|
Ratpick posted:What I wish they'd do is basically split the Mage into a bunch of subclasses with different spell-lists (with some overlap where it made sense) and just threw away the generalist Mage. *smart in the self-styled nerd-as-a-lifestyle style of smart, which is not actually that smart.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Seriously, a Generalist Wizard should be a dude who can't have more than one spell of any school prepped (maybe learned?) at a time. He can be smart as all hell, but being good at everything makes him scatterbrained. Oh no! A fluff-based nerf!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Really in general, this comes off as more annoying because of how inconsistent it is. Like you could just as easily split these things into full classes with different spell lists, but instead we get these as subclasses while Barbarians and such aren't. I don't really get the logic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
If 3.5 was the wizard edition, Arcana Evolved was the double secret triple dog wizard edition. I ran it for over a year, and holy poo poo. Next spellcasting looks heavily influenced by it. If you start seeing template feats, be scared.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
How much of the D&D Feel is 'endless spellbooks'? I don't understand any other reason for them existing. If coming up with new spells is near-impossible, is it ever explained in the background? Why can't I pray for [new effect], or maybe add a bit extra newt to amp up the [effect]? I can't see any reason to not just have a 'help with spell' and 'harm with spell' and let players narrate it. The thing that nearly turned me off DW was looking at the rulebook and seeing a big cleric spellbook and a big wizard one - compare to help/harm spells and it looks like the only reason for the spell list is as a replacement for coming up with fun magic on the fly. "Imagine a world where magic can do anything. As long as it does precisely X or Y."
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:If 3.5 was the wizard edition, Arcana Evolved was the double secret triple dog wizard edition. Can you give us the juicy details? I'm always on board for hearing more about ill-concealed nerd power fantasies. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
I loved Arcana Evolved's magic system! It's the only version of 3.x that I would ever consider running again (I did lots of D&D from 2000 to 2008). Although if I did, I would demand that every PC be some kind of caster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:How much of the D&D Feel is 'endless spellbooks'? I don't understand any other reason for them existing. They did a survey that asked "How many of this endless list of spells feel like D&D? Check all that apply." So, I doubt we're going to end up with a more palatable outcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:They did a survey that asked "How many of this endless list of spells feel like D&D? Check all that apply." So, I doubt we're going to end up with a more palatable outcome. I don't actually believe what I'm about to say, but a survey like that could totally be used to test the waters and see how well they could get away with cutting way back on the number of spells. I think that spells are as popular as they are mostly just because they're even bigger junk food than feats. When you design a feat you need to make sure that it doesn't stack with other existing feats in a way that breaks the game, but spells are theoretically (as in, not really, but they look like they are) stand-alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Can you give us the juicy details? I'm always on board for hearing more about ill-concealed nerd power fantasies. -=-=-=-=-=-=- Didn't Arcana Evolved nerf all the save-or-die spells? Kinda, but there's still plenty of save-or-suck stuff going on, though. And there's the vicious little fact that AE spells are generally (1) harder to save against because of some of the feats which increase Spell Save DCs, and because the casters have better stats; and (2) those SoS spells are easily spammable with the flexible magic system, so if a spell doesn't work the first time you don't need to find a backup option. You just cast your SoS spell again. AE also has what looks like a really fun, fluid magic system. Each caster operates like a sorcerer that chooses his "spells known" newly every day from his spell list(s). So you have the flexibility of spont. casting but aren't tied down to the same spells day to day. Further, most spells have diminished and enhanced effects. The former cast at 1 spell level lower and have a weaker effect, the latter cast at 1 spell level higher and have a heightened effect. Preparing a spell gives you access to the lower and higher versions of it (if any) as well. There is one universal spell list, or rather three of them ("simple, complex, and exotic," iirc), that all spellcasters use. Each spell has descriptors and that determines which spells a particular caster may have access to, generally tied to the class's theme. It's neat, but what really get you are the Templates. Spell Templates are just insanely powerful; take the Acid one which stuns your target (NO SAVE!) 1 round for every 20 points of damage you deal to them. Electricity forces a save against another stun, generally 2 rounds if it's an electric spell to begin with. Or the unraveling one, which packs a dispel of their defenses into the package. Or Quicken, which has none of the downsides of a prepared-spell system and only counts for two same-level castings instead of L+(4?). Oh, and take Runic for another insane example. Runic makes it so your target's saving throw modifier is based on Intelligence rather than ... whatever else it would be. The cost is that your spell is now a Full-Round action instead of Standard. Usually you get access to one or more templates for a feat, and it comes with a package deal of sorts so you learn several Complex and/or Exotic spells along with it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- So yeah. I know you're a student of excesses in RPG magic systems. Arcana Evolved is worth a look, for that. It's relevant to Next because its basic ideas, those being... (1) Prepare a list of spells (2) Cast any of those prepared spells with "castings" (3) Cast spells as higher level, in some cases, to get better effects ...are present. Next is toning it down a bunch, though... You can't trade 3 lower-level castings up for a higher-level spell, and you can't trade a higher level casting for two lower-level ones. So far, the crazy-rear end template feats aren't apparent, either. Mages in Next also get to cast a lot less spells, their Save DCs are more in line with the rest of the game math, and they can't loving auto-stun a huge area just by casting an acidic sorcerous blast. drunkencarp posted:I loved Arcana Evolved's magic system! It's the only version of 3.x that I would ever consider running again (I did lots of D&D from 2000 to 2008). Although if I did, I would demand that every PC be some kind of caster. dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:If 3.5 was the wizard edition, Arcana Evolved was the double secret triple dog wizard edition. I dunno much about AE, but this really shouldn't be surprised. It was done entirely by Monte Cook, who is pretty much the king of wizard supremacy. It's been stated by other employees (Mike Mearls at one point, I think?) that he almost exclusively plays wizards, and it absolutely soaks into his work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:The thing that nearly turned me off DW was looking at the rulebook and seeing a big cleric spellbook and a big wizard one * Others have tackled the alignment and race thing. (Though I don't actually know who first started the Drives/Backgrounds/Talents thing. The City Thief was just the first example that came to mind.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I dunno much about AE, but this really shouldn't be surprised. It was done entirely by Monte Cook, who is pretty much the king of wizard supremacy. It's been stated by other employees (Mike Mearls at one point, I think?) that he almost exclusively plays wizards, and it absolutely soaks into his work. I still remember the AE press releases, too, that spellcasters had been toned down and the classes balanced. It was an utterly laughable claim in play. You know what did get toned down? Not save-or-suck spells. Certainly not damage spells (which got improved; Sorcerous Blast is Fireball++). Magical healing. That's what got toned down a lot; it was a 2nd level (albeit Simple) spell. (Awesomely it left you with scars, but still.) You know who needs healing the most? People who don't cast spells. Much like in Next, the over-reliance on magical healing hurt non-casters more than anything. Greenbonds had the only good healing in the game, as a class feature. The whole thing was a shame. The non-casters in AE are pretty brilliant and evocative. Just a lot weaker than casters. So even though he left Next, this magic system has me kind of worried.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:If coming up with new spells is near-impossible, is it ever explained in the background? Why can't I pray for [new effect], or maybe add a bit extra newt to amp up the [effect]? I can't see any reason to not just have a 'help with spell' and 'harm with spell' and let players narrate it. The thing that nearly turned me off DW was looking at the rulebook and seeing a big cleric spellbook and a big wizard one - compare to help/harm spells and it looks like the only reason for the spell list is as a replacement for coming up with fun magic on the fly. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I don't actually believe what I'm about to say, but a survey like that could totally be used to test the waters and see how well they could get away with cutting way back on the number of spells. I think that spells are as popular as they are mostly just because they're even bigger junk food than feats. When you design a feat you need to make sure that it doesn't stack with other existing feats in a way that breaks the game, but spells are theoretically (as in, not really, but they look like they are) stand-alone. If their goal was to cut back they could have phrased the survey differently. Personally, I think choose as many as apply is the worst possible survey type to get rid of things. If they wanted to get rid of spells they would have done "What are the three/five most iconic D&D spells and why?" Then you'd get 50000 people telling you how much they like fireball and magic missle and you could toss everything else out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Its was originally part of a balancing mechanic which is why I feel Mage is one of the worst designed classes in Dungeon World. Do you mean The Wizard? Or gnome's The Mage?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I dunno much about AE, but this really shouldn't be surprised. It was done entirely by Monte Cook, who is pretty much the king of wizard supremacy. It's been stated by other employees (Mike Mearls at one point, I think?) that he almost exclusively plays wizards, and it absolutely soaks into his work. Cook also designed "trap options" when it came to feats, so gently caress that guy. He's capable of good design but still produces bad design, which imo actually makes him worse than Mearls (who isn't even capable of good design because he's an idiot)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
I'd take that further and say Monte is capable of one kind of design. He's just been doing it over and over ever since (D&D 3.0, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Monte Cook's World of Darkness, and just take a loot at how Disintegrate is totally a seventh-level spell in Numenera). It's also why his settings are increasingly becoming "yet more Planescape", because he first earned some (deserved) glory for his writing work on Planescape's setting. It's also pretty obvious that he doesn't ever read any of his competitors' works. Monte Cook's failing is less of being a bad designer and more of being stuck in his little bubble where he plays mostly wizards and doesn't really get things outside his personal context. (Him being the moon also doesn't help.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:I'd take that further and say Monte is capable of one kind of design. He's just been doing it over and over ever since (D&D 3.0, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Monte Cook's World of Darkness, and just take a loot at how Disintegrate is totally a seventh-level spell in Numenera). It's also why his settings are increasingly becoming "yet more Planescape", because he first earned some (deserved) glory for his writing work on Planescape's setting. His work as a setting writer is pretty great, and frankly I don't have anything negative to say about him as a person. I still need to read Numenera but the people who do have it, and whose opinions I trust, are generally positive about it. I'll look and see for myself though. Rulebook Heavily posted:(Him being the moon also doesn't help.) I can't stop reading his name as Moonte Cook, since this stupid joke started. 
Bedlamdan fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:His work as a setting writer is pretty great, and frankly I don't have anything negative to say about him as a person. I still need to read Numenera but the people who do have it, and whose opinions I trust, are generally positive about it. I'll look and see for myself though. I also like his Ptolus stuff. And the Banewarrens is a pretty good adventure. I'd almost run 3e to run the Banewarrens again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:It's also pretty obvious that he doesn't ever read any of his competitors' works. Monte Cook's failing is less of being a bad designer and more of being stuck in his little bubble where he plays mostly wizards and doesn't really get things outside his personal context. Shortly after the Numenara announcement, he put out a blog article with some design goals and they were all extremely sane and forward-thinking. I haven't read enough Numenara to gauge how successful he was, but I believe his heart is in the right place. If he'd collaborate with some of the more cutting-edge designers, I think it would go a long way towards advancing RPGs as a whole, since even the groggiest of grognards might hesitate before blasting a next-gen game attached to Cook. (They obviously still would hate on him, but they'd have to think about it.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Slightly off topic but since it was brought up: There are a lot of things in DW that are in there specifically to be callbacks to D&D (ability scores, alignment*, races*, and spellbooks), but there are some really solid goon-made alternative playbooks that address the spellbook problem specifically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Elmo Oxygen posted:Do you mean The Wizard? Or gnome's The Mage?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
 It has the same "primary balancing mechanic" of every other move in the game: GM input on any roll under a 10 and GM control on any move under a 7. Any mage who thinks he's a nuclear bomb when he rolls a 10 better watch his back when he rolls a 6.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:I meant to say Gnome's Mage really has no primary balancing mechanic which if you read back in regards to the creation of Dungeons and Dragons is what the magic system was supposed to do. Its makes anything Monte Cook put out look like the 3E Fighter in comparison. In a thread full of dumb things, some of which I myself have said, this may be one of the dumbest yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Elmo Oxygen posted:
MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Yeah, and at least from my perspective, this cemented Monte's reputation more than any other work of his, from Book of Eldritch Might on. It has made me very hesitant to check out Numenera, and made me really fear for his influence on Next had he stuck around. I just don't trust his design instincts when magic or wizards are involved. The Battle Healing line did straight-up health restoration and was necessary for healing up a party which had gone to the absolute brink, but it wasn't the extent of magical healing. The Transfer Wounds line was the other healing line of spells, which turned physical damage into half as much subdual damage on the caster, and subdual damage healed naturally in a matter of hours instead of days. This doesn't do a thing for the whole "overreliance on magical healing" argument, but still.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:From a narrative standpoint its not balanced. Namely because I can't think of any other class that can change warp the narrative so easily and in such interesting manner compared to every single other class. Even failures for me won't really stop that because you know what I'm still doing something incredibly cool and interesting unlike the Fighter. Actually, I've found that the nuclear bomb aspect tends to work itself out. I've run with the mage in a few of my one-shots and a couple multi-session games of DW and, in every instance so far, the mage's magic has been run as an oh poo poo button of sorts with the group essentially moving to veto the spell option if a more mundane solution seemed possible. They do have a crazy narrative-changing ability, but it is extremely chaotic and every mage I've seen run will use it fairly sparingly once they understand that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Fine then explain to me how a class which can do everything is balanced. 1). For starters the Mage can't actually do anything which is obvious to anybody who actually takes 30 seconds to read the playbook, where you quite specifically have to chose one broad area in which you cannot cast spells period, no negotiation, no weasel-wording, which is more limited than anything 3.X has ever imposed on spellcasters with the possible exception of "healing magic is divine" and I'm pretty sure there are even a couple of ways around that. So right off the bat you're wrong, but hey let's keep going. 2). Second, unlike 3.X wizards which are full of "I cast this spell and it just happens, period, maybe there's a token saving throw which I can render obsolete by feat-stacking," the Mage still has to roll every time he wants to solve any problem with magic and is subject to failure. Even on the maximum possible roll the mage still has to pick at least one drawback to using his magic which is a thing that 3.X spellcasters basically don't have to deal with since "you spend a spell" isn't really that much of a drawback after, say, level 5. Magic in D&D is basically completely risk-free, casting magic as a DW Mage is not. 3). The Mage is still forced to engage with the game on the same level as every other character in Dungeon World. He can't just rattle off a list of spells and then dust his hands, "there, I just solved the adventure, how much XP do I get?" He can't just go "oh, I solve the problem with magic" any more than the Fighter can go "oh, I solve the problem with swords." The mage has to go through the same process of "tell the GM what I'm trying to do and how," and the GM is the one who has the final say on exactly what move(s) are required and, to a certain degree, what the character can expect to accomplish with them. The same way a Fighter can't tell the GM "I kill the orc" without getting asked "okay, how are you trying to kill the orc," then having to zero in on things from there ("I charge it with a savage battlecry, sword held high!"), handle moves the GM feels are apt given the fiction of the scene ("You're charging recklessly across the battlefield so give me a Defy Danger roll to close with the orc.") and then deal with the outcome ("Okay, roll Hack and Slash."), the Mage player can't just go "oh well I cast [SPELL] from my list and the challenge is done, thanks for playing." 3.X Wizards and 3.X Fighters aren't even playing the same game past a certain early band of levels. The DW Mage is still playing the same game as everyone else. 4). Dungeon World is also not chock full of rules and conditionals that exist solely to tell characters "no you can't do [THING]"...unless they happen to have a spell that bypasses those mechanics altogether, which is something that 3.X and similar games loving love to pieces. Grappling in 3.X is a multi-paragraph clusterfuck of modifiers and poo poo you can't do and enemies you can't grapple or restrain...unless you cast a spell and magically restrain an enemy. Meanwhile, in Dungeon World grappling is a matter of "describe to the GM what you're trying to do and how" and the GM telling you what moves will be necessary. Now, there may be times when what the character wants to do is simply beyond what the GM and/or the other players at the table agree suits the fiction. The Fighter who goes "okay, I'm going to grapple the 100-foot giant barehanded!" may, in fact, be told that what he's trying to do just won't work. But the trick is that same provision exists for Mages too. "Cast a Spell" is not a universal "I win" button that gets to blow past any of this stuff...unlike in 3.X where magic is specifically designed to break rules and do things that other people simply aren't allowed to accomplish or even attempt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
