D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder?
BP
them, or really digested and grokked all the content beyond some
skimming.
Recently I've started reading the 3.5 books more intently, trying to
really understand what is going on, but I read so much here about
Pathfinder that I wonder if my time would be better spend just buying
the Pathfinder rulebooks and studying those instead.
Is Pathfinder enough of an improvement on 3.5 to make that the
preferred approach?
BP
Baird Stafford
BP <re...@newsgroup.please> wrote:
I don't see any reason to choose one over the other - the systems are
compatible. I like parts of both, and have every intention of
house-ruling my own amalgam into existence.
Baird
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is. -Yogi Berra
Ben - yes that's all just Ben
> preferred approach?
I really like Parthfinder. It's just like 3.5 but with many of the
dodgy bits fixed up. I love the art... and the fluff is very
satisfying! My eight year old keeps commenting that in a lot of
places
there is more explanation. I particularly like that the 'dead' levels
are gone from the core classes.
...
Lots of little things...
Ben
**************************************
Want incredibly atmospheric background
soundscapes for your gaming table?
Go to: www.syrinscape.com
Download for free!
See a program demo, and listen to mp3s
of Syrinscape in action.
**************************************
decalod85
We just wrapped up the end of a 6 year campaign, and are switching to
Pathfinder for a couple of reasons.
1. It is shiny and new.
2. Playing base Pathfinder is very simple compared to 3.5e (which his
very large now).
3. We like the books a lot.
4. It's not 4e.
The players are excited. The dice are coming out of hibernation! The
violent and evil will soon again tremble with fear!
Jasin Zujovic
I envy you! :)
IMO, Pathfinder is not enough of an improvement over 3.5 to justify
learning the new stuff and (perhaps more importantly) unlearning the old
for me, but it probably is an improvement overall, and it's definitely a
more beautiful book. Add to that an excellent starter setting, and it's
probably a better choice for a beginner.
The really good part is, anything you're missing in Pathfinder but is
available in 3.5 is almost trivial to convert once you get the hang of
the rules (and until you don't, you can probably just use it outright
without noticing the discrepancies).
--
Jasin
Heimdallsgothi
Really after the bad taste of 3.0, I skipped 3.5 entirely and moved on
to other settings.
After several good recommendations I took a look at pathfinder as a
whole system, an find it fairly well done.
It's strongly play-tested, and still has that D&D feel to the whole
game that 4.0 has utterly lost. Now 4.0 isn't a bad system, its just
so very different from AD&D and the classic system as a whole that its
basically an entirely new system with similar mechanics.
Overall I have purchased the pathfinder book, the bestiary, and
several of the settings/chronicles books, and concider it a far better
purchase then my 3.0 books....
Seebs
> It's strongly play-tested, and still has that D&D feel to the whole
> game that 4.0 has utterly lost.
Can you give any kind of more-specific thing to explain in what way
4.0 doesn't feel-like-D&D to you? I keep hearing this, and it makes no
sense to me. It's like being told that earl grey is perfectly acceptable
as caffeinated leafy beverages go, but it just doesn't feel like tea anymore.
-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Hadsil
> On 2009-12-09, Heimdallsgothi <heimdallsgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's strongly play-tested, and still has that D&D feel to the whole
> > game that 4.0 has utterly lost.
>
> Can you give any kind of more-specific thing to explain in what way
> 4.0 doesn't feel-like-D&D to you? I keep hearing this, and it makes no
> sense to me. It's like being told that earl grey is perfectly acceptable
> as caffeinated leafy beverages go, but it just doesn't feel like tea anymore.
>
> -s
> --
I already told you, it gutted magic. In addition, while each D&D
version has new rules different from the previous edition, 4E has new
ways of doing things as to be different game mechanics than what D&D
has been in the past.
As for Pathfinder, personal taste some changes I didn't like but other
changes I did like. It's perfectly fine to play by its lonesome, but
it does well if you mix & match with 3E proper.
Gerald Katz
BP
I went ahead and bought the Pathfinder PDFs, only $10 each. I'll have
to look at those before I decide on the dead-tree books.
BP
Seebs
> I already told you, it gutted magic.
So you say, but I don't see how. I don't think a 4E wizard is necessarily,
over the course of a day's adventuring, noticably worse off than a 3E wizard
or a 2E wizard. Other people are more competitive, but the wizard hardly
sucks.
(Also note that I was technically asking someone else, but your answer
is interesting to.)
> In addition, while each D&D
> version has new rules different from the previous edition, 4E has new
> ways of doing things as to be different game mechanics than what D&D
> has been in the past.
Everything has had different game mechanics. 3E's skill system? Different
game mechanics than rogues used for 1E and 2E.
-s
--
dr...@bin.sh
> On 2009-12-09, Heimdallsgothi <heimdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's strongly play-tested, and still has that D&D feel to the whole
>> game that 4.0 has utterly lost.
>
> Can you give any kind of more-specific thing to explain in what way
> 4.0 doesn't feel-like-D&D to you? I keep hearing this, and it makes no
> sense to me. It's like being told that earl grey is perfectly acceptable
> as caffeinated leafy beverages go, but it just doesn't feel like tea anymore.
i'm sure it has to do with the loss of 'dwarf' and 'elf' as classes,
having more than 3 levels, and thief abilities being bought as
individual skills instead of being fixed percentages.
--
._n_______n_. dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
| --------- |== -----------------------------------------------------------
I"/""|"|Z7""' "There's a thin line between being a hero
lJ | | and being a memory."
|_l
decalod85
> On 2009-12-09, Heimdallsgothi <heimdallsgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's strongly play-tested, and still has that D&D feel to the whole
> > game that 4.0 has utterly lost.
>
> Can you give any kind of more-specific thing to explain in what way
> 4.0 doesn't feel-like-D&D to you? I keep hearing this, and it makes no
> sense to me. It's like being told that earl grey is perfectly acceptable
> as caffeinated leafy beverages go, but it just doesn't feel like tea anymore.
Why do you care so much? You are quizzing everyone here who doesn't
enjoy 4e like it was your job to do so. Let Hasbro do their own
market research...
I think you need to accept the fact that lots of people who love D&D
simply don't like 4e, sometimes for reasons even they don't
understand, and that you can't argue them into liking it.
Seebs
> Why do you care so much?
Because I'm curious. How people think fascinates me.
Mostly, because it's not just that they don't like it, but that they make
claims about it which make no sense to me. If someone doesn't like
programming in C, hey, that's fine by me, it's not necessarily the best
language for most tasks. If someone says C is a shitty programming language
because it can't generate efficient code for numerical operations, though,
I'm going to want to know more about what they're talking about, because
that'd be a pretty surprising claim.
> I think you need to accept the fact that lots of people who love D&D
> simply don't like 4e, sometimes for reasons even they don't
> understand, and that you can't argue them into liking it.
That's fine. I don't expect people to like it. I do, however, find it
really interesting to find out what different people view as "really D&D".
Different people have wildly different internal states and awareness,
and learning how people can come to disagree on whether a given thing is
a member of a category or not is pretty much always interesting to me.
I'll happily listen to arguments over whether foxes are more like cats or
more like dogs, too.
Ben - yes that's all just Ben
> 4.0 doesn't feel-like-D&D to you? I keep hearing this, and it makes no
> sense to me. It's like being told that earl grey is perfectly acceptable
> as caffeinated leafy beverages go, but it just doesn't feel like tea anymore.
Lots of reasons... For me the worst thing is how same-ish all the
classes are. Every power just seems like the same thing with one
different fluff sentance at the bottom as well as a really manky name.
I also feel like I will never quite get over 'I hit the monster and my
friend over there gains some hitpoints' thing...
And many other things like that...
It doesn't feel like DnD because the magic system is completely
different too...
Lots of thing really... but I'd have to agree... it isn't really DnD
anymore...
Seebs
>> Can you give any kind of more-specific thing to explain in what way
>> 4.0 doesn't feel-like-D&D to you? �I keep hearing this, and it makes no
>> sense to me. �It's like being told that earl grey is perfectly acceptable
>> as caffeinated leafy beverages go, but it just doesn't feel like tea anymore.
> Lots of reasons... For me the worst thing is how same-ish all the
> classes are. Every power just seems like the same thing with one
> different fluff sentance at the bottom as well as a really manky name.
... Have you read more than a page or two of powers? The only way I
could imagine them seeming the same would be if you'd only read a handful
of powers, probably for the clerics.
> I also feel like I will never quite get over 'I hit the monster and my
> friend over there gains some hitpoints' thing...
What about it?
> It doesn't feel like DnD because the magic system is completely
> different too...
Hmm. Would you say that psionics systems, then, don't feel like D&D?
> Lots of thing really... but I'd have to agree... it isn't really DnD
> anymore...
I still don't get anything out of this but a really vague top-level "I
read three powers and they seemed weird".
Ben - yes that's all just Ben
> changes I did like. It's perfectly fine to play by its lonesome, but
> it does well if you mix & match with 3E proper.
>
> Gerald Katz
Been building a character in Pathfinder... an ex-human sorcerer
ghost... very cool.
Can I say... I LOVE what they have done to the skill system. Much
simpler buying skills. And best of all, as a GM, I can actually easily
tell how many skill points a PC is meant to have...
Lots of little things... I like the curses and poisons too... And I
really like the things they have done to XP.
Bryant Durrell
>Want incredibly atmospheric background
>soundscapes for your gaming table?
>Go to: www.syrinscape.com
>Download for free!
>See a program demo, and listen to mp3s
>of Syrinscape in action.
>**************************************
Oh hey; you have an awesome program there. Count me as a vote for a
Mac version. ;)
--
Bryant Durrell // dur...@innocence.com // dur...@gmail.com
dr...@bin.sh
> I think you need to accept the fact that lots of people who love D&D
> simply don't like 4e, sometimes for reasons even they don't
> understand, and that you can't argue them into liking it.
perhaps you're unfamiliar with usenet?
--
._n_______n_. dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
| --------- |== -----------------------------------------------------------
I"/""|"|Z7""' "Well, yes, it did occur to me that I might hit one or
lJ | | two civilians. But I never really thought I would hit
|_l all of them." -- Axly
Keith Davies
> really like the things they have done to XP.
That was something that jumped out at me as rather well done. I forget
what they were called as a group (just drawing a blank atm), but
unifying poisons, diseases, drugs, and curses was excellent.
ObYesIDid: I started on something like this in 2003 -- I remember I was
at GenCon, working on this in my hotel room -- but got burned out on
touring the main hall and partying (CodeMonkey party, oh gods) that it
kind of got forgotten.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
keith....@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
keith....@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off for
http://www.kjdavies.org/ another beer." -- Owen, discussing work
Keith Davies
Incidentally, if you're willing to pony up the cash, I found the
production quality on the books I got to be excellent.
Hadsil
> On 2009-12-09, Hadsil <forum...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > I already told you, it gutted magic.
>
> So you say, but I don't see how. I don't think a 4E wizard is necessarily,
> over the course of a day's adventuring, noticably worse off than a 3E wizard
> or a 2E wizard. Other people are more competitive, but the wizard hardly
> sucks.
>
> (Also note that I was technically asking someone else, but your answer
> is interesting to.)
>
> > In addition, while each D&D
> > version has new rules different from the previous edition, 4E has new
> > ways of doing things as to be different game mechanics than what D&D
> > has been in the past.
>
> Everything has had different game mechanics. 3E's skill system? Different
> game mechanics than rogues used for 1E and 2E.
