TheRPGSite

You know, if I hadn't played Star Wars Saga edition I'd have been really freaking out about this little development; but even as it stands, SW is one thing, D&D is another.

SW is trying to emulate the movies; and what do you see in the movies? Jedi switching from one neat power to another in the battle, trying a trick and then never repeating it, etc.
So having per-encounter force powers use makes a lot of sense.

In D&D, what you're trying to emulate is a fantasy world, or a book, or what have you. It doesn't make nearly as much sense. Also, how the fuck will this jive with their whole "multiple-room encounter dungeon" idea? If you go from room A to room B, suddenly you have all your spells back, but if you have the bad luck to go from room A to room A1 to room A2 to room A4 to room A8, you have to fight 5 battles all with the same set of spells, just because of the whim of the system? Where going from room a to room b takes about six seconds, and the other set of encounters takes 5 hours? WTF?!

Not to mention, I really don't see how the fuck the existing spell system or anything even vaguely resembling it would work with per-encounter spellcasting.  They'd have to utterly revamp the entire magic system, at least as much and probably far more than they revamped the force powers for SW.

RPGPundit

It looks like the spell system is where we'll see the most change. The old 1-9 model no longer exists, with the implication that spell levels will match the characters, ie.1-30. I imagine that Wizards and Sorcerors will be able to prepare a number of identical spells prior to an encounter, the total number of which will be determined by their current level.

Outside of that it's wide open right now. I'm looking forward to seeing how they manage such a thorough reconstruction, although I've always considered Vancian magic to be more of a hindrance than a boon when playing D&D, whatever the iteration.

I posted this to another thread, but am copying it here:

I'll take a wild guess that most damage dealing spells will now do less, and a fixed amount, of damage. If you have the chance of throwing spells per encounter, then it follows that the ones that deal large amounts of damage will have it reduced. So, maybe Fireball will now do 5d6 damage full stop, but with the correct feats and having it as a per encounter spell, you'll have greater access to it.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou know, if I hadn't played Star Wars Saga edition I'd have been really freaking out about this little development; but even as it stands, SW is one thing, D&D is another.

SW is trying to emulate the movies; and what do you see in the movies? Jedi switching from one neat power to another in the battle, trying a trick and then never repeating it, etc.
So having per-encounter force powers use makes a lot of sense.

In D&D, what you're trying to emulate is a fantasy world, or a book, or what have you. It doesn't make nearly as much sense. Also, how the fuck will this jive with their whole "multiple-room encounter dungeon" idea? If you go from room A to room B, suddenly you have all your spells back, but if you have the bad luck to go from room A to room A1 to room A2 to room A4 to room A8, you have to fight 5 battles all with the same set of spells, just because of the whim of the system? Where going from room a to room b takes about six seconds, and the other set of encounters takes 5 hours? WTF?!

Not to mention, I really don't see how the fuck the existing spell system or anything even vaguely resembling it would work with per-encounter spellcasting.  They'd have to utterly revamp the entire magic system, at least as much and probably far more than they revamped the force powers for SW.

RPGPundit

They've said that both Per-day and per-encounter abilities will be present. I don't think it's too hard to say that a powerful wizard can regain some of his mojo when he has a few moments to breath, while his big guns take more time to recover. I kind of like the dynamic there.

Completely and totally changes spellcasting; its the most fundamental change to playing D&D I have encountered in any edition overhaul.

It will be interesting to see how they approach "spells per encounter" + "encounters can be multiple rooms" design of the game.

This is what I'd do:

Make it based on "resting" outside of combat.  If you have a single room/monster encounter you get all your spells.  If you get into a running battle through the dungeon with waves of reinforcements arriving -- you're at risk of running out of spells!

Look to Book of 9 Swords for some inspiration here.  I can burn through all my kung fu, then spend a round recharging my powers.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Outside of combat I take 5 minutes and then can switch around what fu options I have at hand.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn D&D, what you're trying to emulate is a fantasy world, or a book, or what have you. It doesn't make nearly as much sense.

With its rez-in-a-can availability of healing and trinket-based empowerment system, D&D has not been trying to emulate anything other than D&D for quite some time. Not that that's a bad thing particularly.

QuoteAlso, how the fuck will this jive with their whole "multiple-room encounter dungeon" idea? If you go from room A to room B, suddenly you have all your spells back, but if you have the bad luck to go from room A to room A1 to room A2 to room A4 to room A8, you have to fight 5 battles all with the same set of spells, just because of the whim of the system? Where going from room a to room b takes about six seconds, and the other set of encounters takes 5 hours? WTF?!

It will have to rely on the DM's judgment, probably, and the smarts of the party to avoid fighting the whole dungeon at once. However it works out, it still sounds better for casters than spells-per-day.

QuoteNot to mention, I really don't see how the fuck the existing spell system or anything even vaguely resembling it would work with per-encounter spellcasting.  They'd have to utterly revamp the entire magic system, at least as much and probably far more than they revamped the force powers for SW.

Yes, it sounds drastic. I'm looking forward to it, and I don't think I'm the only one. If they screw it up, that will be disappointing, but no one can see the future.

In some ways per encounter is how GURPS Magic or Hero System already plays. Particularly if the mage has high levels of Recover Energy.

It will  be interesting to see how they make it feel like D&D.

Quote from: jrientsLook to Book of 9 Swords for some inspiration here.  I can burn through all my kung fu, then spend a round recharging my powers.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Outside of combat I take 5 minutes and then can switch around what fu options I have at hand.

Yep. Greater flexibility and more bang for the Wizard's buck seems to be the goal.

The tackling of the 9-9:05 job problem of spellcasters is for me one of the most promising parts of 4e.
It isn't much fun to either rest between each room to let the spell-caster regenerate after blasting all his mojo away, or to play stupid and to use only a fraction of your spell repertoire in each encounter to manage several encounters between each resting period.

A trick I have thought of before to accomplish this is an absolute need of components for every single spell. Therefore you use up your components for encounter 1, take the loot (or find new components in the loot), buy new components and so on.

BUT:

The fighter is supposed to do stuff repeatedly, even when the wizard is low on spells.

It seems to me, the are turning everyone into a warblade instead of turning everyone into a Wizard.

Quote from: SettembriniThe fighter is supposed to do stuff repeatedly, even when the wizard is low on spells.

It seems to me, the are turning everyone into a warblade instead of turning everyone into a Wizard.

But especially at low levels, a wizard is downright pitiful in a fight, even fully loaded with spells. A low-level wizard doesn't switch to a crossbow after he runs out of spells, he uses the crossbow first because his low level spells do less damage than a crossbow bolt. Or will be saved against. Or whatever.

It sounds like wizards will always have some kind of little magic bolt to throw around, which is a HUGE improvement in my eyes. If I play a wizard, it's because I want to solve my problems with magic, and 80%* of the problems in D&D are fights.

*or whatever percent

Quote from: jrientsLook to Book of 9 Swords for some inspiration here.  I can burn through all my kung fu, then spend a round recharging my powers.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Outside of combat I take 5 minutes and then can switch around what fu options I have at hand.

And you all laughed at me when I worried about how much Bo9S would influence the design...And, I'll also point out, it seems that the Bo9S approach made fighters too powerful, so they had to up wizards power, right?  Arms race anyone? ;)

OK - done with the snark.  jrients beat me to the punch, though.  If I had to guess, I'd say that's exactly how it will work.  You'll have a list of spells you'll know (maneuvers for Fighters). You will be able to have a (sub)set of those spells "readied." To regain a "readied" spell will be a full round action (or something similar). To replace a spell on your "readied" list with another you know will take 5 minutes or something like that. I'd have to go back and read the specifics in Bo9S - but it's something like that. Which spells are in your list, how many you have "readied" when an encounter starts, etc. will all be determined by class/level.

Which is a bummer.  I'd rather see them go to some tangible measure of power - for both fighter's fu and wizards magic.  Something based on Con and fort saves - like a derived stat; something that doesn't tell you which spells you have to choose, but you have a list of what you know and can use them whenever you have enough power to do so.  And when you're running low, you have to make fort saves to get the spell off.  Or something. Maybe that's how the system will seem in play even if it's this Bo9S-like approach?

