Krome |
One reason was I slow to adopt 3.x was that it certainly was NOT my D&D. It had almost nothing at all in common with the game I had played for years. The mechanics were bulky, omnipresent and oppressive, unlike earlier versions of the game. Face it, 3.x was some guys' idea of making fantasy roleplaying "realistic." How silly is that?
he he quoting myself! that is a new one for me. Really, does anyone else remember playing D&D and never needing a table map in a year's worth of paying?
I think we played for a few years before we ever NEEDED to buy miniatures for the game. Then it was more for fun than necessity. You could just sit and play the game with your imagination if you wanted to. It wasn't LIKE BattleTech, where you HAD to have a big map and miniatures. All you needed was imagination.
And based upon a LOT of topics and posts I have read over the years here on the Paizo forums, it is clear that imagination is not REQUIRED to play anymore. All you need now are a bunch of rule books. Heck, I swear the Wizard class description in Pathfinder, alone is about the same number of pages of the description for ALL classes in AD&D.
The biggest failing of 3.x was this concept that "it's not in the rules, so you can't do it" mentality that so very often exists. In older editions if you could imagine doing it, you just did it. There didn't need to be rules for running up the stairs and jumping to a chandelier and then swinging across the room attacking the orcs. You just did it and people said, "COOL."
In 3.x if you do that, a STAPLE of adventure literature (for centuries even) and movies, it requires several rounds, multiple die rolls, major penalties and in the end you are more likely to fail than succeed. Yeah, that sounds heroic and fun. Ok I'll just stand in one square and slug fest with the orc instead- ho hum wake me when combat is over okay, so we can do something interesting and fun...
The point of this post is that 3.x is NOT the definitive version of D&D. There is NO definitive version of D&D. Every version has major major changes that improve the game and at the same time make the game worse. Change is PART of D&D whether you like it or not.
If you don't like change, just die now and get it over with, cause everything in life is about change. NOTHING stays the same. You can either accept change, or sit in your dark room, wring your hands, and stress, cry and worry about it and forget to actually live life.
In a few years, MOST players of D&D will laugh at that silly old system of 3.x as they enjoy 4E or 5E or whatever. Newer players will laugh at the old hold outs who just couldn't accept a better version and stuck with an outdated 3.x. You know, just like 3.x players said about fans of AD&D and 2E...
DM_Blake |
Stuff about definitions of terms
Yes, yes, and "Necromancy" is about summoning spirits to ask them questions, so they got that one wrong too - necromancers have only one spell that is actually necromancy, and arguably enough, it belongs to the Divination school anyway.
So what?
I thought we were talking about what the specialists do as much or even more than we were talking about what the specialists are called.
In any case, I certainly was.
Krigare |
In a few years, MOST players of D&D will laugh at that silly old system of 3.x as they enjoy 4E or 5E or whatever. Newer players will laugh at the old hold outs who just couldn't accept a better version and stuck with an outdated 3.x. You know, just like 3.x players said about fans of AD&D and 2E...
Ya know...newer doesn't mean better. Yes, I realize I'm talking counter to pop culture, but just because something is new and shiny doesn't make it better. It just makes it new and shiny. To say that new and shiny is better implies a certain amount of letting some guy in a corporate boardroom think for you.
mdt |
Krome wrote:Ya know...newer doesn't mean better. Yes, I realize I'm talking counter to pop culture, but just because something is new and shiny doesn't make it better. It just makes it new and shiny. To say that new and shiny is better implies a certain amount of letting some guy in a corporate boardroom think for you.In a few years, MOST players of D&D will laugh at that silly old system of 3.x as they enjoy 4E or 5E or whatever. Newer players will laugh at the old hold outs who just couldn't accept a better version and stuck with an outdated 3.x. You know, just like 3.x players said about fans of AD&D and 2E...
The problem is, everyone has a different definition of better.
The corporate head's definition is 'Brings in Revenue', so by his definition, newer is always better.
Take automobiles. My uncle has a 1924 ford truck. It still runs, has had the body rebuild 4-5 times, engine still runs fine, had to be rebuilt 6 times. It'll probably still be running when I'm too old to care, with proper maintenance. Newer cars will never last that long, too much plastics and cheap parts. Which is better, new or old?
I just bought a new car, VW Jetta TDI. Get's 38 miles to the gallon, average so far. My uncle gets 7 miles to the gallon in his truck. I have anti-lock breaks, power stearing, drivers and passenger side airbags, leather bucket seats. If I get hit by some drunk traveling at 60 mph, I got a good chance of living. If my uncle gets hit by the same guy, he's dead, the truck will tear apart. Which is better, new or old?
All depends on your deffinition, see?
Velderan |
I'm curious as to which group you would sort something like my variant bard into. (No, this isn't an attempt to make the discussion personal so that I can get all indignant: if you think it's poorly designed or that its effects should have been spells, you're more than welcome to say so. :) ).
