I posted some thoughts on my blog, but then deleted them, because I was really worried about overreacting to my initial impression of the Words of Power playtest.
I ask that anyone that reads this give me the benefit of the doubt. I'm not just trying to jump on something new and reacting against it. I may not be the most open to experimentation, but I tend to give something a fair chance, even if I'm thrilled by it.
Let me also say that a lot of my concern isn't actually from balance. One thing that I've been fairly happy about is that for sheer damage output, it seems harder to build a spell under this system that does exactly what a normal spell does.
What I'm worried about is the feel of the game and how this will effect that.
Flavor
Yeah, I actually have some flavor concerns. I'm having a little bit of flash back to the Book of Nine Swords when I read the description of Wordcasters.
What am I talking about? The BONS had a tendency to describe its classes as warriors that really get how to fight by using maneuvers, instead of just clunky warriors like fighters and the like.
The idea of learning the "real" underpinnings of magic paints them as elite practitioners of magic, while standards spellcasters are less advanced or less "in the know" using prewritten spell formulae.
If these systems are going to sit side by side, regardless of actual "balance" or power of individual systems, you can't imply that one type of magic is better than another, even in theory, or else you plant that assumption in the mind of players as an underlying truth of the game or the setting.
For example, if Tar-Baphon is described as a "standard" arcane caster, does that mean that a spellcaster that killed and animated a demi-god and set traps for a full deity doesn't quite grok the deeper underpinning of magic?
I know the final flavor hasn't been written, but I do think its going to have to focus a lot more on standard casters and wordcasters both coming at magic from different directions and a bit more of the discussion on what each form of magic is better at (perhaps pointing out that standard spellcasting can create some effects earlier and can tackle more specialized effects more easily because of its approach).
Approaches to Playstyle
Regardless of how "balance" actually plays out, I think this drastically shifts how spontaneous casters work, and I'm not sure a playtest of this nature will fully pin down how these changes may alter play style.
Sorcerers, now, (and Oracles, by extension) can do a handful of things a lot along a certain theme. But with just one word, the sorcerer can now create a cone of fire, a burst, a line, target an individual, or cast a "mass" version of the spell that has no chance to injure his allies.
While being able to shape their "theme" on the fly might be a great imaginative view someone "born to magic," it shifts sorcerers from specialists to much more flexible. It doesn't seem like you need to know that many words to gain a ton of flexibility.
And the wizard doesn't seem like they gain that much flexibility. They still have to figure out, when they prepare their spells, what they want their spell to do. Wizards don't seem to change much, but sorcerers seem to open up to a lot of new vistas.
Again, playtesting may show that the sorcerer is still balanced to the wizard, and they contribute the same amount to the party. But it feels like a bit of an disconnect between the "standard" sorcerer and the wordcaster sorcerer.
At the Table
I've seen a few people discuss this already, but I am really worried that this is going to slow thing down a lot at the table. I don't doubt that some people will be very prepared and have everything ready to go, but even for the prepared and well versed, there will have to be the temptation to rebuild a spell based on what just happened before their turn, something that would not happen under the standard system.
On top of that, the current system is complicated. I think I get how to build higher level spells with multiple effects, but I'm not completely sure, and I'm still seeing people build spells on the forums that look right, that someone else then points out their mistakes. There are a lot of ins and outs here.
Also, as a GM, I'm never going to have time to use this system with my NPC casters. It just looks way too complicated, and that means that my players will get more proficient with the system than I will, or they may make mistakes that I don't catch because I don't have that much practice with the system.
I'm not just saying this because they will "get one over on me," I'm also concerned that they may screw themselves out of thing they should be able to do but don't realize, that I won't pick up on myself.
Conclusion
I'm not saying I know this is a bad thing. But it is a big, big thing, and I'm concerned that its beyond the more restrained boundary pushing that Pathfinder has done before. Even if the system balances well, the feel of this is pushing boundaries, and that has me worried.
