1. - Top - End - #96
    Bugbear in the Playground

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Portland, Oregon

    Default Re: How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Spell slots don't work as a limiting mechanic and wouldn't even if spells themselves weren't so strong. They're entirely reliant on the GM being willing and able to enforce a number of "encounters" every day. This gets harder as you leave a traditional dungeon crawl. Furthermore, if casters have their per-day spells and non-casters don't, the whole party still operates on the casters' schedule. Which only contributes to the feeling that casters are the more important party members.

    Furthermore, casters being screwed once they run out of spells or components is not a good thing.
    It only enforces a binary - either they do have the right spell and solve a problem/encounter handily or they don't and they're neutralized. Same thing happens with anti-magic fields, zones and whatnot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I didn't use the word "almost" in this entire thread.
    IiRC - it was "close"
    Quote Originally Posted by Ignimortis View Post
    Somewhat close, yes.
    - which I interpret as the same.

    Sorry, I'll keep looking for you, Morty.
    Casters Being Binary is actually meant to be a real limit. Spells are not like skills.
    They do one thing, and it either works, or not
    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Yes, and it's a bad limit that doesn't work. As I have explained.
    It's a root cause of many of the problems people debate about endlessly.
    Me = Post #33
    Morty = Post #38
    Me = Post #39

    Perhaps more elaboration on why everything that I've posted doesn't work as a limit to Mages?
    (Don't want to read the entire thread again? OK)
    Lower Spell Slots. Limited Spells Known/day. Concentration and Component requirements.
    No Wish. No endless Simulacrum. No Demiplane/s. Switch Astral Projection and Plane Shift.
    New = Put a CR cap on Gate?

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1
    That might be because I am discussing rather than arguing.
    I'm sorry if I seem to be trying to argue, but that's really not my goal.
    And sometimes I'll have trouble organizing/expressing my thoughts. (On Phone plus RL time limits)

    As you noticed during a heated discussion about (metaphorical) Elephants in a (now dead?) thread not too long ago, I'm not very diplomatic in conveying my side of the debate. Your assistance with that was greatly appreciated.

    Seems my Logic doesn't translate well, either.

    I described what the root cause is, why it occurs, and the mechanism of how it occurs.
    I'll try to re-read that.
    (Placed in my post below)

    I did this to help create empathy for both the player with the level capped concept and the author whose work failed to raise that level cap to the system's level cap. (It can be annoying to have a 5th level character in a 20th level group despite your sheet saying 20th level)
    So, was my suggestion to take away all but the Cantrips for damage for a Wizard bring said down from their perch?

    Doesn't seem so, what with all the other "instant win" (but still limited) non-combat spells (of mid-high range) available.

    Which seems to be the complaint, here.

    This is not an issue of balance. This is not an issue of power. It is an issue of flexibility. It is an issue of imagination limits.
    I'm hoping that I'm showing that I'm at least trying to expand my knowledge and imagination.
    (Especially since I'm now attempting to actually understand 4e)

    But, with that flexibility for Martials, it seems that it is also duplicating/decreasing the same flexibility for mages.

    Like the Fighter not being an Eldritch Knight, but still using Fly at least twice a day.

    Like the Monk not being Way of the Shadow, but still matching Misty Step nearly at will.

    These examples simply say: Subclasses are pointless.
    Throw everything into a blender and just pick what you want.

    Which then the game becomes a Point Buy System, and Archetypes barely have meaning. (Shadowrun)

    Or is my imagination once again off track?

    Having to reread the entire thread multiple times is time consuming.

    Quote Originally Posted by jjordan View Post
    I like (but am not using) a system where casting magic is difficult. The simplest way to do this is to give every spell a base 15 DC to be successfully cast. Add the level of the spell (cantrips are level 0) to get the target DC for successfully casting. Allow the caster to add their proficiency and spell-casting-ability modifier to their roll. Beyond that you can gain additional modifiers. Using a spell focus, using material components, casting as a ritual, taking additional time, getting assistance from another magic user, having the spell prepared ahead of time, and so on can provide bonuses to the caster's roll. If the roll fails then wild magic surges can happen and the severity of the effect is modified by how badly the caster failed their roll. At lower levels you can get a severe, debilitating migraine. Higher level spell failures might cause your brain to squirt out your ears and splatter on the walls. That makes a difference when spellcasters are deciding what to do.
    So, i have to accept another possible chance at failing at something that I invested time and effort in getting?
    So, to cast a first level spell at first level is a DC 16 check, where I get 2 + 3 (5 max) = +5 (+7) to the Roll.
    Which means that I need to roll 11+ (9+ max) to succeed, and then I need to roll again to Hit, or the target needs to roll a save vs DC 13. And a 9th level spell is DC 24 so 6 +5 = 11 need 13+ on d20.

    Extra steps for more failure chances are not something Iíd really want to have to do.
    But, I guess thatís just me.

    Ritual-only magic is something I really wouldn't be interested in, frankly.

