Also, saves in 4E do not scale the way attacks and defenses do. Domination is typically a short term effect, as it tends to be "save ends". In 4E, you have a basic 55% chance of making any save, and factors that debuff saves tend to work for only one save. So the typical worst case is as follows:
1) Wizard attacks and penetrates your defense. You are affected by his spell. He applies a massive de-buff to your next save.
2) At the end of your turn, you attempt to save against the spell. The odds are against you this time.
3) At the end of your next and following turns, you have the usual 55% chance of making the save.
That is one area where 4E actually improved on Pathfinder, since in Pathfinder saves and save DCs scale with level, so a save that is hard to make the first time remains hard on successive attempts (as is the case with the Hold Person spell).
But in any case, the auto-success/auto-fail chances do mean that in either game you always have some chance of succeeding and some chance of failing. You would have to dig deeper to analyze which is better for which side in any given situation.
|
Funny how WotC has taught people that the game must follow the "completely new edition every 5 years" paradigm. Call of Cthulhu players must be amused, in particular :_TSR taught us that. Wizards just kept up the tradition
D&D 1974
AD&D/Basic 1977
BECMI 1981
UE (basically 1.5) 1985
2E 1989
2.5 1995
3E 2000
3.5 2003
4E 2008
PF 2009
D&D Next 2014?
PF 1.5/2.0 20??Expect an new edition every 10 years and an edition revision every 5. This is what D&D does.
Meh, I think he was more talking about the fact that with 3rd edition, they basically dumped the pre-existing system totally and came up with something completely new. And then they did so again in 2008 with 4E, and seem to be doing the same again with D&D Next in 2014ish.
While there were some changes to the system for the first 25 years of it's existence, all the systems in that time frame were largely compatible with each other, and you could rather easily play a character created in any of those systems in a game using another one of those systems.
He mentioned Call of Cthulhu. That game, while on it's sixth edition, has had only very very minor changes. Off the top of my head, the only ones that I can think of are that the minimum for most skills increased from 0% to 1%, and they made Cthulhu do multiple attacks for flat damage instead of the infamous "Cthulhu devours 1d4 investigators / round".
How about we chalk this up to what it is -- a personl preference, rather than a meaningful probability difference -- and let it die?
|
How do you think players would feel if you cast dominate person on them, which lasts for days? How do you think they would feel if, under the rolling system, you told them no matter what they rolled they couldn't succeed?
You're basically taking away the ability to save against super specialized wizards in mind controlling effects. If they stack it high enough it will be literally impossible to save. Even if it's only 5% there's always the chance you'll succeed on a spell. With the defensive method you no longer have that 5%. You can literally be mind controlled for days on end and have no chance of doing anything about it.
I don't understand. In PF on a Save a natural 1 is always a fail and a natural 20 always a success, similarly on an attack roll. So if Saves became static defences against which an attack roll was made why would you assume you still wouldn't have the 5% chance to fail and 5% chance to succeed?
All that would happen is who rolls the dice a natural 20 on an attack roll is the equivalent of a natural 1 on a save and vice versa.
|
|
You'd need to change the base of the numbers. For spells vs saving throws, instead of a DC of 10+spell level + stat bonus + other bonuses you'd have a bonus to the "Attack" roll of spell level + stat bonus + any other bonuses. Instead of a Saving Throw bonus, you'd have 10 + your class saving throw bonus + stat bonus + any other modifiers.
(There may be an off by one error in there changing the odds by 5%. Adjust for that.)
The Defense stat would become 12+Save Bonus
Base Save modifier of +0 against a Cantrip (spell level zero) cast by a wizard with a +0 Int modifer
Save is rolled:
d20 + 0 Save vs Spell DC of 10 (10 +0 +0) = 9 in 20 chance (roll of 1 thru 9) of failure or 45% chance of spell taking effect.
Spell attack if rolled versus static Save defence:
d20 + 0 (0+0) vs Save of 12 (12 + 0) = 9 in 20 chance (roll of 13 thru 20) of success or 45% chance of spell taking effect.
Probably should. I just keep wondering if I'm missing something.