I'm not sure what I was expecting out of the system, but now that I see it, I'm really torn. I want to play with it, but at the same time, it seems like a huge thing to wrap my arms around, and until I can, I'm left only with my impressions to go with.
Even if the system balances well, the feel of this is pushing boundaries, and that has me worried.I'm not sure what I was expecting out of the system, but now that I see it, I'm really torn. I want to play with it, but at the same time, it seems like a huge thing to wrap my arms around, and until I can, I'm left only with my impressions to go with.
Really, honestly, this is kind of a kludged together Ars Magica. Having played Ars Magica for nearly 10 years (and this kind of system), I can tell you this may be pushing things for Pathfinder, but it's not all that crazy.
It doesn't slow down play *that much,* as people playing casters write down the spell combinations they find with the most utility ahead of time. The real drag is going to come from GMs cross-checking their costs because the word costs aren't standardized across families and we don't have good guideline lists for each family-- we have pregenerated effects to which we then apply targeting options.
This is not quite there. There need to be charts with costs for each incremental effect so that wordcounts can be generated quickly and effectively.
-Ben.
This is not quite there. There need to be charts with costs for each incremental effect so that wordcounts can be generated quickly and effectively.
-Ben.
While I still have other misgivings, I might have a better feel for this if it were easier to "eyeball" a spell and know if it adds up properly.
While I still have other misgivings, I might have a better feel for this if it were easier to "eyeball" a spell and know if it adds up properly.
This is not quite there. There need to be charts with costs for each incremental effect so that wordcounts can be generated quickly and effectively.
And in Ars Magica, I can do that. There are baseline effects, so I say something along the lines of Conjuration Fire (3) + Single target (0) + Level d6 damage (8) = 3rd level spell. (That's greatly simplified and put into context for this test, but you get the idea.)
Fire (3) is a standardized effect, as would be Fire (5), Fire (8), etc.
Modifying the target would be a standardized cost (like it is now).
Increasing the damage or the target space would be a standardized cost.
All these things are scattered and disorganized or not even done right now, and that's really pretty detrimental to generating Words of Power.
-Ben.
And I know it can be a good system-- Ars Magica won the 2005 Gold Ennie for best rules.
-Ben.
|
Topic by topic:
Flavor
I'm going to let you know up front this is the only place where we find agreement. The Words of Power from a flavor standpoint sound like the basic building blocks of reality. But they seem less powerful than the spells we have. Less Words of Power and more Components of Power.
Warning, possibly offensive story in the spoiler box. Kids, ask your parents before clicking:
Hi there, Wordcaster, welcome to the party. Watch out for these fiery denizens of hell. Oh, I like what you did there. Since they're on fire, you figured you'd use a Cold word to hit them where they're weak. That's nice. I could use a Cone of Cold but you know what? There. I suffocated that guy to death with a gesture instead. He died from that. The suffocation killed him.
Now I know what you're thinking. Surely you're more of an asset than one of the casters in the party. The Cleric maybe? I see you looking at him. Nope, see, he just called down light from the very heavens to smite a whole bunch of these guys. They're all blind, too. Now he's going in there to swing about his mace and bust some faces. Pretty awesome. Maybe you're thinking the Magus is worse than you? He's barely a caster, right? But no, he's great at buffing us and all he needs is Magic Missile and his sword and he's tearing it up.
Look, it's a real treat having you around but were all real busy being effective so we don't have a whole lot of time to watch over you. You hear that howling? That's the dickwolves. They have phalluses for every limb. They're pretty horrible. Try not to get left behind, huh?
Please note that the above story is satirical and not meant to be taken seriously or examined with a critical eye. I just have way too much time on my hands.
Approaches to Playstyle
You mayhave a bit of a point here. I'd point out that Sorcerers, though they gain more versatility than they might have had, will still be a level slower in gaining higher level words and know considerably less words than a Wizard will. Wizards will still have higher level spells than the Sorcerer every odd level after first and remain the kings of versatility.
