|
gradenko_2000 posted:One of Next's design pillars summed up. The Sphinx apparently can't do anything except cast spells that try to duplicate its mythological equivalent Yes, God forbid we have one of the few vaguely consistent sets of systems in the game do the heavy lifting of describing how a wide variety of powers work. I mean there are plenty of legitinate things to get angry about with NEXT if you want to do that without reaching like this and just sounding really dumb.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
It's a pretty legit complaint tbh. The fundamental building blocks of the game are coded as one class's abilities, it's pants on head stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Paladin spell selection is largely same as 3.5. with a few additions like the smite line and compelled duel and whatnot. Some spells have been revamped, but your access hasn't really changed. Paladins only get to pick char bonus + paladin lvl/2 spells to memorize -- you have to consider whether you want those smite spells which usually do slightly less damage and can't be scaled up, or something really useful like lesser restoration or protection from good and evil. At least, that's how I'm reading it, but I haven't seen it in play to see whether I'm really full of poo poo. I'm really excited to see paladin class and fighter class play specifically because I want to see how the changes worked. Anyway, my original magic item question was about stat scaling. I fully intend on keeping magic items because of all the cool abilities they grant, and I'm very glad they toned down the need for magic weapons/armor of appropriate bonuses. I just hope this version doesn't disappoint me like 4th did. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
moths posted:It's a pretty legit complaint tbh. The fundamental building blocks of the game are coded as one class's abilities, it's pants on head stupid. "Spells" are "one class's abilities" now? 8 out of 12 classes have their own spell lists. Another two, depending on player choices, have access to the lower half of the Wizard list. The last two have a variety of class abilities that are defined specifically in terms of how they function in terms of equivalent spells, because doing so saves a heck of a lot of printing space when the abilities function the same way anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:One of Next's design pillars summed up. The Sphinx apparently can't do anything except cast spells that try to duplicate its mythological equivalent Paladin always seemed like the wrong kind of class to be wiggling fingers and saying magic words. I mean, okay, it's divine magic, so it's probably supposed to look like prayer, but still. The image of the Paladin just being so righteous and/or convicted to his/her cause that these awesome things just happen because he/she says so or as invisible, unconscious blessing bestowed upon a warrior on a righteous cause seems a lot more compelling. I almost included Ranger in this, too, but somehow for me, the idea of a Ranger actually casting discrete spells sits better. Maybe it's the whole picked-up-wilderness-lore-that-looks-like-Druidic-magic thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
CaptainPsyko posted:"Spells" are "one class's abilities" now? That's what their design root is, yeah. Almost all of those classes have a long tradition of using something designed to emulate Vancian casting, a system from a bunch of books about a wizard casting spells. E: And then stuff like the sorceror is basically just 'how do we make a wizard that uses a different casting system?'
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Allstone posted:That's what their design root is, yeah. Almost all of those classes have a long tradition of using something designed to emulate Vancian casting, a system from a bunch of books about a wizard casting spells. So in a world of magic, you don't like spells, which (almost) all classes have access to? Because they're too "wizardy"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Allstone posted:That's what their design root is, yeah. Almost all of those classes have a long tradition of using something designed to emulate Vancian casting, a system from a bunch of books about a wizard casting spells. I think Dungeons and Dragons might just not be the game you actually want to play, on a really deep and fundamental level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:So in a world of magic, you don't like spells, which (almost) all classes have access to? Because they're too "wizardy"? This is what I was bitching about a few days ago  In the world presented by standard D&D, there is no reason why each and every character class shouldn't have its own Spell List, even if it's a pretty specific one like the ranger's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:So in a world of magic, you don't like spells, which (almost) all classes have access to? Because they're too "wizardy"? I'm not sure I'd equate "magic" one for one with "casting spells". edit: I'll write up something longer about magical realism vs. "magical physics" (will also see if I can come up with a better term) when I get home from work to expand on this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:I'm not sure I'd equate "magic" one for one with "casting spells". Oh god, please don't. It's a fantasy game we play with dice and our minds. It's meant to be fun, if you can't have fun with it perhaps you need another more "realistically magical" game...
