|
The only alternative I have seen to the Vancian I like is the Spell Point System, (though it's still a variation of Vancian) and the Mage the Ascension system that I'd rather have.
Now, I love the Spell Point System, and I really do not understand why it never really caught on, but the issue with the Mage System is that about 1/2 of the book is dedicated to it which just wouldn't fly for a D20 game with other classes.
Other than that, well, we do have the one edition of D&D that didn't use the Vancian System and was literally the entire reason for Pathfinder.
'Nough Said?
|
|
As for the idea of a Second Edition, honestly, I think it's past due. There is enough errata, enough new material that really needs to be core, and enough problematic rules (going all the way back to Core that are still a problem), that it's very warranted.
I mean, it turns out that the Occult Adventures book wasn't actually significantly better that the ACG when it came to errors, we just got the first wave a heck of a lot faster. And basically to date, we are on the 6th errata of the main book, and practically, if not literally every hard cover book has had some serious errata.
It's really time to just say ok, stop the train and let's fix the issues before the next stop, then go from there. Even if we pretend that the sky is falling and there are actually people that would not buy a book that says it's a new edition (but okay as long as it's a new printing instead), well, who really cares. Are we really going to not fix and improve the game over a few people shouting on the internet that they will Ragequit or whatever?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian casting needs to be done with. The horse is dead and the hole is dug, the preacher is standing by. Having one defining caster mechanic will free some room to design the basics and work within a structure to make each class shine on their own and not be the "Spontaneous" version of the old class still hanging around. The Wizard need to memorize "Known" spells, like the arcanist.
You are adorable. Simply adorable.
People have been trying to "do away with" Vancian Magic since 1974. 41 years later, it's still around, even in 5th Edition.
The reason is that many, many people have tried alternate systems before, and they end up being more trouble than they're worth. They add to many "moving parts," people shout "ZOMG! BOOKKEEPING" and everyone defaults back to Vancian Magic.
The reason being is that Vancian Magic is just easy. It's clean, it's elegant, it works.
Do I personally PREFER Vancian magic? No. I actually prefer Mana/Magic Points. But, in practice, mana/magic takes a fair bit more bookkeeping than Vancian Magic, and only really works well with spontaneous casters.
Other systems have been put in place, but they all have their own issues of complexity or lack of versatility, etc.
Words of Power were an attempt to break the mold, and ended up being more complex than people could handle without serious sub-system mastery.
The Kineticist as a class faces the same issues as Words of Power, but is a bit simpler and at least is a class specifically based around its own built-in subsystem so it provides default support.
4E tried it's own system of... things. And it was generally considered a flop, especially because there was no mechanical difference between "spellcasting" and other "powers"
So, for the forseeable future, expect Vancian magic to be the standard for TRPGs.
There are certainly other systems with other kinds of casting. Shadowrun stands out as having something completely different.
But if you just grafted that mechanic onto D&D/PF it would not be good at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if we pretend that the sky is falling and there are actually people that would not buy a book that says it's a new edition (but okay as long as it's a new printing instead), well, who really cares. Are we really going to not fix and improve the game over a few people shouting on the internet that they will Ragequit or whatever?
We don't know how "few" that number is. If those "few" make up say, 30% of the player base, you have just lost a giant chunk of business. As I repeated earlier...the time to launch a new edition is when sales show signs of slowing down and dropping, not when the edition is still economically healthy. Which according to Paizo folks it very much is.
As for occult...I haven't seen any of the rage and gnashing of teeth for this release that I saw with the ACG. So I am really confused by what you mean in saying it has as many errors as the ACG.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are we also supposed to cater to the vocal minority that starts a new thread every other week proclaiming pathfinder is dead without a new edition
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we also supposed to cater to the vocal minority that starts a new thread every other week proclaiming pathfinder is dead without a new edition
Well, according to them, yes. . . but I suspect they would have noticed all the "flaws" in PF 2.0 a day after release and start beating the drum for 3rd edition. . . heck, we could get PF to 4th edition by 2020 if we try real hard, right?
As for occult...I haven't seen any of the rage and gnashing of teeth for this release that I saw with the ACG. So I am really confused by what you mean in saying it has as many errors as the ACG.
The FAQ featured around 10-12 fairly major errors.
However, people may be a little more accepting because OA is such a radically-different subsystem than anything in the ACG.
The ACG didn't really introduce anything revolutionary in terms of basic gameplay, so, in theory, the number of errors should have been far fewer than what was encontered.