At the Table
I don't think its fair to condemn a system because people might not be smart enough to play it. Its an optional system. If you're a GM and you can't handle it don't allow it in your games. If players are being slow with it the GM should enforce a turn time limit. People who can't do math aren't mathematicians. People who can't swim stay the hell out of the water.
Conclusion
Why shouldn't Paizo be able to push boundaries? This is an attitude I've seen more than I expected and it bothers me. It's as though because Pathfinder started as a way to keep 3.5 alive they have to be like curators of a museum or custodians of the 3.5 graveyard. The "look but don't touch" attitude is not worthy of us as a community. Paizo has design chops. The APG is more impressive than any single book I saw in 3.5 hands down. It's fun, balanced, and interesting. Paizo should be given the chance to do the same with Ultimate Magic.
In my own defense, I did not say Pathfinder should not push it boundaries, I said that I'm concerned that this pushes them a bit too far. There is a difference.
|
|
In my own defense, I did not say Pathfinder should not push it boundaries, I said that I'm concerned that this pushes them a bit too far. There is a difference.
How can we tell the difference? This boundary is ok but this one is too far? the system is audacious but based on their work so far, well within the capabilities of Paizo's design team and the community's beta testing prowess.
Obviously, this is just my opinion. No one at Paizo has to give my opinion any more weight than anyone else's, but I hope they don't give it any less weight, either. I'm not saying this is bad for everyone, I'm saying that, right now, without a better grasp on how this will play out, I'm still a bit worried about how this system will play out.
|
|
As with many changes to the game, such as the changes between 2nd and 3rd edition, a part of me is wailing 'it's too much change!' while another part of me is shaking it's head and muttering 'it's a drop in a bucket compared to what I want.'
I've played Ars Magica, Mage: the Ascension, Trinity (using the freeform Psionics rules), GURPS (using the runes words variant), etc. so I'm not exactly blown away by this concept. Indeed, I like the basic idea better than rote spells, but I'm not convinced that a system this bare bones does more than point in the direction of a workable modular magical system.
This sort of thing, IMO, calls for a write up the size of the WotC Tome of Magic write-up for Truenaming or Shadowcasters or Binders. I kinda wish I had the gumption to strip down Elements of Magic from ENWorld Publishing and turn it into a variant Words of Power system...
For the flavor concern, it seems like the Wordcaster is going to be better at blasting spells, and weaker at just about everything else, and, I suspect, by the time the product sees release, won't be stronger at blasting spells either...
The flavor probably shouldn't suggest that Wordcasters are somehow better at magic, tapping into the raw structure of magic, but instead suggest that they are actually unable to as readily grasp the refined and prepared spells that have been enhanced and improved over centuries (or even millenia), so that their fumbled together word elements will always be somewhat inferior to the tried and true spells of the standard wizards and sorcerers. The Wordcounter is less the 'true master, playing with the underlying source code of magic,' and more the 'dude who can't handle the whole math problem at once, so he has to break it up into little chunks, and put it together afterwards.'
After a nice hot shower and some time to think, I think I've seized upon what my actual expectations were going into this a little better. While I didn't think in depth about it, the explanation of the new magic system reminded me of Eternal Darkness.
In that video game, you can cast spells by putting runes together, in vaguely this formula: (power source) + (effect) + (power level).
So if you put (Mythos like thing X) + (Summon) + (1st Circle of Power) you would get a little scorpion critter. If you put (Mythos like thing X) + (Summon) + (5th Circle of Power) you would get this huge abomination that would fight for you.
So I guess what I was expecting wasn't so much multiple words for similar effects (such as multiple fire words) or points to build spells with, but more of a formula like this:
(Effect) + (target) + (modifier) + (level of spell slot used) = effect.
So if you put together, say:
(Fire) + (burst) + (damage) + (3rd level slot) you would get something similar to a fireball.
Essentially, for each spell level, the (modifier) word would have a different progression. For damage it would be dice/dice cap, and for, say, protection, it might be hit points or a bonus.