You aren't. The person rolling the die doesn't matter. Any difference in probability comes from other 4E changes (spell design, etc.), which are beside the point.
It is time to move on. Vancian Casting is never used in fiction anymore, why should it continue to confuse new players in the game? "Fire and forget" is the single most frustrating mechanic in the whole D&D line, almost topping the whole Polymorgh question.
Wrong on several counts- first of all Jack Vance is very much still alive, and Sir Pterry uses a version of it on Discworld. There are others, too.
Confuse? So a system that requires a calculator and algebra is simpler? How could anything be easier than “fire & forget” unless it’s just use over & over & over like a Warlock? Vancian is simple and it works.
If you don’t care for Vancian casting there are a hundred other Fantasy RPG game systems out there which use spellpoints or mana or whatever. None of them come within 10% of D&D sales figures.
Funny how WotC has taught people that the game must follow the "completely new edition every 5 years" paradigm. Call of Cthulhu players must be amused, in particular :_TSR taught us that. Wizards just kept up the tradition
D&D 1974
AD&D/Basic 1977
BECMI 1981
UE (basically 1.5) 1985
2E 1989
2.5 1995
3E 2000
3.5 2003
4E 2008
PF 2009
D&D Next 2014?
PF 1.5/2.0 20??Expect an new edition every 10 years and an edition revision every 5. This is what D&D does.
Actually, only 4th Ed had such a short shelf life, unless you count OD&D.
AD&D lasted nearly 20 years, 1977 to 2000. You can play a 1st ED PC in a 2nd ED game no problem. The difference between 2nd & “2.5” is trvial.Basic was a spin off game, not a different “edition” at all. It was aimed at the younger folk.
3rd lasted about 8 years. 4th is dead after only 5.
The difference is that from 1977 to 2000 you could play that same PC with only minor tweaks. D20 was an entirely different game, and so was 4th ED.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don’t care for Vancian casting there are a hundred other Fantasy RPG game systems out there which use spellpoints or mana or whatever. None of them come within 10% of D&D sales figures.
This bugs me for a couple of reasons.
First, your implied premise is that D&D's success was caused by Vancian casting. If you want your conclusion ("Vancian casting should be kept intact") to carry any weight, you must first demonstrate the validity of that premise. You have failed.
Second, you're suggesting that if someone doesn't share your affinity for Vancian casting, they should go find another game. Others have just as much right to express their opinion of the direction they'd like the game to take as you do. If that bothers you, perhaps you are the one that needs to go.
bugleyman, you read this yet? Seems relevant to the topic.
I hadn't, but that is a great article -- thanks.
first of all Jack Vance is very much still alive
He's my favorite author, but I'd quibble with the "very much" part -- he's blind, geriatric, can barely move, and hasn't written anything in 8 years... and, more germane to the current topic, hasn't written anything with "Vancian Casting" since before 1984, when Sandestin-based casting was introduced in Rhialto the Marvellous.
The most recent fiction with fire-and-forget casting that I can easily think of is from Zelazny's second Amber series (1985-1991).
Now, don't get me wrong -- I kind of like a "spells per day per spell level" system -- it reminds me of electrons orbiting at different quantum energy levels, and I'm a science dork. But I wouldn't necessarily mistake that emotional preference as somehow meaning that it's an indisposable part of the game.
I love Pathfinder magic. I'd rather not see it change.
I don't see how it could change and remain the same game.
first of all Jack Vance is very much still aliveHe's my favorite author, but I'd quibble with the "very much" part -- he's blind, geriatric, can barely move, and hasn't written anything in 8 years... and, more germane to the current topic, hasn't written anything with "Vancian Casting" since before 1984, when Sandestin-based casting was introduced in Rhialto the Marvellous.
The most recent fiction with fire-and-forget casting that I can easily think of is from Zelazny's second Amber series (1985-1991).
Songs of the Dying Earth (2011), with nearly two dozen stories by some of Fantasy’s greatest writers, is set in Vance’s world, and features Vancian spellcasting. As does Discworld.
