Is backwards compatability the way to go at this point?


Round 2: Words of Power Discussion

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Our group was hanging out last night discussing the playtest to see if we could incorporate it into our upcoming game, and we all came to agreement on the following conclusion

1. We really love the concept.
2. We don't think it is a good idea to start it off with the goal of replacing the casting of existing classes.

We all think the goal of variants for existing caster classes down the line is great. We are a pro-variety group, not adverse to change.

But in reading the rules as written and trying to make up spells, we all agreed that it seems like there is too much effort into making them able to do to much. And so we feel that the much more logical way to do this is to start off with a limited, easily balanced spell selection in a brand new base class, then expand them out once they are understood.

The new base class should not try to be conceptually a Wizard or Sorcerer, it shouldn't try to have the variety of arcane spells those classes have, and in trade it shouldn't require material and somatic components, or even a spellbook for casting. They would only have access to the most easily balanced spells, like the damage and buff spells. You can call them "Wordcasters" or "Elementalists" or whatever you like.

You could give advantages to the class to make up for the lack of utility spells, but you should keep the spell list small for both balance and charting purposes.

This is not to say that backwards compatibility and integration with existing classes should not be a long term goal. I think it is a great goal. But in the roll out, it seems to be biting off more than anyone can reasonably chew to attempt to both create a new magic system and try to incorporate it into existing classes. It is clear in the bloodlines and the schools that shoehorning is going on, and it isn't needed if you just start this as a new class, then expand from there in future books.

It will be much easier to address problems with A class, rather than try and address them through all caster classes.

Just our groups 2 c.

Dark Archive

Ciretose--I agree with you. I have been drafting some thoughts about this round of playtesting that I was going to post, but since you brought up this topic I'll add the relevant portions here:

Ultimate Magic Playtest Round 2 wrote:


While they function in much the same way as every other spellcaster, words of power spellcasters (or wordcasters, as they tend to call themselves)

Out of curiosity, if wordcasters are so different (they even have a special name for themselves), then why are they still considered to be members of the existing classes? Reading through this playtest document, it sounds like a wordcasting is fairly different than the standard spellcasting classes. If we are going to make a distinction between "memorization-casting mages" (i.e. wizards) and "spontaneous-casting mages" (i.e. sorcerers), then it seems to me that we should also make the same distinction for wordcasting mages. This may not be the direction Paizo wants to take the game, but it is something to consider.


I actually want to make all spontaenous casters: sorcerers, oracles, bards (maybe) be wordcasters and prep casters use the extant system to create a wider divide especially between sorcs/wizards. The big issues are: how does this impact item creation feats and by level bonus spells for those classes?

Liberty's Edge

Dragonsong wrote:
I actually want to make all spontaenous casters: sorcerers, oracles, bards (maybe) be wordcasters and prep casters use the extant system to create a wider divide especially between sorcs/wizards. The big issues are: how does this impact item creation feats and by level bonus spells for those classes?

I think one of many big issues. Like I said above, I really like the idea a lot, and I even like the execution. I just think a replacement casting methodology that can fit the existing classes is too big a bite at this point.

Start with a new base class based off of this casting style and expand from there later as the bugs emerge and are worked out.

Liberty's Edge

Slithy wrote:

Ciretose--I agree with you. I have been drafting some thoughts about this round of playtesting that I was going to post, but since you brought up this topic I'll add the relevant portions here:

Ultimate Magic Playtest Round 2 wrote:


While they function in much the same way as every other spellcaster, words of power spellcasters (or wordcasters, as they tend to call themselves)
Out of curiosity, if wordcasters are so different (they even have a special name for themselves), then why are they still considered to be members of the existing classes? Reading through this playtest document, it sounds like a wordcasting is fairly different than the standard spellcasting classes. If we are going to make a distinction between "memorization-casting mages" (i.e. wizards) and "spontaneous-casting mages" (i.e. sorcerers), then it seems to me that we should also make the same distinction for wordcasting mages. This may not be the direction Paizo wants to take the game, but it is something to consider.

I agree 100%. I don't think you need to squeeze this into the existing casting classes. At least not at this point.

If this is a direction they are considering for a new edition of the game way down the line, I am fine with it. But I think for now leave the classes alone and make this into a whole new class running parallel in the same way psionics do in 3.5...well hopefully better than that.

Later, if you want to make variants for each casting class, that would be fine with me. I love variety. But I think if you try to roll too much out at once, it's going to create problems and exploits that would be harder to fix if it is all classes rather than just one new class.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Compatibility with 3.5 will remain "the way to go" for the lifespan of this edition of the Pathfinder RPG. If we decide to abandon this design goal when/if we do a 2nd edition of PFRPG at some point in the (hopefully distant) future, then that'll be the time for us to sit down and decide if we can afford or even want to rebuild everything from scratch and obsolete a couple of decades of great gaming material.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Compatibility with 3.5 will remain "the way to go" for the lifespan of this edition of the Pathfinder RPG. If we decide to abandon this design goal when/if we do a 2nd edition of PFRPG at some point in the (hopefully distant) future, then that'll be the time for us to sit down and decide if we can afford or even want to rebuild everything from scratch and obsolete a couple of decades of great gaming material.