While I enjoy the resource-management aspect of D&D spellcasters, I've always found the magic system unsatisfying. The biggest problem is many of the more esoteric or non-violent spells are never used. I'd guess almost half of the 1st and 2nd level spells in the PHB have never been used in our 27 years of D&D. Seriously - who's going to take Audible Glamour when he can take Web? Now, Audible Glamour is a cool spell that could prove very useful - but only in quite specific situations. A magic-user would be foolish to have it memorized when he heads into a dungeon, unless he has reams of spell slots available. It always struck me as odd that a high-level mage would be much more likely to use a Dancing Lights or Unseen Servant spell than a low-level mage.

So anything that makes the subtle, non-combat spells more attractive is an improvement in my books. If that means making them usable per-encounter, then I have no problem with it.

Haffrung, under earlier editions did your group roll percentiles to understand spells?  Did you randomly roll initial spells for 1st level MUs?

Quote from: HaffrungWhile I enjoy the resource-management aspect of D&D spellcasters, I've always found the magic system unsatisfying. The biggest problem is many of the more esoteric or non-violent spells are never used.

I see this occur all the time in GURPS. Fireball is an effective attack against a target but it takes some prep in the context of GURPS Combat. However to get fireball you have to take spells like Create Fire, Ignite Fire, etc. Useful but not typcial combat spells.

For one player the lightbulb clicked on when he realize all the situational uses he could put Create Fire too. It still useful for a one on one confrontation but in certain situation the spell can be really useful.

Afterwards that players started looking all the other weak spells he had to take and started figuring out situations in which they would be useful.

However GURPS Magic has a very different feel than D&D Magic so it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

EDIT: I replied to ghost rat
That´s backwards.

What does a 1st level fighter do after getiing hit?

1st level characters are SUPPOSED to be weaklings.

3.5 already boosted them to very, very playable levels.

Quote from: jrientsHaffrung, under earlier editions did your group roll percentiles to understand spells?  Did you randomly roll initial spells for 1st level MUs?

I'd usually roll for starting spells. Still, if you ended up with one effective combat spell like magic missile, sleep, or shield, that's about all you'd ever end up using.

I'm actually pretty excited about this change...

First off, let me say that I love the Complete Mage reserve feats.  I thought it was brilliant to give spellcasters the ability to stay useful over multiple fights.

I have 2 main gripes about the way spells currently work...

(1) The "Blow Spells - Rest - Repeat" cycle.  While a DM can set up things to make this less viable (such as random encounters, time limits, time-sensitive goals, and so on), it's still very prevalent.  With the availability of spells like Rope Trick, random encounters aren't even a deterrent in most circumstances.  I find it hard to call the way spellcasters currently work "resource management."  It feels a lot more like "let's go balls out for 20 minutes and sleep!"

(2) Spell lookup times.  I really, really dislike having to look up spells during game time since each of them creates their own little rules microcosm.  I mean, Dispel Magic alone takes up almost a full page and has 3 separate ways to cast it.  Complicating this further is the multitude of near-identical Conditions that I need to look up for each spell effect.

Now, don't get me wrong - there's also something I love about having special case & oddball spells.  It just brings the game to a creaking halt sometimes.

(Thank goodness for systemreferencedocuments.org!)

-O

Quote from: ghost ratBut especially at low levels, a wizard is downright pitiful in a fight, even fully loaded with spells.

At 1st level, casting Sleep before the party wades into combat with a room full of goblins makes the Wizard anything but pitiful.  Of course once that spell is used up... they're a bit on the weak side. ;)

If you want to try this out with current rules, also look to the Factotum class in Dungeonscape. He has 'per encounter' and 'per day' abilities.


At first we were very confused by this, reading 'per encounter' as 'per day' across the board. So it looked like, "ah, well as a 4th level guy, he can use his spell like power..3 times per day. Thats kind of lame.."

But 3 times per encounter makes lots of sense. It's usually just an attack or a save or whatever. And the number isn't high-- even at high level, they only expect an encounter to last 4-7 rounds (my estimate... I think).

Quote from: obryn(1) The "Blow Spells - Rest - Repeat" cycle.  While a DM can set up things to make this less viable (such as random encounters, time limits, time-sensitive goals, and so on), it's still very prevalent.  With the availability of spells like Rope Trick, random encounters aren't even a deterrent in most circumstances.  I find it hard to call the way spellcasters currently work "resource management."  It feels a lot more like "let's go balls out for 20 minutes and sleep!"

(2) Spell lookup times.  I really, really dislike having to look up spells during game time since each of them creates their own little rules microcosm.  I mean, Dispel Magic alone takes up almost a full page and has 3 separate ways to cast it.  Complicating this further is the multitude of near-identical Conditions that I need to look up for each spell effect.

In my mind, 2 is a feature, not a bug. I've come to this view very reluctantly, but I now think that spells with weird, variable, and complex effects are the best of a number of (none completely satisfying) ways to ensure that magic retains a sense of 'magicalness' in a game. Effects-based systems only reach the same levels of color in the hands of the very best players, ditto freeform.

Though I agree that the mechanical burden outside the spell itself could and for my tastes probably should be simplified.

-------------

1 is a huge problem of all magic systems that don't just let a mage do whatever whenever. Spellpoints, spell slots, memorizatoin, fatigue, whatever it is, what do you do when the resource runs out? And then there's stuff like rope trick, yeah. You can solve it by having an absolute time limit for the adventure ('the princess' head will be struck off at midnight!') but that doesn't work for every adventure.

4e's proposed solution, where only a few of the best of the abilities are per day, will probably help some, because then there's less incentive (come on, man, just use your freakin' lightning bolt, we're not going to camp for a day just so you can get delayed blast fireball back, or whatever).

I feel like one ought to be able to do better though at the problem: make spells a resource that have to be stretched over many encounters.

2 ideas:

1) Have them usable say once/10 encounters, or whatever, do it all in game-speak. I kind of hate the formalistic nature of that and it doesn't represent attrition very well (since you get stuff back sooner or later whether you rest or not). But it does work.

2) Extreme version - all spells are scroll spells and you can only make new scrolls after each adventure. Interesting that was how Arneson's game orignally worked IIRC, spells were things you found like magic items and had one use.

Quote from: CalithenaIn my mind, 2 is a feature, not a bug. I've come to this view very reluctantly, but I now think that spells with weird, variable, and complex effects are the best of a number of (none completely satisfying) ways to ensure that magic retains a sense of 'magicalness' in a game. Effects-based systems only reach the same levels of color in the hands of the very best players, ditto freeform.

Though I agree that the mechanical burden outside the spell itself could and for my tastes probably should be simplified.

Oh, don't get me wrong. :)  I have a love-hate relationship with weirdass spells.  I love the odd effects, and I love reading new spells that bring something new to the table.  The fact that they can be used in so many versatile ways is juse awesome.  I also love playing spellcasters because of that versatility.

I just think they slow down the game...

On reflection, though, it bothers me a lot more for NPCs and monsters than for PCs...  I can expect a player to look up spells all the time, whereas if I'm preparing to run - say - a Hezrou encounter, I need to look up Chaos Hammer, Unholy Blight, Blasphemy, and Gaseous Form.

Quote1 is a huge problem of all magic systems that don't just let a mage do whatever whenever. Spellpoints, spell slots, memorizatoin, fatigue, whatever it is, what do you do when the resource runs out? And then there's stuff like rope trick, yeah. You can solve it by having an absolute time limit for the adventure ('the princess' head will be struck off at midnight!') but that doesn't work for every adventure.

4e's proposed solution, where only a few of the best of the abilities are per day, will probably help some, because then there's less incentive (come on, man, just use your freakin' lightning bolt, we're not going to camp for a day just so you can get delayed blast fireball back, or whatever).

I feel like one ought to be able to do better though at the problem: make spells a resource that have to be stretched over many encounters.

2 ideas:

1) Have them usable say once/10 encounters, or whatever, do it all in game-speak. I kind of hate the formalistic nature of that and it doesn't represent attrition very well (since you get stuff back sooner or later whether you rest or not). But it does work.

2) Extreme version - all spells are scroll spells and you can only make new scrolls after each adventure. Interesting that was how Arneson's game orignally worked IIRC, spells were things you found like magic items and had one use.