I mean, there are dozens if not hundreds of other FRP’s out there, nearly every one NOT featuring Vancian casting, and just about every one is a failure or a niche market. Anyone remember Fantasy Hero? Powers & Perils (published by Avalon Hill, no less). Chivalry & Sorcery? They had one of the most “realistic’ systems of magic. I am the only one I know that actually played it- and “played” here is used loosely as brilliant as the game was, it was pretty much unplayable.
Why would PF want to give in to the demands of a tiny minority of consumers to make such a radical change that almost no one wants? Now- have a few classes that use an alternate system? Sure why not, and in fact the Witch does go down that road a bit. Let's have a 'warlock'like class, fine by me.
But Vancian works, works well, is simple, and is sucessful. No other system can say the same.
Songs of the Dying Earth (2011), with nearly two dozen stories by some of Fantasy’s greatest writers, is set in Vance’s world, and features Vancian spellcasting.
A bunch of people imitating (oh, wait, it's "homage," right?) a specific work of fiction from 60 years prior (one that the author himself has moved well past) is probably not an example I would use for what's "current"!
I haven't read any Pratchett since the first Discoworld novel (Color of Magic? I think -- sometime in the 80s) when it first came out, so I can't comment there.
Let me restate that I, personally, like Vancian casting, but that's because I really like Vance and Zelzany and John Bellairs. I could live without it though, without feeling as if the game has been destroyed or something.
bugleyman, you read this yet? Seems relevant to the topic.
Meh. Reads like another diatribe against D&D Next backsliding away from 4e by a 4e fan to me.
As for me and Vancian casting, I like it. I think it's one of the core elements that makes the D&D family distinct from other fantasy RPGs. Some players may chafe at it, but I think it should remain a core PF mechanic. And I think that is a good enough reason to keep it. Distinctness of identity in the marketplace has value.
I've already held forth about why I prefer saving throws to static defenses, so I don't do that again here.
|
bugleyman, you read this yet? Seems relevant to the topic.Meh. Reads like another diatribe against D&D Next backsliding away from 4e by a 4e fan to me.
A lot of commenters thought so too.
A lot of commenters thought so too.bugleyman, you read this yet? Seems relevant to the topic.Meh. Reads like another diatribe against D&D Next backsliding away from 4e by a 4e fan to me.
I hadn't read those yet. But I have to say that Hebert's responses don't exactly disabuse me of the notion.
I notice that Wolfgang Baur posted a rebuttal here.
Meh. Reads like another diatribe against D&D Next backsliding away from 4e by a 4e fan to me.
Maybe. But for me it has nothing to do with what 4E did or didn't do -- rather, the idea is that we should be open to whatever works best, because the essence of D&D isn't Vancian casting (or saving throws, or even hit points).
As for Vancian casting -- I think I would probably prefer spontaneous casting all around. It's just as dead simple as Vancian, but doesn't require the prep-work, or the weirdness around being able to cast a meteor swarm, but not a fireball. It seems to be the best match for most genre fiction without introducing spell points or similar. Keep zero level spells usable at will, and go through the spell lists with only spontaneous casters in mind. Drop extra time for metamagic. KISS. :)
Meh. Reads like another diatribe against D&D Next backsliding away from 4e by a 4e fan to me.Maybe. But for me it has nothing to do with what 4E did or didn't do -- rather, the idea is that we should be open to whatever works best, because the essence of D&D isn't Vancian casting (or saving throws, or even hit points).
But what does work best at making a game D&D as opposed to Swords and Sorcery, Fantasy Trip, Rolemaster, GURPS Fantasy, Hero Fantasy, Tunnels and Trolls, Ars Magica, or any other fantasy RPG? There are reasons that some mechanics really should be sacred cows - because they differentiate D&D from the other games out there. Simply being about fantasy adventuring, or even killing monsters and taking their stuff, won't do it.
What strikes me about the Hebert essay is it reminds me so very much of the statements that several 4e fan/edition warriors on another site expound on (ad infinitum, if given the chance). And there's an element of arrogant, pseudo-objective progressivism in what they post that almost sneers at OSR or even just older edition fans.
