The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 173
  1. - Top - End - #121
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

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

    If you're specific enough about the mechanics used to "not die" or "deal damage," then there are a bunch of things casters can't do that martials can. But at the end of the day, it only matters who survived and how much damage was dealt, not the mechanics used to resolve it. What matters is how effective their respective mechanics make them at doing those things, and the gap between how well casters can survive and deal damage and how well martials do so isn't as big as you seem to think.

    On the other hand, abilities based entirely outside of mechanics (like leading armies) are irrelevant to this discussion, because nothing short of DM fiat stops the wizard or cleric from doing the exact same thing.
    I'm the GWG from Bay12 and a bunch of other places.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Negative LA Assignment Thread
    The Tale of Demman, Second King of Ireland, a CKII AAR, won a WritAAR of the Week award. Winner of Villainous Competition 8
    Fanfic

    Avatar by Recaiden.

  2. - Top - End - #122
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    On the other hand, abilities based entirely outside of mechanics (like leading armies) are irrelevant to this discussion, because nothing short of DM fiat stops the wizard or cleric from doing the exact same thing.
    I think the idea there is: "congrats! You can do something everyone can do without wasting a spell slot. And do it less good than people that roleplay.

    Its like saying mages in 5e are great because of the blade ward spell.

  3. - Top - End - #123
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    I think the idea there is: "congrats! You can do something everyone can do without wasting a spell slot. And do it less good than people that roleplay.

    Its like saying mages in 5e are great because of the blade ward spell.
    If RP is that central to the game the best build is not to have a character sheet at all - after all, rules only get in the way of roleplaying, am I right?

  4. - Top - End - #124
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    On the other hand, abilities based entirely outside of mechanics (like leading armies) are irrelevant to this discussion, because nothing short of DM fiat stops the wizard or cleric from doing the exact same thing.
    Also, it's far more likely for Casters to try and get an army (etc), especially for Mages - because trying to bring in your (successfully bound) Fiend "allies" has a much higher risk, if not cost: and not just money.

    And without Rule-Controlled Dice Rolls, those Players that are good at Roleplaying will dominate over those that aren't. While those rules don't always help, most people can accept a "random chance" as being more Fair to everyone in the group.
    Last edited by Great Dragon; 2019-08-10 at 11:29 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!

  5. - Top - End - #125
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MeimuHakurei View Post
    If RP is that central to the game the best build is not to have a character sheet at all - after all, rules only get in the way of roleplaying, am I right?
    Congrats on not engaging with my point.

  6. - Top - End - #126
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    I think the idea there is: "congrats! You can do something everyone can do without wasting a spell slot. And do it less good than people that roleplay.
    5e made Charms borderline worthless, especially for long term goals, like said Army.

    Sure, Dominate on the General might work, but there's always the chance that someone knew that person, and notices the sudden change in behavior: and calls in a friendly caster to investigate and negate your control.

    Or lacking their own caster/s, simply knocks out the General, and waits for you to come find out why said isn't moving the Army the way you want
    - Ambush!

    And unless you already had Contingency+Teleport (or Plane Shift, etc) or Word of Recall already in place, escape isn't likely.

    Its like saying mages in 5e are great because of the blade ward spell.
    LoL
    Well, maybe if it was (RAW) a Bonus Action or Reaction to cast....

    Same for True Strike.
    It's almost always better to make an attack every round than to not attack one round for only a slightly better chance of hitting the next round.

    (I have yet to make a Mage with either.
    But then, I'm actually hoping the Martials keep my Mage out of Melee !!)
    ****************
    Feat
    Power Attack: Subtract Proficiency from attack to deal double that value in damage. Applies to both melee and ranged.

    Spoiler: Cleave
    Show

    Fighting Style: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin and Ranger.

    3rd level: Kill a foe and attack another within 5 feet.

    6th: No limit to foes attacked, so long as the last was killed.

    10th: Take a 5 foot free move while Cleaving foes.

    14th: Able to use full movement while Cleaving Foes.


    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Great Dragon; 2019-08-12 at 10:24 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!

  7. - Top - End - #127
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    5e made Charms borderline worthless, especially for long term goals, like said Army.
    "Borderline worthless" is unfair. 5e codified the charm spell-line into something nice and unambiguous, which isn't much good at winning allies but does keep you safe and help your Persuasion attempts.

