I really liked the Vancian magic system. It seemed to fit well with the wizardly bookish stereotype, required significant choices on the part of the player to how they would run their character...it just fit really well. I never really understood the hate for it.
There were dozens of spells per level, but unless your DM was remarkably good at playing with the party, you rarely had much incentive to memorize anything but your best offensive/defensive abilities. Oh sure, once in a while you might have an inkling that a more utility spell would be a good choice, or just find a room to hole up in overnight and force the change that way, but player mileage varried greatly on this.
I always hated it. Sure, I could memorize _____ on the off chance it'd be useful... but I'll probably just memorize Fireball and Magic Missile again.
Depending on the group and DM, it was often more an illusion of choice than actual choice itself.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
If it were purely a matter of spell preparation, my distaste for the Vancian system wouldn't be nearly as strong. I mean, I think having "basic" (Fighter) and "advanced" (Wizard, Cleric) classes that are designed to be played by players of varying experience levels is pretty dumb, but that's neither here nor there.
My beef was with the exponential power scaling of spells compared to the linear scaling of virtually everything else. Spell users might have started slightly weaker than everyone else (and even that was fairly easily mitigated by items), but they wound up being God from about level 7 onwards.
I agree with forar: and it was easily abusable by a DM.
I actually strongly dislike the "option" for spells in 4e, too--having 2 dailies but only one you can cast that you pre-choose--huh? why? It gives a little versatility for the DM to plan something, or to take away your offensive spell by forewarning you of something upcoming, but still.
If it were purely a matter of spell preparation, my distaste for the Vancian system wouldn't be nearly as strong. I mean, I think having "basic" (Fighter) and "advanced" (Wizard, Cleric) classes that are designed to be played by players of varying experience levels is pretty dumb, but that's neither here nor there.
My beef was with the exponential power scaling of spells compared to the linear scaling of virtually everything else. Spell users might have started slightly weaker than everyone else (and even that was fairly easily mitigated by items), but they wound up being God from about level 7 onwards.
Well yeah, I agree with this, but it's also not a problem with the vancian system. It's true for sorcerers as well.
As for Forar's comment, I suppose that's true, but even if you go all combat, there's still a wide variety of things to choose from. You don't have to go sheer evoker.
I agree with forar: and it was easily abusable by a DM.
I actually strongly dislike the "option" for spells in 4e, too--having 2 dailies but only one you can cast that you pre-choose--huh? why? It gives a little versatility for the DM to plan something, or to take away your offensive spell by forewarning you of something upcoming, but still.
We honestly just ignore the preparation aspect of the spellbook. Or at least I do. They just have access to two of each Daily and Utility, and can pick one upon casting.
I don't figure it is too much of a power up, and it makes the Wizard feel more versatile, which is really their schtick anyway.
I just used a modification of the spell points alternative, it made life simpler. But generally that's been my policy for gaming, so at the end of the day it wasn't really 3.5 my group played under me, but my own variant of 3.5, heh. /shrug
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
If it were purely a matter of spell preparation, my distaste for the Vancian system wouldn't be nearly as strong. I mean, I think having "basic" (Fighter) and "advanced" (Wizard, Cleric) classes that are designed to be played by players of varying experience levels is pretty dumb, but that's neither here nor there.
My beef was with the exponential power scaling of spells compared to the linear scaling of virtually everything else. Spell users might have started slightly weaker than everyone else (and even that was fairly easily mitigated by items), but they wound up being God from about level 7 onwards.
Well yeah, I agree with this, but it's also not a problem with the vancian system. It's true for sorcerers as well.
As for Forar's comment, I suppose that's true, but even if you go all combat, there's still a wide variety of things to choose from. You don't have to go sheer evoker.
Vancian Magic was more than just spell preparation. It was the division of spells into levels and such. At least when I'm talking about it. I mean the whole shebang; spell prep, discreet spell levels, exponential increase in power level, etc.
