Educating the System's Critics, Part One: Power Creep
Dominus Casuum
night. But I've already read a topic where someone flamed WotC for the
way the magic system works. Now at first, I thought "No big deal.
People responded already, so I'm sure this ignorant poster has been
corrected". Dead wrong. People were agreeing with him - the Vancian
system sucks, sorcerers are better, everything needs to be changed to
make everything more like my favourite class.
Please. There are *reasons* for the way the game works. Not always
good reasons, not always sane reasons, but there are reasons. In this
case, it's for variety. Everyone deserves their own personalized magic
system. Well, maybe not, but there ought to be options. And with the
system the way it is, there are - if you say "I wanna cast spells!",
you could be a sorcerer, a wizard, a cleric/druid, a
warmage/beguiler/witch, a warlock, a psion/wilder, an erudite, an
incarnate, a truenamer, a binder, a shadow-magic user, or many more
campaign-setting-specific types of caster, such as the Artificer and
Shadow Weave caster. Now admittedly, not all of these options have
equal power. The humble druid is the most powerful class in the game,
with cleric running a close second. After that comes the artificer,
then the wizard, and then everybody's pretty much equal. And there's a
reason for the first two, at least - the druid and cleric are the
healer classes, and not many people want to play them. I refuse to try
to justify the artificer, however.
The point is that yes, it's a complicated system, and yes, there are
imbalances. However, imbalances as you perceive them are not always
imbalances as they are. Since the game designers (and quite honestly,
at least a hundred of us over at the Wizards.com Character Optimization
boards) understand the rules far better than you do, you shouldn't mess
with their work until you HONESTLY KNOW what the power balances in this
game are. Thus, I'm going to post a series of articles on this message
board, each containing one of the more important balance-related
concepts.
The first concept you need to understand is power creep. As Wizards
adds new books, they add more options, and options mean power. This
power creep is proportional - classes that are geared towards selection
of a high number of options grow more powerful more quickly than
classes that are geared towards using just a few options. Power creep
affects casters far more dramaticallly than non-casters, for example,
for nearly EVERY new book adds new spells, domains, caster-exclusive
feats, and/or magic items. Power creep also affects more generic
classes more directly, because every new book geared towards a
particular variety of magic benefits the class that uses just that, AND
the class that can use everything. And power creep affects the
Player's Handbook classes far more dramatically than non-Player's
Handbook classes, because the designers don't expect you to buy every
book, so they gear every single book toward's the Player's Handbook and
Dungeon Master's Guide exclusively. This has side effects, which I'lll
talk about later. However, the more directly relevant point is one
that astute readers may have picked up on already.
If power creep affects high-variety, generic, Player's Handbook classes
the most, which class do you think will benefit the most?
Dead right. The cleric. Clerics know spells of nearly every type, and
they AUTOMATICALLY GAIN ACCESS TO THEIR ENTIRE SPELL LIST, as opposed
to wizards, who have to research and pay for all their spells, and as
opposed to sorcerers, who gain a drastically limited number of spells
known. Druids also gain access to their full spell list, but druids
are themed, while clerics CAN be themed in any number of ways, so
clerics are far more likely to gain access to any new spell than
druids. Wizards and sorcerers are the most likely to have it on their
spell list, but a wizard could bankrupt himself buying half the spells
on his list and sorcerers are simply out of their league when it comes
to the number of spells on their list - it's mind-boggling. Thus,
classic divine spellcaster rapidly become even more overpowered than
they already are when new material is added. Adding the Spell
Compendium to your library will elevate your cleric or druid to new
heights of power so fast he gets altitude sick - but I forgot, there
are spells that'll fix that.
An interesting side effect of this gearing towards the Player's
Handbook is that writers don't contemplate the results of combining
THEIR book with the other books WotC has published. Take Complete
Divine and Complete Arcane, for example. If you only have Complete
Arcane, for example, Persistent Spell doesn't look particularly good -
only specific types of casters are going to focus on low-level buffs,
so it isn't very useful.
Now add Divine Metamagic from Complete Divine and possibly a few copies
of Extra Turning.
If your jaw didn't drop just now, you're either jaded, educated, hard
to impress, or unrealizing of the full potential of this.
If a cleric can persistify ANY spell he can cast, he's suddenly a
better fighter than the fighter, barbarian, ranger, and paladin put
together; probably by level 7, definitely by level 9. At the beginning
of every day, he casts Persistent Righteous Might, Persistent Divine
Power, and Persistent Divine Favour. Poof - the humble party healer
can take on most encounters on his own. Hell, he might be able to take
on Wildshaped druids now, though that's going some. The point remains,
however - just take two little things from different books and suddenly
you can blow the balance of the game wide open. Like Necropolitan
(Libris Mortis) and Tainted Scholar (Heroes of Horror). Or archivist
(Eberron Campaign Setting) and magic items (Dungeon Master's Guide).
Or Planar Shepherd (Faiths of Eberron) and Outsiders (Monster Manuals).
Or the abomination that is the Shadocraft Gnommage. Or an infinite
power loop, if you have a little-known Forgotten Realms supplement
(Serpent Kingdoms). Hell, you don't need the supplement, it's in the
online preview!
How does power creep affect your fix for the game balance? Well,
anyone who can't cast spells sucks even in core D&D 3.5, and he sucks
even more as you start adding books. Exponentially. If you ignore the
Hulking Hurler (which most people do), Complete frikkin' Warrior helps
make casters better than non-casters. The only book that even begins
to address the issue is Tome of Battle, which goes a long way towards
making meleers at least half as good as a castrated caster in the
Tarrasque's stomach. However, if you suggest changing the current
system, make sure that you own EVERY book WotC has published or will
publish in the future (which you don't, which I don't, which no one
including WotC does). Because I guarantee you, it's not as balanced as
you think. And it probably doesn't even fix your supposed problem. If
there is a problem.
I'd just like to end this by apologizing to the hordes of people I'm
sure I offended in this rant, and by saying that if you ever need help
troubleshooting D&D 3.5, 3rd-party material, or stuff you write
yourself, I'd be happy to compare it to existing WotC stuff and try to
give you good comparisons to stuff that already exists. And no, I'm
not always this ruthlessly cruel.
Eric P.
the OP's point of view, and encourage further posting!
Happy gaming,
Eric
Sea Wasp
> I'm relatively new to this message board.
Newsgroup. Not message board.
All right, I subscribed last
> night. But I've already read a topic where someone flamed WotC for the
> way the magic system works. Now at first, I thought "No big deal.
> People responded already, so I'm sure this ignorant poster has been
> corrected". Dead wrong. People were agreeing with him - the Vancian
> system sucks, sorcerers are better, everything needs to be changed to
> make everything more like my favourite class.
>
> Please. There are *reasons* for the way the game works. Not always
> good reasons, not always sane reasons, but there are reasons.
And if the reasons are not good or sane, they must be disposed of.
The Vancian system doesn't suck as badly as it used to -- partly
because the Sorcerer was introduced as an alternative. I prefer spell
points overall. I use the system as written partly for compatibility
with other players, not because I think it's well designed in all
areas (although it's INFINITELY better than original, 1e, and 2e), and
"game balance" is to me a mostly false god, as long as one is trying
to justify rules in its name.
And try not to be so pompous about "educating" people. Some of us
have been playing longer than many posters have been alive, and have
been directly involved in the playtest/redesign of the game, sometimes
more than once. People can disagree with the way the game is designed
with full knowledge of the game's origins, history, current and past
design, and the intent behind the rules.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Peter Knutsen
[...]
I haven't read your entire post. I stopped reading when you began
claiming that splat books inavoidably leads to power increase. My life
is too short to spend on such retarded nonsense.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Dominus Casuum
Peter Knutsen wrote:
> I haven't read your entire post. I stopped reading when you began
> claiming that splat books inavoidably leads to power increase. My life
> is too short to spend on such retarded nonsense.
>
> --
> Peter Knutsen
> sagatafl.org
when he gets more options? The more options you have, the better your
chosen abilities can suit what you want to be good at.
Sea Wasp
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
>>I haven't read your entire post. I stopped reading when you began
>>claiming that splat books inavoidably leads to power increase. My life
>>is too short to spend on such retarded nonsense.
>>
>>--
>>Peter Knutsen
>>sagatafl.org
>
> So you're saying that the average character doesn't get more powerful
> when he gets more options?
>
Of course not. Options do not equate to power AT ALL.
Otherwise, the most POWERFUL character would be a jack-of-all-trades
-- that guy who chose to play a fighter/ rogue/ wizard /sorcerer
/paladin /monk /druid /etc. You can't get more options than being able
to do everything all the other classes can do. Yet, in point of fact,
such a character is really pretty neat in terms of flexibility but in
terms of power, any focused character will blow it totally away.
Options have nothing to do with power directly. You can create
options which DO equate to power, but you can also create options
which REDUCE power (not that you'd be likely to convince your players
to take them). Option simply means "Here's something you can do". No
guarantee that the "something" is more powerful.
Bill Wayne
I fully agree with the OP on his opinion. Your "jack-of-all-trades"
argument, while interesting, is flawed. While it has flexibility, it
does not have the power to take advantage of the flexibility. A high
level cleric, on the other hand, does. Therefore, more options grants
it more power.
In my humble opinion, it's a DM's job to limit overpowering. I'm pretty
keen on making sure clerics and druids follow their diety's code of
conduct, unless they have a _very_ good reason not to. I'm also working
on some mechanics (magical cascades and the Void) to make life a little
more interesting to arcane spellcasters.
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
> Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Bill
Dominus Casuum
> Dominus Casuum wrote:
> > when he gets more options?
> >
>
> Of course not. Options do not equate to power AT ALL.
>
> Otherwise, the most POWERFUL character would be a jack-of-all-trades
> -- that guy who chose to play a fighter/ rogue/ wizard /sorcerer
> /paladin /monk /druid /etc. You can't get more options than being able
> to do everything all the other classes can do. Yet, in point of fact,
> such a character is really pretty neat in terms of flexibility but in
> terms of power, any focused character will blow it totally away.
>
> Options have nothing to do with power directly. You can create
> options which DO equate to power, but you can also create options
> which REDUCE power (not that you'd be likely to convince your players
> to take them). Option simply means "Here's something you can do". No
> guarantee that the "something" is more powerful.
are, the more good options there are. It doesn't matter how much the
bad options blow; there will be at least a few good options in every
book (yes, even Complete Psionics), and those are the ones a player
will generally choose. So every time you add a book to your
collection, you're making someone's character more powerful. I own
nearly every WotC book (as of 2 months ago; I don't have Dragon Magic
or Complete Mage yet) and in all of them, including the Dungeon
Master's Guide 2, the supplementary Monster Manuals, and Enemies and
Allies, there's been at least something that would make a given
character more powerful. If you want to try to name a book that
doesn't make ANY character more powerful, go ahead.
Eric P.
"Dominus Casuum" <dominus...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why don't folks post some comparisons to illustrate this debated issue?
That would be interesting, and hopfully bring some clarity.
- E
D.T.Collins
"Dominus Casuum" wrote:
...rant snipped...
> However, if you suggest changing the current
> system, make sure that you own EVERY book WotC has published or will
> publish in the future (which you don't, which I don't, which no one
> including WotC does). Because I guarantee you, it's not as balanced as
> you think.
Wow. D&D 3x has been out for six years now and you finally notice?
>And it probably doesn't even fix your supposed problem. If
> there is a problem.
That's why you have the title GM (or DM as the case may be). GM's have a
license to fix problems with the game in progress.