    Sure, Dominate on the General might work, but there's always the chance that someone knew that person, and notices the sudden change in behavior: and calls in a friendly caster to investigate and negate your control.

    Or lacking their own caster/s, simply knocks out the General, and waits for you to come find out why said isn't moving the Army the way you want
    - Ambush!

    And unless you already had Contingency+Teleport (or Plane Shift, etc) or Word of Recall already in place, escape isn't likely.
    That's always been a weakness in (unattended) dominate person plans. Never heard complaints about "Well, if you dominate one person and people realize it, they might not listen" before, so I've also never heard people make the obvious counterarguments.
    For instance: If you convince the general the Diplomacy way, there are still likely to be subordinates who don't like the new plan and may work against it. Same plotline, same result; the only difference is that success or failure are dependent on one Persuasion roll per point and how hard your DM decides this is going to be, instead of just one save and you're done.

    Same for True Strike.
    It's almost always better to make an attack every round than to not attack one round for only a slightly better chance of hitting the next round.
    Numerically speaking, the two are equivalent. One just eats up a cantrip slot and triggers advantage-based abilities.

    Feat
    Power Attack: Subtract Proficiency from attack to deal double that value in damage. Applies to both melee and ranged.

    Spoiler: Cleave
    Show

    Fighting Style: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin and Ranger.

    3rd level: Kill a foe and attack another within 5 feet.

    6th: No limit to foes attacked, so long as the last was killed.

    10th: Take a 5 foot free move while Cleaving foes.

    14th: Able to use full movement while Cleaving Foes.


    Thoughts?
    Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with either.
    Power Attack seems like a watered-down, more general version of Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter. I think it's redundant. (And also that "Power Attacking" with a crossbow or something is weird.)
    Cleave is weak as heck. Cleave and especially Great Cleave were weak feats in 3.5 because of how rare it is to down an enemy, especially at higher levels (given how hit points increase and damage really doesn't). If you wanted to make a semi-practical Cleave fighting style, you'd need to base it around some other ability that supports Cleave-ing. Probably something that boosts damage.
    (Also, you can move between attacks by default in 5e.)
    I'm the GWG from Bay12 and a bunch of other places.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Negative LA Assignment Thread
    The Tale of Demman, Second King of Ireland, a CKII AAR, won a WritAAR of the Week award. Winner of Villainous Competition 8
    Fanfic

    Avatar by Recaiden.

  8. - Top - End - #128
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    "Borderline worthless" is unfair. 5e codified the charm spell-line into something nice and unambiguous, which isn't much good at winning allies but does keep you safe and help your Persuasion attempts.
    Right, which is why I said "for long term goals".

    Short term goal: Charm Monster successfully used on the Minotaur to convince him to show your party the way out of the Maze. And so long as your gone by the end of the hour, do you really care that the Minotaur is mad at you?

    But, honestly, why would my Wizard take the chance of the General (who is a High Level Person with - what? about a 40% chance) resisting his Charm?

    Especially if Wiz not going Solo, and can just "assist" his Bard/Rogue friend with Expertise in Persuasion, thus not taking the chance of making a (Permanent) enemy?

    That's always been a weakness in (unattended) dominate person plans. Never heard complaints about "Well, if you dominate one person and people realize it, they might not listen" before, so I've also never heard people make the obvious counterarguments.

    For instance: If you convince the general the Diplomacy way, there are still likely to be subordinates who don't like the new plan and may work against it. Same plotline, same result; the only difference is that success or failure are dependent on one Persuasion roll per point and how hard your DM decides this is going to be, instead of just one save and you're done..
    Which (kinda) supports my point: that Spells shouldn't be treated as "Auto Win" buttons, and that there can be equal chance for both Magical and non-magical ways to achieve the same goal. And with similar results.

    The difference is, sure, Dominate is faster, but unless supervised there's too many Sprockets and Cogs to last long. And if you're right there all the time, and they make that daily save, well - hope you had an Escape Plan already in place.

    But then, that's why there's a lot of "Use a disguise (either Magical or not) - Get what I want (again, Magic or non-Magic)- and burn out" plans.
    These require more DM planning.