I think you misunderstand.

I am only referring to making the Words of Power work with existing caster classes rather than creating a new class to apply them too first.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ciretose wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Compatibility with 3.5 will remain "the way to go" for the lifespan of this edition of the Pathfinder RPG. If we decide to abandon this design goal when/if we do a 2nd edition of PFRPG at some point in the (hopefully distant) future, then that'll be the time for us to sit down and decide if we can afford or even want to rebuild everything from scratch and obsolete a couple of decades of great gaming material.

I think you misunderstand.

I am only referring to making the Words of Power work with existing caster classes rather than creating a new class to apply them too first.

Oh! Yeah; I did indeed misunderstand.

The words of power system would probably have been a GREAT tentpole ability to build a new class from. We wanted to get a bit more experimental with how they work is all.


James Jacobs wrote:


The words of power system would probably have been a GREAT tentpole ability to build a new class from. We wanted to get a bit more experimental with how they work is all.

The one thing that I think you might have considered unfettering yourself from is the number of spells known for spontaneous casters equating to the number of words known.

When I see 9 different words for monster summoning rather than 1 with scaling costs it seems wrong to me.

I'm curious if this was considered and dismissed for some reason. Seeing as all the spontaneous casters basically use either the sorcerer or bard tables it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to do.

-James


james maissen wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


The words of power system would probably have been a GREAT tentpole ability to build a new class from. We wanted to get a bit more experimental with how they work is all.

The one thing that I think you might have considered unfettering yourself from is the number of spells known for spontaneous casters equating to the number of words known.

When I see 9 different words for monster summoning rather than 1 with scaling costs it seems wrong to me.

I'm curious if this was considered and dismissed for some reason. Seeing as all the spontaneous casters basically use either the sorcerer or bard tables it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to do.

-James

Thank Vancian casting's spells per level per day for that. A spell can only have one level and take up the appropriate slot for that level. It can scale across caster levels, but never across spell levels unless there is a separate version of the spell for each level.

Words of Power is intended to be a drop in casting system for existing Vancian classes. In order to fit the existing spells per level per day it is forced to bring some of Vancian casting's baggage with it. It's the same Vancian casting with the spells broken into pieces and assigned point values for building your own spells.

Liberty's Edge

Freesword wrote:
james maissen wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


The words of power system would probably have been a GREAT tentpole ability to build a new class from. We wanted to get a bit more experimental with how they work is all.

The one thing that I think you might have considered unfettering yourself from is the number of spells known for spontaneous casters equating to the number of words known.

When I see 9 different words for monster summoning rather than 1 with scaling costs it seems wrong to me.

I'm curious if this was considered and dismissed for some reason. Seeing as all the spontaneous casters basically use either the sorcerer or bard tables it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to do.

-James

Thank Vancian casting's spells per level per day for that. A spell can only have one level and take up the appropriate slot for that level. It can scale across caster levels, but never across spell levels unless there is a separate version of the spell for each level.

Words of Power is intended to be a drop in casting system for existing Vancian classes. In order to fit the existing spells per level per day it is forced to bring some of Vancian casting's baggage with it. It's the same Vancian casting with the spells broken into pieces and assigned point values for building your own spells.

And this is kind of the larger point. Why not just make this work as something good in and of itself, separate from existing classes.

I respect the ambition of the project, and I respect the hell out of Paizo's developers for what they have done so far, I just worry this may be a bridge to far to build in one go.

But if any one can pull it off, it's Paizo.


Freesword wrote:


Thank Vancian casting's spells per level per day for that. A spell can only have one level and take up the appropriate slot for that level. It can scale across caster levels, but never across spell levels unless there is a separate version of the spell for each level.

Words of Power is intended to be a drop in casting system for existing Vancian classes. In order to fit the existing spells per level per day it is forced to bring some of Vancian casting's baggage with it. It's the same Vancian casting with the spells broken into pieces and assigned point values for building your own spells.

This is where I disagree.

You could have ONE monster summoning word that could scale and summon monsters based upon how strong it was scaled.

Thinking simply you could cast 'summon monster' as a 4th level spell and have the table for 'summon monster 4' etc.

Vancian casting has nothing to do with this. The wizard or cleric preparing spells would construct/memorize a 4th level spell using the summon monster word properly scaled and would have the same effect as a memorized summon monster 4 spell.

The only issue with this would be spells known per level chart, which need not directly translate to words known per level chart.

-James

Paizo Employee Creative Director

james maissen wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


The words of power system would probably have been a GREAT tentpole ability to build a new class from. We wanted to get a bit more experimental with how they work is all.

The one thing that I think you might have considered unfettering yourself from is the number of spells known for spontaneous casters equating to the number of words known.