> I'd just like to end this by apologizing to the hordes of people I'm
> sure I offended in this rant, and by saying that if you ever need help
> troubleshooting D&D 3.5, 3rd-party material, or stuff you write
> yourself, I'd be happy to compare it to existing WotC stuff and try to
> give you good comparisons to stuff that already exists. And no, I'm
> not always this ruthlessly cruel.
Cruel? Six years before complaining, and you think that's cruel?
Heh.... Hehhehh.... that's funny.
Sea Wasp
>
> Ah, but you see, from a probability standpoint, the more options there
> are, the more good options there are. It doesn't matter how much the
> bad options blow; there will be at least a few good options in every
> book (yes, even Complete Psionics), and those are the ones a player
> will generally choose. So every time you add a book to your
> collection, you're making someone's character more powerful.
Why, no, I'm not.
I'm deciding on whether to allow the options or not. And whether I
do, depends on whether they fit in my world. My game world is over 25
years old, but even when it was a tenth that, I knew that the point
was that *I* was in charge of the rules, not the other way around.
If you allow any book -- written for a wide general audience -- to be
just added to your campaign without any thought whatsoever, you have
FAR worse problems than power inflation. You have a lack of coherence
to your world. Do you have any knowledge of your world's capabilities
and limitations? If you don't, sure, you'll have problems -- but not
because of "power". Power is not a problem. The problem is that the
capability CHANGE is something that transforms the way in which things
interact in your world. So if you just grab a new book off the shelf
and permit people to use everything in it willy-nilly, the dynamics
you knew a short time ago no longer apply.
Werebat
Dominus Casuum wrote:
> Take Complete
> Divine and Complete Arcane, for example. If you only have Complete
> Arcane, for example, Persistent Spell doesn't look particularly good -
> only specific types of casters are going to focus on low-level buffs,
> so it isn't very useful.
>
> Now add Divine Metamagic from Complete Divine and possibly a few copies
> of Extra Turning.
>
> If your jaw didn't drop just now, you're either jaded, educated, hard
> to impress, or unrealizing of the full potential of this.
>
> If a cleric can persistify ANY spell he can cast, he's suddenly a
> better fighter than the fighter, barbarian, ranger, and paladin put
> together; probably by level 7, definitely by level 9. At the beginning
> of every day, he casts Persistent Righteous Might, Persistent Divine
> Power, and Persistent Divine Favour. Poof - the humble party healer
> can take on most encounters on his own.
OK, I took a "Mythbusters" look at this one... Here goes...
Assume a human cleric of level 9. He's got 5 feats.
To pull this off, he'll need to take Extend Spell, Persistent Spell,
Divine Metamagic, and Extra Turning (twice). That's ALL of his feats.
And even then...
If his Charisma is decent (say a 16), he'll have 14 Turn Undead attempts
per day. If you read Divine Metamagic, it costs 1 turning attempt PLUS
ONE PER NORMAL LEVEL ADJUSTMENT OF THE METAMAGIC to cast a Divinely
Metamagicked spell. This means that it costs SEVEN turn attempts to
Divinely Metamagic Persistent Spell twice. He can't do all three, he
can do TWO of the above spells, and that's only if he devotes ALL OF HIS
FEATS to doing so.
Granted, Persistent Divine Power and Persistent Divine Favor are very
juicy options... but remember that the PC is sacrificing quite a bit to
be able to do this. And one Dispel Magic can make it all come crashing
down around him.
- Ron ^*^
tussock
> I'm relatively new to this message board.
Hi Ron. You got me.
> All right, I [...] last night.
This is a family group, keep it to yourself.
> But I've already read a topic where someone flamed WotC for the way
> the magic system works.
Really? Fascinating. Why aren't you posting this in that thread?
"Show Options -> Reply".
> Now at first, I thought "No big deal. People responded already, so I'm
> sure this ignorant poster has been corrected". Dead wrong. People
> were agreeing with him - the Vancian system sucks, sorcerers are
> better, everything needs to be changed to make everything more like my
> favourite class.
Imagine that, people having ideas of their own. Almost like real
grownups do.
> Please. There are *reasons* for the way the game works.
Tradition. Gygax liked Vance, and now here we are.
> Not always good reasons, not always sane reasons, but there are
> reasons. In this case, it's for variety.
Hah! Variety in d20. Classic. You need to get out more, son.
> Everyone deserves their own personalized magic system. Well, maybe
> not, but there ought to be options. And with the system the way it is,
> there are - if you say "I wanna cast spells!", you could be a [...]
Clone of the other casters, we know. There's a whole three shades
of the same colour caster, with trivial differances in their spell
lists. There's no variety to see here, move along.
> Now admittedly, not all of these options have equal power.
They're close enough, even the Src isn't all that weak.
> The humble druid is the most powerful class in the game, [...].
The most powerful solo, by far IMO. Team-wise he's a bit tricky to
help out, most of the others catch up through helping each other
smoother, even with a Drd helping them.
> And there's a reason for the first two, at least - the druid and
> cleric are the healer classes, and not many people want to play them.
That is such an ADnD comment. You do know about the wand of CLW
don't you? The healing class is whoever's using it today (up until Heal
arrives at least).
> The point is that yes, it's a complicated system,
No; it *really* isn't. I mean, it's more complicated than some
systems, but it's not complicated in general.
> and yes, there are imbalances. However, imbalances as you perceive
> them are not always imbalances as they are.
Are you aware of the existance of mirrors? They have this thing
they do called reflection.
> Since the game designers (and quite honestly, at least a hundred of us
> over at the Wizards.com Character Optimization boards) understand the
> rules far better than you do, you shouldn't mess with their work until
> you HONESTLY KNOW what the power balances in this game are.
Ha! You sure are funny when you dance like that, monkey.
> Thus, I'm going to post a series of articles on this message board,
> each containing one of the more important balance-related concepts.
Oh dear. All us ignorant yokels is about to get edumacated.
> The first concept you need to understand is power creep. As Wizards
> adds new books, they add more options, and options mean power.
No, more options done well makes for variety. Variety only makes
for power in a game with seperately purchased defences, but if there's
been no signifigant growth in the need for new defences (and if
anything, you can get by with less now, IMO) there need be no more power.
One poorly designed option increases power and cuts variety at the
same time. That's what most of the bitching here's about with the new
things, stuff that's too good or too hard to defend against turns 1000
real options into 1 real option and a whole lot of crap.
> This power creep is proportional - classes that are geared towards
> selection of a high number of options grow more powerful more quickly
> than classes that are geared towards using just a few options.
Nonsense. Classes with a lot of options can get unexpected OTT
synergies (which do that thing with the crap-making again), but power
can just be in a single peice that only a no-option Brb gets.
> Power creep affects casters far more dramaticallly than non-casters,
> for example, for nearly EVERY new book adds new spells, domains,
> caster-exclusive feats, and/or magic items.
None of which need be more powerful.
> Power creep also affects more generic classes more directly, because
> every new book geared towards a particular variety of magic benefits
> the class that uses just that, AND the class that can use everything.
That's not what "generic" means. Look it up, consider that class
system are inherently the opposite of generic (except their names, in
another sense).
> And power creep affects the Player's Handbook classes far more
> dramatically than non-Player's Handbook classes, because the designers
> don't expect you to buy every book, so they gear every single book
> toward's the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide exclusively.
Bullshit and lies. Don't know who told you that, but you really
should slap them.
> This has side effects, which I'll talk about later.
I just bet you will.
> However, the more directly relevant point is one that astute readers may
> have picked up on already.
>
> If power creep affects high-variety, generic, Player's Handbook classes
> the most, which class do you think will benefit the most?
>
> Dead right. The cleric.
Please don't waffle like that, it doesn't make you sound as clever
as you think it does.
Now, if by "generic" you mean "jack of all trades", then that
equally well applies to the Brd. The differance being the Clr is already
powerful, and the Brd only makes other classes powerful.
> Clerics know spells of nearly every type, and they AUTOMATICALLY GAIN
> ACCESS TO THEIR ENTIRE SPELL LIST,
Shhh.
> as opposed to wizards, who have to research and pay for all their spells,
> and as opposed to sorcerers, who gain a drastically limited number of
> spells known.
Wait. You're aguing about a powerful new spell option right? Why do
you think Wiz or Src need to learn every new option to be powerful,
rather than just the actual powerful one?
If you want someone who might be powerful with whole lots of new
spells, it's spontanious casters who can use their whole list at will;
but they don't much get any new spells, ever, which is a good thing.
> Druids also gain access to their full spell list, but druids are themed,
> while clerics CAN be themed in any number of ways, so clerics are far
> more likely to gain access to any new spell than druids.
That's pathetic logic. How is it you fail to understand how the
spell lists work?
New Spell: Drd 1, Wiz 1, Rgr 1.
Cleric more likely to be able to cast that one? No. Idiot.
> An interesting side effect of this gearing towards the Player's
> Handbook is that writers don't contemplate the results of combining
> THEIR book with the other books WotC has published.
See, when you keep repeating a lie, it makes you a liar too.
> Take [...] Persistent Spell [...] Divine Metamagic [...] and possibly
> a few copies of Extra Turning.
Waffle trimmed.
> If your jaw didn't drop just now, you're either jaded, educated, hard
> to impress, or unrealizing of the full potential of this.
Or I know how sad and pathetic that really is as a build.
> If a cleric can persistify ANY spell he can cast, he's suddenly a
> better fighter than the fighter, barbarian, ranger, and paladin put
> together; probably by level 7, definitely by level 9. At the beginning
> of every day, he casts Persistent Righteous Might, Persistent Divine
> Power, and Persistent Divine Favour. Poof - the humble party healer
> can take on most encounters on his own.
Human Clr 9: Extend, Persistant, Divine MM, XTurn, XTurn. Can turn
3 + 8 + Cha times per day, using *SEVEN* turn attempts per Persistant
spell you need Cha 30 to manage that trick.
Try level 12 for your one trick pony, but hey, ignore the Luck
bonus, who needs it. Infact drop the Divine Power too and save the Extra
Turning Feats.
Either way, it's _obviously good_. Now, are you aware you can make
a *better* combtant than that by casting a couple of 1st and 2nd level
10 min/level buffs on the party fighter before or during battle without
any feat cost at all? That he can still hit well when someone casts
/Dispel Magic/?
That's the problem with you character optimisation guys: no real
sense of the natural cross-party synergies.
<snip: pretentious crap>
You are aware the most powerful character is a well buffed Ftr with
crowd control support, right?
> And no, I'm not always this ruthlessly cruel.
Hmm, you are new here, aren't you. Don't worry, we're not as jaded
as some would make out.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Dominus Casuum
one with the massive book collection in my group, so I know far more of
the rules (and I know them backwards and forwards) than my players do.
Thus, I simply allow everything I already have access to that doesn't
absolutely break the game open - for example, the Sarrukh simply
doesn't exist in my campaign setting, and I've houseruled other easy
gamebreakers out of existence - and just make sure to work in a little
bit of everything into my campaign setting. It's an evolving world,
and whenever I get a new book, I try to add as much of the new material
in as possible in such a way that it isn't noticeable to the party.
Then I announce that the book is useable by the players. If there's
something that I DON'T want in my campaign - just too powerful, or too
drastic a change to add mid-campaign - I specifically disallow it.
Usually the book approval process takes about two weeks, and I end up
with anywhere from two lines of text to three pages. For example, my
Complete Arcane "black list" includes Persistent Spell, Master
Transmogrifist, and some minor changes to the flavour chapters (I don't
like the way Complete Arcane wants mage duels run, for example). My
Complete Divine black list includes ur-priest, divine crusader, and
some shugenja changes (as written, they suck, so I boosted their power
a bit. Other than that, yes, I allow my players to "run willy-nilly".