Occult Adventures, however, presents 6 new classes, 5 of which use an entirely-new spellcasting subdivision that acts as a counterpart to Alchemy; it's kind of expected for there to be hiccups when something that radically different in both theme and execution gets made.
Contributor
|
As for occult...I haven't seen any of the rage and gnashing of teeth for this release that I saw with the ACG. So I am really confused by what you mean in saying it has as many errors as the ACG.The FAQ featured around 10-12 fairly major errors.
However, people may be a little more accepting because OA is such a radically-different subsystem than anything in the ACG.
The ACG didn't really introduce anything revolutionary in terms of basic gameplay, so, in theory, the number of errors should have been far fewer than what was encontered.
Occult Adventures, however, presents 6 new classes, 5 of which use an entirely-new spellcasting subdivision that acts as a counterpart to Alchemy; it's kind of expected for there to be hiccups when something that radically different in both theme and execution gets made.
Also, not all of the FAQs for OA were bugfixes. Some were just that - Frequently Asked Questions.
Kineticist seems to have been one of the bigger FAQ bits. I think part of that is what Mark's been saying in a bunch of his posts, that it got hit hard with the copyfitting and some text was reworded to take up less space but lost the meaning in the process. It also seems like he had originally intended to have less repetition in "Infusion Wild Talent" kind of stuff that got plugged in and gave the class issues with copyfitting in the first place.
Most of those were resolved pretty quickly though. The most gnashing for OA I've seen is people complaining about Kineticist damage. Last I checked the damage thread, though, it seemed like there was some resolution that Elemental Annihilator did good damage, even though it sacrificed half of the class ability stuff, while energy blasts are basically ehhh; if you want damage, go physical.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One day I hope to be wise enough to quit reading these threads.
One day.
or the day after that....
It must be Thursday... I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
For example: Sorcerers. Does it really make intuitive sense that they aren't able to cast 1st, 2nd or 3rd level (less powerful) spells when they still have the ability cast 4th, 5th, or 6th level spells that day?
You may want to pick a different example, as Sorcerers CAN cast 1st through 3rd spells if they still have 4th through 6th slots available.
Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.
You learn a new thing every day.
The problem that I have with Vancian casting is that it doesn't really relate to any magic in fiction outside of D&D-based fiction.I haven't read past your post yet, but I'd wager you just cast "Summon DrDeth".
I'm aware of his and Nathanael Love's affection for it.
They're free to their opinions. I've never found it intuitive or a natural fit to other pieces of fiction.
As for occult...I haven't seen any of the rage and gnashing of teeth for this release that I saw with the ACG. So I am really confused by what you mean in saying it has as many errors as the ACG.The FAQ featured around 10-12 fairly major errors.
However, people may be a little more accepting because OA is such a radically-different subsystem than anything in the ACG.
The ACG didn't really introduce anything revolutionary in terms of basic gameplay, so, in theory, the number of errors should have been far fewer than what was encontered.
Occult Adventures, however, presents 6 new classes, 5 of which use an entirely-new spellcasting subdivision that acts as a counterpart to Alchemy; it's kind of expected for there to be hiccups when something that radically different in both theme and execution gets made.
This sums it up very well. The Advanced Class Guide comes off as some mix of rushed, uncreative, and lazy. Occult adventures comes off as experimental and interesting, even if it's a little flawed.
They're free to their opinions. I've never found it intuitive.
Play Magic the Gathering or any similar Card Game for any length of time. You'll have no problem finding Vancian Magic intuitive thereafter.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Profit. Money. And also flaws in the system that need to be fixed (I don't think anyone around believes Pathfinder is a flawless game).
What I bolded actually is the biggest reason. It's more generally considered they finally decided that the OGL was a mistake because it allowed too many other companies to not only share in the profits, but many of them (Paizo was one of the few that stayed legit) broke the OGL and so they also had the lawsuits to contend with and more. They got sick of the headache, so they only way they could throw it out entirely was to make a new edition. You will notice that the OGL is not part of 4th edition. Sure, there were other reasons... but that was a big one. They were sick of other companies sharing their profits and refusing to follow the rules of the OGL.
As to the topic, yeah we don't need Pathfinder 2nd edition. They've said many times that Pathfinder Unchained is about as close as they want to get to a 2nd edition for the foreseeable future. NO developer is going to say it will NEVER happen, but they have pretty much said so in spirit.
On a side note, I like Paizo's little OGL workarounds
For example, in the OGL 'Monster Manual' is considered a product identity trademark, so in the 3.5 modules, when the writers wanted to cite a page from the Monster Manual they just wrote "MM" without elaborating on it.