When I see 9 different words for monster summoning rather than 1 with scaling costs it seems wrong to me.

I'm curious if this was considered and dismissed for some reason. Seeing as all the spontaneous casters basically use either the sorcerer or bard tables it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to do.

-James

We had to pick one or the other. AND: It's a playtest, so feedback can help us make those decisions, after all.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

james maissen wrote:


This is where I disagree.

You could have ONE monster summoning word that could scale and summon monsters based upon how strong it was scaled.

Thinking simply you could cast 'summon monster' as a 4th level spell and have the table for 'summon monster 4' etc.

Vancian casting has nothing to do with this. The wizard or cleric preparing spells would construct/memorize a 4th level spell using the summon monster word properly scaled and would have the same effect as a memorized summon monster 4 spell.

The only issue with this would be spells known per level chart, which need not directly translate to words known per level chart.

-James

Actually, this is one the balance mechanism built into the spontaneous classes. They must make these sorts of choices when it comes to multiple spells (or words) that have similar effects.

In some cases we went with a boost option. In others we didn't. I am interested in seeing feedback on both approaches.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Actually, this is one the balance mechanism built into the spontaneous classes. They must make these sorts of choices when it comes to multiple spells (or words) that have similar effects.

In some cases we went with a boost option. In others we didn't. I am interested in seeing feedback on both approaches.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I guess from a read I like the idea of fewer words with more boosts.

For spontaneous casters this would mean tweaking their words known table so it would not be in 1-1 correspondence with spells known.

The alternative to me reads too much like a pale shadow of the existing spells and doesn't seem to fully embrace the idea of building the spells.

-James


james maissen wrote:


This is where I disagree.

The only issue with this would be spells known per level chart, which need not directly translate to words known per level chart.

-James

The questions then are: 1. How many words does it take to construct a "typical spell" (if there is such a beast)? 2. How many spells can be constructed from a given set / number of words? and 3. What is the flexibility worth in terms of regular casters spell slots? Sounds like a good time for those number crunching types who love to optimise to chime in :D

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Compatibility with 3.5 will remain "the way to go" for the lifespan of this edition of the Pathfinder RPG. If we decide to abandon this design goal when/if we do a 2nd edition of PFRPG at some point in the (hopefully distant) future, then that'll be the time for us to sit down and decide if we can afford or even want to rebuild everything from scratch and obsolete a couple of decades of great gaming material.

The design goal of 3.5 compatibility is the reason I am a Paizo loyalist! The idea of WotC to "obsolete a couple decades of great gaming material" was the reason I quit purchasing there products.

I am really liking the feel of Words of Power, but it seems kinda clunky and intimidating... and I consider myself an experienced gamer, having played through almost all the editions of the game Pathfinder is base on.

Liberty's Edge

Arnim Thayer wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Compatibility with 3.5 will remain "the way to go" for the lifespan of this edition of the Pathfinder RPG. If we decide to abandon this design goal when/if we do a 2nd edition of PFRPG at some point in the (hopefully distant) future, then that'll be the time for us to sit down and decide if we can afford or even want to rebuild everything from scratch and obsolete a couple of decades of great gaming material.

The design goal of 3.5 compatibility is the reason I am a Paizo loyalist! The idea of WotC to "obsolete a couple decades of great gaming material" was the reason I quit purchasing there products.

I am really liking the feel of Words of Power, but it seems kinda clunky and intimidating... and I consider myself an experienced gamer, having played through almost all the editions of the game Pathfinder is base on.

I think this is moot, at it was a post based on confusion about the topic (which is my fault for the name of the topic...)

This question I was asking is if it makes more sense to just create a new class using words of power rather than trying to fit words of power into the existing classes.

As Mr. Jacobs put it, make Words of Power a tent pole for a new class, rather than a variant for existing classes.

My opinion is that the tent pole is the way to start, maybe making class variants down the road based on how well the new class worked.


james maissen wrote:
Freesword wrote:


Thank Vancian casting's spells per level per day for that. A spell can only have one level and take up the appropriate slot for that level. It can scale across caster levels, but never across spell levels unless there is a separate version of the spell for each level.

Words of Power is intended to be a drop in casting system for existing Vancian classes. In order to fit the existing spells per level per day it is forced to bring some of Vancian casting's baggage with it. It's the same Vancian casting with the spells broken into pieces and assigned point values for building your own spells.

This is where I disagree.

You could have ONE monster summoning word that could scale and summon monsters based upon how strong it was scaled.

Thinking simply you could cast 'summon monster' as a 4th level spell and have the table for 'summon monster 4' etc.

Vancian casting has nothing to do with this. The wizard or cleric preparing spells would construct/memorize a 4th level spell using the summon monster word properly scaled and would have the same effect as a memorized summon monster 4 spell.

The only issue with this would be spells known per level chart, which need not directly translate to words known per level chart.

-James

Actually, I agree that spells could and should scale as you suggest.

