****************************
Disclaimer:
1) I'm aware that more than half of this post is a rant.
2) I'm not even hoping it would actually change anything in the rules (now that would be great, but I'm not having any hopes about it).
3) I LOVE Pathfinder, and will keep playing it because it has a SOUL (with house-rule changes but still, what draws me to it is the soul of the game, not necessarily its rules).
****************************
Ok disclaimer done, on with the post:
The people from my d20 mailing list and I started Playtesting Pathfinder just recently (again, LOVE it), with the difference that, for all things regarding magic, we're using 3.0 instead of 3.5, here's the reason why:
You can't narrate a fantasy tale with videogame magic
3.0's magic feels more like the magic of fantasy tales, while 3.5's magic is rather the "magic" you'd find in a videogame. Could you narrate anything the likes of The Last Unicorn with 3.5's magic? No? Yeah I thought so. The only way a GM could be able to narrate a fantasy tale with 3.5's magic would be using plot devices to justify the existence of real magic. For one, I hate plot devices, I hate a GM telling his players "he can do so and so because he's an NPC, you can't". I like to give my players equality, so as a rule of thumb, if an NPC can do something, my players can do so too (or will be able to in some levels).
Am I the only one who thinks 3.5's magic is simlpy not worth it? Am I the only one who thinks a dingy +1 to save DC from 3.5's Spell Focus is rather a complete waste of a feat? Is it something wrong with me for wanting in my stories the magic of fantasy tales without resorting to plot devices? Am I the only one who thinks spellcasters shouldn't be forced to rely on item creation feats to have any resemblance to the real thing?
|
I'm sure you're not the only one.
However, the differences between 3.0 magic and 3.5 magic are mostly pretty minor. I would think if you can't narrate a fantasy story with 3.5, you couldn't do it with 3.0.
I mean, the fact that bull's strength had a measurable duration in 3.0 doesn't change the 'narrative' or seem more or less video-gamey to me, but that's a matter of perspective, so I won't actually disagree with you - just say that I don't see it that way.
I don't think there will be major changes to the way magic works. Wizards will still prepare spells. After the Pathfinder comes out, we'll probably do something like have Spell Points for our games (because we like them better) but that's easy enough to houserule in.
Uh. It's the same magic system...
I just don't agree with you Dogbert. Maybe you can some specific examples of why you can't narrate fantasy using 3.5 but you can with 3.0. Does Pathfinder fix things or make them worse?
I don't see any reason why you can't narrate good fantasy with any of the rule versions.
While I agree that their is a significant difference between 3.0 and 3.5 magic, I think 3.5 is more balanced. I loved playing a wizard in 3.0, but most of the other players at my tables didnt. Wizards were so overpowered with 2 wizards in our group we rarely needed any help from our fellow players. Haste was rhidiculous. 2 spells in a round not counting quickened spells is too powerful. At higher levels hour per level buff spells last all day and can last for most of 2 days with the extend feet or a lesser meta magic rod extend. At 17th level and above it wasnt hard to have DCs in the high 30s, but was much more difficult to reach similar save bonuses. Add that to armour classes in the high 40s or low 50s when buffed, and wizards were extremely more powerful then all other classes. While I enjoyed being hideously powerful in 3.0, I am pleased with my wizards power level in 3.5. I am still the most powerful and versatile player in my group as the wizard, but my comrades are much closer to my power level in 3.5. It makes the game much more enjoyable for all the players involved when it takes teamwork to acomplish your goals. Just my opinion.
Steve
|
From a fantasy storytelling perspective, I understand where the OP is coming from. It's hard to manage great narritives when invisibility is limited to mere minutes / level. How to have secrety wizard spy raids or invisible all day guards where invisibility lasts for so short a time. Or polymorph lasting for such a short period. But these changes were necessary for the game in order to preserve some semblance of balance between characters.
It's sad from an epic storytelling perspective, but I think it was a necessary change - either that, or the spells would have to be fundamentally changed to remove much of their combat effectiveness..
|
|
Except invisibility is not limited to mere minutes - you just use a ring or related item.