Well, I like the way reserve feats handle it...  But otherwise I'm going to keep an open mind...  I don't really like much of any solution, but I think the Saga/Bo9S way may be a pretty good one.

-O

Quote from: ghost ratBut especially at low levels, a wizard is downright pitiful in a fight, even fully loaded with spells. A low-level wizard doesn't switch to a crossbow after he runs out of spells, he uses the crossbow first because his low level spells do less damage than a crossbow bolt. Or will be saved against. Or whatever.

Then he's being played like a numbskull.

You're a wizard. Use a cantrip, a bit of flash or smoke powder, a few appropriate magical looking words and kobolds will run in fear. Can't beat your foe in a fair fight? Cheat, throw a bag of marbles on the floor.

In no edition of D&D has a low level mage started out as an equal combatant, but in every version thus far he's been worth playing if you're smart enough to realise that spellcasting is only part of being the mage character.

Spells per encounter... Heck, its just dull. It'll require downpowering many of the spells and it will replace the creative roleplay you need to be a mage with the bang-bang-bang of each encounter having had a reset button pressed so you can do just the same thing again.

QuoteIt sounds like wizards will always have some kind of little magic bolt to throw around, which is a HUGE improvement in my eyes. If I play a wizard, it's because I want to solve my problems with magic, and 80%* of the problems in D&D are fights.

Oh, dear. 80%? Really?

Sounds tedious to me. Really. D&D is not (and should not be) a combat game, if you want that then buy a miniatures combat boardgame... Oh, thats the direction they've been taking 3rd ed in, and its where they're going even more with 4th ed... Such a shame, because the basic engine of the game is good.

Quote from: HaffrungWhile I enjoy the resource-management aspect of D&D spellcasters, I've always found the magic system unsatisfying. The biggest problem is many of the more esoteric or non-violent spells are never used. I'd guess almost half of the 1st and 2nd level spells in the PHB have never been used in our 27 years of D&D.

Every one of the low level spells in the RC gets used in my game, other than floating disc which remains the forgotten distant cousin.

A big problem I've always had with AD&D in all three editions is the sheer mass of spells in the books, most of which just don't ever get used. Seems to detract from PCs creating their own distinctive spells too. You could improve every single edition of AD&D by limiting included spells in the PHB to a dozen per level.

Its higher level mages who get most mileage out of low level utility spells. Always has been.

Quote from: obryn(1) The "Blow Spells - Rest - Repeat" cycle.  While a DM can set up things to make this less viable (such as random encounters, time limits, time-sensitive goals, and so on), it's still very prevalent.  With the availability of spells like Rope Trick, random encounters aren't even a deterrent in most circumstances.  I find it hard to call the way spellcasters currently work "resource management."  It feels a lot more like "let's go balls out for 20 minutes and sleep!"

Then the DM is a fool. Why aren't the PCs working to a time limit? Is the evil necromancer plotting to overthtrow the duke willing to wait for weeks while the PCs get round to confrontign him?

Want to stop them using rope trick? Give them a bag of holding and let them figure out that you'll have odd things happen if you start takign extra-dimensional spaces into extra-dimensional spaces.

Quote(2) Spell lookup times.  I really, really dislike having to look up spells during game time since each of them creates their own little rules microcosm.  I mean, Dispel Magic alone takes up almost a full page and has 3 separate ways to cast it.  Complicating this further is the multitude of near-identical Conditions that I need to look up for each spell effect.

Here I agree with you. The 3rd edition spell desctiption bloat baffles me, very often the spell description could be done in eight lines but takes a whole column. I think thats the 3e and 3.5e PHB could have benefitted from some serious editing.

So how does this magic revamp handle the big spells like Wish or Genesis? Genesis has a caasting time of a week and you get a demiplane out of it. Wish is, well, Wish - the game breaker of all spells.

Quote from: jeff37923So how does this magic revamp handle the big spells like Wish or Genesis? Genesis has a caasting time of a week and you get a demiplane out of it. Wish is, well, Wish - the game breaker of all spells.

I imagine casting time will supersede the per encounter/per day rate, so you may be able to cast Wish once a day, but once you start you need to spend a week on it and be unable to cast any other spell without cancelling it.

Alternatively they may expand the casting rates to include per week/per month/per year/per lifetime etc.

Quote from: CabThen the DM is a fool. Why aren't the PCs working to a time limit? Is the evil necromancer plotting to overthtrow the duke willing to wait for weeks while the PCs get round to confrontign him?

Wow, so every adventure should be like that?

My Wilderlands game is largely one of exploration - going to remote locations, finding long-lost dungeons, and exploring them.  If every dungeon has a time limit, that's ... well, frankly crazy.  It's an artificial constraint.

QuoteWant to stop them using rope trick? Give them a bag of holding and let them figure out that you'll have odd things happen if you start takign extra-dimensional spaces into extra-dimensional spaces.

Or they don't take the bag of holding, or they hide it, etc...  

I've never noticed you posting before, so a quick question...  Should I pretty much expect most of your posts to be "Less is more!  If you want more or different it's because you're dumb!  RC uber alles!"?

-O

Quote from: obrynWow, so every adventure should be like that?

My Wilderlands game is largely one of exploration - going to remote locations, finding long-lost dungeons, and exploring them.  If every dungeon has a time limit, that's ... well, frankly crazy.  It's an artificial constraint.

Every campaign has to have time in it. You want to let your player characters go and explore half an hour out of every day? Fine, but most likely they'll find out that someone else go to the big discoveries/interesting places and looted the treasure/met the oracle/slew the dragon first. Not every adventure should be against the clock, but no adventure should be based around blowing all of your resources in ten minutes then resting.

QuoteOr they don't take the bag of holding, or they hide it, etc...  

Then they'll discover soon enough that they're not the only creatures in the world who have an interest in discovering things. Hide your bag of holding, leaving it unguarded? It'll work maybe 90% of the time. Only has to be stolen once and you've lost a lot. Don't take it? They'll regret that when they find loads of heavy loot.

QuoteI've never noticed you posting before, so a quick question...  Should I pretty much expect most of your posts to be "Less is more!  If you want more or different it's because you're dumb!  RC uber alles!"?

:D

Hand on heart, if I had only one rule book I'd have the RC. But I don't always think that 'less is more' in D&D. I do think, however, that in this context less certainly is more. Keep it simple, keep it flowing, and keep the game well paced. I've made the mistake of allowing particular character classes to dictate the pace of my games, and it is my experience that a story driven game is more fun for all of the players and me too. The trick is balancing challenge against time.

I also think that having too much baggage in a game can stifle flow and creativity; the example alluded to in this duscission, the sheer scale of spell lists in AD&D, is in my opinion a good one. That doesn't mean that a game with loads of options can't be excellent, but I do think that you can overcomplicate things to the detriment of the gaming experience. Do you not agree?

Quote from: Cab:D

Hand on heart, if I had only one rule book I'd have the RC. But I don't always think that 'less is more' in D&D. I do think, however, that in this context less certainly is more. Keep it simple, keep it flowing, and keep the game well paced. I've made the mistake of allowing particular character classes to dictate the pace of my games, and it is my experience that a story driven game is more fun for all of the players and me too. The trick is balancing challenge against time.

I also think that having too much baggage in a game can stifle flow and creativity; the example alluded to in this duscission, the sheer scale of spell lists in AD&D, is in my opinion a good one. That doesn't mean that a game with loads of options can't be excellent, but I do think that you can overcomplicate things to the detriment of the gaming experience. Do you not agree?

OK :)  I was just checking.  Story-driven and grognard.  This should be interesting. :)

As far as overcomplicating a game... It depends what I'm going for.  Largely I would agree, but I would probably not agree with you on where that line is drawn, exactly.  I enjoy rules-light games such as FATE for certain games, but I also enjoy 3.5 quite a bit.  I'm one of the folks who actually enjoys the game portion of RPGs like 3.5.  I like the little character creation sub-game, and I love mechanical customization of characters.  Games like RC D&D and Castles & Crusades leave me a bit cold.  They're lighter in rules, certainly, but less readily customizable than FATE/Risus/Whatever.

What I will say is that I like most of my complexity to be front-loaded.  I want it to be largely taken care of during character creation or during levelling.  While the game is in play, I want lookup times to be reduced...  I'm not saying zero, just short & long between.  Hence, my excitement over a possible spell revision in 4e.