So, if you put in the following:
(Fire) + (personal) + (protection) + (2nd level slot) you might get energy resistance 10 for 1 round per level, or something like that.
You could still have a few wildcard words to make things interesting, such as an (ongoing) modifier, which might cause something like:
(Fire) + (ongoing) + (single target) + (2nd level slot) which would yield a scorching ray that did less damage but set someone on fire, giving them ongoing fire damage.
In other words, you would have a matrix of (effect) + (modifer) + (level) that would tell you what the spell would do. You could still limit some targets to certain levels or make them invalid for a effect/modifier combo.
Does that make any sense? It would just be a matter of cross referencing, not adding up spell points or having multiple similar words or variable costs based on combos.
I have no idea if he above would have even been workable, and I'm not suggesting that this is the way it should have been done, I just finally got an idea of what my expectations were. I really do think Jason did a lot of hard work for this system, and its not that I don't like it, but it is very intimidating to me.
Try to imagine two systems of magic with practicioners getting to point out the best parts of their traditions to someone... You'll get TONS of "mine's superior to that dolt's over there!" stuff :)
For the flavor concern, it seems like the Wordcaster is going to be better at blasting spells, and weaker at just about everything else, and, I suspect, by the time the product sees release, won't be stronger at blasting spells either...
Well you think this 'cause of the words currently released, but since we don't know the other words we can't tell for sure... Remember Jason said that they give direct damage words "only" because it's on these words they fear for balance... ;)
So I think that, even if there's specific spell we can never do with wordspells there'll be much more than just blast... :)(Effect) + (target) + (modifier) + (level of spell slot used) = effect.
So if you put together, say:
(Fire) + (burst) + (damage) + (3rd level slot) you would get something similar to a fireball.
Well so why bother to use single at all ? (paralysis)+(mass)+(level 1 slot)= a 1 round mass paralysis ??? For a level 1 spell ??? A bit too strong no ? :)
Even if the system balances well, the feel of this is pushing boundaries, and that has me worried.I'm not sure what I was expecting out of the system, but now that I see it, I'm really torn. I want to play with it, but at the same time, it seems like a huge thing to wrap my arms around, and until I can, I'm left only with my impressions to go with.
Really, honestly, this is kind of a kludged together Ars Magica. Having played Ars Magica for nearly 10 years (and this kind of system), I can tell you this may be pushing things for Pathfinder, but it's not all that crazy.
It doesn't slow down play *that much,* as people playing casters write down the spell combinations they find with the most utility ahead of time. The real drag is going to come from GMs cross-checking their costs because the word costs aren't standardized across families and we don't have good guideline lists for each family-- we have pregenerated effects to which we then apply targeting options.
This is not quite there. There need to be charts with costs for each incremental effect so that wordcounts can be generated quickly and effectively.
-Ben.
I'm not entirely convinced - Ars Magica is a totally different game from Pathfinder in that you generally try to avoid casting spontaneous spells too often in AM (unless you really wanted to blow your own head off) but you'd be casting every combat round in PF (plus combat is probably more common).
(NB I haven't read the Words of Power rules yet - I'm just commenting on the use of a AM type of magic system.)
I'm not entirely convinced - Ars Magica is a totally different game from Pathfinder in that you generally try to avoid casting spontaneous spells too often in AM (unless you really wanted to blow your own head off) but you'd be casting every combat round in PF (plus combat is probably more common).(NB I haven't read the Words of Power rules yet - I'm just commenting on the use of a AM type of magic system.)
/threadjack Then your saga is totally different from ours. We can and do spin off sponts all the time. Nothing outrageously potent, but we certainly use them. Unless you're twilight prone, have unpredictable magic or trying to do things beyond your capabilities in averse auras, you should be able to spontaneously cast without issues.
As far as combat's concerned, well, that depends on your time and place. 13C Provence and the Albigensian Crusade? The Levant? Theban Tribunal border as the Golden Horde approaches? Oh, you'll be engaging in regular combat much more frequently than if you're involved in a political saga in the Rhine, or Hibernia or in the Alps.