The problem is with traditional Vancian casting they don't and won't.

My point was that the problem is an artifact of the Vancian system and trying to conform to what it has established.

Sorry if I went into rant mode on the existing Vancian system. I am no fan of it and am somewhat disappointed at the number of its (negative in my opinion) peculiarities that are carried over into words of power. I like the direction words of power is going in, but I feel it kept too much of the worst of Vancian casting and added too little benefit for the bookkeeping it added.


One note: I pick up Pathfinder because of 3.5, and I loved 3.5 because of all of its ideas and options, which allow each time I start a campaign to create an unique world and flavour.

I'm not even forced to use Words of Power always together with standard spellcasting - it could be just how magic works in my Campaign Setting #3 and #12.

Dark Archive

I'd like to see the Words of Power used to support a Truenamer-like class rather than to replace standard spells for traditional classes.

In my campaign, I have a few players who enjoy the compexities and challenges of magic subsystems (e.g. Truenamer, Shadowcaster, and Binder). They study between sessions, and are prepared. For them, the Words of Power would work fine.

Most of my players, however, don't research and study their classes, spells, etc, between gaming sessions. Combat is often slowed down by their lack of preparation, and these players require a lot of support and coaching. I can't imagine the Words of Power being viable for these players.

I wonder if there are many players that could manage the complexities of the Words of Power as they are currently written...

Liberty's Edge

Kaiyanwang wrote:

One note: I pick up Pathfinder because of 3.5, and I loved 3.5 because of all of its ideas and options, which allow each time I start a campaign to create an unique world and flavour.

I'm not even forced to use Words of Power always together with standard spellcasting - it could be just how magic works in my Campaign Setting #3 and #12.

I think options are good, I'm just always paranoid about power creep and exploits.

It's easier to contain that in a single class, and then once evaluated expand from there into variants rather than starting with the variants.


It does seem that there are a lot of words that are basically "this is the previous word at an increased spell level". The current Fire words could have almost been written as "like Burning Hands", "like Fireball", "like Cone of Cold but fire", and "like Delayed Blast Fireball but no delay".

If I were to write a system like this, my first attempt would be things like below. (Wording is a quick draft to give the sense and needs more details for an actual rule. The costs also are quick guesses.)

Fire Blast: 1d4/level fire damage. Max 5d4.
Boost: Increase the cost by 5 and the level by 2. Damage dice increase to d6 and the cap increases by 5 dice. May be boosted multiple times.

Servitor: Summon a monster from the SM I or SNA I list.
Boost: Increase the cost by 3 and the level by 1. The monster may be selected from the next higher list. May be boosted multiple times.

Multiple Servitor: Cost 3. You summon 1d3 monsters.
Boost: Cost 6. You summon 1d4+1 monsters.

Those three words could replace most of the about 13 Fire and Summoning words, and are simpler to understand. It also does a better job of keeping the power of Servitor and Summon at the same level.

This would require a more complicated system for determining words known than "same as spells known", but I think it is still a simpler system. Words known also only comes up when leveling, which is usually done between sessions rather than during combat.

I think the main fundamental objection that I have to the system is it feels like someone took the existing set of spells and said, "How can we break these down into pieces that can mostly be combined to get the original spells back" rather than "how can we design a system that allows pieces to be assembled into spells which gives a similar power level". Both (assuming they are done well) give you an alternate spell casting system of similar power, but the first feels like a kludge glued onto the existing system, while the latter would give the feel of a new and different system.


Perhaps have a basic damage spell per element (Flame Jet, Spark, etc.), and have "Boost" words, which scale up the damage/effects of the spell.


udalrich wrote:


I think the main fundamental objection that I have to the system is it feels like someone took the existing set of spells and said, "How can we break these down into pieces that can mostly be combined to get the original spells back" rather than "how can we design a system that allows pieces to be assembled into spells which gives a similar power level". Both (assuming they are done well) give you an alternate spell casting system of similar power, but the first feels like a kludge glued onto the existing system, while the latter would...

I can't agree more.

I think breaking things down into paying for range/duration/targets as well as effect would make a good deal of sense here.

Not only is this current halfway system looking like it wants to ape the original system in terms of what it can do, but its failing at having that degree of flexibility.

-James

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:
udalrich wrote:


I think the main fundamental objection that I have to the system is it feels like someone took the existing set of spells and said, "How can we break these down into pieces that can mostly be combined to get the original spells back" rather than "how can we design a system that allows pieces to be assembled into spells which gives a similar power level". Both (assuming they are done well) give you an alternate spell casting system of similar power, but the first feels like a kludge glued onto the existing system, while the latter would...

I can't agree more.

I think breaking things down into paying for range/duration/targets as well as effect would make a good deal of sense here.

Not only is this current halfway system looking like it wants to ape the original system in terms of what it can do, but its failing at having that degree of flexibility.

-James

It does have potential though.

