Quote from: James McMurraySo we've opted for personal insults now? LOL
...
Why? D&D (the d20 version) offers options to do exactly what I want to do (have a magic dude that can be magical all day). Nice try with the "wrong game" maneuver, but it only shows your lack of understanding of the subject matter. :rolleyes:

I think that Cab could probably stop posting at this point, and we could just fill in, "It's your fault for being dumb/lazy/uncreative" for him.

-O

Quote from: James McMurrayThat's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. I'd want it to scale more with level, but being able to consistently magick my way through the bad guys instead of having to reach for a crossbow is what I'm after.

I think that's a good bet, and there's a probable balancing factor that hasn't been mentioned yet.

If I don't miss my guess, casters will be making casting rolls against foes, rather than having the foes roll saving throws.  One of the things that keeps Vancian magic balanced is the fact that it's more or less automatic - you can't miss with a magic missile, for example.  You practically can't miss with touch spells.  Even spells that allow saves often have some lesser effect if a save is failed.

If spellcasting requires a roll for success, the whole dynamic of spellcasting changes around.  It's much more reasonable, all of a sudden, to let casters do their thing for a much longer time.

-O

Quote from: obrynI think that Cab could probably stop posting at this point, and we could just fill in, "It's your fault for being dumb/lazy/uncreative" for him.

-O

True. Or I could stop trying to argue with someone whose premise boils down to "I'm a better player than anyone who disagrees with my ideas on Vancian magic."

Thanks for the eye opener!

Quote from: ghost ratBut the problem is that any character can try creative and imaginative things in combat. The wizard character just has no stats actually backing up his chances to pull them off. A fighter is probably strong enough to roll the barrel down the stairs, cut the rope holding up the chandelier, etc. The wizard? Probably not so much. The flash-powder-scaring-the-kobolds trick? Bluff is a cross-class skill, even if you have Charisma through the roof. In fact, it and "throwing marbles" are really the kinds of actions that are right up a rogue's alley.

That's probably the best argument against a skill system in D&D that I've read.

That said, I like jrients' "Zap" ability and will probably use that in my (hopefully) upcoming Moldvay game.

QuoteIf I don't miss my guess, casters will be making casting rolls against foes, rather than having the foes roll saving throws. One of the things that keeps Vancian magic balanced is the fact that it's more or less automatic - you can't miss with a magic missile, for example.  You practically can't miss with touch spells.  Even spells that allow saves often have some lesser effect if a save is failed.

If spellcasting requires a roll for success, the whole dynamic of spellcasting changes around. It's much more reasonable, all of a sudden, to let casters do their thing for a much longer time.

Don´t you notice?
There are literally HUNDREDS of games that only exist, because they thought the Vancian magic of D&D was bad. They are all Fantasy Heartbreakers.
Now D&D will become one too.

Quote from: SettembriniDon´t you notice?
There are literally HUNDREDS of games that only exist, because they thought the Vancian magic of D&D was bad. They are all Fantasy Heartbreakers.
Now D&D will become one too.

Oh my god!  How did I not notice it before! :eek:

In all seriousness, WotC has been moving towards non-Vancian casting all through 3.5's development.  Check out the ingredients...

(1) Warlocks.  Can cast unlimited blammies, and have a small suite of at-will abilities.
(2) Reserve feats.  All of a sudden, casters can do neat stuff over and over again until they blow their big spells, at which point their stuff becomes less neat.
(3) Book of 9 Swords / Star Wars Saga.  The development of per-encounter "spells" that can be refreshed every encounter.

Pretty much everything that's being hinted at has been done before.  It may turn out to suck, but as of yet, all of the above ideas have worked as parts of D&D.  None of these developments are really new; they're just being assembled in new ways.  Vancian casting is even still there - just somewhat de-emphasized.

-O

We´ll see.
The Warlock works, but sucks gameplay wise.
Bo9s is not spellcasting, but rather giving Fighters the oomph they should have had in the first place.
Nobody uses reserve feats.

I mean, the way the whole D&D multiverse works depends on the vancian spells.

I´m sure 4e will be a great playable game. I´m just saying, ...well what I said already.

Quote from: SettembriniThe Warlock works, but sucks gameplay wise.
Bo9s is not spellcasting, but rather giving Fighters the oomph they should have had in the first place.
Nobody uses reserve feats.

(1) No real arguments here, other than to note that it was a test class and the results are in.
(2) It's not spellcasting, but there's no reason it couldn't be.
(3) My group uses & loves reserve feats.  Were I running a spellcaster, I'd stock up on at least a few.  Dimensional Jaunt is probably my fave, but Fiery Blast is pretty sweet, too.  The War Domain one from Complete Champion is amazingly good.

QuoteI mean, the way the whole D&D multiverse works depends on the vancian spells.

Um, how so?  I can't really see any way in which this is true.

