I look for things like Dungeon World's playbooks because I can throw them on the table, the stats have the same name and I can get Pathfinder players to try it as a change-of-pace game...
I'll have to give Dungeon World another look. It left me cold reading the rules (we were set for a game but aborted at the start of week one).
Wheres a good place to get an exhaustive list of the rules, these "playbooks" and any other supplements? Are they available in print?
If we're stuck with the current system, I can't choose to cast another Dispel Magic if the only one I prepared failed to land.Yes, you can, because the Sorcerer was written for you.
Except it wasn't at all.
I like spellbooks and preparation and school specializations and a familiar and bonus item creation and/or metamagic feats.But I don't like "fire and forget" casting.
You can look at it two ways: Either you cast most of the spell when you prepare it and leave the very last of it for when you actually cast it, or you memorize a spell and once it's cast, you don't "know" it anymore.
Option A doesn't fit at all with every other type of caster in the game and option B is just dumb.
I'm also not a fan of the "cookbook" example on a previous page. Simply put, anyone can use a cookbook. All you need is the ingredients. If a Wizard isn't special in their ability to "fuel" a spell, then why can't a Fighter learn how to cast a Fireball just by finding the spell and learning it's "ingredients?" Not spellcasting in general, mind - Just a Fireball.
But if a Wizard is special in their ability to "fuel" a spell... Then why can't they "fuel" it multiple times?
|
I'm also not a fan of the "cookbook" example on a previous page. Simply put, anyone can use a cookbook.
Not if you can't read it. If I hand you a C+ handbook, can you program for me?
But if a Wizard is special in their ability to "fuel" a spell... Then why can't they "fuel" it multiple times?
Because they can only prepare so much fuel at a time. And once it's prepared, it can't be used to fuel something else.
What's the distinction between preparation and "fire and forget"?
If we're stuck with the current system, I can't choose to cast another Dispel Magic if the only one I prepared failed to land.Yes, you can, because the Sorcerer was written for you.Except it wasn't at all.
I like spellbooks and preparation and school specializations and a familiar and bonus item creation and/or metamagic feats.But I don't like "fire and forget" casting.
You can look at it two ways: Either you cast most of the spell when you prepare it and leave the very last of it for when you actually cast it, or you memorize a spell and once it's cast, you don't "know" it anymore.
Option A doesn't fit at all with every other type of caster in the game and option B is just dumb.I'm also not a fan of the "cookbook" example on a previous page. Simply put, anyone can use a cookbook. All you need is the ingredients. If a Wizard isn't special in their ability to "fuel" a spell, then why can't a Fighter learn how to cast a Fireball just by finding the spell and learning it's "ingredients?" Not spellcasting in general, mind - Just a Fireball.
But if a Wizard is special in their ability to "fuel" a spell... Then why can't they "fuel" it multiple times?
This is a good example of why I think ALL casting should be spontaneous. You retain the spell slot mechanic and give the ability to cast any known spell as many times per day as they have appropriate leveled slots. I would make the number of spells known per level more than the sorcerer currently has but less than ALL like the wizard gets. It seems to me it would be much easier to manage full casters if they all just used the same spells/day and spells known/level table.
What's the distinction between preparation and "fire and forget"?Hell, I dunno. I thought it was that once it's forgotten, it can never be used again until it's remembered or something.
Yeah that's what i take fire and forget to mean. I was wondering what "preparation" entails besides this. (Since Neo2151 likes preparation of spells but not fire and forget casting - I didn't understand exactly what that might be).
I'm also not a fan of the "cookbook" example on a previous page. Simply put, anyone can use a cookbook.Not if you can't read it. If I hand you a C+ handbook, can you program for me?
Can I suddenly be a programer professionally? No.
Can I do some programing? Sure. Because I'll just follow the instructions in the handbook. It doesn't even necessarily have to make sense to me, as long as I do it correctly. (You don't have to 'understand' 2+2 in order for it to equal 4.)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the distinction between preparation and "fire and forget"?