I think if you stop trying to make it do what the other system can do and just make it a balanced alternative casting class, you can expand it later if that is the direction you want to go in.


ciretose wrote:


It does have potential though.

I think if you stop trying to make it do what the other system can do and just make it a balanced alternative casting class, you can expand it later if that is the direction you want to go in.

I think its going in the wrong direction right now. Its clunky rather than elegant because its trying to ape the old system too much. Its not something that should wait until later to be 'fixed'.

I thought much the same when multi-classing was put into 3.0. It wasn't fully thought through and we still deal with the aftereffects of that poor design choice. Pathfinder has taken some (but not all the required) steps to fix it, but still when making new classes it seems to hover over them like a spectre.

Sorry this is a bit blunt, but I forgot to save this in a buffer the first time I wrote it and well there's my luck.

Anyway, the only real impediment to streamlining these words is the spontaneous casters. Specifically how many words they should have as 'known'. Fortunately all the spontaneous casters are modeled after either the bard or the sorcerer, so there are only two tables to construct or to figure out.

This doesn't seem impossible to do, and getting it right now will prevent it from hanging over our heads though out this edition like multi-classing has already.

-James


james maissen wrote:


I think its going in the wrong direction right now. Its clunky rather than elegant because its trying to ape the old system too much. Its not something that should wait until later to be 'fixed'.

I thought much the same when multi-classing was put into 3.0. It wasn't fully thought through and we still deal with the aftereffects of that poor design choice. Pathfinder has taken some (but not all the required) steps to fix it, but still when making new classes it seems to hover over them like a spectre.

Sorry this is a bit blunt, but I forgot to save this in a buffer the first time I wrote it and well there's my luck.

Anyway, the only real impediment to streamlining these words is the spontaneous casters. Specifically how many words they should have as 'known'. Fortunately all the spontaneous casters are modeled after either the bard or the sorcerer, so there are only two tables to construct or to figure out.

This doesn't seem impossible to do, and getting it right now will prevent it from hanging over our heads though out this edition like multi-classing has already.

-James

Two things.

1. Backward compatibility is a major plank of the Pathfinder system as it now exists. It's why people find it easier to switch to it rather than 4E. I would have had to trash out my entire campaign for 4E. It took minor changes / upgrades to switch to Pathfinder. If Pathfinder was too much of a change I'd be playing 3.5 instead.

2. The scope of this book is too limited to do what you want. There is a lot in it besides the new magic system. It would take an entire book devoted to just the new system, it's impact on all the magic using classes, magic items and item creation to do what you want. The question at that point being how many people want to totally tear out their established magic system for a replacement. One which is bound to have teething problems like any new rules set. A pretty limited number I'd guess. It wouldn't include me (for reasons mentioned above).

I think adding it in with a tie to the older system is the only viable way to do this. Anything else is wishful thinking at this point.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
james maissen wrote:

The one thing that I think you might have considered unfettering yourself from is the number of spells known for spontaneous casters equating to the number of words known.

When I see 9 different words for monster summoning rather than 1 with scaling costs it seems wrong to me.

James Jacobs wrote:
We had to pick one or the other. AND: It's a playtest, so feedback can help us make those decisions, after all.

How about, instead of nine separate words, you have 'Summon Servitor-Minor' (boostable from Level 1-3), 'Summon Servitor-Medium' (boostable from Level 4-6), and 'Summon Servitor-Major' (boostable from Level 7-9)?

The boosts can be either more powerful creatures, or more numerous creatures.


R_Chance wrote:


Two things.

1. Backward compatibility is a major plank of the Pathfinder system as it now exists.

2. The scope of this book is too limited to do what you want.

I guess I disagree with this assessment.

1. It would still be backward compatible, I'm not suggesting that it not be. Having a different table for words known rather than saying use the spell known is not hard to add. As I said all the spontaneous casters are either using the bard or the sorcerer tables.

2. I think it would actually take LESS space to write out what I'm suggesting than the way they seem to be going. While it would require 2 tables of 'words known' they don't take up much space. And instead of writing out 9 different monster summoning spells, 5 different versions of each elemental spell for damage, etc. Having more interchangeable parts I think would actually in the long run be more compact.

2b. As to trying to achieve this in the first place, that's ambitious and perhaps not for everyone. However if they're going to do it I hope that it can be done right.

-James


For what its worth, I'd feel a lot better about the concept if there were one or two new classes (one divine and one arcane, perhaps) that used this system instead of making this an alternate of all of the current spellcasting classes.

No concern over how much this will actually benefit a prepared caster or the fact that it seems like it changes the the approach to playing a spontaneous caster.

Heck, I'd even appreciate a distinctions of a "Wordcasting Sorcerer" and "Wordcasting Oracle" as Alternate Classes instead of just trying to make this an either or for all spellcasters.

But I'm pretty sure with the amount of work done on this, its a bit too late to switch directions. It just feels a bit too ambitious as it stands.

