Results 1,411 to 1,440 of 1492
-
2012-10-02, 07:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I agree with all of your points, except #4.
1,3,5,6,7,&8 are all problems because of how the spells are written, which was my point. I like what I see so far on the fighter to address #2.
As to weak low level casters, the only one in core would be the wizard, perhaps. But given a handful of xp and gold, and a few days in town, the wizard can have so many scrolls that she'll never run out of spells. It's easy for a sorcerer to do the same, or cleric or Druid, even though the divine casters are strong without it. Bards are weaker, but there's plenty of utility from 0 level spells, too.
-
2012-10-02, 07:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
-
2012-10-02, 09:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
-
2012-10-02, 10:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Please don't edit your comments into the quote, it makes it hard to respond.
You misunderstand. Getting new powers that are better is good. Getting new powers that are better while your old powers also get better is what makes the Wizard quadratic.
2) Non spellcasters usually only had a few options, where as spellcasters had dozens of viable options.
That's the problem. Non-spellcasters were not getting comparable better stuff as the levels increase, at least until a certain book late in 3E came out that gave warriors nice things.
6) A single spell often did several things or had an extremely long duration, meaning limited slots was not an issue.
A feature, not a bug. There's nothing wrong with a spell being useful. That's the whole point.
Non-casters get feats and one or two class features. Each feat or class feature does one, maybe two things.
Again, casters get exponentially more options.
8) Spells suffered from extreme power creep.
That is a matter of play preference. It is not a crime for a PC to be powerful. The problem is non-spellcasters do not increase in their power at the same rate. Despite #3, it is ok for a spell to be powerful. Non-spellcasters should have their equivalence.Jude P.
-
2012-10-02, 10:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
The biggest problem with spellcasters in 3E is that 2E had numerous drawbacks and balancing mechanisms that made magic weaker, and that were removed for 3E (and no, I'm not talking about the "weak at low level, strong at high level" part).
My personal preference is for fighters to be more powerful, and wizards to be more versatile. Yes, this is a possible way to balance things; many other RPGs let you make a power/versatility tradeoff. It just needs to be done right.Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2012-10-02, 10:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-10-02, 10:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Yes.
I think it would be good if wizards were forced to specialize. Just because magic is really versatile doesn't mean that every wizard can do all of that. For example, if you make a wizard based on summoning magic, you can't just add the best buff spells to your repertoire because that's not your specialty. Conversely, if you make a buffing wizard, you can't just cast Summon Monster XVII because that's not your specialty either. Pick one shtick and stick with it. The last thing we need is every wizard cherry-picking from a long, long list of spells printed.Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2012-10-02, 10:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Originally Posted by navar100
That is a matter of play preference. It is not a crime for a PC to be powerful. The problem is non-spellcasters do not increase in their power at the same rate. Despite #3, it is ok for a spell to be powerful. Non-spellcasters should have their equivalence.*********
Matters of Critical Insignificance - My Blog for all my favorite entertainment
11/4: Announcing the Vow of Honor KS! (I contributed)
-
2012-10-02, 11:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Location
- MD
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Combos are another creep. The more things that you can combine, the more likely that you'll get a great combo. Some combo is good, and should serve you well in limited circumstances, but once a combo becomes used all the time, then you have a balance issue.
For 3rd, you had the added problem that spellcasters could far more easily get whatever magic item that they wanted, further increasing the number of possible combos that they could use. For example, stacking night sticks, which made an entire class of uber-cleric possible.
With the de-emphasis (I hope) on magic items in Next, that should help moderate combo-ism to situational advantage.
-
2012-10-02, 11:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
-
2012-10-02, 12:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I don't like ToB much myself, mostly because it's a book of gishes, and just adds even more magic instead of actually fixing the disparity between casters and mundanes.
(As might become evident in the rest of this post, I have some strong feelings about this.)
Which it's not.
The one distinction from "real" magic is that some maneuvers are extraordinary and function in an AMF. The supernatural ones don't, though, so quite a few maneuvers are definitely magical.Last edited by noparlpf; 2012-10-02 at 12:39 PM.
Jude P.
-
2012-10-02, 01:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Tome of Battle has been argued to death. There's another thread right now about the Fighter discussing it. Go there.
Edit: OMG! Another one just opened up in the 3E forum about giving maneuvers to the base classes.Last edited by navar100; 2012-10-02 at 01:08 PM.