I actually wouldn't consider this to be a magic system. I would consider it to be a noncasting bard variant (which, IMO, is probably preferable, anyway). In this case, it doesn't fall under "new systems" because it isn't a broad, overreaching magic system as much as it is a specific series of bard powers. If the bards started fireballing, conjuring, and teleporting, I'd probably think it was lame.
This makes me want to think that you're real issue is with new magic systems which aren't different enough (from spells) to carry their weight. However, I've also heard you condemn SLA-based classes like the witch or warlock, which really do work differently from spells.
Yes and no. it depends on whether you mean mechanics or end effect. If a system is mechanically completely different from vancian, but has the same end effect, then no, I still think it's re-inventing the wheel. If it has different effects, but the same mechanics, then it should probably be some new spells. Generally, if the person doing the action would be a spellcaster of some sort, then it should probably just fit into Vancian.
Warlocks are tough (I don't know what witches you're talking about) because, on one hand, I do like them, but, on the other, they really step on sorcerers toes. And really, I'm not sure that that systems of SLAs do act differently enough from spellcasting (I'm referring here to end effect) to justify adding another 'sort of' caster to the game with a whole new system.
Velderan |
Your problems aren't necessarily with new, but with badly designed and barely play tested (if at all) systems that are treated as a one off and not treated as a part of the game system as a whole. The tendency of new systems to fall into this description is the real problem with them. This is why they generate so much hate, not because they are new or different, but because they are more often than not unsupported junk filler with a sparkly shine used to sell more books.
I'm not sure that's true. I mean, it could be, but I think, even when well-made, redundancy is bad.
Velderan |
Velderan wrote:For stuff like the shadowcaster…why does this exist?You're free to ostracize these non-conformists and call them names, but to publishers they're all Paying Customers, their money is as good as anyone's, so you can be certain more and more base classes are bound to come to PF, if not from Paizo, then from someone else.
I don't recall ostracizing or calling anyone a name, and this thread isn't really about new classes, so much as new magic systems. As I've already said, the problem with the shadowcaster is that it could have just been new spells. It added nothing new to the game.
As for new classes (even though it's not what this thread is about), I agree with you, if something is adding a new concept that isn't currently playable, by all means, let's add it. A shadowcaster is an example of a concept that was playable but could have been augmented by some additional spells and feats, rather than a whole new system. As I've said numerous times in other threads, I'm not against adding new classes. I'm against adding bad new classes.
Velderan |
Sure, it's fine to say "I don't like new systems" (which amuses me when people are saying this about a new gaming system called Pathfinder- may be BASED upon an old system but it IS a new system) but I seriously object when saying "I don't like new systems" turns into meaning, "and that means I object to other systems being suggested for you to use, because you have to play my way."
That's not what I said at all. In fact, I explained why I thought this was a problem in the original post. I don't know if you're talking about variant systems (which is not what we're discussing) or if you just didn't bother to read before posting, but at no point did anyone say anything indicating "because you have to play my way".
Hydro RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
Hydro wrote:I actually wouldn't consider this to be a magic system. I would consider it to be a noncasting bard variant (which, IMO, is probably preferable, anyway). In this case, it doesn't fall under "new systems" because it isn't a broad, overreaching magic system as much as it is a specific series of bard powers. If the bards started fireballing, conjuring, and teleporting, I'd probably think it was lame.
I'm curious as to which group you would sort something like my variant bard into. (No, this isn't an attempt to make the discussion personal so that I can get all indignant: if you think it's poorly designed or that its effects should have been spells, you're more than welcome to say so. :) ).
Ahh, I see. You're only calling it a magic system if it covers all the same bases that the existing magic system does.
I disagree, personally: if you took the fireballs, conjuration, and teleportation out of D&D's collective spell list, for instance (even if you removed everything except enchantments and illusions), it would still most certainly be a magic system. A magic system is just something that gives characters a variety of balanced options for doing magic.
However, that did save me from making the "New systems are a great way to do very strong but focused powers" argument. We both seem to appreciate such systems, even if we disagree about whether or not they're "magic systems".
Hydro wrote:Yes and no. it depends on whether you mean mechanics or end effect. If a system is mechanically completely different from vancian, but has the same end effect, then no, I still think it's re-inventing the wheel. If it has different effects, but the same mechanics, then it should probably be some new spells. Generally, if the person doing the action would be a spellcaster of some sort, then it should probably just fit into Vancian.
This makes me want to think that you're real issue is with new magic systems which aren't different enough (from spells) to carry their weight. However, I've also heard you condemn SLA-based classes like the witch or warlock, which really do work differently from spells.
So, you object to new systems covering too many of the same bases as the existing system, but at the same time, you don't want them covering new bases either?
I don't agree with the assertion that any new magic power should be a spell. I like new spells, but it's okay for new classes (or races or feats) to grant powers that clerics and wizards can't duplicate; just like wizards can't smite evil, or clerics can't remove status ailments for free when they heal someone.
More to the point, a system with completely different mechanics is bound to have different end effects from vancian casting. My Dream Sorcerlator of Ka might throw fireballs, summon demons, teleport, and do all the things that a wizard can; however, if he does so by entering two- or three-round trances and then unleashing commensurately powerful effects, that is going to play out very differently from a wizard or cleric.