Yes, the sorc suffered from the same issues when it came to massive powerup at new spell levels, but my complaints with the system go back before the existence of the Sorcerer. :P
I just used a modification of the spell points alternative, it made life simpler. But generally that's been my policy for gaming, so at the end of the day it wasn't really 3.5 my group played under me, but my own variant of 3.5, heh. /shrug
We basically just swapped Vancian for Psionics at one point. Then I spent one summer (oh god where did I find the time) tearing down 3E and rebuilding it in my image. Ironically, it wound up looking a lot like Saga with orcs.
I really liked the Vancian magic system. It seemed to fit well with the wizardly bookish stereotype, required significant choices on the part of the player to how they would run their character...it just fit really well. I never really understood the hate for it.
There were dozens of spells per level, but unless your DM was remarkably good at playing with the party, you rarely had much incentive to memorize anything but your best offensive/defensive abilities. Oh sure, once in a while you might have an inkling that a more utility spell would be a good choice, or just find a room to hole up in overnight and force the change that way, but player mileage varried greatly on this.
I always hated it. Sure, I could memorize _____ on the off chance it'd be useful... but I'll probably just memorize Fireball and Magic Missile again.
Depending on the group and DM, it was often more an illusion of choice than actual choice itself.
This is pretty true, my wizards would invariably end up with the same spells at the lower levels because damn if you can afford to make an unwise choice.
I usually managed to pick something different as I leveled and had more spots / done some researching.
I just used a modification of the spell points alternative, it made life simpler. But generally that's been my policy for gaming, so at the end of the day it wasn't really 3.5 my group played under me, but my own variant of 3.5, heh. /shrug
We basically just swapped Vancian for Psionics at one point. Then I spent one summer (oh god where did I find the time) tearing down 3E and rebuilding it in my image. Ironically, it wound up looking a lot like Saga with orcs.
lol. yea, my version of 3E ended up something like that too.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
We played (1e) with some kind of hardcore version of the system (or maybe just a strict RAW) where you couldn't choose which spells you had in your spellbook - you had to actually find the spells and transcribe them, in-game.
That meant that I had a really odd selection of spells, and so preparing spells every day was interesting, as I tried to think of combos.
I definitely remember finding an NPC magic-user's book, trying to copy Fireball and failing the roll.
To be honest, I enjoy magic items more when they're this way too.
The fact that they aren't limited use is balanced by the fact that they take forever to actually use. Combat powers based on "available components" would have all sorts of balance problems. I suppose you could use alchemy as a base for it, but then why not just use alchemy instead?
I didn't mean for 4th edition D&D. I meant as part of an rpg system designed for it specifically.
SkyCaptain on
The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
We played (1e) with some kind of hardcore version of the system (or maybe just a strict RAW) where you couldn't choose which spells you had in your spellbook - you had to actually find the spells and transcribe them, in-game.
That meant that I had a really odd selection of spells, and so preparing spells every day was interesting, as I tried to think of combos.
I definitely remember finding an NPC magic-user's book, trying to copy Fireball and failing the roll.
To be honest, I enjoy magic items more when they're this way too.
Yup, that was the best way to play.
SkyCaptain on
The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
We played (1e) with some kind of hardcore version of the system (or maybe just a strict RAW) where you couldn't choose which spells you had in your spellbook - you had to actually find the spells and transcribe them, in-game.
That meant that I had a really odd selection of spells, and so preparing spells every day was interesting, as I tried to think of combos.
I definitely remember finding an NPC magic-user's book, trying to copy Fireball and failing the roll.
To be honest, I enjoy magic items more when they're this way too.
On that note, would a "scroll of frost weapon" be an acceptable alternative to an item drop in a parcel? That is, instead of finding an actual weapon pre-enchanted, you find a scroll with enchant magic item on it that has been pre-set to a specific enchantment and you can either go back to town and buy the relevant bit of metal to apply it to, or overlay it onto an existing weapon, overwriting any previous enchantment.
We played (1e) with some kind of hardcore version of the system (or maybe just a strict RAW) where you couldn't choose which spells you had in your spellbook - you had to actually find the spells and transcribe them, in-game.
