretty big exploit hole. This requiring another attention and going over the huge and bloated list of spells. That is unless splitting the list to "combat spells" and "out of combat rituals".

126
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: June 02, 2015, 09:31:31 AM »
Thank you everyone for adding your thoughts and suggestions to the matter. I had some ideas and there are some viable options that I think would work. Not something definitive at the moment, but still.

I would like to shift the discourse to another item - Arcane Spell Schools.
placing the fluff content aside; what is the added value of the division to the specific schools? and why the this division?
I know that some of it stem from tradition, from being in the older versions of d&d.

What do you say?
How does the schools reflect in your gaming? Are they important? How would they affect the rules?

127
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: [3.5] Non-vancian casting
« on: June 02, 2015, 08:52:32 AM »
I wanted to reply just to support you on this.
I'm all for engaging and fun mechanics.

I'd also like to ask you to clarify the following, because I didn't understand fully:

I hate to play the same card that WotC did with some of their design, but [lack of] system mastery, [lack of] math skills, and [susceptibility to] risk temptation are all helpful in keeping this from being a monstrosity that eats [game] worlds.

128
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: May 28, 2015, 06:36:36 AM »
What if, at lower levels, you had one of the abilities that were already mentioned in the former posts? Like removing the /per-day so that you can cast the spells multiple times. Or that you have multiple uses for each spells so in one go you could cast the same spell round after round?

129
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: [3.5] Non-vancian casting
« on: May 28, 2015, 06:29:23 AM »
Some spells have the obstacle of overcoming touch attack DC and/or the target's save and/or spell resistance.
Aren't you afraid that in the long run you lower the impact of spells because of the higher likelihood that they would fizzle to no effect?
And when at high levels you might be giving an enormous power boost (wish every minute?)

130
I'm having a hard time understanding the idea behind the feats and why one should take them.
Especially when I read the Dedicated Study entry.

Could you, please, explain the reasons or the brainstorming process behind this path?

Thank you.

131
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: May 26, 2015, 10:07:13 AM »
A spellcaster need only choose spell(s) and away they go, but they're more limited per day.  In some cases they're more limited in scope of effect, but in other cases they have a truly massive scope that no combat maneuver could ever hope to come close to.  Even in combat the scope of some spells is incredible.
So, only by going over and rebalancing the list of spells, in emphasize on their effects and duration will I achieve balance?
Any other methods you would use in order to reduce the disproportion between the two? Or would you say that they are fine as they are?
Personally, I would like to see the classes closer together. But not to the extent of 4th edition where all powers were streamlined onto same boxes and classes were more-or-less irrelevant.


Martials are intended to be better at taking HP away from creatures. Casters are intended to be able to do anything that somebody can think up a spell to do. Note the difference in focus.
Maybe that's a missing link? Maybe some of those powers need to be delegated to the different specializations. Similar to the way psions slice their arsenal to different disciplines. Only shapers can create and mend items, only egoists can shapshift and the like.

4th edition had this division where some characters would take a certain role between defender, striker, controller or leader. Maybe limiting the class options to a certain field would make it more engaging? I don't know...


I do feel like it's reasonable to expect that if a player is having a perceived problem in the game -- that suggesting a simple, ready-made solution of picking a few spells that will last a few rounds at a pop or y'know, grabbing a few scrolls isn't exactly uber-charopp.
You'd be surprised at how stubborn some people can be.


If you want people to take you seriously then you have to do them the common courtesy of not misrepresenting their words.
I honestly, truly, do try to. Yet, if you roll back this topic you'd see that most answers are of tips on being a better in-session game - But, in the opening post, I unequivocally stated that this is an OutOfPlay discussion. I'm not going to use it to fix this ongoing campaign.
It takes two to tango, my friend.



@faeryn -
How was your first three levels experience like? Did you have enough spells? Were you, at any time, out of juice?

132
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: May 19, 2015, 09:53:34 AM »
The reason it sounds as if the problem originates from my table is because I work from my own experience, among other things. But I do intend it to be a mainly theoretical system-mechanics discussion.


Quote
I have a slight suspicion that the players in question are going more for classic blasty Wizards than the uber-charopp god ones.

Also, you can't take into consideration that the average player is a min-maxer and/or understands the numbers behind the curtain. A random player could be playing because he thinks that certain things are cool. You need to have a system that can accommodate different play style (IMHO). Having, for example, the evoker as a sub optimal path along with a giant ubermench conjurer specialization is a giant no-no from me. And it also have to account for the lower levels. Otherwise, simply name the 5th level as 1st and change the others accordingly.


The solution of having ongoing effects or spells with multiple charges is an interesting one. I think it would work better then one off slots. It could be coupled with a change of multiple saves (as can be seen here) for the intent of applying an lose effect, paralyzed, unconscious, charmed and others that are nicknamed SoD (Save or Die).
It sort of goes off on the Reserve feat vibes.