Also "World's Most Popular Fantasy Roleplaying Game", anyone?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, I like Paizo's little OGL workarounds
For example, in the OGL 'Monster Manual' is considered a product identity trademark, so in the 3.5 modules, when the writers wanted to cite a page from the Monster Manual they just wrote "MM" without elaborating on it.
Also "World's Most Popular Fantasy Roleplaying Game", anyone?
Well, you can refer to the books you just can't reprint anything out of them unless it's in the PRD I thought, or was it literally just the Monster Manual that was IP? The Player's Guide and Dungeonmaster's Guide were not? I know other companies that abbreviate even their own books... Like Steve Jackson Games has a whole official list of book abbreviations on their website, and each book contains the necessary abridged version of the list.
Book of Erotic Fantasy did a similar thing with the abbreviations, though they went further than Paizo or Steve Jackson. They said Core Rulebook 1, Core Rulebook 2, and Core Rulebook 3. Meaning, Player's Guide, Dungeonmaster's Guide, and Monster Manual respectively. But because (mostly due to the artwork... but possibly other views of the core D&D 3.x writers) they got their certification revoked at the last minute, so had to quickly remove all IP before it went to print.
On a side note, I like Paizo's little OGL workarounds
For example, in the OGL 'Monster Manual' is considered a product identity trademark, so in the 3.5 modules, when the writers wanted to cite a page from the Monster Manual they just wrote "MM" without elaborating on it.
Also "World's Most Popular Fantasy Roleplaying Game", anyone?
Well, you can refer to the books you just can't reprint anything out of them unless it's in the PRD I thought, or was it literally just the Monster Manual that was IP? The Player's Guide and Dungeonmaster's Guide were not? I know other companies that abbreviate even their own books... Like Steve Jackson Games has a whole official list of book abbreviations on their website, and each book contains the necessary abridged version of the list.
Book of Erotic Fantasy did a similar thing with the abbreviations, though they went further than Paizo or Steve Jackson. They said Core Rulebook 1, Core Rulebook 2, and Core Rulebook 3. Meaning, Player's Guide, Dungeonmaster's Guide, and Monster Manual respectively. But because (mostly due to the artwork... but possibly other views of the core D&D 3.x writers) they got their certification revoked at the last minute, so had to quickly remove all IP before it went to print.
This makes me wonder if someone could theoretically get away with publishing an OGL adventure that uses "Many-Eyed Monsters (MM 26, second entry stats)" as enemies, without printing any of those stats, or its actual name. :Þ
|
While I'm actually bored with Vancian casting. It needs to be in the game IMO. That being said the next edition should also offer a optional different type of casting system alongside Vancian. I see no reason for it to be Vancian and only Vancian at this point. As I said before a rehash is simply not going to sell as well. PF did because no one else was carrying the 3.5. Torch. With two existing versions of 3.5., 4E and 5E. I can't see a big enough gaming segment rushing to buy a edition that changes nothing or very little.
While I'm actually bored with Vancian casting. It needs to be in the game IMO. That being said the next edition should also offer a optional different type of casting system alongside Vancian. I see no reason for it to be Vancian and only Vancian at this point. As I said before a rehash is simply not going to sell as well. PF did because no one else was carrying the 3.5. Torch. With two existing versions of 3.5., 4E and 5E. I can't see a big enough gaming segment rushing to buy a edition that changes nothing or very little.
Two versions of 3.5. Lol.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See I never saw PF as a new edition. Its was a slightly modified 3E to keep making adventures for that type of system as opposed to the alternatives. I got over a decade of experience in making the 3E engine purr, all I needs is some more adventure material. Not sure what all the hullabaloo is about editions. Clearly, YMMV.
To be honest after comparing both the 3.5. Core and the PF core I see very little that makes it a new edition. A few house rules, better production values a handful of new material does not a new edition make IMO.
Two versions of 3.5. Lol.
I was more so talking about OGL-spawned games like Sword and Sorcery.
I was more so talking about OGL-spawned games like Sword and Sorcery.
Sword and Sorcery, Spy/FantasyCraft, Castles & Crusades, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved...
There're a lot of different "versions" of 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about everyone else but I had bad experiences with 3.5 and I only started Pathfinder due to the beginner box and the presence of black iconics. (I'm black) This was before I knew it how much of a 3.5 clone it was. I don't know why (Probably the beginner box) but I felt more at ease with Pathfinder than 3.5.