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:I'm not sure I'd equate "magic" one for one with "casting spells". e: this post was outta line 
deadly_pudding fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:Oh god, please don't. It's a fantasy game we play with dice and our minds. It's meant to be fun, if you can't have fun with it perhaps you need another more "realistically magical" game... (Alright, it's slow today. Quick and dirty version.) That's precisely the opposite of my point, though. Modeling all "magic" as "spells", which in D&D are discrete bit of, one shot, concrete, memorized once per day instances of magical power expended at the user's will, makes it pretty loving hard to do things that aren't within that framework, and by default implies a certain stricture over the use of magic as a whole in the fictional game universe. The very old man with enormous wings can fly because he has wings, not because he cast "Fly" on himself. Who gives a poo poo whether the lift ratio of wingspan to weight would work in real life? But, similarly, why would he be casting a spell to fly, and therefore subject to anti-magic fields, counterspells, calculating the rate of speed depending on what level spell slot he used, which in the end amounts to almost the same thing as the "real life" physics? He just does it because he can fly. It's magic. He ain't gotta explain poo poo. "If you can't answer the Sphinx's riddle, it will magically lay waste to the city with disease", isn't good enough, because the game need to say "The Sphinx has asked you a riddle. You must answer it to the best of your ability because it cast "Compel answer". If you don't answer correctly, it will cast "Cause disease, modified with metamagic to expand it's range and duration, to encompass the entire town, and will continue to cast this spell 5 times a day until all the citizens are dead". That's why I don't like modelling everything after spells. Because everything isn't spells.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Setting aside the usability issues of having to refer back to the PHB's spell list to know what a monster does, there's a mechanical difference between "the monster has this ability, which duplicates the effect of this spell", and "the monster is a spellcaster, has spell slots, is the equivalent of an xth level Cleric and casts these spells" Like, what happens if you silence the Sphinx? Or dispel its Tongues spell? Call it grog if you will, but it's a lack of versimilitude on the opposite end of the spectrum for a monster to need spellcaster rules just to be more than just a lion. It should be able to just do it because gently caress you it's a goddamn Sphinx gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:I'm not sure I'd equate "magic" one for one with "casting spells Likewise. To those defending the way D&D does things with respect to spells Dragon: Fly (as the wizard spell, caster level 5) 10/day vs Dragon: Fly 40'/round, poor maneuverability Or, and more to the point Hawk: Fly (as the wizard spell, caster level 10) 60/day vs Hawk: Fly 60'/round, Perfect maneuverability Is there anyone who prefers the first way of writing that a given creature can fly? Anyone? Because that's what the "All supernatural abilities are spells" looks like. All spells are magic. Not all magic is spells.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:Why the hell do Paladins get Geas as a class spell? That doesn't seem like a very Paladin-y spell at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:Oh god, please don't. It's a fantasy game we play with dice and our minds. It's meant to be fun, if you can't have fun with it perhaps you need another more "realistically magical" game... "Magical realism" doesn't mean "realistically magical." In fact, magical realism is a genre of fiction that is extremely not realistic, perhaps even more so than something like urban fantasy. Spoilers Below's example about the very old man with enormous wings from that old Garcia Marquez story by the same title is exactly it. The character can fly. He can fly because he has wings, not because he can cast fly. The protagonist of Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children has a supernatural sense of smell because that's what his huge nose does, not because he can cast some sort of smell spell a few times per day. To bring it to D&D: a sphinx can speak every language because it does, not because it can cast tongues. Interestingly, D&D is itself inconsistent about this, because it doesn't just treat a red dragon's breath as a fireball spell or a white dragon's breath as a cone of cold spell. I know why they do it this way, of course. When you have a massive spell list that encompasses a massive variety of effects, it makes sense to start describing everything in terms of those spells. While I didn't like everything about 4e--it has way too many stacking combat effects and fiddly combat mechanics for me--I