Because they know that anything they can do as players, I can simply
toughen the encounters. This gives the game a more heroic feel (the
players are more powerful, but they're still challenged) while
remaining a good environment for creativity.
And yes, I have a very good knowledge of my world's capabilities and
limitations. As well as those of my player characters. Anything is
possible, and the multiverse is infinite - if the PCs think of it,
there's undoubtedly some evil character who has thought of it as well.
Oh, and just for the record, I'm not criticizing the way the system
works at all. The purpose of this post was to try to give a better
knowledge of the the way the Rules as Most Commonly Used (RMCU) works
to the sort of poster who would otherwise make changes they do not
understand the full ramifications of. I'm attempting to advocate
caution and understanding when making changes to the RMCU. However, I
have nothing against you running your game your way. I fully
understand your position of restricted change to the core rules - the
consequences of mistakes can be disastrous.
Just don't tell me that core is "balanced" and noncore is not. Try
comparing a 20th level fighter to a 20th level druid first.
Some Guy
This should make for some interesting posts by you, then. Especially
when another alignment thread starts up.
> Thus, I simply allow everything I already have access to that doesn't
> absolutely break the game open - for example, the Sarrukh simply
> doesn't exist in my campaign setting, and I've houseruled other easy
> gamebreakers out of existence - and just make sure to work in a little
> bit of everything into my campaign setting. It's an evolving world,
> and whenever I get a new book, I try to add as much of the new material
> in as possible in such a way that it isn't noticeable to the party.
> Then I announce that the book is useable by the players. If there's
> something that I DON'T want in my campaign - just too powerful, or too
> drastic a change to add mid-campaign - I specifically disallow it.
What about ideas your players come up with that aren't in a book? Mine,
for example, always want to design unique magic items.
> Usually the book approval process takes about two weeks, and I end up
> with anywhere from two lines of text to three pages. For example, my
> Complete Arcane "black list" includes Persistent Spell, Master
> Transmogrifist, and some minor changes to the flavour chapters (I don't
> like the way Complete Arcane wants mage duels run, for example). My
> Complete Divine black list includes ur-priest, divine crusader, and
> some shugenja changes (as written, they suck, so I boosted their power
> a bit. Other than that, yes, I allow my players to "run willy-nilly".
What, specifically, do you think "sucks" about the Shugenja?
> Because they know that anything they can do as players, I can simply
> toughen the encounters. This gives the game a more heroic feel (the
> players are more powerful, but they're still challenged) while
> remaining a good environment for creativity.
Do you feel you have to show the players who is boss?
> And yes, I have a very good knowledge of my world's capabilities and
> limitations. As well as those of my player characters. Anything is
> possible, and the multiverse is infinite - if the PCs think of it,
> there's undoubtedly some evil character who has thought of it as well.
> Oh, and just for the record, I'm not criticizing the way the system
> works at all. The purpose of this post was to try to give a better
> knowledge of the the way the Rules as Most Commonly Used (RMCU) works
> to the sort of poster who would otherwise make changes they do not
> understand the full ramifications of.
This is the sort of thing up with which we should not put. ;-)
>I'm attempting to advocate
> caution and understanding when making changes to the RMCU. However, I
> have nothing against you running your game your way. I fully
> understand your position of restricted change to the core rules - the
> consequences of mistakes can be disastrous.
Disastrous? It's a game, man.
> Just don't tell me that core is "balanced" and noncore is not. Try
> comparing a 20th level fighter to a 20th level druid first.
Or, if there's not an alignment thread, a "Who is more powerful" thread?
Heh, this should be good.
Mark verison 1969
<dominus...@gmail.com> wrote:
my god, how long did it take ron to type this???
Ed Chauvin IV
<dominus...@gmail.com> wrote:
And if your options aren't inherently better, but merely more options,
then where is the increase in power? If you don't increase the power
of the otions, how does the power of the character increase?
Ed Chauvin IV
--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Ed Chauvin IV
<dominus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And no, I'm not always this ruthlessly cruel.
Wow. You are new.
Ed Chauvin IV
<dominus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ah, but you see, from a probability standpoint, the more options there
>are, the more good options there are.
You don't really know what probability means, do you?
Ken Andrews
<dominus...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dominus Casuum? Lord of Chance?
>I'm relatively new to this message board. All right, I subscribed last
>night.
I do hope you didn't pay too much for your subscription to this
message board. Please do keep in mind that only those who contact MSB
personally get access to the second-level messages.
>night. But I've already read a topic where someone flamed WotC for the
>way the magic system works. Now at first, I thought "No big deal.
>People responded already, so I'm sure this ignorant poster has been
>corrected". Dead wrong. People were agreeing with him - the Vancian
>system sucks, sorcerers are better, everything needs to be changed to
>make everything more like my favourite class.
Actually, I *like* the Vancian system, and I don't particularly like
Sorcerers. The main problem for me is that the *explanation* for the
Vancian system has always sucked. There is a better explanation, I've
used it for years, and there is no problem whether or not it's
well-explained.
>Please. There are *reasons* for the way the game works. Not always
>good reasons, not always sane reasons, but there are reasons. In this
>case, it's for variety. Everyone deserves their own personalized magic
>system. Well, maybe not, but there ought to be options. And with the
>system the way it is, there are - if you say "I wanna cast spells!",
>you could be a sorcerer, a wizard, a cleric/druid, a
>warmage/beguiler/witch, a warlock, a psion/wilder, an erudite, an
>incarnate, a truenamer, a binder, a shadow-magic user, or many more
>campaign-setting-specific types of caster, such as the Artificer and
>Shadow Weave caster. Now admittedly, not all of these options have
>equal power. The humble druid is the most powerful class in the game,
>with cleric running a close second. After that comes the artificer,
>then the wizard, and then everybody's pretty much equal. And there's a
>reason for the first two, at least - the druid and cleric are the
>healer classes, and not many people want to play them. I refuse to try
>to justify the artificer, however.
Why try to justify the Artificer? Face it, anyone who can accumulate
power will always be more powerful than those who cannot. The
Artificer can do so better than others, and therefore is more
powerful.
>The point is that yes, it's a complicated system, and yes, there are
>imbalances. However, imbalances as you perceive them are not always
>imbalances as they are.
And balances as you percieve them are not always balanced.
>Since the game designers (and quite honestly,
>at least a hundred of us over at the Wizards.com Character Optimization
>boards) understand the rules far better than you do, ...
Oops.
>... you shouldn't mess
>with their work until you HONESTLY KNOW what the power balances in this
>game are. Thus, I'm going to post a series of articles on this message
>board, each containing one of the more important balance-related
>concepts.
I'll be interested in reading these, because I like to learn things.
However, the best way in the world to prevent people from reading your
material is to come across as a pretentious buffoon. Do keep that in
mind, won't you?
>The first concept you need to understand is power creep.
Ohh, he's going to explain MUDflation!
>As Wizards
>adds new books, they add more options, and options mean power.
No, he's not going to explain MUDflation.
>This
>power creep is proportional - classes that are geared towards selection
>of a high number of options grow more powerful more quickly than
>classes that are geared towards using just a few options. Power creep
>affects casters far more dramaticallly than non-casters, for example,
>for nearly EVERY new book adds new spells, domains, caster-exclusive
>feats, and/or magic items. Power creep also affects more generic
>classes more directly, because every new book geared towards a
>particular variety of magic benefits the class that uses just that, AND
>the class that can use everything.
Umm, a class that can use everything (I assume you're thinking of
things like Bards?) is not a "generic" class but a JOAT class.
>And power creep affects the
>Player's Handbook classes far more dramatically than non-Player's
>Handbook classes, because the designers don't expect you to buy every
>book, so they gear every single book toward's the Player's Handbook and
>Dungeon Master's Guide exclusively. This has side effects, which I'lll
>talk about later. However, the more directly relevant point is one
>that astute readers may have picked up on already.
>
>If power creep affects high-variety, generic, Player's Handbook classes
>the most, which class do you think will benefit the most?
>
>Dead right. The cleric. Clerics know spells of nearly every type, and
>they AUTOMATICALLY GAIN ACCESS TO THEIR ENTIRE SPELL LIST, as opposed
>to wizards, who have to research and pay for all their spells, and as
>opposed to sorcerers, who gain a drastically limited number of spells
>known. Druids also gain access to their full spell list, but druids
>are themed, while clerics CAN be themed in any number of ways, so
>clerics are far more likely to gain access to any new spell than
>druids. Wizards and sorcerers are the most likely to have it on their
>spell list, but a wizard could bankrupt himself buying half the spells
>on his list and sorcerers are simply out of their league when it comes
>to the number of spells on their list - it's mind-boggling. Thus,
>classic divine spellcaster rapidly become even more overpowered than
>they already are when new material is added.
And yet, by your own statement ("... the druid and cleric are the
healer classes, and not many people want to play them. ...") they are
underplayed. If they really are so much more powerful than the other
spell-slinging classes, then why aren't they powergamer and munchkin
magnets?
Odd. Didn't you say up above "... so they gear every single book
toward's the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide
exclusively..."? And yet now you're saying that writers are directed
to pay attention to the PHB, but are what, prevented from paying
attention to the DMG? When the DMG and PHB together are the core
rules for character creation?
So who's the chowderhead at WotC at whose feet we lay the blame for
this?
>Or Planar Shepherd (Faiths of Eberron) and Outsiders (Monster Manuals).
> Or the abomination that is the Shadocraft Gnommage. Or an infinite
>power loop, if you have a little-known Forgotten Realms supplement
>(Serpent Kingdoms). Hell, you don't need the supplement, it's in the
>online preview!
>
>How does power creep affect your fix for the game balance? Well,
>anyone who can't cast spells sucks even in core D&D 3.5, and he sucks
>even more as you start adding books. Exponentially. If you ignore the
>Hulking Hurler (which most people do), Complete frikkin' Warrior helps
>make casters better than non-casters. The only book that even begins
>to address the issue is Tome of Battle, which goes a long way towards
>making meleers at least half as good as a castrated caster in the
>Tarrasque's stomach. However, if you suggest changing the current
>system, make sure that you own EVERY book WotC has published or will
>publish in the future (which you don't, which I don't, which no one
>including WotC does).
Well, I would own everything they will ever publish, but my time
machine's in the shop for it's 30,000 year overhaul.
>Because I guarantee you, it's not as balanced as
>you think. And it probably doesn't even fix your supposed problem. If
>there is a problem.
>
>I'd just like to end this by apologizing to the hordes of people I'm
>sure I offended in this rant, and by saying that if you ever need help
>troubleshooting D&D 3.5, 3rd-party material, or stuff you write
>yourself, I'd be happy to compare it to existing WotC stuff and try to
>give you good comparisons to stuff that already exists.
Thanks. There's a couple of things I posted a while back that I'd
really like you to look at and give your considered opinion. The
first is some Warp Mage spells, in a post of the same name,
2004/08/18. The second was a few slingers' pouches that I posted a
short while back, in a thread titled "Slinger's Pouch", dated
2006/08/03.
>And no, I'm
>not always this ruthlessly cruel.
If you think your post was "ruthlessly cruel", you really need to get
out more.
Peter Knutsen
> OK, I took a "Mythbusters" look at this one... Here goes...
>
> Assume a human cleric of level 9. He's got 5 feats.
>
> To pull this off, he'll need to take Extend Spell, Persistent Spell,
> Divine Metamagic, and Extra Turning (twice). That's ALL of his feats.