That meant that I had a really odd selection of spells, and so preparing spells every day was interesting, as I tried to think of combos.
I definitely remember finding an NPC magic-user's book, trying to copy Fireball and failing the roll.
To be honest, I enjoy magic items more when they're this way too.
On that note, would a "scroll of frost weapon" be an acceptable alternative to an item drop in a parcel? That is, instead of finding an actual weapon pre-enchanted, you find a scroll with enchant magic item on it that has been pre-set to a specific enchantment and you can either go back to town and buy the relevant bit of metal to apply it to, or overlay it onto an existing weapon, overwriting any previous enchantment.
Now that our party has the weapon crafting rituals, I'd toyed with doing something like this. Dropping the formula for a type of magical weapon, which they could then apply to any given weapon when they got a chance.
I suppose having a one-off version that could be transferred with or without a ritual would be a good way to make sure you weren't dropping something that would just get disenchanted.
We played (1e) with some kind of hardcore version of the system (or maybe just a strict RAW) where you couldn't choose which spells you had in your spellbook - you had to actually find the spells and transcribe them, in-game.
That meant that I had a really odd selection of spells, and so preparing spells every day was interesting, as I tried to think of combos.
I definitely remember finding an NPC magic-user's book, trying to copy Fireball and failing the roll.
To be honest, I enjoy magic items more when they're this way too.
On that note, would a "scroll of frost weapon" be an acceptable alternative to an item drop in a parcel? That is, instead of finding an actual weapon pre-enchanted, you find a scroll with enchant magic item on it that has been pre-set to a specific enchantment and you can either go back to town and buy the relevant bit of metal to apply it to, or overlay it onto an existing weapon, overwriting any previous enchantment.
I use a system similar to that (they're orbs/scrolls/whatever of *) . I would say that it works, I think. Sort of.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
If it were purely a matter of spell preparation, my distaste for the Vancian system wouldn't be nearly as strong. I mean, I think having "basic" (Fighter) and "advanced" (Wizard, Cleric) classes that are designed to be played by players of varying experience levels is pretty dumb, but that's neither here nor there.
My beef was with the exponential power scaling of spells compared to the linear scaling of virtually everything else. Spell users might have started slightly weaker than everyone else (and even that was fairly easily mitigated by items), but they wound up being God from about level 7 onwards.
Well yeah, I agree with this, but it's also not a problem with the vancian system. It's true for sorcerers as well.
As for Forar's comment, I suppose that's true, but even if you go all combat, there's still a wide variety of things to choose from. You don't have to go sheer evoker.
Vancian Magic was more than just spell preparation. It was the division of spells into levels and such. At least when I'm talking about it. I mean the whole shebang; spell prep, discreet spell levels, exponential increase in power level, etc.
Yes, the sorc suffered from the same issues when it came to massive powerup at new spell levels, but my complaints with the system go back before the existence of the Sorcerer. :P
This is kind of an aside, but while the magic system of D&D has its roots in Jack Vance's "Dying Earth", really I'd call it more appropriate to refer to the system as "Gygaxian".
To those who haven't read an article by Mr. Gygax called "Jack Vance and the D&D Game"... well I recommend it. The link is right there and everything.
There is a truly great advantage offered to the Game Master when devising a
campaign set on the Dying Earth. It is not highly detailed. There is no strict timeline laid
down. All that has happened before is not “recorded”, nor is there an accurate gazetteer
of for the world. What magic operates? Nobody can say or guess, because in the long
eons of the Dying Earth’s history, likely every form possible was discovered, used, and
then forgotten…almost. That means that all that’s necessary is to have the game in hand,
the books that Jack Vance wrote about the world, to create a really compelling campaign
environment. Using the creative base of the author, the GM’s own imagination cannot
fail but to rise to the occasion.
The Dying Earth is the perfect place for a sophisticated, whimsical, and
enthralling fantasy campaign. It can be on virtually any scale, and feature whatever the
participant group enjoys most. Combat and magic? Of course. The same is true for
story and intrigue. To be forthright, the milieu is so broad as to invite any and all aspects
of the RPG into play, and that in whatever mix and degree of emphasis is desired.
