-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
I never thought so. "Caster level" is your casting strength, determined by things like class level. "Spell level" is the level of the spell, listed right next to the name of the spell. Seems pretty simple to me.
Using the term "level" to both mean the relative strength of the caster and the relative strength of the spell can be a point of confusion for people, especially in 3.5 where say fireball scales both with caster level (higher caster level means more damage) and with spell level (if you use Heighten Spell, you can cast it at a higher spell level to increase the save DC).
I mean, I'm a bright guy, fancy English degree from an Ivy League school, yay for me, I can keep my vocabulary straight for the most part, but in my experience some players, especially newbies, get a little confused with the concept of having spell levels and caster levels (and character levels and class levels, for that matter).
Using the term "level" to describe every scale of relative power in D&D is a bit lazy, is all I'm saying.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JoeMac307
Using the term "level" to both mean the relative strength of the caster and the relative strength of the spell can be a point of confusion for people, especially in 3.5 where say fireball scales both with caster level (higher caster level means more damage) and with spell level (if you use Heighten Spell, you can cast it at a higher spell level to increase the save DC).
I mean, I'm a bright guy, fancy English degree from an Ivy League school, yay for me, I can keep my vocabulary straight for the most part, but in my experience some players, especially newbies, get a little confused with the concept of having spell levels and caster levels (and character levels and class levels, for that matter).
Using the term "level" to describe every scale of relative power in D&D is a bit lazy, is all I'm saying.
What other word would you suggest? I'm fairly proficient with English, and "level" seems like a great word to me.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
That's fair, and would probably be the best idea for mechanics.
However, the idea of things like Stonecunning is probably from Tolkien, where a god crafted dwarves of earth or something like that. (It's been a few years since I read Tolkien.) So they have an affinity for earth and stone, the ability to notice irregularities in stone, worked stone, hidden doors, stuff like that.
I'm sure that's the idea behind them, but that's pretty flavor heavy to me, and definitely not something that should be the default assumption. I have no problem with a campaign setting saying "Dwarves use this background and it cannot be changed", but I do not like the idea of every dwarf ever in every conceivable world having that capability.
And even with that explanation, it still doesn't justify how a Dwarf who has never even even heard of the Tsurauni Empire, would stumble upon some ancient ruins and instantly be able to identify the stonework as Tsurauni. Which is what dwarves in the current playtest packet can actually do with their stonecutting ability.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seerow
I'm sure that's the idea behind them, but that's pretty flavor heavy to me, and definitely not something that should be the default assumption. I have no problem with a campaign setting saying "Dwarves use this background and it cannot be changed", but I do not like the idea of every dwarf ever in every conceivable world having that capability.
And even with that explanation, it still doesn't justify how a Dwarf who has never even even heard of the Tsurauni Empire, would stumble upon some ancient ruins and instantly be able to identify the stonework as Tsurauni. Which is what dwarves in the current playtest packet can actually do with their stonecutting ability.
Yeah, the current iteration is a little bit silly in ways. The 3.X version was better, in my opinion.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
What other word would you suggest? I'm fairly proficient with English, and "level" seems like a great word to me.
Now you're asking hard questions! :smallsmile: I'd have to think on it, but I'm sure there are synonyms. (Or maybe not, and that is why everything is "level", and I'm just a nitpicky curmudgeon - people oftentimes tell me I'm a curmudgeon, much to my dismay)
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JoeMac307
Now you're asking hard questions! :smallsmile: I'd have to think on it, but I'm sure there are synonyms. (Or maybe not, and that is why everything is "level", and I'm just a nitpicky curmudgeon - people oftentimes tell me I'm a curmudgeon, much to my dismay)
Quote:
Main Entry: level
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: rank, position
Synonyms: achievement, degree, grade, stage, standard, standing, status
So other options that don't sound silly are "rank", "grade", "degree", or "stage", depending on the context. We already use ranks for skills. Maybe the others could be divvied up?
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I've also seen Circle and Sphere used for spell levels.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seerow
I'm sure that's the idea behind them, but that's pretty flavor heavy to me, and definitely not something that should be the default assumption. I have no problem with a campaign setting saying "Dwarves use this background and it cannot be changed", but I do not like the idea of every dwarf ever in every conceivable world having that capability.
And even with that explanation, it still doesn't justify how a Dwarf who has never even even heard of the Tsurauni Empire, would stumble upon some ancient ruins and instantly be able to identify the stonework as Tsurauni. Which is what dwarves in the current playtest packet can actually do with their stonecutting ability.