>
> And even then...
>
> If his Charisma is decent (say a 16), he'll have 14 Turn Undead attempts
> per day. If you read Divine Metamagic, it costs 1 turning attempt PLUS
> ONE PER NORMAL LEVEL ADJUSTMENT OF THE METAMAGIC to cast a Divinely
> Metamagicked spell. This means that it costs SEVEN turn attempts to
> Divinely Metamagic Persistent Spell twice. He can't do all three, he
> can do TWO of the above spells, and that's only if he devotes ALL OF HIS
> FEATS to doing so.
>
> Granted, Persistent Divine Power and Persistent Divine Favor are very
> juicy options... but remember that the PC is sacrificing quite a bit to
> be able to do this. And one Dispel Magic can make it all come crashing
> down around him.
In other words, the OP's nonsense is even *more* retarded than I assumed.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> Why don't folks post some comparisons to illustrate this debated issue?
> That would be interesting, and hopfully bring some clarity.
People keep bitching about how the Complete splats offer "unbalanced"
options (e.g. Feats or Spells), but they don't give examples.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> Why, no, I'm not.
>
> I'm deciding on whether to allow the options or not. And whether I
> do, depends on whether they fit in my world. My game world is over 25
> years old, but even when it was a tenth that, I knew that the point was
> that *I* was in charge of the rules, not the other way around.
>
> If you allow any book -- written for a wide general audience -- to
> be just added to your campaign without any thought whatsoever, you have
> FAR worse problems than power inflation. You have a lack of coherence to
> your world. Do you have any knowledge of your world's capabilities and
> limitations? If you don't, sure, you'll have problems -- but not because
> of "power". Power is not a problem. The problem is that the capability
> CHANGE is something that transforms the way in which things interact in
> your world. So if you just grab a new book off the shelf and permit
> people to use everything in it willy-nilly, the dynamics you knew a
> short time ago no longer apply.
Many of the Feats from the Complete splats completely fail to change the
game world, though. Take Obscure Lore, from Complete Adventurer. It
gives a bonus to Bardic Knowledge rolls (and to similar Lore abilities,
such as the Loremaster's).
How is that going to change the world?
In fact it isn't. Instead, it is a sensible extension of the rules,
given that it is an entirely legitimate character desire (and player
desire) to wish to focus - become better - at that particular game ability.
Or that feat from Complete Divine which makes your Cure Wounds spells
more powerful.
That one isn't going to change the world either. It is, again, a
sensible extension of the rules, given that it is an entirely legitimate
character (and player) desire to wish to focus - to become better - at
that particular game ability.
I'm not saying there aren't Feats that change the game world, if allowed
to exist within the game world. I'm sure there are. There are spells as
well. But there are also ones that won't change a thing, except that the
GM (or a player) might wish to re-do a character, because the feat in
question (or spell, for a Sorcerer or Bard) just perfectly fits the
character concept.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Werebat
Nymph's Kiss.
- Ron ^*^
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>>Dominus Casuum wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ah, but you see, from a probability standpoint, the more options there
>>>are, the more good options there are. It doesn't matter how much the
>>>bad options blow; there will be at least a few good options in every
>>>book (yes, even Complete Psionics), and those are the ones a player
>>>will generally choose. So every time you add a book to your
>>>collection, you're making someone's character more powerful.
>>
>> Why, no, I'm not.
>>
>> I'm deciding on whether to allow the options or not. And whether I
>>do, depends on whether they fit in my world. My game world is over 25
>>years old, but even when it was a tenth that, I knew that the point
>>was that *I* was in charge of the rules, not the other way around.
>>
>> If you allow any book -- written for a wide general audience -- to be
>>just added to your campaign without any thought whatsoever, you have
>>FAR worse problems than power inflation. You have a lack of coherence
>>to your world. Do you have any knowledge of your world's capabilities
>>and limitations? If you don't, sure, you'll have problems -- but not
>>because of "power". Power is not a problem. The problem is that the
>>capability CHANGE is something that transforms the way in which things
>>interact in your world. So if you just grab a new book off the shelf
>>and permit people to use everything in it willy-nilly, the dynamics
>>you knew a short time ago no longer apply.
>
> Okay, then the problem is simply a discrepancy of DMing style.
Yep. Your style creates a world that changes every time a new book
comes out, and lacks consistency. Such worlds drive me utterly nuts
and I won't play in them (and the GMs wouldn't want me to, anyway).
> Just don't tell me that core is "balanced" and noncore is not. Try
> comparing a 20th level fighter to a 20th level druid first.
I don't believe in "balance", in the sense of rules making something
balanced. So I wouldn't try to tell you they were balanced, or not.
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> Why, no, I'm not.
>>
>> I'm deciding on whether to allow the options or not. And whether I
>> do, depends on whether they fit in my world. My game world is over 25
>> years old, but even when it was a tenth that, I knew that the point
>> was that *I* was in charge of the rules, not the other way around.
>>
>> If you allow any book -- written for a wide general audience -- to
>> be just added to your campaign without any thought whatsoever, you
>> have FAR worse problems than power inflation. You have a lack of
>> coherence to your world. Do you have any knowledge of your world's
>> capabilities and limitations? If you don't, sure, you'll have problems
>> -- but not because of "power". Power is not a problem. The problem is
>> that the capability CHANGE is something that transforms the way in
>> which things interact in your world. So if you just grab a new book
>> off the shelf and permit people to use everything in it willy-nilly,
>> the dynamics you knew a short time ago no longer apply.
>
>
> Many of the Feats from the Complete splats completely fail to change the
> game world, though. Take Obscure Lore, from Complete Adventurer. It
> gives a bonus to Bardic Knowledge rolls (and to similar Lore abilities,
> such as the Loremaster's).
>
> How is that going to change the world?
Suddenly there are characters who are noticeably better at
lore-related things than anyone of their level was capable of doing
before. If the feat had existed before, characters who failed lore
rolls last week would have actually made them.
This is the same as suddenly introducing, say, the ability to fly.
It's not as drastically obvious, no, but it's the same basic change to
the rules: the characters can do something that, had they been able to
do it last week, might have changed the outcome of the game, in broad
or in fine. And it would have made QUITE a difference if I evaluated
its presence/absence across all the NPCs who might be affected.
This won't matter in a campaign that doesn't care about consistency.
But in my gameworld, it matters one whole hell of a lot.
Jasin Zujovic
dominus...@gmail.com says...
>
> [snip]
>
OK... but in just a sentence or three, what is supposed to be your
thesis here?
--
Jasin Zujovic
Arandor
But... but... after a couple of levels, that is HARDLY better than
Openminded from CAdv! And you need to be exalted to boot! My evil
mastermind can not even take it... nah, that isn't unbalanced at all.
Bruce L Grubb
Sea Wasp wrote:
> Dominus Casuum wrote:
>
Not the most promising of starts
> All right, I subscribed last
> > night. But I've already read a topic where someone flamed WotC for the
> > way the magic system works. Now at first, I thought "No big deal.
> > People responded already, so I'm sure this ignorant poster has been
> > corrected". Dead wrong. People were agreeing with him - the Vancian
> > system sucks, sorcerers are better, everything needs to be changed to
> > make everything more like my favourite class.
> >
> > Please. There are *reasons* for the way the game works. Not always
> > good reasons, not always sane reasons, but there are reasons.
>
> And if the reasons are not good or sane, they must be disposed of.
I agree. Bad reasons in the game of some supposed game balance when
there are no real benchmarks is still a bad reason.
> The Vancian system doesn't suck as badly as it used to -- partly
> because the Sorcerer was introduced as an alternative. I prefer spell
> points overall. I use the system as written partly for compatibility
> with other players, not because I think it's well designed in all
> areas (although it's INFINITELY better than original, 1e, and 2e), and
> "game balance" is to me a mostly false god, as long as one is trying
> to justify rules in its name.
I agree, limitations should naturally flow from the machanics not be
something tacked on. Take GURPS Magic where the reason that many
wizards will not go armored like a medeval tanks is because the heavier
(and therefore more protective) the armor the more fatigue it costs
them; fatigue that could be power their spells.
Contrast with with the wizard and sorcerer class which still have the
most ridiculous reasons presented for them not to be cast spells in as
well in armor. The restricts movement reason is insane - these are
spell casters not freaking break dancers or canadates for a Sailor Moon
anime. Anything with movement that complicated that any armor restricts
is going to attract the attention of any critter with enough mental
thought process to hold to a missle weapon to use the blasted thing.
Werebat
Arandor wrote:
> Werebat wrote:
>
>>Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>
>>>Eric P. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why don't folks post some comparisons to illustrate this debated
>>>>issue? That would be interesting, and hopfully bring some clarity.
>>>
>>>
>>>People keep bitching about how the Complete splats offer "unbalanced"
>>>options (e.g. Feats or Spells), but they don't give examples.
>>
>>Nymph's Kiss.
>
>
> But... but... after a couple of levels, that is HARDLY better than
> Openminded from CAdv!
Huh? Have you READ both feats?
> And you need to be exalted to boot! My evil
> mastermind can not even take it... nah, that isn't unbalanced at all.
Sure, and my gnome isn't reptilian and can't do the Pun-pun thing, so
the Pun-pun thing must be balanced too...
- Ron ^*^
Bruce Grubb
Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
I agree. I would go as far as to say if you introduce ANYTHING to an
existing campaign without some thought into why it wasn't available before
and how it was introduced to the world you are going to have problems.
When I wanted to change from the standard AD&D magic system to GURPS
Fantasy 1e I used and idea inspired by the old Queen of the Demonweb Pits
(Q1) to explain its introduction.
Basicly a party gets itself stuck on Yrth for nearly a year and brings back
the Thaumatology of Yrth magic back with them. Low level magic-users
immedately take up the new Thaumatology as do many deities of magic as a
way to bolster their power. The current party sees the advantages and
limitations of Yrth magic and starts learning it.
Jim Davies
inscribed:
>I own
>nearly every WotC book (as of 2 months ago; I don't have Dragon Magic
>or Complete Mage yet)
Fanboi.
You should get out more, and not just to your FLGS.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Jim Davies
inscribed:
...
>And no, I'm
>not always this ruthlessly cruel.
?? Cruel?
I assume that the WotC board is moderated to stop people being
offensive to each other, so you've never encountered a usenet-like
environment. This could be a learning experience for you.
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>>Dominus Casuum wrote:
>>
>>>I'm relatively new to this message board.
>>
>> Newsgroup. Not message board.
>
>
> Not the most promising of starts
>
>
>> All right, I subscribed last
>>
>>>night. But I've already read a topic where someone flamed WotC for the
>>>way the magic system works. Now at first, I thought "No big deal.
>>>People responded already, so I'm sure this ignorant poster has been
>>>corrected". Dead wrong. People were agreeing with him - the Vancian
>>>system sucks, sorcerers are better, everything needs to be changed to
>>>make everything more like my favourite class.
>>>
>>>Please. There are *reasons* for the way the game works. Not always
>>>good reasons, not always sane reasons, but there are reasons.
>>
>> And if the reasons are not good or sane, they must be disposed of.
>
>
> I agree. Bad reasons in the game of some supposed game balance when
> there are no real benchmarks is still a bad reason.
It's nice you agree with me, but the fact that you then go on to
espouse GURPS renders your support suspect.
Eric P.
Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with one of the responders to this thread who said
that game balance is a false god. In the reply I posted that didn't go
through, I said that there will probably always be some classes that are
seen as more or less powerful than others, overall, due to their nature,
and that I'm OK with that, if there's a reasonable explanation. Some
characters are going to be more limited in scope than others, surely,
and it may get a bit fuzzy trying to balance overall abilities/features
of various classes at any given level.