It's an excellent thing to see how important this author was to Gygax, and to hear Gary's thoughts upon what (in many ways) was his "ideal setting".
It's also interesting that, bemoaned as "Points of Light" is by those who love specificity in settings, the founder of the game cherished the vague milieu of The Dying Earth, and that some of that has been preserved in 4E's default setting.
I only wish he'd written a similar article about Michael Moorcock.
It was a very fiddly system that just never seemed to jive with the kind of literature I was reading at the time. I was reading books where the wizard could just pull shit out of the air..and then I'm stuck looking at the Wizard spell lists in the back of the PHB and going, "okay, so I'm going to have to waste a slot in order to spell lock a stupid door?"
Plus, it really did feel like a lot of those spells were useless, since the GMs I ran with were very lateral with their thinking and it really was more prudent to just stick to Magic Missle / Fireball / Lightning Bolt and then when you got into the upper tiers, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Wish, Permanance to be uber prepared for pretty much anything.
Which got even sillier when 3e inflated everything and you saw NPC writeups that looked like the source section of someone's research paper.
ravensmuse on
READ MY BLOG - Web Serial Fantasy - Tabletop Gaming Snips & Reviews - Flea Market Hunting
It was a very fiddly system that just never seemed to jive with the kind of literature I was reading at the time. I was reading books where the wizard could just pull shit out of the air..and then I'm stuck looking at the Wizard spell lists in the back of the PHB and going, "okay, so I'm going to have to waste a slot in order to spell lock a stupid door?"
Plus, it really did feel like a lot of those spells were useless, since the GMs I ran with were very lateral with their thinking and it really was more prudent to just stick to Magic Missle / Fireball / Lightning Bolt and then when you got into the upper tiers, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Wish, Permanance to be uber prepared for pretty much anything.
Which got even sillier when 3e inflated everything and you saw NPC writeups that looked like the source section of someone's research paper.
Yeah, I disliked how in 3e if I wanted to play a wizard, I as a player would have to have my own spellbook and put as much thought, effort, and time into the whole deal as an actual wizard would. Of course, now in 4E I feel a bit limited. Maybe I was just spoiled by my days of Mage: The Ascension where I would describe something, gesture vaguely at some dots on a sheet, and roll dice to see if I could convince reality that it was what I wanted it to be.
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
The funny thing about The Dying Earth's magic compared to D&Ds was how quickly preparation was depicted. I recall an instance where the non-wizardly protagonist escapes his pursuers, darts into a sideroom where he finds a magician's spellbook, devotes the spell to memory, and unleashes it, blowing everything in the lair out and scattered across the countryside.
Suffice to say it was no Magic Missile nor did he hide for six hours to memorize it.
D&D designed its magic initially to serve for its light and loose dungeon crawler wargame, and the big problems arose when they kept on expanding the game and refused to change the rules to facilitate the characters and stories they were promoting for 30 years.
What you have now is essentially still preparation times; asides from a couple cantrips and basic attacks devoted to memory, you start with one that takes five minutes, one that takes 6 hours, and a bunch that take anywhere from ten minutes to several hours. Time and cost is much more appropriate and lets a wizard actually have spells on hand and bring more to the ready so long as he's got his book in hand.
vancian (adj)
a) bearing similarity to the works of Jack Vance, particularly "The Dying Earth" stories.
b) a description for the form of casting that D&D got stuck with because nerds are overly resistant to change.
Horseshoe on
0
Options
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
It helped D&D's magic sound like it was similar to any other depiction of magic in fantasy literature before it.
Man, so much of D&D's fiction was based around incorporating the rules directly into the setting and justifying how poorly it worked out. "Elminster sat down to study his books for the entire morning and in the meantime made sure to prepare some passwall and water-breathing spells because ho-ho-ho, foreshadowing..."
Then you got into designing dungeons with spellcasters and everything got all fucked up.