    Numerically speaking, the two are equivalent. One just eats up a cantrip slot and triggers advantage-based abilities.
    In which case, why not just make it a Bonus Action to cast? I'm trying this, and no real problems, yet.

    Only Rogue with Magic Initiate (or Arcane Trickster) would really get a benefit, being able to SA each round. But cost any other BA Features.

    Better to have Rogue with MI: Familiar.
    Where only Swashbuckler and Inquisitive don't really need either.

    Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with either.
    Power Attack seems like a watered-down, more general version of Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter. I think it's redundant. (And also that "Power Attacking" with a crossbow or something is weird.)
    Yeah, I've been busy, and if I'd had a Playtesting Group, I would have seen the same.

    I did consider combining those, but then would work only on really weak (Low AC) Mooks.

    Cleave is weak as heck. Cleave and especially Great Cleave were weak feats in 3.5 because of how rare it is to down an enemy, especially at higher levels (given how hit points increase and damage really doesn't). If you wanted to make a semi-practical Cleave fighting style, you'd need to base it around some other ability that supports Cleave-ing. Probably something that boosts damage.
    (Also, you can move between attacks by default in 5e.)
    I'm not sure how to add extra damage.

    Would adding a Knockdown effect to Cleave (killing isn't needed) work better?
    But, isn't that redundant for Battlemasters?
    Might help the others, though.
    Last edited by Great Dragon; 2019-08-16 at 05:02 PM.
    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!

  9. - Top - End - #129
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2019

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

    hmm, Martials need demigod

  10. - Top - End - #130
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    Right, which is why I said "for long term goals".

    Short term goal: Charm Monster successfully used on the Minotaur to convince him to show your party the way out of the Maze. And so long as your gone by the end of the hour, do you really care that the Minotaur is mad at you?

    But, honestly, why would my Wizard take the chance of the General (who is a High Level Person with - what? about a 40% chance) resisting his Charm?

    Especially if Wiz not going Solo, and can just "assist" his Bard/Rogue friend with Expertise in Persuasion, thus not taking the chance of making a (Permanent) enemy?
    Assuming that failing to charm a general can have negative side effects, but failing to Persuade a general can't, is obviously going to make charm seem useless. But that's not a pair of assumptions that are always going to be accurate.

    The difference is, sure, Dominate is faster, but unless supervised there's too many Sprockets and Cogs to last long. And if you're right there all the time, and they make that daily save, well - hope you had an Escape Plan already in place.
    Again, why are you ignoring the possibility of Things Going Wrong for non-magical plans? I'd argue that the non-dominated general is more vulnerable to Things Going Wrong, because anything which disrupts the premises of the arguments you made to them could ruin your whole deal.

    In which case, why not just make it a Bonus Action to cast? I'm trying this, and no real problems, yet.
    I dunno. The designers probably didn't want players to be able to casually gain advantage on every attack, knew advantage wasn't worth a spell slot, and refused to give this spell a to-hit bonus as part of their rule to not give those out...except that they did, for a spell or two. Oops.

    I'm not sure how to add extra damage.
    ...Add an ability that lets the fighter attack for increased damage? Maybe something like the barbarian's Reckless Attack, where you accept advantage-to-hit for double damage?

    Would adding a Knockdown effect to Cleave (killing isn't needed) work better?
    But, isn't that redundant for Battlemasters?
    Quite probably. Which is why it probably makes more sense to make Cleave a Battlemaster maneuver than an entire fighting style. (Maybe Power Attack, too, if you want it to not overlap with GWM/Sharpshooter.)
    I'm the GWG from Bay12 and a bunch of other places.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Negative LA Assignment Thread
    The Tale of Demman, Second King of Ireland, a CKII AAR, won a WritAAR of the Week award. Winner of Villainous Competition 8
    Fanfic

    Avatar by Recaiden.

  11. - Top - End - #131
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold
    Assuming that failing to charm a general can have negative side effects, but failing to Persuade a general can't, is obviously going to make charm seem useless. But that's not a pair of assumptions that are always going to be accurate.
    Partly because the effects of failure for the spell are listed in the book, and aren't for a failed Skill Check.