-O

Quote from: obrynOK :)  I was just checking.  Story-driven and grognard.  This should be interesting. :)

I wouldn't call myself a grog. I'm most partial to BECMI D&D for a number of reasons, but I can pick things in all three and a half versions of AD&D that I think are done very well.  

QuoteAs far as overcomplicating a game... It depends what I'm going for.  Largely I would agree, but I would probably not agree with you on where that line is drawn, exactly.

Good, I kind of left that open ended. It does rather come down to where you want the detail.

QuoteI enjoy rules-light games such as FATE for certain games, but I also enjoy 3.5 quite a bit.  I'm one of the folks who actually enjoys the game portion of RPGs like 3.5.  I like the little character creation sub-game, and I love mechanical customization of characters.  Games like RC D&D and Castles & Crusades leave me a bit cold.  They're lighter in rules, certainly, but less readily customizable than FATE/Risus/Whatever.

I think that RC D&D being less customisable than 3.5 is a misconception; it doesn't have so many customisations built in, but for the most part that means you've got a greater scope. Every rule telling you what you can do also excludes a great deal, and RC D&D doesn't exclude very much at all.

QuoteWhat I will say is that I like most of my complexity to be front-loaded.  I want it to be largely taken care of during character creation or during levelling.  While the game is in play, I want lookup times to be reduced...  I'm not saying zero, just short & long between.  Hence, my excitement over a possible spell revision in 4e.

The best thing they could do with 4e spells would be to give each one a short word limit, and reduce the number in the core rulebooks. Would make lookup faster, would make spell selection faster, and would make getting to the part of the spell description you need much easier. The best thing to do to the spell system is address how many spells you want a character of any level to cast; balancing things towards powers per encounter rings all sorts of alarm bells, I just can't find any way that isn't a mistake.

Oh, and one other thing... I'd certainly have extra spells in the campaign, but I'd bring those out in seperate products. Theres nothing at all wrong with having loads of spells about, but at the core of the game you don't need so very many. Keep the heart of the game simple, bring complexity in as an option.

Quote from: CabThen he's being played like a numbskull.

You're a wizard. Use a cantrip, a bit of flash or smoke powder, a few appropriate magical looking words and kobolds will run in fear. Can't beat your foe in a fair fight? Cheat, throw a bag of marbles on the floor.

Dude, what? So your answer is to treat all opponents like morons? Marbles? Listen to yourself, man! Someone who plays a wizard is signing up to be Merlin or Gandalf or (these days) Harry Potter, not Penn and fucking Teller.

And don't even start the whole "Gandalf was an 8th-level magic user" spiel. He beat up a Balrog by himself and was the Tolkien equivalent of a living god.

QuoteIn no edition of D&D has a low level mage started out as an equal combatant, but in every version thus far he's been worth playing if you're smart enough to realise that spellcasting is only part of being the mage character.

Yes. The other part is d4 hit points and a narrow skill selection. So the spellcasting part needs to be good.

QuoteSpells per encounter... Heck, its just dull. It'll require downpowering many of the spells and it will replace the creative roleplay you need to be a mage with the bang-bang-bang of each encounter having had a reset button pressed so you can do just the same thing again.

No one knows what the final shape of the 4e casting rules will be or what it will require. Not even you. So please, spare me the speeches on the impending tragic loss of majesty. I'm getting really sick of all the weepy internet soothsaying I hear around here. It's bone-headed, arrogant, and as likely to be wrong as right.

QuoteOh, dear. 80%? Really?

Sounds tedious to me. Really. D&D is not (and should not be) a combat game, if you want that then buy a miniatures combat boardgame... Oh, thats the direction they've been taking 3rd ed in, and its where they're going even more with 4th ed... Such a shame, because the basic engine of the game is good.

God, I know, I'm so fucking unenlightened. You forgot to say something about "role-playing not roll-playing" in your little prancefest.

Listen, I'm usually a lot more civil, but you're just fucking with me and my patience has limits.

Quote from: ghost ratAnd don't even start the whole "Gandalf was an 8th-level magic user" spiel. He beat up a Balrog by himself and was the Tolkien equivalent of a living god.

Gandalf was a 5th level magic-user, according to the classic Seligman article.  And balrogs only had 10d6 hit dice back in the day, so a single lightning bolt could potentially kill one.

Quote from: ghost ratDude, what? So your answer is to treat all opponents like morons? Marbles? Listen to yourself, man! Someone who plays a wizard is signing up to be Merlin or Gandalf or (these days) Harry Potter, not Penn and fucking Teller.

And live long enough you'll BE that great mage. But you don't start out that way like you don't start out as Conan if you're a barbarian, Alan a Dale if you're a bard or Aragorn if you're a ranger. The lower level characters of all classes need a few tricks to prosper; you're expecting too much if you think that the magic user should start out as an arch mage!

And it isn't just marbles, and it isn't just morons you're aiming to fool. Come on, a creative player should be able to rattle off dozens of tricks that will keep a low level mage a valuable member of the party whether or not he's got spells to spare. The thing to remember is that you're the only person who knows whats left in the magical arsenal, no one else does, and they don't know if what you're doing is magic, trickery, or just plain old bluffing.

Quote[SIZE]
Yes. The other part is d4 hit points and a narrow skill selection. So the spellcasting part needs to be good.

I dunno, I just see that as a rather uncreative way of keeping a mage alive. Besides, if you're primarily looking at this as a way of keeping mages going at low levels there are other ways other than throwing out a working magic system.

QuoteNo one knows what the final shape of the 4e casting rules will be or what it will require. Not even you. So please, spare me the speeches on the impending tragic loss of majesty. I'm getting really sick of all the weepy internet soothsaying I hear around here. It's bone-headed, arrogant, and as likely to be wrong as right.

Scanning through the info being dribbled out by Wizards, we do know a fair bit about the shape of the magic system, but we don't yet know about which abilities will be per encounter, per day, etc. It ain't arrogant to form an opinion on what the games developers have actually said.

QuoteGod, I know, I'm so fucking unenlightened. You forgot to say something about "role-playing not roll-playing" in your little prancefest.

Listen, I'm usually a lot more civil, but you're just fucking with me and my patience has limits.

You're usually more civil? I rather doubt that.

I think ghost rat would be better served by always playing gestalt charcters from level one. Dragon Gestalt characters in Montes WoD, it is.

Get real, ghost rat!
D&D in low levels is all about survival horror.

Go, play Rifts if you want it front-loaded.

Not that I don´t like Rifts, but Rifts is not D&D, and there´s no need to front load D&D EVEN MORE than 3.x did.

Quote from: CabAnd it isn't just marbles, and it isn't just morons you're aiming to fool. Come on, a creative player should be able to rattle off dozens of tricks that will keep a low level mage a valuable member of the party whether or not he's got spells to spare.

But what if I wanna just blast shit with arcane fire 'til it's dead, instead of figuring out alternative uses for household objects?

If zapping foes is all that you want to do, then the Warlock is the class for you.

Sounds good, but then aren't we doing away with Vancian magic? It also doesn't offer the abilities a wizard gets with his spells at a later date.

My point is that there are playstyles beyond "have one crappy spell per day then throw marbles at your opponents." When I play a wizard I want to be a wizard. Not a warlock with his handful of reusable tricks, and not some poor Vancian shmuck who winds up trying to figure out how to use a broom handle to convince the enemy goblins he deserves the title. I'm not asking for constantly reusable earth shaking power, just something that lets me contribute to the combats, and doesn't result in me wanting to take a nap at 9am to refill my excitement tank.

Quote from: SettembriniI think ghost rat would be better served by always playing gestalt charcters from level one. Dragon Gestalt characters in Montes WoD, it is.

That's me. Evil Powergamer Public Enemy #1. :rolleyes:

QuoteGet real, ghost rat!
D&D in low levels is all about survival horror.

Go, play Rifts if you want it front-loaded.

Not that I don´t like Rifts, but Rifts is not D&D, and there´s no need to front load D&D EVEN MORE than 3.x did.

I don't want front-loading. I don't want cosmic power. I can even take being a schmuck, if my wizard schmuck is still a wizard. I just want to consistently be able to do something magical.

You know what I was in my last D&D game? A bard. I was useless in combat, but I accomplished everything I needed to and I was fine with that. So cut me some slack.