I never played high level 3.5 games, but couldn't you just assume that the people who build dungeons would have the foresight to prepare countermeasures against spells?
I remember reading about a scenario in which a party accidentally triggered a series of anti-magic effects that covered a massive radius, causing the bridge they were on (which was created by the spell mud to stone) to turn to mud and drop them into an acid moat that they couldn't just mass fly out of.
If you want to take 3.5's "simulationism" to its extreme then there you go.
Then you got into designing dungeons with spellcasters and everything got all fucked up.
I never played high level 3.5 games, but couldn't you just assume that the people who build dungeons would have the foresight to prepare countermeasures against spells?
Players don't like when you do that.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Then you got into designing dungeons with spellcasters and everything got all fucked up.
I never played high level 3.5 games, but couldn't you just assume that the people who build dungeons would have the foresight to prepare countermeasures against spells?
Players don't like when you do that.
"You know that disturbing level of effort you put into picking the spells that would let you play God for 4 minutes today? Yeah, I'm going to make all that worthless. Because, you know, it's killing the game. "
Then you got into designing dungeons with spellcasters and everything got all fucked up.
I never played high level 3.5 games, but couldn't you just assume that the people who build dungeons would have the foresight to prepare countermeasures against spells?
I was more talking about writing up their spell lists. It started to get as bad as the Solar charmlists for Dreams of the First Age. The shortcut was to put, "assume X has all spells up to fourth level, pick and choose from there," but that was just one big handwave to say, "whatever you think will fuck with them the most."
When it comes to dungeon design, it always reflects the wizard at hand (which is why Zelda temples bother me; I just can't see why they made the layouts they do. But I'm a nerd like that.) My personal favorites are the Riddler-esque glories that are Undermountain and the Tomb of Horrors, places you can expect fuckery to come from when it comes to messing with your abilities.
But most wizards or overlords don't think they're going to be bothered or think that their front line defenses will be enough, and so don't really go for messing about with shutting people down. The opposite is obviously true when you get to inner sanctums and such, but still.
ravensmuse on
READ MY BLOG - Web Serial Fantasy - Tabletop Gaming Snips & Reviews - Flea Market Hunting
Looking for clarity on Dwarf racial power of reducing pulls/pushes/slides.
If a power claims that it pulls adjacent, into a square you used to occupy (for example, Overwhelming Strike for Avengers) do they still reduce that movement by 1 since it doesn't force movement a number of squares. Kind of like those powers say they have an infinite amount of forced movement in order to get them to that space...dunno. Just listening to the PA podcasts and it's making me ponder things.
For 'pulls adjacent' - I'd let it stay that it pulls adjacent, but I'd reduce the range of whatever power is being used by one. (ie, a range 5 pulls adjacent power can pull a normal character 4 squares, so it can pull a dwarf 3 squares, so it's only range 4 on a dwarf). Alternatively, I'd allow the dwarf to stand their ground, move one less square and then to pull the enemy one square.
I much prefer the second interpretation for flavour, but the first is probably more widely applicable (some powers wouldn't make sense for the dwarf to pull the other creature).
Overwhelming strike doesn't do 'adjacent' - it does 'slide 1 square' - a dwarf is definitely immune to that effect.
Only have MM1 with me right now - The only creature in there with a 'pull adjacent' is the Balor - it can pull adjacent with a reach 5 melee attack.
Flame Whip (standard; at-will) - Fire, Weapon
Reach 5; +30 vs. Reflex; 3d8 + 5 fire damage, and ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends). Also, the target is pulled into an unoccupied space adjacent to the balor.
That one's easy enough to reconcile with the dwarf by making it 'pull 4 to an adjacent square' - dwarf can reduce the pull to pull 3, and since that's no longer adjacent, the pull will fail at range 5 - at range 4, would work fine against the dwarf. Alternatively, let the balor pull 3 and the dwarf pull 1 for that extra square.