Additionally, I thought on giving Wizards a constant number of spells. i.e. a certain slots that they can fill up with any spells that they know. They just add new spells to the spellbook. The reason is that the low levels won't matter anyway at high levels, so there's no point in keeping them around.


Quote
This raises a broader question:  do you like the resource conservation tactical element?

I love it. I think it's essential to the Wizard specifically and I wouldn't remove it. I will, however, consider removing it when it comes to some classes such as the fighter, barbarian, monk, paladin or ranger.



Quote
But, if it's not engaging, then the question is how to build a system that doesn't deal with it.  As I indicated in my earlier post, there's stuff like a ToB mechanic or the Warlock.

Would you be willing as a DM, to have a player with summon spell of /at-will or /encounter?


Quote
You mean the vast array of combat options that, in the basic rules provoke an attack of opportunity, do little, and they are unlikely to succeed at?

That does not matter. The fact that they cannot pull off the maneuver does not equal to not being allowed to do so.
The martial can: melee attack, range attack, trip, pull, bull rush, charge, and grapple.
The arcanist can: cast sleep, cast magic missile, go back to shooting arrows.

And you are right, the higher they go the worse the disparancy gets. This needs to be addressed as well.

133
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: May 17, 2015, 11:29:19 AM »
@Unbeliever –
I don’t agree with you there. Yes, the first few levels are slow and tedious. But the Barbarians and Fighters can manage. Also, they have a vast plethora of actions they can take (trip, disarm, charge, etc.). Apart from 4th edition, which is very bizarre on it’s own.

What exactly do you mean by ToB spellcasting mechanic?

@faeryn -
Most of the times this is what I do. But the down side for this is that, essentially, I’m drying up the spell users power.
   
Look, all those advices are things I already do, but

@Eldritch_Lord –
that is a very interesting idea. It does include a massive rewriting.  :rolleyes

134
This looks very weird.

Generally, I do believe that WoTC dropped the ball heavily with the 4th and 5th editions. So I would like to see a new and better version for d&d. I try myself, and I think others are doing the same.
Regarding what you wrote: it seems very lacking. I could only see race changes. And I also don't understand what it is you are aiming for. I'm a big fan of Top-down design, therefore I would like to know what it is that you are aiming to do.

Best of luck

135
This seems to be very powerful.
Much test is needed.

I do have a few things to say:
Charismatic Will - level 9 looks to me as very far. I'd have it where evasion or mettle come into play: the first 4 levels.
Spell Focus - giving spell focus in every school would cover all the school by end-game. Moreover, sorcerers don't play around with school things. It's for wizard specialists. I would change it to "choose 3 spells each time you gain spell focus for all intents and purposes."

Can you focus me on what specific changes are you unsure about?

136
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: May 14, 2015, 08:32:44 AM »
Quote
It's not until 3rd level or later where characters even start finding a good concept to run with.  That's one of the reasons I highly dislike starting from 1st and am kinda annoyed when starting from 2nd.

That's one of the reasons I highly dislike starting from 1st and am kinda annoyed when starting from 2nd.

I generally refuse to play 1st level characters.


Really? Do you notice what you wrote?
This and the later mention of vast amount of spell power after 6th level tells me that this is not a singular thing. That the lower levels are unfun, unplayable and generally ignored. Most of the time people show case the high-level-god-wizard. I point that the lower levels need a look too.


Quote from: Unbeliever
Bronzebeard, you quoted me out of context.  What I wrote was:
Quote
If you think the limitations per day is a horrible mechanic, then you probably want to revise your initial consideration of not wanting a new spellcasting system.  That's [meaning limitations per day] kind of the fundamental architecture it's built around. 
I bring it up not to flog a dead horse (just bear with me ...), but b/c the bolded bit is the point that, so far, seems to be the biggest problem.  That is, that they don't have enough spells to keep doing awesome things each round and each encounter.  Yet, that kind of limited resource deployment type of decision is the balance point that Vancian Magic is built around.  Actually, it seems like that's a lot of what D&D is built around.

I'm very sorry if I made a mistake and misquoted you on something. That was not my intention. Apologies.
However - I do not think that the limitations of /per day are a bad thing. The resource management borne out of this limit is a nice aspect for the class. In contrast, the sleep-reset button is horrendous. When the player has the ability of simply using "sleep" action after every encounter then gameplay and game-balance is greatly skewed.


Quote
strikes me as a bit melodramatic.  To echo a version of Jackinthegreen's questions above, what's his expectations with the Wizard character?  The examples I used above (Web and Malconvoker) explicitly play to the Wizard's strengths.  And, as you'd expect, their ability to contribute (read:  turn the universe into their plaything) comes online early and effectively.  It may be that he's trying to pound a round peg into a square hole.

It may be so. Yet, this is not something I'm discussing. I, definitely, have a mixed bag of people in my group. One of them usually follows the rule-of-cool and has no understanding of the math and therefore plays the shittiest characters I have ever seen. Another simply wants to roll dice. etc.
Be that as it may, what I'm actually asking is tweaking and optimizing the system pre-character creation.
Yes, it's wasteful, and yes, it's time consuming. Still, I think it is a worthwhile endeavor. The topic is shown at Libertad's second post's link to his insightful blog post.