Likewise, the warlock's SLA's might duplicate spells, but they make a character who feels and functions very different from a sorcerer. He has a very restricted number of fairly effective tricks that he can do all day long. How the heck would you represent that with a vancian caster? As a sorcerer fan, I'm not threatened by that kind of class at all; he has a lot more staying power than I do, but at any given time I have access to five times the variety of effects that he does, and truth be told my best spell will almost always be better than his.
Even if I had wanted the alternate bard to teleport or summon monsters or rain down fire and lightning, I would have still used the "bardsong" mechanic, because it simply does what I want better than spells. The alternative would be to write a suite of spells which are a standard action to cast (but then a move action at 6th level and a move action at 9th), and then automatically give "greater" versions of the same spell (so that a bard with lesser inspire courage doesn't switch to intermediate fascinate when they get a new intermediate spell- because that's what you do if you can cherry pick from a broad list, and is the reason a mage who starts out with a bunch of fire spells might evolve into an ice mage at mid-levels and a death mage at high levels), and then I would need to say that you can only have one spell from this group in effect at once (until level 15, when you can have 2 at once by spending a move action each round). And once this was finally done the "bardsong" spells would all have the same area of effect, same duration, same criteria for who is an isn't effected- tons of wasted space.
You seem want vancian to be a flexible, universal system for fantasy magic, and it simply isn't. It's clunky and inorganic and terrible for representing anything other than itself.
Stereofm |
:) Sounds like the difference between a fighter and a wizard to me. The wizard just gurgles some jibberish and there is magic that destroys continents... yeah ok :)
Yeah, but we're used to it : just look at the FR history !
Ok seriously I get your point, but I like it better when wizards blow it all instead of random new class #XXX
Velderan |
Ahh, I see. You're only calling it a magic system if it covers all the same bases that the existing magic system does.
Sort of, yes. This is why I don’t really want to get into a definition of what a magic system is. Basically, what I object to are things that look and feel like spellcasters, but aren’t. I consider a bard to be a pulp exaggeration of what music actually does. And yes, the narrow, specific focus helps.
So, you object to new systems covering too many of the same bases as the existing system, but at the same time, you don't want them covering new bases either?
I didn’t say I object to them covering new bases, I said I don’t want them to exist. Yes, on one had, I have a problem with systems that do what spellcasters already do. I think redundancy is bad for games. On the other hand, I have a problem with these new systems doing what spellcasters, logically could do. A ton of the ‘new ground’ people have come out with could have worked in the existing framework.
I don't agree with the assertion that any new magic power should be a spell. I like new spells, but it's okay for new classes (or races or feats) to grant powers that clerics and wizards can't duplicate; just like wizards can't smite evil, or clerics can't remove status ailments for free when they heal someone.
You might want to disagree with that assertion with somebody who made it, hehe. Really though, you’re taking what I say and running with it again. I don’t think every single new power or ability fits into Vancian spellcasting (esp since I gave counterexamples). However, if it looks and feels like a spellcaster, it probably should just be a spellcaster.
Take the new Alchemist for example. I’m assuming that Alchemy is going to work completely differently from magic. Sure, there’s bound to be some overlap. I’m hoping for noncrappy alchemist bombs and healing potions. But, we’ve already heard of it doing things that you can’t do right now, like transforming into ooze and having a Hyde form. However, if I open up the book and I see 9 levels of ‘potions’ that have entries exactly like spells or I see teleport potions and conjuration potions then I’ll be extremely disappointed.
More to the point, a system with completely different mechanics is bound to have different end effects from vancian casting. My Dream Sorcerlator of Ka might throw fireballs, summon demons, teleport, and do all the things that a wizard can; however, if he does so by entering two- or three-round trances and then unleashing commensurately powerful effects, that is going to play out very differently from a wizard or cleric.
See, this is an example of a class I’d be complaining about. Because, what you’re describing sounds just like spellcasting to me. Sure, it works differently from Vance, but it is still spellcasting. Just because there isn't system redundancy (which I doubt) doesn't mean that there's no conceptual redundancy.
You seem want vancian to be a flexible, universal system for fantasy magic, and it simply isn't. It's clunky and inorganic and terrible for representing anything other than itself.
You know, no one ever seems able to back this up. Sure, Vancian isn’t my favorite system (that award goes to the two incarnations of Mage), but it does work perfectly fine for the type of game that D&D is. And, honestly, the system is written in such a way that you can add a ton of new spells to it. That makes it pretty flexible.
Dogbert |
I don't recall ostracizing or calling anyone a name,
Sorry, I wasn't talking about you, sorry if you took it that way. :)
A shadowcaster is an example of a concept that was playable but could have been augmented by some additional spells and feats, rather than a whole new system. As I've said numerous times in other threads, I'm not against adding new classes. I'm against adding bad new classes.
And I'm with you on that one, unless proposals for new systems really contribute with new possibilities, there's no purpose in reinventing the wheel.