There is also the gelatinous cube (and I think one of the shambling mounds?) that can pull a creature into its square:
The gelatinous cube attacks one or two Medium or smaller targets; +8 vs. Reflex (automatically hits an immobilized creature). On a hit, the target is grabbed and pulled into the cube’s space; the target is dazed and takes ongoing 10 acid damage until it escapes the grab. A creature that escapes the grab shifts to a square of its choosing adjacent to the cube. The cube can move normally while creatures are engulfed within it.
That's much trickier. Is a dwarf immune to getting pulled inside? If you change that to 'pull 2 to a square within the cube's space', then it'd work with the dwarf (cube is large, so it could try pulling a dwarf into it's opposite side by RAW, so reducing that pull the the near-side means the dwarf is inside). Alternatively, have the dwarf hold his ground and pull the cube on top of him.
Come and get it reads:
Effect: Each target must shift 2 and end adjacent to you, if possible. A target that can’t end adjacent to you doesn’t move. You can then attack any targets that are adjacent to you (close burst 1).
That's a shift, so a dwarf will have no resistance (it's luring them in, not pulling them).
As far as I can see, except for the examples above, there's not much usage of 'pull adjacent' - most powers are "pull x", which dwarves will just turn into "pull x-1".
Only have MM1 with me right now - The only creature in there with a 'pull adjacent' is the Balor - it can pull adjacent with a reach 5 melee attack.
Flame Whip (standard; at-will) - Fire, Weapon
Reach 5; +30 vs. Reflex; 3d8 + 5 fire damage, and ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends). Also, the target is pulled into an unoccupied space adjacent to the balor.
That one's easy enough to reconcile with the dwarf by making it 'pull 4 to an adjacent square' - dwarf can reduce the pull to pull 3, and since that's no longer adjacent, the pull will fail at range 5 - at range 4, would work fine against the dwarf. Alternatively, let the balor pull 3 and the dwarf pull 1 for that extra square.
There is also the gelatinous cube (and I think one of the shambling mounds?) that can pull a creature into its square:
The gelatinous cube attacks one or two Medium or smaller targets; +8 vs. Reflex (automatically hits an immobilized creature). On a hit, the target is grabbed and pulled into the cube’s space; the target is dazed and takes ongoing 10 acid damage until it escapes the grab. A creature that escapes the grab shifts to a square of its choosing adjacent to the cube. The cube can move normally while creatures are engulfed within it.
That's much trickier. Is a dwarf immune to getting pulled inside? If you change that to 'pull 2 to a square within the cube's space', then it'd work with the dwarf (cube is large, so it could try pulling a dwarf into it's opposite side by RAW, so reducing that pull the the near-side means the dwarf is inside). Alternatively, have the dwarf hold his ground and pull the cube on top of him.
Come and get it reads:
Effect: Each target must shift 2 and end adjacent to you, if possible. A target that can’t end adjacent to you doesn’t move. You can then attack any targets that are adjacent to you (close burst 1).
That's a shift, so a dwarf will have no resistance (it's luring them in, not pulling them).
As far as I can see, except for the examples above, there's not much usage of 'pull adjacent' - most powers are "pull x", which dwarves will just turn into "pull x-1".
pretty much pull/push/slide <non numeric space> is equal to pull/push/slide infinitely until <non numeric space condition is met>, unless there is a numeric qualifier indicating otherwise.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
OK, I think I need to read the description of Overwhelming Strike before I used that as an example.
Are there any powers or monsters that have a 'pulls the target adjacent', I'm fairly sure Aegeri used one on my group at some point...
I think the Warden has some powers that do this. As might polearm fighters.
Fighter: "Come And Get It"
that was the first thing that came to mind
Horseshoe on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
A Dwarf can't do a thing about a power that doesn't specify distance. If it says "You are pulled adjacent" or "You are pulled inside" the ability to reduce that forced movement doesn't activate as it doesn't specify the number of squares (which that feature reduces by 1). Dwarves are effectively immune to powers like bullrush and similar, which is powerful enough already without being immune to common effects like a gelatinous cubes pull.