This is one reason why I think having a mini-line based on beginner box rules is a good idea. All it needs is a few supplements the size of Player Companions or Campaign Settings and it could be a full fledge rules lite RPG with cleaned up rules that is completely and totally compatible with early level modules like The Dragons Demand along with pretty much the rest of the game before lvl 7. Heck there are free pdfs out there with beginner box versions of all the classes up to the advanced class guide. I've run The Dragons Demand and the first chapter of Rise of the Runelords and it works. The Players handbook and the Gamemasters Guide could fit into one book the size of the Advanced Players Guide and still have room for extra stuff.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mind you out of all the variants I think PF is the most played IMO. Followed by 3.5. I have rarely seen any other variants played.
More people also listen to Justin Beiber than to Dream Theater.
Doesn't mean that Beiber is a better musician than the guys in Dream Theater, just like that doesn't mean that Pathfinder is a better 3.x variant than, say, Trailblazer.|
|
Vancian casting needs to be done with. The horse is dead and the hole is dug, the preacher is standing by. Having one defining caster mechanic will free some room to design the basics and work within a structure to make each class shine on their own and not be the "Spontaneous" version of the old class still hanging around. The Wizard need to memorize "Known" spells, like the arcanist.You are adorable. Simply adorable.
People have been trying to "do away with" Vancian Magic since 1974. 41 years later, it's still around, even in 5th Edition.
Wait, what?
Are you saying that Spontaneous Casting is the same as Vancian Casting?
Next/5th edition does not have Vancian Casting, it standerdized the magic system with a Spontaneous mechanic, wizards actually remember a spell after they cast the (thing that blocks the river) thing!
Now, I agree with you that Spell points/Mana pools are not the way to go. Psionics has proven this time and time again. I believe the separate pools that various classes have (Grit/Panache/Ki/Arcane/Ect) are a better way to give classes some variety as they (assumingly) share spells from the same list. The goal, as Vancian "Fire and Forget" is put to rest, is to make it a part of the core game instead of having it for newer classes that use it to differentiate themselves from other older classes.
To put it to a finer point, there was, is, and will never be any good reason for the then 3.0 or the current 3.5 Wizard and Sorcerer to be in the same game. They are the same class with different mechanics, with the Sorcerer hamstrung to pull on it's leash so it "balances" with the old man Wizzard.
Pathfinder did a good job introducing the Bloodlines, a mechanic that was borrowed from a book that turned dog like Kobolds to Reptilian Dragon worshipers Kobolds. The class filled in quite nicely and is more substantial than the first introduced half breed Wizard in the original PHB. The Wizard needed At Will cantrips and a Bonded Object to keep up. (Poor familiars got the proverbial boot)
It needs "updating." Perhaps that is the term I should use. "fire and forget" should be buried and forgotten.
Pathfinder did a good job introducing the Bloodlines, a mechanic that was borrowed from a book that turned dog like Kobolds to Reptilian Dragon worshipers Kobolds.
Huh? Bloodlines came from 3e Unearthed Arcana, which came four years after the 3.0 monster manual.
Well it certainly relates Jack Vance's "The Dying Earth" series as that is what it was based on. There are other works of fiction out there that use similar systems, like the spell-hanging system from Roger Zelazny's "Amber" series. Albeit, they are not as common as systems that might be more compatible with a Spell Point system.Maybe I'm a little bit old-fashioned (strange for me to say having been introduced tabletop rpg a couple years ago) but I don't see what's inherently wrong with Vancian casting? To me it's just What Wizards Do and so forth.The problem that most people have Vancian casting is that it doesn't really relate to any magic in fiction outside of D&D.
the Guardians of the Flame series by Joel Rosenberg also uses Vancian casting; then again, it's basically a "What if D&D players went to their game world" set of novels, so it shouldn't be surprising.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, what?
Are you saying that Spontaneous Casting is the same as Vancian Casting?
Yes.
Spontaneous casting is, in fact, Vancian spellcasting. Everyone from back when 3rd Edition first came out until today (except you, apparently) agrees that Spontaneous Spellcasting is a form of the decades-old Vancian magic system.
That fact that you have X number of Spells per day per Spell Level makes the system "Vancian".
When people complain about "Vancian" magic, they are including Spontaneous Spellcasters in that system, because it is still the same system as has always been in place, preparation needed or not.
---
Mana/Spell Points are considered a radically different system because it is much more Freeform; since you "pay" for spells by either allocating their costs when you Prepare them or spending the energy when you cast them, you are not tied to hard numbers of spells-per-level-per-day.
Psionics basically use this exact system.