SmiloDan RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Dogbert wrote:Velderan wrote:For stuff like the shadowcaster…why does this exist?<clippity clip>
... this thread isn't really about new classes, so much as new magic systems. As I've already said, the problem with the shadowcaster is that it could have just been new spells. It added nothing new to the game.
I think the point of the shadowcaster was to introduce a new way of resource management.
Shadowcasters can cast their 0 level "fundamentals" 3 times a day, and they know a limited number of them (3 + 1 per 4 levels).
They can cast their "mysteries" once per day, until they reach the next tier, when they can cast each "mystery" they know twice a day. Eventually, they can cast their level 1-3 mysteries 3/day, 4-6 2/day, and 7-9 once per day.
It's different enough from Vancian to be interesting.
Also, they had to learn mysteries along a path.
A sorcerer or wizard can learn Fly at 6th level without first having to learn Featherfall or Levitate. A shadowcaster couldn't do the equivalent. They have to follow paths to learn higher level mysteries of a specific path.
This also leads to some interesting resource management, as shadowcasters only learn 1 mystery per level, so they have to choose between versatility (know lots of low level mysteries from lots of paths) or power (know only a couple paths, but higher level mysteries along those paths).
anthony Valente |
Spontaneous casters don't fit so well in the Vancian system, and would probably feel better with spell points, but the academic wizard fits better here than in pretty much anything else.
Not true Jabor. Spontaneous casters fit quite well within the Vancian system. Maybe better than wizards actually. Nothing prevents a spontaneous caster from casting a 1st level spell using a 2nd level spell slot. To put it another way… a spontaeous caster may only be able to cast his more powerful spell a few times per day, but may cast lower powered spells until his "magic tank" is empty.
I like the Vancian system. The Vancian system as explained since 3.5 makes sense to me for the most part. Spells aren't memorized anymore, (explained as such in earlier editions), they are prepared. And once used, they need to be prepared again. It is magic after all, and doesn't necessarily work according to mundane logic.
I don't mind seeing variations to the system itself, but changing it to resemble something else (like spell point systems), is not D&D IMO.
Hydro RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
I consider a bard to be a pulp exaggeration of what music actually does. And yes, the narrow, specific focus helps.
See, this is an example of a class I’d be complaining about. Because, what you’re describing sounds just like spellcasting to me. Sure, it works differently from Vance, but it is still spellcasting. Just because there isn't system redundancy (which I doubt) doesn't mean that there's no conceptual redundancy.
I'll be honest, this really surprised me. I could swear I've heard you insist that, if a core class does what you want mechanically, then you should just use the core class, rather than write a new class with dramatically different flavor but the same mechanics. Fluff can be compromised. I thought this was why you hated shadow magic (walks like a duck, talks like a duck, you don't care if it's 'described' as a duck or not).
Now you're saying that you don't care whether or not a class brings new or innovative mechanics to the table, it just has to be "conceptually" different from a wizard or cleric's spellcasting. This sounds like a 180 to me.
Can you elaborate?
Hydro wrote:You seem want vancian to be a flexible, universal system for fantasy magic, and it simply isn't. It's clunky and inorganic and terrible for representing anything other than itself.You know, no one ever seems able to back this up. Sure, Vancian isn’t my favorite system (that award goes to the two incarnations of Mage), but it does work perfectly fine for the type of game that D&D is. And, honestly, the system is written in such a way that you can add a ton of new spells to it. That makes it pretty flexible.
I'm not even sure how to respond to this, considering that the quote you snipped came immediately after a long description backing up that very statement (specifically, that trying to represent bardic music as I envisioned it with vancian casting would have been a train-wreck). This in turn came after mention of two other types of magic (one well-known- the warlock, and one theoretical- trance-based casting) which vancian casting would do a terrible job of representing.
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "backing this up"?
memorax |
I'm all for variant magic systems. I am a huge fan of the point based system in the 3.5 Unearthed arcana. I hate absolutely hate no despise the abomination that is th Vancian magic system. Sorry but someone casting a spell and forgetting it never made too much sense to me and never will. AT the very least they could have at least not make it so damn long to memorize spells. Don't try to change my mind on this because it's one of the things I'm set against and you will be wasting your time. I understand it's part of the whole "sacred cows" and all that yet I think their is room for improvement. Even Palladium has a better magic system then D&D imo.
Zmar |
I'd like to know where does this 'wizards forgets spells after casting' thing come from...
He doesn't forget them. The spell for a wizard is a complex ritual which allows even someone without magic running through his blood naturally (those people are called sorcerers) to tap into the supernatural to produce desired effects. After completing these rituals he only has to utter the final incantion and make the final gestures to release stored energies and let the magic do it's part.
That's why they are hauling their books with them all the time. Even lvl 1 spell takes one whole page scribbled with ritual steps and arcane diagrams. Perhaps leaving even single step out or performing it in slightly different way would cause a mishap or simply leave the wizard babbling and looking silly when a firebll was expected to toast a few goblins. Who knows? He may take a feat and learn a few spells by heart, but he still needs something to refer to to prepare all his spells without any space left to undesirable side effects.