Also, as the "story" material goes right now, it strikes me as a bit odd that a "wordcasting" paladin or ranger will be playing with the very building blocks of divine magic, while a standard cleric doesn't understand those building blocks.


james maissen wrote:

I think it would actually take LESS space to write out what I'm suggesting than the way they seem to be going. While it would require 2 tables of 'words known' they don't take up much space. And instead of writing out 9 different monster summoning spells, 5 different versions of each elemental spell for damage, etc. Having more interchangeable parts I think would actually in the long run be more compact.

-James

I agree. I think if this were the basis for one or two alternate classes, it would take less space then trying to create a whole alternate system for every spellcasting class.

Less space doesn't mean less work, however, and I respect the amount of work that Jason must have already put into this system. It would be hard to change the scope at this point, as much as I'd prefer it myself.


james maissen wrote:
R_Chance wrote:


Two things.

1. Backward compatibility is a major plank of the Pathfinder system as it now exists.

2. The scope of this book is too limited to do what you want.

I guess I disagree with this assessment.

1. It would still be backward compatible, I'm not suggesting that it not be. Having a different table for words known rather than saying use the spell known is not hard to add. As I said all the spontaneous casters are either using the bard or the sorcerer tables.

2. I think it would actually take LESS space to write out what I'm suggesting than the way they seem to be going. While it would require 2 tables of 'words known' they don't take up much space. And instead of writing out 9 different monster summoning spells, 5 different versions of each elemental spell for damage, etc. Having more interchangeable parts I think would actually in the long run be more compact.

2b. As to trying to achieve this in the first place, that's ambitious and perhaps not for everyone. However if they're going to do it I hope that it can be done right.

-James

If this is an alternate magic system and you're going to apply it to all classes / the whole game you would have to determine a number of things. For example...

1. Not just how many words were known, but what words could be known by different classes.

2. As a follow up to #1, does the new system apply to divine magic as well as arcane?

3. Does it include alignment restrictions -- are there words that good (or evil, or lawful / chaotic) casters would or would not use?

4. What words are needed to make different magic items, are there new items, or are there items that would need to be eliminated?

5. Are you sticking with item creation feats or are their special words for this?

6. What about various creatures currently with spell like magical powers / abilities? Do they use the new words of power system or is their system going to be different?

That's just off the top of my head. I can think of dozens of others based on the answers to the above and what direction you take the system. This is much more complex than a simple spell point system which uses the same spells as the standard Vancian system.

None of this takes into account "debugging" a new system and finding the exploits that are bound to be in it. And you know there are that players will find any that exist and gleefully abuse them.

If it's an alternate system that exists alongside the traditional system it would be easier. It doesn't have to apply to every class, be able to simulate every magic item, etc. As KnightErrantJr mentioned, alternate classes would make it even easier to do. It could even be done as an archtype for the classes it does apply to.


Backwards compatibility is a dealbreaker for me.

I won't even be playtesting if it isn't something I can fit into my ongoing campaign. The good news is—looking at the first playtest doc and some of the suggestions—I feel like such a system is within reach.

My campaign experience is pretty standard for Adventure Path players; we get locked into full-length campaigns. Words of Power should let them integrate the new rules like they would integrate new feats or spells into a campaign.

If I can plant Words lying around like spells for my wizard PC to find, or he can spend a feat to start using a few Words here and there, then this is something I'm going to use. Otherwise, it's an optional rule that belongs in a Pathfinder version of UA somewhere.

I'm totally OK with the idea that you could have a Word-only caster or a Classic-only caster, but the default assumption for these rules should be mix-and-match. That is the most interesting possible system.

Don't make me throw out a campaign or a PC just to use some new rules. They should be supplemental, not substituent.

Liberty's Edge

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Backwards compatibility is a dealbreaker for me.

I won't even be playtesting if it isn't something I can fit into my ongoing campaign. The good news is—looking at the first playtest doc and some of the suggestions—I feel like such a system is within reach.

My campaign experience is pretty standard for Adventure Path players; we get locked into full-length campaigns. Words of Power should let them integrate the new rules like they would integrate new feats or spells into a campaign.

If I can plant Words lying around like spells for my wizard PC to find, or he can spend a feat to start using a few Words here and there, then this is something I'm going to use. Otherwise, it's an optional rule that belongs in a Pathfinder version of UA somewhere.

I'm totally OK with the idea that you could have a Word-only caster or a Classic-only caster, but the default assumption for these rules should be mix-and-match. That is the most interesting possible system.

Don't make me throw out a campaign or a PC just to use some new rules. They should be supplemental, not substituent.

But you can fit them in with a new class, as you did with the APG classes.

The problem comes when you have to make the words of power fit the existing classes from the onset, rather than making a new class and then expanding from there.

Making them substituent calls for a complete re-write of the primary feature of most of the existing classes. That is to much without first trying it as a new class first.