>
> -s
> --
It completely destroyed how magic works in terms of game mechanics of
casting a spell and spell effects. If one wanted to get rid of
Vancian, mana points have been house ruled for ages. They should have
just used that. Oh look, 3E Psionics had points system for "magic".
They could have used that and still kept all magic spells as they
are. Fireball would be 5d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius to be cast
over 400ft away at 5th level costing 5 points. At 10th level the
wizard could spend 10 points to make it 10d6. At 11th level he could
not spend 11 points to make it 11d6 because it still maxes at 10d6 for
a 3rd level spell, unless he got a new feat perhaps to allow it.
There, got rid of Vancian yet still kept D&D magic as D&D magic has
always been.
Gerald Katz
Hadsil
<loo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > As for Pathfinder, personal taste some changes I didn't like but other
> > changes I did like. It's perfectly fine to play by its lonesome, but
> > it does well if you mix & match with 3E proper.
>
> > Gerald Katz
>
> Been building a character in Pathfinder... an ex-human sorcerer
> ghost... very cool.
>
> Can I say... I LOVE what they have done to the skill system. Much
> simpler buying skills. And best of all, as a GM, I can actually easily
> tell how many skill points a PC is meant to have...
>
> Lots of little things... I like the curses and poisons too... And I
> really like the things they have done to XP.
>
> Ben
>
I like the skill system too. They compromised on having class skills
and getting rid of them, since I think both camps have equal weight in
the debate while I'm in the latter. All skills are 1 for 1 basis.
Class skills just means you get a free +3 bonus in that skill. It
works out the same as 3E proper if you just got rid of the cross-class
expense, but now you don't need to calculate 4x at 1st level.
Gerald Katz
Seebs
> It completely destroyed how magic works in terms of game mechanics of
> casting a spell and spell effects.
I'm not seeing this.
I used to cast a fireball that did 5d6 damage in a 20 foot radius.
Now I cast a fireball that does 5d6 damage in a 20 foot radius.
> They could have used that and still kept all magic spells as they
> are. Fireball would be 5d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius to be cast
> over 400ft away at 5th level costing 5 points.
The range of Fireball has changed a few times, but...
At level 5, a wizard gets a spell called Fireball, which expands to a
15' radius around a central square, so the total distance across it is
now 35' instead of 40'. It does do less damage, sort of -- it's 3d6 + int
damage, which is probably better on average than 4d6 damage, though
slightly weaker than 5d6.
I'm not seeing how this has been "gutted" or "destroyed". It sounds
pretty similar.
> At 10th level the
> wizard could spend 10 points to make it 10d6. At 11th level he could
> not spend 11 points to make it 11d6 because it still maxes at 10d6 for
> a 3rd level spell, unless he got a new feat perhaps to allow it.
There, there is definitely a change -- Fireball stays 3d6+int forever.
You can get higher-damage spells, of course.
> There, got rid of Vancian yet still kept D&D magic as D&D magic has
> always been.
So the objection is that the range isn't exactly the same as it used to be,
and you think damage done by each spell should go up with caster level?
Keith Davies
>
> It completely destroyed how magic works in terms of game mechanics of
> casting a spell and spell effects. If one wanted to get rid of
> Vancian, mana points have been house ruled for ages. They should have
> just used that. Oh look, 3E Psionics had points system for "magic".
> They could have used that and still kept all magic spells as they
> are. Fireball would be 5d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius to be cast
> over 400ft away at 5th level costing 5 points. At 10th level the
> wizard could spend 10 points to make it 10d6. At 11th level he could
> not spend 11 points to make it 11d6 because it still maxes at 10d6 for
> a 3rd level spell, unless he got a new feat perhaps to allow it.
Why limit it? He's sinking 11 points into a third-level spell for 11d6,
instead of spending 11 points for a sixth-level spell. Since spell
power generally gains at better than linear, he's usually better off
using a higher-level spell. Let him overcast it, as long as his caster
level is high enough.
Incidentally, this is one of the things I like about Echelon's current
magic system design, if I were to tweak it to be points-based instead of
slots-based (which I might). The training bonus (which determines the
high level spells you can cast) can be markedly different from caster
level -- your legendary fighter ('Fighter 17') who has Basic Spell
Training (training bonus +1) can only cast first-level spells, but he
does so at caster level 9. Semi-decent power (five missiles for nine
points, same as a 'Wiz 9'), fair bit of mojo (he's 17th level, so would
have 17 levels of magic points), very limited spell knowledge
(first-level only).
Seems pretty reasonable, yeah?
Keith Davies
> On 2009-12-10, Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> At 10th level the
>> wizard could spend 10 points to make it 10d6. At 11th level he could
>> not spend 11 points to make it 11d6 because it still maxes at 10d6 for
>> a 3rd level spell, unless he got a new feat perhaps to allow it.
>
> There, there is definitely a change -- Fireball stays 3d6+int forever.
> You can get higher-damage spells, of course.
I'm somewhat undecided on this, to be honest. It can be simpler if
spells and other powers have more or less fixed effects, but it can also
clutter the (spell)namespace. I like abstraction in some things; a
spell that can be adapted or that scales with level (or some other
measure) can provide me with that. A series of spells that do exactly
the same thing, just in different measure, jars the hell out of me
because it runs slam into my expectations of abstraction.
Too much time normalizing databases, I guess.
BP
<keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>BP <re...@newsgroup.please> wrote:
>> Thanks for the advice, y'all.
>>
>> I went ahead and bought the Pathfinder PDFs, only $10 each. I'll have
>> to look at those before I decide on the dead-tree books.
>
>Incidentally, if you're willing to pony up the cash, I found the
>production quality on the books I got to be excellent.
They look like they would be; I just decided I'd rather cough up $20
right now for PDFs, rather than $50 for Core Rules plus $40 (?) for
Bestiary in hardcover, then maybe end up buying PDFs in addition so as
to have them handy whenever I might want to check something at the
office or otherwhen not carrying books around with me.
I expect I'll buy the books, just wanted to check out PDFs first.
BP
Keith Davies
In this case, I find the books *way* easier to read than the PDFs. The
PDFs have too much background in them, I gave up.
BP
<keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
>In this case, I find the books *way* easier to read than the PDFs. The
>PDFs have too much background in them, I gave up.
True. But not as bad as the 3.5 books would be in PDF form; the 3.5
books have so much background crap messing with the text that it is
hard to read them even as books. Who the fuck thought that was a good
idea?
BP
Seebs
> I'm somewhat undecided on this, to be honest.
Me too. I wouldn't mind a feat or something to let you buff a spell and
just turn it into a higher-level version of itself.
Seebs
> True. But not as bad as the 3.5 books would be in PDF form; the 3.5
> books have so much background crap messing with the text that it is
> hard to read them even as books. Who the fuck thought that was a good
> idea?
That being one of the rare cases in which 4E is more-like-D&D than 3E/3.5E --
it's gone back to the idea that it should be basically easy to read the
text.
Ben - yes that's all just Ben
> In article <81cc86b3-8999-41a6-9ffb-46e21878c...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
> Ben - yes that's all just Ben <loo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> >**************************************
> >Want incredibly atmospheric background
> >soundscapes for your gaming table?
> >Go to:www.syrinscape.com
> >Download for free!
> >See a program demo, and listen to mp3s
> >of Syrinscape in action.
> >**************************************
>
> Oh hey; you have an awesome program there. Count me as a vote for a
> Mac version. ;)
>
> --
Thanks mate... I would love to do the mac version ASAP... at the
moment life is still currently eating me!
lol
:-)
Ben Adams
news:slrnhi0kdc.ppq...@guild.seebs.net:
> On 2009-12-10, Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> It completely destroyed how magic works in terms of game mechanics of
>> casting a spell and spell effects.
>
> I'm not seeing this.
>
> I used to cast a fireball that did 5d6 damage in a 20 foot radius.
> Now I cast a fireball that does 5d6 damage in a 20 foot radius.
>
>> They could have used that and still kept all magic spells as they
>> are. Fireball would be 5d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius to be cast
>> over 400ft away at 5th level costing 5 points.
>
> The range of Fireball has changed a few times, but...
>
> At level 5, a wizard gets a spell called Fireball, which expands to a
> 15' radius around a central square, so the total distance across it is
> now 35' instead of 40'. It does do less damage, sort of -- it's 3d6 +
> int damage, which is probably better on average than 4d6 damage,
> though slightly weaker than 5d6.
You're forgetting the enhancement bonus of the wizard's implement.
At level 5, he could conceivably have a +2 implement, and with a 21
int (+5 bonus), total damage would be 3d6+7, which is the same
on average as 5d6, only with less variance. If he crits, total
damage would be 25+2d6. And that's not counting whatever feat
or item bonuses he might have to juice it.
Also, note that enhancement and stat bonuses (and feats, and items)
do scale up as he levels. By 18th level (the last level at which
most wizards will be hanging on to their level 5 powers, before they
trade up to the next level of dailies at 19th, the wizard would
most likely have a +4 implement and a 25 int, for total damage
of 3d6+11 not counting feat or item bonuses. On a crit, total
damage would be 29+4d6. This is scaling way slower than monster
hp; at this point, the main purpose of the spell is clearing out
minions.
> I'm not seeing how this has been "gutted" or "destroyed". It sounds
> pretty similar.
Fireball is probably the closest point of similarity between 3e and 4e.
The changes in the other spells, and in the game as a whole, has been
quite far reaching. I'm not just talking about the way the power
mechanics have been formalized and regularized, ironing out all the
quirks of the old spells. Of course, those quirks were legacies of
previous editions where the designers just made crap up as they went
along, with mechanical effects ranging from pointless but flavorful
(minotaurs are immune to Maze, tee hee hee) to cumbersome but
entertaining (Confusion, the Prismatic spells) to annoying but in
a way that kinda made sense (Sleep doesn't work on monsters with more
than 4HD? Well, I won't be preparing that one anymore now that
we've leveled up) to flat-out broken in a way that makes you
wonder what the designers were thinking, or if they were even
thinking at all (Blasphemy/Holy Word/Dictum/Word of Chaos).
Now, the new regularized power mechanics make for smoother play,
but I can understand if some people think we've lost something
special. However, those changes don't really get at how 4e changed
things on a much deeper level.
What 4e really did was to slow down what I think of as the
"pace of decision." The outcome of an encounter never comes down
to a single die roll, and it's never inevitable before it even
starts. So no more resistance/immunity rock-paper-scissors. No
more save-or-you're-screwed. No more stat damage/drain death
spirals. No more getting shredded in one round by full iterative
attacks. Relatively few situations you can't extricate yourself
from with a little luck and/or some smart tactics. TPKs can
still happen, but they take a while to play out. The changes to
the wizard's spells are only a small part of a larger pattern.
-Ben Adams
Larry
The problem I have is with the rituals. The placement at the end of the
book gives me the impression of being an afterthought. I tried using a
ritual in combat until I saw the 10 minute casting time. The situation
was that we needed to get across a river to a cliff with a cave to
prevent a ritual sacrifice from happening. We estimated we had 5
minutes before the ritual was completed. Due to the usual luck of our
group, the conveniently placed boat was made unusable, (short story -
our fault) so I tried to do the water walk ritual until I saw the time.
Ritual competed and life got real interesting shortly thereafter.
My opinion as of right now is if it is being played I will play,
otherwise I will stick with 3.5 or Pathfinder.
decalod85
> Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalo...@gmail.com> write:
>
> > I think you need to accept the fact that lots of people who love D&D
> > simply don't like 4e, sometimes for reasons even they don't
> > understand, and that you can't argue them into liking it.