Go Vance :D
Azzy |
Punk has as much to do with Rock & Roll as Rolemaster has to do with D&D.
Someone is obviously unfamiliar with punk. Punk is a natural outgrowth of rock and roll that started as a rejection of the megalithic AOR-style compositions that were popular at the time and to go back to the basic roots of rock and roll (cf., the Ramones). Punk as seen the inclusion of different musical stylings over the years (from reggae, ska, country, etc.), and while some of what is now consider "punk" doesn't sound much like punk (hardcore, emo, screamo, etc.) good old fashion rock-roots punk is still alive and well (just usually called "pop-punk" these days).
SilvercatMoonpaw |
I'd like to know where does this 'wizards forgets spells after casting' thing come from...
He doesn't forget them. The spell for a wizard is a complex ritual which allows even someone without magic running through his blood naturally (those people are called sorcerers) to tap into the supernatural to produce desired effects. After completing these rituals he only has to utter the final incantion and make the final gestures to release stored energies and let the magic do it's part.
1) I believe that's how it as portrayed in previous editions and some people are either a) not updating well or b) being misled by the people who aren't updating well.
2) Descriptions of how a prepared caster's magic works have not been the best. If people assume spellcasting is like a skill ("skill" in the real sense, not the game mechanical term) — which is understandable given many portrayals of magic in ficiton — then they erroneously assume that like a skill you should be able to perform the same action over and over with the limiter being separate from the ability to cast it. Because prepared casters' can actually run out of the ability to cast a spell while still having spellcasting ability left people make the mistake of thinking that means the caster has "forgotten" how to cast the spell.
I think all that's needed is a better and more thorough description of exactly how prepared casters work in the core books.
Evil Lincoln |
Don't try to change my mind on this because it's one of the things I'm set against and you will be wasting your time. I understand it's part of the whole "sacred cows" and all that yet I think their is room for improvement.
Haha! I'm down for the challenge. I don't like Vancian for "sacred cow" reasons, I think it is an interesting and unique system!
I used to feel exactly as you do. You could learn to love the Vancian system once you shift your expectation away from a skill based magic system where spells are learned.
Vancian magic is a spell based system, where a spell is discrete thing that exists independent of the "skill" of a spellcaster. This is TERRIBLE if you want skill based magic, but it is interesting and unique in that player skill is the most important factor. The player must actually pore over tomes! That's great, form an immersion perspective.
I like imagining myself as a Vancian wizard. In the morning, you perform all manner of arcane ritual (or pray for clerics) and then you can feel the spells you carry around with you like loaded weapons. It isn't skill, but formula that allows you to trigger these weapons.
If you have an alternate, skill-based magic system that is your favorite, I am happy for you, you should play it. But if you are cornered in a game that uses Vancian, or if you have a chance to play but have second thoughts because of Vancian, I recommend shifting your perceptions a bit and stepping into the weird world of magic-as-written. It's actually kind of cool when you let go of all the baggage you've collected in other video and RP games, because really - who's to say how magic 'should' work?
SilvercatMoonpaw |
You could learn to love the Vancian system once you shift your expectation away from a skill based magic system where spells are learned.
Vancian magic is a spell based system, where a spell is discrete thing that exists independent of the "skill" of a spellcaster.
This is what I was talking about when I said the description of magic could be better. This distinction should be made clearer rather than the writers assuming it will be picked up.
Kaisoku |
I like Vancian magic for the resource management.
Spellpoints as a resource management system falls short for me (has an even bigger problem with nova-tactics).
So while I might have a hard time shoe-horning the Vancian slots into any magical context other than it's own (a quantum valence style of magic), I like what it does for managing magic in the game.
.
Now granted, I can see room for expanding on the rules for vancian magic. Things like having certain spells only require holding the slot be able to summon it up whenever you want (like Detect spells, it's just there while it's in the slot, and it takes rounds of concentration to get the information anyways), I guess kind of like the reserve feats, only built into the spells.
Or having metamagic be actual spells that alter other spells. So you memorize "Maximize Spell" into a 3rd level spell slot, and when you decide to cast a fireball, you can burn both slots to make the fireball maximized.
I like ideas like these, because they expand the functionality, but keep the resource management I like.
Kaisoku |
Evil Lincoln wrote:This is what I was talking about when I said the description of magic could be better. This distinction should be made clearer rather than the writers assuming it will be picked up.You could learn to love the Vancian system once you shift your expectation away from a skill based magic system where spells are learned.
Vancian magic is a spell based system, where a spell is discrete thing that exists independent of the "skill" of a spellcaster.
The best description I've heard of Vancian spell slots is to compare it to the quantum valence of atoms.
So in the way that an atom will have electrons filling the quantum shells in a discrete number as more get added, the same can be said about spell slots filling spell levels. You fill valences in discrete amounts before expanding.