Currently, you can have any number of spells in your spellbook(s), but you can only prepare so many that you can cast in a day (based on your spells per day chart).
If you can cast 3 level 3 spells, let's say you prep Dispel Magic, Fireball, and Fly. Once you cast Fly, you can't cast it again.I'd rather everything be the same as above, except if you wanted to, you could cast Fly again, up to 3 times.
You might also have Stinking Cloud in your spellbook as a 3rd level spell, but you couldn't cast that at all, because you didn't prepare it.
Follow?
tl;dr - How the Arcanist from Advanced Class Guide/Spirit Shaman from 3.5/Casters in general in DDN cast. I'd rather that be the norm for prepared casters (Wizards, Clerics, Druids, etc).
|
I'm also not a fan of the "cookbook" example on a previous page. Simply put, anyone can use a cookbook.Not if you can't read it. If I hand you a C+ handbook, can you program for me?Can I suddenly be a programer professionally? No.
Can I do some programing? Sure. Because I'll just follow the instructions in the handbook.
Now do it four hours later without looking at the handbook.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
tl;dr - How the Arcanist from Advanced Class Guide/Spirit Shaman from 3.5/Casters in general in DDN cast. I'd rather that be the norm for prepared casters (Wizards, Clerics, Druids, etc).
Yeah, I'd rather have that and put the sorcerer on spell points or something else.
Personally, I don't think there needs to be a 2e. Sure, from a financial standpoint Paizo might think it worth the effort to publish one if the current iteration begins to lose fans, but so far I haven't really heard or seen that happening.
I agree with several posters that if there is an updated version of PF, just make it a Player Companion or the like so that players can choose to use the new rules set or not (which, I suppose they'll do anyway). I have a pretty simple rule when it comes to making minor tweaks to a good game system (i.e, not an entire overhaul). If you don't like something, drop it or house rule it.
I'm also not a fan of the "cookbook" example on a previous page. Simply put, anyone can use a cookbook.Not if you can't read it. If I hand you a C+ handbook, can you program for me?Can I suddenly be a programer professionally? No.
Can I do some programing? Sure. Because I'll just follow the instructions in the handbook. It doesn't even necessarily have to make sense to me, as long as I do it correctly. (You don't have to 'understand' 2+2 in order for it to equal 4.)
Then in this case, to cast spells requires one to be a professional programmer.
What's the distinction between preparation and "fire and forget"?Currently, you can have any number of spells in your spellbook(s), but you can only prepare so many that you can cast in a day (based on your spells per day chart).
If you can cast 3 level 3 spells, let's say you prep Dispel Magic, Fireball, and Fly. Once you cast Fly, you can't cast it again.I'd rather everything be the same as above, except if you wanted to, you could cast Fly again, up to 3 times.
You might also have Stinking Cloud in your spellbook as a 3rd level spell, but you couldn't cast that at all, because you didn't prepare it.Follow?
Yeah, thanks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, here is a paper describing a relatively efficient algorithm for the hidden subgroup problem. The process it describes is a set of instructions for a particular computational problem that has shown up a lot in computer science (it then goes on to prove formal properties about the algorithm in question). Since you seem confident you can follow the instructions of anything presented to you, why don't you implement the algorithm right now? You have it in front of you!
Now THAT....
*puts on sunglasses*
...is arcane.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, here is a paper describing a relatively efficient algorithm for the hidden subgroup problem. The process it describes is a set of instructions for a particular computational problem that has shown up a lot in computer science (it then goes on to prove formal properties about the algorithm in question). Since you seem confident you can follow the instructions of anything presented to you, why don't you implement the algorithm right now? You have it in front of you!Now THAT....
*puts on sunglasses*
...is arcane.
YYEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Interactive, multi layered traps to come back; as opposed to the boring "hit point tax for doing X". Let's face it, traps just aren't what they used to be, and it seems that PF has done little to nothing in regards to making them better as of yet. If you want good traps, you're probably going to have to find some 3rd party or something older than the system like grimtooth. I try to make traps relevant and good in my game but it's not a lot to work with, so often they are hit or miss.
