Fabius Maximus wrote:
However, I think one of the few things 4e did right was the distinction between rituals and quick and dirty magic. It's almost like in the Dresden files, which makes it better suited for roleplaying.
I really liked the idea, but some of the implementation details didn't sit right. Like how a level 25 fighter was one feat away from being as good at rituals as a level 25 wizard was...
I was going to say for simplicity's sake, but I"m not sure that's really the only (or even best) reason.
Part of the problem with Vancian casting is encounter balancing. The difficulty of an encounter can vary wildly based on whether that *one* particular spell has been prepared or not. I'm also not convinced that spells balanced against one another for Vancian purposes would remain so for spontaneous purposes. The entire sorcerer class in 3.0 seems kinda half-baked to me for this reason. Not only was there no clear conceptual niche for the class, but the balance was wonky -- almost as if the only reason it existed was to put arcane spells to better use.
As I wrote in the Pathfinder 2 thread, I think I would probably prefer spontaneous casting all around. It's just as dead simple as Vancian, but doesn't require the prep-work, or the weirdness around being able to cast a meteor swarm, but not a fireball. It seems to be the best match for most genre fiction without introducing spell points or similar. Keep zero level spells usable at will (maybe losing them if you have NO slots left), and go through and revise the spell lists with only spontaneous casters in mind. Drop extra time for metamagic. KISS. :)
Bill Dunn wrote:
Meh. Reads like another diatribe against D&D Next backsliding away from 4e by a 4e fan to me.
Maybe. But for me it has nothing to do with what 4E did or didn't do -- rather, the idea is that we should be open to whatever works best, because the essence of D&D isn't Vancian casting (or saving throws, or even hit points).
As for Vancian casting -- I think I would probably prefer spontaneous casting all around. It's just as dead simple as Vancian, but doesn't require the prep-work, or the weirdness around being able to cast a meteor swarm, but not a fireball. It seems to be the best match for most genre fiction without introducing spell points or similar. Keep zero level spells usable at will, and go through the spell lists with only spontaneous casters in mind. Drop extra time for metamagic. KISS. :)
This bugs me for a couple of reasons.
First, your implied premise is that D&D's success was caused by Vancian casting. If you want your conclusion ("Vancian casting should be kept intact") to carry any weight, you must first demonstrate the validity of that premise. You have failed.
Second, you're suggesting that if someone doesn't share your affinity for Vancian casting, they should go find another game. Others have just as much right to express their opinion of the direction they'd like the game to take as you do. If that bothers you, perhaps you are the one that needs to go.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
This system also promotes a bit of "swinginess" in area-effect spells; since all the saves can be rolled separately (vs. a single attack roll vs. static defenses), there's no way for an NPC to roll a natural 20 and be pretty much assured of affecting the entire party (TPK City!), or for a player to roll a natural 1 and therefore automatically fail to meaningfully affect any of the 15 little monsters in the radius of his fireball.
It's been a while since I've played 4E, but I'm pretty sure you rolled to hit separately for each target.
Chris Mortika wrote:
I saw that post and stole the idea, except that instead of construction paper I used thin black plastic sheets (taken from plastic Wal-Mart report folders @ $.59 a folder). All told, the material cost about eight bucks for more circles than I'll ever need at once, and the plastic is more durable.
Dr. Calvin Murgunstrumm wrote:
Skills: Should remained essentially untouched. The skills system of 3.0 was it's crown jewel, and other than a little rewording to make perception, sense motive and stealth a little clearer, this should be nothing but a little tinkering.
I think I'd like to see just a little more consolidation. I'm not sure the knowledge/craft split is really worth keeping around, for example. Alternatively, all class should get 2 more skill points. :)
Would it matter? I think an utter disregard for the law (and courtesy) is pretty much the hallmark of spammers.
What kills me is that some people, somewhere continue to reply to spam. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?! :P
We're drifting dangerous close to both irrelevance and edition warring, so I'm going to be very careful here.
IN MY OPINION, 4E's mechanics were a big improvement over 3.5/Pathfinder's. But I play Pathfinder in spite of this because of the support, the network, and the way WotC operated during the 4E run.