Happy gaming,
Eric
Sea Wasp
> On the grave of "Dominus Casuum" <dominus...@gmail.com> is
> inscribed:
>
> ...
>
>
>>And no, I'm
>>not always this ruthlessly cruel.
>
>
> ?? Cruel?
>
> I assume that the WotC board is moderated to stop people being
> offensive to each other, so you've never encountered a usenet-like
> environment. This could be a learning experience for you.
We shall teach him, my precioussss. Oh, yesss, we shall.
Sea Wasp
> In article <45333e90$0$183$157c...@dreader1.cybercity.dk>,
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>Eric P. wrote:
>>
>>>Why don't folks post some comparisons to illustrate this debated issue?
>>>That would be interesting, and hopfully bring some clarity.
>>
>>People keep bitching about how the Complete splats offer "unbalanced"
>>options (e.g. Feats or Spells), but they don't give examples.
>
>
> I'm inclined to agree with one of the responders to this thread who said
> that game balance is a false god.
That's me.
Eric P.
Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
> Eric P. wrote:
> > In article <45333e90$0$183$157c...@dreader1.cybercity.dk>,
> > Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Eric P. wrote:
> >>
> >>>Why don't folks post some comparisons to illustrate this debated issue?
> >>>That would be interesting, and hopfully bring some clarity.
> >>
> >>People keep bitching about how the Complete splats offer "unbalanced"
> >>options (e.g. Feats or Spells), but they don't give examples.
> >
> >
> > I'm inclined to agree with one of the responders to this thread who said
> > that game balance is a false god.
>
> That's me.
Good call!
- E
Arandor
> Huh? Have you READ both feats?
> Sure, and my gnome isn't reptilian and can't do the Pun-pun thing, so
> the Pun-pun thing must be balanced too...
Sorry, I should have added a [sarcasm] flag. Yes, I have read both
feats, and of course one of them is better than the other, if you can
take it.
D.J.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:44:12 GMT, Sea Wasp
<seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
]Jim Davies wrote:
]> On the grave of "Dominus Casuum" <dominus...@gmail.com> is
]> inscribed:
]> ...
]>
]>>And no, I'm
]>>not always this ruthlessly cruel.
]>
]>
]> ?? Cruel?
]>
]> I assume that the WotC board is moderated to stop people being
]> offensive to each other, so you've never encountered a usenet-like
]> environment. This could be a learning experience for you.
]
] We shall teach him, my precioussss. Oh, yesss, we shall.
We can just stuff him behind an invisible door. Maybe he is there,
maybe not. Make a Shrodinger's cat out of him.
JimP.
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/ Oct 11, 2006
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Jan 5, 2006: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog July 26, 2006
Eric P.
D.J. <alph...@ekisocableone.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:44:12 GMT, Sea Wasp
> <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
> ]Jim Davies wrote:
> ]> On the grave of "Dominus Casuum" <dominus...@gmail.com> is
> ]> inscribed:
> ]> ...
> ]>
> ]>>And no, I'm
> ]>>not always this ruthlessly cruel.
> ]>
> ]>
> ]> ?? Cruel?
> ]>
> ]> I assume that the WotC board is moderated to stop people being
> ]> offensive to each other, so you've never encountered a usenet-like
> ]> environment. This could be a learning experience for you.
> ]
> ] We shall teach him, my precioussss. Oh, yesss, we shall.
>
> We can just stuff him behind an invisible door. Maybe he is there,
> maybe not. Make a Shrodinger's cat out of him.
>
> JimP.
That places the subject somewhere in between living and not living,
doesn't it? Does that make the subject flat-footed? ;)
- E
tussock
> dominus...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>
> OK... but in just a sentence or three, what is supposed to be your
> thesis here?
He said: new books add options, options are power, some classes can
use more options than others. eg. Divine MM'd Persistant Spell = boom.
Then he noted that as he knows so much about how 3e works all us
folk should ask him before trying to make changes to the game, so we
don't break it; the above being a demonstration of his great knowledge.
Ron at his best, really.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Hadsil
Gerald Katz
Bruce L Grubb
I didn't "espouse" GURPS I just used its 'core' magic system as a case
in point. The Thaumatology of Yrth magic explains why many wizards
either wear the lightest armor they can or forgo it all together. D&D
by contrast says they can't and then tries to (poorly) explain it and
the reasons are so lame that they are laughable..
Joseph
news:453375BC...@sgeobviousinc.com:
Welcome to the Forgotten Realms, the Known World, Greyhawk, Athas...
D.J.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:19:18 GMT, "Eric P." <eri...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
]In article <e3k8j2dnki3qtina8...@4ax.com>,
Wouldn't that make him a cheap detective in a Mickey Spillane novel?
:-)
Tetsubo
> Eric P. wrote:
>
>> In article <45333e90$0$183$157c...@dreader1.cybercity.dk>,
>> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Eric P. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why don't folks post some comparisons to illustrate this debated
>>>> issue? That would be interesting, and hopfully bring some clarity.
>>>
>>>
>>> People keep bitching about how the Complete splats offer
>>> "unbalanced" options (e.g. Feats or Spells), but they don't give
>>> examples.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree with one of the responders to this thread who
>> said that game balance is a false god.
>
>
> That's me.
>
>
>
>
That should be printed in the front page of every RPG...
--
Tetsubo
My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)
/_|_\
Symbol
"Bruce L Grubb" <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:1161013990....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I agree, limitations should naturally flow from the machanics not be
> something tacked on. Take GURPS Magic where the reason that many
> wizards will not go armored like a medeval tanks is because the heavier
> (and therefore more protective) the armor the more fatigue it costs
> them; fatigue that could be power their spells.
Interesting that you think that makes sense when (if what you are claiming
is actually true) it is total rubbish. Badly designed armours are always
more tiring to use due to load distribution rather than the level of
protection provided. Resulting fatigue levels and protection are only
loosely correlated.
> Contrast with with the wizard and sorcerer class which still have the
> most ridiculous reasons presented for them not to be cast spells in as
> well in armor.
There is no contrast. In reality they are both stupid but your rabid
fanboyism will always prevent you from seeing it.
Bruce L Grubb
Symbol wrote:
> "Bruce L Grubb" <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:1161013990....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I agree, limitations should naturally flow from the machanics not be
> > something tacked on. Take GURPS Magic where the reason that many
> > wizards will not go armored like a medeval tanks is because the heavier
> > (and therefore more protective) the armor the more fatigue it costs
> > them; fatigue that could be power their spells.
>
> Interesting that you think that makes sense when (if what you are claiming
> is actually true) it is total rubbish. Badly designed armours are always
> more tiring to use due to load distribution rather than the level of
> protection provided. Resulting fatigue levels and protection are only
> loosely correlated.
In the context of the rules themselves it makes perfect sense. Fatigue
levels are calculated from strength and it is entirely weight based ie
a 50 pound backpack is as fatiguing in combat as 50 pounds of armor.
D&D makes a big deal out of armor but this results in wizards being
able to put on 50 pounds of bulky clothing and have no problem with his
spells as long as it is not 'armor' of some type but the moment they
put on armor regardless of its weight or design they have problems.
Other concepts like 'cold iron' are only a stop gap as magic could
produce armors that have no ferrous content such as the
Beryllium-Copper alloy I talked about in another thread in this group
back in 1999.
Bruce L Grubb
Symbol wrote:
> "Bruce L Grubb" <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:1161013990....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I agree, limitations should naturally flow from the machanics not be
> > something tacked on. Take GURPS Magic where the reason that many
> > wizards will not go armored like a medeval tanks is because the heavier
> > (and therefore more protective) the armor the more fatigue it costs
> > them; fatigue that could be power their spells.
>
> Interesting that you think that makes sense when (if what you are claiming
> is actually true) it is total rubbish. Badly designed armours are always
> more tiring to use due to load distribution rather than the level of
> protection provided. Resulting fatigue levels and protection are only
> loosely correlated.
In the context of the rules themselves it makes perfect sense. Fatigue
levels are calculated from strength and it is entirely weight based ie
a 50 pound backpack is as fatiguing in combat as 50 pounds of armor.
D&D makes a big deal out of armor but this results in wizards being
able to put on 50 pounds of bulky clothing and have no problem with his
spells as long as it is not 'armor' of some type but the moment they
put on armor regardless of its weight or design they have problems.
Other concepts like 'cold iron' are only a stop gap as magic could
produce alloys that have no ferrous content such as the
Symbol
>
> Symbol wrote:
> > "Bruce L Grubb" <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in message
> > news:1161013990....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > I agree, limitations should naturally flow from the machanics not be
> > > something tacked on. Take GURPS Magic where the reason that many
> > > wizards will not go armored like a medeval tanks is because the
heavier
> > > (and therefore more protective) the armor the more fatigue it costs
> > > them; fatigue that could be power their spells.
> >
> > Interesting that you think that makes sense when (if what you are
claiming
> > is actually true) it is total rubbish. Badly designed armours are
always
> > more tiring to use due to load distribution rather than the level of
> > protection provided. Resulting fatigue levels and protection are only
> > loosely correlated.
>
> In the context of the rules themselves it makes perfect sense. Fatigue
> levels are calculated from strength and it is entirely weight based ie
> a 50 pound backpack is as fatiguing in combat as 50 pounds of armor.
So combining it with a stupid rule somehow excuses the justification of
its own stupidity? I think not.
> D&D makes a big deal out of armor but this results in wizards being
> able to put on 50 pounds of bulky clothing and have no problem with his
> spells as long as it is not 'armor' of some type but the moment they
> put on armor regardless of its weight or design they have problems.
Yes. This is also stupid and a blatant flavour/balancing rule. It's also
inconsistent with other rules for handling restricted or effected
movement. This does not change the fact that the Gurps variation is just
as absurd though.
> Other concepts like 'cold iron' are only a stop gap as magic could
> produce armors that have no ferrous content such as the
> Beryllium-Copper alloy I talked about in another thread in this group
> back in 1999.
Cold Iron is an "anti Fey" metal and has sod all to do with what we're
talking about.
Werebat
Where everyone speaks Latin, LOL.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
tussock wrote:
If I thought for a moment that the OP was a real person, I'd have had
Joystarr respond...
- Ron ^*^
tussock
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>> Eric P. wrote:
>>
>>> I'm inclined to agree with one of the responders to this thread who
>>> said that game balance is a false god.
>>
>> That's me.
>>
> That should be printed in the front page of every RPG...
I have to disagree with it. Balance isn't easily acheivable, but
that doesn't stop it being a worthy goal.
Balance meaning to me that character options are real options and
not just unplayable cruft, where a few overpowering options lead to
everything else being sensibly discarded as cruft.
And while I understand that suitable play styles can overcome such
balance issues, the way I run things seems to suffer to them.
Bruce L Grubb
> > In the context of the rules themselves it makes perfect sense. Fatigue
> > levels are calculated from strength and it is entirely weight based ie
> > a 50 pound backpack is as fatiguing in combat as 50 pounds of armor.
>
> So combining it with a stupid rule somehow excuses the justification of
> its own stupidity? I think not.
THIS IS COMBINING IT WITH ANYTHING. SHEESH. Core rules say fighting
with certain lever of encomerance cost fatigues. Spells cost fatigue.
The over lap of these two seperate rules is obvious.
> > D&D makes a big deal out of armor but this results in wizards being
> > able to put on 50 pounds of bulky clothing and have no problem with his
> > spells as long as it is not 'armor' of some type but the moment they
> > put on armor regardless of its weight or design they have problems.