E X xμProb[Kμ|H]...
I actually don't have the ability to put the formula here as the right symbology and ability to put subscript and superscript are not available on the forums???
Not certain what this has to do with PF2e though...
I like PF how it is currently...personally speaking...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring things that are easy to houserule (which probably aren't worth the hassle of a new edition) and things that would just be clarifications (which don't require a new anything at all), while still having something Pathfindery, I'd want the following. Note that my perspective is heavily tainted by being someone who teaches people to play on the reg:
- A simple(ish), resonant spellcaster class in core, or probably two. I don't care if Vancian and pseudo-vancian spellcasters are also around, but they're both very complicated and they don't work remotely like how anybody thinks of magic as working. I get that they're part of the game and stuff, and that's why I'm okay with them remaining - but I think that there should be options that are easier to hand to somebody that's totally new to the game, and options that better model how people think of spellcasting as working if they haven't been playing D&D forever. This would also make it way easier to make NPC spellcasters (I basically never make NPC spellcasters 'properly' any more, since it's too much of a hassle for what it gets you.)
- Monster design that focuses on making monster combat encounters more unique and distinct from each other. This is something where GMs can pick up the slack, but it'd be nice if the system met us halfway.
- Monster design that focuses more on foregrounding cool, iconic abilities of creatures. PF already does this some of the time, but many of the most iconic baddies, like dragons and powerful demons, have a big muddle of different abilities that aren't that iconic. The ability to make a dragon that's a sorcerer is important, but the fact that a dragon is by default a sorcerer shouldn't be the most important thing about every single dragon.
- Multiclassing that's more consistently not a complete trap. I think that PF is much, much better than 3.5 in this regard, since 3.5 had the property that you were almost always either an idiot to multiclass or an idiot not to multiclass. PF does that less, but it'd be nice to do it even more less.
- Do something about martial mobility in general.
- Do something about the fact that archetypally mobile character archetypes, like the agile TWF guy, are the least mobile characters in the game.
- A 'best of' core, in terms of what feats and spells are core.
- Pull some of the fiddliness off of races. Races are one of the first things that players see, and it's annoying that iconic things like elves and dwarves have so much fiddly stuff on them. Move that stuff to (powerful) racial feats if you have to, or replace it with more straightforward things.
- Unify common trait types (+1 to a save, +1 to a skill and it's a class skill, etc.), then stop making near-clones of those. Traits are far and away the part of the system that's the biggest mess at the moment; sure there's a lot of feats, but there aren't ten feats that all do almost the same thing.
- Either redesign the druid class to make it qualitatively complete at level one or two, or make a shapeshifter class core or near-core. IME, the promise of being able to turn into an animal is what draws many people to the class, and shunting that ability so late (and limiting it heavily until later) is a bit annoying. In the real world, level four represents a lot of play time.
- Cast a critical eye on whether a lot of rules systems are really pulling their weight. If you've been playing forever, you know that the spell components line in a spell is basically 100% ignorable and that everyone ignores it, but that's not obvious to a new player.
- Generally avoid "anyone can do this, but you're a total nincompoop at it unless you take a feat" design. Archery and combat maneuvers suffer from this. "You suck at everything you didn't specifically specialize in, going all the way back to when you picked your stats" really discourages players from trying interesting things.
- Have some idea going in how good different classes are supposed to be at different things with different levels of investment, and design them so that that's actually the case.
- Smooth out the [level one]/[rest of the game] discontinuity a little bit.
- Better guidance in core, and better transparency. In an ideal world, crossbows shouldn't be made to suck intentionally, but if they are, be forthright about that. IME, people tend to assume that the game isn't trying to trick them into sucking.
- Greater willingness to spell out RAI.
- Less of things that seem like they should work really being things where you have to pick out every character option in the system that improves them in order to make them work.