I would love to see pathfinder get a good streamlining. I would also love to see 5E come out and be very successful. Either of those outcomes would be preferable to the current situation, which (again, in my opinion) is a chronic case of Pathfinder rules bloat, as exemplified by the forthcoming Mythic rules.
I deliberately picked a terrible analogy -- in fact, that was kinda the point. But my amazing BMIQ(tm) has allowed me to infer that you might be taking this more seriously than I am...
And if you can show that BMI correlates to intelligence, then it might be worth using it as a proxy for intelligence, since it's so much easier to measure. Without that, it's worthless of course.
I'd like to point out that I'm didn't say that BMI is a proxy for intelligence, or that it correclates. It is a direct measure. Fat = smart. What can I say? My reflexes suck.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be passing off correlation as causation. If you wanted to finish the argument you started, you'd have to demonstrate that D&D is successful specifically because of Vancian spellcasting.
Also, what's us with the "we"? If you've been authorized to speak on behalf of D&D players, I didn't get the memo.
But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the House voted on and even passed articles of impeachment, if they can get any traction with any of these charges. And not just the stupid ones. It's a political calculation. If they did hold such a vote, many Republicans who voted against it would face primary challengers attacking them for it. There's been so much energy invested in painting Obama as illegitimate, corrupt and un-American that a good chunk of the Base wouldn't accept anything else.
Exactly. Many people are far too invested in Obama being a train wreck of a president -- if not an out-right traitor -- that failing to vote for impeachment would essentially be a resignation.
If Obama left office tomorrow, I think his legacy would be a mixed bag, probably putting him somewhere in the forgettable middle of the pack as presidents go. Hell, he'd probably fare better than Carter simply for having gotten a 2nd term. To me he'd be most memorable for (1) being black, and (2) failing to live up to expectations (though in fairness, could anyone)?
Bill Dunn wrote:
The shift to 3e from 2e didn't allow us to be nearly as seamless, yet conversions from 2e to 3e worked reasonably well. We could't really even do that with 4e so there was no chance of taking the 20+ year old campaign and characters to the new system.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't agree with this last part. I'm pretty sure it was possible to convert a 3E campaign to a 4E one -- I know people that did it.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
From my point of view, it's a network thing. Ongoing support, a healthy organized play environment, and local player activity, etc.
Personally, I can scarcely imaging having "exactly" the game I want. Even if I thought the mechanics of Pathfinder were absolutely perfect, the Core Rulebook is in desperate need of a re-write.
In Lunar the most precious diamonds in the world...are dragon s*@@. The way dragon ecology has traditionally been would support this theory as well (the offical lore was that dragons - at least true dragons - can eat almost anything with their bodies being like powerful blast furnaces that can digest stuff).
Dragon crap? That's crazy. I swear some people will believe anything. ;-)
Kevin Mack wrote:
Yeah just saw that Royal bank of Scotland after awarding there higher ups 100 million pound (Thats about $152,315,459.25) In bonuses 48 hours later firing 700 staff because there not making enough money. Tell me again how top brass arent getting overpaid?
Well it's not like the ~200k per person would have been enough to...oh wait.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
No, that would be Jonathan Franklin. In case you didn't know, quotation marks (" ") indicate that somebody other than the writer is speaking.
Only when used in pairs...but then again, you are a goblin, after all. Also, since we're being pedantic, no one was "speaking." Oh hey, look -- quotation marks used correctly.
Nice try, but no.
There is a substantial difference between a summary and a quotation. And even an inaccurate summary would in fact be news.
On the bright side, if you want to enjoy baseless cries of scandal, there is plenty to go around...
No one said you had to be convicted to be a criminal, but as the person asserting someone's guilt, you have the burden of proof. That's how logic (and our courts) work.
So I ask again: Do you have any evidence?
Try this: Imagine groups applying for tax exempt status are more closely scrutinized if they contain the word "progressive." This additional level of scrutiny is based on someone's belief that "all progressives are the same" and are "up to no good." Even after the increased scrutiny, the groups are vindicated and granted the status requested. Yet the screening continues.
How is anyone OK with this?
Edit: Once again, this is coming from someone who thinks the typical member of the "tea party" is being played harder than an XBox.
These groups were targeted based solely on name. That was Not Okay. Even after being subjected to an increased level of scrutiny, they were still deemed in compliance with the requirements and granted the status requested. Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?