/!threadjack
My point is that ArM5 has this done much cleaner than the current offering. It *wants* to do a system like ArM5, but the formatting is all kludged up and it's unclear what various parts allow you to do. To put this in my PFRPG, I'd need to reset guidelines and figuring out how to fit that with the cool words system. This could be that system, but it needs to be cleaned up and standardized and presented in a way that allows for easy construction.
-Ben.
You deal with the same thing is Psionics. Back when I played a Psychic Warrior I had about half a sheet of pre-configured combat moves and power point expendatures. It wasn't that hard to be ready with my action in a turn.
Word Cards would help as well I think for spontaneous casters.
I'm not entirely convinced - Ars Magica is a totally different game from Pathfinder in that you generally try to avoid casting spontaneous spells too often in AM (unless you really wanted to blow your own head off) but you'd be casting every combat round in PF (plus combat is probably more common).(NB I haven't read the Words of Power rules yet - I'm just commenting on the use of a AM type of magic system.)
/threadjack Then your saga is totally different from ours. We can and do spin off sponts all the time. Nothing outrageously potent, but we certainly use them. Unless you're twilight prone, have unpredictable magic or trying to do things beyond your capabilities in averse auras, you should be able to spontaneously cast without issues.
As far as combat's concerned, well, that depends on your time and place. 13C Provence and the Albigensian Crusade? The Levant? Theban Tribunal border as the Golden Horde approaches? Oh, you'll be engaging in regular combat much more frequently than if you're involved in a political saga in the Rhine, or Hibernia or in the Alps.
/!threadjackMy point is that ArM5 has this done much cleaner than the current offering. It *wants* to do a system like ArM5, but the formatting is all kludged up and it's unclear what various parts allow you to do. To put this in my PFRPG, I'd need to reset guidelines and figuring out how to fit that with the cool words system. This could be that system, but it needs to be cleaned up and standardized and presented in a way that allows for easy construction.
-Ben.
Oh we only played ArM4 where the combat was so broken you had to avoid it ;) /aside
However, I can't disagree with your point about the spell system needing to be easy to use as that has been one of the strengths of D&D since the beginning.
Well so why bother to use single at all ? (paralysis)+(mass)+(level 1 slot)= a 1 round mass paralysis ??? For a level 1 spell ??? A bit too strong no ? :)
Well, I was outlining what I was expecting, not completely defining a new magic system in one post, however, you may have missed this from my post:
You could still limit some targets to certain levels or make them invalid for a effect/modifier combo.
Like I said, it was just a quick outline of how I thought this might go instead of the point buying route.
You deal with the same thing is Psionics. Back when I played a Psychic Warrior I had about half a sheet of pre-configured combat moves and power point expendatures. It wasn't that hard to be ready with my action in a turn.
Word Cards would help as well I think for spontaneous casters.
I'm not sure its quite the same. The actual powers that a psychic warrior is using are pre-built, you are just spending points to activate that power, which might vary depending on whether you are boosting it or not.
You aren't totaling effects, targets, and the like. I agree that people can pre-build spells in this system, but as others have said, that defeats the purpose a bit, and the temptation to change a spell just before your turn because it would obviously be better to alter it a bit would have to be high.
|
|
Word Cards would help as well I think for spontaneous casters.
A spell-building class that came with it's own deck of word cards, to assemble spells, with the costs printed on the card, so that he could plunk down cards within his 'budget' (based on his level) would be all sorts of cool.
Just so long as 'rare cards' that allowed cheaper or more powerful Words didn't creep into the game...
...the temptation to change a spell just before your turn because it would obviously be better to alter it a bit would have to be high.
Just trying to clarify, are you saying this is a non-desirable thing?
If so could you explain your line of thinking this.
You deal with the same thing is Psionics. Back when I played a Psychic Warrior I had about half a sheet of pre-configured combat moves and power point expendatures. It wasn't that hard to be ready with my action in a turn.