As for Vancian casting -- I think I would probably prefer spontaneous casting all around. It's just as dead simple as Vancian, but doesn't require the prep-work, or the weirdness around being able to cast a meteor swarm, but not a fireball. It seems to be the best match for most genre fiction without introducing spell points or similar. Keep zero level spells usable at will, and go through the spell lists with only spontaneous casters in mind. Drop extra time for metamagic. KISS. :)
Thankfully for both of us, PF now incorporates both with different classes and, using one as a boilerplate for the other, it's really easy to convert the casting of any one class as a house rule. Ideally, PF 2.0 would be able to do so as well and continue to satisfy both our preferences - Vancian and the 1 step away spontaneous slot variation.
|
|
I notice that Wolfgang Baur posted a rebuttal here.
Not so much a rebuttal as support from the opposite end of the spectrum. Thanks for the link!
If Vancian casting isn't part of the essence of D&D, what is?
You're going to hate this reply, but in all seriousness, I think that's a question that every player gets to answer for his/herself.
|
|
It is time to move on. Vancian Casting is never used in fiction anymore, why should it continue to confuse new players in the game? "Fire and forget" is the single most frustrating mechanic in the whole D&D line, almost topping the whole Polymorgh question.Wrong on several counts- first of all Jack Vance is very much still alive, and Sir Pterry uses a version of it on Discworld. There are others, too.
Confuse? So a system that requires a calculator and algebra is simpler? How could anything be easier than “fire & forget” unless it’s just use over & over & over like a Warlock? Vancian is simple and it works.
If you don’t care for Vancian casting there are a hundred other Fantasy RPG game systems out there which use spellpoints or mana or whatever. None of them come within 10% of D&D sales figures.
Wow...
Terry Pratchett makes fun of the Vancian casting trope by having a wizard be so inept that he can't cast spells at all. (there is a reason, but I would have you read The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic to find out why) Most of the Wizards are more concerned with dinner than the magic they supposedly wield.
He then has, in later books, a computer like object introduce a new way to do magic along with those young graduates that created it.
D&D does not sell because of a particular rule mechanic, the sorcerer is a more popular class than the lowly wizard in both 3.5 and in pathfinder. How often is Ezerin used as a pregen?
In the next iteration, I would try to keep the spellbook in place, to be sure, but amnesic casting? Uhg...
Terry Pratchett makes fun of the Vancian casting trope by having a wizard be so inept that he can't cast spells at all. (there is a reason, but I would have you read The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic to find out why) Most of the Wizards are more concerned with dinner than the magic they supposedly wield.He then has, in later books, a computer like object introduce a new way to do magic along with those young graduates that created it.
D&D does not sell because of a particular rule mechanic, the sorcerer is a more popular class than the lowly wizard in both 3.5 and in pathfinder. How often is Ezerin used as a pregen?
In the next iteration, I would try to keep the spellbook in place, to be sure, but amnesic casting? Uhg...
That's true, there's a lot of humor there. But still, it's Vancian spellcasting for the wizards.
Sorc uses a variant of Vancian spell casting. You fire & forget that slot. Still, you have so many spells you know and so many slots.
Maybe, but still- no other FRP has been successful. Nearly all of them have used non-Vancian systems. Could be cause & effect, could be coincidence, but after it has happened a few dozen times, you start to think....
IMHO it's just because Vancian spell casting, like D&D's combat system is JUST complicated enough to feel realistic without getting in the way of fast & easy combats and time for roleplaying. Is either very realistic? No. Is either super-simple. No. But the balances between realism vs complexity vs playability is what makes D&D such a success. Not "just" the Vancian magic, no- but it's part of it.
Like I said, I played Chivalry & Sorcery. Possibly one of the most realistic "Magick" systems out there and a quite realistic combat system. We had great fun rolling up PC's and doing RPing, but I think we ran exactly two encounters- since they were so very unwieldily.
My Friends LOVED Fantasy Hero, by the folks who brought you Champions. Now I like Champions, my 2nd fave Superhero game. But FH? Sloooooooooow.
I helped Hargave write Arduin, but that is a really weird spin-off from D&D.
Runequest- I loved the world. Mana system basically. But in general, most people loved the setting, hated the magic system.
etc. Etc.
So, many games have tried a "mana" or spellpoints system. None of those games have been much of a success.