Edit: Marilith Warders have hypnotic dance, but that's an area burst 5, pull six and immobilize power. It doesn't have an infinite distance. I also think Dagon has an aura that pulls every 5 on the start of its turn and he has powers that pull as well, but again things that don't specify a distance are actually pretty rare on the whole.
Posts
There were dozens of spells per level, but unless your DM was remarkably good at playing with the party, you rarely had much incentive to memorize anything but your best offensive/defensive abilities. Oh sure, once in a while you might have an inkling that a more utility spell would be a good choice, or just find a room to hole up in overnight and force the change that way, but player mileage varried greatly on this.
I always hated it. Sure, I could memorize _____ on the off chance it'd be useful... but I'll probably just memorize Fireball and Magic Missile again.
Depending on the group and DM, it was often more an illusion of choice than actual choice itself.
My beef was with the exponential power scaling of spells compared to the linear scaling of virtually everything else. Spell users might have started slightly weaker than everyone else (and even that was fairly easily mitigated by items), but they wound up being God from about level 7 onwards.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I actually strongly dislike the "option" for spells in 4e, too--having 2 dailies but only one you can cast that you pre-choose--huh? why? It gives a little versatility for the DM to plan something, or to take away your offensive spell by forewarning you of something upcoming, but still.
Well yeah, I agree with this, but it's also not a problem with the vancian system. It's true for sorcerers as well.
As for Forar's comment, I suppose that's true, but even if you go all combat, there's still a wide variety of things to choose from. You don't have to go sheer evoker.
I don't figure it is too much of a power up, and it makes the Wizard feel more versatile, which is really their schtick anyway.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yes, the sorc suffered from the same issues when it came to massive powerup at new spell levels, but my complaints with the system go back before the existence of the Sorcerer. :P
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This is pretty true, my wizards would invariably end up with the same spells at the lower levels because damn if you can afford to make an unwise choice.
I usually managed to pick something different as I leveled and had more spots / done some researching.
lol. yea, my version of 3E ended up something like that too.
That meant that I had a really odd selection of spells, and so preparing spells every day was interesting, as I tried to think of combos.
I definitely remember finding an NPC magic-user's book, trying to copy Fireball and failing the roll.
To be honest, I enjoy magic items more when they're this way too.
I didn't mean for 4th edition D&D. I meant as part of an rpg system designed for it specifically.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
I suppose having a one-off version that could be transferred with or without a ritual would be a good way to make sure you weren't dropping something that would just get disenchanted.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I use a system similar to that (they're orbs/scrolls/whatever of *) . I would say that it works, I think. Sort of.
This is kind of an aside, but while the magic system of D&D has its roots in Jack Vance's "Dying Earth", really I'd call it more appropriate to refer to the system as "Gygaxian".
To those who haven't read an article by Mr. Gygax called "Jack Vance and the D&D Game"... well I recommend it. The link is right there and everything.
It's also interesting that, bemoaned as "Points of Light" is by those who love specificity in settings, the founder of the game cherished the vague milieu of The Dying Earth, and that some of that has been preserved in 4E's default setting.
I only wish he'd written a similar article about Michael Moorcock.
Plus, it really did feel like a lot of those spells were useless, since the GMs I ran with were very lateral with their thinking and it really was more prudent to just stick to Magic Missle / Fireball / Lightning Bolt and then when you got into the upper tiers, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Wish, Permanance to be uber prepared for pretty much anything.
Which got even sillier when 3e inflated everything and you saw NPC writeups that looked like the source section of someone's research paper.
Yeah, I disliked how in 3e if I wanted to play a wizard, I as a player would have to have my own spellbook and put as much thought, effort, and time into the whole deal as an actual wizard would. Of course, now in 4E I feel a bit limited. Maybe I was just spoiled by my days of Mage: The Ascension where I would describe something, gesture vaguely at some dots on a sheet, and roll dice to see if I could convince reality that it was what I wanted it to be.
Suffice to say it was no Magic Missile nor did he hide for six hours to memorize it.