>
> perhaps you're unfamiliar with usenet?
Nah, just wondering if Seebs works for Hasbro marketing or not...
Bryant Durrell
Aw, come on. You can't possibly be surprised that people are passionate
about games they like. It's not like 4e threads are immune from edition
wars, right?
Keith Davies
>
> What 4e really did was to slow down what I think of as the
> "pace of decision." The outcome of an encounter never comes down
> to a single die roll, and it's never inevitable before it even
> starts. So no more resistance/immunity rock-paper-scissors. No
> more save-or-you're-screwed. No more stat damage/drain death
> spirals. No more getting shredded in one round by full iterative
> attacks. Relatively few situations you can't extricate yourself
> from with a little luck and/or some smart tactics. TPKs can
> still happen, but they take a while to play out. The changes to
> the wizard's spells are only a small part of a larger pattern.
It's interesting. I read this paragraph, and think for each point "that
can be an annoying thing", which suggests that removing them is good.
However, that's not how I feel about it. When used appropriately, those
can all be *good*, and if they're gone, I no longer have them.
Sparingly. They don't (all) need to be used often. This can mean that
when they *are* used, they're really effective in setting tone (read:
scary shit here).
It might also be a matter of luck. By stretching out the number of
rolls needed, you reduce the effect of randomness -- over time, the one
with the net advantage can be expected to win. I think perhaps the loss
of luck (on the PC or opponent side) can take a lot of excitement out of
it.
Gary Thompson
> On 2009-12-09, decalod85 <decalo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do you care so much?
>
> Because I'm curious. How people think fascinates me.
>
> Mostly, because it's not just that they don't like it, but that they make
> claims about it which make no sense to me. If someone doesn't like
> programming in C, hey, that's fine by me, it's not necessarily the best
> language for most tasks. If someone says C is a shitty programming language
> because it can't generate efficient code for numerical operations, though,
> I'm going to want to know more about what they're talking about, because
> that'd be a pretty surprising claim.
>
Okay, I'll give you a programming analogy:
BASIC quit being BASIC when it switched from being an interpreted
Fortran-derivative to a compiled Algol-based derivative. Once the
line numbers, GOTOs, and interactive environment went away, what you
really had was Pascal with different reserved words. The whole
programming paradigm changed...for the better, yes, but those new
languages just aren't BASIC, it's just a label.
3.x added a lot of features--just as some of those early BASICS added
strong typing, long variable names, and advanced looping. But for a
lot of people (though not all!) 3.x had enough of the feel of the
earlier editions to still call it D&D.
Jasin Zujovic
>> I'm somewhat undecided on this, to be honest.
>
> Me too. I wouldn't mind a feat or something to let you buff a spell and
> just turn it into a higher-level version of itself.
Well, there are effects that let you buff a particular attack (mostly
At-Wills, that I can recall), but making a general rule of it be very
contrary to some fundamental design principles of 4E, I think.
The whole point of such a fine grained power system, I think, is to
allow them to present a list of options balanced on a case-by-case
basis, rather than having it to come up with general scaling rules that
will inevitably break down under the pressure of additional options and
player twinkery.
--
Jasin
Seebs
> BASIC quit being BASIC when it switched from being an interpreted
> Fortran-derivative to a compiled Algol-based derivative. Once the
> line numbers, GOTOs, and interactive environment went away, what you
> really had was Pascal with different reserved words. The whole
> programming paradigm changed...for the better, yes, but those new
> languages just aren't BASIC, it's just a label.
I would tend to agree that they're not recognizeably BASIC
> 3.x added a lot of features--just as some of those early BASICS added
> strong typing, long variable names, and advanced looping. But for a
> lot of people (though not all!) 3.x had enough of the feel of the
> earlier editions to still call it D&D.
Interesting. The thing is, I can totally see feeling that Visual Basic
isn't really a kind-of-BASIC at all. I can't comprehend even questioning
whether 3E, or even 4E, is a kind of D&D. They still have line numbers
and no flow control other than GOTO, GOSUB, and a very primitive FOR.
I could list traits that I identify as D&D all day, and both 3E and 4E
would have all of them.
Keith Davies
Or perhaps another one, C-derived.
C++? C, plus some (admittedly big) stuff. You can still use it in a
C-like manner. Still compiles down to the metal. Not *the same as* C,
but no one can realistically argue that it's not a C language (and like
AD&D/3.x, 3.x offers some really convenient idiom and expanded runtime
library, but you can get bitten *hard* by subtle gotchas... and many of
us who have used C++ wonder how we lived with C, and dread having to go
back because Shit's So Hard because of missing support).
C# and Java? 'Entirely object-oriented' (you can do some C-like things
with it, but everything still needs to be a member of a class -- though
there are some primitive more or less native types). Compiles to a
bytecode that needs a VM to run. A lot of people are entirely convinced
that they are very distinctly different from C (on both sides), despite
sharing history. A distinct branching of the language tree, and there
are people who embrace these languages and show disdain for C and C++...
and grognards who still use C or C++ and think these newer languages are
dumbed down because older idiom no longer works.
For instance, deterministic destruction, my personal peeve. While I
appreciate that the garbage collection mechanisms used by C# and Java
mean I don't have to put my toys away because mommy will come by and
pick them up for me, I don't know *when*, or even *if*, this will
happen. C++, I create an object, when it goes out of scope it *will* be
reaped -- my toys pick themselves up. It pisses me off that in C# and
Java I have to remember to explicitly clean up -- close files and
database handles, say, to ensure things get flushed and closed in a
timely manner.
Seebs
> Fireball is probably the closest point of similarity between 3e and 4e.
Yeah, actually.
> I'm not just talking about the way the power
> mechanics have been formalized and regularized, ironing out all the
> quirks of the old spells.
OH!
I betcha that's a ton of it. The quirks were a lot of the "flavor" of magic;
tons of special cases (wisps are nearly immune to everything except magic
missile!), making magic fundamentally unreliable but very powerful if you
happened to have precisely the right magic.
> we've leveled up) to flat-out broken in a way that makes you
> wonder what the designers were thinking, or if they were even
> thinking at all (Blasphemy/Holy Word/Dictum/Word of Chaos).
"Cast this spell in an orphanage, killing all the children instantly.
That's a Good Act." Yeah.
> Now, the new regularized power mechanics make for smoother play,
> but I can understand if some people think we've lost something
> special. However, those changes don't really get at how 4e changed
> things on a much deeper level.
I think that's probably true, but I also suspect it's a big part of why it
might feel "less magical". There used to be a ton of similar-but-different
spells which had similar or overlapping effects, but which had different
quirks/bugs/etc. (say, think about fixed-volume fireball, which, used
extremely carefully, could be INSANELY devastating).
> What 4e really did was to slow down what I think of as the
> "pace of decision." The outcome of an encounter never comes down
> to a single die roll, and it's never inevitable before it even
> starts. So no more resistance/immunity rock-paper-scissors. No
> more save-or-you're-screwed. No more stat damage/drain death
> spirals. No more getting shredded in one round by full iterative
> attacks. Relatively few situations you can't extricate yourself
> from with a little luck and/or some smart tactics. TPKs can
> still happen, but they take a while to play out. The changes to
> the wizard's spells are only a small part of a larger pattern.
That's an interesting analysis, and I think it's probably pretty much
on. There's not a lot of "oh, we can never fight that at all". It can
be a bit harder, or a bit easier, but there's no "we absolutely can't do
this without a different weapon". +1 just means +1, not all-or-nothing.
Seebs
Oh, this'll get interesting.
> C++? C, plus some (admittedly big) stuff. You can still use it in a
> C-like manner. Still compiles down to the metal. Not *the same as* C,
> but no one can realistically argue that it's not a C language (and like
> AD&D/3.x, 3.x offers some really convenient idiom and expanded runtime
> library, but you can get bitten *hard* by subtle gotchas... and many of
> us who have used C++ wonder how we lived with C, and dread having to go
> back because Shit's So Hard because of missing support).
Interesting data point: I don't consider C++ a kind-of-C; I think it's
actually less C-like than Objective-C. (I also loathe C++, and consider it
a transcendant example of why you have to basically have a reasonable language
design before you let a committee get involved.)
> For instance, deterministic destruction, my personal peeve. While I
> appreciate that the garbage collection mechanisms used by C# and Java
> mean I don't have to put my toys away because mommy will come by and
> pick them up for me, I don't know *when*, or even *if*, this will
> happen. C++, I create an object, when it goes out of scope it *will* be
> reaped -- my toys pick themselves up. It pisses me off that in C# and
> Java I have to remember to explicitly clean up -- close files and
> database handles, say, to ensure things get flushed and closed in a
> timely manner.
Huh. Interestingly, this doesn't bug me much in Java. But I don't think
of Java as being a C-type language, just a C-like language, which is a much
broader category.
But I can sort of see how this would make sense. I am a little distrustful
of some of the things in C99 that expand a simple assignment or something
similar into elaborate hunks of code.
dr...@bin.sh
> Okay, I'll give you a programming analogy:
>
> BASIC quit being BASIC when it switched from being an interpreted
> Fortran-derivative to a compiled Algol-based derivative. Once the
> line numbers, GOTOs, and interactive environment went away, what you
> really had was Pascal with different reserved words. The whole
> programming paradigm changed...for the better, yes, but those new
> languages just aren't BASIC, it's just a label.
... you prefer a language with GOTO ? (backing away slowly...)
--
.--._.--.
|_/---\_| dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
] |<3 | [ -----------------------------------------------------------------
|~\---/~| Not Never But NOW
`--'~'--'
Ken Arromdee
<dr...@bin.sh> wrote:
>> Can you give any kind of more-specific thing to explain in what way
>> 4.0 doesn't feel-like-D&D to you?
>i'm sure it has to do with the loss of 'dwarf' and 'elf' as classes,
>having more than 3 levels, and thief abilities being bought as
>individual skills instead of being fixed percentages.
It's true that early D&D had 3 levels, but having more than 3 levels doesn't
*replace* that. You still have the same levels, you just have more stuff
added. So that isn't really like the 4.0 changes.
And while elf and dwarf aren't classes, you could be a dual classed character
with similar mechanics. The main difference is that it's not called "elf",
but the concept is the same.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Alien mind control rays made Gary Thompson <quu...@yahoo.com> write:
>> Okay, I'll give you a programming analogy:
>>
>> BASIC quit being BASIC when it switched from being an interpreted
>> Fortran-derivative to a compiled Algol-based derivative. Once the
>> line numbers, GOTOs, and interactive environment went away, what you
>> really had was Pascal with different reserved words. The whole
>> programming paradigm changed...for the better, yes, but those new
>> languages just aren't BASIC, it's just a label.
>
> ... you prefer a language with GOTO ? (backing away slowly...)
>
Indeed. GOTO is one of the most unfairly-maligned commands. BASIC
(especially old RSTS-E BASIC-PLUS) is the best of computer languages.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Keith Davies
> On 2009-12-10, Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>> Or perhaps another one, C-derived.
>
> Oh, this'll get interesting.
I thought it might.
>> C++? C, plus some (admittedly big) stuff. You can still use it in a
>> C-like manner. Still compiles down to the metal. Not *the same as*
>> C, but no one can realistically argue that it's not a C language (and
>> like AD&D/3.x, 3.x offers some really convenient idiom and expanded
>> runtime library, but you can get bitten *hard* by subtle gotchas...