I wonder if the Dwarf is so fleshed out with only one possible background in the playtest packet for the same reason why at the moment Sorcerers can only use the Draconic Bloodline and Warlocks can only have a Fey Pact: 1. It's all they've written so far and 2. It keeps all the play testers on the same ground?
Still, its a good point that racial abilities shouldn't be tied into their backgrounds, and hopefully something the designers realize as well. I can see saying Dwarfs have an affinity for stone, that its "in their blood" no matter how / where they were brought up, and so they have a sort of sixth sense that tells about how far underground they are, but the rest of the abilities in the stonecutting trait, as they are described in the packet, do seem more cultural and should be part of a background, not a race in and of itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
So other options that don't sound silly are "rank", "grade", "degree", or "stage", depending on the context. We already use ranks for skills. Maybe the others could be divvied up?
All good options - but at the end of the day, I think it's a moot point. I'm pretty sure D&D will just stick with "level" to describe most things - it suspect its one of those untouchable sacred cows.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
And as well as being a sacred cow, it's not all that hard to work out for somebody who's proficient in the language.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
And as well as being a sacred cow, it's not all that hard to work out for somebody who's proficient in the language.
If you insist. I've played only with native English speakers, and it's confused about half my players. What I'll get is : "So, I'm a 5th Level Wizard, but I can only cast 3rd Level spells... why can't I cast 5th Level spells?"
Granted, some of them are not that bright, but they don't eat their own snot or anything like that, either.
But, either way, it's a moot point.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I dunno, I tend to have trouble estimating what's easy or hard for normal people. I also grew up with an English teacher for a mother.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seerow
And even with that explanation, it still doesn't justify how a Dwarf who has never even even heard of the Tsurauni Empire, would stumble upon some ancient ruins and instantly be able to identify the stonework as Tsurauni. Which is what dwarves in the current playtest packet can actually do with their stonecutting ability.
With a slight refluffing it makes sense: Let's say all stone has a magical "memory" that dwarves have the unique ability to perceive. So the Dwarf who's never heard of the Tsurauni Empire before can lay her hand on the piece of stonework and instantly know the empire's entire history, absorbed into the stone over time.
And as an inherent magical power, it makes sense to give it to all dwarves in the setting (though not necessarily in ALL settings).
Though I'll agree, while it is interesting and flavorful it's way too heavy to include in default fluff (unless they're going to make a default setting)
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Having spell levels be different from caster level is a bit odd, and makes the game that much harder to learn, but unfortunately it's pretty inherent in the Vancian casting system, so you can't really get rid of it without getting rid of that first.
Just calling it by a different name doesn't seem like it would help. It may well even hurt, since it means the player has to keep ranks and levels and circles and rings and spheres and so on all straight, instead of having just a few common concepts that share a name.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
In a mana-based system, spells could just be arranged by mana cost. And they wouldn't necessarily be restricted to so few levels, it would be more variable.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I don't see the problem. There is class level and spell level, so what? It's not even something you need to know during play but only during level up, when you almost certainly look up the tables anyway.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
I don't see the problem. There is class level and spell level, so what? It's not even something you need to know during play but only during level up, when you almost certainly look up the tables anyway.
Yeah, noparlpf already schooled me on this, Yora. I guess I'm the only one to have players who are semi-literate and still count with their fingers and toes... fair enough.
(I think we've beat this dead horse enough... could we please jump off the corpse?)
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craft (Cheese)
With a slight refluffing it makes sense: Let's say all stone has a magical "memory" that dwarves have the unique ability to perceive. So the Dwarf who's never heard of the Tsurauni Empire before can lay her hand on the piece of stonework and instantly know the empire's entire history, absorbed into the stone over time.
And as an inherent magical power, it makes sense to give it to all dwarves in the setting (though not necessarily in ALL settings).
Though I'll agree, while it is interesting and flavorful it's way too heavy to include in default fluff (unless they're going to make a default setting)
I agree, that would be a very cool feature, and I wouldn't mind seeing it-in a specific campaign setting.
If we get a D&D Campaign Setting, that all of the core rules are supposed to be integrated with, that's one thing. But D&D has always been the generic game that can be transposed to any setting, and I would like the fluff inherent in the core game mechanics to reflect that unless they make an active effort to change that assumption completely.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seerow
I agree, that would be a very cool feature, and I wouldn't mind seeing it-in a specific campaign setting.
If we get a D&D Campaign Setting, that all of the core rules are supposed to be integrated with, that's one thing. But D&D has always been the generic game that can be transposed to any setting, and I would like the fluff inherent in the core game mechanics to reflect that unless they make an active effort to change that assumption completely.