    And yes, I did try it. In WoD Mage.
    Most of the time my attempts to do a ritual failed (despite rolling good enough to succeed), simply because of a "random event/encounter" at one or more locations that a piece of the Ritual was at: everything from a rat/cat/dog messing it up, to a wandering little old lady that needed a candle for her grandson's birthday cake. Actively casting a spell sucked to the point of losing the desire to continue playing that Character.
    It is a consequence of two people with different limits to their imagination.
    Right. While getting Gygax to admit that he actually needed Arneson to make oD&D was nearly impossible, doesn't change that fact.

    I heard that a lot of the simple D&D made by Arneson was considered lots better than Gygax's AD&D THACo.

    And progress can and has been made.
    Progress can happen faster while we understand the problem's mechanics.
    Everybody can do something in combat, unless the Player deliberately builds a combat weak PC.
    Like sHuman with 8s in Str, Con and Dex. And nothing but Int skills.

    One of D&D's biggest failings is non-combat Abilities and resolution. It's either ignored/ hand-waved or is binary pass/fail
    Which mostly duplicated combat.

    So my examples were not in vain. You do see mismatch between the concepts supported in the abstract and the concepts supported mechanically once you reach higher level.
    Indeed. I can step outside the (RPG) Box, but can't go more than a few feet.

    Hopefully you have also been reading HOW that mismatch occurs. Hopefully you are empathizing with me over the difficulty authors have with the limits of their imagination. I personally have stated the imagination limits of my own ability to create mechanics at higher levels. Hopefully you still empathize with those unhappy players. The players that had a concept, chose a RPG that the concept fit within, and then found a lack of supporting mechanics.
    I'm working on understanding how the mismatch occurs.

    I attempt empathizing with authors and devs.

    I have always empathized with unhappy Players, having been one more than once. I try to use the rules available to get as close to their concept as possible, even if bending or Homebrewing the rules is needed.

    Knowing is half the battle.
    Gi Joe !!! LoL

    Sounds like we have a miscommunication. ToB maneuvers get expended. Spells get expended. Smites get expended. Fighter's attacks do not get expended despite only being allowed X actions each turn. Paladin Auras don't get expended nor do they have a duration that runs out.*
    Some character concepts are more like Fighter's attacks & Paladin Auras than they are like ToB maneuvers, Barbarian Rages, or Paladin Smites. That distinction is what I usually label as "limited resources" to communicate the distinction those players cared about with regard to their character concepts they wanted to instantiate.
    * I actually didn't know that.

    So Auras help others, would using 3x Psionic Mantles (that only benefit the user) and features duplicating ToB Stances be closer?

    ToB Disciplines being expended like spell slots.

    IDK, I'd really rather make the ToB Classes be their own thing, since those Mechanics matched the Fluff rather well.

    (A) This felt off topic.

    1) I have been talking about flexibility not power.

    2) I don't want to talking about any person to person conflict.

    3) If you want to give Martials an AoE effects, have you considered giving them Sweeping melee attacks (attack everyone in 3 squares) and either a Volley(dex) or Frag/Larger(str) ranged attacks? They are at least 10th level so that kind of flexibility can make sense.
    (A) Sorry, I tend to put down my thoughts as I have them, then run out of Time and Post so as to not lose everything. I now try to get most of what I want saved on Docs, so maybe I will get better at not being completely random.
    I'll re-read my post and see if I can get it to make more sense.

    1) See, flexibility is also a form of power.
    It's just a different way to use/apply power.

    2) Um, also my goal?

    3) These are things that I have considered, but without a Playtesting Group, they just sit there.

    1) Um, I am not at your table?

    2) Knowing your limitations (not failure) actually helps you overcome them when it is a limitation in imagination. During this dialogue I even had a spontaneous thought (which I posted). That might push my limitation further.

    3) You are not alone. You have your imagination, the imagination of the players around you, and the imagination of everyone else you seek out. Jakinbandw's imagination came up with an idea. While their idea is too strong (again, it is flexibility not power that is being sought) it did display a way to push the imagination limit.

    4) Your decisions are not written in stone. When a rulebook is published, that attempt is recorded for all time. If it has a mistake, it will be there forever. When you make a decision, you can alter it later. You have the freedom to continually improve your houserules/homebrew.
    1) In this case it was the Forum table, instead of a physical table.

    Seems that when I have an Idea, there's a 75% chance that it will be shot down, a 15% chance it's a (liked) hit, and a 10% chance it will be ignored.

    2) I'm having ideas, just not (seemingly) very helpful ones.

    3) When no one responds to me, despite seeing new posts, just makes me feel ignored.

    I really do appreciate your responding to me.

    4) I'll most likely always be trying to improve my Houserules and Homebrew.

    Comments and Suggestions in Ancient Realms and similar posts welcome. Just be prepared to write up long detailed explanations on why you think something should be changed.

    Looking over your "thought" post.
    Last edited by Great Dragon; 2019-08-10 at 10:18 AM.
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed
    No offense is intended by anything I post.
    *Limited Playtest Group - I'm mostly Stuck in the White Room.
    *I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!