But apparently that is not epic enough for some reason.
The thing is, that begs the issue of just why someone has to be able to personally make themselves invisible for an entire day or somesuch for it to properly qualify as "epic". Are there are any particular literary examples that are to be cited? I know there are quite a few examples of items that grant such extended invisibility in myth and legend, as well as various creatures that are naturally invisible, but I do have to ask about personal spellcasting achieving that. Without such examples this sounds a lot more like a personal desire for a random macguffin than an actual system failure.
I can sort of understand the OP. I really hated the fact that 3.5 reduced the durations of some spells. In particular, I hated the reductions to Polymorph and Shapechange, because I was always a Shapechanger nut, and I liked that a level 18+ Wizard could essentially have Shapechange up all day. It was a nice thematic payoff, and something that a high level Wizard or Sorcerer SHOULD be able to do all day. Well, that's my opinion. However, 3.5 re-examined all spells and adjusted them based on their combat / videogame balance. Fair enough, I learned to live with it. Sadly, the continuation of viewing everything in terms of how it might affect a combat encounter is how we arrived at 4th edition.
|
|
Without such examples this sounds a lot more like a personal desire for a random macguffin than an actual system failure.
Of course it's nothing but a personal desire.
I guess I don't understand why someone else's desire for some changes due to storytelling style is so personally repugnant to you.
I don't think the game can afford to switch those kinds of spell powers and spell durations. I just understand where the OP's desire comes from, because I've wished for it myself on occasion.
I've also wondered if it might be possible for spells to have different effects or durations depending on whether you're in or out of combat - because spells that are just too powerful in combat might be so fun in a roleplaying situation with a longer duration or at a lower level. It makes sense to me that a polymorph spell is easy to maintain in a situation where the caster is just walking around and participating in normal everyday interaction, but the duration he can uphold the spell is much shorter in the frenetic action of life-threatening combat.
All in all, though, I've got to say that 3.5 spells work well in general.
|
It's hard to manage great narritives when invisibility is limited to mere minutes / level. How to have secrety wizard spy raids
Or on the flip side, how do you maintain the tension of the scene when the hero can so easily hide? What's the point, thematically if you can spend all day sneaking round with almost no chance of getting caught of even having the scene?
I think the OP's point is ridiculous, not as a function of rules differences, but just in the idea that the rules impact how good a story you can tell. They influence the type of story, and specific situations, obviously, but not the quality.
|
|
It's hard to manage great narritives when invisibility is limited to mere minutes / level. How to have secrety wizard spy raidsOr on the flip side, how do you maintain the tension of the scene when the hero can so easily hide? What's the point, thematically if you can spend all day sneaking round with almost no chance of getting caught of even having the scene?
Ah, the point is, the enemy can do the same thing then. It makes things complex when abilities are expanded, but I hate the idea of magic being small.
On the other hand, in game, if magic isn't limited then martial characters are robbed of relevance. And I love playing bruisers, so that's no fun either!!!
I'm not saying durations need to be changed - or should be changed. I don't think the current rules prevent good storytelling. I just understand the yearning of the OP for more fantastic magical abilities, and am a little surprised and frustrated at the negative attitude his opinion's bringing out from the community in this thread. I've generally found paizo's community more friendly than...er...others I've participated in, but the tone in this thread is surprisingly sharp.
As for the "idea that rules impact how good a story you can tell", I don't believe the 3.5 magic rules or PFRPG magic rules as opposed to the 3.0 magic rules are horrible for storytelling - but I do think bad mechanics can get in the way of good storytelling unless you discard the mechanics.
I personally find 4.0 very limiting in the freedom it allows players, with everything so structured around measurable play balance for combat encounters that I'm hemmed in by restrictive rules constructs so rigid I feel like the 4.0 D&D world is digital and discrete rather than analog and continuous. The differences between 3.0 and 3.5 magic, on the other hand, is noticable but not nearly as restrictive.
Or on the flip side, how do you maintain the tension of the scene when the hero can so easily hide? What's the point, thematically if you can spend all day sneaking round with almost no chance of getting caught of even having the scene?