Also, please don't make me agree with Andrew R again. I feel so...funky.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
It's kind of sad that of all the scandals "rocking" the Obama administration, one of them isn't the 100-f&+!ing-day hunger strike by a bunch of dudes who appear to have been, in my humble opinion, locked away for 11 years for no apparent reason
Though I suspect it would be too easy for that one to backfire on Congress.
Also, if we want another fact to debate the deep political, no one in the media knows where Obama was for 5 hours, during which the consulate was attacked.
I know where he was. Obama was coordinating the attack on the consulate while lounging in his golden bathtub (filled with the tears of True Americans(tm)) whilst plotting with the acting directory of the CIA to oppress Tea Party Patriots and with Eric Holder to target the AP. Shortly thereafter, he drove his solar-powered, tax-advantaged limo to Arlington and met up with his Muslim brothers to piss on the graves of U.S. Servicemen.
The tea party groups are OBVIOUSLY political and not social welfare groups.
Then they (and every other group fitting the criteria) should be denied tax-exempt status. But the process shouldn't treat groups differently simply based on name. Which, if I"m not mistaken, is basically what happened. Everyone should be evaluated in the same way using the same criteria.
In other words, don't judge a book by its cover. :)
Have you considered -- and I don't mean this at all in a snarky way -- something like the Hero system? If want a rich, deep set of highly customizable mechanics that can model just about anything well, you might find Hero ideal.
Possibly, but possibly the result of a fullcaster with a pet like the eidolon could've been a real monster. Or it could feel tacked on like the anti-paladin's divine bond. Giving it a focus, rather than making it an archetype, makes it easier to handle sometimes. Archetypes certainly aren't the answer to everything. Even implementing archetypes runs into problems. They don't have support a class will, they sometimes remove things they don't have to and that means RAW they don't mix with others. Crowd control and armor proficiencies on Urban Barbarian for example. It could've just been a variant rage, but instead they made it incompatible with other archetypes by adding additional baggage.
Hmm...it seems like we're talking past each other. I'll try once more.
In my opinion, even a class-based system that strives for a high degree of mechanical differentiation among characters should avoid the introduction of conceptually redundant classes. Failing to do so undermines one of the chief benefits of being class-based in the first place.
I guess part of my dislike is the number of mechanics Pathfinder employs to realize character concepts. Base classes. Archetypes. Prestige classes. Feats. Alternative class features. Combat styles. Even if one digs a wide variety of mechanics (which I happen not to), there has to be a cleaner way to do it.
Again, in my opinion a game should have enough mechanics to do a job, but not more. For me, APG's base classes feel into the "more."
...I do think "buffer with a pet" was still a concept that's different...
Conceded. Although I would have preferred that niche to be handled in some other way. Paizo seems found of Archetypes...I think a wizard archetype could have done the trick (though again, not with the mechanical detail of the summoner).
On top of that (and this is purely an opinionative* difference) I find that the mechanics are what make the game fun. The game itself not the time spent playing it and yadda yadda. So having fresh and new class features and such are going to be more fun than using the same old thing for everything.
Oh, I completely get that. Some (most?) people seem to dig differentiation by new mechanics. I tend not to, but either way, that's a matter of opinion.
My response was intended to reflect my preferences, not as an unassailable bastion of absolute truth.
You're confusing mechanical distinction for conceptual distinction.
I would prefer conceptually distinct classes with flexible mechanics to maximize the niches that can be well covered -- again, something like D20 modern. But we're getting beyond the scope of the original question. Someone asked, I answered. No one's honor requires defending. ;-)
Edit: I also thought True20's adept-expert-warrior split was inspired.
I disagree that the game has too many mechanics.
Ok. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.
Excellent point. I'm not a fan of classes like the barbarian, either. But this thread is specifically about the APG classes, so I commented on those.
But mechanics are important.
Having to muscle the same 4 classes into every possible unique role is going to get old very quickly.
Disagree. Or at least, disagree that an ever-expanding suite of classes is the answer. One of the strengths of a class-based design is the conceptual distinctness filled by each class. I'm sure I could have a unique, mechanically interesting left-handed, red-headed, glave fighter class...but why?