>
> Yes. This is also stupid and a blatant flavour/balancing rule. It's also
> inconsistent with other rules for handling restricted or effected
> movement. This does not change the fact that the Gurps variation is just
> as absurd though.
Explain how it is absurd rather than being lazy and claiming it is.
WDS
> I'm relatively new to this message board.
Obviously because this ISN'T A MESSAGE BOARD.
> ... Since the game designers (and quite honestly,
> at least a hundred of us over at the Wizards.com Character Optimization
> boards) understand the rules far better than you do, you shouldn't mess
> with their work until you HONESTLY KNOW what the power balances in this
> game are.
Thank you for condescending to teach us ignorant masses. I will posit
the opposite: the sum of the knowledge here is more than you guys over
wherever. I can't prove my point any more than you can but I stand by
it. Nyah.
As as for the game designers the very fact that they had to make major
changes in some of the character classes from 3.0 to 3.5 and didn't
make some others (like leaving Sorcerers pretty much as is) shows that
they do not know as much as you seem to think they know.
Elvis
((My Character Sheets usually say " Two point Leather worn as clothes"
so it's just thick leather
clothes>>>>>>))
Sea Wasp
> Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>>> Eric P. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm inclined to agree with one of the responders to this thread who
>>>> said that game balance is a false god.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's me.
>>>
>> That should be printed in the front page of every RPG...
>
>
> I have to disagree with it. Balance isn't easily acheivable, but
> that doesn't stop it being a worthy goal.
Balance is achievable. Game Balance, as in "enforced only by the
rules" is a false god and not achievable as the rules can't account
for all situations.
Balance is a purely in-game phenomenon determined by the cooperation,
or lack thereof, between players and GM. No number of rules can force
it, nor can any number of rules break it, unless the players and GM
cooperate to do so.
Jasin Zujovic
seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com says...
> >>>> I'm inclined to agree with one of the responders to this thread who
> >>>> said that game balance is a false god.
> >>>
> >>> That's me.
> >>>
> >> That should be printed in the front page of every RPG...
> >
> > I have to disagree with it. Balance isn't easily acheivable, but
> > that doesn't stop it being a worthy goal.
>
> Balance is achievable. Game Balance, as in "enforced only by the
> rules" is a false god and not achievable as the rules can't account
> for all situations.
That's true in principle...
> Balance is a purely in-game phenomenon determined by the cooperation,
> or lack thereof, between players and GM. No number of rules can force
> it, nor can any number of rules break it, unless the players and GM
> cooperate to do so.
... however, I disagree here.
Balance is ultimately accomplished (or not) at the table, but the rules
definitely have a very significant impact on what happens.
A DM might, in play, make a feat that gives a fighter +20 to damage with
a single weapon isn't perfectly balanced. After all, a game might be
about a foray into the Dungeon of 1001 Exotic Deathraps and Few to No
Monsters, which makes +20 to damage about as useful as Skill Focus
(search).
However, there are always default assumptions, and under D&D's default
assumptions, it takes much more work for the DM to balance a +20 to
damage feat than a +2 to damage feat.
In that context, I'd say rule-enforced balance is a worthy goal: rules
that make it easier for the players and DM to achieve balance.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Some Guy
> Sigh, I miss Chris Burke.
>
> Gerald Katz
>
Sigh, I miss MSB.
Hadsil
On Oct 17, 7:55 pm, Some Guy <noemailformetha...@anyplace.invalid>
wrote:
> Hadsil wrote:
> > Sigh, I miss Chris Burke.
>
> Sigh, I miss MSB.
Oh man would he have had a field day here.
Gerald Katz
Bruce L Grubb
Which does nothing to support the claim of why the GURPS
encumberance-magic fatigue relationship (which is the result of several
rules) is absurd. The logic holes for the D&D restriction are easily
pointed out and have been going all the way back to AD&D1.
Symbol
>
> Symbol wrote:
> > "Bruce L Grubb" <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in message
> > news:1161087552....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > In the context of the rules themselves it makes perfect sense.
Fatigue
> > > levels are calculated from strength and it is entirely weight based
ie
> > > a 50 pound backpack is as fatiguing in combat as 50 pounds of armor.
> >
> > So combining it with a stupid rule somehow excuses the justification
of
> > its own stupidity? I think not.
>
> THIS IS COMBINING IT WITH ANYTHING. SHEESH. Core rules say fighting
> with certain lever of encomerance cost fatigues. Spells cost fatigue.
> The over lap of these two seperate rules is obvious.
Of course it is. It's combining the explaination that weight causes levels
of fatigue where as I've already explained load distribution is actually
far more important. Gurps has a stupid rule about weight, DnD has one
about restricted movement.
> > > D&D makes a big deal out of armor but this results in wizards being
> > > able to put on 50 pounds of bulky clothing and have no problem with
his
> > > spells as long as it is not 'armor' of some type but the moment they
> > > put on armor regardless of its weight or design they have problems.
> >
> > Yes. This is also stupid and a blatant flavour/balancing rule. It's
also
> > inconsistent with other rules for handling restricted or effected
> > movement. This does not change the fact that the Gurps variation is
just
> > as absurd though.
>
> Explain how it is absurd rather than being lazy and claiming it is.
Already done fool.
Bruce L Grubb
Symbol wrote:
> Of course it is. It's combining the explaination that weight causes levels
> of fatigue where as I've already explained load distribution is actually
> far more important. Gurps has a stupid rule about weight, DnD has one
> about restricted movement.
Why is the rule about weight in GURPS stupid and how is is stupid?
Remember GURPS 4e changed things and they did a little change in the
fatigue rules. Get it wrong and we KNOW you have no idea on what you
are talking about.
David Klassen
Bruce L Grubb wrote:
> Symbol wrote:
>
> > Of course it is. It's combining the explaination that weight causes levels
> > of fatigue where as I've already explained load distribution is actually
> > far more important. Gurps has a stupid rule about weight, DnD has one
> > about restricted movement.
>
> Why is the rule about weight in GURPS stupid and how is is stupid?
Carry a 50 lb. load in hands. Put a 50 lb. in a sack slung over your
shoulder. Put a 50 lb. load in a backpack. Cinch that backback to
your waist/hips.
Surely you can see that a "50 lb. load" is NOT equal in these four
cases.
> Remember GURPS 4e changed things and they did a little change in the
> fatigue rules. Get it wrong and we KNOW you have no idea on what you
> are talking about.
What he's talking about is this: ALL game systems have rules that
make simplified models which are going to be called "stupid" by
someone who prefers a different model.
GURPS apparently only cares about weight carried---which is stupid
because *how* that load is carried is really what causes fatigue in RL.
D&D uses a weight carried plus armor "bulkiness" to limit movement.
You claim that's stupid because it simply states by rules fiat that
some
of these armors are too restrictive for wizards and sorcerers to use.
Both systems (appear to) attempt to achieve the result that those
with spell casting ability are going to be less well armored than the
fighting types as per the standard fantasy genre.
Symbol
>
> Symbol wrote:
>
> > Of course it is. It's combining the explaination that weight causes
levels
> > of fatigue where as I've already explained load distribution is
actually
> > far more important. Gurps has a stupid rule about weight, DnD has one
> > about restricted movement.
>
> Why is the rule about weight in GURPS stupid and how is is stupid?
Asked and answered you bloody intellectual cripple.
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>
>Symbol wrote:
>
>> Of course it is. It's combining the explaination that weight causes levels
>> of fatigue where as I've already explained load distribution is actually
>> far more important. Gurps has a stupid rule about weight, DnD has one
>> about restricted movement.
>
>Why is the rule about weight in GURPS stupid and how is is stupid?
Because a 50 pound rock does not encumber you the same way a 50 pound suit
of platemail does. GURPS assumes that they are identical. They aren't.
Therefore the GURPS rules are stupid.
Sea Wasp
Where'd he go? I thought I saw him flaming around not too long ago.
phoenixpaw
I have, and while it was a bit heavy it was only slightly restricting
because the armour wasn't made for me (but for a larger person).
The backpack I normally carry around town is more offbalancing that
those armour are.
I've seen people wearing plate armours do cartwheels...
Now, how -restricting- is that?
Symbol
"phoenixpaw" <phoen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eh55p5$9ub$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Have you ever worn a medieval-type suit of armour?
Yes.
> I have, and while it was a bit heavy it was only slightly restricting
> because the armour wasn't made for me (but for a larger person).
I know.
> The backpack I normally carry around town is more offbalancing that
> those armour are.
Sure. Carrying a box in your arms even more so.
> I've seen people wearing plate armours do cartwheels...
> Now, how -restricting- is that?
It isn't. Now what is the point of your question?
Bruce L Grubb
David Klassen wrote:
> Bruce L Grubb wrote:
> > Symbol wrote:
> >
> > > Of course it is. It's combining the explaination that weight causes levels
> > > of fatigue where as I've already explained load distribution is actually
> > > far more important. Gurps has a stupid rule about weight, DnD has one
> > > about restricted movement.
> >
> > Why is the rule about weight in GURPS stupid and how is is stupid?
>
> Carry a 50 lb. load in hands. Put a 50 lb. in a sack slung over your
> shoulder. Put a 50 lb. load in a backpack. Cinch that backback to
> your waist/hips.
>
> Surely you can see that a "50 lb. load" is NOT equal in these four
> cases.
True but the fatigue i am talking about is *combat fatigue*. Anybody
that carries 50 lb. in a sack into combat has got other problems than
carrying 50 lb. in a sack.
> > Remember GURPS 4e changed things and they did a little change in the
> > fatigue rules. Get it wrong and we KNOW you have no idea on what you
> > are talking about.
>
> What he's talking about is this: ALL game systems have rules that
> make simplified models which are going to be called "stupid" by
> someone who prefers a different model.
And since GURPS has combat and 'normal' fatigue and I am talking about
only the combat type your point is?
> GURPS apparently only cares about weight carried---which is stupid
> because *how* that load is carried is really what causes fatigue in RL.
Combat fatigue factors in after a set time in GURPS 4e.
> D&D uses a weight carried plus armor "bulkiness" to limit movement.
> You claim that's stupid because it simply states by rules fiat that
> some of these armors are too restrictive for wizards and sorcerers to use.
Some? Try ALL. wizards and sorcerers must resort to a feat to cast
spells if they don't want to risk arcane spell failure and they have to
learn the spell at a higher level than normal.
> Both systems (appear to) attempt to achieve the result that those
> with spell casting ability are going to be less well armored than the
> fighting types as per the standard fantasy genre
Except in GURPS a 'wizard' is ANY spell caster which would include the
Cleric and Paladin who in D&D can have heavy armor. The Lighten spell
as well as fit and very fit advantages can explain this in GURPS while
D&D most resort to 'well their spells are divine'
But then you run into the Bard wo uses arcane spells but D&D asks us
to believe that in all this time wizards and sorcerers have not managed
to create 'standard' versions of their spells that like the Bard's so
when they wear armor their spells do risk going kaupt. Things gog
totally pearshaped when you have a wizard/Bard character as there is no
real explination why the wizard doesn't bring his bard knowledge to
bare and come up with 'standard' varients to the existing spells.
Bruce L Grubb
Given that carring a 50 pound rock (unless you are going to throw it at
somebody) into combat (which is when these rules matter to the wizard)
is stupid that does not make the GURPS encumberance rules themselves
stupid. Never mind there are spells the wizard can use to lessen the
load anyhow.
Symbol
How the hell can anyone be stupid enough to think this is any kind of
response?!