I would dig a word-caster better than a universal word-casting system. A new type of caster with access to mixing up stuff from casting fundamentals, regardless if used by others as divine or arcane, at the price of not having access to many of the unique and hard to categorize spells that the Vancians get to load and fire. Much like the Black Company d20 magic system, but instead of the seeds and weaving that work so well for that setting, having simple word combos that any advanced player can use.


I agree with the concept that the WoP caster should be a new spellcasting class and not an alternative system at this stage. There's an awful lot of information in the playtest rules but when you have to start replacing the spellcasting abilities of an existing class, there's all sorts of ways to misinterpret or break the game.

Some sort of 'Wordsmith', someone who has researched these words either through study, adventure or purchase, would seem more appropriate. They would have to be neither divine or arcane but something in between to give them the versatility in creating spells. They should also be spontaneous casters in nature again reflecting the simplified nature of the spells and their versatility

mac


ciretose wrote:
Making them substituent calls for a complete re-write of the primary feature of most of the existing classes. That is to much without first trying it as a new class first.

I had hoped to see a system which was "Spells you can combine" — which used the same spell slots as characters already had. While that's not exactly what we ended up with, I still see the potential is definitely there.

A system that requires a character creation choice doesn't appeal to me nearly as much. That doesn't mean it is worthless, but I would just rather have a product that I can drop into an ongoing campaign and let my players experiment with, without having to make entirely new characters.

I respectfully disagree that such a system is out of reach.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

I had hoped to see a system which was "Spells you can combine" — which used the same spell slots as characters already had. While that's not exactly what we ended up with, I still see the potential is definitely there.

A system that requires a character creation choice doesn't appeal to me nearly as much. That doesn't mean it is worthless, but I would just rather have a product that I can drop into an ongoing campaign and let my players experiment with, without having to make entirely new characters.

I respectfully disagree that such a system is out of reach.

You know, with the whole feats that let "Wordcasters" use normal spells, it is interesting to me that there wasn't an opposite feat that allowed for some use of Wordcasting by normal spellcasters.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

KnightErrantJR wrote:


You know, with the whole feats that let "Wordcasters" use normal spells, it is interesting to me that there wasn't an opposite feat that allowed for some use of Wordcasting by normal spellcasters.

There will be in the final book. I did not include one here because I wanted the primary focus to be on characters that use this system almost exclusively.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

There will be in the final book. I did not include one here because I wanted the primary focus to be on characters that use this system almost exclusively.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Understandable, but it may have made it a bit easier for people to try out in their current campaigns.

Liberty's Edge

Evil Lincoln wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Making them substituent calls for a complete re-write of the primary feature of most of the existing classes. That is to much without first trying it as a new class first.

I had hoped to see a system which was "Spells you can combine" — which used the same spell slots as characters already had. While that's not exactly what we ended up with, I still see the potential is definitely there.

A system that requires a character creation choice doesn't appeal to me nearly as much. That doesn't mean it is worthless, but I would just rather have a product that I can drop into an ongoing campaign and let my players experiment with, without having to make entirely new characters.

I respectfully disagree that such a system is out of reach.

I think it is in reach, just not as a plug and play with existing classes.

But we aren't far apart in our goals and hopes long term, I just thing there needs to be an interim step of creating a "Wordcaster" class which exclusively uses this system in a stripped down version before expanding the system back to give an alternative casting mechanism to existing caster classes.

That way if there are problems, they are localized to that class and not across the whole system. Kind of like Psionics.

Contributor

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:


You know, with the whole feats that let "Wordcasters" use normal spells, it is interesting to me that there wasn't an opposite feat that allowed for some use of Wordcasting by normal spellcasters.

There will be in the final book. I did not include one here because I wanted the primary focus to be on characters that use this system almost exclusively.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

That would be interesting for your average wizard, especially if they had access to a number of words of power.

It would also be interesting to see that feat in the form of an item that allows use of these a limited number of times per day, like metamagic rods. Elocutionist Stones would be entertaining.


KnightErrantJR wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

I had hoped to see a system which was "Spells you can combine" — which used the same spell slots as characters already had. While that's not exactly what we ended up with, I still see the potential is definitely there.

A system that requires a character creation choice doesn't appeal to me nearly as much. That doesn't mean it is worthless, but I would just rather have a product that I can drop into an ongoing campaign and let my players experiment with, without having to make entirely new characters.

I respectfully disagree that such a system is out of reach.

You know, with the whole feats that let "Wordcasters" use normal spells, it is interesting to me that there wasn't an opposite feat that allowed for some use of Wordcasting by normal spellcasters.

Note: Ninja'd by Bulmahn but I caught it in preview and my points still stand.

There is a logic to it only working one way.

A Wordcaster has a bunch of spell parts that he uses to build completed spells. Handing him a pre-built completed spell is simple and the spell just works.

Now take a class that only has pre-built completed spells and hand them one or two parts - you can build what one spell with that? And as for adding effect components on to existing spells, how do point costs translate into final spell level?

This is exasperated by the fact that the existing spells were not created using a logical well thought out mechanic. They were built on whim with a combination of cool and guess. Trying to back figure point costs is a quagmire and trying to recreate the existing spells exactly using a component system is outright madness.

