D&D's spellcasting system doesn't make any sense for a novel and so forth, but it works well for what D&D is trying to accomplish. Vancian Casting is a part of what makes Core D&D, D&D.You really should go look up and read the 'Dying Earth' series of novels, by someone named Jack Vance. Seems like it worked so well in that series of novels-- that when a couple of guys with last names like Gygax and Arneson read them, they thought the magic system was so cool they integrated it into the brand new game they were creating (first-ever fantasy role-playing game-- little thing called 'Dungeons & Dragons'). :D
Hmm... you might notice a distinct etymological kinship between 'Vancian' (or 'Vancean'), as in the magic system, and the name of that author, 'Vance'-- it's not a coincidence.
True. They could have picked Sword of Shannara from the start, but Jack Vance's magic system from Dying Earth was picked instead. I'm just saying that it's part of Core D&D.
|
The designers of D&D have talked recently about the stupidity of edition wars and the fact that a lot of people focus on the differences between editions rather than the things that unite them (and their players). I look at posts like the one above, and can't help but think that they're totally right.
You do realize that your posts extolling the virtues and wonders of 4E ofen come across the same way, frequently leaving the impression that you're telling everyone who isn't a fan of 4E that they should 'just get over it and get on the bandwagon'? Maybe it's not meant that way-- but I'm looking back over the posts above (mine included), and seeing everyone talking past each other in a lot of them.
But-- the designers and you are right-- there is far too much argument over all the little things that divide us, rather than the parts of role-playing games that we all have in common-- and I am at least as guilty as anyone else for digging into the divisive details.
You said it sucked. Is there some other way we're supposed to take that, other than the usual?
In my defense here, I said "IMO, it sucked" which is, "In my opinion, it sucked"-- didn't mean to sound like I was telling you you had to agree with me. It was not to my taste-- I do accept that others did like the game.
but I wouldn't find it so g*dd**n annoying if people who favor it wouldn't make such a big deal about rubbing the name in everyone else's face, the way so many fans of 4E seem to take such pleasure in.Rubbing the name in everyone else's face? What the hell?
Maybe this part that I posted is unfair to you-- and if so, I'm sorry-- I keep getting a little over-reactive lately (keep letting stress everywhere else in my life affect my posting habits)-- but observe what I said at the beginning of this post, and what others in favor of 4E have posted here-- attitude-wise, there's a lot of "4E IS Dungeons & Dragons, that old stuff isn't D&D anymore/get with the program!" from more than a few of the 4E fans out there. That's what I'm referring to as the 'rubbing it in everyone else's face. And to be fair, there is a lot of the "4E is NOT D&D!" flying the other way (which I'm guilty of too, in about so many words)-- so I'm gonna take a step back on that, and think about the point you've made that maybe we shouldn't keep fighting the 'edition wars' and making so much of the differences. Kind'a reminds me of how ugly and divisive modern politics is getting-- we don't need to do that to ourselves in gaming fandom.
There's bound to be some common ground here somewhere. :)
|
|
There's almost nothing but common ground. But when you set out to hate on something, it's much easier to focus on the differences than the commonalities.To an outsider, to someone who has never played D&D before, you could set to different groups of D&D players in front of them - one playing 3e, one playing 4e - and they probably would get the impression that both groups are engaged in exactly the same activity. And yet here you are, convinced that common ground doesn't exist.
I have to admit you're right. I'm gonna step out for a bit, take some deep breaths, and clear my head of other annoyances-- see if I can come back in a little bit and work more on finding the common ground.
Please do keep in mind though, that the problems with 'edition wars' are on both sides of the divide, and I'm seeing a lot of heated posts in this thread besides just the ones I've thrown out on here.
Screaming hordes? I seem to recall you saying something about the anti-4E crowd being smaller than people assumed it was.
The "screaming hordes" bit was meant to be a little sarcastic - less an allusion to their size, and more an allusion to their tactics and volume. As I've said many times before, most D&D players don't care that much. The ones that do are very vocal and like to make their opinions widely known.
I think the designers have sized up their audience and made a market-based decision that the number of people they stand to gain (and for whom Vancian casting is very important) justifies the fairly minor deal that reintroducing Vancian casting as one option among a bunch of options would be to the rest of the player base.
|
And yet......4E didn't have the same style of Vancian system to which your referring to and (well would you look at that!!) there is that Dungeons and Dragons name on the book! Wow, weird isn't it?
Tommy Boy had a nice quote about putting something on a box I think might be relevant here.
The brand on the book is of little import if the content between the pages isn't what customers think when they see the name. Funny thing, WotC apparently thinks they made a mistake with 4e. Doesn't matter how much you like 4e, they are done with it, because, apparently, you are not enough to think they should continue making 4e products.
The brand on the book is of little import if the content between the pages isn't what customers think when they see the name. Funny thing, WotC apparently thinks they made a mistake with 4e. Doesn't matter how much you like 4e, they are done with it, because, apparently, you are not enough to think they should continue making 4e products.
I certainly don't believe that D&D ought to cater to my every wish, so it makes perfect sense to me that WotC would want to reach out to other segments of the D&D player base.
The language that you're using here, though, makes me believe that you're trying to incense 4e players against WotC for moving on from 4e. Is that what you're trying to do? If so, why is that?
Another thing I'd like to see adopted from 4e into Vancian systems for D&DNext, is that if I went to the trouble of memorizing/preparing a spell and it is a one shot wonder type spell that allows a save, then if that spell doesn't do something spectacular because the target made its save, it better still do something mildly amusing so i don't cry in my bowl of pretzel M&Ms.
Stuff like this makes me long for the flexibility of a spell point system. Oh, it had its flaws, but it provides such elegant ways of handling problems like this.
But-- the designers and you are right-- there is far too much argument over all the little things that divide us, rather than the parts of role-playing games that we all have in common-- and I am at least as guilty as anyone else for digging into the divisive details.