D&D designed its magic initially to serve for its light and loose dungeon crawler wargame, and the big problems arose when they kept on expanding the game and refused to change the rules to facilitate the characters and stories they were promoting for 30 years.
What you have now is essentially still preparation times; asides from a couple cantrips and basic attacks devoted to memory, you start with one that takes five minutes, one that takes 6 hours, and a bunch that take anywhere from ten minutes to several hours. Time and cost is much more appropriate and lets a wizard actually have spells on hand and bring more to the ready so long as he's got his book in hand.
Mostly because "the form of casting that D&D got stuck with because nerds are overly resistant to change" was too long to really use in conversation.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
a) bearing similarity to the works of Jack Vance, particularly "The Dying Earth" stories.
b) a description for the form of casting that D&D got stuck with because nerds are overly resistant to change.
Man, so much of D&D's fiction was based around incorporating the rules directly into the setting and justifying how poorly it worked out. "Elminster sat down to study his books for the entire morning and in the meantime made sure to prepare some passwall and water-breathing spells because ho-ho-ho, foreshadowing..."
I shouldn't have to sit there with a damn spreadsheet figuring out what *might* be useful over the course of the day.
Then you got into designing dungeons with spellcasters and everything got all fucked up.
I never played high level 3.5 games, but couldn't you just assume that the people who build dungeons would have the foresight to prepare countermeasures against spells?
I remember reading about a scenario in which a party accidentally triggered a series of anti-magic effects that covered a massive radius, causing the bridge they were on (which was created by the spell mud to stone) to turn to mud and drop them into an acid moat that they couldn't just mass fly out of.
If you want to take 3.5's "simulationism" to its extreme then there you go.
Players don't like when you do that.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If a power claims that it pulls adjacent, into a square you used to occupy (for example, Overwhelming Strike for Avengers) do they still reduce that movement by 1 since it doesn't force movement a number of squares. Kind of like those powers say they have an infinite amount of forced movement in order to get them to that space...dunno. Just listening to the PA podcasts and it's making me ponder things.
I much prefer the second interpretation for flavour, but the first is probably more widely applicable (some powers wouldn't make sense for the dwarf to pull the other creature).
Overwhelming strike doesn't do 'adjacent' - it does 'slide 1 square' - a dwarf is definitely immune to that effect.
Play with me on Steam
Are there any powers or monsters that have a 'pulls the target adjacent', I'm fairly sure Aegeri used one on my group at some point...
That one's easy enough to reconcile with the dwarf by making it 'pull 4 to an adjacent square' - dwarf can reduce the pull to pull 3, and since that's no longer adjacent, the pull will fail at range 5 - at range 4, would work fine against the dwarf. Alternatively, let the balor pull 3 and the dwarf pull 1 for that extra square.
There is also the gelatinous cube (and I think one of the shambling mounds?) that can pull a creature into its square:
That's much trickier. Is a dwarf immune to getting pulled inside? If you change that to 'pull 2 to a square within the cube's space', then it'd work with the dwarf (cube is large, so it could try pulling a dwarf into it's opposite side by RAW, so reducing that pull the the near-side means the dwarf is inside). Alternatively, have the dwarf hold his ground and pull the cube on top of him.
Come and get it reads:
That's a shift, so a dwarf will have no resistance (it's luring them in, not pulling them).
As far as I can see, except for the examples above, there's not much usage of 'pull adjacent' - most powers are "pull x", which dwarves will just turn into "pull x-1".
Play with me on Steam
pretty much pull/push/slide <non numeric space> is equal to pull/push/slide infinitely until <non numeric space condition is met>, unless there is a numeric qualifier indicating otherwise.
Fighter: "Come And Get It"
that was the first thing that came to mind
Edit: Marilith Warders have hypnotic dance, but that's an area burst 5, pull six and immobilize power. It doesn't have an infinite distance. I also think Dagon has an aura that pulls every 5 on the start of its turn and he has powers that pull as well, but again things that don't specify a distance are actually pretty rare on the whole.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787