So when a wizard "memorizes" spells (filling the spell level valences) he will have spell energy floating around him, like electrons in orbit around a nucleus.
The level 1 spells all floating closer to the wizard, while the level 9 spells floating further out, and everything in between formed like layering orbits.
This would be why spells like Arcane Sight let you see the highest level spell a target has, it's the one floating on the outermost, and so the first that could be seen.
It ties science into the magic system neatly. If the building blocks of creation work this way, then it's not farfetched that the building blocks of magic would work in a similar way. Electrons and spells being "energy" of some kind also fit quite nicely.
Evil Lincoln |
My point is that the books doing the presenting of D&D's magic system do not convey this impression directly.
It should be setting specific, maybe?
Then again, I think a setting-neutral treatment in a rulebook would be [i]grand[/]! I keep wishing for that Pathfinder Grimoire...
SilvercatMoonpaw |
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:My point is that the books doing the presenting of D&D's magic system do not convey this impression directly.It should be setting specific, maybe?
I'm confused: what does this have to do with being setting specific? The spell-slot system simply needs to be explained in the core rulebooks with flavor that matches closely the way it operates mechanically. Otherwise you run the risk of people feeling yanked out of their immersion when magic fails to run as they have been prepared for it to run.
Hydro RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
Hydro wrote:Punk has as much to do with Rock & Roll as Rolemaster has to do with D&D.Someone is obviously unfamiliar with punk. Punk is a natural outgrowth of rock and roll that started as a rejection of the megalithic AOR-style compositions that were popular at the time and to go back to the basic roots of rock and roll (cf., the Ramones). Punk as seen the inclusion of different musical stylings over the years (from reggae, ska, country, etc.), and while some of what is now consider "punk" doesn't sound much like punk (hardcore, emo, screamo, etc.) good old fashion rock-roots punk is still alive and well (just usually called "pop-punk" these days).
Actually, I kind of knew that. I was also under the impression that the first Rolemaster books were intended to be modular AD&D supplements. =p
Nevertheless, they're both still considered separate things*, which was important to acknowledge for the argument I was making.
*usually, at least. You're totally right that the modern distinction between D&D and rolemaster is much sharper than between punk and rock. I don't know anyone who plays rolemaster, nor anyone who still hacks rolemaster rules into their D&D game (though I hear that happened a lot back in the day).
houstonderek |
Hydro wrote:Punk has as much to do with Rock & Roll as Rolemaster has to do with D&D.Someone is obviously unfamiliar with punk. Punk is a natural outgrowth of rock and roll that started as a rejection of the megalithic AOR-style compositions that were popular at the time and to go back to the basic roots of rock and roll (cf., the Ramones). Punk as seen the inclusion of different musical stylings over the years (from reggae, ska, country, etc.), and while some of what is now consider "punk" doesn't sound much like punk (hardcore, emo, screamo, etc.) good old fashion rock-roots punk is still alive and well (just usually called "pop-punk" these days).
Proto-punk: Stooges, VU, MC5. Definitely rock.
First wave punk: The Meteors, The Cramps, Sex Pistols, Ramones, Voivoids, The Damned, The Clash, The Germs. Definitely rock.
1.5 wave/second wave: The Misfits, Black Flag, Bad Brains, Minor Threat, DKs, Circle Jerks, X, Teel Idles, TSOD, MCD, Descendants, Big Boys, etc, etc and so on...
Definitely rock.
90's and 2k "punk"? Not so much.
memorax |
I'd like to know where does this 'wizards forgets spells after casting' thing come from...
For me it comes from the image of mages in D&D using their spells and then being unable to use them until they rest for a certain amount of time. Claok it in whatever you like but to me it comes across as forgetting the spell.
He doesn't forget them. The spell for a wizard is a complex ritual which allows even someone without magic running through his blood naturally (those people are called sorcerers) to tap into the supernatural to produce desired effects. After completing these rituals he only has to utter the final incantion and make the final gestures to release stored energies and let the magic do it's part.
Their is a reason some in the gaming community that the Vancian magic it is called the fire and forget system. Your above description while full of flavour and very colorful comes out top about the same thing.
memorax |
If you have an alternate, skill-based magic system that is your favorite, I am happy for you, you should play it. But if you are cornered in a game that uses Vancian, or if you have a chance to play but have second thoughts because of Vancian, I recommend shifting your perceptions a bit and stepping into the weird world of magic-as-written. It's actually kind of cool when you let go of all the baggage you've collected in other video and RP games, because really - who's to say how magic 'should' work?
I get what you are saying and when I am in a game that use the Vancian system I can push my dislike to the side and game. I am not going to let something like that ruin the fun in the game. What does bother me is that the system could be changed to be a little less restrictive. The image of the fire and forget mage is one that will always be tied to it and as long as it stays the same will never go away imo.
As for using another system the one I have always wanted to try adapting was the magic system from Eartdawn which I find superior. If you have ten magic spells can cast lets say you take 5 of those spells you can always cast them all the time without having to rest. If you want to cast one of the other 5 then you have to take the time and rest and study to learn it. Which I find more realistic.
xorial |
Fecomancer: Gives me visions of fighting the monkeys off Madagascar. "Of course we're going to fling pooh at him!"