- No 'half measures' archetypes that point you in a direction but don't give you nearly enough support to actually make the direction work on the level of the rest of the system. Firearms-oriented archetypes do this constantly.
- Higher standards for how cool and generally useful a feat has to be before it gets printed. That doesn't mean that feats have to be more powerful, but the best way to fight system bloat is to not print feats that nobody will ever, ever, ever take.
- Overall balance pass, but especially focus on making options that aren't combat-related better. Even in relatively combat-light campaigns, non-combat options are generally underpitched. (They're probably fine in EXTREMELY combat-light campaigns, but I don't consider Pathfinder to be a system I'd pick if I was trying to run a game with almost no combat in it. The 3.5 chassis simply isn't optimized for that.)
Fighter and Rogue (and all associated archetypes) brought up to similar power level to other martial classes or martial hybrids. Get rid of two save paradigm. More playability at higher level.
Reduction in number of attacks. No more three or four iterative attacks. A couple of attacks a round should be enough for all classes.
If attacks are not reduced, then an increase in rounds time back to a minute or thirty seconds. I want this for stylistic purposes rather than mechanical. All these actions within six seconds reduces verisimilitude.
Special monster building rules for solo monsters and monsters of extreme size. Huge, powerful monsters should have two to three times the hit points of a regular humanoid without increasing hit dice or combat ability.
Monster damage increased to a level it can compete with PC damage. Bring back the fear of death from physical damage from monsters.
Every spell with a save including Energy Drain. Fewer abilities to boost saves to insane levels so that saves don't become trivial.
Dodge and Parry mechanics. Less reliance on magic items to boost stats and AC to keep pace with the game. The reduction of the magic item Christmas tree.
Maybe I misunderstood, but why would you buy the crap out of a paizo clone of 4E but not the actual 4E books and/or DDI?Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.I already play 4e without having bought nearly every book and without DDI or its character builder -- honestly, where do these ideas come from? -- so I'd buy the crap out of a Paizo 4e clone!
"Buy the crap out of" may have been hyperbolic. I probably wouldn't buy everything 4e-clone related; but then again, by the time Paizo could put one out, I'm hoping to have a much much higher income. So maybe I would.
You'd prefer to be locked in your mind in a game that will kill you if you die, as opposed to being sent to a fantasy world matching a game wherein adventurers are automatically resurrected if they die?You should watch the anime Sword Art Online to know why that's a terrible idea. ;)*raises hand*
Nerve integrating VR where I play my character in a world created by the GM's mind.
Since I am also looking for a 2045 release date, this seems very doable.
You mean the best idea!
I'm more scared of the Log Horizon scenario.
It's been awhile since I read the playtest, but doesn't the Arcanist sort of fill the "prepare spells from a spellbook, but cast spontaneously like a sorcerer" niche that some people want?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian casting strikes me as something that only makes sense in the setting it was invented for. It would be like sci-fi games adopting the FTL mechanics and fluff from Warhammer 40k.I dont follow.
The mechanic of "Wizards memorize spells, then they forget the spells when they're cast and need to re-memorize them" is the sort of highly specific quirk that seems like it would be unique to one setting. "In this setting, magic works this way." Okay, that's a unique twist.
But because it became the mechanic of D&D spellcasters, it's been adopted by Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Golarion, et al. It would be like (for example) the FTL mechanics of Warhammer 40,000 being adopted by different sci-fi settings from different companies that came afterwards.
And translated into the game rules as they currently exist, it feels artificial and forced: This is a second level spell, you stick it into second-level spell slots, or higher level slots if you want to, but you can't spend two (or any amount of) first level slots to prepare another second level spell, but you can use a Metamagic feat to gain a specific bonus to a lower level spell by preparing it in a higher level slot. If you can use higher-level spell slots to cast lower ones, casting Dimension Door is just as mentally fatiguing (or whatever) as casting Teleport.