While Vancian magic has been the norm since 1974, I can't remember reading anything that depended on it.  In fact, most D&D fiction more or less willfully ignores Vancian casting.  (IIRC - it's been years since I forced myself to read one of those tie-in books.)

-O

Quote from: SettembriniWe´ll see.
The Warlock works, but sucks gameplay wise.

Why do you think that, the one in my game seems to be having fun, and is effective.

Quote from: SettembriniNobody uses reserve feats.

That's not true.  And some of them are pretty effective.

Quote from: SettembriniI mean, the way the whole D&D multiverse works depends on the vancian spells.

So you mean that fighters don't work?  There is a lot more to D&D then the spells man, in fact you can play whole sessions where spells don't even matter.  D&D is not just a spell system, in fact it's a small part of D&D.  If you kept the spell system, but put the game in a dark future and made it about finding 'somethingite' to power vast computers to figure out X, it wouldn't be D&D.  As long as the keep the vibe the same; adventuring, finding monster, and taking their stuff; while you have a party of wizards and fighter and such it'll still be D&D.

QuoteAs long as the keep the vibe the same; adventuring, finding monster, and taking their stuff; while you have a party of wizards and fighter and such it'll still be D&D.

That´s an uneducated argument. This would leave nearly every Fantasy game "still being D&D".

Thusly I close my participation with the notion that 4e will be the grandest of all Fantasy Hertbreakers, and all counterarguments so far are actually supporting that.

@Multiverse: Investigate yourself. sapere aude!

Quote from: Settembrini@Multiverse: Investigate yourself. sapere aude!

I'd be happy to, if I knew what you were talking about.  Maybe it's a language barrier, but your statement doesn't make enough sense for me to even know where to investigate.  And I've been keeping up on D&D cosmology since the 1e PHB and Manual of the Planes.  Can you clarify?

-O

Quote from: SettembriniThat´s an uneducated argument. This would leave nearly every Fantasy game "still being D&D".

Thusly I close my participation with the notion that 4e will be the grandest of all Fantasy Hertbreakers, and all counterarguments so far are actually supporting that.

@Multiverse: Investigate yourself. sapere aude!

Ok, thanks then.

Quote from: ghost ratBut the problem is that any character can try creative and imaginative things in combat. The wizard character just has no stats actually backing up his chances to pull them off. A fighter is probably strong enough to roll the barrel down the stairs, cut the rope holding up the chandelier, etc. The wizard? Probably not so much. The flash-powder-scaring-the-kobolds trick? Bluff is a cross-class skill, even if you have Charisma through the roof. In fact, it and "throwing marbles" are really the kinds of actions that are right up a rogue's alley.

In principle you're right, but in practice it doesn't work out that way. The fighter rarely has time for such trickery; if he tries it he's usually no longer doing his job of protecting the party so he has to be more subtle about it. Rogues do better by not drawing attention to themselves, but trickery is of value to them too and they absolutely should employ it. Clerics, again, are well armed and armoured and tend to have to be a bit more proactive. The wizard, though, can be rather more tactical.

I rekon that a well played wizard can call the shots in a fair few fights even if he has run out of spells.

As for which of the mages stats help him out here, what is assessing the situation in a combat if not intelligence? And, more importantly, isn't the creativity that keeps a character alive more likely to come from the player than the characters stats?

QuoteA fighter's sword doesn't break every time he swings it, nor an archer's bow. Why would it be so terrible if the wizard had an attack that was perhaps less powerful than either of these, but at least as reliable? Because that's really all I'm arguing for, not infinite sleeps or charms.

Thus turning the mage into a rather bland second rate archer? Why?

Quote from: obrynIf spellcasting requires a roll for success, the whole dynamic of spellcasting changes around.  It's much more reasonable, all of a sudden, to let casters do their thing for a much longer time.

There are many games out there that maintain balance that way. Could certainly work, but its a massive change for D&D, and one that I think is quite unnecessary (and to the detriment of the game).

Quote from: CabIn principle you're right, but in practice it doesn't work out that way. The fighter rarely has time for such trickery; if he tries it he's usually no longer doing his job of protecting the party so he has to be more subtle about it. Rogues do better by not drawing attention to themselves, but trickery is of value to them too and they absolutely should employ it. Clerics, again, are well armed and armoured and tend to have to be a bit more proactive. The wizard, though, can be rather more tactical.

Wow, if that post doesn't cement your reputation as a 'one true wayist' than I suspect nothing will.  

Here is a clue bat strike for ya: Not everyone wants to play the fighter as the dull meatwad stopping the gribblies from eating everyone.

Not everyone wants to play the rogue as the guy who doesn't get seen until he sticks a (poisoned? Who can tell? We ain't mind readers, Cab...) dagger into someone's back.

Not everyone wants to play a wizard who is three quarters charletan.

This isn't WoW, there aren't supposed to be tankers and DPS'ser and healers and god forbid if you do something sub optimal (like a DPS warrior... heaven forfend) you won't beat that raid boss this week for his magic pants.