As for an alternate skill based system that can actually be used with the existing spells, look at Legends of Sorcery by RPGObjects (http://www.rpgobjects.com/index.php?c=product&o[p_id]=181). Gives classes a Base Magic Bonus and a skill system that can be laid over classes like a template. (Removed the attempt to link due to the brackets in the web address intefering with the BBcode)
Ragadolf |
Okok, I gotta say it!
"Fecomancer Monkeys!"
HArry Dresden Novel (Can't remember which one, I've read them all) The first line line starts as
"The building was on fire. And this time it wasn't my fault!"
Turns out he;s fighting winged monkees that are flinging flaming poo! 8P
Evil Winged Monkees FTW! ;P
Montalve |
i don't like Vancian magic for sake of "logic"
considering a wizard that has passed his klife learning the intrincate arts of the arcane limited by such notions as "damn i needed to check my book to see if i was right" is absurd considering the vast intelligence most of them have.
that is why i am more in love with the magic as it was in Mage: The ascension, it about comprehension, focus and will power... you see your needs and you cast your magic limited by your own general power and comprehension... of course its a complex system... but for me ts more mystical than saying "i read my book for an hour and now i am ready for adventure!"
studying and analyzing is part of the wizard's work, but is more the fact that they need to comprehend their world and the magic to cast NEW spells than just to remember the old...
also IMO vancian magic is lazy and artificial, it might have a sound reasoning... but that's it.
since Mage: the ascension system is not workable with DnD the Monte Cook's World of Darkness version whileneeding a bit of work, does function beutiful... Sean!!! again thanks for such beautiful system, Dogbert andI agree is the best magic system in D20.
i am working in my own setting where a) sorcerers might not exist, b) casters will eb able to cast the magic they learn until their spellpoints are over, c) i thin learning magic might cost experiencie itself... its only logical
Evil Lincoln |
i don't like Vancian magic for sake of "logic"
considering a wizard that has passed his klife learning the intrincate arts of the arcane limited by such notions as "damn i needed to check my book to see if i was right" is absurd considering the vast intelligence most of them have.
You're comparing apples to oranges, Montalve.
Neither system is "realistic" because magic isn't real.
In one setting magic is a Skill, and in another magic is a large collection of rituals that can be performed by rote in specific quantities.
Vancian mages don't forget spells, they perform a long ritual to prepare the spell and then trigger the magic they have prepared with a short series of components.
Their level of initiation into magic determines a specific number of magic effects that they can carry around with them. They know how many spells they can keep prepared at once. For them, it is a mark of pride. The characters of the vancian game world certainly do not see a spell as a skill to be repeated indefinitely — rather the ability to prepare the spell a certain number of times is skill.
I love skill based magic. Vancian magic is an entirely separate philosophy and setting for magic that simply does not bear comparison because the underlying assumptions are so radically different.
It is very, very cool in its own way.
Caladors |
I remember the rift war saga.
The Magician where the charater pug learns magic and in it gives an explation of why they have the Vancian system.
They accually used scrolls as well but it went something like this.
"Magic is so complex if you were to say the wrong word make the wrong symbol you could have your own spell turn back on you, Now you would want that would you"
It's been sometime since I read it so sorry if the quote is not exact.
Magic is hardly tied down to one discription though.
There is the real world myths and legends where magic comes from the power of primoridal words.
Others where once something has used it's magic it returns to it's mundane form, werewolves turns back to a wolf.
Magic of objects, such as aladins ring or king arthur's scabbard.
In fiction of recent years it's even less tied down.
From channeling the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Power]One Power to the limited kidō where one is limited by there own inner power.
There are the mana systems where one has a limited ammount of power and can use it for whatever they see fit in a limited number of ways.
But more importantly is how it is harvested.
In Magic the gathering certain magics can only be used because there tied to the places from which you call them.
The harmonic magics of white mana can only be drawn from peaceful plains.
Where as the primodial magics can only be called from deep forests.
Necromantic enrgy can only be called from the dieing swamps.
In Science fiction often Psionics where the spellslingers.
And they used it as a 'hard' base from whic magic sprung.
There has been many spell casters over the ages but in reality it was merely the mainfestation of Psionic ability up until now we haven't had a way to label it.
So choose your flavor.
There is plenty out there.
But for me what does it is the mana system.
It makes most sense for me.
Wile I am not a huge fan of psionics for along time they have been the 'real' sorcerers.
They can use there better powers as much as they like but it drains more quickly.
To Velderan
But I have always loved some of the concepts.
Pact magic, Incarinum magic and Psionic magic because for alot of there powers it's just magic relabeled.
But I think that the Abjurer and Artificer arguement is flawed.
A good DM in those situations would have allowed the said option.
But for awile I think D&D was handled in a healthy way like magic the gathering was.
They looked at something and they said, what design space have we not explored.
And then they went and explored it.