It feels extremely game-y, if that makes sense. Enough people like it that it should be retained on some classes, and it does make for easier bookkeeping in some ways. I, and the other people at my RL table, have found that Psionics work better than Magic in large part because of the spell point system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **You'd prefer to be locked in your mind in a game that will kill you if you die, as opposed to being sent to a fantasy world matching a game wherein adventurers are automatically resurrected if they die?You should watch the anime Sword Art Online to know why that's a terrible idea. ;)*raises hand*
Nerve integrating VR where I play my character in a world created by the GM's mind.
Since I am also looking for a 2045 release date, this seems very doable.
You mean the best idea!
I'm more scared of the Log Horizon scenario.
Clearly the Villain in Glasses is going to figure out a solution for that too. Even the folks who have died a lot already only forgot miniscule things like what their cat's name was.
Log Horizon has a really cool world. I love that show.
It's been awhile since I read the playtest, but doesn't the Arcanist sort of fill the "prepare spells from a spellbook, but cast spontaneously like a sorcerer" niche that some people want?
Yep.
To be honest I house ruled magic users to work that way back in 1st ed D&D.
For vanician casting:
I look at it as the wizard doing the real casting the spell in the morning, a process so complicated that they need the book. What the wizard does when "Casting" is to say the trigger.
I'm also not a fan of the "cookbook" example on a previous page. Simply put, anyone can use a cookbook.Not if you can't read it. If I hand you a C+ handbook, can you program for me?
But if a Wizard is special in their ability to "fuel" a spell... Then why can't they "fuel" it multiple times?Because they can only prepare so much fuel at a time. And once it's prepared, it can't be used to fuel something else.
Plus, the Fighter isn't smart enough to run around with bat guano just in case he needs it...
I look for things like Dungeon World's playbooks because I can throw them on the table, the stats have the same name and I can get Pathfinder players to try it as a change-of-pace game...I'll have to give Dungeon World another look. It left me cold reading the rules (we were set for a game but aborted at the start of week one).
Wheres a good place to get an exhaustive list of the rules, these "playbooks" and any other supplements? Are they available in print?
Dungeon World SRD. This has all the text of the Dungeon World PDF in an SRD format.
All of the core classes are there.
The playbooks for the core classes in the rules.
A "playbook" is nothing but a character sheet with all the options available for characters of a given class to check off. It's one of those cases, like "Move" where the designers decided to differentiate themselves by using a different word for something fairly common.
Playbook Templates in DOCX and ODT formats
Use this if you want to make a variant playbook. Note that everything linked so far is free to use.
If you're willing to spend $3.99, and want to see what non-Vancian takes on the Wizard and Cleric would look like, this comes highly recommended:
Dungeon World Alternative Playbooks
The single biggest drawback that Dungeon World has is that the designers didn't start with a good glossary of their own terminology, and in the development process, nobody sat down and said "How would you explain this to someone who's relatively new to RPGs?"
In a lot of ways, even though the text (and even some of the odd formatting errors) are identical in the SRD, the SRD's forced structuralism makes the game more comprehensible.
In the interests of helping people steeped in Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 into Dungeon World, this is the "translation of how Pathfinder does things and what it's called in Dungeon World."
A "Move" is a specific mechanic. Dungeon World uses the term interchangeably for things that D&D/PF would call "Combat Mechanics" (Hack & Slash, Defy Danger, Volley, Defend), "Class Abilities" (Lay On Hands) and "Feats" (Armor Training, Invigorate, most "Advanced Moves").
There are 8 basic mechanics, 13 special mechanics, and every character class has a set of 3-4 initial class abilities. There are two tiers of, in D&D parlance "advancement feats" with 10-12 of them available from levels 2-5, and 8-10 available from levels 6-10.
Each time your character gains a level, you add one to a stat of your choice (3-18 scale, maximum 18), and you select one of your classes special moves. One of those special moves is always "pick a move from an other class; use that move as though you were a 1st level member of that class; your ability with that move will increase as you gain levels in your core class." So if you pick "Cast Magic Missile" at 3rd level as an arcane dabble, you'd cast Magic Missile as a 1st level caster, it would be the only spell you know, and every time you leveled up in your core class, you'd gain a caster level with that spell.