Quote from: James McMurraySounds good, but then aren't we doing away with Vancian magic? It also doesn't offer the abilities a wizard gets with his spells at a later date.

My point is that there are playstyles beyond "have one crappy spell per day then throw marbles at your opponents." When I play a wizard I want to be a wizard. Not a warlock with his handful of reusable tricks, and not some poor Vancian shmuck who winds up trying to figure out how to use a broom handle to convince the enemy goblins he deserves the title. I'm not asking for constantly reusable earth shaking power, just something that lets me contribute to the combats, and doesn't result in me wanting to take a nap at 9am to refill my excitement tank.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say.

Did I ever mention that I think the Warlock sucks in actual play?
I mean I know people digging it. But it´s positively uninteresting.
Warlocks are balanced, can contribute every round.

But in a boring way.

Especially as the "greater invisibility-thief backstab-eldritch blast" combo is so popular with them.

It´s really a certain kind of artillery that I think of lowly in regards to rich tactical play. It´s boring and uncreative.

And a telltale of the "invisible chaotic thief sniper"-type character. You know those who never ever want to take responsibility, plan ahead or act in unison with the group. Boring & annoying.

Quote from: James McMurrayBut what if I wanna just blast shit with arcane fire 'til it's dead, instead of figuring out alternative uses for household objects?

Talk your DM into allowing you to generate high level characters, max out on combat spells, and go trawling for monsters to blat.

Quote from: James McMurrayMy point is that there are playstyles beyond "have one crappy spell per day then throw marbles at your opponents." When I play a wizard I want to be a wizard. Not a warlock with his handful of reusable tricks, and not some poor Vancian shmuck who winds up trying to figure out how to use a broom handle to convince the enemy goblins he deserves the title. I'm not asking for constantly reusable earth shaking power, just something that lets me contribute to the combats, and doesn't result in me wanting to take a nap at 9am to refill my excitement tank.

Then you're expecting a low level mage to have a capacity for doing things again and again in a way that no other low level character can reasonably expect. Take a low level rogue; sooner or later, if you expect to disarm a trap in every encounter, you'll die because you're not that good at it yet. Take the fighter, if you expect to survive encounter after encounter as a low level character you'll need to be more creative than just standing there at the front slugging it out with your foes. Why do you expect mages to suddenly be different?

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not asking for constantly reusable earth shaking power, just something that lets me contribute to the combats, and doesn't result in me wanting to take a nap at 9am to refill my excitement tank.

But at first or second level, seriously, how many combat encounters is a fighter good for?  Or any other character class?  Granted, I haven't played third edition, but I can't imagine that this has changed very much from the previous versions of the game.  You're not much beyond a commoner at first level.

I'm not sure how having one spell at first level is a huge weakness compared to other classes at low levels.  By the time you have to take your nap, so does everyone else in the party.

Quote from: CabThen you're expecting a low level mage to have a capacity for doing things again and again in a way that no other low level character can reasonably expect. Take a low level rogue; sooner or later, if you expect to disarm a trap in every encounter, you'll die because you're not that good at it yet. Take the fighter, if you expect to survive encounter after encounter as a low level character you'll need to be more creative than just standing there at the front slugging it out with your foes. Why do you expect mages to suddenly be different?

Although we don't know exactly how this will turn out, I don't see how a 1st level wizard being able to cast magic missile or burning hands once or even twice an encounter will be that game or emulation breaking.

Though I am still up for convincing otherwise.

Quote from: KenHRBut at first or second level, seriously, how many combat encounters is a fighter good for?  Or any other character class?  Granted, I haven't played third edition, but I can't imagine that this has changed very much from the previous versions of the game.  You're not much beyond a commoner at first level.

I'm not sure how having one spell at first level is a huge weakness compared to other classes at low levels.  By the time you have to take your nap, so does everyone else in the party.

It hasn't changed much in that respect to be honest. You're a little bit less fragile at first and second level in 3rd ed, and the spellcasters already have distinct advantages over those in, say, Basic. In 3rd ed, as in every other edition, a low level party has to survive on its wits.

Quote from: JamesVAlthough we don't know exactly how this will turn out, I don't see how a 1st level wizard being able to cast magic missile or burning hands once or even twice an encounter will be that game or emulation breaking.

Though I am still up for convincing otherwise.

Give him magic missile in every encounter and no, its not that big a deal. Give him sleep per encounter and it could makea much bigger difference. Give him charm person per encounter and he may just break your game. Depends very much on how you power the spells; many mage spells were already downpowered in 3rd ed, if you give them more access to them again you'll either have to make the encounters more difficult or downpower the spells further. Personally, I'd rather keep the game with less spells but more power to each spell, seems more 'magey' to me. And I don't believe that a mage with only a few useful spells runs out of interesting or useful things to do.

QuoteAnd I don't believe that a mage with only a few useful spells runs out of interesting or useful things to do.

This I agree with. Just because you can't coat every goblin with mystic napalm doesn't mean you're useless, but that more of an in play group deal than a rule deal IMO.

QuoteGive him magic missile in every encounter and no, its not that big a deal. Give him sleep per encounter and it could makea much bigger difference. Give him charm person per encounter and he may just break your game.

This I also agree with, but in this new method I can see how spells can now be power balanced by not just their level, but by their frequency. Magic missile can be a once an encounter deal, while sleep or charm can be once a day.

I know of at least a couple OD&D dungeonmasters you use a houserule Zap class ability for all magic-users.  The Zap has the same range and damage as a thrown dagger but can be used as often as desired.  One of the fellows who allows his MUs this ability ties it to a simple wooden wand that can be taken away, blasted, broken, etc.

Quote from: jrientsI know of at least a couple OD&D dungeonmasters you use a houserule Zap class ability for all magic-users.  The Zap has the same range and damage as a thrown dagger but can be used as often as desired.  One of the fellows who allows his MUs this ability ties it to a simple wooden wand that can be taken away, blasted, broken, etc.

Thats quite nice actually. Less useful than a magic missile, balanced such that its rather like throwing a dagger, but has the whole 'magic' thing going on. Shouldn't be unbalancing in itself, but I wouldn't allow the mage to use it every round, and I'd restrict the mage from casting it at an opponent in melee. But its a nice idea in itself.

Quote from: SettembriniDid I ever mention that I think the Warlock sucks in actual play?
I mean I know people digging it. But it´s positively uninteresting.
Warlocks are balanced, can contribute every round.

But in a boring way.

We've had a few warlocks in our games. They always end up retiring soon because of the boredom factor. The first few times you turn into a swarm or coat some poor schmuck in acid are great. By the 38th time you do those things it's gotten pretty old.

Quote from: CabTalk your DM into allowing you to generate high level characters, max out on combat spells, and go trawling for monsters to blat.

No thanks. I like the character development you get by starting at 1st level.

Quote from: CabThen you're expecting a low level mage to have a capacity for doing things again and again in a way that no other low level character can reasonably expect. Take a low level rogue; sooner or later, if you expect to disarm a trap in every encounter, you'll die because you're not that good at it yet.

I'm talking about combat here, not trap disarming.

QuoteTake the fighter, if you expect to survive encounter after encounter as a low level character you'll need to be more creative than just standing there at the front slugging it out with your foes.

Not if you've got good armor, a shield, and a cleric buddy nearby. The Fighter is also dishing out a lot more damage than this hypothetical mage.

QuoteWhy do you expect mages to suddenly be different?

I don't. I'm not saying that the wizard should be invincible in combat. What I'm saying is that he should be magical in combat.

I'm also not saying that he should outlast the fighter. After all, they share the same trait that measures how long they'll last: hit points. And the wizard has a lot less.

Quote from: KenHRBut at first or second level, seriously, how many combat encounters is a fighter good for?  Or any other character class?

4 per day, according to the 3.x rules. The problem arises when your fighter's 4 combats all involve fightery things. The rogue's 4 encounters all involve being rogueish. The wizard however, gets one wizardly encounter and then turns into a crappy crossbowman or sits down and scratches his balls for a while.

QuoteI'm not sure how having one spell at first level is a huge weakness compared to other classes at low levels.  By the time you have to take your nap, so does everyone else in the party.