-
2012-10-02, 01:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-10-02, 01:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
-
2012-10-02, 01:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Off the top of my head,
- Spells get disrupted when you're hit, no concentration check allowed
- Higher-level spells are easier to disrupt, magical weapons are easier to disrupt with, per plus (this depends on their speed factors)
- Enemy saving throws depend on their level, not yours, and thus become easier for enemies the higher level you and they are; whereas the opposite is true in 3E
- Numerous spells have drawbacks written into the spell itself; e.g. Lightning Bolt bounces back at you if mis-aimed, Shout can permanently deafen the caster, etc
- No metamagic feats exist
- More XP required to level up; the amount gets silly around level 9. Also, you get 6th and higher level spells one character later than in 3E
- Wizards get no bonus spells for high ability scores, although clerics do
- And last but not least, by default a wizard's spells are limited to what he can find during the adventure, plus he has to roll to learn a spell; no free spells of the player's choice every level
Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2012-10-02, 02:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
In fact, while there are metamagic effects in 2e, there are very few of them, they're spells (and so subject to normal spell learning rules) that you have to cast right before casting the spell to be metamagicked (and so you can't stack them very well if at all), and they have level caps they can effect so you can't metamagic higher-level spells.
Lots of caster options were like that in AD&D, you got plenty of new toys to play with but they kept the philosophy of including drawbacks and paying for power. Not like 3e, where they had to ruin the perfectly good concept of metamagic feats with a proliferation of metamagic reducers.
-
2012-10-02, 02:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Ah, yes. Now I remember why the flawless 3.x magic system sticks in my craw so much. It used to have some risk attached. Now the worst consequence is a made save, if one is allowed.
I'm suddenly thinking about the very useful IRL skill of estimating distance (and spatial awareness in general) especially in combat. What if the area in area effect spells was variable? Not a lot- maybe 10% or the nearest integer.
Many spells have a random number or targets/hd effected. Why not area?
-
2012-10-02, 02:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
-
2012-10-02, 02:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
At least in 1e (which I'm more familiar with) There's also ...
* Need to pass a Learn % chance in order to learn a spell
* Spell Components. Which are incredibly annoying and seldom-used but served as checks to frequent casting.
* Spell memorization times. If you're a higher-level caster and you blow all your spells, it might take days for you to prepare them all again.
* Costs of transcribing spells into your spellbook are fairly steep - as are the new books when your current one runs out of pages.
* Along with the drawbacks listed before, some spells actually aged a caster (or a target) a number of years. Haste and Wish are biggies, here.
3e basically took away all the downsides of spellcasting while leaving the upsides intact.
-O
-
2012-10-02, 02:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Yes it does. Celerity, Wraithstrike, and Shivering Touch are some low-level examples. Also, the various means of reducing metamagic cost are non-core. 9th-level spells are not a practical problem in most campaigns, since they wouldn't even come close to that level.
Yes, Core is unbalanced and contains some overpowered spells; but the problem became much, much worse with splatbooks. Hence, power creep.Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2012-10-02, 03:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Disagree. There are good spell outside of core, but the most powerful spells are still found in the PHB. Nothing as powerful as Shapechange/Wish/Time Stop/Planar Ally/Gate/Disjunction has ever been printed in a splat. The most powerful spells in splat books are still far less powerful than certain core spells. Additionally, in my opinion, The average power of a spell did not markedly increase as more splatbooks were printed. Thus, I believe it is incorrect to say that "the problem became much, much worse with splatbooks" .
Last edited by Menteith; 2012-10-02 at 03:03 PM.
There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...
-
2012-10-02, 03:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
The issue is not about spells printed but about spells in use. Pretty much everything you list here is level 9, so it's clearly not going to be used in the vast majority of campaigns. Yes, printing a level-3 spell in splatbooks that is much stronger than the level-3 (or 4) spells in the PHB1 is still power creep. And because they become available at low level, level-3 spells are used in many more games than level-9 spells are.
Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2012-10-02, 03:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
You're claiming that "the problem became way, way worse" in splatbooks.
What control spells are way, way better than Grease, Glitterdust, and Web?
What buffs are way, way better than Enlarge Person, Alter Self, Mirror Image, and Haste?
What utility is way, way better than Silent Image, Charm Person, Rope Trick, and Summon Monster X?
I'll accept that there are splatbook spells which are good, and I'll agree that the metamagic reducers which make Mailmen decent are non-Core, but I won't agree that there was some kind of huge power creep in spells. If I'm running a Batman Wizard, odds are most of my spell list is from Core.There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...
-
2012-10-02, 03:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
A good way to think of power creep as relates to spells would be "Which spells does the optimal sorcerer pick?" Starting with core, he picks up shapechange, planar binding, etc. every time. None of those top-tier spells is going to be replaced when splatbooks come out with new spells, since with a limited number of spells known he's not going to settle for less. However, celerity will almost certainly bump a spell out of its slot and take its place, as will shivering touch, etc.