While it is more useful, and intuitive, as a substitute for Sponteneous Spellcasting, it also works fine for Prepared casters.
---
The 4E Powers system, and the Tome of Battle's Stances & Maneuvers system which is their progenitor, are another form of "casting."
---
Words of Power are a fourth spellcasting system, which is extremely freeform in not just how spells are cast, but in how they're CREATED as it were.
---
I'm not familiar with Spheres of Power much, but I imagine they would be a 5th form of spellcasting.
---
1st and 2nd Edition Psionics, which were the predecessors to today's Spell-Like Abilities, could be taken as a 6th type, whereby each ability is only usable a number of times per day, but each ability is usable a different number of times, completely separate from it's "level"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mind you out of all the variants I think PF is the most played IMO. Followed by 3.5. I have rarely seen any other variants played.More people also listen to Justin Beiber than to Dream Theater.
Doesn't mean that Beiber is a better musician than the guys in Dream Theater, just like that doesn't mean that Pathfinder is a better 3.x variant than, say, Trailblazer.
We determine quality by popular vote now. Didn't you get the memo?
Wait, what?
Are you saying that Spontaneous Casting is the same as Vancian Casting?
Yes.
Spontaneous casting is, in fact, Vancian spellcasting. Everyone from back when 3rd Edition first came out until today (except you, apparently) agrees that Spontaneous Spellcasting is a form of the decades-old Vancian magic system.
That fact that you have X number of Spells per day per Spell Level makes the system "Vancian".
When people complain about "Vancian" magic, they are including Spontaneous Spellcasters in that system, because it is still the same system as has always been in place, preparation needed or not.
There's at least two of us.
I don't think sorcerers are an example of vancian casting. It's the fire-and-forget mechanic that makes something definitively vancian, in my eyes - not just "That fact that you have X number of Spells per day per Spell Level"
(There's a few websites around that agree with thaX's view that spontaneous casters aren't vancian casters, by the looks).
To the OP: I have it on good authority that PF 2 is coming out at the next gencon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: I have it on good authority that PF 2 is coming out at the next gencon.
I wasn't aware that Horror Adventures was going to be renamed PF 2.
|
|
More people also listen to Justin Beiber than to Dream Theater.
Doesn't mean that Beiber is a better musician than the guys in Dream Theater, just like that doesn't mean that Pathfinder is a better 3.x variant than, say, Trailblazer.
I never said that those 3.5 variants were never ever played. Or that one was better than the other. From what I can see most if not of a significant amount of the fanbase stay with PF core. Or with 3.5. Usually because mistakenly they think it's broken, unbalanced or both. I have a DM who thinks 3pp is broken simply because another fellow player told him. How many players you know not counting yourself and those near you. That you know play the 3.5. variants or even know of them.
To use myself I had no clue who dream theater was. I never heard their music or even heard of them as a band until you told me about them. While I agree Justin Beiber is not as good as musician he probably is still better known than Dream Theater. Or to put it another way Steve Jobs found out the hard way that having the better quality computer. Means nothing when people are willing to buy the competition pcs simply because theirs would run any kind of software and not tied to that silly closed model approach that Apple had.
We determine quality by popular vote now. Didn't you get the memo?
Right because that never happens. (points to PF playtest). That never happens at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Run memorax its a trap!!
LOL
It probably is but I'm not going to lie and say that I knew about them.
New editions are always a trick thing to implement. Their will always be a certain segment of the fanbase that will be unhappy. No matter how little or too much is changed. at the same time a company should make sure that the current edition is still profitable. It's hard to find both a balance of offering new material and not alienating fans. While PF did it the first time around I can't see it happening again IMO.
New editions are always a trick thing to implement. Their will always be a certain segment of the fanbase that will be unhappy. No matter how little or too much is changed. at the same time a company should make sure that the current edition is still profitable. It's hard to find both a balance of offering new material and not alienating fans. While PF did it the first time around I can't see it happening again IMO.
Yeah, there's no way everyone'll be happy with a new edition, because different folks would want different things out of it. If (as seems to be their current line of thought) Pathfinder 2e is mostly just balance tweaks and rules cleanup expect people to be annoyed that they're "not making enough changes to justify a new edition" or "Want us to pay $50 for the new errata to the CRB." Not to mention a new edition that largely stays the course and maintains the status quo won't please anyone who wants significant changes to the current edition: martial/caster disparity might be reduced, but it's unlikely to vanish without major changes.
And of course, as Wizards found out with 4E any massive changes can quickly alienate your fanbase.