Not in a rule set that assumes 4 encounters per day. Granted, they typically hang out and rest with you, because people don't like to be without their wizards and clerics.

Quote from: jrientsI know of at least a couple OD&D dungeonmasters you use a houserule Zap class ability for all magic-users.  The Zap has the same range and damage as a thrown dagger but can be used as often as desired.  One of the fellows who allows his MUs this ability ties it to a simple wooden wand that can be taken away, blasted, broken, etc.

That'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.

Quote from: James McMurrayNo thanks. I like the character development you get by starting at 1st level.

Then forget about being an amazing mage at the beginning of the game, because you're not. You're not much more than a normal person, you're a novice. You're not going to be capable of casting spells all day.

QuoteI'm talking about combat here, not trap disarming.

So you believe that a mage should get his class abilities to use at will all day in every fight, whereas a rogues main class abilities should of necessity be restricted? And, more to the point, why are you only concerned with combat? Combat is only part of the game, it isn't (and shouldn't be) your only concern.

QuoteNot if you've got good armor, a shield, and a cleric buddy nearby. The Fighter is also dishing out a lot more damage than this hypothetical mage.

The cleric has more to do than keep the fighter healthy; if you take the attitude that healing the fighter is his prime job then its the cleric who runs out as fast as the mage, and you've still got a party crippled (as you would see it) by lack of spellcasting. And you can't assume that the armour a first or second level fighter will possess will be all that good.

You've still got very vulnerable characters of all classes, the assumption that everything stops 'cos the mage runs out of spells is no more true than the rogue sustaining an injury in a trap so the party has to stop, or the fighter running on wounds.

QuoteI don't. I'm not saying that the wizard should be invincible in combat. What I'm saying is that he should be magical in combat.

I'm also not saying that he should outlast the fighter. After all, they share the same trait that measures how long they'll last: hit points. And the wizard has a lot less.

And the wizard will be magical in combat, but he's very limited to how magical he is when he's a complete novice. Why should a novice mage always be magical in combat? Why does it make more sense that a wizard who is wet behind the ears always has the capacity for casting spells? Seems far more likely to me that a novice of any character class doesn't survive by raw power, but is more likely to prosper by playing smart.

As for the wizard having less hit points, yeah, of course, but he's also not on the front line of the fight. The fighter in most parties goes up and down hit point totals far faster than anyone else because he exposes himself to that kind of risk.

Quote4 per day, according to the 3.x rules. The problem arises when your fighter's 4 combats all involve fightery things. The rogue's 4 encounters all involve being rogueish. The wizard however, gets one wizardly encounter and then turns into a crappy crossbowman or sits down and scratches his balls for a while.

Sorry, but thats desperately uncreative and unimaginative play on the part of the mage player.

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.

Then you've been playing the wrong RPG. Try the Lone Wolf d20 game.

Quote from: CabThen forget about being an amazing mage at the beginning of the game, because you're not. You're not much more than a normal person, you're a novice. You're not going to be capable of casting spells all day.

Who said I wanted to be amazing all day? I'd be happy doing the flavor text equivilent of throwing a dagger. Why are you on board the idea when one person mentions it, but against it when another does the same? Or did you jump to the unfounded conclusion that I want to be able to firebal everything all the time?

QuoteSo you believe that a mage should get his class abilities to use at will all day in every fight, whereas a rogues main class abilities should of necessity be restricted? And, more to the point, why are you only concerned with combat? Combat is only part of the game, it isn't (and shouldn't be) your only concern.

Your premise is incorrect. I (as I've said several times) want a single class ability usable all day, so I can continue to contribute in a magical manner. I have never said that I want all spells (or even a sizable portion of them) to be usable all day. That's your misconception.

QuoteThe cleric has more to do than keep the fighter healthy; if you take the attitude that healing the fighter is his prime job then its the cleric who runs out as fast as the mage, and you've still got a party crippled (as you would see it) by lack of spellcasting. And you can't assume that the armour a first or second level fighter will possess will be all that good.

Where did I say that was the cleric's prime job? But you're right, the cleric also suffers from not being "clericy" all day. He has the benfit of being better at being fightery, but that's not very useful if you want to be clericy.

QuoteAnd the wizard will be magical in combat, but he's very limited to how magical he is when he's a complete novice. Why should a novice mage always be magical in combat? Why does it make more sense that a wizard who is wet behind the ears always has the capacity for casting spells? Seems far more likely to me that a novice of any character class doesn't survive by raw power, but is more likely to prosper by playing smart.

Here's the deal: when I play magical characters, it's because I want to  be magical. If you play magical characters so you can throw marbles at people, that's fine and dandy, but it ain't my bag, baby.

QuoteSorry, but thats desperately uncreative and unimaginative play on the part of the mage player.

So we've opted for personal insults now? LOL

QuoteThen you've been playing the wrong RPG. Try the Lone Wolf d20 game.

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:

Quote from: James McMurrayWho said I wanted to be amazing all day? I'd be happy doing the flavor text equivilent of throwing a dagger. Why are you on board the idea when one person mentions it, but against it when another does the same? Or did you jump to the unfounded conclusion that I want to be able to firebal everything all the time?

I think the idea of a little trinket wand (the option there that I like) at low level is neat. Its also not novel, nor does it unbalance the game. Note that I also wanted to put more restrictions on it.

QuoteYour premise is incorrect. I (as I've said several times) want a single class ability usable all day, so I can continue to contribute in a magical manner. I have never said that I want all spells (or even a sizable portion of them) to be usable all day. That's your misconception.

Gee... Maybe comments from you like this gave me the idea that you want to just keep blasting away with blatty spells:

QuoteBut what if I wanna just blast shit with arcane fire 'til it's dead, instead of figuring out alternative uses for household objects?

So that isn't what you want? You actually want the flavour of a mage without a significant combat ability kicker?

QuoteWhere did I say that was the cleric's prime job? But you're right, the cleric also suffers from not being "clericy" all day. He has the benfit of being better at being fightery, but that's not very useful if you want to be clericy.

A cleric isn't just about healing; again, those who play them that way are missing the point like those who think being a mage is lobbing a combat spell every round are missing the point.

QuoteHere's the deal: when I play magical characters, it's because I want to  be magical. If you play magical characters so you can throw marbles at people, that's fine and dandy, but it ain't my bag, baby.

Then you've got a real problem playing any low level D&D mage in any version of the game ever published, because playing a mage in D&D has never been about having limitless access to magical spells. If you don't like that, play a game other than D&D. The flavour of a game where magic runs other than that is very unlike D&D, to change that to one where there is constant magic on tap is a huge change.

QuoteSo we've opted for personal insults now? LOL

Clarify for me whether this is how you play a mage:

QuoteThe wizard however, gets one wizardly encounter and then turns into a crappy crossbowman or sits down and scratches his balls for a while.

If it is, then yes, that really does look desperately uncreative and unimaginative to me. To me it looks like you've missed the point about what playing a mage is about. Indeed, it looks like you've mised the point of playing D&D. It isn't a close combat simulation game, thats where it left off from Chainmail. If you want to play such a simulationist game then there are better options.

QuoteWhy? 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:

The d20 version really doesn't offer you that; the new 4th ed might. A really low level mage in 3rd ed has more he can do than, say, a classic D&D one, but he doesn't have the 'per encounter' abilities under discussion. If you want those, then maybe 4th ed will suit you, but till then, get another game, 'cos that ain't D&D.

This discussion reinforces my assertion that 4th edition will be the grandest of all Fantasy Heartbreakers.
I start to think of 4e as "beer, that is not bitter!", that is beer for people that don´t like beer.

Quote from: CabSorry, but thats desperately uncreative and unimaginative play on the part of the mage player.

But 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.

A 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.

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.

Quote from: CabAnd live long enough you'll BE that great mage.

Well, the key point here is that this is an aesthetic preference. The long path of suffering to greatness. I've enjoyed this greatly at times in D&D but practicality dictates that having characters of equal level being roughly equally useful is the way to go for a solid design that leads to balanced play and better pacing.

This may mean that D&D will lose some of its eclectic charm for some (like you, it seems) but really, I don't think they'll turn back in that direction. There are still a lot of ways they can put flavor into each class that we haven't seen and will make their way in future edition. But having whacky progression dependant on classes is probably not going to be one of them.