    Again, why are you ignoring the possibility of Things Going Wrong for non-magical plans? I'd argue that the non-dominated general is more vulnerable to Things Going Wrong, because anything which disrupts the premises of the arguments you made to them could ruin your whole deal.
    Mostly due to how the OP was started - ie "Martials are greatly overshadowed by casters" - that I put in my comments about how limited a lot of these "Auto Win" spells really are. Or at least, could be.

    Most DMs that I've heard about, don't really have too much trouble dealing with mundane Challenges;
    Depending on the DM, and Personality of the General, the odds of said General making their Save and immediately having the Caster and/or Party executed can be a lot higher: where maybe the worst that happens on a failed Diplomacy would be arrest and imprisonment. With Exile next worst, and being given a Quest being maybe the best.

    Things Going Wrong
    Is kinda the DM's job.

    Now I can't think of every possible thing that the PC/s are going to try, but I can plan for things that are listed in the book (spells) or that are the most likely to be used (Skills).
    And Improve the rest.

    I dunno. The designers probably didn't want players to be able to casually gain advantage on every attack, knew advantage wasn't worth a spell slot, and refused to give this spell a to-hit bonus as part of their rule to not give those out...except that they did, for a spell or two. Oops.
    Yeah, I don't know, either.

    ...Add an ability that lets the fighter attack for increased damage? Maybe something like the barbarian's Reckless Attack, where you accept advantage-to-hit for double damage?

    Quite probably. Which is why it probably makes more sense to make Cleave a Battlemaster maneuver than an entire fighting style. (Maybe Power Attack, too, if you want it to not overlap with GWM/Sharpshooter.)
    Well, with the Fighting Style, I was hoping to help more Classes than just one Class' Subclass.

    Maybe keep it a feat? Two at most?

    Cleave including knockdown? (Str Save? Or opposed Str Check?)

    Cleaving Terror: (req: Cleave) can Dash (Bonus Action?) so long as Cleaving?

    I can even think of some Out of Combat uses for those.
    Imagine being in the bar with the Martial having the Cleave feat, being able knock down those people between them and their target (person or the door), and other Party members just following in the cleared path behind them!

    Or that Martial getting Cleaving Terror plowing through the crowded market without even slowing down!!!
    Last edited by Great Dragon; 2019-08-17 at 01:25 PM.
    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!

  12. - Top - End - #132
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    Partly because the effects of failure for the spell are listed in the book, and aren't for a failed Skill Check.
    IIRC, the effects for success on a Skill Check aren't that well-described, either. That's more a result of skill checks being vague as heck in 5e than proof of their power.

    Well, with the Fighting Style, I was hoping to help more Classes than just one Class' Subclass.
    First off, other classes can use Battlemaster maneuvers with the right feat. Second off, that's not a great reason to fit a square peg in a round mechanic. Maybe find some non-Cleave-line derivative way to boost martial classes?
    This isn't the homebrew subforum, don't expect premium-grade homebrew advice.
    I'm the GWG from Bay12 and a bunch of other places.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Negative LA Assignment Thread
    The Tale of Demman, Second King of Ireland, a CKII AAR, won a WritAAR of the Week award. Winner of Villainous Competition 8
    Fanfic

    Avatar by Recaiden.

  13. - Top - End - #133
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    First off, other classes can use Battlemaster maneuvers with the right feat. Second off, that's not a great reason to fit a square peg in a round mechanic. Maybe find some non-Cleave-line derivative way to boost martial classes?
    This isn't the homebrew subforum, don't expect premium-grade homebrew advice.
    Well, I tried.

    I placed my ideas here, because they were Suggestions for ways to address the complaint in the Original Post.
    If they were Accepted by the OP (or enough of the members posting) I would have moved them to Homebrew for more focused feedback, especially if asked.

    I have found some of the ideas here good enough to add to my Ancient Realms thread in World Building (didn't feel they needed more work, as yet - so not in Homebrew), but seems not very many people are interested in responding there. *Shrug*

    *****
    No new ideas at this time.
    I'll check in every once in a while.
    Last edited by Great Dragon; 2019-08-19 at 07:48 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!