>> and many of us who have used C++ wonder how we lived with C, and
>> dread having to go back because Shit's So Hard because of missing
>> support).
>
> Interesting data point: I don't consider C++ a kind-of-C; I think
> it's actually less C-like than Objective-C. (I also loathe C++, and
> consider it a transcendant example of why you have to basically have a
> reasonable language design before you let a committee get involved.)
I haven't done any Objective-C, so I cannot comment.
I can understand you not liking C++. I liked it more than C because I
spent so much time and code in C doing things that were part of the C++
idiom, such as resource management. I don't doubt Objective-C has this
as well, but haven't used it.
>> For instance, deterministic destruction, my personal peeve. While I
>> appreciate that the garbage collection mechanisms used by C# and Java
>> mean I don't have to put my toys away because mommy will come by and
>> pick them up for me, I don't know *when*, or even *if*, this will
>> happen. C++, I create an object, when it goes out of scope it *will*
>> be reaped -- my toys pick themselves up. It pisses me off that in C#
>> and Java I have to remember to explicitly clean up -- close files and
>> database handles, say, to ensure things get flushed and closed in a
>> timely manner.
>
> Huh. Interestingly, this doesn't bug me much in Java. But I don't
> think of Java as being a C-type language, just a C-like language,
> which is a much broader category.
>
> But I can sort of see how this would make sense. I am a little
> distrustful of some of the things in C99 that expand a simple
> assignment or something similar into elaborate hunks of code.
Analogies are always at least a little suspect, because they do not
truly represent the thing they are being used to describe. However, I
think the languages chosen for the above do fit the situation fairly
well.
* C (AD&D) was 'first' (for the purpose of our discussion)
* C++ (3.x) came next, directly derived from C, can still do a C things
fairly well (can often compile C code, with minor changes).
* Java, then C# (4e), both clearly derived from C/C++ (elements of C++
are visible in both)[1]. Cannot trivially port code from C or C++
into either language, though a lot of it does carry across. Compiles
to bytecode to be interpreted, not machine code.
[1] inarguably derived from C, but I've read that it was by way of
Objective-C rather than C++. See "haven't done that and therefore
cannot say".
If you accept the analogy, it suggests that while 4e (Java/C#) *looks* a
fair bit like D&D (C/C++), there has clearly been a divergence that
makes it fundamentally different -- despite having many of the same
trappings.
Seebs
> Alien mind control rays made Gary Thompson <quu...@yahoo.com> write:
>> Okay, I'll give you a programming analogy:
>>
>> BASIC quit being BASIC when it switched from being an interpreted
>> Fortran-derivative to a compiled Algol-based derivative. Once the
>> line numbers, GOTOs, and interactive environment went away, what you
>> really had was Pascal with different reserved words. The whole
>> programming paradigm changed...for the better, yes, but those new
>> languages just aren't BASIC, it's just a label.
> ... you prefer a language with GOTO ? (backing away slowly...)
It's not a question of *preference*. It's a question of whether a language
without the line numbers and gotos model can reasonably be considered to be
an instance of BASIC. I'd tend to agree that it couldn't.
Seebs
> And while elf and dwarf aren't classes, you could be a dual classed character
> with similar mechanics. The main difference is that it's not called "elf",
> but the concept is the same.
I'd have to disagree quite strongly on that. Multiclassed characters were
not at all the same concept, and dual-classed even less so. The concept of
splitting out races and classes, while certainly reasonable, was a major shift
from the original D&D design. Multiclassed characters were basically like
elves (only arguably overpowered, or underpowered) in 1E/2E -- although there
was a great deal of madness introduced by the level limits associated with
non-human races for anything but thief. (Conclusion: In any 1E world, the
world's largest single population component is elven thieves of arbitrary
level, because they don't die of old age and have no level limit. You just
don't see them because they're too high level and well equipped for you
to break their stealth.)
The 3.0 multiclassing thing fails because it doesn't recognize that, for
casters, power is exponential; being 7th level in two caster classes is
about comparable to 9th in a single class, not to 14th in a single class.
Seebs
> I can understand you not liking C++. I liked it more than C because I
> spent so much time and code in C doing things that were part of the C++
> idiom, such as resource management. I don't doubt Objective-C has this
> as well, but haven't used it.
I mostly dislike C++ because, to me, the Spirit of C is that it's a small
language.
> Analogies are always at least a little suspect, because they do not
> truly represent the thing they are being used to describe. However, I
> think the languages chosen for the above do fit the situation fairly
> well.
There is some model.
> * C (AD&D) was 'first' (for the purpose of our discussion)
> * C++ (3.x) came next, directly derived from C, can still do a C things
> fairly well (can often compile C code, with minor changes).
> * Java, then C# (4e), both clearly derived from C/C++ (elements of C++
> are visible in both)[1]. Cannot trivially port code from C or C++
> into either language, though a lot of it does carry across. Compiles
> to bytecode to be interpreted, not machine code.
> If you accept the analogy, it suggests that while 4e (Java/C#) *looks* a
> fair bit like D&D (C/C++), there has clearly been a divergence that
> makes it fundamentally different -- despite having many of the same
> trappings.
I'd probably map it as:
Chainmail/"D&D" => C
AD&D => C++
RC D&D => C89
AD&D 2e => newer C++
3E => Objective-C
4E => Objective-C + C99isms
From my point of view, 3E is not a derivation of AD&D, but more like
a merger of bits of AD&D, bits of RC D&D, and a cleaner overall philosophy
of game design. I think 3E clearly shows substantial inheritance from
the RC D&D side of the tree, rather than being a straight derivative of
AD&D.
I could sort of see the argument that 4E is a bit further afield, but it
really does strike me as being clearly smack in the middle of the family in
most senses. I do think "D&D" is already a much broader category; it's
really "C-like languages" rather than "C". It includes the RC stuff, the
AD&D branch, and arguably some of the near-miss spinoffs; I'm willing to
concede that perhaps we should consider stuff like Arduin to be part of the
family.
At which point, I figure we're already including (in the analogy) Java, C#,
and probably Go. 4E's not all that different; there's a lot of terminology
shift, but the essence of the game has been preserved; you have characters,
with classes, from roughly the same basic list (give or take a few, with
some being added later or earlier) that we've had in the previous versions,
with a similar set of races plus some races introduced in the last edition,
and you get together, put the tough guy in platemail, have the guy in a
dress throw fireballs, and run around dungeons killing things and taking their
stuff. You still have the same six stats, you still gain experience points
from killing stuff which give you levels, where your progression is defined
by your class rather than being free-form... It's D&D.
dr...@bin.sh
> If you accept the analogy, it suggests that while 4e (Java/C#) *looks* a
> fair bit like D&D (C/C++), there has clearly been a divergence that
> makes it fundamentally different -- despite having many of the same
> trappings.
note, for the last half of my 3.5/eberron campaign, i was using the 4e
monster manual exclusively, with very minor bits of translation
(fort save = fort defense - 10 + 1d20) and no significant conflicts.
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often."
|_|_[T]_|_| <http://donjon.bin.sh/d20/power/>
Loren Pechtel
>Alien mind control rays made Gary Thompson <quu...@yahoo.com> write:
>> Okay, I'll give you a programming analogy:
>>
>> BASIC quit being BASIC when it switched from being an interpreted
>> Fortran-derivative to a compiled Algol-based derivative. Once the
>> line numbers, GOTOs, and interactive environment went away, what you
>> really had was Pascal with different reserved words. The whole
>> programming paradigm changed...for the better, yes, but those new
>> languages just aren't BASIC, it's just a label.
>
>... you prefer a language with GOTO ? (backing away slowly...)
<Draws holy symbol>
decalod85
>
> At which point, I figure we're already including (in the analogy) Java, C#,
> and probably Go. 4E's not all that different; there's a lot of terminology
> shift, but the essence of the game has been preserved; you have characters,
> with classes, from roughly the same basic list (give or take a few, with
> some being added later or earlier) that we've had in the previous versions,
> with a similar set of races plus some races introduced in the last edition,
> and you get together, put the tough guy in platemail, have the guy in a
> dress throw fireballs, and run around dungeons killing things and taking their
> stuff. You still have the same six stats, you still gain experience points
> from killing stuff which give you levels, where your progression is defined
> by your class rather than being free-form... It's D&D.
And... it's not. It doesn't have Vancian magic, thaco, or to-hit
tables. It doesn't have elf and dwarf as classes, and it does/doesn't
include the barbarian. Does it have Flumpf stats? What about scry/
buff/teleport?
What makes D&D "D&D" to one person is not the same to another.
For me, everything leading up to 4e was D&D. For others, 2e was the
cutoff. The game changes, and opinions are opinions.
Seebs
> And... it's not.
Sure it is.
> It doesn't have Vancian magic,
But we just got confirmation that spell point systems were always D&D.
> thaco, or to-hit tables.
Neither does 3E. :)
> What makes D&D "D&D" to one person is not the same to another.
Fair enough.
> For me, everything leading up to 4e was D&D. For others, 2e was the
> cutoff. The game changes, and opinions are opinions.
I guess that makes sense. I just get confused, because if something is
stated as a fact rather than an opinion, I assume there's a factual
and objective basis for it. There's a big difference between "it
doesn't feel like D&D to me" and "it's not D&D".
Hadsil
> On 2009-12-10, Hadsil <forum...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > It completely destroyed how magic works in terms of game mechanics of
> > casting a spell and spell effects.
>
>
> I used to cast a fireball that did 5d6 damage in a 20 foot radius.
> Now I cast a fireball that does 5d6 damage in a 20 foot radius.
>
> > are. Fireball would be 5d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius to be cast
> > over 400ft away at 5th level costing 5 points.
>
>
> At level 5, a wizard gets a spell called Fireball, which expands to a
> 15' radius around a central square, so the total distance across it is
> now 35' instead of 40'. It does do less damage, sort of -- it's 3d6 + int
> damage, which is probably better on average than 4d6 damage, though
> slightly weaker than 5d6.
>
> pretty similar.
>
> > wizard could spend 10 points to make it 10d6. At 11th level he could
> > not spend 11 points to make it 11d6 because it still maxes at 10d6 for
> > a 3rd level spell, unless he got a new feat perhaps to allow it.
>
> You can get higher-damage spells, of course.
>
> > There, got rid of Vancian yet still kept D&D magic as D&D magic has
> > always been.
>
> and you think damage done by each spell should go up with caster level?
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
It's not just Fireball. It's all the spells. How they are cast.
How long they last. What they do. Everything. 4E magic is a
completely different magic system altogether that happens to be the
same way 4E warriors do it and what they do.
Gerald Katz
Hadsil
> Hadsil <forum...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > It completely destroyed how magic works in terms of game mechanics of
> > Vancian, mana points have been house ruled for ages. They should have
> > just used that. Oh look, 3E Psionics had points system for "magic".
> > are. Fireball would be 5d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius to be cast
> > wizard could spend 10 points to make it 10d6. At 11th level he could
> > not spend 11 points to make it 11d6 because it still maxes at 10d6 for
> > a 3rd level spell, unless he got a new feat perhaps to allow it.
>
> instead of spending 11 points for a sixth-level spell. Since spell
> power generally gains at better than linear, he's usually better off
> using a higher-level spell. Let him overcast it, as long as his caster
> level is high enough.
>
D&D Legacy. 3rd level spells cap at 10d6. It gives a reason as to
want a higher level damage spell to be able to do more than 10d6
damage. 3E Psionics don't have that arbitrary cap, and it works
fine. The point was to show how to get rid of Vancian magic, if one
must get rid of Vancian, yet still keep D&D magic the way it's always
been. The finer details could be whatever.