Of course, the more different styles of casting you try to accomodate the harder balance becomes.
That's why I tend to think that a cap of two, or at most, three different systems would be good. That would be enough to give a variety of flavors, including vancian, while not bogging the system down too horribly much.
|
|
So, my first impression, to go through an old story, of the 3.0 book when it came out.
Hummm.... Why did they bring back the Half Orc? Yuck... Oh, Sorcerer, cool, and a wizard... wait, what? *flip, flip, flip* Why have both of these in the same system? It is the same class with different mechanics. Why wouldn't you use the Sorcerer magic system for all the casters?
Now, that was before everything else.
What do we have now? Every caster class in PF has a counterpart that is the Spontaneous caster for that niche. The only thing is, except for one particular, every single one of them uses CHA as their base stat. (I'm beautiful so therefore I have power) Not that I don't want to play the hottie sorceress with a wink and a smile, but a little variety would be nice and going back to keeping track of which spells are memmed and which have been forgotten seems... silly.
Most of the casters I have seen have been those using Spontaneous Casting, with the exception of some clerics that have popped up here and there. The one wizard that a particular player has invests in scrolls and wands, and hardly ever uses his actual spells. (Save them for later, oh, I never actually used them...)
Vancian Casting. It won't take down the game, but it is something that needs either re-worked, or eliminated. It is time to let it go.
|
|
If your going to go to the defense of Vancian casting at least come up with a better reason then "Other rpgs used other magic systems and they don't sell well" as a reason. Quite frankly no other rpg is going to be able to beat D&D sales. New game mechanics or not. Maybe WOD as both imo have a huge fanbase. Might as well say "why even publish other fantasy rpg since D&D outsells them" as a reason to not publish a new fantasy rpg. Do other fantasy rpgs sell as well as D&D no. Yet they must have sales since some of them are still getting support. Earthdawn, Hellforst, Palladium Fantasy, Fantasy Hero had a decent amount if support during the Hero system 5E run. Imo it's insulting to other fantasy rpgs developers to dowplay their success in the rpg market because they don't sell as well as D&D.
Vacian castin imo should be included even if I despise the concept along side a point buy system or new magi system in a PF 2E. Offer both. Those who like VC can use that. Those like me that want a alternative to VC can use the other system. I see no valid good reason why they can't keep traditon and innovate at the same time.
What do we have now? Every caster class in PF has a counterpart that is the Spontaneous caster for that niche. The only thing is, except for one particular, every single one of them uses CHA as their base stat. (I'm beautiful so therefore I have power) Not that I don't want to play the hottie sorceress with a wink and a smile, but a little variety would be nice and going back to keeping track of which spells are memmed and which have been forgotten seems... silly.
It's not about beauty. It's about personality. They have strong personalities that are capable of bending reality to their will.
Frankly, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to make all stats either offensive or defensive in pairs and base all offense off the offensive ones, all defense off the defensive ones.
OFFENSE DEFENSE
Strength Constitution
Intelligence Dexterity
Charisma Wisdom
That would make all current Wisdom-based casters Charisma-based.
|
|
They kind of already are.
Offense: Str, Int, and Cha
Defense: Con, Dex, and Wis
4E went a lot further down these lines, having 4 different types of AC, and you where able to use the highest of the two choices as you wanted, sort of similar to AC/Touch AC/Flat-Footed.
In my opinion, it was terrible, as the groups Wizard had the best defenses of the anyone else in the party, just because they happened to need one of each of the stats involved as their key stats. Basically the SAD classes rock and the MAD classes had an even harder time.
They kind of already are.
Offense: Str, Int, and Cha
Defense: Con, Dex, and Wis
4E went a lot further down these lines, having 4 different types of AC, and you where able to use the highest of the two choices as you wanted, sort of similar to AC/Touch AC/Flat-Footed.
In my opinion, it was terrible, as the groups Wizard had the best defenses of the anyone else in the party, just because they happened to need one of each of the stats involved as their key stats. Basically the SAD classes rock and the MAD classes had an even harder time.