You may not take a given character move more than once.
I don't care, if for example, Paizo decides "okay, sorcerers now use mana points". I'm saying that if Vancian is deleted from system, I'm not buying. I don't mind if another magic system is introduced, I'm just worried that us Pro-Vance types aren't being vocal enough to make our presence known compared to the very vocal Anti-Slots crowd, and that that will create a lopsided impression on game developers.
I like both the flavor and mechanics of Vancian casting, absolutely love the writing of Vance, and disagree with those who say the current system doesn't represent the magic system in Vance's books. the only real difference is the quantity of spells known and castable per day are much higher in D&D/Pathfinder. It's close enough that a Pathfinder Wizard could have been written into the Dying Earth as a Mage from an earlier, less decadent time before so much magical lore had been forgotten and degraded, without any further explanation.
And as I've already said, Fair Enough. I haven't read the Dying Earth series, just what some have said of it.
I don't mind spell slots. I just wanted something easier, something a little more plug and play. I've played casters. Aside from low level games where skill use still matters (where I would occasionally play a skill type), I tend to play casters.
I will recant slightly and say then that I'd rather have spell points in core beside your vancian so nay sayers won't give me s#^! about spell points. I liked psionics up front and the variety of options near the end of 3.5 (incarnum, binding, shadowcasting despite not working right, tome of battle...), and so I must admit I like options. But vancian isn't easy. A new player might have a difficult time with it. And, as I said, it doesn't mirror many, if any, of the fantasy spell casters out there.
For example, here is a paper describing a relatively efficient algorithm for the hidden subgroup problem. The process it describes is a set of instructions for a particular computational problem that has shown up a lot in computer science (it then goes on to prove formal properties about the algorithm in question). Since you seem confident you can follow the instructions of anything presented to you, why don't you implement the algorithm right now? You have it in front of you!Now THAT....
*puts on sunglasses*
...is arcane.
You know what they say... sufficiently advanced science and all...
. . . Plus, the Fighter isn't smart enough to run around with bat guano just in case he needs it...
MADNESS!... He has a bat familiar from a heritage feat to tell him what square the invisible guys are in.
I'd actually like spell casting to be a knowledge, a kind of skill check, so others can try it (and fail, sometimes horribly), or succeed, even though they think of themselves as something else. A fighter that could cast a few spells with a minimal investment, while mastery would take real dedication, is pretty cool. However, some 3rd party has already done it. And I don't expect it in this system, because this system has casting linked pretty specifically to your class.
And I'm fine with that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if pathfinder 2.0 was just 4ed rewritten to be just as mechanically sound but re-fluffed to not feel like a MMO wargame when I read the rules?Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.
I've never understood that particular complaint. Roleplaying isn't a function of the system. If can't roleplay in a 4E game, it's not 4E's fault...it's obvious that you are looking for a reason to dislike the system, and have decided the ridiculously nebulous "I can't roleplay under this system" is your excuse for disliking it.
Also, a Paizo 4E clone is not gonna happen. The reason that Pathfinder exists is that Paizo didn't really like 4E.
I've never understood that particular complaint. Roleplaying isn't a function of the system. If can't roleplay in a 4E game, it's not 4E's fault. . . .
Very true.
I, however, have had problems making the kind of character I wanted to make the few times I played 4th edition. That's why I didn't stick with it. 3.5/Pathfinder still has a similar problem at times. If you have to hit level 7 to be a good X, then there is a bit of disconnect between the character you want to play and the character you want to play until you hit X level.
There was a faction within WoTC that wasn't a fan of the OGL and d20 license. Their opinion marginally mattered.
There was a faction within Hasbro that really disliked the OGL and the d20 license. They were the legal department. Their opinion mattered. The number of companies that messed up OGL and d20 legal compliance was huge...and they were all judgement-proof.
Things that had been exclusive IP for WoTC/Hasbro, and could've been leveraged into other media projects...were now OGL content. And once they're OGL content, Hollywood treats them like plutononium-botox milkshakes laced with e coli and salmonella.
Maybe someday that will change...but the reason why Marvel Studios is just WAITING for licenses to expire at Sony and Fox is that they want exclusive control over all their IP. (And to be fair, they're doing a much better job with them.)
|
Vancian casting strikes me as something that only makes sense in the setting it was invented for. It would be like sci-fi games adopting the FTL mechanics and fluff from Warhammer 40k.I dont follow.The mechanic of "Wizards memorize spells, then they forget the spells when they're cast and need to re-memorize them" is the sort of highly specific quirk that seems like it would be unique to one setting. "In this setting, magic works this way." Okay, that's a unique twist.
But because it became the mechanic of D&D spellcasters, it's been adopted by Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Golarion, et al. It would be like (for example) the FTL mechanics of Warhammer 40,000 being adopted by different sci-fi settings from different companies that came afterwards.
And translated into the game rules as they currently exist, it feels artificial and forced: This is a second level spell, you stick it into second-level spell slots, or higher level slots if you want to, but you can't spend two (or any amount of) first level slots to prepare another second level spell, but you can use a Metamagic feat to gain a specific bonus to a lower level spell by preparing it in a higher level slot. If you can use higher-level spell slots to cast lower ones, casting Dimension Door is just as mentally fatiguing (or whatever) as casting Teleport.
It feels extremely game-y, if that makes sense. Enough people like it that it should be retained on some classes, and it does make for easier bookkeeping in some ways. I, and the other people at my RL table, have found that Psionics work better than Magic in large part because of the spell point system.
Makes much more sense. Though it doesnt matter if we use vancian, fatique, mana, spell points, etc. It all seems game-y to me when it comes to magic. Guess that is why vancian doesnt bother me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanic of "Wizards memorize spells, then they forget the spells when they're cast and need to re-memorize them" is the sort of highly specific quirk that seems like it would be unique to one setting. "In this setting, magic works this way." Okay, that's a unique twist.
Two things- the whole "forgetting" thing is a bit a fluff that no longer exists in PF. So "forget" it. next Vancian magic is a system used by many of the most well known Fantasy authors, besides just Jack Vance.- Zelazny, Pratchett, Cook, Rosenberg, Watt-Evans, Duane, Wrede, etc.
I'd like to see some sort of unified Stamina/mana/arcane/ki pool. I think in the long run it opens design space to solve a lot of balance problems that inevitably come up.
I'd love it if the types of magic were divided (a la 4e) and are different. Arcane=Vancian, Divine=Infinite minor spells, Psionic/inner power=pool points.
Would also be nice to have unified spell lists of OGL is still in effect. That way it would be way easier to add spells to classes that have yet to exist.
Style feats to be a norm for Monks and to be more dynamic.
** spoiler omitted **You'd prefer to be locked in your mind in a game that will kill you if you die, as opposed to being sent to a fantasy world matching a game wherein adventurers are automatically resurrected if they die?You should watch the anime Sword Art Online to know why that's a terrible idea. ;)*raises hand*
Nerve integrating VR where I play my character in a world created by the GM's mind.
Since I am also looking for a 2045 release date, this seems very doable.
You mean the best idea!
I'm more scared of the Log Horizon scenario.
Clearly the Villain in Glasses is going to figure out a solution for that too. Even the folks who have died a lot already only forgot miniscule things like what their cat's name was.
Log Horizon has a really cool world. I love that show.
I concur on the show being quite amazing. (in fairness I'm huge fan of Maoyuu Maou Yuusha so...)
I think death of self is overstating the death in Elder Tale a bit much. Yes, losing your memories and eventually forgetting you came from another world is somewhat scary, but that doesn't really *change* you. After all, I forget things that happened all the time and it hasn't changed me as far as I can tell. Is the me right now the same as the me one second again? Was the World just created 5 minutes ago? Will the Disappearance of Nagato Yuki be fantastic? I can only answer the last question and the answer is YES. Damn thing is basically made of 100% pure heartwarming.