> Incidentally, this is one of the things I like about Echelon's current
> magic system design, if I were to tweak it to be points-based instead of
> slots-based (which I might). The training bonus (which determines the
> high level spells you can cast) can be markedly different from caster
> level -- your legendary fighter ('Fighter 17') who has Basic Spell
> Training (training bonus +1) can only cast first-level spells, but he
> does so at caster level 9. Semi-decent power (five missiles for nine
> points, same as a 'Wiz 9'), fair bit of mojo (he's 17th level, so would
> have 17 levels of magic points), very limited spell knowledge
> (first-level only).
>
> Seems pretty reasonable, yeah?
>
> Keith
> --
> Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
> keith.dav...@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
> keith.dav...@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off forhttp://www.kjdavies.org/ another beer." -- Owen, discussing work
Sounds good. This would be Echelon "multiclassing", in as much as
there aren't really classes. I see good potential for nice gish
(warrior/spellcaster) builds.
Gerald Katz
Keith Davies
> On Dec 9, 10:45�pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>> Why limit it? �He's sinking 11 points into a third-level spell for 11d6,
>> instead of spending 11 points for a sixth-level spell. �Since spell
>> power generally gains at better than linear, he's usually better off
>> using a higher-level spell. �Let him overcast it, as long as his caster
>> level is high enough.
>
> D&D Legacy. 3rd level spells cap at 10d6. It gives a reason as to
> want a higher level damage spell to be able to do more than 10d6
> damage. 3E Psionics don't have that arbitrary cap, and it works fine.
> The point was to show how to get rid of Vancian magic, if one must get
> rid of Vancian, yet still keep D&D magic the way it's always been.
> The finer details could be whatever.
ISTR that in at least one edition of D&D, /fireball/ *didn't* cap at
10d6. I'd have to have a quick look to find it, though.
What I had in mind for higher-level spells is how /cure wounds/ might
work.
/cure light wounds/ cures d8+1/level. 11 points = d8+11, avg 15
/cure moderate wounds/ is 2d8+1/level. 11 points = 2d8+11, avg 20
/cure serious wounds/ is 3d8+1/level. 11 points = 3d8+11, avg 25
/cure critical wounds/ is 4d8+1/level. 11 points = 4d8+11, avg 30
In 3e, IIRC the +1/level caps at +5/spell level +5, +10, +15, +20).
Here, the higher-level spell gets you more effect for the same points
spent. However, if you look closely you can get a lot more mileage if
you have time (/cure light wounds/ 11 times, for 11 points total, gets
you 11d8+11 instead of 1d8+11... but takes 11 times as long, which you
don't always have).
This would mean
* brute force (high point expenditure) lets you have significant effect
* sophisticated (higher-level) spells let you have greater effect than
brute force, for the same cost
* unrushed (multiple castings over several rounds) casting lets you have
greater effect than either... but being unrushed, takes markedly
longer
>> Incidentally, this is one of the things I like about Echelon's current
>> magic system design, if I were to tweak it to be points-based instead of
>> slots-based (which I might). �The training bonus (which determines the
>> high level spells you can cast) can be markedly different from caster
>> level -- your legendary fighter ('Fighter 17') who has Basic Spell
>> Training (training bonus +1) can only cast first-level spells, but he
>> does so at caster level 9. �Semi-decent power (five missiles for nine
>> points, same as a 'Wiz 9'), fair bit of mojo (he's 17th level, so would
>> have 17 levels of magic points), very limited spell knowledge
>> (first-level only).
>>
>> Seems pretty reasonable, yeah?
>
> Sounds good. This would be Echelon "multiclassing", in as much as
> there aren't really classes. I see good potential for nice gish
> (warrior/spellcaster) builds.
Yep, this is as close as we get to multiclassing, selection of abilities
from more than one facet (combat and casting in this case).
You can get some decent mojo at a reasonable cost (high-level talent
slots are expensive, but provide good value I think). It's flexible
(you can roughly balance combat and spell casting mojo, at a cost to
both, or have them unbalanced so you're better at one than the other),
too.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
keith....@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
keith....@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off for
Hadsil
> On 2009-12-10, Ken Arromdee <arrom...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> > And while elf and dwarf aren't classes, you could be a dual classed character
> > with similar mechanics. The main difference is that it's not called "elf",
> > but the concept is the same.
>
> I'd have to disagree quite strongly on that. Multiclassed characters were
> not at all the same concept, and dual-classed even less so. The concept of
> splitting out races and classes, while certainly reasonable, was a major shift
> from the original D&D design. Multiclassed characters were basically like
> elves (only arguably overpowered, or underpowered) in 1E/2E -- although there
> was a great deal of madness introduced by the level limits associated with
> non-human races for anything but thief. (Conclusion: In any 1E world, the
> world's largest single population component is elven thieves of arbitrary
> level, because they don't die of old age and have no level limit. You just
> don't see them because they're too high level and well equipped for you
> to break their stealth.)
>
> The 3.0 multiclassing thing fails because it doesn't recognize that, for
> casters, power is exponential; being 7th level in two caster classes is
> about comparable to 9th in a single class, not to 14th in a single class.
>
> -s
> --
Which was fixed with prestige classes such as Mystic Theurge and
Arcane Hierophant. A single classed spellcaster is still argued as
being stronger, but a multiclass spellcaster/spellcaster isn't now so
gimped as 3.0 out of the box. A 3/3/8 Mystic Theurge is casting 6th
level spells in two classes where as a 14th level spellcaster is
casting 7th level spells. Not a terrible trade-off. This is a
"proper" use of prestige classes.
Gerald Katz
Seebs
> It's not just Fireball. It's all the spells. How they are cast.
> How long they last. What they do. Everything.
Only, obviously, it's *NOT* everything. It's some random selection.
> 4E magic is a
> completely different magic system altogether
I object to this only in that the word "system" has never applied very
well to any D&D magic.
> that happens to be the same way 4E warriors do it and what they do.
Well, mechanically, yes. And 3E, gasp horrors, made you use to-hit rolls
for some spells. So did 2E. And 1E. And no one launched into epic diatribes
about how 1E wasn't really D&D because some spells used to-hit rolls and
did damage in hit points, just like the fighter abilities.
I keep getting the feeling that there is an actual criticism which is
merely proving difficult to articulate. Lemme have a go at it.
4E spells no longer have components, and the list of spells for any given
class is smaller, with less overlap -- you no longer have cases where clerics,
sorcerers, and wizards all have the exact same spell, possibly learning it
at different levels. Spells are no more subject to interruption than
other kinds of attacks, although some still provoke AoO. This makes them
feel different from previous editions -- there's no longer a clear
difference in play between attacking someone with a spell and attacking
someone with a weapon.
Is that about it?
-s
--
Loren Pechtel
<foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>Which was fixed with prestige classes such as Mystic Theurge and
>Arcane Hierophant. A single classed spellcaster is still argued as
>being stronger, but a multiclass spellcaster/spellcaster isn't now so
>gimped as 3.0 out of the box. A 3/3/8 Mystic Theurge is casting 6th
>level spells in two classes where as a 14th level spellcaster is
>casting 7th level spells. Not a terrible trade-off. This is a
>"proper" use of prestige classes.
>
>Gerald Katz
The MT looks worse once you consider they have two prime stats while
the straight caster has one.
Harold Groot
<keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 10:45�pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why limit it? �He's sinking 11 points into a third-level spell for 11d6,
>>> instead of spending 11 points for a sixth-level spell. �Since spell
>>> power generally gains at better than linear, he's usually better off
>>> using a higher-level spell. �Let him overcast it, as long as his caster
>>> level is high enough.
>>
>> D&D Legacy. 3rd level spells cap at 10d6. It gives a reason as to
>> want a higher level damage spell to be able to do more than 10d6
>> damage. 3E Psionics don't have that arbitrary cap, and it works fine.
>> The point was to show how to get rid of Vancian magic, if one must get
>> rid of Vancian, yet still keep D&D magic the way it's always been.
>> The finer details could be whatever.
>
>ISTR that in at least one edition of D&D, /fireball/ *didn't* cap at
>10d6. I'd have to have a quick look to find it, though.
In 1E AD&D, in general there were no caps. 2E introduced 10th-level
caps to many AD&D spells. This affected not only FIREBALL and
LIGHTNING BOLT but also others like MAGIC MISSILE. It took a bit of
getting used to, just like other changes took getting used to.
For example, INVISIBILITY used to have no maximum duration in 1E. In
1E a Magic User could turn an entire army INVISIBLE if he had enough
time (getting them not to trip over each other for a few months while
he was doing that was a separate issue). In 2E the maximum duration
was shortened to 24 hours, so no INVISIBLE armies made with 2nd level
spells - but you might be able to turn your entire party of PCs
invisible the previous day and still have a full set of spells when
you set out the next morning. In 3.0 the maximum was further
shortened 10 minutes/level, so you couldn't do it the previous day -
but you could still do it first thing in the morning and have it
already be up when you hit (or avoided) your first encounter (or
two...). In 3.5 it even further shortened to 1 minute/level, so it
was only cast once the enemy was located - which often meant that
combat had already started and you were using up valuable Standard
Actions if you wanted PCs to be INVISIBLE. So in each version of the
game it became less useful. Whether it still "felt like D&D" in each
version varied from player to player, but most learned to live with
the differences.
Baird Stafford
Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
<snip>
> ISTR that in at least one edition of D&D, /fireball/ *didn't* cap at
> 10d6. I'd have to have a quick look to find it, though.
1E AD&D. And a 21st level Archmage with Magic Missile was deadly.
Even the sliding scale of MR in 1E made sense, which the absolute scale
of 2E did not. An Archmage *could* summon and control a high-level
denizen of the lower planes in 1E though with difficulty, one with 100%
MR (even if it did make more work for the DM) - but in 2E that was
impossible.
(For those who have forgotten, MR in 1E was based on "name level" - 11th
- for a Magic User. One added 5%/level below 11th and subtracted
5%/level above it. At 10th level, a critter listed with 100% MR
actually had 105% MR, while at 12th level it had only 95% MR. More work
for the DM, granted, but it seemed to me to fit the basic mythology of
wizardry better.)
As far as I can tell, the SR of 3.xE is a kind of half-assed compromise
between the two, bringing you the worst of both worlds.
Can't comment on 4E, since I've avoided it due to having spent quite a
bit of money buying 3.x with all the splat books I could find just
before 4 came out.
<snip>
Baird
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is. -Yogi Berra
Peter Knutsen
> I'm somewhat undecided on this, to be honest. It can be simpler if
> spells and other powers have more or less fixed effects, but it can also
> clutter the (spell)namespace. I like abstraction in some things; a
Just number the spells. Fireball I, Fireball II, Fireball III, and so
forth. Problem solved.
> spell that can be adapted or that scales with level (or some other
> measure) can provide me with that. A series of spells that do exactly
> the same thing, just in different measure, jars the hell out of me
> because it runs slam into my expectations of abstraction.
If consistent and simple spell-naming isn't used, it may also make it
very hard for new people to learn the system and get an overview of
which spells exist, thus effectively forcing them to play Fighters for
the first several campaigns, even if they'd much rather have played
spellcasters.
Ars Magica uses very fanciful spell names, but sort of gets away with it
(I expect), because they categorize all spells into a 5x10 verb/noun
matrix, meaning you can know where to look for something (very unlike
D&D.lands highly contra-intutive half-a-dozen categories).