You said it sucked. Is there some other way we're supposed to take that, other than the usual?In my defense here, I said "IMO, it sucked" which is, "In my opinion, it sucked"-- didn't mean to sound like I was telling you you had to agree with me. It was not to my taste-- I do accept that others did like the game.
but I wouldn't find it so g*dd**n annoying if people who favor it wouldn't make such a big deal about rubbing the name in everyone else's face, the way so many fans of 4E seem to take such pleasure in.Rubbing the name in everyone else's face? What the hell?Maybe this part that I posted is unfair to you-- and if so, I'm sorry-- I keep getting a little over-reactive lately (keep letting stress everywhere else in my life affect my posting habits)-- but observe what I said at the beginning of this post, and what others in favor of 4E have posted here-- attitude-wise, there's a lot of "4E IS Dungeons & Dragons, that old stuff isn't D&D anymore/get with the program!" from more than a few of the 4E fans out there. That's what I'm referring to as the 'rubbing it in everyone else's face. And to be fair, there is a lot of the "4E is NOT D&D!" flying the other way (which I'm guilty of too, in about so many words)-- so I'm gonna take a step back on that, and think about the point you've made that maybe we shouldn't keep fighting the 'edition wars' and making so much of the differences. Kind'a reminds me of how ugly and divisive modern politics is getting-- we don't need to do that to ourselves in gaming fandom.
There's bound to be some common ground here somewhere. :)
Nicely put.
|
|
The brand on the book is of little import if the content between the pages isn't what customers think when they see the name. Funny thing, WotC apparently thinks they made a mistake with 4e. Doesn't matter how much you like 4e, they are done with it, because, apparently, you are not enough to think they should continue making 4e products.I certainly don't believe that D&D ought to cater to my every wish, so it makes perfect sense to me that WotC would want to reach out to other segments of the D&D player base.
The language that you're using here, though, makes me believe that you're trying to incense 4e players against WotC for moving on from 4e. Is that what you're trying to do? If so, why is that?
Nah, I don't really care if people like or dislike WotC. Has zero bearing on my day to day life. Just pointing out to Diffan that maybe some people at WotC think maybe they overstepped by changing D&D too much from its roots. The labels are all the same (monster names, the stats, some spell names, etc), but the feel of the game, whether you like it or not, is markedly different from earlier iterations, and a decent number of people felt is "wasn't D&D" enough to move on and take their dollars elsewhere.
I don't have a negative or positive opinion of 4e, I tried it, it's ok and can be fun sometimes, but I prefer Pathfinder (well, a heavily houseruled version, anyway) and 1e for my D&D style gaming. But a lot of gamers really dislike it. And, frankly, if 4e were as rousing a success as the fans claim it is, 5e (D&DNext or whatever they're calling it) wouldn't be in production right now. WotC is making a business choice, and they're reaching out to the customers they lost. And, unless they are completely incompetent, that must me more people than stayed or are new to the game all together.
Putting all mechanics and sacred cows aside, it's obvious WotC sees 4e as a mistake, a failed experiment that did a nice job of creating a huge schism in the D&D community and created a rival that got really big, really fast, and took quite a bit of marketing share. And they want some of that back.
Another thing I'd like to see adopted from 4e into Vancian systems for D&DNext, is that if I went to the trouble of memorizing/preparing a spell and it is a one shot wonder type spell that allows a save, then if that spell doesn't do something spectacular because the target made its save, it better still do something mildly amusing so i don't cry in my bowl of pretzel M&Ms.Stuff like this makes me long for the flexibility of a spell point system. Oh, it had its flaws, but it provides such elegant ways of handling problems like this.How does a spell point system handle this? The spell is cast, it either has it's effect or it doesn't (or has lesser effect). What does a spell point system change about that?
It lets you try the same spell again next turn instead of feeling like you wasted your one chance at casting X.
|
|
I will concede that 5E should keep the Vancian magic system. Except that I would remove the "fire and forget" element. Keep the system where you have spell slots. Allow a caster to pick a limited number of spells without forgeting them once cast. It is something that imo can work.
Still if the 5E dev tema is going to try and sell 5E using nostaglia good luck. Beyond 1E and 2E there is no 3E nostaglia. Pathfinder is for those who miss 3E. Selling something only on nostaglia seems imo risky.
This is one of the reasons 4e was such a great RPG in my mind. It unchained itself from the necessity of pandering to the nostalgia-fueled demands of some of its fans, and decided to make the best RPG they could. It's a better game for it.
the biggest problems with 4E (IMO) are:
1. the only thing that even remotely makes it "Dungeons & Dragons" is the name. Other than that, it's a whole new game. You're playing something closer to D&D (all versions other than 4E), if you play Chivalry and Sorcery, or Bushido, or Palladium Fantasy... might even still be closer if you're playing RuneQuest (the original Chaosium game-- not sure if the new versions are still like that or not). I think I wouldn't be as annoyed by the presence of 4E (although I still wouldn't want to play it), if they'd called it anything else-- instead of making a whole new game but still hanging the classic old name on it.
Well, obviously that's opinion and your entitled to it. I respect that opinion even if it isn't something I agree with. Why 4E feels like D&D to me is because D&D transcends rules and mechanics. It's not THAC0, it's not BAB or 3 Saving Throws, it's not Vancian Spellcasting, and it's not only Lawful Good paladins. It's far far more than those mundane aspects. It's the environment it creates with my gaming buddies. It's the hilarity that ensues after the Rogue gets slapped by the bar-wench, it's the Paladin who chooses the moral high-ground, it's the wizard their their nose in their spellbooks and trying new spells and potions. THAT is what D&D is to me and it's done in literally every edition to date. I just find 4E's mechanics more to my liking because our group likes combat.
2. It's a good table-top tactical simulator for 'World of Warcraft' style combat. It's not much of a role-playing game-- in fact, the rules appear to have been written with the direct intent of minimizing actual 'role-playing' in favor of 'roll-playing'.
This is pretty much de-bunked but if that's your opinion, then I can only assume you either have a poor DM, require rules to allow you to role-play, or don't have a very good grasp of World of Warcraft. Maybe you stopped too early, before Theme's came out or Martial Practices or interesting Rituals? But I'd really like to hear why you felt combat felt like World of Warcraft or in which area roleplaying diminished when compared to other editions of the game.
3. I'm also not a fan of every character essentially being the same as every other character, except for the fluff-text. Unfortunately, that's a pretty good description of how 4E solved the 'balance' problem.
Agian, I'd have to say this is false, from a factual stand point. But if this is your opinion I feel I won't be able to change that, though lets take a look at class diversity:
Even within the same Role, the classes are significantly different. Lets take the Swordmage (a Defender) who uses magic and weapons to defend his allies and compare it to the Weaponmaster (PHB Fighter) who uses specific weapon groups to defend his allies:
The Swordmage makes a magical link to his enemy that say, "Go ahead, attack my buddy and I'll be so far up your butt, you won't know what to do". He does this by selecting an enemy within 10 feet of him. So this opens up his options to attack other, possibly stronger enemies and offers a TON of mobility (for a defender). He also has options to throw his sword like a lightsabre, perform something akin to a 3E Whirlwind Attack (Sword Burst), and keeps a spellbook to write down his utility and Daily spells in. I also allow them to write down encounter spells as well and pick from a larger host of powers than what the book says.
Breaking down the Swordmage's marking mechanic: Mark an enemy within 10 ft. That enemy receives a -2 penalty to attacks that don't include you. IF he successfully makes an attack against an ally, you can instantly teleport to an adjacent square and make an attack against him. Now, I house ruled it to "when the enemy make an attack" instead of the requirement of actually hitting your ally. There is another version of this that allows you to soften the blow, negation X amount of damage the enemy does to your ally (probably the most powerful version).
NOW, compare this to the Fighter. First, the fighter can only mark enemies he attacks (note, attacks and not 'hits'). Second, he doesn't get any flashy ways of spreading this ability around. The Swordmage can mark Multiple enemies with certain spells. The fighter can, however, inflict specific conditions on enemies depending on the weapons he uses. Spears and Polearms often push people around (imagine that), Axes and Hammers often deal damage equal to your Con modifier (again, awesome for Dwarves), Heavy and Light blades often give you more AC, or might allow you extra attacks. It greatly depends on the weapons you use to effects that you enjoy.
Breaking down the Fighter's marking mechanic: A fighter marks any enemy he attacks. Multiple attacks means multiple marks and all marks impose the normal -2 penalty to attacks. As an Immediate Interrupt (meaning 1/turn), if a monster Shifts (ie, 5-ft step) or makes an attack that doesn't include the Fighter he can immediately make a Melee Basic Attack against that enemy. Another feature called Combat Superority gives Fighters an attack bonus equal to Widsom modifier to these attacks. If the attack is successful, the monster is stopped dead in his tracks.
So on one hand you have a very mobile, multi-marking guy who's ALL over the battlefield, throwing his sword, teleporting to aid his allies, and even shooting people with magic. On the other you have a more Stand-and-Fight warrior who punishes enemies who engage him yet keeping those enemies firmly rooted to the spot once they do. He specializes in weapons and uses various tactics to engage his foes.
Really, how do both of those classes that share the same role even come close to being the same? The only thing I see is that the rolls that govern such attacks are d20 + Ability modifier + weapon proficiency + Feat = Total vs. AC or some other defense.
New players who are accustomed to more ubiquitous, flexible magic systems often find it hard to wrap their heads around Vancian memorization.
Scott, there's more to Vancian than memorisation, even if I agree that spell preparation/memorisation is what Vancian magic is most known for. But as soon as you use a system that uses 'packaged' spells as its main way to work magic, you are using a vancian element.
Same goes with finite magical abilities; whether you use spell slots or a pool of mana points, the concept that a wizard can run out of spells is essentially vancian.
I understand that you don't like Vancian magic. If a majority of people (like you) have no care for it and 5e is really that democratic, it's not going to be used.
But the Vancian system has its lot of supporters and some, like me, are able to defend it better than "I know it sucks but it wouldn't be D&D without it".
As you said, plenty of other games do magic differently and in your opinion, they do it better. Plenty of other games don't use character classes and use armor as a way to reduce damage as opposed to hit probabilities. Many manage to convey combat better, in my opinion. But to a great extent, what I like and what you like is irrelevant and not arguable (can't argue taste they say). But Vancian magic has its strengths and good mechanical reasons to exist, just like how building a character around classes has its strengths and mechanical reasons to exist in the system.
But please don't disregard that a system can be appreciated for the way it feels, handles and plays. Ars Magica is one of my favourite RPG along with Seventh Sea. Both have very different (non-vancian) magic systems, and both feel, handle and play very differently. I came to associate (and love) a certain feel, handling and gameplay with D&D, and Vancian magic, character classes and armor as a way to reduce hit probability have much to do with it.
'findel
True. They could have picked Sword of Shannara from the start, but Jack Vance's magic system from Dying Earth was picked instead. I'm just saying that it's part of Core D&D.I'm pretty sure The Sword of Shanarra came out in 1977. Gygax had already created D&D by then (1973).
True.
I should have said Conan the Barbarian's magic system.
That's what role-playing is to me. I've done those kind of things in many different systems. Non-D&D systems. That's just the fun of gaming with a good close group.
It's not meaningful to ascribe things that generic to "D&D". If the rules and mechanics don't make it D&D what does? If I ran a game for you with my old GURPS books with D&D pasted on the cover over the logo would that still be D&D for you? Different systems do have different mechanics and rules for a reason. They're aiming for different things. They appeal to different people. They do matter.
I've had good times gaming with many different systems, in different genres. We've had a good time with most of them. A good GM and a good group matter more than the system, but sometimes the system helps and sometimes it feels like you're fighting it all the way.
I agree that the things I listed were more on par with "any RPG out there" but when I see them I think D&D. Perhaps it's because it's the Alpha product. The first one. Or because of Brand recognition. There are more iconic things that make D&D...D&D for me. I just don't associate hard lined rules with them.
The rogue that has Sneak Attack. The paladin with Lay on hands. The cleric that has spells like Cure Light Wounds, Bless, Prayer, Flame Strike and Domains of their Gods. Wizards being proficient with simple weapons that cast Magic Missile, Shield, Fly, Mirror Image. Rangers that are primarly Dual-Wielding weapons or using a Bow or an animal companion. Druids that wild shape and cast nature-y spells, or Warlocks that derive their power from possibly infernal, dark, or otherworldly beings are all D&D to me. Going further, Beholders and Illithids and Strahd von Zarovich. It's the names of places in the Forgotten Realms or the deities of Greyhawk. Is this a better example of what D&D is to me? Again, it's not THAC0 or BAB or 3 distinct saving throws, or even Vancian spellcasting. Because, frankly, they've all changed A LOT over
the years and I don't really give that much of a crap now. I don't think mechanically it's a great choice nor do I instantly associate that type of spellcasting with D&D, it just another way of 100 to facilitate how magic works.
Maybe you stopped too early, before Theme's came out or Martial Practices or interesting Rituals?That's true for me, I suppose. I only played 4th with the Core Books. I wasn't impressed. How many years after release do you have to play to decide you don't like a system? How many extra books do you have to buy?
It's a good question. Personally I was appalled with my Core books. From the start I was angry there were no Charts, no level progression for classes, and pages upon pages of spells for every class. Then I took a deep breath, actually sat down, and read it. I threw away all my thoughts and expectations on what I felt the game should have been and started from scratch. I saw martial powers and though "Oh, well that's neat. They're no longer tied to a limited pool such as Feats." I saw rangers were the only class that could attack with two weapons and said "Finally, a distinction that isn't pilfered by every other class that thinks they should dual-wield like Paladins and Rogues." I came to the Wizard class and saw that they actually used implements now, that the iconic class was starting with wands and that those implements actually meant something!.
Further exploration found me being happy with the deletion of Save or Die spells and spells that render other classes obsolete. And low-and-behold, Skills were fixed. I didn't have to put finite ranks into skills that were often pointless JUST to say "Hey, I'm a baker's son and I can cook!! or crafting items that will only ever be just pretty and somewhat functional until about 2nd level.
To be honest, I wasn't that enamored with the feat selection in the game. I thought "meh, half of these were OK and some were just neat." bt didn't think they had any weight bearing focus on character design. Then I got into the rules of the game. And this is where I became instantly happy. Classes that were forever (it seemed) tied to use one attribute for attacking, despite the need for OTHER ability scores, now didn't have to worry. You could make a Charisma-based paladin that worked well or a Wisdom-based cleric that didn't have to completly rely on Strength when in melee. The healing surge idea was actually pretty interesting, as I've always thought Hit Points were extreamly abstract and this just helped them function a bit better.
So yes, the mechanics of 4E were vastly different than previous editions in a lot of ways. But they kept enough of the iconic material that made me think "This is D&D." Take into account that I still had full access to all my v3.5 books AND the online SRD and really, why would I want another re-hashed set of books that only minimally change stuff? That's what Paizo was for.
|
|
Diffan, that's the point you seem to be missing. WotC knows what their numbers are. Apparently, they think enough people don't think like you and it hurts their bottom line. Enough people think things like Vancian magic ARE D&D, and rejected 4e. So, they're going back to the way it used to be, more likely than not. Them's the breaks, the masses have spoken with their wallets.
|
|
You're describing the sorcerer. 3E already has that, integrated into the Vancian system.
I know that. Except a sorcerer while being able to cast more spells can learn less spells. What I would like to see is the Wizard be able to do that. Have access to all the spells the Wizard can and cast them often. That way unless a player tosses spells all over the place an adventuring party does not have to worry about the Wizard running out of spells. Yes you have access to scrolls and magic. Problem imo is your assuming the Wizard has access to the proper amount of resources to purchase what he needs. A group willing to set aside those resources along with a DM who is not stingy on giving stuff out.
While a large amount of the fanbase wants the Vancian magic system imo they want the "fire and forget" element removed. Keep the spell slots while being able to cast more. If all they plan to do with 5E is keep the same system from previos editions with the exception of 4E I'm not sure if the fanabse will be happy. I know I won't most likely. From being able to cast at-will,encounter and daily spells to having to go back to the absurd BS of forgetting spells is not going to go over well. If they want to keep 4E players on board their gpoing to lose them instead. Not to mention keep a fractured fanbase still fractured.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, apparently 4e fans aren't making them enough money. I'm not sure that this element that wants "fire and forget" eliminated is, as most people still playing D&D that isn't 4th are still playing with fire and forget wizards, druids and clerics. So your "imo" is basically a projection based on, well, nothing.
"If they're going to keep 4e players on board"? I don't think that is much of a concern of theirs really. Y'all have nowhere to go. The GSL eliminated any possibility of a "Pathfinder" for 4e coming from a disenfranchised 3pp, and, frankly, I doubt many 4e players really care about the magic system as much as the vocal whinority here lets on. Most of the people I know that play 4e also play Pathfinder, 3x, and older editions. And they have the books, so they'll probably still play all of them.
This isn't going to be 2008 redux. People who didn't like 4e had a place to go for new "what they considered D&D" product. There were options. 4e players might have an alternative magic rule in the new edition. But 5e isn't going to be a continuation, it's going to be an attempt at a reconciliation with all the people who decided to not follow them to 4e. I wish them luck, and, as it will be an "odd" numbered edition, and history follows suit, I might like it.
But, really. It's over. The dollar has spoken. 4e lost. Get over it.
As long as there are options to not HAVE to use Vancian casting in order to be able to play a Wizard or Cleric, I'm okay if they make it the core for those classes in 5E. But, it screams nostalgia call to draw old players in my eyes. They thought it was poor enough to not bring to 4E, but now have to placate all the nerdrage just to try and get back some customers who can't let go of archaic mechanics for the sake of progressive rules evolution.
Personally, I hate Vancian casting, and welcomed the change in 4E. It's not a matter of spotlighting or working as a team. It caused me to not play those particular classes, because I don't get to do what I played the class to do. As a 1st level Wizard and I only have 1 spell/day, I don't feel like a Wizard. The fighter has a sword, that he can swing until the cows come home, the rogue has skills that he can use until the sun comes up, I have one spell the whole day.... that's it. That's my contribution to the group, before I become a liability. A useless extra body that gets a share of treasure for doing one thing one time per day. I don't know about you, but for a team game, I like to feel like I have been just as effective as anyone else in the group. I don't want the spotlight, or to solo anything, I just want to be on par.
I didn't play casters, wholly because of the mechanic. Once the one spell was cast, well I may as well just call it a day. Maybe as a person who has spent their life learning how to master the basic principles of the mystery of magic, I may just want to feel wizardly by being able to use it just as much as the fighter can attack, or the rogue can stealth.
If Vancian is so sacred, why have I seen people trying to develop alternate casting systems the whole time I've played the game (bout 22 years)? Just because something has been there from the beginning doesn't make it good, or even a good decision to hold onto it until the developers pry it from our cold, dead hands. It is okay to evolve and become better, if the game never did we would still all be playing the very first version that came out. Or, more than likely we wouldn't because they would have refused to fix anything people had problems with due to them being "Sacred" or "The core of D&D".
Saving throws have been with D&D for a long time, and made it all the way up through the end of 2E as they were, but I see a lot less complaints about
"What happened to my
- Paralyzation/Poison
- Rod, staff, wand
- Petrification/Polymorph
- Breath Weapon
- Spells
format? It is the core of D&D"
They cleaned up saving throws, and turned them into 3 scores that are based of ability scores (I don't remember them using ability scores in 2E, but I may be wrong), yet that was an okay sacred cow to remove. When will Vancian casting get changed without the desperate clutching? When will it be okay to finally accept a mechanically smoother, and better method (like almost every spell point system introduced, and for my tastes the powers method).
EDIT: It's like saying Ford should still be making and selling Model T's, because that is what is representative of the name Ford. That they shouldn't take away things that were faulty, or change things by improving them, because it's not how it was from the start.
As long as there are options to not HAVE to use Vancian casting in order to be able to play a Wizard or Cleric, I'm okay if they make it the core for those classes in 5E. But, it screams nostalgia call to draw old players in my eyes. They thought it was poor enough to not bring to 4E, but now have to placate all the nerdrage just to try and get back some customers who can't let go of archaic mechanics for the sake of progressive rules evolution.
Personally, I hate Vancian casting, and welcomed the change in 4E. It's not a matter of spotlighting or working as a team. It caused me to not play those particular classes, because I don't get to do what I played the class to do. As a 1st level Wizard and I only have 1 spell/day, I don't feel like a Wizard. The fighter has a sword, that he can swing until the cows come home, the rogue has skills that he can use until the sun comes up, I have one spell the whole day.... that's it. That's my contribution to the group, before I become a liability. A useless extra body that gets a share of treasure for doing one thing one time per day. I don't know about you, but for a team game, I like to feel like I have been just as effective as anyone else in the group. I don't want the spotlight, or to solo anything, I just want to be on par.
I didn't play casters, wholly because of the mechanic. Once the one spell was cast, well I may as well just call it a day. Maybe as a person who has spent their life learning how to master the basic principles of the mystery of magic, I may just want to feel wizardly by being able to use it just as much as the fighter can attack, or the rogue can stealth.
If Vancian is so sacred, why have I seen people trying to develop alternate casting systems the whole time I've played the game (bout 22 years)? Just because something has been there from the beginning doesn't make it good, or even a good decision to hold onto it until the developers pry it from our cold, dead hands. It is okay to evolve and become better, if the game never did we would...
Pathfinder has fixed the "one spell" issue. It also bears repeating (many, many times, apparently) that it was a low-level phenomenon, even in 2nd edition. There are alternate ways to tackle this perceived problem outside of core spell memorizations: scrolls, wands, staves, feats, wondrous items. There are ways to "correct" things like this without tearing it out of the system and replacing it entirely.
I think everyone's getting too interested in turning this into an another war between editions thread. It's totally fine not to like Vancian, and it's totally fine if you enjoy Vancian. What is the problem with giving people access to both? If anything, the failure to do so will indicate that "5E" has already failed to deliver on what was promised: a game that lends itself to multiple playstyles.
Sorry to throw gasoline on the fire here, but can we also acknowledge that D&D is owned by WotC is owned by Hasbro? While I'm sure the developers did what they could with what direction they were given, 4E was a premature attempt at a cash cow made by a bunch of suits who were getting jealous of people piggybacking on the OGL. They wanted it all for themselves again, so they got something out the door, split up the "core books" into as many hardcovers as they could muster, and continued trying to milk the products for all they were worth. In that, assuming I'm on the mark with that summary, I don't attribute the failures of 4E (be they personal gripes of mine or from the overall playerbase) to bad developers or incompetent decisions. They were probably feeling pressure from the top of the corporate chain. This situation bears an uncanny resemblance to the Dragon Age II backlash. Seems like slinging the word "streamline" around is becoming a warning sign.
Scott, there's more to Vancian than memorisation, even if I agree that spell preparation/memorisation is what Vancian magic is most known for. But as soon as you use a system that uses 'packaged' spells as its main way to work magic, you are using a vancian element.
I don't think that's what Vancian spellcasting means, now. Perhaps the idea that magic was composed of individual, "packaged" spells was originally Vancian, but it's not anymore. It's been picked up by countless other fantasy games and modified, and we now see it in everything from Final Fantasy to Dragon Age to Diablo to World of Warcraft to D&D. The only aspect of what was originally Vancian casting that remains largely the domain of D&D and D&D alone is the memorization.
So if you want to get technical, I'm not complaining about the entirety of the original Vancian-style casting system. I think that the memorization part of that system could be replaced with something better.
But the Vancian system has its lot of supporters and some, like me, are able to defend it better than "I know it sucks but it wouldn't be D&D without it".
Please do.
Please.
Keep in mind that a valid defense of Vancian memorization requires you to demonstrate that it is a better choice than the alternatives. "Better" is, of course, subjective, but I think that there is a rubric we could work out to help us decide where Vancian memorization ranks among the pack. "It feels like D&D," will not be appearing on that rubric, however.
I was hoping "elegant" meant more than: "try again later, if you still have spell points."
One way a spell point system could address this (beyond what deinol mentioned earlier) is to "refund" a certain number of points when the spell has no effect. Another would be to allow you to spontaneously spend more spell points to reroll (or retry) the spell immediately. These aspects would need balancing, of course, but the much more granular nature of the concept of spell points allows you to do all sorts of cool things with a magic system.
But, really. It's over. The dollar has spoken. 4e lost. Get over it.
It concerns me that you appear to see this as a matter of "Did 4e win, or did 4e lose?" That's a perspective utterly lacking in nuance.
There are a great many people who enjoy the strategy behind the basic concept for Wizards in D&D. You may not be burdened with tons of plate mail and an arsenal of weapons on your back, but lugging around the library you possess is no easy accomplishment. Preparation requires an immense level of focus, discipline, and understanding, so much so that only a fraction of the wealth of knowledge contained in said tomes may be properly utilized before the wielder is drained by the process. Limited as this method may seem, it is still hard to ignore that a wizard properly prepared is more than a match for nearly any obstacle. That is where this style of spellcasting shines. It rewards the player who thinks and plans.
There are times when being a blaster can get the job done, but it's the situations where creative use of a finite roster of spells win the day that are most enjoyable. I've seen wizards who think magic missile, fly, and fireball are all they need, and I've seen wizards who never depend on combat spells to win combat -- doing so with great success.
For those who want more bang for their buck, if less versatility, the sorcerer is there. They may not have a spell for every occasion, but they've got staying power and power aplenty in general. They represent, rather sufficiently, a more visceral spellcasting experience that skirts what many consider a pitfall of the wizard (while others view it as what makes them stand above the rest): committing to specific spells every day. There are other classes that work along the same philosophy, and some that fall somewhere in between (like the Magus).
I've played several RPGs that exist outside of the Vancian spectrum. They're fun, in their own right. They never came close to capturing the thrill of playing a Wizard in any pre-4E D&D, though. "Mana Point" systems feel too much like video game territory for my taste. I have no doubt they could be fitted or tweaked in a manner that would be more conducive to a roleplaying experience, but I've yet to see an example of one that has surpassed my preferred method. This isn't nostalgia, this is personal preference. Just as some prefer non-Vancian, some will prefer Vancian. If 5E is making an attempt to satisfy both camps, I fail to see the need for any continued hostile feelings. Let's hope they deliver on it. Ultimately, even if they fail to, it's not going to hurt my feelings. I'm satisfied with Paizo's products, and would venture a guess that I will continue to be such for a while yet.
|
|
Diffan--
Now that I'm back from taking my break and doing exactly what I posted I was going to do in my last reply to one of Scott's posts (take a deep breath, clear my head, etc.), I'm going to try to reply to your post in detail, without simply reawakening the divisiveness. If I come across as aggressive or as putting down others' enjoyment as 'badwrongfun', please forgive me-- that is not the intent, although I am going to be clear about parts that I didn't care for in the games I played (pretty sure there's room for all of us-- we aren't all going to like the same things in our games).
Well, obviously that's opinion and your entitled to it. I respect that opinion even if it isn't something I agree with. Why 4E feels like D&D to me is because D&D transcends rules and mechanics. It's not THAC0, it's not BAB or 3 Saving Throws, it's not Vancian Spellcasting, and it's not only Lawful Good paladins. It's far far more than those mundane aspects. It's the environment it creates with my gaming buddies. It's the hilarity that ensues after the Rogue gets slapped by the bar-wench, it's the Paladin who chooses the moral high-ground, it's the wizard their their nose in their spellbooks and trying new spells and potions. THAT is what D&D is to me and it's done in literally every edition to date. I just find 4E's mechanics more to my liking because our group likes combat.
the biggest problems with 4E (IMO) are:
1. the only thing that even remotely makes it "Dungeons & Dragons" is the name. Other than that, it's a whole new game. You're playing something closer to D&D (all versions other than 4E), if you play Chivalry and Sorcery, or Bushido, or Palladium Fantasy... might even still be closer if you're playing RuneQuest (the original Chaosium game-- not sure if the new versions are still like that or not). I think I wouldn't be as annoyed by the presence of 4E (although I still wouldn't want to play it), if they'd called it anything else-- instead of making a whole new game but still hanging the classic old name on it.
Scott was correct in pointing out that the names of many of the mechanical features are the same in 4E as they were in 3E, and that there is some heritage and descent in those design features. However, I've played a lot of role-playing games in my life. What I was getting at, and still feel, is that the Chivalry & Sorcery, Bushido, and Palladium Fantasy games I played in, had a lot more in common, feeling-wise, with "old-school" D&D/AD&D than 4E does. Your mileage may vary. I could go on and on about all the things that just didn't feel right at all to me in 4E, but that's just going to be dredging up the arguments on which there isn't likely to be an agreement.
The things you specifically point to about what "D&D" really means to you-- do not mean D&D at all in any edition to me-- they mean 'good role-playing game', which can be found and enjoyed with friends under almost any game system out there. Put another way-- one can have a really good game, fun, long-lasting campaign, superb role-playing-- even if you're using the worst system of game rules it's possible to find anywhere-- so long as you've got a good group of players + GM, and the group-chemistry mixes well... contrariwise-- you can have the best system of rules ever, and it's not going to save your game if the players and/or GM suck, AND it's not going to save your game if each of the players and the GM, taken separately, are really good people and really good role-players, but the individuals involved just don't mix well with each other and the group chemistry is way off. And, some systems work better with some groups than other systems do.
However, even with that being said-- compared with other systems of rules, the 4E system actually seemed to get in the way of good role-playing, and it's only when we threw most of it out that people were actually able to play their characters, instead of let the dice decide everything on them-thar 'skill challenges'. Granted, that could have been a lazy GM-- but the system that provides dice mechanics and challenges and such, for everything-- seems to lend itself to that. Of course, there's another point in what you've said-- to me, if I want a game that's all about combat-- I'll go play a war-game. That's not what I'm interested in, when it comes to role-playing, is playing out fights-- another to each their own, I suppose-- but I'm just as happy if not more so, in games where no combat occurs at all, but where I get to spend lots of time playing my character through all sorts of social interaction, sneaking and problem solving, working out innovative solutions in which no-one has to die... etc.
This is pretty much de-bunked but if that's your opinion, then I can only assume you either have a poor DM, require rules to allow you to role-play, or don't have a very good grasp of World of Warcraft. Maybe you stopped too early, before Theme's came out or Martial Practices or interesting Rituals? But I'd really like to hear why you felt combat felt like World of Warcraft or in which area roleplaying diminished when compared to other editions of the game.
2. It's a good table-top tactical simulator for 'World of Warcraft' style combat. It's not much of a role-playing game-- in fact, the rules appear to have been written with the direct intent of minimizing actual 'role-playing' in favor of 'roll-playing'.
You say this is 'debunked'-- I have to say to you, I think you're wrong, and you probably missed what I meant by that (which also probably means I wasn't clear enough)-- this is, btw, definitely a matter of opinion-- because I admit, I wasn't talking literally, in terms of specific mechanics or powers-- I was talking about how the flow of battles and use of powers felt to me (and to many others I've spoken to). It's a feeling, thing-- regarding the 'seems like WoW'-- furthermore, my first and continued reaction is that the 4E power-tree reminds me of power-development in Diablo II. If it doesn't feel that way to you, then you are right in regard to your feeling about the game, but not in regard to my experiences with it. Some of your statements in this paragraph are ignorant and insulting, but since I've been aggressive and in attack mode often enough myself, I'm not going to take offense (too much anyway). Yes, I didn't carry on that far with WoW-- if that's what you mean, but then again-- yes, I do think WoW has expanded far beyond 4E's complexity and capabilities, if that's what you were getting at.
I stopped playing 4E about the same time that WotC went for putting everything in D&D Insider/D&D Character Creator into the cloud, instead of having a fully-functional downloaded character creation program. That wasn't the only reason by far that I quit 4E, but it does provide a good landmark time for what was going on at the time I bailed out on 4E.
Regarding the part of your statements that is most irritating and over the top-- No, I don't need 'rules' in order to role-play. I found that a lot of the problem with 4E was rules getting in the way, that you had to throw out-- not that there was a lack of rules.
And, the issue of characters all seeming the same: you can call it martial, arcane, divine, whatever power sources-- every character in 4E is essentially using magic. It's all powers, laid out and selected from a menu on exactly the same schedule. Looks like every character was made with a cookie-cutter-- you've got a small range of patterns, but other'n that... In as many years as I've played role-playing games, the distinctions you make so much of between characters in D&D still blend together in actual effects-- such that, okay, there's a little difference between the four different 'roles' but within the roles, it looks like mostly fluff for the differences, and not terribly distinguished fluff at that. It really makes me wonder how much experience you have with games other than 4E, that you presume that I just haven't looked at it at all before I formed that judgement.
Now, you still find lots of variety in what I see as cookie-cutter sameness-- great, guess you've found your game. I find character creation in 4E to be like trying to jam myself into a strait-jacket. You're obviously a 4E fan-- I'm obviously not. Doesn't really mean either of us is wrong, but we're obviously interested in different games and not happy playing in a game that fits the other's preferences.
Pathfinder still says "D&D" to me. 4E doesn't say that to me-- after playing role-playing games going all the way back to original D&D, 4E still feels like a different game to me, not an evolution of D&D. Again, that's my opinion, and your mileage may vary, but since we're talking about opinions and feelings on the game-- neither of our opinions is more right than the other.
|
Nope. Not going to happen. Again, D&D is a game. Invented by Gygax and Arneson. There are elements that make it distinctive from other games. Vancian style spell casting is one. It's pretty obvious to everybody except hard core 4e fans that WotC realizes they dropped the ball big time, since they're not revising 4e, they're scrapping it after the shortest edition run in the history of D&D. One of the biggest "4e isn't D&D" complaints? Getting rid of the iconic spell casting system.
First off, I believe that 4E has already outlasted 3.0, and by the time 5E is actually released, it certainly will have.
Secondly, 3.0 changed a LOT of mechanics from the pre-d20 editions of the game. Any argument that 4E isn't D&D but that 3.X is makes me laugh. Gary Gygax, you you invoke in the paragraph I quoted, reportedly didn't consider 3.X to be D&D. So your argument that "4E isn't TRUE D&D" is a double edged sword...it's just as applicable an arguement against 3.X as it is against 4E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think houstonderek is a 1E fan, so he may not consider 3.x D&D either.
|
|
I don't consider 3x AD&D. The last game I consider AD&D is 1e (the last game I consider D&D is Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert). 2e doesn't exist for me (much like the Star Wars prequels and the Matrix sequels). 3 was just some game I liked to play that had D&D on the cover (so, you know, it's technically D&D), but I always considered it WotCD&D: We Hate Fighters edition.
As to the edition run, I make little distinction between 3.0 and 3.5. The changes were minor enough that they didn't matter, really. They weren't even as dramatic as the changes to 2e through its run. We don't consider 2e with skills and powers a separate edition, after all.
"My" argument that 4e isn't D&D doesn't exist. F%~*ing thing says "D&D" on the cover, it would be silly of me to say it wasn't D&D.
Those arguments that make you laugh are funny to you, but they're apparently not very funny to WotC. They seem to be taking it quite seriously, actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nor does a wizard forget a spell upon casting it. This is his life, spell magic and study, thus we will assume that the wizard studies and practices secretly in his private moments. To forget a spell could mean his death and is a fairly ludicrous idea. This is his occupation, his livelihood, he is no longer an apprentice, but a fledgling mage working to establish himself in his chosen profession. To suggest that he would forget a spell is like saying a soldier might forget how to use his sword.
From The Palladium Fantasy Role-Playing Game, 1983.
For almost as long as there has been D&D, there have been people who thought the Vancian spellcasting system was kinda stupid. Some of them even wrote new games to try and fix it. Not that I am recommending Palladium's system as a truly better alternative, it's insanely broken.
I'm a long time D&D player, and a big fan. But Vancian casting's "limitations" are mostly irrelevant at higher levels when you can supplement it with scrolls, staves, and wands. I understand it'll be a part of the game because of tradition, but let's not pretend it's there for any other reason.
Luckily, it sounds like 5E will be modular and flexible enough to suit all of our preferences when it comes to casting.
And the beauty part is, there are tons of games out there that don't use Vancian magic that you can play since it's so inefficient and just pointless pandering. Heck, I hear there's even a version of D&D that doesn't use it. You might really dig it.That's cool. Are we all about shutting down game mechanics discussions that we don't like, now?
Ow, I must've hit a nerve, I got the "pick apart piece by piece" treatment.
It's cool, I didn't say anything about shutting down discussion. All I said is that if you aren't cool with Vancian coming back, there are plenty of alternatives. From what the devs are saying, there will hopefully be alternatives within the same system, so we should be all good. If you don't like what's being presented, there are other games and editions that are more to your liking.
There are plenty of other, flavorful fantasy roleplaying magic systems that are not Vancian.
Yeah, and they aren't D&D either. Well, except for the more recent one. Even that's a technicality.