Actually, this rarely happens to be the case. Sure, if you play the game like you would 3e, this may happen, but 4e's basic assumptions assumed you'd have 2 stats you boost one as a primary, one as a secondary, which each apply to a separate (Non AC) defense, which leaves them 1 vulnerable Defense. Sure a wizard may seem like their AC is high, but the game's base math assumes less of a spread in ACs between the party members.
The game's math generally assumed a certain attack bonus expected by levels (plus or minus one or two points), a certain AC, depending on role (Defenders usually had two or so more than sturdy non-defenders, who had two or so more than fragile non-defenders), and it assumed two defenses which were tied to the primary and secondary attributes of the class and build which would improve significantly as they leveled, and one which would not improve, and would be that character's "vulnerable" defense. Mathematically, assuming the class focuses on a primary and secondary ability score, numbers don't vary much from the assumed numbers. A 5% or 10% variation here and there, but not enough to make much of a difference. Math wasn't the problem with 4e. It had many problems, but math wasn't one of them.
Though, the way you mentioned MAD and SAD classes makes me think that your experience did not follow the game's core assumptions. Classes aren't intended to invest solely in one score (or else they'd have significantly lower defenses, in exchange for maybe a 5% bonus to attack rolls), or are they supposed to spread investment to three or more scores (or else their attack bonus progression wouldn't meet the core assumptions).
Mathematically, their way of doing it works. I'm not saying this is a good way to design a system. Their way of making the system math scale over various levels is something I think PF 2.0 should adopt, but enforcing TAD (two attribute dependency) isn't a way to go, especially as strictly as 4e did. But the problem here isn't with the math of 4e, it's how the designers decided to make the math apply to a homogeneous formula which they overlaid classes on top of. But the math that makes 4e scale well across levels could be applied without enforcing this homogeneity, which I think could benefit Pathfinder immensely.
Though, the way you mentioned MAD and SAD classes makes me think that your experience did not follow the game's core assumptions. Classes aren't intended to invest solely in one score (or else they'd have...Mathematically, their way of doing it works.
Right. Generally, everyone would be MAD in three stats in 4e.
Str or CON
DEX or INT
WIS or CHA.
4th ED's math works very well.
Vancian Casting. It won't take down the game, but it is something that needs either re-worked, or eliminated. It is time to let it go.
No, it's not. Trying to force a new spell system on whatever will be Pathfinder 2.0 will likely lead to most people rejecting the system. like it happened with 4E.
I'm fine with PF 2 and I would not expect a massive revision mostly a rewrite of spells, classes and maybe the combat chapter and general tidying up of the rules. I also would not expect it any time soon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I would want done in pathfinder 2.0 is a simplified feat system. Too many feats, and too many feats needed to do the same action. Now I do love feats, I really like the unarmed style feats in Ultimate Combat.
|
|
If the devs add minor or major changes people will still reject the system imo. Changing nothing is not going to get more sales because why would I buy the same marterial rehashed with better art. As well I would need a good reason to change. Backwards compitability is just not going to cut it for me or my group anymore. Sacred cows not interested anymore. I have 2e, 3E and PF if I want to play a game with scare cows.
The devs are free to do what they want with the rules. They should in absolutely in no way shape or form be held hostage by the fans. They can alter the game as they see fit. After all they are the ones that created the game. We just buy it. And no "because you spent X amount of dollars on material" is not a good reason. No one and I mean no one forced anyone to buy any rpg company material. So if the devs want to change the game completely I say the should go for it. Want to change nothing they should do that too. Except I will be sticking with PF 1E and or moving to another rpg.
The only thing I would want done in pathfinder 2.0 is a simplified feat system. Too many feats, and too many feats needed to do the same action. Now I do love feats, I really like the unarmed style feats in Ultimate Combat.
This would be nice. I REALLY... REALLY hate the 'whip' feat chain. I don't have it in front of me, but there is weapon focus:Whip, whip mastery, Improved Whip mastery and then Greater Whip mastery.
4 feats before I can grapple someone with a whip... a remarkably UNoptimized weapon to begin with.
also it pretty much means that someone doesn't understand teh word 'mastery...'
That kind of stuff could be streamlined GREATLY.