  14. - Top - End - #134
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2016

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    Or let's not do that, say that doing something by magic is treated the same as doing it mundanely rules-wise, and let people fluff as they like.
    Love how the Dresden Files Accelerated deals with this : Want to kick down a door? Make a "Forceful" roll. Want to blast it with your kinetikomancy? Make a "Forceful" roll. And sure, the kinetomancer can spend a round drawing power from the nearest leyline to get a +2, but the bruiser can spend the same round to grab some heavy object for a +2 as well. :)

    They then blew up that balance by giving a flat +1 to supernatural stuff (your werewolf or wizard get +1 when they use their werewolf-power or magic, but your mafia bruiser does not get it when he does regular mafia-stuff). but for a game that proclaims it doesn't bother with balance, it achieves a pretty nice amount of it.
    Especially considering that the previous DF game by the same publisher (Dresden Files Role Playing Game) follows the "Wizards can blow up the planet while mundanes struggle to stay alive" scool of game design.

  15. - Top - End - #135
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kardwill View Post
    Love how the Dresden Files Accelerated deals with this : Want to kick down a door? Make a "Forceful" roll. Want to blast it with your kinetikomancy? Make a "Forceful" roll. And sure, the kinetomancer can spend a round drawing power from the nearest leyline to get a +2, but the bruiser can spend the same round to grab some heavy object for a +2 as well. :)

    They then blew up that balance by giving a flat +1 to supernatural stuff (your werewolf or wizard get +1 when they use their werewolf-power or magic, but your mafia bruiser does not get it when he does regular mafia-stuff). but for a game that proclaims it doesn't bother with balance, it achieves a pretty nice amount of it.
    Especially considering that the previous DF game by the same publisher (Dresden Files Role Playing Game) follows the "Wizards can blow up the planet while mundanes struggle to stay alive" scool of game design.
    What if they both want to get to the moon? Is the bruiser allowed to roll (and is it against the same DC)?

  16. - Top - End - #136
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kardwill View Post
    Love how the Dresden Files Accelerated deals with this : Want to kick down a door? Make a "Forceful" roll. Want to blast it with your kinetikomancy? Make a "Forceful" roll. And sure, the kinetomancer can spend a round drawing power from the nearest leyline to get a +2, but the bruiser can spend the same round to grab some heavy object for a +2 as well. :)

    They then blew up that balance by giving a flat +1 to supernatural stuff (your werewolf or wizard get +1 when they use their werewolf-power or magic, but your mafia bruiser does not get it when he does regular mafia-stuff). but for a game that proclaims it doesn't bother with balance, it achieves a pretty nice amount of it.
    I'd just apply the extra +1 to mafia bruiser stuff.

    Sure, the Wizard might blow the door off the hinges with their kinetikomancy (Forceful Roll + 2 Layline and +1 "magic") - which is maybe impressive. But has absolutely no chance of sneaking up on anyone on the other side of said door.

    And while the Bruiser doesn't get another bonus to knocking the door open (Forceful Roll +2 heavy object) maybe they do get that extra +1 when trying to quietly pick the lock instead.

    *****
    @OldTrees1: depends on what's available to get to the moon, I suppose.

    Just jumping (on Earth) shouldn't get either anywhere close.
    (Although while Harry did manage to get some great height with kinetikomancy, he got stuck in a tree for his effort !!)

    The Bruiser taking a Rocket to the moon might depend on how closely skilled they are to an Astronaut.
    And maybe if they remembered to check the Fuel Level.....

    The Wizard opening a Portal and walking through the Nevernever might work, but might have them end up lost on (the equivalent of) Venus or something.
    (Figuring out how the DF Nevernever works as a DM is fun !)
    Last edited by Great Dragon; 2019-08-30 at 01:08 PM.
    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!

  17. - Top - End - #137
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Anonymouswizard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In my library

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    What if they both want to get to the moon? Is the bruiser allowed to roll (and is it against the same DC)?
    Yes. He rolls at the exact same difficulty (in Dresden Files Accelerated I believe that would require about a +50, in a system where your highest approach is unlikely to be more than +6, and you roll won't add more than +4, better start creating those advantages and stacking those free invokes...).

    Why is this so hard? The same end result gets the same difficulty whether you're doing it via magic, brute strength, or running for parliament and bringing in a new law (although I'd question doing the last in the middle of combat).
    Snazzy avatar (now back! ) by Honest Tiefling.

    RIP Laser-Snail, may you live on in our hearts forever.