did enjoy how abilities were described with a common language. They didn't need to describe every magical effect in terms of its similar spell for the sake of consistent language--they just used consistent language from the start, so that spells, magical abilities, and non-magical abilities were all easily understandable and fit within the same system of effects. That they stepped back to 3.x's language of saying that a creature is telekinetic not because it just is telekinetic but because it has telekinesis on its spell list is kind of odd to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Harrow posted:"Magical realism" doesn't mean "realistically magical." In fact, magical realism is a genre of fiction that is extremely not realistic, perhaps even more so than something like urban fantasy. It's just a dumb rules shortcut, I think. They have all the rules for what telekinesis does already printed in the spell description, so why print it twice? There should maybe be a rules note somewhere in the glossary that just says, "Dispel Magic and etc only works on this if it is actually a spell or spell-like ability. If it is a supernatural, extraordinary, or psionic ability, you will have to seek other methods" I am grogging about how magic and psionics shouldn't affect each other except where their physical effects would mix.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Harrow posted:. That they stepped back to 3.x's language of saying that a creature is telekinetic not because it just is telekinetic but because it has telekinesis on its spell list is kind of odd to me. It saves a lot of space, if you don't have to explicitly list how much your telekinetic dude can lift, how far away an object can be, whether he can shoot stuff like bullets or just pick it up and move it slowly, et cetera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
It saves space, but also takes up way more actual play time if you need to flip back to the PHB, as a DM, whenever you have to adjudicate the consequences of one word on a monster's stat block. Space sounds like a problem for their layout and editing folks, not the people playing the game later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:It saves a lot of space, if you don't have to explicitly list how much your telekinetic dude can lift, how far away an object can be, whether he can shoot stuff like bullets or just pick it up and move it slowly, et cetera. You can cut out every rule with the excuse that it saves space. You can omit how to create characters and just give single pre-gen character for each (sub)class, never mind about feats, multiclassing, or free choice of race. You could also leave task resolution entirely up to the DM instead of bothering with dice and levels and hit points and proficiency. But it probably wouldn't make the game better. Likewise, reducing each magical monster to a spellcaster doesn't make the game better, at least according to some here. So saying it "saves a lot of space" is not a very convincing argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:It's just a dumb rules shortcut, I think. They have all the rules for what telekinesis does already printed in the spell description, so why print it twice? There should maybe be a rules note somewhere in the glossary that just says, "Dispel Magic and etc only works on this if it is actually a spell or spell-like ability. If it is a supernatural, extraordinary, or psionic ability, you will have to seek other methods" For me, it isn't so much that they describe most supernatural effects in terms of spells--to say that a telekinetic guy can lift objects "as per the telekinesis spell" is still not ideal but is understandable--but that they just jump right past "can lift things with his mind because he is telekinetic" and into "just give him spells per day and have him memorize the telekinesis spell." Spell-like abilities are one thing, and in that case, yeah, it's a rules shortcut, but just outright giving the creatures the actual spells changes their nature. A sphinx isn't magical because it is a sphinx. A sphinx is magical because it is a 12th-level Cleric.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Just to clarify, are we talking about things like 'the robotplatypus has psychic powers, and can move items with its mind every round (as the telekinesis spell)', or 'the Chapel Gargoyle can cast spells as a level 7 cleric (and has the following spells prepared)'?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Just to clarify, are we talking about things like 'the robotplatypus has psychic powers, and can move items with its mind every round (as the telekinesis spell)', or 'the Chapel Gargoyle can cast spells as a level 7 cleric (and has the following spells prepared)'?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