Averaging over all spells printed, the power of an individual spell known probably didn't change much or even decreased, because for every wraithstrike published there was a breath flare, a dispel ward, and several other less-than-amazing spells. But an individual caster doesn't care about the power of all spells everywhere, he cares about the power level of the spell selection he can put together, and that has definitely increased in leaps and bounds. Even if 90% of a Batman wizard's spellbook is full of so-good-you-have-to-take-them core spells, the fact that the remaining 10% went from less-good-but-still-nice core spells to so-good-you-have-to-take-them non-core spells means that power creep is definitely noticeable.Last edited by PairO'Dice Lost; 2012-10-02 at 03:36 PM.
-
2012-10-02, 03:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Last edited by Menteith; 2012-10-02 at 03:38 PM.
There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...
-
2012-10-02, 03:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
That depends on what your definition of "is" is Are we seriously going to argue about whether something is noticeable or significant or both, and if there's even any difference between these two words (that are considered synonyms by my thesaurus)?
(edit) for the record, the Batman Guide lists nine level-2 spells from core, and eight from out of core. Is the difference between 9 excellent spells and 17 excellent spells noticeably significant, or significantly noticeable?Last edited by Kurald Galain; 2012-10-02 at 03:59 PM.
Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2012-10-02, 05:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
If you already have enough variety to handle 95% of all encounters, it's not a huge boost going to 99%. I believe that the spells in core can already handle 95% of appropriate encounters without an issue. I don't feel that a relatively small boost in versatility is indicative of an significant or noticeable power creep, as a core Wizard can already handle just about everything already. You can't give a huge boost to a class that can already do everything.
Last edited by Menteith; 2012-10-02 at 05:58 PM.
There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...
-
2012-10-02, 05:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Some pre-3E drawbacks were unfun, such as being aged to cast the spell, needing a day to prepare all your spells when high level. It was like punishing the wizard for the audacity of doing what he's supposed to be doing. However, not all drawbacks were unfun.
Casting times were interesting and could be used again. Most spell casting times were the level of the spell. If you go on initiative count 18 casting a 5th level spell, you would start casting on 18 and it goes off on 14. A lot can happen between them. Your initiative count next round would still be 18.
Needing to make a spellcraft check to learn a spell would be alright. If you fail, I would prefer you didn't have to wait a level to try again. You could at no cost, but if you wanted to try again before then you would pay goldpieces or maybe a small amount of XP. However, if you must wait until next level, i.e. gain a rank in spellcraft, I could get over it. A new idea that has floated around before is to give spell prerequisites before you can learn a spell. For example, you need to know Burning Hands before you can learn Flaming Sphere or Scorching Ray. You need to know Flaming Sphere and Scorching Ray before you can know Fireball, or maybe just one of them since Fireball isn't that powerful, but the big booms certainly need lots. Gate might require Protection From Foo, Magic Circle Against Foo, Teleport Without Error, Plane Shift, Summon Monster of at least V, and a high number of ranks in Spellcraft, Knowledge Arcana, and Knowledge Planes.
-
2012-10-02, 06:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
The main problem with requiring skill checks, of course, is that skill checks are so easy to boost in 3e, and a secondary problem is that if you're basing the DC on spell level it goes up by a different rate than Spellcraft ranks based on whether it's using ranks, 2*ranks, or whatever (i.e. the Truenamer problem).
One variation on the prerequisites idea that I liked, tried by one of the DMs in my group, was the following, spoilered for the tangent:SpoilerEach spell requires a DC 15 + 5*spell level Spellcraft check to learn it, but each spell has one thematically-related prerequisite spell per spell level. Each of those prerequisite spells that you already know reduces the DC by 2 (so a 9th level spell has 9 prereqs and knowing all 9 reduces the DC from a near-impossible 60 to a manageable 42), and if you fail the check for a given spell you can retry the roll each time you learn one of the prerequisites. Additionally, specialists take a -4 Spellcraft penalty for spells outside their school and generalists take a -8 penalty on checks to learn spells of any school, each school has a different associated Knowledge for the Spellcraft synergy bonus (Kn:Planes for Conjuration, Kn:Religion for Necromancy, etc.), and of course prevent any magical enhancements to the skill check like +30 Spellcraft items or guidance of the avatar or whatever from applying because the Laws of Magic are a jerk like that.
A 1st level wizard with max Spellcraft and +2 Int would need to roll a 12 to learn a 1st level spell of his specialty school while only an 18 Int generalist could even have a chance to pick up 1st level spells at 1st level; a 20th level generalist wizard with +10 Int, 5 ranks in the appropriate Knowledge, and max Spellcraft can roll at most 47 on that Spellcraft check, making it practically impossible to learn a spell without almost all of its prereqs, while if he were a specialist he'd need only 1 or 2 prereqs from his specialty school.
That system is probably more complex and less friendly to generalists than most people would want, but I think it does a nice job of encouraging thematic spell groupings while being forgiving of players who want a more eclectic spell selection.
-
2012-10-02, 06:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender