Well, It's exactly like the golden goose: you can have goose for supper once or eggs for the rest of the goose's lifespan. Producing new rules edition = goose banquet every 5 years or so; selling adventures = eggs for breakfast every morning.
Well, It's exactly like the golden goose: you can have goose for supper once or eggs for the rest of the goose's lifespan. Producing new rules edition = goose banquet every 5 years or so; selling adventures = eggs for breakfast every morning.
This might be the case (there's my skepticism again) - I'll be interested to see whether Paizo find sales dropping off over time or whether they can continue their momentum for another five or ten years without needing a new edition to 'refresh' their product.
.I sometimes wonder whether newcomers into such a richly devloped setting are more or less likely to get enthused than those of us who got into Pathfinder early. I think they have got better at it over time, but there is possibly a balancing factor - I can't decide whether the fact that some flavor material is now out of print would be a turn off for me or not (I'm something of a completionist) or how significant that cohort of people is.
|
No - but as a subsidiary, the board of Hasbro can take action - that's what I meant. The WoTC CEO didnt have to say D&D was selling well, he could have used any number of weasel words or argued a 'maturation of editions' as some kind of natural ebb and flow. After all, over the last few years, there's been a pretty obvious 'out' for anyone trying to lure discretionary spending out of consumers and failing to generate revnue growth.
The board of Hasbro isn't getting the statements meant for public consumption, which are out there to influence the public, not the board of directors. One can observe that we aren't reading the full inside-the-corporation disclosure statements that the board gets. In so far as the board is aware of D&D's numbers at all, I'm sure they're getting real numbers-- that may not be "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"-- but will be facts that can be backed up by solid evidence if the board wants to check up on them.... and if the WotC CEO isn't giving the Hasbro Board the whole truth (in the privacy of board meetings and official corporate communications), he is doing something that will get him canned, and maybe in criminal trouble, if he's caught. They don't have to be as honest with the public in press releases and other media.
Also, there's always a question of the words you use and the definitions applied. What I meant in the earlier statement is that, the WotC CEO says the product is "selling well", then he probably also has numbers, facts and figures he can point to that will "prove" that it's "selling well". Like a couple of the others here, I'm sure that D&D is still making a profit for WotC-- which is one of the ways to define it as "selling well"-- at the same time, since D&D is the name with all of the name recognition, it can be "selling well" and be making a profit, and still not be meeting the Hasbro Board's and/or WotC's own top staff's expectations for how much it should be selling.
One of the things about public relations (and propaganda) in open societies-- it's all about the spin. It's okay to leave stuff out sometimes ("lying by omission"), it's okay to say things that "are true, from a certain point of view"-- you never, ever want to lie (by commission, that is-- actually delivering a blatant untruth) if you can possibly help it, because it's too easy for someone to fact check you and for you to be caught at it. And if you're caught blatantly lying, you get complications-- at the very least, you lose credibility (if you're lucky, that may be all it will cost you). IMO, this is what gets politicians, corporate leaders, and public figures in serious trouble most often-- they start telling falsehoods (rather than just flexibly 'spinning' things) and forget that sooner or later they will probably be caught at it.
I see. I wonder if it's a familiarity with the people. I've been reading comments from Mearls for a while, so perhaps I'm more inclined to trust him as being genuine.
I don't actually know the people personally. In my case, it's just a suspicious mind, a lot of training at reading between the lines, and a lot of experience at it as well... that is quite applicable to examining other parts of life than the particular arena in which I learned those skills. Which is why I admit I could be wrong-- but I do think I've got a lot of knowledge about how the 'public relations' game is played, and I think I see the signs that some people are playing it, in relation to the announcements of the new D&D edition.
Oh, and a lot of reading up on the history of the gaming industry, and being around long enough to collect the details on some of the older incidents... I have met, and gotten some more historical tales from, a few people who were in the industry back in the day, intimately involved with the design and development of a couple of other RPGs.
Quality of production shouldn't be discounted. I would have considered supporting 4E's Forgotten Realms books despite not touching the system itself if they hadn't gone down the predictable and annoying route of "BIG CATACLYSM, SWEEPING CHANGES, OOOOoOOoooOO!" It's just another example of WotC losing touch with one section of their fanbase, I suppose. Sweeping what came before under the rug to make way for the new. It appeals to some people, but offends some as well.
I wouldn't say new settings are a prospect that would-be players have trouble getting enthused about, so much as it's daunting to jump in. For myself, I've only just started delving into Golarion. There's a lot of information there that I'm completely ignorant of, and rather than being a rational human being and saying "start here, work your way out," my brain insists on going, "get it all, read it all, cram it all in!" What little I've read has shown nothing but promise, however. I'll admit to not being this excited about the prospect of gaming in new territory since buying the Planescape boxed sets (which is a big deal -- I <3 Planescape).
That is a concern of mine regarding 5E, as well. If the system is perfect, what of the settings? Are we going to see Greyhawk 5.0? I certainly won't touch Faerun with a 100 ft' pole at this point. An entirely new setting being pushed?
|
|
Truth. And this is by no means a discredit to Arneson, but Gygax had a vested interest beyond monetary gains in the company, whereas he was ousted by people who were essentially looking for a budding market/community to milk funds out of.
Yeah, and 'gygaxed' became accepted slang in certain circles for being sacked as CEO of your own company.... :)
Still, Arneson was initially done wrong. And one of the things WotC did that I really respected-- prior to releasing 3E-- was to go to Arneson, extend an apology for TSR's past behavior, and cut a deal with him to properly settle the royalties/claims/lawsuits, etc., remaining from Gygax's strong-arming him out of credit for AD&D. And finally, putting Arneson's name back alongside Gygax's in the front of every book from 3E onward, where it states something about, "based on the original Dungeons & Dragons game, by..."
Quality of production shouldn't be discounted. I would have considered supporting 4E's Forgotten Realms books despite not touching the system itself if they hadn't gone down the predictable and annoying route of "BIG CATACLYSM, SWEEPING CHANGES, OOOOoOOoooOO!" It's just another example of WotC losing touch with one section of their fanbase, I suppose. Sweeping what came before under the rug to make way for the new. It appeals to some people, but offends some as well.
I wouldn't say new settings are a prospect that would-be players have trouble getting enthused about, so much as it's daunting to jump in. For myself, I've only just started delving into Golarion. There's a lot of information there that I'm completely ignorant of, and rather than being a rational human being and saying "start here, work your way out," my brain insists on going, "get it all, read it all, cram it all in!" What little I've read has shown nothing but promise, however. I'll admit to not being this excited about the prospect of gaming in new territory since buying the Planescape boxed sets (which is a big deal -- I <3 Planescape).
That is a concern of mine regarding 5E, as well. If the system is perfect, what of the settings? Are we going to see Greyhawk 5.0? I certainly won't touch Faerun with a 100 ft' pole at this point. An entirely new setting being pushed?
I think there were many little things which added up to the pushback that 4E received - most of those who dont like the game cite various things, though not usually all of them.
.From the comments I've seen, the FR changes are the ones which generated the most passionate objection (moreso than PDFs, OGL/GSL, firecubes, exclusion of druids, powers or anything else). I think Greyhawk would be best for them personally - and given their approach with Eberron and Dark Sun, I'd predict they'll be very careful about combining massive setting changes with new systems in the future.
|
|
This might be the case (there's my skepticism again) - I'll be interested to see whether Paizo find sales dropping off over time or whether they can continue their momentum for another five or ten years without needing a new edition to 'refresh' their product.
.
I sometimes wonder whether newcomers into such a richly devloped setting are more or less likely to get enthused than those of us who got into Pathfinder early. I think they have got better at it over time, but there is possibly a balancing factor - I can't decide whether the fact that some flavor material is now out of print would be a turn off for me or not (I'm something of a completionist) or how significant that cohort of people is.
Dunno. Truth is, I didn't start getting into Golarion at all (or Pathfinder for that matter), until WotC made the jump to 4E and I'd tried playing 4E long enough to realize how much I hated it. Even after that, the group I was playing D&D with (as opposed to other RPGs) was still playing 3.5 up until a couple of months ago, when we finally wrapped up the last 3.5 campaign and made the switch to Pathfinder.
So-- I'm actually fairly new to Pathfinder (and Golarion) but I'm really liking it so far; but I've been playing RPGs for a long long time. So long as Paizo keeps up the high quality, I'll probably stay enthused-- and I'm more likely to continue to give Paizo my support if they don't jack around with new editions of the rules every 3-5 years whether we need them or not.
BTW-- I'm probably going to give 5E the benefit of the doubt to the extent that I will check it out and see how it plays... but after all the mistakes (IMO-- YMMV, no-one has to agree with me, so those out there reading, please don't re-open the flame-war over my personal distaste for WotC's decisions) WotC's made over the last several years, and the fact that they are owned/operated by the Borg (which means they can't meet the Borg's expectations and survive on Paizo's business model/customer base-- it's good enough for Paizo but NOT for a Hasbro subsidiary), I'm not holding high hopes that 5E is actually going to be worth much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure that D&D is still making a profit for WotC-- which is one of the ways to define it as "selling well"-- at the same time, since D&D is the name with all of the name recognition, it can be "selling well" and be making a profit, and still not be meeting the Hasbro Board's and/or WotC's own top staff's expectations for how much it should be selling.
I certainly agree with this. Nonetheless, the fact the red box went out of print, the fact WoTC arent just dropping the entire brand and the fact they're relaunching both the RPG and the miniatures line all lead me to think things arent bad from a short-term monetary perspective, but rather this is a response to the long-term problem of being seen as the "BBEG" of gaming companies.
.All opinion, of course. I like reading the various tidbits that are around and discussing 'best guesses' with other gamers - ultimately though, we're not much more than a bunch of nerdy guys at their computers saying 'here's what I think'.
This might be the case (there's my skepticism again) - I'll be interested to see whether Paizo find sales dropping off over time or whether they can continue their momentum for another five or ten years without needing a new edition to 'refresh' their product.
.
I sometimes wonder whether newcomers into such a richly devloped setting are more or less likely to get enthused than those of us who got into Pathfinder early. I think they have got better at it over time, but there is possibly a balancing factor - I can't decide whether the fact that some flavor material is now out of print would be a turn off for me or not (I'm something of a completionist) or how significant that cohort of people is.Dunno. Truth is, I didn't start getting into Golarion at all (or Pathfinder for that matter), until WotC made the jump to 4E and I'd tried playing 4E long enough to realize how much I hated it. Even after that, the group I was playing D&D with (as opposed to other RPGs) was still playing 3.5 up until a couple of months ago, when we finally wrapped up the last 3.5 campaign and made the switch to Pathfinder.
So-- I'm actually fairly new to Pathfinder (and Golarion) but I'm really liking it so far; but I've been playing RPGs for a long long time. So long as Paizo keeps up the high quality, I'll probably stay enthused-- and I'm more likely to continue to give Paizo my support if they don't jack around with new editions of the rules every 3-5 years whether we need them or not.
They've certainly seemed to lack enthusiasm for a 'PF2' in the immediate future, so I'd be surprised if anything like that happened for another five+ years.
.It may well be me. When I bought into Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Etcetera, I made sure everything was still in print so I didnt end up with a 'nearly complete' game. As it is, it still rankles that there are three Paizo flipmats I never managed to pick up.. :(
BTW-- I'm probably going to give 5E the benefit of the doubt to the extent that I will check it out and see how it plays... but after all the mistakes (IMO-- YMMV, no-one has to agree with me, so those out there reading, please don't re-open the flame-war over my personal distaste for WotC's decisions) WotC's made over the last several years, and the fact that they are owned/operated by the Borg (which means they can't meet the Borg's expectations and survive on Paizo's business model/customer base-- it's good enough for Paizo but NOT for a Hasbro subsidiary), I'm not holding high hopes that 5E is actually going to be worth much.
If I were WoTC, I'd be bracing for disappointment with those of the 3.5/PF crowd who are 'anti-4E'. I doubt they're going to have a significant pull in a choice-of-game sense, but am hopeful that it becomes more normal to like both games and both companies.
All opinion, of course. I like reading the various tidbits that are around and discussing 'best guesses' with other gamers - ultimately though, we're not much more than a bunch of nerdy guys at their computers saying 'here's what I think'.
Speak for yourself, I'm the cool one! (Total lie.)
Yeah, I agree that D&D brand name is earning a profit, but heartily second Finn's point about expectation vs sad reality.
If I were WoTC, I'd be bracing for disappointment with those of the 3.5/PF crowd who are 'anti-4E'. I doubt they're going to have a significant pull in a choice-of-game sense, but am hopeful that it becomes more normal to like both games and both companies
At face value, you're right. If they release a genuinely awesome product that delivers on what they're promising, they will slowly win back even the 3.x support. A vast majority of the people who said 3.0 would kill the industry converted, and didn't look back. After the initial wave of "what is this crap? Your system murdered my parents! GET OFF MY PLANE!" subsides (which, if the system does succeed, would be right about the time all the nerd raging on the forums simmers down to only a handful where there were hundreds before) you will know how people really feel about it truly.
On another note, I kindof agree with you (despite having just said you might be wrong) for different reasons. I'm not just not sure (even with Monte Cook) that WotC can "outwrite" Paizo at this point.
|
|
They've certainly seemed to lack enthusiasm for a 'PF2' in the immediate future, so I'd be surprised if anything like that happened for another five+ years.
You see? I caught that on James Jacobs's thread not that long ago too-- so long as the current people at Paizo are still the ones running the company and overseeing the game, and they're sticking to their design and creative philosophies, I have confidence in them, that they will continue to produce products to support a fun and interesting game, and they're not going to turn around and screw up their game world overnight, the way some game companies have done (*cough* White Wolf *cough cough*).
Which means I have enough confidence in what they're doing that I have no qualms about continuing to spend my money on their products.
It may well be me. When I bought into Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Etcetera, I made sure everything was still in print so I didnt end up with a 'nearly complete' game. As it is, it still rankles that there are three Paizo flipmats I never managed to pick up.. :(
Ah, yes. I love the fiction set in the W40K universe. I really like a lot of the fluff stuff that goes along with 'Dark Heresy'/'Rogue Trader'/etc.-- not so sure about the mechanics of the game (I've played a few sessions of Dark Heresy already) :D
If I were WoTC, I'd be bracing for disappointment with those of the 3.5/PF crowd who are 'anti-4E'. I doubt they're going to have a significant pull in a choice-of-game sense, but am hopeful that it becomes more normal to like both games and both companies.
Well, lemme put to you ya this way... I suppose I'm not being 'politically correct' but... if WotC really puts out a good game, I'll probably spend some money on it. I am not likely to trust them ever again (you know the old saying about "being fooled once-- yeah, can happen to anyone; being fooled twice-- only if you're an idiot who trusts someone who's already betrayed you once"?).
But it's not as bad as certain other game companies.... I used to play some of the 'World of Darkness' games... when, after supporting the company and the game universe and buying plenty of game books over the years, White Wolf comes out and does their whole spiel about how they're shutting down the 'World of Darkness'-- "It's artistic integrity, it has to happen, it's the whole meta-plot, you knew sooner or later it was going to come to an end...", along with the statement that they were going to move on to something entirely new for the next game they made, that "of course we're not going to just reboot the 'World of Darkness' in a new, slightly modified version"-- and then, after shutting down and killing off the old World of Darkness, what they did (in spite of all statements and promises to the contrary) is published a 'reboot' of the 'World of Darkness' games. All of them (although 'Changeling' is, as I understand it, warped into something quite different). Even named the new setting 'World of Darkness'. And they expected all the previous 'World of Darkness' fans to shut down all of their old 'WoD' campaigns and 'get with the program'-- start buying into the new 'WoD' and follow the White Wolf 'Pied Piper' along the path to blowing more paychecks.
I haven't bought a White Wolf game book since. I even try to avoid buying any PDFs on Drivethru RPG, because White Wolf owns them. Now, WotC hasn't offended me to that extent-- not quite-- but I still don't trust them much. At least, unlike White Wolf, they haven't done that kind of blatant lie and big middle 'finger' to their players (though some of the fans in the edition wars, on all sides, have).
|
And that they admit to have been working on it since 2010 is also indicative that perhaps sales aren't as rosy as they were letting on. They're not going to say the reason was bad sales, because that would just add more fuel to the fire
I remember back when TSR started having its problems, and pretty much stopped putting stuff out. Their excuse? Printer problems...
Now, everyone (at least within my circles at the time) knew they were blowing smoke, but still all they would admit to was "printer problems"...
So no, one would be VERY hard pressed to find a company that is going to admit things are any less than "rosy"...
|
And that they admit to have been working on it since 2010 is also indicative that perhaps sales aren't as rosy as they were letting on. They're not going to say the reason was bad sales, because that would just add more fuel to the fireI remember back when TSR started having its problems, and pretty much stopped putting stuff out. Their excuse? Printer problems...
Now, everyone (at least within my circles at the time) knew they were blowing smoke, but still all they would admit to was "printer problems"...
So no, one would be VERY hard pressed to find a company that is going to admit things are any less than "rosy"...
Even funnier considering they pretty much filled a landfill with product that just sat in a warehouse because they overestimated the market for campaign settings and whatnot and couldn't move it.
From what I read in a recent Dancey article on ENWorld, Hasbro basically gives an imprint a larger budget (basically they can spend more than their profits) if their profits are over a certain point. So let's say 4e averages a profit of 10 million a year(completely made up numbers, no insider knowledge), when they need 50 million to hit Hasbro's mark. It would still be profitable, but not successful enough to do whatever they want to do as an imprint (Hasbro separated WotC by department as I recall, so Magic doesn't enter into the equation unfortunately).
To add to this and reverse it that also means that Pathfinder wouldn't be profitable enough for WotC either. It also means that every other roleplaying game company in the world (except maybe Paizo) wishes they made as much profit on their line as 4e does.
Now back to Vancian magic, I like the simplicity of having a set list of spells that you can cast especially with the way that spells especially get bloated (not in a bad way just in the number of them) as an edition goes along.
I removed some posts. The bickering needs to stop.
|
|
The only D&D products that I have knowledge about actually going to a landfill are a whole rune of AD&D player's handbooks (Some did make it to market, but many were pitched - this was the result of a "lose" guide wire on the press putting a cut down the covers) and about 13,000 copies of Palace of the Silver Princess, which went in the dumpster behind the office for reasons I think everyone, by now, is aware of.
Second edition. A bunch of campaign setting stuff and accessory type stuff were trashed, sent to New Mexico I think, when TSR went down. Stuff like Al Qadim, Maztica, Bithright, etc, some genius at TSR thought would sell as well as, say, Forgotten Realms, and was allotted print runs accordingly.
Second edition. A bunch of campaign setting stuff and accessory type stuff were trashed, sent to New Mexico I think, when TSR went down. Stuff like Al Qadim, Maztica, Bithright, etc, some genius at TSR thought would sell as well as, say, Forgotten Realms, and was allotted print runs accordingly.
Yeah, I never understood what TSR exec thought those settings (I would include Spelljammer as well) would sell as well as the trinity of Forgotten Realms, Planescape, and Ravenloft (and, to a slightly lesser extent, Dark Sun).
Looking back with perfect hindsight, I don't know how anyone couldn't have seen that trying to fully support no fewer than 8 campaign settings would be a problem.
I thought al-qadim, although probably still over printed, was done as a set number of products (16 or so). And I am surprised no one has mentioned the failure that was Buck Rodgers.
|
Actually, I think that's pretty broken, lol. You have to think though, that with a wizard who say....prepares Fireball for his 3rd level slot will never have to really worry about using up a 1st or 2nd level spell lot on offensive magic by this time. I would like to have the wizard limited to the amount of spells normally allowed in 3E, but not have to prepare before hand...No. I want a class that has access to the entire wizard spell list. Has to pick a cetain amount spells using spell slots like the current wizard does yet not forget them once cast...
I've fiddled with systems that allows multiple castings of a prepared spells. The first involved a Spellcraft check of increasing DC per spell cast, but it was too cumbersome at the table and was effectively allowing infinite spells.
The second, which I haven't used at the table yet, reduces the effectiveness of the spell each time it is cast. Generally, there is a penalty to the spell (-2 to save DC and effective caster level). I haven't had time to think about the ramifications of some spells like the various power words but I just thought I would share the concept.
Seems we can all relax on this issue? Link What does everyone think of this?
Seems we can all relax on this issue? Link What does everyone think of this?
Yea, again one of Monte's "Meh" sort of colums. So, he reinvented Reserve Feats. *Yawn*. Problem with Reserve feats is that, while useful 24-7 and a Supernatural Effect, they lost potency somewhere past 11th level, where a Vancian-style character (Wizard, for Example) would mostly have enought spells to carry him through the day. Additionally, when your getting that high-up, spells that deal direct damage were always considered sub-par to the more devestating save-or-die, ability/level draining, or instant-condition granting spells that were pretty prominent at those levels.
Now, if the numbers stay pretty even and progress slowly as one levels, I can see more reasons for this. Reserve Feats in say, an E6 game, are pretty damn impressive and useful to boot througout a characters entire life but that's because monsters don't increase to un-godly levels of HP and Defenses/Saves. Feat investments should be things that are either extreamly useful 90% of the time throughout your character's career or useful for a short amount of time with the option of Swapping it out for a better version later on during progression.
Also, how vastly different from Daily powers was vancian spellcasting for them to say they're bringing it "Back"? Really, it never left and was spread out through more than just X, Y, Z clases. In fact, Vancian magic and/or Vancian system has been pretty dominate with 4th Edition. So when I read this:
"It requires casters to think about what spells they want to cast ahead of time. It requires them to use their abilities judiciously. In other words, smart play is rewarded. You need to have an idea of what kind of adventure you are about to undertake to optimize your character, which often takes planning and perhaps research."
To me he's specifically saying Magic users are rewarded for this style while Fighters don't have to worry about this system, even if they wanted to. I like having option, I like judiciously using my abilities (regardless of class) BUT I want those abilities to have real game-changing effects. And this brings us back to 4E. Hence why daily spells, ones requring a level of "Should the be used now?" questioning, should be more powerful than "I spam X spell or X feat, scrub, rinse, repeat" mantra. Also, why is this only directed at Spellcasting classes, or are we to just assume that any sort of Martial power variants won't be present at all with D&D:Next?
"It requires casters to think about what spells they want to cast ahead of time. It requires them to use their abilities judiciously. In other words, smart play is rewarded. You need to have an idea of what kind of adventure you are about to undertake to optimize your character, which often takes planning and perhaps research."To me he's specifically saying Magic users are rewarded for this style while Fighters don't have to worry about this system, even if they wanted to. I like having option, I like judiciously using my abilities (regardless of class) BUT I want those abilities to have real game-changing effects. And this brings us back to 4E. Hence why daily spells, ones requring a level of "Should the be used now?" questioning, should be more powerful than "I spam X spell or X feat, scrub, rinse, repeat" mantra. Also, why is this only directed at Spellcasting classes, or are we to just assume that any sort of Martial power variants won't be present at all with D&D:Next?
Even without martial powers, martial characters do have options to choose from; move or full attack, weapon attack or trip attack, use regular attack or daily smite attack or stunning fist attack, use power feat or combat expertise feat etc.
There may not be a lot of options to choose from at the moment, but these choices are tactical options nonetheless and martial characters are rewarded for a judicious use of these options. We could hope for D&D next to expand on these options with or without a daily selection of powers for martial characters.
'findel
Even without martial powers, martial characters do have options to choose from; move or full attack, weapon attack or trip attack, use regular attack or daily smite attack or stunning fist attack, use power feat or combat expertise feat etc.There may not be a lot of options to choose from at the moment, but these choices are tactical options nonetheless and martial characters are rewarded for a judicious use of these options. We could hope for D&D next to expand on these options with or without a daily selection of powers for martial characters.
'findel
Right, and 90% of the options you suggested don't really sound appealing in the context that I know them to be.
First one: Move or Full-Attack. For starters, this breaks my immersion as I'm fully aware of a persona's capabilities of move 30 ft and swining both weapons at the same time. To have to choose between the two is attempting to pick a less of two evils.
Second: Weapon attack or trip attack. Why can't we have an abilitiy that does one in the same? Why the requirement of choosing? How about there's some feats or maneuvers that allow me to attack a guy and, if it hits, I can trip it automatically? Or because i"m using a special weapon and in conjunction with a feat, I can do the same thing? Again, a choice of lesser of two evils.
Third: Regular attack or Smite attack (or Stunning Fist). If the effects of the Smite or Stunning fist are greatly beneficial to a normal attack such as A LOT more damage, poses a condition, or some buff that lasts for a turn or two then you have a case. Being what Smite or Stunning Fist was in 3E........no thanks. A 1/day bonus to 1 attack that might still miss for some pathetic level damage is hardly worth a daily-equivalent power. I see Pathfinder fixed this (a bit), so I'll give credit to them for that. As for Stunning Fist, it would be great if it worked so long as you hit. To add in an additional obsticle of a Saving throw defeats the purpose. Better to have to declare the 'Stunning Fist' prior to the attack and it instantly takes effect or you can claim a 'Stunning Fist' attempt after the attack roll but then require a second Saving Throw. Both requirements together make it a very poor choice in the long run.
As for the Feat selection you mentioned "Power Attack, Combat Expertise", I have a hard time looking at their benefits without seeing major drawbacks. Nor are these options by any means rewarding for judiciously using them, espically with the penalities they impose. By the by, why don't spellcasting classes have such significant draw backs to their specialized feats? Why don't Reserve Feats require more or why are there ways around Meta-magic spell-slot penalities?
If you lessen the penalties to some of the Fighter/Melee/Martial options of v3.5 then you'll have a better, overall system for v3.5 but that doesn't necessarily mean that 5E should be like this in the slightest.
Also, how vastly different from Daily powers was vancian spellcasting for them to say they're bringing it "Back"? Really, it never left and was spread out through more than just X, Y, Z clases. In fact, Vancian magic and/or Vancian system has been pretty dominate with 4th Edition.Very different. Vancian magic isn't just about limited uses. It's also about preparing different selections when you expect to be doing different things. That's not how daily powers worked in 4E. You picked one and then could use it every day until you changed it while leveling.
IIRC, wizards had a spellbook with a couple of dailies to choose from. That's a Vancian ability. Fighters didn't.
But one would argue that the Vancian system (at least, a part of it) was there in 4E all along as it's basically about power mitigation. The preparation was there, build in, for Wizards and Swordmages so now they're just bringing it back for Clerics too. If that's true, lets hope they understand that by-and-large Clerics do NOT want to prepare Cleric healing spells along the lines of Cure Light Wounds as their daily allotment. If that is the case, at LEAST let these spells do something other than "Gain X HP". One thing I hated was casting Cure Light Wounds at a caster level 2nd and rolling a 1 (totallying 3 HP). That just plain ol' sucked.
I also hope, that if feats are going to be ued for At-Will, they take into consideration that more than just the Wizard is going to want to use them. At-Will feats that work for say....Clerics and Druids would be nice too.
Swinging both weapons repeatedly and moving is a mechanics problem as long as you consider one swing to be equal to one roll of the dice when the roll should actually represent a serie of swings that cause any number of wounds that in total are equal to total attack damage. Full attack should simply represent a chance to do more damage when you concentrate on attack rather than attacking and repositioning.
Otherwise I have to aggree with the other things.
Stunning fist should be allowed to work without damage IMO - forcing a save when the attack connects - allowing it to work as a touch attack could help somewhat IMO.
Seems we can all relax on this issue? Link What does everyone think of this?
So, Vancian casting AND 4e-inspired non-Vancian? Pretty much wraps up this debate. Wait for it though... Someone will still complain.
|
|
I will.
[Starts complaining that Vancian Magic and 4e magic sucks eggs and thinks that the Force power system is a lot lot better]
for instance . . .
[starts going over this and that, gets into Quantum Mechanics, and says that there are a lot of magic systems out there that replicate findings in QM, and says that the world is ready for a system based on QM.]
[Finally he goes into a diatribe on how everything in 4e and D&D really sucks magic wise and it's time for a change.]
Okay, so without reiteration, Josh. I have complained.
Right, and 90% of the options you suggested don't really sound appealing in the context that I know them to be.
Whether or not this is appealing to you is another thing altogether. Only, martial characters can also be rewarded by the choice they make; this is not exclusive to prepared spellcasters even under 3e or Pathfinder RPG, and it doesn't have to be in D&D next.
Personally, I hope 5e/D&D next will go further in this direction, having feats/powers that you can select without necessarily stacking onto the previous one, thus creating a selection of choices that mirrors those of a vancian spellcaster.
That's because I prefer games where experience give you more options rather than more raw power. Your mileage may vary of course...
You were too late. The first post after the link was given was all complaint.
All complaint? Hardly. I voiced 'concerns' that Monte was just reinventing the wheel with Magic-like powers via Feats to which we've already seen 4-5 years ago. If (big word there) the power creep of monsters and PCs stays relatively flat, meaning we're not seeing AC rise to 25-30 by 10th level and HPs are into the Hundreds by level 15 then I see them being much more popular as they will probably stay relatively useful. Again, this is judging from what we've already seen and hopefully they'll take cues from previous editions and make these good choices for characters. I really hope they do (see, some positive wishing!) and we can play wizards without resorting to Crossbows, clerics that can heal AND attack in the same turn, and have fighters that have options outside of swing, swing, swing [Power Attack], swing, trip attempt, disarm attempt, swing. If they address these concerns, I'll be pleasantly suprised.
@ Laurefindel: I agree with you on experience equals broad application and expansion, not just a boost to all your stuff every single level. I'd love to see more horizonal measurese than vertical ones. I think my concern is that the the Vancian system rewards players who choose correctly with how they spend their 'Dailies'. 9/10 these options have big impacts on the game. They can change the outcome at times. So I relate these aspects with Vancian-systems as well. Fighter, I guess to some degree have options to exploit as well but unless these are focused upon during character creation/expansion, they're often no where near the encounter-changing power of spells. It's always been (for me, anyways) limited resources mean more potency. So Monte's colum this week seemed to suggest that the potency of spells will still be there for wizards in the form of Vancian spellcasting, but didn't mention Fighters and other melee/weapon oriented classes in the slightest.
@ GM Elton: +1. Loved the way SW:SAGA handled Force abilities. very smooth and interesting. Much perfer that way over v3.5 spellcasting at least.
He probably meant that 4E wizard also could change the daily powers he has.
Overal number of choices was about the same when you fiured in the utility powers and treated encounter powers as repeatedly memorized spells of lower level. The spellbook hoever was not nearly as large as a spellbook of a mid to higher level caster in previous edition and thus the customisation of the spell mix isn't nearly as possible.
Hmmm - four at a time? Maybe 4e is more Vancian than you think...
For clarity, in 4e a typical wizard can have a spell book with two daily powers and two utility powers (for each level that they are granted). A feat allows this to be expanded to three per level.
Not quite the same. He had 100s of spells from which he could prepare 4. (And that's it, no other spells. He carried a sword and did lots of action hero type things.)
I do agree that the wizard's spellbook is the Vancian bit in 4E. What I'm arguing is that the Daily Power concept is not, in and of itself, Vancian.
I let the Wizards and Swordmages add any amount they find to their spellbook, though they have to make sure they have room (I think it's still 1 spell per page in 4E). And that goes for their Daily spells, Utility spells, and Encounter spells. I had thought about allowing them to add at-will spells but it never seemed like a problem with them. I did give wizards the options of certain versions of spells. For example, my wife liked the older version (not sucky one) of Magic Missile, so I let her keep that version than the auto-hit garbage it eventually became.
So perhaps I had been doing more Vancian spellcasting in my group that others so it didn't feel as strange to me. Heh, I should give the option to the cleric too, even if it's just for that good old times feeling.
|
Vancian always worked out well for me and mine, but that is probably because I play lower magic settings with the absence of commodity magic. Players don't automatically gain spells, they acquire them by adventuring and then have to attempt to scribe them and learn them.
I don't nerf spells; meaning I don't exclude spells I feel are "broken" etc. I DO introduce spells at times that I believe are appropriate. I also like to award spells that aren't oft used to challenge the player to find a new use for the spell to make the game interesting. (plus, use an obscure spell in a new and awesome way is a way to get XP boon)
Overall I am glad that D&D is going back to vancian magic, and I like that PF has always been that way. It just feels natural to me.
Plus, finding a spell in an old spell book is more fun IMO then auto-gaining a power at such-and-such a level with no context. I always wondered what happened to a 4e wizard who found a book of 4th level daily spells; could he swap them in and out at will? Could he transcribe them and use them later? Could he cast them at will?
The spells-as-powers didn't mesh with me because of that reason (among others)
Vancian always worked out well for me and mine, but that is probably because I play lower magic settings with the absence of commodity magic. Players don't automatically gain spells, they acquire them by adventuring and then have to attempt to scribe them and learn them.
I don't nerf spells; meaning I don't exclude spells I feel are "broken" etc. I DO introduce spells at times that I believe are appropriate. I also like to award spells that aren't oft used to challenge the player to find a new use for the spell to make the game interesting. (plus, use an obscure spell in a new and awesome way is a way to get XP boon)
Overall I am glad that D&D is going back to vancian magic, and I like that PF has always been that way. It just feels natural to me.
I've seen similiar rules where Wizard can't access new spells (even when leveling says so) until they reach a town to "research" or study magic outside of a combative environment. Same can apply to fighters for activated feats or clerics for their prayers. While I've not done this, I can see how it gives a nod to realism. Just *poof* knowing a new spell you've never tried is a bit gamist, and this restriction (while sucks for dungeons crawls) keeps a bit immersion for realism.
Plus, finding a spell in an old spell book is more fun IMO then auto-gaining a power at such-and-such a level with no context. I always wondered what happened to a 4e wizard who found a book of 4th level daily spells; could he swap them in and out at will? Could he transcribe them and use them later? Could he cast them at will?The spells-as-powers didn't mesh with me because of that reason (among others)
There aren't rules against it, if that's what you mean. Though it doesn't have pricing/listing for spells and the like either. Personally, I allow them full-access to spells during character creation (1st level and above). After that, I allow classes that have spellbooks (Wizard, Swordmages, Bladesinger, [Witches?]) the option of adding more to their spellbook. Normally they're allowed to add two of each Daily and Utiliy Spell of a particular level when the gain it. So a 5th level Wizard would gain 2 dailies but could only prepare one. As mentioned above, there is a feat that allows them the selection of a 3rd spell per Daily/Utility.
This shows me that the option to have more than normally alloted isn't 'broken' or makes them superior. What it does is provide a bit more versatility. I just take it a step further, allowing them to add their Encounter spells as well. In the case of them finding another character's spellbook or ritual book, I allow them to scribe (freely, without rolling) to their own book. They can, however, only put in spells of levels they know. If they want to buy a spell-scroll from a shop in town, then it will be 90% a spell from the PHB. Spells from Arcane Power are considered "Uncommon" but I'll be a little lax if a caster is say...an Illusionist or Summoner and only the Arcane Power book has Summons/illusions. If they want spells directly from Dragon magazines, I treat them as Rare (to find, not pricing).
For pricing, it's not an exact formula but I usually treat it as the sell price for that particular level. So a 5th level Daily wizard spell is the normal sell price for a 5th level item. Keeps things in perspective.
Page jump!
Vancian magic simply needs to die.
The "guess which spells you MIGHT need today and if you guess wrong you are screwed" just screams at me "NOT FUN!" Add to that, if your gm has you in a "fast and furious" segment of a adventure and you dont have time to take the required study time to swap out to new spells, whats your option...? A wand, a crossbow?
Why is the concept of a ponts based mana pool and a feedback/stress penalty for mages getting to spell happy so difficult to grok when it comes to d&d/pathfinder?
Not sure if I'm biting to trollbait here (poster's history is short but looks serious however)...
Looks that you have a bone with spell preparation, which is admittedly one of the three main ingredients of Vancian casting.
From your post, I'm not quite sure if you like or dislike the second part of Vancian magic which is magic as a finite resource. It doesn't matter if you're using magic points, mana pool or spell slots, a vancian mage can run out of spell (and will indeed have to rely on other methods thereafter).
Actually, few people have an issue with the first element of Vancian casting; magic is packaged into spells, which IMO works well from a RPG perspective.
Like everyone, you're entitled your opinion, but Vancian magic doesn't need to die. It provides a self-contained system with precise parameters to work with. The fact that D&D uses spell slots and a quadratic progression isn't Vancian in itself; one could create a linear, spell-point driven magic system based on the Vancian principles that 1) magic is packaged into spells, 2) spellcasting uses a finite amount of energy and 3) spells need to be prepared in order to be cast in combat/rushed/distracting situations.
'findel