Personally, I think it's much more similar to metamagic, especially if you consider 3.5 metamagic feats like Chain Spell and Sculpt Spell as well (not to mention Pathfinder metamagic like Reach Spell and Selective Spell). The only real difference is that your words add up in less predictable ways than metamagic feats.
...the temptation to change a spell just before your turn because it would obviously be better to alter it a bit would have to be high.Just trying to clarify, are you saying this is a non-desirable thing?
If so could you explain your line of thinking this.
Wizards are supposed to have to fill their slots at the beginning of the day. If it turned out that what you really needed was a small burst fire blast rather than a mass fire blast, the wizard's player would be tempted to pretend that he had memorized the burst rather than the mass. It seems like it would be harder to police this than normal.
Having looked over the playtest materials, my initial thought was not favorable. It is presented as an optional, alternate magic system. From my perspective, if I were to use the system, it would be to replace the current system. Mixing the two I would find potentially cumbersome. The flexibility is nice, but I do feel there is a slight advantage for spontaneous casters.
I would like to see some similar idea developed into a core class (Incantor or something?). There could be some nice things developed along these lines and it would keep from having to have a massive amount of charts on what this or that costs for every spellcasting class (which is a very big list).
On the idea of the amount of information needed to cover all caster classes, does this seem to need a LOT of space to cover in the rules? Will this take up a large percentage of the book? I would be concerned if too much verbal real estate used for an optional system would potentially lower the overall product value to a larger market.
One of the things that drew me to Pathfinder was the streamlining of some of the cumbersome rules in 3.5. I personally like rules that are simple without sacrificing playability. It is a tough balance and Pathfinder has done a great job trying to maintain it and keep the flavor of 3.5. I guess I am a purest on some levels and I am probably reacting to change like I have every time there has been a new edition. So far, I have only been right about the evils of a new edition of the most popular role-playing game once.
|
|
On the idea of the amount of information needed to cover all caster classes, does this seem to need a LOT of space to cover in the rules? Will this take up a large percentage of the book? I would be concerned if too much verbal real estate used for an optional system would potentially lower the overall product value to a larger market.
Jason has mentioned a couple times now that Words of Power will be taking up much less space than the sections which deal with traditional spell casting.
Wizards are supposed to have to fill their slots at the beginning of the day. If it turned out that what you really needed was a small burst fire blast rather than a mass fire blast, the wizard's player would be tempted to pretend that he had memorized the burst rather than the mass. It seems like it would be harder to police this than normal.
A fair concern although from my perspective I saw this as a great option for spontaneous casters. So much so that I have been pondering (houseruling) all spont. casters use WoP and prep. casters use the spells in the book, rather than ask for a new class based around WoP So I wasn't thinking along the lines K.E.JR was, thanks for the clarification.
Actually, I wasn't worried about player dishonesty. Nothing you can really do with rules that changes a dishonest player, and the people I play with are great guys.
What I was referencing was the comments that I have seen that say "a player should be prepared before their turn comes up so that when their turn comes up, they aren't taking time to build a spell."
My point wasn't that it was good or bad, per se, but to assume that building spells before your turn would be a time saver and the default seems to me to be counter intuitive to the system. You should be able to react to what just happened, but if you do, you will have to do at least a little figuring at your turn.
I also don't want to sound like I'm all negative. Its an interesting system, but I have my concerns, and I just wanted to put them out there.
Wizards are supposed to have to fill their slots at the beginning of the day. If it turned out that what you really needed was a small burst fire blast rather than a mass fire blast, the wizard's player would be tempted to pretend that he had memorized the burst rather than the mass. It seems like it would be harder to police this than normal....the temptation to change a spell just before your turn because it would obviously be better to alter it a bit would have to be high.Just trying to clarify, are you saying this is a non-desirable thing?
If so could you explain your line of thinking this.
How is this any harder to police than normal? If you have players turn in their spell lists to you every game day, then you just check the list. If you don't, then it's just as easy to change out delayed blast fireball for (fire-substituted) chain lightning.