Because of this bolting on spell parts to existing spells is far more complicated than building the parts into completed spells and handing the caster the odd per-built completed spell.

Granted, if instead of points WoP components adjusted the level of the completed spell instead of using a point system, then adding additional WoP effects to existing spells might actually work. For example if the Corrosive Bolt effect added +2 levels to the spell as a secondary effect then adding it to an existing fireball would simply bump the spell up to 5th level.


James Jacobs wrote:
ciretose wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Compatibility with 3.5 will remain "the way to go" for the lifespan of this edition of the Pathfinder RPG. If we decide to abandon this design goal when/if we do a 2nd edition of PFRPG at some point in the (hopefully distant) future, then that'll be the time for us to sit down and decide if we can afford or even want to rebuild everything from scratch and obsolete a couple of decades of great gaming material.

I think you misunderstand.

I am only referring to making the Words of Power work with existing caster classes rather than creating a new class to apply them too first.

Oh! Yeah; I did indeed misunderstand.

The words of power system would probably have been a GREAT tentpole ability to build a new class from. We wanted to get a bit more experimental with how they work is all.

I had hoped that you would go with having a class that WOP was attatched too, but then i was also hoping that you might go a lot further with WOP, making it more like the Magic from MC'sWoD.


KnightErrantJR wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

There will be in the final book. I did not include one here because I wanted the primary focus to be on characters that use this system almost exclusively.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Understandable, but it may have made it a bit easier for people to try out in their current campaigns.

Especially me.

Jason, if you can get us a preview of that, I would be happy to test it. Heck, I'm probably going to write my own guess and test that.

Sadly, I only have time for my weekly game, so I can't commit to testing unless I can get it to my existing PCs. I could try a full word-caster NPC, but that leaves me doing 100% of the work, and is no fun for my players.

This problem gives some insight into how GMs might want to adopt a new system. Compatibility is the difference between a new resource for a campaign and an alternate rule languishing in obscurity. I am excited to use WoP as the former.


James Jacobs wrote:
Compatibility with 3.5 will remain "the way to go" for the lifespan of this edition of the Pathfinder RPG. If we decide to abandon this design goal when/if we do a 2nd edition of PFRPG at some point in the (hopefully distant) future, then that'll be the time for us to sit down and decide if we can afford or even want to rebuild everything from scratch and obsolete a couple of decades of great gaming material.

James, please keep the Pathfinder RPG as compatible with 3.5 as possible for at least the next 20 years. I don't ever want to see a Pathfinder 2nd Edition that isn't compatible with 3.5.

Sovereign Court

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Compatibility with 3.5 will remain "the way to go" for the lifespan of this edition of the Pathfinder RPG. If we decide to abandon this design goal when/if we do a 2nd edition of PFRPG at some point in the (hopefully distant) future, then that'll be the time for us to sit down and decide if we can afford or even want to rebuild everything from scratch and obsolete a couple of decades of great gaming material.
James, please keep the Pathfinder RPG as compatible with 3.5 as possible for at least the next 20 years. I don't ever want to see a Pathfinder 2nd Edition that isn't compatible with 3.5.

+1.

Shadow Lodge

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Compatibility with 3.5 will remain "the way to go" for the lifespan of this edition of the Pathfinder RPG. If we decide to abandon this design goal when/if we do a 2nd edition of PFRPG at some point in the (hopefully distant) future, then that'll be the time for us to sit down and decide if we can afford or even want to rebuild everything from scratch and obsolete a couple of decades of great gaming material.
James, please keep the Pathfinder RPG as compatible with 3.5 as possible for at least the next 20 years. I don't ever want to see a Pathfinder 2nd Edition that isn't compatible with 3.5.

I myself lean the other direction. I'd rather Pathfinder 2nd Edition make many many more changes and not be limited by backwards compatibility. If you don't like the direction they go, you can always play PF 1E.

Dark Archive

Kthulhu wrote:
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Compatibility with 3.5 will remain "the way to go" for the lifespan of this edition of the Pathfinder RPG. If we decide to abandon this design goal when/if we do a 2nd edition of PFRPG at some point in the (hopefully distant) future, then that'll be the time for us to sit down and decide if we can afford or even want to rebuild everything from scratch and obsolete a couple of decades of great gaming material.
James, please keep the Pathfinder RPG as compatible with 3.5 as possible for at least the next 20 years. I don't ever want to see a Pathfinder 2nd Edition that isn't compatible with 3.5.
Kthulhu wrote:
I myself lean the other direction. I'd rather Pathfinder 2nd Edition make many many more changes and not be limited by backwards compatibility. If you don't like the direction they go, you can always play PF 1E.

I won't be so direct, but I, too, do not feel a need for backwards compatibility.

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Magic Playtest / Round 2: Words of Power Discussion / Is backwards compatability the way to go at this point? All Messageboards