On the flip side again, why does every scene have to be filled with tension? Or more to the point, if the ability to become invisible for extended periods removes the tension from one element, it allows you to shift the conflict to something else. So WHAT if the guy can be invisible all day? Just accept the repercussions, let the player have his fun, and let the story be about something else.
It's just like a comic book. Some new writer comes on to a comic book for a few months and wants to write a detective mystery, but the main character (or someone on the team) is a telepath. Well, you can only stomach plot contrivances to remove the telepathy for the story SO many times. At some point, just let it go. So the character figures out "whodunnit" right away? That's fine. Make the story about something else. Same with Superman. OK so you can't shoot him. OK so you keep doing the stupid kryptonite thing. A good writer will step up to the plate and EMBRACE the dude's ability, and the challenge and the tension will be about something else. Check out ALL STAR SUPERMAN for a VERY well done story about a version of superman that IS super powerful and super intelligent. The writer STARTS there and goes up, up and away with the storytelling.
A Wizard can be invisible all day or stay in a shapeshifted form all day. So maybe that makes the story about something else, other than "how can the Wizard possibly escape this trap?! Hee Hee!"
Curtailing spell durations to make everything a nail-biter or video game resource allocation challenge is one of the things I DONT like about D&D. At least it isnt as bad as when the GM just has a spell fail because he didn't account for it. Hey, sometimes you get to the last fight, cast Banishment, and the bad guy rolls a "1" and the big climactic fight is over on round one. I HATE it when that gets undermined for "scene tension" too.
|
|
Or on the flip side, how do you maintain the tension of the scene when the hero can so easily hide? What's the point, thematically if you can spend all day sneaking round with almost no chance of getting caught of even having the scene?On the flip side again, why does every scene have to be filled with tension? Or more to the point, if the ability to become invisible for extended periods removes the tension from one element, it allows you to shift the conflict to something else. So WHAT if the guy can be invisible all day? Just accept the repercussions, let the player have his fun, and let the story be about something else.
It's just like a comic book. Some new writer comes on to a comic book for a few months and wants to write a detective mystery, but the main character (or someone on the team) is a telepath. Well, you can only stomach plot contrivances to remove the telepathy for the story SO many times. At some point, just let it go. So the character figures out "whodunnit" right away? That's fine. Make the story about something else. Same with Superman. OK so you can't shoot him. OK so you keep doing the stupid kryptonite thing. A good writer will step up to the plate and EMBRACE the dude's ability, and the challenge and the tension will be about something else. Check out ALL STAR SUPERMAN for a VERY well done story about a version of superman that IS super powerful and super intelligent. The writer STARTS there and goes up, up and away with the storytelling.
A Wizard can be invisible all day or stay in a shapeshifted form all day. So maybe that makes the story about something else, other than "how can the Wizard possibly escape this trap?! Hee Hee!"
Curtailing spell durations to make everything a nail-biter or video game resource allocation challenge is one of the things I DONT like about D&D. At least it isnt as bad as when the GM just has a spell fail because he didn't account for it. Hey, sometimes you get to the last fight, cast Banishment, and the bad guy rolls a...
I think the point is, they are curtailed for *mechanical* reasons, and that curtailing doesn't make it more or less difficult to tell a *good* story. It *does* make it difficult to tell some *specific* stories, but any rule at all will do that....
Try Elements of Magic revised edition the system takes a whilhe to get used to but once youve got it is a powerful system but not overpowered.
The only problem is mana manegment in epic levels becomes irrelevant but really not many would run epic elements campaigns. I can tell you its a lot of fun, hard but fun.
I dont know how much people kow about it you can buy it at the EN world store, its published by them. essentially you have lists of spell types and then spending mana points in various lists creates spells e.g
invoke fire 1/gen 1 would cost 2 mana points and could deal cone damage 1d6 but if i increased general enhancments to invoke fire1/gen2 it could now be 1d6 dmg in 20ft for 2 rounds.
you can create spells for pretty much anything.
I realise this is an inadequate description so if ur intrested read reviews or buy the pdf its quite cheap.
and no i dont work for them :)