I think people are annoyed that the game is using spell descriptions as ways of defining things that are unrelated to the spells a PC casts, and so hobbling itself by refusing to go beyond the boundaries of what that sort of action can do. But people might be arguing about how doing so restricts the game by defining everything in terms of spells, rather than in terms of effects, and so reinforces the belief that everything in the universe is either utterly mundane and normal, or must be magical. A thing cannot be powerful unless it is magical, because spells are the only things used to describe that sort of power etc. Or they might be talking about other things, I'm somewhat lost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Goons, I have an idea for charop dickery and was wondering your opinions on the matter. I am designing a Monk. This is largely immaterial but just stick with me. Monks have save proficiencies in DEX and WIS, which are #1 and #2 for number of spells that use the ability score for a save. CON is #3. I was wondering if it'd be worth it to burn an ability score increase to boost an odd-numbered CON to an even number (such as 13 to 14) to get proficiency in CON saves as well. It'd mean foregoing a boost to DEX or WIS, the class's focus ability scores, so you'd mechanically have lower AC and potentially be doing less damage (if you had boosted DEX) in a fight, but you'd also have advantage on saving vs whatever it is that CON saves against. Ultimately with the stat array I've got*, I can't make use of the odd point in anything useful anyway, I just wonder if CON save proficiency is actually worth an ability score increase investment. * Half Elf Monk, so +2 to CHA, +1 to DEX and WIS. with those bonuses it comes out to 10/16/13/10/16/10. I can change the 13 to a 12 and bump a 10 up to 11 but really there's no use to it either way. deadly_pudding posted:This is what I was bitching about a few days ago Every class gets spells? I don't know if I like that. What if we called them something like... "powers" instead? Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:The latter. Ah, yeah. I'll agree that's usually a bad idea, though obviously you'd still want a lich to be able to do wizard poo poo, since that's the whole point of the monster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:It saves a lot of space, if you don't have to explicitly list how much your telekinetic dude can lift, how far away an object can be, whether he can shoot stuff like bullets or just pick it up and move it slowly, et cetera. Ehhhhh... Telekinesis [ex] - You may lift and throw objects with the force of your mind! You can lift objects equal to your Str (or substitute Int, Wis, or Cha for Str) + 10 lbs/lvl, at a range of 30 ft. +10 ft./lvl, and manipulate them as if they were in your hands. You may wield any weapon with telekinesis as you would with your hands, without occupying your normal hand slots, and are considered proficient. Once per round you may perform any combat maneuver with Telekinesis at range, with proficiency, and you do not grant an attack of opportunity. Not substantially more space than "Telekinesis: As the Spell Telekinesis, p. XXX, Player's Handbook".
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Ah, yeah. I'll agree that's usually a bad idea, though obviously you'd still want a lich to be able to do wizard poo poo, since that's the whole point of the monster. For a lich it's okay, since it's actually supposed to be a spellcaster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Ah, yeah. I'll agree that's usually a bad idea, though obviously you'd still want a lich to be able to do wizard poo poo, since that's the whole point of the monster. I don't think anyone at all objects to Liches doing wizard stuff - they are after all wizards. It's more Sphinxes should be able to speak all languages rather than cast Tongues. Spoilers Below posted:Ehhhhh... Not even that. You would have instead: Telekinesis [ex] - You may lift and throw objects with the force of your mind! You can lift a single object at a time up to 65lbs and up to 90' away, and you may manipulate it as if using your own proficiencies. Once per round you may use Telekinesis to at range to perform any combat maneuver. You can, after all, fill the calculations in in the stat block. Yes, it's about two extra lines - but more evocative and much more useful. neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:"If you can't answer the Sphinx's riddle, it will magically lay waste to the city with disease", isn't good enough, because the game need to say "The Sphinx has asked you a riddle. You must answer it to the best of your ability because it cast "Compel answer". If you don't answer correctly, it will cast "Cause disease, modified with metamagic to expand it's range and duration, to encompass the entire town, and will continue to cast this spell 5 times a day until all the citizens are dead". Can we stop with the Spinx? It has half a page of abilities (including lair abilities) that have nothing to do with spells, as well as the Inscrutable quality, the roar ability, and the teleport ability. The riddles, repercussions, and everything else are included, without spell reference. The fact that people have chosen a single instance where it may have been easier to have put "Languages: All" instead of the Tongues spell and ignore everything else is a perfect example of cherry-picking flaws. Sage Genesis posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