He's isn't saying carrying a 50lb rock into combat makes the rules stupid.
He is trying to explain a very simple concept to you. ALL WEIGHTS ARE NOT
EQUAL when it comes to causing ANY KIND of fatigue.
> Never mind there are spells the wizard can use to lessen the
> load anyhow.
How is that relevant to the stupid lack of distinction between load types
and combat fatigue?
Bent C Dalager
Bruce L Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>Given that carring a 50 pound rock (unless you are going to throw it at
>somebody) into combat (which is when these rules matter to the wizard)
>is stupid that does not make the GURPS encumberance rules themselves
>stupid. Never mind there are spells the wizard can use to lessen the
>load anyhow.
The basic point that I think one is trying to make is that if you hold
your arm straight out from your body, then holding a 5-lbs item in
that hand is more exhausting than if you had strapped the same 5-lbs
item to your belt.
Likewise, items that are inconvenient to carry encumber a lot more
than their weight alone might indicate. The difference can be so
simple as to whether or not the 50-lbs rock has carrying straps.
I expect the GURPS encumbrance rules are based on an assumption along
the lines of "assuming you can find a convenient way to carry X, then
X encumbers you this much" but I'm not sure if this assumption is
explicitly stated anywhere.
Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - b...@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
David Klassen
> David Klassen wrote:
> >
> > Surely you can see that a "50 lb. load" is NOT equal in these four
> > cases.
>
> True but the fatigue i am talking about is *combat fatigue*. Anybody
> that carries 50 lb. in a sack into combat has got other problems than
> carrying 50 lb. in a sack.
Moot. The *point* is that weight is simply NOT the determing factor
for how quickly one get's fatigued. It is weight AND its distribution.
That 50 lb. back, even cinched to your waist, is going to be more
problematic than 50 lb. of armor distributed across your entire body.
> > What he's talking about is this: ALL game systems have rules that
> > make simplified models which are going to be called "stupid" by
> > someone who prefers a different model.
>
> And since GURPS has combat and 'normal' fatigue and I am talking about
> only the combat type your point is?
See above. Unless you drop ALL non-combat gear each and
every time you go into combat.
> > GURPS apparently only cares about weight carried---which is stupid
> > because *how* that load is carried is really what causes fatigue in RL.
>
> Combat fatigue factors in after a set time in GURPS 4e.
How does this even come close to addressing my comment?
> > D&D uses a weight carried plus armor "bulkiness" to limit movement.
>
> > You claim that's stupid because it simply states by rules fiat that
> > some of these armors are too restrictive for wizards and sorcerers to use.
>
> Some? Try ALL. wizards and sorcerers must resort to a feat to cast
Some, all. So what? And the fact they *can* overcome it shows that
some degree of training allows them to deal with the bulk.
> spells if they don't want to risk arcane spell failure and they have to
> learn the spell at a higher level than normal.
And this is a mechinc devised to *encourage* matching the archtype
of the genre, but making allowances for those that don't want to
match the archtype. This sounds like a Good Thing. What's the
problem?
> > Both systems (appear to) attempt to achieve the result that those
> > with spell casting ability are going to be less well armored than the
> > fighting types as per the standard fantasy genre
>
> Except in GURPS a 'wizard' is ANY spell caster which would include the
> Cleric and Paladin who in D&D can have heavy armor. The Lighten spell
And in D&D, magic is broken into 2 categories with several
sub-catgories.
What's your point? That GURPS and D&D are *different*?!
> as well as fit and very fit advantages can explain this in GURPS while
> D&D most resort to 'well their spells are divine'
So? You don't like the model. I get that. But, again, D&D is trying
to model specific archtypes from the genre. The rules may be a
bit ham-fisted, but I don't see how they are intrinsically stupid. Who
are you to say that "magic is magic is magic"? One could claim
that position is the "stupid" one.
> But then you run into the Bard wo uses arcane spells but D&D asks us
But *different* arcane spells. Although 3e simplifies game play
by just having "spells", they still have the underlying idea that,
although all these spellcasters can get the same *effect* (e.g.
Detect Magic) the way they access the mojo to do so is intrinically
different for each of the spellcaster classes.
So, what's "wrong" with that model?
> to believe that in all this time wizards and sorcerers have not managed
> to create 'standard' versions of their spells that like the Bard's so
According to the model, it isn't a matter of "have not" but "can not".
That's just not the way the magic "works". Ham-fisted, perhaps, but
so what? It is one approach to modeling magic that achieves the
desired character archtypes.
> when they wear armor their spells do risk going kaupt. Things gog
> totally pearshaped when you have a wizard/Bard character as there is no
> real explination why the wizard doesn't bring his bard knowledge to
> bare and come up with 'standard' varients to the existing spells.
Because, according to the model, Bard magic is *different*.
phoenixpaw
So, you agree that a wellcrafted armour for the person wearing it poses
no restrictions in movements?
Del Rio
Dominus Casuum <dominus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm relatively new to this message board. All right, I subscribed last
>night.
And already that article title and intro nearly earned
you a plonk. Not the best start.
--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
Ken Andrews
> Symbol skrev:
>> "phoenixpaw" <phoen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> I have, and while it was a bit heavy it was only slightly restricting
>>> because the armour wasn't made for me (but for a larger person).
>>
>> I know.
>>
>>> The backpack I normally carry around town is more offbalancing that
>>> those armour are.
>>
>> Sure. Carrying a box in your arms even more so.
>>
>>> I've seen people wearing plate armours do cartwheels...
>>> Now, how -restricting- is that?
>>
>> It isn't. Now what is the point of your question?
>
> So, you agree that a wellcrafted armour for the person wearing it poses no
> restrictions in movements?
So, you agree that a gymnast performing in front of the Olympic judges will
do just as well wearing a perfectly-fitted suit of armour as she will
wearing a Spandex suit?
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>
>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2006 03:10:11 -0700, "Bruce L Grubb" <bgr...@zianet.com> scribed
>> into the ether:
>>
>> >
>> >Symbol wrote:
>> >
>> >> Of course it is. It's combining the explaination that weight causes levels
>> >> of fatigue where as I've already explained load distribution is actually
>> >> far more important. Gurps has a stupid rule about weight, DnD has one
>> >> about restricted movement.
>> >
>> >Why is the rule about weight in GURPS stupid and how is is stupid?
>>
>> Because a 50 pound rock does not encumber you the same way a 50 pound suit
>> of platemail does. GURPS assumes that they are identical. They aren't.
>> Therefore the GURPS rules are stupid.
>
>Given that carring a 50 pound rock (unless you are going to throw it at
>somebody) into combat (which is when these rules matter to the wizard)
>is stupid that does not make the GURPS encumberance rules themselves
>stupid.
Given that GURPS treats the situation exactly the same, it does in fact
mean that the encumberance rules are stupid. And as always, the point sails
straight over your head. All weights are not equal.
Try carrying a 50 lb lead weight vs carrying a 50 pound inflated balloon,
tell us how equal 50 pounds are.
David Johnston
wrote:
Sometimes you have to do things like that, though. For example,
suppose you've been on a quest to find the cauldron that brings dead
soldiers back to life. It's not heavier than your suit of heavy plate
mail, but because you have to carry it in your arms instead of on your
back it's much more tiring.
phoenixpaw
components, but that they would be on par with what Olypic gymnasts
would do on competition, I simply had no IDEA...
But wouldn't a robe be about as much in the way for a gymnast/mage as a
light, wellcrafted armour? Oh, right, the mage wears only a robe because
it's easy to get out of, so they can cast their spell in their
spandex-suit and then quickly put on the robe again. That's it. Thank you.
So you're right, no spellweaver can wear armour and cast any spells,
even if the spell only require vocal components. Armour is -that- heavy
and restricting...
It's not like it's purely a game-balance thing that they could admitt.
Ed Chauvin IV
wrote:
If it were in fact, "perfectly-fitted", yes. If the performance
suffers, than it's due to the fit being imperfect. ;-)
Ed Chauvin IV
--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Rast
> In article <1160943478.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Dominus Casuum <dominus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm relatively new to this message board. All right, I subscribed last
> >night.
>
> And already that article title and intro nearly earned
> you a plonk. Not the best start.
The final straw for me was "I'd just like to end this by apologizing to
the hordes of people I'm sure I offended in this rant," at the end.
--
"It's only possible to betray where loyalty is due," said Sandy.
"Well, wasn't it due to Miss Brodie?"
"Only up to a point," said Sandy.
- Muriel Spark
Hadsil
On Oct 18, 3:28 pm, phoenixpaw <phoenix...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So you're right, no spellweaver can wear armour and cast any spells,
> even if the spell only require vocal components. Armour is -that- heavy
> and restricting...
> It's not like it's purely a game-balance thing that they could admitt.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Incorrect. If a spell only requires vocal components, a wizard can
wear full plate, carry a tower shield, and still be able to cast that
spell without any chance of failure, even at 1st level.
Gerald Katz
Bruce L Grubb
Apportation in GURPS Magic or Floating Disk in D&D nean you don't have
to *physically* carry the thing. Lighten would reduce its actual weight
and there is always Hideaway which is the GURPS equivalent of Secret
Chest. Again stupid characters do not make for for a stupid
abstraction. Also combat fatigue is handled different than 'regular'
fatigue something that was true even in GURPS 1e never mind taking such
a cauldron into combat is very bad idea (5*DR of damage and magical
enchantment go bye bye under GUPRS Magic)
The point you are missing D&D came up with the rule and then tried to
explain it despite the fact the explinaitons have holes big enough to
fly the Hindenburg through. GURPS came up with a fatigue abstraction
and has spells powered by fatigue so the idea wizards will either forgo
armor or go for the lightest stuff (which tends to be less protective)
flows from the mechanics of the system.
Bruce L Grubb
The flaw is the Bard who also uses arcane spells which require Somatic
components "can cast bard spells while wearing light armor without
incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance" Yet we are also asked
to believe the classes that specialize in arcane magic (Sorcerer and
Wizard) have not come up with 'standard' varients of spells that have
Somatic components comparative to the Bard and have to resort to the
Still Spell feat which the bard can also pick up.
As I said before it is the Ranger/Magic-User nonsense of AD&D1 all over
again and has all the SAME basic problems while also itrying to explain
why no Bard/Sorcerer or Bard/Wizard has come up with such alternative
spell varients. Remember Bards can learn Still Spell just like
Sorcerer and Wizard so that is NOT an out.
In GURPS the fatigue reason is at least consistant which is NOT the
case for D&D with regard to arcane spells and requires the
'professionals' to be utter morons to work.
David Johnston
wrote:
Or I could load it on a truck and drive away. If I had a truck or a
spell that is. But how is that even a little bit relevant?
Lighten would reduce its actual weight
>and there is always Hideaway which is the GURPS equivalent of Secret
>Chest. Again stupid characters do not make for for a stupid
>abstraction.
I'm sorry, you're assuming my character is stupid just because he
doesn't know magic?
Also combat fatigue is handled different than 'regular'
>fatigue something that was true even in GURPS 1e
Dude, if someone attacks you obviously you're going to put down the
cauldron. But you'll still be fatigued.
never mind taking such
>a cauldron into combat is very bad idea (5*DR of damage and magical
>enchantment go bye bye under GUPRS Magic)
What, he's going to abandon his prize instead of taking it back?
>
>The point you are missing D&D came up with the rule and then tried to
>explain it despite the fact the explinaitons have holes big enough to
>fly the Hindenburg through.
Don't much care. I have no real interest in your pissing match with
D&D. But GURPS could use an "awkward load" penalty to encumberance
fatigue.
Symbol
>
> Hadsil wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 3:28 pm, phoenixpaw <phoenix...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So you're right, no spellweaver can wear armour and cast any spells,
> > > even if the spell only require vocal components. Armour is -that-
heavy
> > > and restricting...
> > > It's not like it's purely a game-balance thing that they could
admitt.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
> >
> > Incorrect. If a spell only requires vocal components, a wizard can
> > wear full plate, carry a tower shield, and still be able to cast that
> > spell without any chance of failure, even at 1st level.
>
> The flaw is the Bard who also uses arcane spells which require Somatic
> components "can cast bard spells while wearing light armor without
> incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance" Yet we are also asked
> to believe the classes that specialize in arcane magic (Sorcerer and
> Wizard) have not come up with 'standard' varients of spells that have
> Somatic components comparative to the Bard and have to resort to the
> Still Spell feat which the bard can also pick up.
Your lack of imagination and reading comprehension skill doesn't make
something a flaw.
> As I said before it is the Ranger/Magic-User nonsense of AD&D1 all over
> again and has all the SAME basic problems while also itrying to explain
> why no Bard/Sorcerer or Bard/Wizard has come up with such alternative
> spell varients.
Real life is inherently flawed because scientists haven't developed a
machine to teleport you anywhere on Earth despite the fact that everybody
wants one. Totally unrealistic is real life.
> In GURPS the fatigue reason is at least consistant which is NOT the
> case for D&D with regard to arcane spells
Consistent stupidity is still stupidity.
Symbol
> So, you agree that a wellcrafted armour for the person wearing it poses
> no restrictions in movements?
Few restrictions in movement would be more accurate but essentially yes. I
repeat, however, what is the point of your question?
If you are somehow labouring under the misapprehension that I'm defending
the D&D spell casting rule based on reality then you need to look closely
as I explicitly acknowledge it isn't (not that I'm against it since it
models a specific literary archetype as explained by David Klassen
previously).
The whole *point* is that Grubb thinks its stupid because it isn't based
on reality but then absurdly tries to defend or ignore the fact that
carrying 50lbs of gear will tire you more than wearing 50lbs of plate
because Gurps doesn't model that and Gurps is his holy grail of reality.
David Klassen
>
> The point you are missing D&D came up with the rule and then tried to
> explain it despite the fact the explinaitons have holes big enough to
Well, DUH! However, I would put it: D&D decided it wanted to model
particular archtypes and created simple rules to do so. You want
wizards who don't wear armor (as per the archtype of the genre)
you say simply "wizards can't wear armor". Done.
The only way this is a "stupid" rule is if you just gotta have some
kind of in-world *reason* for the rule. Now, as a physicist, I'm sorta
in that camp, but there is ABSOLUTELY no NEED to have these
kinds of internal explanations for a GAME. If you play Monopoly and
land on Go To Jail, do you demand that there be some reason
that you are being hauled off?!
> fly the Hindenburg through. GURPS came up with a fatigue abstraction
> and has spells powered by fatigue so the idea wizards will either forgo
OK, my turn: why in the world would spells be powered by fatigue?!
Man, that's just so stupid because *clearly* spells can be powered
by extra-dimensional conduits or the gods in such a way that it
doesn't tire out the person using it!
How is the GURPS rule any more "real" than the D&D one?
> armor or go for the lightest stuff (which tends to be less protective)
> flows from the mechanics of the system.
Only if you buy the initial postulate. In other words, at some level
ALL game worlds are going to come down to postulates that are
there by simple fiat. That D&D has more of them than GURPS
is no indication of "stupid" rules. In fact one could go the other
way. Since it's just a GAME, why in the world would you go to
all that trouble trying work up a consistent game-world physics
when you could just make the friggin' rule and be spending your
time, you know, actually *playing* the game?!
David Klassen
>
> The flaw is the Bard who also uses arcane spells which require Somatic
> components "can cast bard spells while wearing light armor without
> incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance" Yet we are also asked
> to believe the classes that specialize in arcane magic (Sorcerer and
Why is this a "flaw"?! Bard magic is *different* from wizard magic
which is *different* from sorcerer magic which is *different* from
cleric magic which is...
> Wizard) have not come up with 'standard' varients of spells that have
> Somatic components comparative to the Bard and have to resort to the
> Still Spell feat which the bard can also pick up.
How about: wizard magic is *different* from bard magic? They may
want to be able to cast spells as bards, but their magic doesn't
work that way. See, the universe has this pesky habit of not always
working the way you *want* it to work.
Your assumption that all magic *must* be the same is flawed. It's
not an invalid way to design a magic system, it's just not the system
that was chosen for D&D---which is itself, not an invalid system. All
it is lacking is a detailed explanation of how/why all these magics,
which can all create the same effects, work differently. So what?!
> As I said before it is the Ranger/Magic-User nonsense of AD&D1 all over
> again and has all the SAME basic problems while also itrying to explain
As has been said before: AD&D rules are moot.
As I've said before: there is no problem. Ranger magic is
*different* from wizard magic.
> why no Bard/Sorcerer or Bard/Wizard has come up with such alternative
> spell varients. Remember Bards can learn Still Spell just like
> Sorcerer and Wizard so that is NOT an out.
The varients exist to a degree---just use the appropriate feat.
Breaking the rules of magic has a cost and each flavor of magic
has its own rules.
> In GURPS the fatigue reason is at least consistant which is NOT the
> case for D&D with regard to arcane spells and requires the
> 'professionals' to be utter morons to work.
D&D is most certainly consistent. It's just not the same as what
you like. You perfer that ALL magic obey the same rules. D&D
doesn't. Each class uses magic is different ways that follow different
rules. How is this inconsistent?!
Bruce L Grubb
Symbol wrote:
> "Bruce L Grubb" <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:1161242476.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Hadsil wrote:
> > > On Oct 18, 3:28 pm, phoenixpaw <phoenix...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So you're right, no spellweaver can wear armour and cast any spells,
> > > > even if the spell only require vocal components. Armour is -that-
> heavy
> > > > and restricting...
> > > > It's not like it's purely a game-balance thing that they could
> admitt.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
> > >
> > > Incorrect. If a spell only requires vocal components, a wizard can
> > > wear full plate, carry a tower shield, and still be able to cast that
> > > spell without any chance of failure, even at 1st level.
> >
> > The flaw is the Bard who also uses arcane spells which require Somatic
> > components "can cast bard spells while wearing light armor without
> > incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance" Yet we are also asked
> > to believe the classes that specialize in arcane magic (Sorcerer and
> > Wizard) have not come up with 'standard' varients of spells that have
> > Somatic components comparative to the Bard and have to resort to the
> > Still Spell feat which the bard can also pick up.
>
> Your lack of imagination and reading comprehension skill doesn't make
> something a flaw.
Your lack of magination and reading comprehension skill doesn't mean
there isn't a flaw. The EXPERTS cannot figure out how to do this but a
dabler can? This is brain dead and was brain dead in AD&D1 with the
Ranger and put in out what are basicly same tired copouts that the
defender of the AD&D1 idiocy doesn't mean you have defended the
position. AD&D2 at least admited there WAS a problem and made Rangers
non-arcane spell slingers.
Symbol
> > > The flaw is the Bard who also uses arcane spells which require
Somatic
> > > components "can cast bard spells while wearing light armor without
> > > incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance" Yet we are also
asked
> > > to believe the classes that specialize in arcane magic (Sorcerer and
> > > Wizard) have not come up with 'standard' varients of spells that
have
> > > Somatic components comparative to the Bard and have to resort to the
> > > Still Spell feat which the bard can also pick up.
> >
> > Your lack of imagination and reading comprehension skill doesn't make
> > something a flaw.
>
> Your lack of magination and reading comprehension skill doesn't mean
> there isn't a flaw. The EXPERTS cannot figure out how to do this but a
> dabler can? This is brain dead and was brain dead in AD&D1
Its brain dead that the Rocket Scientists can't replicate the Opera
Singers? QED basically.
Bruce L Grubb
Actually it is more on par with the Country Singer able to do opera
better than the Opera Singer.
Remember that Bards, Sorcerer and Wizard all use arcane spells just as
Rangers and Magic-User both used magic user spells in AD&D1. Have the
dablers in the field of arcane magic do something that the experts in
arcane magic is just plan stupid and coming up with nonsense
comparisons is not coing to change that.
Symbol
No its actually nothing like that at all. RTFM you kook.
> Remember that Bards, Sorcerer and Wizard all use arcane spells just as
> Rangers and Magic-User both used magic user spells in AD&D1.
Bards use bard spells, Sorcerers use Sorcerer spells and Wizards use
Wizards spells. They are all explicitly different. RTFM kook.
> Have the
> dablers in the field of arcane magic do something that the experts in
> arcane magic is just plan stupid and coming up with nonsense
> comparisons is not coing to change that.
There's no such thing as "the field of Arcane Magic" you kook. That's like
claiming someone is an expert in "the field of Art".
T. Heidelmann
your hands in front of you or actually wearing it is a huge difference. i don´t
know if it is covered in the Gurps rules, but to be honest i do not care too
much. keeping track of encumberance is boring enough already and having to
adjust the enc. everytime someone carries some object in his hands, puts it in
his backpack or carries it on his shoulder... please!! take a break and just
enjoy the game!
Tobias
Bruce L Grubb schrieb:
> Symbol wrote:
>
> > Of course it is. It's combining the explaination that weight causes levels
> > of fatigue where as I've already explained load distribution is actually
> > far more important. Gurps has a stupid rule about weight, DnD has one
> > about restricted movement.
>
> Why is the rule about weight in GURPS stupid and how is is stupid?
Marcel Beaudoin
@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Again stupid characters do not make for for a stupid
> abstraction.
You owe me a new Irony meter.
~consul
> Hadsil wrote:
>> Incorrect. If a spell only requires vocal components, a wizard can
>> wear full plate, carry a tower shield, and still be able to cast that
>> spell without any chance of failure, even at 1st level.
> The flaw is the Bard who also uses arcane spells which require Somatic
> components "can cast bard spells while wearing light armor without
> incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance" Yet we are also asked
> to believe the classes that specialize in arcane magic (Sorcerer and
> Wizard) have not come up with 'standard' varients of spells that have
> Somatic components comparative to the Bard and have to resort to the
> Still Spell feat which the bard can also pick up.
I thought that it was because they are using their instrument at the same time as the
somatic component, or that they are so intouch with the grace of action, they get around
that restrtiction by making bardic magic versions.
It's not meant to show that they are not making gestures at all.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Christopher Adams
>
> i guess the guy has a point. Carrying a chain mail in a backpack,
> holding it in your hands in front of you or actually wearing it is a
> huge difference. i don´t know if it is covered in the Gurps rules, but
> to be honest i do not care too much. keeping track of encumberance is
> boring enough already and having to adjust the enc. everytime someone
> carries some object in his hands, puts it in his backpack or carries it
> on his shoulder... please!! take a break and just enjoy the game!
We'd prefer if you didn't top-post in rec.games.frp.dnd, thanks.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
-------
What can change the nature of a man?
-------
Sydney-based gamers - Get in touch with
SUTEKH at the University of Sydney!
http://forum.sutekh.info/
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
If only that were in any way relevant.
> Again stupid characters do not make for for a stupid
>abstraction.
Saying "Well, don't do that" in response to criticisms of the weight
mechanic in GURPS does not come across as a ringing endorsement of GURPS'
weight mechanic not being stupid.
You know it, you just can't admit it.