But this leads to a hit and miss nature of what we saw in 3.5.
I know I would always like to see 'good' new system but it is hard to be as good as Vancian system because it has been in place for so long and it is tried tested and true.
I would love to see new things, things I can sink my teeth into but less crunch more fluff for me.
To Krome.
Like the Raymond.E.Feist, rift war discription above.
Even though they go on to move away from that.
If you think in that regard Vancian magic makes plenty of sense.
When there hit by a sword they would rather lose there spell than have it back fire on them.
Alot like how we test our students today.
Consider every single adventure an exam, question to the the wizard "What did you learn?" "I don't know all I remember is Aced the test"
3.X is not your D&D much as 4th is not many of the posters here.
But I remember Thac0 and I am more glad it was removed than I can remember any thing else from that system or the Turning tables.
Infact it sounds like your game play has more in comman with White Wolf games than it does with what is known as D&D now.
I don't think that makes it bad it makes it different.
I would raise an eye brow at someone that tried to port pathfinder to a modern game.
See I would like to play modern, without a horror theme.
But would I use D&D it's not the right tool.
You don't chop fruit with a cleaver.
You can but you don't.
As for the schools of magic this takes me back to remembering a story about the bible.
Now I know thats dangerious ground to bring up but basic the story goes like this shorten for your reading pleasure.
A guy translated the bibile back when we used thy and thine, not aloud, guy didn't fair so well.
Another guy some time on wanted the bible to be able to be read by everyone looked at this one with thy and thine even though people where using the.
Why because it left it with an air of mystic and authority.
Abjuration and all of the oath stuff if someone doesn't know doesn't it sound cooler than, Defence magic.
A wizard is not a line backer.
These names draw us futher into fantasy this futhers our suspension of disbelief.
As for specialists don't work well thematically.
Well I am disagreeing.
Because of this.
Doctors.
They can all study different fields and they have a general knowledge of medicine but they choose one area to study in.
The hows and whys don't really matter.
But you could see magic being as a diverse feild as medicine couldn't you?
To mdt
But these are not cars but ideas.
And as such newer ones can be inclusive and interesting dare I say it better!
To Evil Lincoln
I was at the Department of Transport once. (DMV for some of my forign friends)
Recently they have implement some major changes and I saw there staff white board from where I was standing.
In big letters it said "Change, even for the better, is always painful"
Alot of people like Vancian because of the status quo.
Thats why I like a 'mana' style system where mages have points (I don't use this but I would like to see this) because it doesn't mess with what I know to much if they want to use there high level powers they can but there not going burn out more quickly.
Others like more interesting things.
I am always keeping my ear to the ground for new ideas.
Zmar |
Zmar wrote:I'd like to know where does this 'wizards forgets spells after casting' thing come from...
For me it comes from the image of mages in D&D using their spells and then being unable to use them until they rest for a certain amount of time. Claok it in whatever you like but to me it comes across as forgetting the spell.
Zmar wrote:Their is a reason some in the gaming community that the Vancian magic it is called the fire and forget system. Your above description while full of flavour and very colorful comes out top about the same thing.
He doesn't forget them. The spell for a wizard is a complex ritual which allows even someone without magic running through his blood naturally (those people are called sorcerers) to tap into the supernatural to produce desired effects. After completing these rituals he only has to utter the final incantion and make the final gestures to release stored energies and let the magic do it's part.
Well... by forgetting he wouldn't just be unable to cast it any longer... he'd have to learn it all over again. The wizard as is just releases the energies that he has stored with the spell preparation process and he can prepare the spell again later. For me it doesn't matter what magic system is actually in use that much, but I must aggree that vancian system is quite interesting and I can't imagine D&D wizard casting under any other system too much. It could be mage, it could be a sorcerer or whatever with spell points or skills, but Wizards of D&D of old and now the Pathfinder of curse for me are the paragons of vancian spellcasting.
Zmar |
i don't like Vancian magic for sake of "logic"
considering a wizard that has passed his klife learning the intrincate arts of the arcane limited by such notions as "damn i needed to check my book to see if i was right" is absurd considering the vast intelligence most of them have.
that is why i am more in love with the magic as it was in Mage: The ascension, it about comprehension, focus and will power... you see your needs and you cast your magic limited by your own general power and comprehension... of course its a complex system... but for me ts more mystical than saying "i read my book for an hour and now i am ready for adventure!"
studying and analyzing is part of the wizard's work, but is more the fact that they need to comprehend their world and the magic to cast NEW spells than just to remember the old...
also IMO vancian magic is lazy and artificial, it might have a sound reasoning... but that's it.
Technically all you need to become a wizard is Int 12 and some training. the fact that higher ability allows better understanding of the fundamental laws of magic and your own limitations allows you to find more niches in your potential and gives you the ability to store your energy much better (more spells to cast) and twist the complex magical formulas in ways similar to that a brilliant mathematician would use to solve problems otherwise too complicated for standard methods (allowing you the access to higher level spells).
Vancian system in general can be used to represent these ideas.