The mere existence of Anti-Magic Field is what makes this kind of rules writing infuriating. On one hand I agree that all spells are magic vs all magic is spells, but on the other hand I wonder if certain abilities count as magic for the purposes of the aforementioned dumb loving Anti-Magic Field. The Way of the Shadow Monk's level 6 feature allows them to teleport in dim light/darkness. It is not explicitly mentioned as a spell or magic, however, it is just something they do. Likewise, their level 11 feature lets them become invisible in dim light/darkness. If they were thrown in a dark dungeon with an Anti-Magic Field present, could they still turn invisible and teleport? Probably not, since those two things are actual spells (modified Misty Step and Invisibility), but they are not explicitly stated to be those spells, or any spells at all. It's just a class feature. Edit: And Way of the Shadow Monks do get explicit spells: their level 3 feature allows them to cast Darkness, Darkvision, Pass without Trace, Silence, and Minor Illusion as actual spells (without requiring the components, and substituting ki for spell slots, but still). The main difference in the writing is that darkness, darkvision, et al are italicized and specifically named. Teleporting and turning invisible are just written the same as "you can pick your nose five times per day" or whatever. poo poo, is Lay on Hands a spell that'd be disabled by an Anti-Magic Field? WHO KNOWS. Basically gently caress the existence of Anti-Magic Field because it necessitates stupid nitpicky arguments like this. Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Oh, definitely. Evil wizards, Thulsa Doom, etc. should be casting spells left and right. Even Hecate or Apollo (arguably gods of magic) might be "casting" a spell or two. It's when, say, Zeus must be a high level spell caster to be as powerful as he should be that my hackles get raised... edit: neonchameleon posted:
Even better. I just dashed mine off the top of my head. With a couple years of playtesting, just think how perfect we could get the wording! 
Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Stepping away from the nature of magic talk for a moment and returning to healing and health, I have been thinking about chip damage and the recovery thereof when you are a super buff person. Thus: "At the end of a battle, once all enemies are defeated or have fled, conscious characters regain CON bonus*level hitpoints (minimum 0)." Now, this does nothing for anyone with a CON below 12, but still limits those with huge con to regaining nothing more than the "non-dice bonus" part of their HP. More serious wounds still need the expenditure of hit dice in a short rest, but chip damage on your front line tanks is less of an issue and magical healing can be reserved for "oh poo poo" moments and squishy back-line people who are less frequently hit. Or is that terribly broken?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:Monks have save proficiencies in DEX and WIS, which are #1 and #2 for number of spells that use the ability score for a save. No they don't, they get Str and Dex.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Likewise. To those defending the way D&D does things with respect to spells Wow, your completely made-up example of flying creatures needing to cast the Fly spell to do so really proves your point!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Harrow posted:"Magical realism" doesn't mean "realistically magical." In fact, magical realism is a genre of fiction that is extremely not realistic, perhaps even more so than something like urban fantasy. I agree. The problem with 5th edition is that it doesn't conform to the internal logic of Salmon Rushdie's Midnight's Children. You've cracked the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Ruckby posted:Wow, your completely made-up example of flying creatures needing to cast the Fly spell to do so really proves your point! You do realize that an illustration doesn't need an actual excerpt, I hope?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:No they don't, they get Str and Dex. Oh balls, you're right. Well that sucks. Maybe I should just start with an odd-numbered WIS score then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:Oh balls, you're right. Well that sucks. Maybe I should just start with an odd-numbered WIS score then? Yeah sorry I had to break it to you. I read about Monks getting something nice and I knew something was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:37
|
|