> Too much time normalizing databases, I guess.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Keith Davies
> In article <slrnhi35ct.q9...@kjdavies.org>,
> Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> ISTR that in at least one edition of D&D, /fireball/ *didn't* cap at
>> 10d6. I'd have to have a quick look to find it, though.
>
> 1E AD&D. And a 21st level Archmage with Magic Missile was deadly.
>
> Even the sliding scale of MR in 1E made sense, which the absolute scale
> of 2E did not. An Archmage *could* summon and control a high-level
> denizen of the lower planes in 1E though with difficulty, one with 100%
> MR (even if it did make more work for the DM) - but in 2E that was
> impossible.
>
> (For those who have forgotten, MR in 1E was based on "name level" - 11th
> - for a Magic User. One added 5%/level below 11th and subtracted
> 5%/level above it. At 10th level, a critter listed with 100% MR
> actually had 105% MR, while at 12th level it had only 95% MR. More work
> for the DM, granted, but it seemed to me to fit the basic mythology of
> wizardry better.)
>
> As far as I can tell, the SR of 3.xE is a kind of half-assed compromise
> between the two, bringing you the worst of both worlds.
Nope. If a creature has 50% MR against 11th-level casters, in terms of
SR you'll be looking for an 11th-level caster succeeding half the time.
I make this to be equivalent to SR 22, since d20+11 >= 22 half the time.
100% MR is SR 32 -- a Wiz11 can't defeat without Spell Penetration, just
as the 1e Wiz11 couldn't.
3e SR is statistically the same as 1e, though the specific values of SR
vs MR undoubtedly differ.
Keith Davies
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> I'm somewhat undecided on this, to be honest. It can be simpler if
>> spells and other powers have more or less fixed effects, but it can also
>> clutter the (spell)namespace. I like abstraction in some things; a
>
> Just number the spells. Fireball I, Fireball II, Fireball III, and so
> forth. Problem solved.
*gag*
No, I don't like the /summon monster i/, /summon monster ii/, etc.
chains either. I barely tolerate 'lesser foo', 'foo', 'greater foo' as
spell names. Sorry, 'foo, lesser', 'foo', 'foo, greater'.
Keith Davies
>
> 4E spells no longer have components, and the list of spells for any
> given class is smaller, with less overlap -- you no longer have cases
> where clerics, sorcerers, and wizards all have the exact same spell,
> possibly learning it at different levels. Spells are no more subject
> to interruption than other kinds of attacks, although some still
> provoke AoO. This makes them feel different from previous editions --
> there's no longer a clear difference in play between attacking someone
> with a spell and attacking someone with a weapon.
>
> Is that about it?
I won't agree that that is 'about it' in the sense that that is the
entirety, but it looks accurate as far as it goes.
Keith Davies
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:43:09 +0000, Keith Davies
><keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
>>Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 10:45�pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why limit it? �He's sinking 11 points into a third-level spell for 11d6,
>>>> instead of spending 11 points for a sixth-level spell. �Since spell
>>>> power generally gains at better than linear, he's usually better off
>>>> using a higher-level spell. �Let him overcast it, as long as his caster
>>>> level is high enough.
>>>
>>> D&D Legacy. 3rd level spells cap at 10d6. It gives a reason as to
>>> want a higher level damage spell to be able to do more than 10d6
>>> damage. 3E Psionics don't have that arbitrary cap, and it works fine.
>>> The point was to show how to get rid of Vancian magic, if one must get
>>> rid of Vancian, yet still keep D&D magic the way it's always been.
>>> The finer details could be whatever.
>>
>>ISTR that in at least one edition of D&D, /fireball/ *didn't* cap at
>>10d6. I'd have to have a quick look to find it, though.
>
> In 1E AD&D, in general there were no caps. 2E introduced 10th-level
> caps to many AD&D spells. This affected not only FIREBALL and
> LIGHTNING BOLT but also others like MAGIC MISSILE. It took a bit of
> getting used to, just like other changes took getting used to.
I thought it was 1e, I remember the race to get /fireball/ off first in
wizard fights. I was at work and couldn't check my books to make sure,
so I didn't say specifically.
Ben Adams
news:slrnhi29su.o8...@kjdavies.org:
> Ben Adams <bena...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> What 4e really did was to slow down what I think of as the
>> "pace of decision." The outcome of an encounter never comes down
>> to a single die roll, and it's never inevitable before it even
>> starts. So no more resistance/immunity rock-paper-scissors. No
>> more save-or-you're-screwed. No more stat damage/drain death
>> spirals. No more getting shredded in one round by full iterative
>> attacks. Relatively few situations you can't extricate yourself
>> from with a little luck and/or some smart tactics. TPKs can
>> still happen, but they take a while to play out. The changes to
>> the wizard's spells are only a small part of a larger pattern.
>
> It's interesting. I read this paragraph, and think for each point
> "that can be an annoying thing", which suggests that removing them is
> good. However, that's not how I feel about it. When used
> appropriately, those can all be *good*, and if they're gone, I no
> longer have them.
I suppose, in the hands of a good DM, and with the right party,
fun can be had with these things. However, more often than not, they
are a fun-killer. I think that overall the 4e designers made the
right call, but I won't deny there are tradeoffs.
> Sparingly. They don't (all) need to be used often.
And yet, in high-level 3e play, they happen ALL THE TIME. Practically
every monster has some combination of:
-resistances that require *just* the right sort of attacks to
penetrate (so if you haven't got a particular set of spells and/or
items loaded, you're screwed)
-save-or-die attacks
-stat damage/drain attacks with no save (or, worse, level draining)
-full attack routines that can kill a PC in one round
There were ways of getting around most of this stuff, but it
required a phenomenal degree of system mastery, and it distorted
builds and tactics in sometimes unnatural ways.
> This can mean
> that when they *are* used, they're really effective in setting tone
> (read: scary shit here).
In 4e, the scariest monsters in heroic tier are wights, because
they drain healing surges. Also, curses and diseases are bad news.
In fact, diseases in 4e are even scarier than they were in 3e.
> It might also be a matter of luck. By stretching out the number of
> rolls needed, you reduce the effect of randomness -- over time, the
> one with the net advantage can be expected to win. I think perhaps
> the loss of luck (on the PC or opponent side) can take a lot of
> excitement out of it.
Try saying that after the entire party looks on nervously when the
DM is rolling to see if the monster recharges its 3d10 blast 10
attack.
-Ben Adams
Hadsil
There's more to it than that, but that's what I've been saying. In
4E, "magic" is just a fancy word for sword or bow.
Gerald Katz
Hadsil
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:44:58 -0800 (PST), Hadsil
>
Developing two ability scores isn't so difficult.
Gerald Katz
Hadsil
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:43:09 +0000, Keith Davies
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I only started playing D&D with 2E. I know nothing of previous
versions.
I have no objection to the concept of individual spells being "fixed",
even if I don't like the actual "fix" in some cases. (3E errata,
Pathfinder) Sometimes things can go horribly wrong, such as 3.0
Haste. What I object to is getting rid of the lott altogether, which
is what 4E did.
Spells lasting one round per level was just not such a horrible
mechanism as to be abolished. The wizard making an enemy a "friend"
was not OMG BORKen the fighter should just kill himself. Clerics
being able to heal the party such that they are at full hit points for
the non-first combat of the day was not so maddeningly abusive the DM
should just sell his books and spend the rest of his free time
knitting.
Gerald Katz
decalod85
> On 2009-12-10, decalod85 <decalo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And... it's not.
>
> Sure it is.
>
> > It doesn't have Vancian magic,
>
> But we just got confirmation that spell point systems were always D&D.
>
> > thaco, or to-hit tables.
>
> Neither does 3E. :)
>
> > What makes D&D "D&D" to one person is not the same to another.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > For me, everything leading up to 4e was D&D. For others, 2e was the
> > cutoff. The game changes, and opinions are opinions.
>
> I guess that makes sense. I just get confused, because if something is
> stated as a fact rather than an opinion, I assume there's a factual
> and objective basis for it. There's a big difference between "it
> doesn't feel like D&D to me" and "it's not D&D".
This is where I supply you with perspective, through humor.
Seebs
> Arcane Hierophant.
I'd put scare quotes on "fixed".
> A single classed spellcaster is still argued as
> being stronger, but a multiclass spellcaster/spellcaster isn't now so
> gimped as 3.0 out of the box. A 3/3/8 Mystic Theurge is casting 6th
> level spells in two classes where as a 14th level spellcaster is
> casting 7th level spells. Not a terrible trade-off. This is a
> "proper" use of prestige classes.
I think it's sorta crappy -- it means you can't use prestige classes for
flavor past "fixing the flaws in multiclassing".
I love 4E's multiclassing. It actually provides a fighter who can chuck
a couple of spells which don't suck, rather than a fighter who can chuck
only spells which suck, or a wizard who can nearly but not quite use a
sword.
-s
--
Seebs
> Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> 4E spells no longer have components, and the list of spells for any
>> given class is smaller, with less overlap -- you no longer have cases
>> where clerics, sorcerers, and wizards all have the exact same spell,
>> possibly learning it at different levels. Spells are no more subject
>> to interruption than other kinds of attacks, although some still
>> provoke AoO. This makes them feel different from previous editions --
>> there's no longer a clear difference in play between attacking someone
>> with a spell and attacking someone with a weapon.
>> Is that about it?
> I won't agree that that is 'about it' in the sense that that is the
> entirety, but it looks accurate as far as it goes.
Heh. Now I have a beautiful pair of complaints:
1. It sucks that casters in 4E no longer have a ton of overlap in their
spell lists.
2. All the classes in 4E play the same.
I admire this. :)
I guess I don't really mind losing the casting disruption, simply because
by a few levels in nearly all 3E casters had defensive casting down pat,
meaning it stopped being an issue except readied attacks -- and those
are much less useful against casters now, but then, they're also less
useful because the chances that your attack can't do anything more valuable
than interrupting a cast have gone way down.
Keith Davies
>
> This is where I supply you with perspective, through humor.
>
> http://xkcd.com/386/
I thought I recognized that number.
Today's was pure awesome, especially since the wife of one of my
coworkers is due to hatch around the end of the month.
Keith Davies
> On 2009-12-11, Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> Which was fixed with prestige classes such as Mystic Theurge and
>> Arcane Hierophant.
>
> I'd put scare quotes on "fixed".
>
>> A single classed spellcaster is still argued as
>> being stronger, but a multiclass spellcaster/spellcaster isn't now so
>> gimped as 3.0 out of the box. A 3/3/8 Mystic Theurge is casting 6th
>> level spells in two classes where as a 14th level spellcaster is
>> casting 7th level spells. Not a terrible trade-off. This is a
>> "proper" use of prestige classes.
>
> I think it's sorta crappy -- it means you can't use prestige classes for
> flavor past "fixing the flaws in multiclassing".
>
> I love 4E's multiclassing. It actually provides a fighter who can chuck
> a couple of spells which don't suck, rather than a fighter who can chuck
> only spells which suck, or a wizard who can nearly but not quite use a
> sword.
I so need to get Echelon into a workable form.
Keith Davies
> Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote in
> news:slrnhi29su.o8...@kjdavies.org:
>
>
> And yet, in high-level 3e play, they happen ALL THE TIME. Practically
> every monster has some combination of:
> -resistances that require *just* the right sort of attacks to
> penetrate (so if you haven't got a particular set of spells and/or
> items loaded, you're screwed)
> -save-or-die attacks
> -stat damage/drain attacks with no save (or, worse, level draining)
> -full attack routines that can kill a PC in one round
>
> There were ways of getting around most of this stuff, but it
> required a phenomenal degree of system mastery, and it distorted
> builds and tactics in sometimes unnatural ways.