137
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: May 10, 2015, 08:29:24 AM »
None of my players had played a sorcerer as of yet. So I was never required to have a fix for the class.
And it's true that wizards is the most powerful class in the game, but that power only comes after the 12th level. Until then, they are one of the more miserable playing experience that you can offer.

Usually, the power change is not that significant so no real change is being needed in regard to number and toughness of the monsters and encounters. However, when the spellcasters get into their respective "god-mode"s, then power is so out of wack that no change of numbers can sufficiently change the problems.

The time I spent trying to tinker around with the rules amount to, gross, 5 or 6 years. I'm still unsatisfied with anything I came up with.
But it is worth it, I think. Just this week one of the players went home, according to what he told me, very frustrated and disappointed from not being able to contribute or do anything fun. (The party is level 2 by the way). He asked me that if he doesn't have fun then what's the point, and why should he even go the gaming nights?
And he is partly right, you know. Of-course there are hardships and the players need to tackle and overcome obstacles. However, those should come from within the story, following the rules and the parameters of the game. The players shouldn't feel like they are receiving the short end of the stick from the rules - the game itself.

138
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: May 08, 2015, 11:51:31 AM »
First off:
Thank you for all your input.
(^_^)



@Unbeliever -
I will pick one. But it will not be from the two that are commonly suggested: The first option I mentioned was the usuall response of "well, simply swap vancian for something else - like mana point system". The other, to use that which is given because
Quote
That's kind of the fundamental architecture it's built around


This, I think, is only avoiding the problems with this system (or another). I want to tackle them. I look at the spellcasting system for all d&d editions and I looks to me as if it got stuck at move from 2nd to 3rd with no real innovation.

And I don't think your example match. If anything, it resembles me going to the mechanic with my faulty, but operational, car and being told to either buy a new one or use it as is.



@Chemus - I never said not to change the spells levels or affect. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I agree with tweaking some of the spells and banning a select few (I'm looking at you Wish).
Would you favor the option of choosing only Sorcerer and sorcerer-like-divine-caster?



@faeryn - I already give a Reserve Spell feat as part of the Wizard class for free. It alliviates some of the uselessness feeling for the arcane casters at low levels. Personally, I consider it a must. It seems 5th edition had done as you suggested.
Multiclassing seems wrong to me as most of the editions don't take into account the way spellcasting progressing works when adding defferent classes.



@Eldritch_Lord - Thank you for the advice. I think it fits. It won't save everything, but I think it's a good step.



@Jackinthegreen -  I've been thinking on a few options to give Wizards extra tools - replenishing power with hp drain or skill checks, maybe overclocking at the expense of next day's spells, forcing spells at the risk of escalating corruption meter and the like.
I vehemntly against opting for the 'use crossbow between spells' options.
I really want to keep the signature Vancian spellcasting rather than completely ditching it.

139
Introduce Yourself / Re: Greetings and Salutations
« on: May 07, 2015, 10:02:21 AM »
How dare you!
I'm fully shinningly bronzi

140
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: May 07, 2015, 10:00:48 AM »
Something to keep in mind with the Vancian system is the potential overload of possible spells to choose from and keep track of.  That's the main reason why I'll never play a prepared caster like a cleric since it's both a lot of work and if I got into it I'd lose myself to all the optimization.

Supposedly the "balance" of high level spells is that they are able to be cast less frequently and many have the requirement of spending other resources.

Having the balance be set by number of spells to cast is a horrible, horrible mechanic. It's simply no fun. Once arcanist runs out of juice he is, for all intents and purposes, out of the game until he can enable his 'recharge' mechanic, AKA sleep. That's silly.



I'm not sure it really needs much tweaking past 5th ed.
I'm sure it needs much work. It's nowhere near as much fun and engaging as it could be.

Honestly though, the camping  evry 5 minutes issue is something I solve by giving the group initiative to finish a given task within a certain time frame.
In essence, you are opting to solve a broken rule with an inside story reasoning. You are letting the story overwrite the game mechanics. You are ignoring the broken tool and give birth to new problems like having players unwilling to play wizards (I, to this day, am unwilling to play as a cleric). Taken to the extreme; why even bother having the rules at all, we could simply play FreeForm.


As for save or die spells and the trade off in power at higher levels..., the only suggestion I can give is to limit their use with expensive conponents IF your really keen too.
How?
 
I personally think that wizards becoming god at lvl 20 is only fair for being less than a rat catcher at level 1. If your having some issue with a powerful wizard pretty much carrying the group at higher levels then I believe that is a matter of designign encounters more specifically to pin them down without killing him outright first round.
That makes no sense.
Forcing people to play a figure that have zero impact on the action, having them come in to "play" for hours on end untill, finally, a high number of sessions afterwards, they become the god-wizards and turning the tables on the other players. Atrocious.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8