    Spoiler: playground quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelphas View Post
    So here I am, trapped in my laboratory, trying to create a Mechabeast that's powerful enough to take down the howling horde outside my door, but also won't join them once it realizes what I've done...twentieth time's the charm, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    How about a Jovian Uplift stuck in a Case morph? it makes so little sense.

  18. - Top - End - #138
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    Yes. He rolls at the exact same difficulty (in Dresden Files Accelerated I believe that would require about a +50, in a system where your highest approach is unlikely to be more than +6, and you roll won't add more than +4, better start creating those advantages and stacking those free invokes...).

    Why is this so hard? The same end result gets the same difficulty whether you're doing it via magic, brute strength, or running for parliament and bringing in a new law (although I'd question doing the last in the middle of combat).
    So the Bruiser rolls against a DC of +50 and the Wizard makes a portal and walks through the Nevernever (also at DC +50)?
    I was asking because it sounded like the system would still prohibit the Bruiser from getting a roll or would allow the Wizard an alternative way with a lower DC. I wanted to ask before I got my hopes up too high. Because the baked in equivalent DC sounds nice but suspicious.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2019-08-30 at 12:53 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #139
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

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

    Jump target +50 and Portal target +50 would seem fairly balanced.

    I'm also curious about DF-RPG, but haven't gotten it because I can't find anyone else interested near me.
    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!

  20. - Top - End - #140
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    The Bruiser taking a Rocket to the moon might depend on how closely skilled they are to an Astronaut.
    I missed the word "skilled" the first time I read this, so my mental image was a mafia thug mugging an astronaut and stealing the Space Shuttle. (Which wouldn't get to the Moon, even if it was still in service, but hush.)
    I'm the GWG from Bay12 and a bunch of other places.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Negative LA Assignment Thread
    The Tale of Demman, Second King of Ireland, a CKII AAR, won a WritAAR of the Week award. Winner of Villainous Competition 8
    Fanfic

    Avatar by Recaiden.

  21. - Top - End - #141
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold
    I missed the word "skilled" the first time I read this, so my mental image was a mafia thug mugging an astronaut and stealing the Space Shuttle. (Which wouldn't get to the Moon, even if it was still in service, but hush.)
    ROFLMAO !!

    Yeah, so the Astronaut wakes up, sees the Bruiser leaning over them, who says "Your going to get me to the moon, see?"

    And the Astronaut has to explain (maybe twice?) that the Space Shuttle can't do that....
    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!

  22. - Top - End - #142
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2016

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    I'm also curious about DF-RPG, but haven't gotten it because I can't find anyone else interested near me.
    Note that DF-RPG and DF-A are from the same publisher and are both Fate games, but they are fairly different.

    DFRPG is crunchy (for a Fate game), with 35 skills, dozens of powers, a point buy character creation, a detailed (and overpowered) magic...

    DF-Accelerated is much more streamlined, with 6 skills, "fuzzier" powers, a "caracter class" creation, a simpler unified system, etc...

    I love both games, both do a really nice job to emulate the novels in their own way, but they don't really scratch the same itch :)
    Last edited by Kardwill; 2019-08-31 at 03:59 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #143
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kardwill View Post
    a detailed (and overpowered) magic...
    Eh... I'm not sure I agree. I played as a pure mortal in a party of mages and I was the one who took out an entire group of Mercenary (Ghouls I think?). Having eight fate points to burn on a single roll is really powerful. I care not for your armor, health or anything. You're all going to get bribed! :P Seriously though, In two rounds I got results of 12 and 16 respectively on social attacks. Meanwhile one mage was just about to finish a summoning and the other had his fireball do pretty much nothing against all the physical defenses of the mercs.

  24. - Top - End - #144
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

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

    Personally, I find it deeply dissatisfying and disassociated if two characters are using wildly different means, but roll the same thing because they're both trying to achieve the same ends.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  25. - Top - End - #145
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Personally, I find it deeply dissatisfying and disassociated if two characters are using wildly different means, but roll the same thing because they're both trying to achieve the same ends.
    What is this a comment on?