Honestly, to a certain extent I like them. I full expect that Echelon
will have resistances, and possibly immunities (I may just have them
have really high resistance -- even dragons can get burned). I can't
see dumping damage resistance. Drains and ability damage... they're
frankly a pain in the ass, I wouldn't mind seeing something different
happen there if only for ease of play, much as it's an elegant approach
(strikes me as generally a good model, but annoying in play).
>
>> It might also be a matter of luck. By stretching out the number of
>> rolls needed, you reduce the effect of randomness -- over time, the
>> one with the net advantage can be expected to win. I think perhaps
>> the loss of luck (on the PC or opponent side) can take a lot of
>> excitement out of it.
>
> Try saying that after the entire party looks on nervously when the
> DM is rolling to see if the monster recharges its 3d10 blast 10
> attack.
Ah, luck.
Though presumably this is a moderately high-level creature to have that
much damage in an area that big, at which point 3d10 of damage should be
manageable.
Incidentally, this "keep rolling to check status of a bunch of things"
4e does (saves and power recovery come to mind) seem like they'd be
annoying.
Patrick Baldwin
>On 2009-12-09, Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> I already told you, it gutted magic.
>So you say, but I don't see how.
Less wacky tricks you can't come by other ways.
> I don't think a 4E wizard is necessarily,
>over the course of a day's adventuring, noticably worse off than a 3E wizard
>or a 2E wizard. Other people are more competitive, but the wizard hardly
>sucks.
Desn't suck in comparison to the other 4E characters
in the party, perhaps.
>(Also note that I was technically asking someone else, but your answer
>is interesting to.)
If you want to talk to a single person, I'd suggest email
instead of Usenet.
>> In addition, while each D&D
>> version has new rules different from the previous edition, 4E has new
>> ways of doing things as to be different game mechanics than what D&D
>> has been in the past.
>Everything has had different game mechanics. 3E's skill system? Different
>game mechanics than rogues used for 1E and 2E.
Previous editions had strongly Vancian spellcasting. 4th doesn't.
For me, that's a big enough change right there to be an issue.
~P.
Ben Adams
news:366e3da5-eea8-41c5...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 10, 7:47�pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> I keep getting the feeling that there is an actual criticism which is
>> merely proving difficult to articulate. �Lemme have a go at it.
>>
>> 4E spells no longer have components, and the list of spells for any
>> given class is smaller, with less overlap -- you no longer have cases
>> where clerics, sorcerers, and wizards all have the exact same spell,
>> possibly learning it at different levels. �Spells are no more
>> subject to interruption than other kinds of attacks, although some
>> still provoke AoO. �This makes them feel different from previous
>> editions -- there's no longer a clear difference in play between
>> attacking someone with a spell and attacking someone with a weapon.
>>
>> Is that about it?
>
> There's more to it than that, but that's what I've been saying. In
> 4E, "magic" is just a fancy word for sword or bow.
You're getting hung up on how the language describing the powers
is regularized and formalized. It's true that to the player,
shooting a bow and casting a spell are both powers, but to the
target, they're not the same. And in an actual game, the way
you use those powers leads to an experience which is not the same.
Let's compare the wizard to the archery ranger. They're both
"artillery" types, but, as Seebs keeps saying and you keep
failing to grasp, they play completely differently. Even a
simple analysis of the powers will show some significant
differences.
First and foremost, almost all of the archery ranger's attack
powers are ranged, while the wizard's powers are a mix of ranged,
close, and area attacks. If casting a spell is like shooting
a bow, how come you can't use a bow to burn every creature in
a 15-by-15-foot area 50 feet away? Well, you can, but only
with a flameburst bow, which is, you know, magic. And the
flameburst bow's power only works once a day, while a wizard
can throw scorching bursts at will.
Even the ranged powers of the two classes are different. The
ranger's powers are mostly about firing two or more shots at
the same target for big damage, while the wizard's powers are
about doing a moderate amount of damage but imposing nasty
conditions. Where ranger powers have special effects, they're
mostly about shifting the ranger away from monsters who are
getting in his face.
So, to sum up, a well-played archery ranger will focus fire on one
enemy, filling it with arrows until it drops. On the other hand,
a well-played wizard will clear out minions and lock down monsters
so as to make it easier for the rest of the party to kill them.
The wizard is a *controller*. Playing him like a striker is a
trap.
-Ben Adams
Tetsubo
> Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-12-11, Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Which was fixed with prestige classes such as Mystic Theurge and
>>>Arcane Hierophant.
>>
>>I'd put scare quotes on "fixed".
>>
>>
>>>A single classed spellcaster is still argued as
>>>being stronger, but a multiclass spellcaster/spellcaster isn't now so
>>>gimped as 3.0 out of the box. A 3/3/8 Mystic Theurge is casting 6th
>>>level spells in two classes where as a 14th level spellcaster is
>>>casting 7th level spells. Not a terrible trade-off. This is a
>>>"proper" use of prestige classes.
>>
>>I think it's sorta crappy -- it means you can't use prestige classes for
>>flavor past "fixing the flaws in multiclassing".
>>
>>I love 4E's multiclassing. It actually provides a fighter who can chuck
>>a couple of spells which don't suck, rather than a fighter who can chuck
>>only spells which suck, or a wizard who can nearly but not quite use a
>>sword.
>
>
> I so need to get Echelon into a workable form.
>
>
> Keith
Hop to it man! :)
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>>>I'm somewhat undecided on this, to be honest. It can be simpler if
>>>spells and other powers have more or less fixed effects, but it can also
>>>clutter the (spell)namespace. I like abstraction in some things; a
>>
>>Just number the spells. Fireball I, Fireball II, Fireball III, and so
>>forth. Problem solved.
>
> *gag*
>
> No, I don't like the /summon monster i/, /summon monster ii/, etc.
> chains either. I barely tolerate 'lesser foo', 'foo', 'greater foo' as
> spell names. Sorry, 'foo, lesser', 'foo', 'foo, greater'.
I'm not aware of any alternatives.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
smithdoerr
"Keith Davies" <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnhi3t7u.r9...@kjdavies.org...
> Incidentally, this "keep rolling to check status of a bunch of things"
> 4e does (saves and power recovery come to mind) seem like they'd be
> annoying.
I assume it's to cut down on the bookkeeping for spell durations etc. Other
games have been using this mechanic for ammunition and stuff for decades and
it usually works well.
--
-smithdoerr
Keith Davies
I'll take your word for it. I never really had trouble just keeping
track, there's bugger all work to it.
Loren Pechtel
<keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>> (For those who have forgotten, MR in 1E was based on "name level" - 11th
>> - for a Magic User. One added 5%/level below 11th and subtracted
>> 5%/level above it. At 10th level, a critter listed with 100% MR
>> actually had 105% MR, while at 12th level it had only 95% MR. More work
>> for the DM, granted, but it seemed to me to fit the basic mythology of
>> wizardry better.)
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the SR of 3.xE is a kind of half-assed compromise
>> between the two, bringing you the worst of both worlds.
>
>Nope. If a creature has 50% MR against 11th-level casters, in terms of
>SR you'll be looking for an 11th-level caster succeeding half the time.
>I make this to be equivalent to SR 22, since d20+11 >= 22 half the time.
>
>100% MR is SR 32 -- a Wiz11 can't defeat without Spell Penetration, just
>as the 1e Wiz11 couldn't.
>
>3e SR is statistically the same as 1e, though the specific values of SR
>vs MR undoubtedly differ.
Yup. It's now called SR and calculated differently but there's a 1:1
mapping between the systems, the effects were the same.
dr...@bin.sh
>> Incidentally, this "keep rolling to check status of a bunch of things"
>> 4e does (saves and power recovery come to mind) seem like they'd be
>> annoying.
>
> I assume it's to cut down on the bookkeeping for spell durations etc.
> Other games have been using this mechanic for ammunition and stuff
> for decades and it usually works well.
wrt saves, its also to keep players at least marginally involved.
3e: "titgrabber the barbarian is still petrified, go frack yourselves."
4e: *roll* "i saved! titgrabber is back! now where's that ruttin' medusa?"
wrt powers, its also to let the DM fudge the dice and have the dragon
blast the party every damn round.
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Ryan Dancey put a portable hole inside a bag of holding,
|_|_[T]_|_| and no void appeared -- out of fear of Ryan Dancey."
-- der_kluge
Seebs
> 4e does (saves and power recovery come to mind) seem like they'd be
> annoying.
Only a few monsters have power recovery. Saves, they could be annoying, but
I haven't found them any more annoying than durations to keep track of, and
they're usually easier because there's nothing to look up or track separately,
they all have the same rules.
Seebs
> 4E, "magic" is just a fancy word for sword or bow.
I guess I still don't understand it. I can manipulate the words to make
it sound like that, but magic's behaviors and characteristics are pretty
noticably different from those of physical attacks.
-s
--
Seebs
> Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
>>On 2009-12-09, Hadsil <foru...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> I already told you, it gutted magic.
>>So you say, but I don't see how.
> Less wacky tricks you can't come by other ways.
I'm not seeing that. The utility spells are full of weirdness, rituals
provide a ton of weird effects.
>>Everything has had different game mechanics. 3E's skill system? Different
>>game mechanics than rogues used for 1E and 2E.
> Previous editions had strongly Vancian spellcasting. 4th doesn't.
> For me, that's a big enough change right there to be an issue.
I could see that, except for all the people who have explained that using
spell point variant rules in previous editions didn't make them not D&D.
I agree that shifting away from the overtly vancian system does change
things, but really, it's been coming for a while -- with clerics (and
druids in 3.5) swapping spells out at will, sorcerers casting huge numbers
of spells from a small pool, and so on.
Hadsil
> On 2009-12-11, Hadsil <forum...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > Which was fixed with prestige classes such as Mystic Theurge and
> > Arcane Hierophant.
>
> I'd put scare quotes on "fixed".
>
> > A single classed spellcaster is still argued as
> > being stronger, but a multiclass spellcaster/spellcaster isn't now so
> > gimped as 3.0 out of the box. A 3/3/8 Mystic Theurge is casting 6th
> > level spells in two classes where as a 14th level spellcaster is
> > casting 7th level spells. Not a terrible trade-off. This is a
> > "proper" use of prestige classes.
>
> I think it's sorta crappy -- it means you can't use prestige classes for
> flavor past "fixing the flaws in multiclassing".
>
[bangs head on wall]
Can you not see beyond the literal word? Why would you possibly think
a prestige class used as a "patch" for multiclass means a prestige
class cannot be used for flavor? Have you not read any 3E prestige
classes? Prestige classes are all about flavor. Some are
consolidations of multiclassing. Some are specialists of a specific
theme, usually of a base class shtick but also of new concepts. Some
are only 5 levels to reflect a specific shtick a character dabbles in.
> I love 4E's multiclassing. It actually provides a fighter who can chuck
> a couple of spells which don't suck, rather than a fighter who can chuck
> only spells which suck, or a wizard who can nearly but not quite use a
> sword.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
These are called gish builds. There are plenty of ways to accomplish
this in 3E.
Gerald Katz
Hadsil
>
> - Show quoted text -
You made my case. Sure, the ranger and wizard have minute differences
in special effects, but that's just another way of saying "does X
weapon dice of damage and bad guy is inconvenienced for a round".