And don't forget, a chunk of spells (20% I think) will still be per day and you can bet that they will be the tasty ones if the 4th edition design gets it right. It strikes me as an interesting compromise so far.

Quote from: SpikeWow, 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.

True, and the well played, thinking fighter (for example) can be a great character to play; my favourite character type I think. Takes some doing, but well worth it. But at the same time, if thats the party fighter then you'll have to shoulder some of the burden of hitting things sometimes!

QuoteNot 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.

Also true, a rogue character can be played many ways too. You seem to think that I've implied that the rogue must only be played one way; I haven't, I've stated the way that I've seen the rogue played normally.

QuoteNot everyone wants to play a wizard who is three quarters charletan.

A wizard who is played as using his brain to stay alive until he's got enough spells to rely on isn't a charlatan. Odd thing for you to say there.

QuoteThis 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.

How peculiar; I argue that some character classes tend to be in a better position to use cunning than others, and suddenly you think I'm saying thats how all members of those classes should be played... Funny conclusion for you to draw, that one. You should step outside, get some fresh air, think for a bit.

Quote from: Consonant DudeWell, the key point here is that this is an aesthetic preference. The long path of suffering to greatness. I've enjoyed this greatly at times in D&D but practicality dictates that having characters of equal level being roughly equally useful is the way to go for a solid design that leads to balanced play and better pacing.

The premis of the argument I'm putting forward is that while the low mage might not be as combat capable as some other equivalent level characters, in the wider context of the game he can still be every bit as valuable to the party and as good to play. To blame vancian magic for percieved shorcomings in the mage character class seems to be rather missing the point.

Quote from: CabThus turning the mage into a rather bland second rate archer? Why?

Because even if I am functioning mechanically identically to a second-rate archer, I am a) contributing to the fight usefully, if not spectacularly, b) doing it with magic, which is crucial, and c) not having to rely on the GM's situational whim.

Quote from: SettembriniThis discussion reinforces my assertion that 4th edition will be the grandest of all Fantasy Heartbreakers.
I start to think of 4e as "beer, that is not bitter!", that is beer for people that don´t like beer.

I wouldn't go as far as that, but I would say that from what I've heard so far they're producing an RPG that simulates computer game action rather than an RPG for sustained campaign play. So much focus on board gaming, combat options and suchlike. For me it takes the worst elements of 3e and continues going off in a direction that leaves me cold. And its a shame, because the game engine they've got in d20 is basically sound.

Quote from: ghost ratBecause even if I am functioning mechanically identically to a second-rate archer, I am a) contributing to the fight usefully, if not spectacularly, b) doing it with magic, which is crucial, and c) not having to rely on the GM's situational whim.

Ahh, but you can (a) contribute to a fight usefully without that, (b) what of it, so a low level mage sometimes has to find alternatives to magic because he's still a novice, and (c) if your GM doesn't reward creativity, get a better one. Heck, if you're saying that 4th ed will have to program the game to the point where the GM can't make mistakes any more... Words fail me.

Quote from: CabThe premis of the argument I'm putting forward is that while the low mage might not be as combat capable as some other equivalent level characters, in the wider context of the game he can still be every bit as valuable to the party and as good to play. To blame vancian magic for percieved shorcomings in the mage character class seems to be rather missing the point.

In the wider context of the game? Where skills are useful, for example? Exactly right, if you mean Decipher Script, craft, knowledge and profession skills, and assuming the mage has the right ones. He will, however, have precious few choices after taking Concentration, Decipher Script, Spellcraft and Knowledge(arcana). Everything else is cross-class.

Or do you mean non-combat spells? They can indeed be incredibly handy, or incredibly not, depending on circumstances.

Quote from: ghost ratIn the wider context of the game? Where skills are useful, for example?

No. I mean in that the best tool the player of a mage has is his own guile, which coupled with a couple of skills and (if you must) a decent intelligence modifier on a couple of class and non-class skills allows that character to contrinute in all kins of situations.

Quote from: CabNo. I mean in that the best tool the player of a mage has is his own guile, which coupled with a couple of skills and (if you must) a decent intelligence modifier on a couple of class and non-class skills allows that character to contrinute in all kins of situations.

Okay. Like what skills are you thinking of?

Quote from: CabI wouldn't go as far as that, but I would say that from what I've heard so far they're producing an RPG that simulates computer game action rather than an RPG for sustained campaign play. So much focus on board gaming, combat options and suchlike. For me it takes the worst elements of 3e and continues going off in a direction that leaves me cold. And its a shame, because the game engine they've got in d20 is basically sound.

Oh good!  I was beginning to worry we wouldn't hear any comparisons to video games!

-O

Quote from: CabThe premis of the argument I'm putting forward is that while the low mage might not be as combat capable as some other equivalent level characters, in the wider context of the game he can still be every bit as valuable to the party and as good to play.

The problem is that combats in D&D can take a long-ass time to resolve. The issue becomes whether it is fun for a player if his character becomes sub-optimal during what might be considered one of the highlight of the session.

Understand that I am not saying your tastes are wrong. This is an aesthetic preference. But unfortunately for you, I think a lot of players are going to be pleased if wizards get some more spellcasting to get involved in tension-filled fights. WotC designers seem to agree as well.

And sorry to repeat myself, but I really think the 20% of spells per day might be a compromise that will make the pill easier to swallow for those who share your concerns.

With every class getting their share of abilities per day, all WotC needs to do is to carefully identify ways for classes to shine and everybody should be happy and have their spotlight moments. You would still have to play smartly, you would still have ressources to manage, you would still run out of important abilities.

Quote from: obrynOh good!  I was beginning to worry we wouldn't hear any comparisons to video games!

-O

The extra focus on combat we've seen described in 4th ed so far makes this a valid comparison. Abilities per encounter, essentially a sort of re-set button at the end of each bit, is very computer-game.

Quote from: ghost ratOkay. Like what skills are you thinking of?

Take your pick. How do you plan to play this mage?

Quote from: Consonant DudeThe problem is that combats in D&D can take a long-ass time to resolve. The issue becomes whether it is fun for a player if his character becomes sub-optimal during what might be considered one of the highlight of the session.

I think thats one of the underlying problems; as combat has become more complex in D&D, the resolution of a fight takes longer, and longer. Spells are more complex, the precise positioning of characters is more important, there is no such thing as a 'general melee' any more. For all the engine running 3rd ed is essentially the same as in earlier editions (roll d20 against a total you need to hit, roll damage on other dice) fights do take a lot longer. Personally, when playing that game I've found that to be an advantage to those characters who are generally less combat capable. I've got more time to think about how to take action other than just hitting someone, I've got time to come up with a fight winning plan, whereas in a game of classic D&D your 'turn' comes around so fast, and theres so little emphasis on exact positioning there are fewer clear opportunities to exploit.

QuoteUnderstand that I am not saying your tastes are wrong. This is an aesthetic preference. But unfortunately for you, I think a lot of players are going to be pleased if wizards get some more spellcasting to get involved in tension-filled fights. WotC designers seem to agree as well.

And sorry to repeat myself, but I really think the 20% of spells per day might be a compromise that will make the pill easier to swallow for those who share your concerns.

With every class getting their share of abilities per day, all WotC needs to do is to carefully identify ways for classes to shine and everybody should be happy and have their spotlight moments. You would still have to play smartly, you would still have ressources to manage, you would still run out of important abilities.

I predict that we'll see a lot less creative play in 4th ed than ever before. If people don't need to think, a lot of them just don't.

Quote from: CabI predict that we'll see a lot less creative play in 4th ed than ever before. If people don't need to think, a lot of them just don't.

Can we count on you to hang around and show us how the greats do it? :tears:

Quote from: CabThe extra focus on combat we've seen described in 4th ed so far makes this a valid comparison. Abilities per encounter, essentially a sort of re-set button at the end of each bit, is very computer-game.

OK, so... what of it?

I mean, "I think this change is like a video game" is only half a sentence.  It should probably be finished "...and video games have nothing valuable to offer tabletop RPGs," or, "...and therefore we'll be playing a video game and not an RPG," otherwise it's a non-statement.

If tabletop RPGs generally used spell points and all of a sudden some video games using Vancian magic became popular, a tabletop RPG would not magically turn into a video game by adopting Vancian magic.

A mechanic is a mechanic, pure and simple.  It doesn't matter if it comes from a video game, another RPG, Monopoly, or if it's fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus.  Either the mechanic will add something to play, or it won't.  Either it will make for more fun at the table, or it won't.

I understand you don't want to play a tabletop computer game.  Neither do I, neither do a lot of the folks who like 3.x or are excited about 4.x.  The fact that one or several mechanics are inspired by well-done video games is irrelevant to my enjoyment at the table.

-O

Whilst I in no way want tabletop RPG's to emulate video games I think there's a number of elements that could be lifted from one to the other quite succesfully.

One example is the 'Quick Kill' system that appears in games like Prince of Persia and God of War. Once a powerful creature has been reduced to a certain number of hit points (or whatever) the system unlocks a mini-game wherein the completion of a chain of stunt-like activities results in a swift and gory demise. It's something I started sketching out for an Iron Heroes campaign ages ago, and think it would make an excellent addition to high powered, high octane play.

Quote from: obrynI mean, "I think this change is like a video game" is only half a sentence.  It should probably be finished "...and video games have nothing valuable to offer tabletop RPGs," or, "...and therefore we'll be playing a video game and not an RPG," otherwise it's a non-statement.

I disagree. You are expecting there to be a value judgement after the comparison.  That's not required.  It's simply an assertion. If he doesn't tell you why he thinks it is like a video game, then it's nothing but a silly statement. But I think he's done that. Whether it's good or bad or whatever it a separate, but related, discussion. First you have to establish whether or not there is a sufficient similarity to make the comparison.

Quote from: obrynIf tabletop RPGs generally used spell points and all of a sudden some video games using Vancian magic became popular, a tabletop RPG would not magically turn into a video game by adopting Vancian magic.

No, but it would make RPGs more like video games than they previously were.

Quote from: obrynA mechanic is a mechanic, pure and simple.  It doesn't matter if it comes from a video game, another RPG, Monopoly, or if it's fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus.  Either the mechanic will add something to play, or it won't.  Either it will make for more fun at the table, or it won't.

Whether it makes it more fun or not will completely depend on the individual. As you rightly point out, the mechanic itself is objective - it is what it is. But it will have an impact on the game.  That impact may be like other rules in other games, it may not. If it is, then we may be able to determine our own personal reaction to it by understanding our own feelings about the rule in the other game.

Quote from: obrynI understand you don't want to play a tabletop computer game.  Neither do I, neither do a lot of the folks who like 3.x or are excited about 4.x.  The fact that one or several mechanics are inspired by well-done video games is irrelevant to my enjoyment at the table.

Which is fine.  I certainly have no problem with people who are excited by the upcoming edition.  I, too, hope it turns out to be enjoyable. But it's not an immediate slam to say it is influenced by video games or that certain aspects seem like video games - it's a way to try get a handle on an unknown, that's all. Most ways I've seen it used it as a shorthand for saying "this is why it won't appeal to me." That, to me, certainly does not make it objectively bad.

Quote from: obrynOK, so... what of it?

I refer you to my comments in this thread and others on this site.

(cut)

QuoteA mechanic is a mechanic, pure and simple.  It doesn't matter if it comes from a video game, another RPG, Monopoly, or if it's fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus.  Either the mechanic will add something to play, or it won't.  Either it will make for more fun at the table, or it won't.

I agree. I'm sure that you'll agree that a mechanic that makes Monopoly work isn't necessarily the same mechanic that would make Star Frontiers work. Land on a square according to a dice roll (you get no say in whether you land there), you get first dibs at buying the Laser Rifle, no one else gets to buy a laser rifle unless you choose not to, then they all get to bid in an auction for the laser rifle... See, it just doesn't really hold true that a fun mechanic is a fun mechanic.

You can indeed take videogaming elements and put them into a roleplaying game. But you have to be careful doing that (I hope you'll agree there too) because the dynamics and balance of an RPG don't always work the same as for a computer game. I've given my reasoning why the demise of Vancian magic in D&D is a mistake, and I've described the new system as being very computer-gamey alongside; the reasons why its not a good flavour for D&D have been given.

The biggest reason not to widely import computer game mechanics into D&D is because SATT games will not ever do computer games better than computer games do; the nature of challenges in computerised gaming, the way you challenge the players, is different to how you do it in a SATT game. In a SATT game you've got, genuinely, an infinite number of options (rather than a pre-determined, finite number of possible actions) in every situation, and to change the game to bring in more pre-set actions will only operate at the expense of the truly open ended nature of SATT games. Thats really what I've been saying all along, and all of the posts here and in other threads opposing my point have really rather reinforced that view. In short, the more you stat in things to do every round, the more players expect not to have to think, and ultimately the less rewarding the game for all involved. Call it dumbing down if you want (I hate that term), call it 'computer gamey' if you like, it amounts to the same thing.

Quote from: DrewWhilst I in no way want tabletop RPG's to emulate video games I think there's a number of elements that could be lifted from one to the other quite succesfully.

One example is the 'Quick Kill' system that appears in games like Prince of Persia and God of War. Once a powerful creature has been reduced to a certain number of hit points (or whatever) the system unlocks a mini-game wherein the completion of a chain of stunt-like activities results in a swift and gory demise. It's something I started sketching out for an Iron Heroes campaign ages ago, and think it would make an excellent addition to high powered, high octane play.

Tunnels and Trolls accomplished this very well with the old Monster Rating (MR) system. As foes become worn down, they fight less effectively, so once its clear you're beating an opponent their defeat speeds up. Simple and effective.

Quote from: James J SkachWhich is fine.  I certainly have no problem with people who are excited by the upcoming edition.  I, too, hope it turns out to be enjoyable. But it's not an immediate slam to say it is influenced by video games or that certain aspects seem like video games - it's a way to try get a handle on an unknown, that's all. Most ways I've seen it used it as a shorthand for saying "this is why it won't appeal to me." That, to me, certainly does not make it objectively bad.

It would indeed be odd to argue that something is objectively bad based on the subjectiv view that its wrong to use a videogame mechanic in a SATT RPG.

I would instead argue that the computer game mechanics approach is a mistake for D&D because D&D simply can't compete with computer games at being a computer game.

Quote from: CabTunnels and Trolls accomplished this very well with the old Monster Rating (MR) system. As foes become worn down, they fight less effectively, so once its clear you're beating an opponent their defeat speeds up. Simple and effective.

Yeah, death spirals are nothing new. What I was talking about was something a little more specific and involved, an attempt to bring a touch of the 'end level boss' experience into tactical play.

Of course I realise that such an idea will be considered heresy by some TT gamers, but I thought it would be a fun optional addition to crunchy, combat orientated games like Iron Heroes.

Quote from: DrewYeah, death spirals are nothing new. What I was talking about was something a little more specific and involved, an attempt to bring a touch of the 'end level boss' experience into tactical play.

Of course I realise that such an idea will be considered heresy by some TT gamers, but I thought it would be a fun optional addition to crunchy, combat orientated games like Iron Heroes.

I think your idea is very interesting. The only thing I'm left wondering is whether that would be better handled through narrative (describing the end game of the fight in more detail) than rules.

Quote from: CabI think your idea is very interesting. The only thing I'm left wondering is whether that would be better handled through narrative (describing the end game of the fight in more detail) than rules.

That's one way of doing it, for sure. The sort of thing I'm thinking of would result in being able to take down a giant in one round once he'd reached 100 hp (or equivalent). Cutting the tendons in his ankle, leaping onto his back as he reached down to grasp at the wound then stabbing him through the base of the skull whilst another character puts an arrow through his eye.

Something that doesn't rely so much on the characters damage-dealing capabilities but their inventiveness and ability to pull off stunt-related rolls. Each monster would gave a QK threshold (the number of HP's they need to be brought down to to make Quick Kill an option) followed by the number of stunts that needed to be chained successfully together in order to win.

In the above example it would QK: 100/4. The stunts themselves would be ability/skill/BAB checks, the DC being set by the monsters threat level. The players can be as creative as they like when describing the stunts, but they must make narrative sense and be successful at every stage in order to chain together. Otherwise they've wasted their action for that round.

It's only in embryonic form at the moment, and certainly not for all games, but as an expression of the stuff that I do enjoy about video games I think it maps over fairly well.