I think a version of Stonecunning like in 3.X would be a fair core aspect of dwarves. With the note that the "default" dwarf is a hill dwarf, or something, like how the default elf is the high elf.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
:smalleek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craft (Cheese)
With a slight refluffing it makes sense: Let's say all stone has a magical "memory" that dwarves have the unique ability to perceive. So the Dwarf who's never heard of the Tsurauni Empire before can lay her hand on the piece of stonework and instantly know the empire's entire history, absorbed into the stone over time.
And as an inherent magical power, it makes sense to give it to all dwarves in the setting (though not necessarily in ALL settings).
Though I'll agree, while it is interesting and flavorful it's way too heavy to include in default fluff (unless they're going to make a default setting)
To me, this seems like it could work better as a set of feats / abilities gained through a specialty rather than a racial one...
Instead of only dwarves being able to perceive the magical memory of stone, maybe it's anyone with the "geomancer" specialty learns how to "speak to stone", and as they advance, they get more feats based on this ability... 1st level, they can discern their relative depth; 3rd level, they can tell what race / subrace / nationality worked stone; 6th level, stones can tell them which way is magnetic north; 9th level, they can tell what happened in a location recently by speaking to the stone...
Obviously, I haven't really thought this out, but it may be a possibility?
(Go ahead, crush my dreams :smalleek:)
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
I don't see the problem. There is class level and spell level, so what? It's not even something you need to know during play but only during level up, when you almost certainly look up the tables anyway.
It's just one more thing that you need to explain to your players. Very little in DnD is actually hard to understand, but just the same, very little in MtG is hard to understand either. However, it's the collection of all of these little things that you need to understand all together that adds up to make for a very intimidating wall for new players.
In this specific case, I don't think there's a fix that really helps anyone out, but in general it's a good thing to reduce the complexity of the game as much as possible, to lower the wall for new players. Of course you don't want to remove the depth of the game while you're doing that, otherwise the game becomes less fun after you've learned all the rules, but it's still an important goal that the designer should be looking to do whenever possible/practical.
MtG made simplifying the game a much bigger goal than it used to be in recent years, and has been rewarded with the most successful and widely-loved sets it's ever had. Obviously we can't apply the exact methods they used since MtG is a very different game, but don't downplay the value of making the game more accessible.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Well, they're definitely not going to make it so that Level 5 characters can cast Level 5 spells, because that would draw the ire of an anti-4e demographic for its superficial resemblance to 4e.
Gotta love all those people out there who judge a book by its cover ...
Personally, I think renaming spell levels "Circles" or something similar would be a good solution. It seems to do a good job of removing the confusion in Legend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craft (Cheese)
With a slight refluffing it makes sense: Let's say all stone has a magical "memory" that dwarves have the unique ability to perceive. So the Dwarf who's never heard of the Tsurauni Empire before can lay her hand on the piece of stonework and instantly know the empire's entire history, absorbed into the stone over time.
And as an inherent magical power, it makes sense to give it to all dwarves in the setting (though not necessarily in ALL settings).
Though I'll agree, while it is interesting and flavorful it's way too heavy to include in default fluff (unless they're going to make a default setting)
Honestly, I think they need to give in to the necessity that some mechanics (that are based in fluff, like this dwarven ability) are just going to need to be re-written for each Setting. Races, in general, will be such an area of mechanics.
They did a reasonable job of this with Deities in 3e: admitting that different settings weren't going to have the same gods just out of convenience, then building a system (Domains) that made it quite easy for different settings to customize their own distinctive religions, without needing to create new mechanics each time.
I don't see why they shied away from doing something similar with, say, Organizations. They started to do that with PrCs (e.g. Red Wizard of Thay), but something seemed to have spooked them and changed their direction (e.g. Purple Dragon Knight with no explicit tie to Cormyr :smallconfused:).
Eberron took some good steps in the Races department. It wasn't afraid to make new races an integral part of the setting, and it experimented with putting old races in fresh, new roles (e.g. drow, orcs), and I think it even dared to change the mechanics of some of those races to fit their new placement. (Or do orcs and drow still have Light Sensitivity?) But it could have gone further. It could have left some generic races out or dared to change the mechanics of Humans/Elves/Dwarves/Halflings/Gnomes in daring ways.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JoeMac307
Using the term "level" to both mean the relative strength of the caster and the relative strength of the spell can be a point of confusion for people, especially in 3.5 where say fireball scales both with caster level (higher caster level means more damage) and with spell level (if you use Heighten Spell, you can cast it at a higher spell level to increase the save DC).
I mean, I'm a bright guy, fancy English degree from an Ivy League school, yay for me, I can keep my vocabulary straight for the most part, but in my experience some players, especially newbies, get a little confused with the concept of having spell levels and caster levels (and character levels and class levels, for that matter).
Using the term "level" to describe every scale of relative power in D&D is a bit lazy, is all I'm saying.
ADnD 1e PHB, page 8:
Quote:
It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem.
Edit: This is right after walking through the 4 things the term level is used for, in the introduction for players.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JoeMac307
I'm passingly familiar with Champions, and I think I get your point (that a system with no fluff can work), but this isn't Champions (or GURPs, etc)... this is D&D.
From my POV, part of what makes D&D attractive to me personally is the baseline flavor, such as the cosmology of Inner and Outer Planes, the grumpy Dwarf, the haughty Elf, etc. It helps me have a common expected starting point from which to build upon.
Well, that's half of my point. The other half is what you glommed onto, and that's the fact that a full separation of fluff and crunch ends up with something like Champions, where you don't have a sword, you have a 2d killing attack with an obvious removable focus.
D&D has pretty well always integrated fluff and crunch to a certain extent.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I always found it odd when people say D&D doesn't have fluff. D&D has a ton of fluff, what it usually lacks is a setting. Setting info is "fluff", but not all fluff is setting.
Paladins being holy warriors of good, that's fluff, demons coming from another plane, that's fluff, wizards casting spells via books, that's fluff, longswords, shields, and platemail, that's fluff. D&D has always had a lot of fluff and flavor built into the rules, they've just always left setting specifics, names, locations, NPC's, ect, to either the GM or setting specific books for the most part. This uniquely allows D&D to have multiple official settings for the same system.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheOOB
I always found it odd when people say D&D doesn't have fluff. D&D has a ton of fluff, what it usually lacks is a setting. Setting info is "fluff", but not all fluff is setting.
Who says D&D has no fluff? D&D has tons of fluff. It's just really, really bad most of the time.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
Who says D&D has no fluff? D&D has tons of fluff. It's just really, really bad most of the time.
That's mostly a matter of opinion. As long as you like the Medieval Heroic High Fantasy genre(which is kinda the price for entry into D&D), I can think of nothing in the 3/3.5 core books that is really bad or objectionable. I like that they let me make my own campaign setting.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Meh the core fluff is good enough. I certainly wouldn't care to play D&D without its fluff. I think everyone on this board likes fantasy fluff.
Its just the details we have problems with sometimes. Things like the paladins code. It is so restrictive and yet open to interpretation so that falling is more or less a matter of a DM's whims. That's terrible. The paladin in general? A heavily armored holy warrior that fights for whats right, mostly with melee weapons? Me likey.
The core fluff is decent enough. Its specific bits of bad fluff that are the problem.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MukkTB
Meh the core fluff is good enough. I certainly wouldn't care to play D&D without its fluff. I think everyone on this board likes fantasy fluff.
Its just the details we have problems with sometimes. Things like the paladins code. It is so restrictive and yet open to interpretation so that falling is more or less a matter of a DM's whims. That's terrible. The paladin in general? A heavily armored holy warrior that fights for whats right, mostly with melee weapons? Me likey.
The core fluff is decent enough. Its specific bits of bad fluff that are the problem.
The issue is that law vs chaos is still kind of ambiguous. It's especially bad because they called it "law" instead of something that's actually the opposite of chaos, like "order". I've seen plenty of chaos caused by laws. It's called the DMV.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
The issue is that law vs chaos is still kind of ambiguous. It's especially bad because they called it "law" instead of something that's actually the opposite of chaos, like "order". I've seen plenty of chaos caused by laws. It's called the DMV.
According the the American Heritage Thesaurus, Order is an Antonym of Chaos and a Synonym for Law, ergo the two are opposites to a point.
Alignment isn't that tough to deal with in general, as for everyone save paladins(and I'll admit the 3e paladin code is silly), it's irrelevant to know if a specific action is good or evil(or lawful or chaotic). The trick with alignment is to remember it's an objective force in the D&D universe, it's not subjective at all, as evidenced by the fact that you can't argue with a Holy Smite spell.
-
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheOOB
According the the American Heritage Thesaurus, Order is an Antonym of Chaos and a Synonym for Law, ergo the two are opposites to a point.
Alignment isn't that tough to deal with in general, as for everyone save paladins(and I'll admit the 3e paladin code is silly), it's irrelevant to know if a specific action is good or evil(or lawful or chaotic). The trick with alignment is to remember it's an objective force in the D&D universe, it's not subjective at all, as evidenced by the fact that you can't argue with a Holy Smite spell.
Even so, the main issue I've always had with the Paladin (in 3.X anyway) is that in the metagame alignment is subjective. So when you and your DM discover you have differing opinions on whether something is lawful or chaotic or neutral you run into issues.