Gerald Katz
Hadsil
> "Keith Davies" <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
So, in other words, 4E is using another game's rules, not D&D.
:D
Gerald Katz
Keith Davies
> Alien mind control rays made smithdoerr <ma...@somewhere.com> write:
>>> Incidentally, this "keep rolling to check status of a bunch of things"
>>> 4e does (saves and power recovery come to mind) seem like they'd be
>>> annoying.
>>
>> I assume it's to cut down on the bookkeeping for spell durations etc.
>> Other games have been using this mechanic for ammunition and stuff
>> for decades and it usually works well.
>
> wrt saves, its also to keep players at least marginally involved.
>
> 3e: "titgrabber the barbarian is still petrified, go frack yourselves."
> 4e: *roll* "i saved! titgrabber is back! now where's that ruttin' medusa?"
Turned to stone, but you got better. Lovely.
As much as I dislike save-or-die, sometimes it's the only thing that
really makes sense.
I don't mind making it 'almost certain to save'-or-die. I don't mind
making it harder to apply (medusa has to spend an action to do it[1],
and it perhaps has a 25% success rate against a normal-for-the-level
person), but if someone's turned to stone I kind of choke on the idea of
getting over it by sheer force of... something, in well under a minute
(at 55% success each round, you're looking at no more than three or four
rounds before you're 90% likely to be restored).
[1] which I think would make significantly more world sense than
everything that looks at her turning to stone
> wrt powers, its also to let the DM fudge the dice and have the dragon
> blast the party every damn round.
Ah, of course. This is so much easier than going "okay, time's up"
after two rounds of the 1d4+1 (assuming the dragon doesn't have quick
recovery) instead of letting it run the five rounds you actually rolled.
Bryant Durrell
>in special effects, but that's just another way of saying "does X
>weapon dice of damage and bad guy is inconvenienced for a round".
Those aren't differences in special effects.
--
Bryant Durrell // dur...@innocence.com // dur...@gmail.com
Seebs
> You made my case. Sure, the ranger and wizard have minute differences
> in special effects, but that's just another way of saying "does X
> weapon dice of damage and bad guy is inconvenienced for a round".
No, it isn't.
That was the point -- in practice, they're totally different. Perhaps
we should start with "X weapon dice". The wizard doesn't use weapon dice.
Equipping a two-handed weapon doesn't increase the wizard's damage output.
Switching to a light blade doesn't decrease it.
Past that... There's a big difference in the kinds of "inconvenience". One
of the wizard at-will powers (from Arcane Power) *does not attack any
enemy*. At all. It does nothing BUT create a zone which injures anyone --
bad guy or otherwise -- who enters it.
Rangers do a lot of damage to single targets. A wizard CANNOT compete with
a ranger for raw damage to a single target. Similarly, a ranger has no
battlefield control powers. The ranger has powers to *personally* move in
and out of combat, but nothing to keep a swarm of minions from getting in
the way.
They're radically different.
-s
--
Seebs
>> I assume it's to cut down on the bookkeeping for spell durations etc. �Other
>> games have been using this mechanic for ammunition and stuff for decades and
>> it usually works well.
> So, in other words, 4E is using another game's rules, not D&D.
>:D
Which is, of course, part of the D&D heritage if Sea Wasp used that game
as part of a D&D campaign. :)
Seebs
> a prestige class used as a "patch" for multiclass means a prestige
> class cannot be used for flavor?
For each flavor you want, for each pair of classes you want to have
multiclassing work for, you need a prestige class. Loremaster's a great
class for flavor -- but you can't do it if you're a multiclass caster,
because it'd be totally gimped.
> Have you not read any 3E prestige
> classes? Prestige classes are all about flavor. Some are
> consolidations of multiclassing. Some are specialists of a specific
> theme, usually of a base class shtick but also of new concepts. Some
> are only 5 levels to reflect a specific shtick a character dabbles in.
The problem is that the consolidated multiclassing ones are mechanically
necessary, and if you take one of the themed specialist classes, and
you were multiclassed, you're hosed -- you'll be levels weaker than other
players.
> These are called gish builds. There are plenty of ways to accomplish
> this in 3E.
And all of them either have serious sucking problems or rely on a prestige
class to patch up around the hole in the rules.
-s
--
Seebs
> Turned to stone, but you got better. Lovely.
Actually, not really.
Medusa's gaze does:
The target is slowed (save ends). First failed save: The
target is immobilized instead of slowed (save ends). Second failed
save: The target is petrified (no save).
So you get about two rounds to, say, use a power that dispells the
effect or lets you get a bonus to a save.
> I don't mind making it 'almost certain to save'-or-die. I don't mind
> making it harder to apply (medusa has to spend an action to do it[1],
> and it perhaps has a 25% success rate against a normal-for-the-level
> person), but if someone's turned to stone I kind of choke on the idea of
> getting over it by sheer force of... something, in well under a minute
> (at 55% success each round, you're looking at no more than three or four
> rounds before you're 90% likely to be restored).
Well, whaddya know. The power is a standard action (to which blind
creatures are immune) which has around a 20% chance of fully petrifying
any target it hits.
They seem to have anticipated your notion.
Note that there is still such a thing as being totally taken out of the
fight -- but you have to be hit, and then fail two saves, for it to happen.
There's still a real chance of being turned into a statue -- but it's
no longer a single die roll and game over.
This makes for fun. You can have powers (leaders specialize in these)
which give you ways to get bonuses on saves, or try to save sooner. You
might be able to blow an impressive ability even as you are turning to
stone, letting your allies survive the fight to try to rescue you.
Ben Adams
> Ben Adams <bena...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote in
>> news:slrnhi29su.o8...@kjdavies.org:
>>
>>> Sparingly. They don't (all) need to be used often.
>>
>> And yet, in high-level 3e play, they happen ALL THE TIME.
>> Practically every monster has some combination of:
>> -resistances that require *just* the right sort of attacks to
>> penetrate (so if you haven't got a particular set of spells and/or
>> items loaded, you're screwed)
>> -save-or-die attacks
>> -stat damage/drain attacks with no save (or, worse, level draining)
>> -full attack routines that can kill a PC in one round
>>
>> There were ways of getting around most of this stuff, but it
>> required a phenomenal degree of system mastery, and it distorted
>> builds and tactics in sometimes unnatural ways.
>
> Honestly, to a certain extent I like them. I full expect that Echelon
> will have resistances, and possibly immunities (I may just have them
> have really high resistance -- even dragons can get burned). I can't
> see dumping damage resistance.
4e still has resistances, most of which are, in numerical terms, at
about the level of 3.5 DR. Fewer immunities, but still some.
> Drains and ability damage... they're
> frankly a pain in the ass, I wouldn't mind seeing something different
> happen there if only for ease of play, much as it's an elegant
> approach (strikes me as generally a good model, but annoying in play).
The fundamental problem with stat damage and drain, besides the fact
that it gets around the hp mechanic, is that it's a bookkeeping
nightmare. When you lose stat points, you have to readjust all
your attacks, defenses, and skills.
>>> It might also be a matter of luck. By stretching out the number of
>>> rolls needed, you reduce the effect of randomness -- over time, the
>>> one with the net advantage can be expected to win. I think perhaps
>>> the loss of luck (on the PC or opponent side) can take a lot of
>>> excitement out of it.
>>
>> Try saying that after the entire party looks on nervously when the
>> DM is rolling to see if the monster recharges its 3d10 blast 10
>> attack.
>
> Ah, luck.
>
> Though presumably this is a moderately high-level creature to have
> that much damage in an area that big, at which point 3d10 of damage
> should be manageable.
It's a low-paragon monster in a high-heroic module. Kind of a glass
cannon, really, except for the fact that there were these insubstantial
wisps running around weakening the party.
> Incidentally, this "keep rolling to check status of a bunch of things"
> 4e does (saves and power recovery come to mind) seem like they'd be
> annoying.
The recharge mechanic replaces the old "dragon gets to breathe every
1d4 rounds" bit, except that it applies to more monsters. Makes for
exciting combats.
-Ben Adams
Hadsil
> On 2009-12-12, Hadsil <forum...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you not see beyond the literal word? Why would you possibly think
> > a prestige class used as a "patch" for multiclass means a prestige
> > class cannot be used for flavor?
>
> For each flavor you want, for each pair of classes you want to have
> multiclassing work for, you need a prestige class. Loremaster's a great
> class for flavor -- but you can't do it if you're a multiclass caster,
> because it'd be totally gimped.
>
> > Have you not read any 3E prestige
> > classes? Prestige classes are all about flavor. Some are
> > consolidations of multiclassing. Some are specialists of a specific
> > theme, usually of a base class shtick but also of new concepts. Some
> > are only 5 levels to reflect a specific shtick a character dabbles in.
>
> The problem is that the consolidated multiclassing ones are mechanically
> necessary, and if you take one of the themed specialist classes, and
> you were multiclassed, you're hosed -- you'll be levels weaker than other
> players.
>
> > These are called gish builds. There are plenty of ways to accomplish
> > this in 3E.
>
> And all of them either have serious sucking problems or rely on a prestige
> class to patch up around the hole in the rules.
>
> -s
> --
Here you go wanting a character to be able to do everything and being
disappointed he can't. No shit Sherlock if you wanted to be a
Loremaster you're better off being a single-classed wizard before you
go into it rather than a fighter/wizard or fighter/wizard/rogue or
whatever. That's not a bug.
Gerald Katz
Ben Adams
news:9b45eda2-b5e1-41ce...@p30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 11, 5:43嚙窮m, Ben Adams <benada...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Hadsil <forum...@netzero.com> wrote
>> innews:366e3da5-eea8-41c5-be58-c49c88
> b3a...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 10, 7:47嚙緘m, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> >> I keep getting the feeling that there is an actual criticism which
>> >> is merely proving difficult to articulate. 嚙盤emme have a go at it.
>>
>> >> 4E spells no longer have components, and the list of spells for
>> >> any given class is smaller, with less overlap -- you no longer
>> >> have cases where clerics, sorcerers, and wizards all have the
>> >> exact same spell, possibly learning it at different levels.
>> >> 嚙磅pells are no more subject to interruption than other kinds of
>> >> attacks, although some still provoke AoO. 嚙確his makes them feel
>> >> different from previous editions -- there's no longer a clear
>> >> difference in play between attacking someone with a spell and
>> >> attacking someone with a weapon.
>>
>> >> Is that about it?
>>
>> > There's more to it than that, but that's what I've been saying. 嚙瘢n
>> > 4E, "magic" is just a fancy word for sword or bow.
>>
>> So, to sum up, a well-played archery ranger will focus fire on one
>> enemy, filling it with arrows until it drops. 嚙瞌n the other hand,
>> a well-played wizard will clear out minions and lock down monsters
>> so as to make it easier for the rest of the party to kill them.
>> The wizard is a *controller*. 嚙瞑laying him like a striker is a
>> trap.
>
> You made my case. Sure, the ranger and wizard have minute differences
> in special effects, but that's just another way of saying "does X
> weapon dice of damage and bad guy is inconvenienced for a round".
Except...the ranger doesn't have much in the way of "bad guy is
inconvenienced for a round" special effects (except for a few high
level dailies). He has damage and more damage, with "get myself
out of this melee monster's face" special effects.
The wizard, on the other hand, is all about the special effects.
In fact, some of his most devastating powers do no damage at all.
When it comes time to play, these things make a big difference
in the kind of experience you have at the gaming table.
-Ben Adams