To contribute to the ongoing magic discussion; I personally prefer points (My love of Psionics speaks to this), but I'm ok with having lots of alternate systems. Though, were I in charge of a magic overall, most classes would switch to a point system, while some would have "per encounter/5 minute rest" as a mechanic. A daily fire and forget I would probably avoid.
Two things- the whole "forgetting" thing is a bit a fluff that no longer exists in PF. So "forget" it. next Vancian magic is a system used by many of the most well known Fantasy authors, besides just Jack Vance.- Zelazny, Pratchett, Cook, Rosenberg, Watt-Evans, Duane, Wrede, etc.
The mechanic of "Wizards memorize spells, then they forget the spells when they're cast and need to re-memorize them" is the sort of highly specific quirk that seems like it would be unique to one setting. "In this setting, magic works this way." Okay, that's a unique twist.
So add all their settings to the list, too.
It's as if a game's setting should either reflect the mechanics of the game, or the mechanics of the game should be shifted by the players to match the setting. That to claim a certain game mechanic only works if the setting is designed for it is an obvious statement almost.
I've never understood that particular complaint. Roleplaying isn't a function of the system. If can't roleplay in a 4E game, it's not 4E's fault...it's obvious that you are looking for a reason to dislike the system, and have decided the ridiculously nebulous "I can't roleplay under this system" is your excuse for disliking it.What if pathfinder 2.0 was just 4ed rewritten to be just as mechanically sound but re-fluffed to not feel like a MMO wargame when I read the rules?Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.
QFT. Everyone has different tastes, and there probably are gamers who have tried 4e and genuinely have difficulty role playing in it, just like there are probably gamers who genuinely can't role play well in PF. And if that's the case, people should say that.
Because "4e feels like an MMO when I read the rules" comes off as "I've never actually played 4e, but someone told me it's an MMO with dice, and it's psychologically convenient for me to believe that's true. So I'll parrot back this soundbyte with my own twist."
I've never understood that particular complaint. Roleplaying isn't a function of the system. If can't roleplay in a 4E game, it's not 4E's fault. . . .Very true.
I, however, have had problems making the kind of character I wanted to make the few times I played 4th edition. That's why I didn't stick with it. 3.5/Pathfinder still has a similar problem at times. If you have to hit level 7 to be a good X, then there is a bit of disconnect between the character you want to play and the character you want to play until you hit X level.
This is a problem with every edition and clone, not least of all PF. I.e., "I can't be a real necromancer until I hit 5th/6th/7th/8th level and can take animate dead! And to be a really effective necro, I have to be a cleric rather than an actual necromancer."
4e is actually pretty good about making character concepts available from level 1 -- in fact one of the more absurd edition-warry complaints that's sometimes leveled against it are things like "What, rangers get a pet at level 1?! Boo!"
And to answer the question that is probably coming next, no, 4e has no official necromancer class. It's a bummer for necro fans, but they've had a lot of fun refluffing the shaman as a necro.
Also, a Paizo 4E clone is not gonna happen. The reason that Pathfinder exists is that Paizo didn't really like 4E.I thought the reason Pathfinder exists is that 4e is a closed system and Paizo would have had to pay WotC to publish 3rd party material using it.
Either way, Kthulhu is sadly right about a Paizo 4e clone never happening. :(
I would like to see someone take 4e like Paizo did 3.5e and spruce it up. I steal so much from 4e that I actually feel bad that I didn't support the iteration like I should've. A lot of their powers are great add-ons to give a power creep in my game, especially at dead or useless PF levels. I use several things in the 4e DMG's in my PF games and even smaller scale stuff like bloodied. I never had a chance to play it because my group was entrenched in 3.5/PF but I thought the stuff leveled against it by detractors rang a little hallow in my ears.