I don't want to see this playtest devolve into bickering and snide comments. Please keep focused on the playtest and don't use them as a way to snipe at other games, other play styles, or other posters.
I've removed a post already that crossed this boundary.
EDIT: Make that two posts.
Please be good to each other.
I agree. So far the playtest has been half complaining and half constructive feedback.
Its to be expected though when ever anything new comes out, but people could be a lot nicer about their posts thats for sure.
Director of Game Design
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. So far the playtest has been half complaining and half constructive feedback.
Its to be expected though when ever anything new comes out, but people could be a lot nicer about their posts thats for sure.
Thats the way it always seems. One of the things I have learned from this process is that the folks with a beef about something seem far more numerous and loud than those who think its pretty cool or are enthusiastic about it. This does not even take into account the folks who think they can do everything better than us and are on a mission to prove it. Funny enough, I draw constructive feedback and ideas out of all of these groups.. some are just driving me mad a little faster than others.
Jason
As Lead Designer, I have decided that a part of each of our books is going to be spent exploring new ground. This is important for the game to grow and evolve. You are not going to fall in love with every one of these expansions, but its your game and that's ok. You can choose not to use it.
I know it's a OT, please forgive me, but that means you're considering alternate combat system as well for Ultimate Combat?
ok, Ive read it and at first I've understand nothing of the mechanics... As already stated some example would help a lot, I've understand the mechanics by reading the forums... ;)
In fact it's simpler that it looked... You have some words in your spellbook, you can combine them for a cost, the spell slot you use is either the level of the highest word level or the level of the combination, whichever is the highest...
It will need some prep from the player (having the table for total points/spell level in front of you is the first things :p )
But with some experience it can go smoothly enough...
I think it's a very good variant of the vanciant spellcasting...
It can work for both sorcerer AND wizard, flexibility is good for everyone, even if wizards still have to prepare their spell in the morning (yes, no time loose in combat, spell for wizards are still prep ahead)... And sorcerer will only have a limited pool of words so... :)
BUT : The Word Burning feat look like it is essential, why making it a false "optionnal feat" ?
|
I agree. So far the playtest has been half complaining and half constructive feedback.
Its to be expected though when ever anything new comes out, but people could be a lot nicer about their posts thats for sure.
Thats the way it always seems. One of the things I have learned from this process is that the folks with a beef about something seem far more numerous and loud than those who think its pretty cool or are enthusiastic about it. This does not even take into account the folks who think they can do everything better than us and are on a mission to prove it. Funny enough, I draw constructive feedback and ideas out of all of these groups.. some are just driving me mad a little faster than others.
Jason
That's simply human nature. People only say things when something is wrong. Otherwise they just go about things without making waves.
The trick is ignoring the naysayers and weeding out the actual data from the hearsay and conjecture.
Funny enough, I draw constructive feedback and ideas out of all of these groups.. some are just driving me mad a little faster than others.
Here's something that'd be super useful in further testing-- clarify what's going on with wordburning in this thread over here. Then we can figure out if we can crazy overpack a spell with wordcount beyond its level or just pad them out to the maximum for the level. That'd be sooper.
-Ben.
BUT : The Word Burning feat look like it is essential, why making it a false "optional feat" ?
Because it's just the thin edge of the wedge. Once you're allowed to break up spell slots into individual "words" or "points", it's a slippery slope down into spell points and psionics. And from there....MADNESSS!!!!
;-)
Wordburning as written allows you to break up one higher-level slot per day into additional words for your lower-level slots. This isn't a slippery slope to the power points problem; the problem with power points was the psion's ability to use up all of their spellcasting ability on their highest-level powers each day.
Now if I could use wordburning to expend two or more lower-level slots to get extra higher-level slots, then we'd be on the road to the power points problem.
|
So far I've had the opportunity to sit down and go over this in depth only about once but what I've found I've enjoyed. As others have said it is complicated but, for me, not nearly as complicated as some other systems I have learned to game with. It will take some time to get used to but once I can stretch my legs with the system I'm fully expecting it to be favorable, for me, over the standard system.
I am impressed that it seems I can still use regular old metamagic feats and, in general, how well this should work within the established system. WoP still uses spell levels so everything that refers to spell levels is still relevant.
I would be curious to know the design decisions that went into putting little bits of flavor, such as the 1 round staggered condition, into words like Frost Fingers instead of making a 1 point staggered condition word.
Personally, I'm not even concerned about the standard game spells that I can't produce. Thinking about this issue in "fluff" terms all of the spells we know and love have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. That would allow mages to tweak, refine and streamline spells to get more juice out of them. Like an engine. Going back to the building blocks removes some of that streamlining but gives so much more flexibility that I think the trade-off is well worth it. Sides' you can always take Versatile Word Caster to round out your spell casting. Haste alone is worth that.
Just looked it over and I will be rolling a couple of test characters up to see how they feel. Looking forward to taking one out for a test game.
On a flavor note it would be interesting if it listed out what the words were. So people could have the completed spells given in words and not a large bust acid wave.
This was the first thing that flashed into my brain as a excitedly scanned the PDF. All the "words" just seem very meta-gamey in their delivery. That certainly helps a player who has been around a long time, absorb them faster. But on a flavor level they left me cold.
Where are the ten-dollar, bibliophile, endangered species, latin-greek, spelling bee words that got me beat up in grade school? Those are the words that say "word-caster" to me.