My complaint isn't about numbers. My complaint is about false dilemmas, pointless burdens, and the completely avoidable buzzkill of, "Whoops, guess I didn't prepare the right spell eight hours ago."
...And Spontaneous casting solved that problem 12 years ago.
Of course it is. My argument is that it isn't anything but a sacred cow. The only reason it will be in 5e is that it's pretty much always been in D&D and some people will throw fits if it isn't. They won't really have reasons for throwing fits, other than the sacred cow thing, but they'll do it anyway.
And we saw how well slaughtering "sacred cows" was received? If you are tired of things that have been a staple of the system, find a new system. Again, this time around they're looking to have more alternatives so hopefully we can all play under the same banner. Really, if you're tired of old-school fuddy-duddies and want something new and fresh, why are you playing a 30+ year old game? Plenty of new and fresh games out there.
This is one of the reasons 4e was such a great RPG in my mind. It unchained itself from the necessity of pandering to the nostalgia-fueled demands of some of its fans, and decided to make the best RPG they could. It's a better game for it.
They made a completely new game from scratch and it did fantastic, for less than a quarter of the life-span of other editions. They took some big risks and made some new fans. A lot of people enjoyed it, a lot more apparently didn't. It's got about a year left and new stuff coming out for it, so you can keep playing it if you like. Nobody is going to come to your house and take your books away. Sound familiar?
Gods of the Inner Sphere... Vancian casting is back - is there a problem with that? I don't think so. The question is not whether it's a good or bad system, some of us like it, some of us don't. The question whether there will be other options. 3E had them, 5E can do it too IMO.
Still if the 5E dev tema is going to try and sell 5E using nostaglia good luck. Beyond 1E and 2E there is no 3E nostaglia. Pathfinder is for those who miss 3E. Selling something only on nostaglia seems imo risky.
Erm, not quite. Pathfinder is not 3e. If you're talking "nostalgia," I for example, have absolutely no nostalgic holdings to Pathfinder. However, I have all kinds of nostalgia for 3e from the decade-plus years I've played it. Pathfinder is a continuation of 3e rules, but it is absolutely not 3e. I know many players in my groups who still prefer 3e to Pathfinder, so it wasn't for everybody.
No 3e nostalgia? Really?
|
First off can we drop the whole "if you don't like Vancian magic play something else" cop-out. That is what it is. Some posters like Vancian magic and I respct that. Some like me don't respect that to.
If all their doing is repacking 3.5 into a new package I'm not sure how they expect it to do as well as 3.5 did. Why would I want to buy an rpg that is similar to 3.5/Pathfinder when I already have those. Reeks of revisionist design in the hopes no one will notice. Which would work if we did not already have Pathfinder.
If I were Wotc I would keep the Vancian magic system yet at the same time offer an optional 4E alternative to magic in the PHB. That way if someone dislikes Vancian they can use something else. And no not in some 5E version of Unearthed Arcana either.
Or rather then have two classes of Wizard and Sorcerer merge them into one and allow the player to chose either type of spellcasting. Don't want the annoyance of having to rememeber what to pick for spell slots you can use the Sorcerer version. Don't like the fact that while you cna cast more spells you can cast less spells use the Wizard version.
For every person who says the 15 minute adventure does not exist I have run across 9 more that say it does. It slows the game down too much when once the arcane casters run out of spells they have to rest. Speaking for myself having to fire my measly crossbow over and over again well it gets boring. Telling me to play another class is yet another cop-out. Why it does nothing to address the problem. Sorry but I don't subscriobe to the "shut-up and suck it up and play your damn class" mentality.
The more I'm reading the more it looks like I will not be buying into 5E. Not because I don't want to or because I don;t have an open mind. More because it feels like its going to be a 3.90 version of D&D. If all your going to do is offer exaclty what the competiiton is offering why would people buy a new version. If it's the "lets bring back as many sacred cows edition" well my response is why...
From what I've heard via developers comments, the only thing abut 5E so far that even comes close to a "rehash of 3.5/Pathfinder" is vancian casting for clerics and wizards being core, so I think you are being premature in your judgement of a game that isn't even finalized yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, I don't really care if people like or dislike WotC. Has zero bearing on my day to day life. Just pointing out to Diffan that maybe some people at WotC think maybe they overstepped by changing D&D too much from its roots. The labels are all the same (monster names, the stats, some spell names, etc), but the feel of the game, whether you like it or not, is markedly different from earlier iterations, and a decent number of people felt is "wasn't D&D" enough to move on and take their dollars elsewhere.
I don't have a negative or positive opinion of 4e, I tried it, it's ok and can be fun sometimes, but I prefer Pathfinder (well, a heavily houseruled version, anyway) and 1e for my D&D style gaming. But a lot of gamers really dislike it. And, frankly, if 4e were as rousing a success as the fans claim it is, 5e (D&DNext or whatever they're calling it) wouldn't be in production right now. WotC is making a business choice, and they're reaching out to the customers they lost. And, unless they are completely incompetent, that must me more people than stayed or are new to the game all together.
Putting all mechanics and sacred cows aside, it's obvious WotC sees 4e as a mistake, a failed experiment that did a nice job of creating a huge schism in...
See this, really, is the whole point. It strikes me the entire argument over whether Vancian is a retrograde step is irrelevant (not to your enjoyment, but to the development of 5e), and folks who are suggesting this really aren't understanding the driver behind the entire machine that has gotten underway at Wizards. Vancian could be the worst, most misbegotten thing in the history of roleplaying, and 4e could have been brought down from the Mount by Moses. Doesn't matter at WOTC. At Will powers, per encounter, whatever - great system, and not in any way germaine to the discussion. For Wizards, 4e was a commercial failure and they have stated repeatedly that they intend to 'unite' the fanbase, bring back players into the D&D fold and unify the systems. For all that, read 'we want our customers back.' So, the first thing the dev team will have sat down with wasn't 'how can we improve on 4e and make it a better system', it was 'We know where our customers went, so how do we go about getting them back?'
Beautiful, fair, elegant rules? You think Hasbro gives a stuff about that? When it's released, if all the reviewers say 'wow, this sucks', yet the game generates $50 million dollars revenue, there'll be smiles all round. If the two things coincide, then there'll be backslapping going on at Wizards, but the only one that's necessary is the second.