moths posted:Shortly after the Numenara announcement, he put out a blog article with some design goals and they were all extremely sane and forward-thinking. I haven't read enough Numenara to gauge how successful he was, but I believe his heart is in the right place. If he'd collaborate with some of the more cutting-edge designers, I think it would go a long way towards advancing RPGs as a whole, since even the groggiest of grognards might hesitate before blasting a next-gen game attached to Cook. (They obviously still would hate on him, but they'd have to think about it.) Me, I'd have called the RPG Pundit the groggiest of grognards. And you can ask him about Monte Cook if you like. But yes, it could be interesting to see him collaborate with e.g. Luke Crane or the Evil Hat team.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Moonte totally should collaborate with someone on something, but the last time that happened the team split apart pretty much as quickly as it was formed, hence D&D Next being Mike Mearls' show. Now personally I find nothing really interesting in Numenera as written by Moonte Cook, but filtered through a team into an isometric RPG? That I'm willing to give a good try. Now if only Mike Mearls would similarly collaborate with his audience, like he says he does. (hope you like this one Bedlamdan)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:(hope you like this one Bedlamdan)  You didn't have to do that for me, but, yes I like it.neonchameleon posted:Me, I'd have called the RPG Pundit the groggiest of grognards. And you can ask him about Monte Cook if you like. But yes, it could be interesting to see him collaborate with e.g. Luke Crane or the Evil Hat team. It really was amazing, the wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurred there when it was announced that Numenera would have narrative mechanics. I will say that what I saw of Numenera is looking a hell of a lot more interesting the Next, but I still have been too busy with other things to actually take the time it needs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
I have a fantasy where they hired rpgpundit so they could do the exact opposite of his ideas. "Hey, Pundit, how should healing work?" "NOW SMOKING THE MOON. FEDORA." "Oh, ok, I guess everyone is done after a short rest" Still one packet to go, I'm not giving up on the dream yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:
Numenera's fine but it's really funny how he took compels from FATE and changed the language to make it sound totally antagonistic by calling them "GM Intrusion"
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
DeepSpaceBeans posted:They do have a crazy narrative-changing ability, but it is extremely chaotic and every mage I've seen run will use it fairly sparingly once they understand that. Rulebook Heavily posted:Moonte totally should collaborate with someone on something, but the last time that happened the team split apart pretty much as quickly as it was formed, hence D&D Next being Mike Mearls' show. Swagger Dagger posted:Numenera's fine but it's really funny how he took compels from FATE and changed the language to make it sound totally antagonistic by calling them "GM Intrusion"
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:So let's talk playtest. I ran the first bit of Murder in Baldur's Gate tonight for a good portion of my regular group. One couldn't make it and one ducked out because of "not feeling well" as soon as he got there. He's the resident flake, so this isn't altogether surprising. I ended up at 4, with at least 1 more joining in next week. This sounds really good. I am tempted to get it, but run it for 4e. Has anyone tried that out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
My FLGS is running it in 4th. It's okay but pretty bare bones as far as Encounter builds a nd stuff. The word from the DMs is that all the background stuff is awesome and they love the player choice and hidden item type stuff. The cons seem to be that the non Game Day version doesn't have a lot of things statted out and the lack of a predetermined levelling curve makes the xp tables a bit funny. But if you're good with doing your own math it's not a bad deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 10:10
|
|
|
knux911 posted:This sounds really good. I am tempted to get it, but run it for 4e. Session 2 was last night for us. It went slowly, but it was good. My players spent a lot of time in character, investigating. But it was system free by and large. It would have run the same in 4e. We had a new character, too - a halfling paladin. Next is extremely kind to small and dextrous characters, to its credit. She's pretty beefy, though - the idea of a dog-mounted halfling knight in armor with a warhammer just tickled her pink. I leveled everyone up to 2, because there's not much to level 1. It's fine for an intro, but not much more than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:We had a new character, too - a halfling paladin. Next is extremely kind to small and dextrous characters, to its credit. Yeah even though they tried to tune down dexterity with the latest packet, it remains the most important and most rewarding ability to invest in unless you wear heavy armor (and even then it's helpful because so many spells use Dex saving throws).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Rosalind posted:Yeah even though they tried to tune down dexterity with the latest packet, it remains the most important and most rewarding ability to invest in unless you wear heavy armor (and even then it's helpful because so many spells use Dex saving throws). She rolled a great set of stats - 16, 15 x 3, 12 x 2 - and ended up with 16 in Str, Dex, and Cha. Scale was the far better choice right now. Same AC as Chain and no speed penalty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:56
|
|