Edit - after reading more in-depth, the system itself looks like it could be great fun, especially with the way word categories might be limited to certain spell casting classes or even specific words in those categories. I have never really wanted to play a sorcerer because the limited spells known always felt very stifling, but with this system, I would seriously consider it.
Thats the way it always seems. One of the things I have learned from this process is that the folks with a beef about something seem far more numerous and loud than those who think its pretty cool or are enthusiastic about it. This does not even take into account the folks who think they can do everything better than us and are on a mission to prove it. Funny enough, I draw constructive feedback and ideas out of all of these groups.. some are just driving me mad a little faster than others.Jason
I've been rude too. Not because I hate Pathfinder, you or anybody else.
I think it's because I'm passionate and....it's the internet.
At times one post first and then reflect on what you actualy wrote.
I'm not saying it's OK, but it happens.
It's nice you in spite of all this have the ability to "draw constructive feedback and ideas out of all of these groups". :-)
I just downloaded it, and after a quick read, I have to say I love the idea. The concept takes the best of both spell points and the vancian level system. Some of the options seem rather limited, but I'm sure that is at least partially due to this being a play test and not the final product. Personally I'm glad this isn't going to look like the Spell Compendium; that was a good book, but really many of the spells were not all that great or properly proofread. I love that this book will have both new spells, and an alternate spell casting system; it reduces the sheer spam of spells while providing positive options for those looking for different variants on spell casting.
I like the concept. High-level spellcasters tend to be the most versatile characters in gaming, and this system exponentially enhances that versatility, assuming the end word list is a lot more expansive. I don't know that I'd allow it in gameplay though (at least, not without some serious restrictions), simply because I'm already having nightmares about the party's wizard spending ten minutes every round looking for the perfect word combination for a given scenario.
If I had a player that had the time to learn these front and back and be able to pop of crazy word combos on the fly, that would be awesome, but I run a game in college and none of my gamers even have time to learn how to use their feats properly, let alone an entirely new spellcasting system.
Also, as far as giving what the actual words of power are, I'm glad the playtest doesn't, and I hope the book doesn't either. It never made sense to me in certain magic systems (i.e. Harry Potter) that magic words are the same for everyone. Maybe in organized schools of magic, where the same methods have been passed down for centuries, it makes sense that everyone uses the same quasi-latin, but what about the sorcerers that likely taught themselves? They would have entirely different word associations with the effects, and that's not even taking different languages into account.
Such is my opinion.
|
Was really looking forward to this system, and still am! I love new direction, new takes, and improvements upon the written and assumed conventions of fantasy roleplaying.
That being said, breaking up spells into components, I find refreshing, and as a GM, very useful and, pretty much, awesome. There is of course some things that I'm not sure how they will play out, if they are balanced, etc., but I know that's why the book isn't out yet, it isn't finished.
I am a little disappointed as I was hoping instead of just Target and effect, there would also be words for duration, save, strength, bonus effects, etc.
I guess the last two years I've been really spoiled by the Mutants and Masterminds system of powers. Something I just love is the ability to control EVERY aspect of the ability, even how many times per day, time to cast, if it needs components, etc.
I would love to see feats or words that make a spell stronger but increase casting time or component cost, or ones that add a negative effect but make it better in other ways.
Heck, I'd love to see the a system where it isn't based on spell level, but just raw spell power or word points, or more so, a system that does not limit a spell caster to spells per day. But, I digress.
All in all, i still enjoy the concepts, originality, and use of the system. Not sure if I or my players will use it, that remains to be decided by the finished product, but I am very happy this option will be given, and I really applaud you guys not focusing too much or just building more and more extra rules and options (spell) for pre-existing things (systems). Thank you.
I don't know if I'm posting in the appropriate area, but I'll give it a shot.
To ease in the problems with cross-checking between tables, and to allow a full spell-list to be more viable, would it be acceptable to remove the minimum spell level requirements to cast certain effects?
For example fire blast (which is wizard/sorcerer 3) (which of course does 1d6/level fire damage, save for half). I see clear reason why a single target spell (costing 6 points) would not be a legal second level spell when the second level word cost limit is 7. Perhaps this is an oversight on my part, but as a 5th level wizard (therefore being eligible to learn the fire blast word), would it truly be unreasonable for such a caster to limit the target parameters to create a lower level spell than fireball? (I think we can all agree that more targets, generally, equals a higher level spell. Why can this equation not work in the opposite?)
The system as it is sticks the second level spells to always do Mass 5d6 fire. I believe it would also be reasonable to do 10d6 fire to a single target.
Also, in case my other post was in a similarly improper place:
Is is possible for a Words of Power spell to have multiple targets (such as the four ten foot areas) for a spell (such as druid's vampiric sting which deals damage to a touched target and then heals the caster the same amount of HP)?
That is all. I love the system so far!
I think this system is brilliant. It appeals to me greatly as it models more of the flexibility that is seen in fantasy literature. I have always felt confined by spell lists, not because they're insufficient, but because they're rigid. Why couldn't a caster mold his spells to unique situations? Now you can!
I agree that giving each word a name would be a lot of fun for flavor, like how the Diablo 2 expansion has named runes for gear. I honestly wouldn't tell my DM that I cast "mir thak dalar" or whatever, but it would be fun to think about. That's my two cents. Keep it up, Paizo. I love what you're doing with Pathfinder!