  26. - Top - End - #146
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    What is this a comment on?
    It was the idea of a mage and a bruiser both rolling something called "forceful" to knock down a door that brought it up, but more generally about systems that go that far into the abstract and disassociated.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  27. - Top - End - #147
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    What is this a comment on?
    If I was to guess:

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    Jump target +50 and Portal target +50 would seem fairly balanced.
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Personally, I find it deeply dissatisfying and disassociated if two characters are using wildly different means, but roll the same thing because they're both trying to achieve the same ends.
    IMO - if both the DC and the result are the same, there is little difference between using the same Mechanical method for both and using different Mechanic for each. The latter just tends to favor your PC's specific Ability/Skill focus. But if the first is using the same Mechanic and allows different Ability/Skills as the "means" - there isn't any real difference.

    I understand your point, though:
    I suppose the D&D example would be Perception vs Investigation.
    Secret Doors and Traps.
    By Raw, all that is required is the PC successfully making a Perception Roll to detect these.
    Which means that Investigation is worthless.
    (Unless used as the 5e version of Gather Information, I suppose)

    And that Bards [with a good Perception, Expertise most likely] are just as good at Finding Traps and (if they have Thieves Tools from a background) [with a good Dex] Disarming them.
    The Rogue putting Expertise in Thieves Tools usually isn't worth it, since by RAW: nothing has a DC over 20, and past 11th level a 19 without even rolling will get 99.99% of traps.

    I'm Old School, in that I believe that both Secret Doors and Traps are designed to not be easily noticed, and just looking around the room doesn't detect them (even if you have a 30 Passive Perception! Although that will detect the location of even Invisible creatures) actually inspecting the area where these are (investigation) is required to locate these.

    YMmV
    Last edited by Great Dragon; 2019-08-31 at 09:50 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!

  28. - Top - End - #148
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Personally, I find it deeply dissatisfying and disassociated if two characters are using wildly different means, but roll the same thing because they're both trying to achieve the same ends.
    I'd say it depends on the framing of the roll more than the roll itself. The mechanical difference between a barbarian smashing a door and a rogue picking a lock is basically just that one is an ability check and one is a skill check.
    I'm the GWG from Bay12 and a bunch of other places.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Negative LA Assignment Thread
    The Tale of Demman, Second King of Ireland, a CKII AAR, won a WritAAR of the Week award. Winner of Villainous Competition 8
    Fanfic

    Avatar by Recaiden.

  29. - Top - End - #149
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold
    I'd say it depends on the framing of the roll more than the roll itself. The mechanical difference between a barbarian smashing a door and a rogue picking a lock is basically just that one is an ability check and one is a skill check.
    Yes, but there is actually a difference there.

    The skill check adds both Proficiency and Ability Modifier to the roll; where Ability check is just the mod.
    Against the same DC, the Skill has a better chance.

    I was compairing same effective total (even if different means = Prof +Str vs Prof +Dex) against the same DC - for there not really being a difference.
    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!

  30. - Top - End - #150
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    NW PA
    Gender
    Male

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

    I have enjoyed reading all of the responses but I will address the question in the title. You don't need to increase their power IF you add a different "restriction" to magic users. You can reduce the power of magic by using an existing 5e Game Mechanic, the Skill Check to do it. Whether you keep the Vancian limits or drop them entirely, the Skill Check will add a degree of uncertainty to spell casting. I use the following formulas for Casting;

    For casting a spell under average adventuring conditions:

    The DC is 10 + The Spell's Level (+1 thru +9, 0 for cantrips). The Caster gets to add his Proficiency Bonus and his INT Bonus to his Skill roll.

    So a 1st level mage with a +6 total proficiency and attribute bonus would succeed in casting a 1st level spell on a roll of 5 or more (a 75% chance of success). A 20th level mage with a +10 bonus would only fail on a roll of 1. That same 20th level mage would cast a 9th level spell on a roll of 9 or more (a 55% chance of success). This system will help limit the power of magic by making casting it less certain than the RAW rules.

    The DC can be varied by conditions too. A mage casting a spell in the quiet confines of his library might have a DC of 5. That same mage casting a spell while under missile attack or on a wobbly rope bridge could have a DC of 15. Being engaged in HTH would impose a DC of 20 AND DISADVANTAGE on the roll. This system basically falls in line with the fighter's "To Hit" rolls and makes magic more uncertain during an adventure.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •