|
Ideally, every character should have an array of interesting combat options because that part of the game is heavily structured, and then outside of combat comes down to generic declarations of action that are either declared automatic successes, automatic failures or are decided by the skill system. What's happening is that spells end up working as a "narrative control token" that a player can cash in, and the fact that spells are rules unto themselves means that it's even stronger than the DM saying "hey Bob, what would you like to happen at this junction?" if the player has the exact spell he wants to dictate the result of their action without ever asking the DM. A lot of Fighter homebrew focuses on the "interesting combat options" part of the equation (Tome of Battle), but it's a lot trickier to address the latter aspect - you'd have to do something like a two-tier system where the Wizard has: 1. A bunch of regular-use combat spells like Burning Hands and Acid Arrow. Sort of like cantrips, but not so weak as to be a last-resort damage option only. A Warlock's Eldritch Blast being as powerful as a martial's normal attacks would be a good analogue. 2. "Narrative control". The most generic way of handling this is just that - blow a spell slot, declare a thing just happens. Adding layers to it would be broad guidelines as to what the Wizard can accomplish. The key is to make sure everyone else also has access to #2, with those "broad guidelines" guided by the character's overall theme: This is where the "Fighter that can literally chokeslam a lake" comes into play. FRINGE posted:It wasnt that, but there was a method in 2e wherein it took X time to memorize a single spell, where X was multiplied by the spell level. This spell recharge table was extant as early as AD&D 1e, as I had discovered some time last week! If the Wizard only wants to regenerate their level 1 and 2 spell slots, they only needed to rest for 4 hours, and you didn't need the full 8 hour rest until you were at spell level 6. And then there was this thing for 3.5e: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm Cast a Magic Missile, it comes back in 1d6+1 rounds. Get high enough level and it comes back the very next round. It even has that thing that AlphaDog is describing or Strike's Star Magician is describing: at level 1, you have two level 1 spell slots, one from INT and another just for being a level 1 Wizard. You prepare Magic Missile in slot 1 and Burning Hands in slot 2. You cast Magic Missile in round 1 and it's going to come back by round 4.5 You cast Burning Hands in round 2 and it's going to come back by round 5.5 But the fight isn't going to last that long! So effectively you're only using them once per "encounter". And then they also have a big-rear end exception list where they declare that some spells only recharge after a few hours, or even after 24 hours, almost as though the designers had realized that there were some spells that are too powerful to be cast "at-will" when you're not in combat and time-tracking is very loose!
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
what would happen then if one were to remove all spells that fall under the "Narrative Control" category, what would that do to the game's "balance" then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
I tried to take a quick stab at it, with the guiding principle being you don't want anything that has a good chance of completely derailing a campaign or making GBS threads all over the role of another class: 5th Level Wizard spells: Bigby’s Hand Cloudkill Cone of Cold Conjure Elemental Contact Other Plane Dominate Person Dream Geas Hold Monster Mislead Modify Memory Passwall Planar Binding Rary’s Telepathic Bond Scrying Seeming Telekinesis Teleportation Circle All but 5 spells removed, and a level 20 Wizard is only going to have 3 spell slots, so technically it should work. I'm sure though that some people will disagree with me on my choice of which spells to ban, such as how I let Contact Other Plane pass because the penalties are very harsh, at least on paper, but also that very little of the illusion and divination spells will ever make it through as-is because of how "soft" or vague their powers are. Better safe than sorry if you don't want to make spur-of-the-moment decisions such as "do I let the player have this spell if he pinky-promises not to be too much of a McGuyver?" This doesn't mean though that something like "I want to get through this wall" shouldn't ever be possible, but rather that A. it shouldn't be a power limited to the Wizard, and B. any attempt to create a 5 by 8 foot passageway through a rock wall should be done via the skill system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:what would happen then if one were to remove all spells that fall under the "Narrative Control" category, what would that do to the game's "balance" then? Then you would be dangerously close to re-inventing 4e's Rituals. And we can't have that, now can we?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
Maybe more spell effects should be tied to the competency of the wizard in related skills/attributes? Want to stoneshape a tunnel? Ok, you just melted a bunch of rock and earth into a new shape. Do you actually know anything about geology or underground architecture? Telekinesis? Ok, you can try and manipulate the doohickey remotely but this requires quite a bit of coordination and finesse that you could gently caress up. Knock? Did you carefully manipulate the lock into opening using practical knowledge or did you just loudly shatter every complicated mechanism in the building?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Then you would be dangerously close to re-inventing 4e's Rituals. And we can't have that, now can we? Well I meant them being gone entirely, with there being no way to do them at all(basically leaving them with the exact amount of narrative control that non-Magical Classes have in 5E)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Shadeoses posted:Maybe more spell effects should be tied to the competency of the wizard in related skills/attributes? What about if you can decide, when you learn certain skills, if you do it mundanely or by magic. It's still a skill and you still have to make a skill check if the situation calls for one. There are no "wizard spells" that duplicate those skills, it's just that wizards (and sometimes other people) like to do things by magic. It doesn't really matter if you spent weeks learning how to find handholds and move your own weight up a cliff or if you spent weeks figuring out how to make your hands magically stick to the wall, the end result is that you can (usually) climb walls now. It doesn't matter whether you practiced for weeks in the Thieve's Guild basement with your lockpicks or if you spent that time memorising all 1000 pages of Strathburton's On The Arcayne Mystickal Arte Of Opening Lockes and practicing the finger-waggling exercises, when you need to quietly open a door, you can (probably) move the tumblers into the right position to unlock it. It doesn't matter if you learned to use tools to make a fire even in the worst conditions, or if you know the right words to say to turn your thumb into a zippo, or if your fairy godmother cast a spell on you, or if you wrestled a fire spirit into submission and he bestowed part of his power on you as a reward, you can now light fires quickly and easily. e: If it helps, think of these things as "non-combat cantrips". Just like a fighter trying to hit something with his sword or a wizard casting Ray of Frost, you can do these things all day but you have a chance of them not working. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:What about if you can decide, when you learn certain skills, if you do it mundanely or by magic. It's still a skill and you still have to make a skill check if the situation calls for one. There are no "wizard spells" that duplicate those skills, it's just that wizards (and sometimes other people) like to do things by magic. That's actually a pretty good idea, would require a pretty hefty expansion and overhaul of the Skill system though...
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Shadeoses posted:Maybe more spell effects should be tied to the competency of the wizard in related skills/attributes? Topical: "The game functions slightly better without absolutes. Arcane lock and knock, as presented in this chapter, work alongside the standard Open Lock skill rules (see knock, page 66). Thus, a spellcaster with knock might not be able to open every door. This allows DMs to include really difficult to open doors as important aspects to their adventures, without knock being the key that always works. Further, in this way, the spellcaster might not always outshine the lockpicking rogue." === An arcane lock spell cast upon a door, chest, or portal adds a magical lock to it with an Open Lock DC equal to 10 + caster level. You can freely pass your own arcane lock without affecting it. Add 10 to the normal Difficulty Class to break open a door or portal affected by this spell. (A knock spell does not remove an arcane lock; it only suppresses the effect for ten minutes.) If arcane lock is cast on a door that already has a conventional lock, add +5 to the Open Lock DC of the existing lock or use the arcane lock Difficulty Class, whichever is higher. === The knock spell opens stuck, barred, locked, held, or arcane locked doors if you succeed at a caster level check to overcome the Open Lock DC of the lock or the Strength check DC of a stuck door. The spell opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains (provided they serve to hold closures shut). If used to open an arcane locked door, the spell does not remove the arcane lock but simply suspends its functioning for ten minutes. In all other cases, the door does not relock itself or become stuck again on its own. Knock does not raise barred gates or similar impediments (such as a portcullis), nor does it affect ropes, vines, and the like. === That's from Monte Cook, in The Book of Experimental Might The way I pictured this going down without recreating the Ritual system for 4e would be that assuming the caster has all the in-combat spells they need, a "spell slot" effectively allows them to, in the vocabulary of 5e, automatically gain proficiency and use their spellcasting attribute for any given skill check. There's going to be an element of "ask your DM" about it, but no more than you would encounter with any other character and any other class asking if they muscle/sing/pray their way through an obstacle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:That's actually a pretty good idea, would require a pretty hefty expansion and overhaul of the Skill system though... Sure. You'd want to give everyone more skills while narrowing the focus of all skills. It should easily fit in the spare space you get when you delete all the noncombat spells.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:That's actually a pretty good idea, would require a pretty hefty expansion and overhaul of the Skill system though... Meanwhile, by which I mean two years ago, in Fate Core: http://evilhat.wikidot.com/aspect-based-naration
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Meanwhile, by which I mean two years ago, in Fate Core: http://evilhat.wikidot.com/aspect-based-naration That's more or less what I'm using for magic in my Glorantha game atm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:"Hey, wizard! Watch me cast Contingency!" <Gestures to Lieutenant Hardass> "If they betray us, burn the whole loving village" <Flexes, rides off on white charger>. This is absolutely great, btw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Meanwhile, by which I mean two years ago, in Fate Core: http://evilhat.wikidot.com/aspect-based-naration You know, this sort of turns itself around and turns everyone back into Fighters rather than Fighters needing to be "magical" +1 attack bonus every level and 1d6 damage per hit, except Wizard adds his INT instead of STR and the AC comes from ... mirror images or some poo poo rather than plate armor
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:You know, this sort of turns itself around and turns everyone back into Fighters rather than Fighters needing to be "magical" Honestly, that's not a bad thing if the goal is to simplify the game to balance out the options available to classes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Honestly, that's not a bad thing if the goal is to simplify the game to balance out the options available to classes. That's going a bit too far, kinda makes having a class system pointless
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Perhaps not literally as simple as I described it, although it has been done before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
One if the problems with d&d wizards is that all they do is magic. Being able to do anything some of the time is fine, as is being able to do some things all of the time. Since wizards can only magic though, they either get to do all the things all the time or spend a big chunk of time doing nothing. True vancian spellcasting would be having a decent rogue or fighter who also gets to warp reality a few times per adventure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Splicer posted:One if the problems with d&d wizards is that all they do is magic. Being able to do anything some of the time is fine, as is being able to do some things all of the time. Since wizards can only magic though, they either get to do all the things all the time or spend a big chunk of time doing nothing. True vancian spellcasting would be having a decent rogue or fighter who also gets to warp reality a few times per adventure. Personally that's why I like the 4E approach best, Spellcasters get some useful abilities they have constant access to that nonetheless aren't superior to the physical abilities of a non-magical class, and while they do get stronger abilities they are both more limited in use and generally have a lower power potential than in most other editions(meanwhile non-magic classes get boosted to where their max power potential is overall fairly close to that of Spellcasters)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
Contact other plane is broken as gently caress. You can take 10 on the check, so there's no reason the wizard would ever roll dice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Splicer posted:True vancian spellcasting would be having a decent rogue or fighter who also gets to warp reality a few times per adventure. Honestly it's pretty much just 4E with a different skill system and Daily powers replaced/merged with rituals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Contact other plane is broken as gently caress. You can't take 10 when threatened without a class feature that says you can, and the very act of casting Contact Other Plane threatens your character by placing you in contact with mind-blasting intelligences. Natural language sucks because it's not obvious in the slightest that this is how things should work out, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
TheBlandName posted:You can't take 10 when threatened without a class feature that says you can, and the very act of casting Contact Other Plane threatens your character by placing you in contact with mind-blasting intelligences. Natural language sucks because it's not obvious in the slightest that this is how things should work out, though. That's a ludicrous argument, since that would imply it's impossible to take 10 on detecting or disarming traps, or jumping over a pit, or literally any other check that would have a bad consequence for failing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Contact other plane is broken as gently caress. You can't take a 10 on a saving throw?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
On that note, I've only done cursory reading so sorry if this is outlined somewhere but for perception can you actually do worse by actively looking for something? Like if I have a passive perception of 12 (10 base + 2 attribute bonus) and I announce I am going from "being aware of stuff" to "looking for things" and I end up rolling a 4 (+2) -> 6, did I actually just get worse at seeing because I'm a lovely roller or do I just keep my passive score since it's higher or how does it work?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:That's a ludicrous argument, since that would imply it's impossible to take 10 on detecting or disarming traps, or jumping over a pit, or literally any other check that would have a bad consequence for failing. I thought you couldn't?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I thought you couldn't? Yea, I don't see anything in the phb on taking 10 for anything. Just a variant rule in the DMG for auto-success on some checks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
JonBolds posted:You can't take a 10 on a saving throw? mastershakeman posted:I thought you couldn't? Edit: I am an idiot, and this is the wrong thread. IT BEGINS fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:That's a ludicrous argument, since that would imply it's impossible to take 10 on detecting or disarming traps, or jumping over a pit, or literally any other check that would have a bad consequence for failing. Welcome to my experiences as a rogue with every DM I've ever played with, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Following the discussion, that's basically what my idea boils down to. Your class gives you a combat role and fighting style, they include staples like swordsman, martial artist and archer as well as magic missile slinger, psychic knife juggler and combat satirist, and they're balanced against each other. Skills give you extra stuff to do and work like FATE, your roll determines how well you do and you describe what you do based on your character idea. And then everyone gets access to the same pool of "narrative impact" spells that may be useful in or out of combat, but you only get one or two per adventure so you better make it count.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Splicer posted:This is similar to how my totally going to be finished any day now RPG homebrew works. You have a race, a class, and a theme/background/addon/whatever. Some of the themes you can take are narrative token themes, like Vancian Caster or A Bag of Tricks, that you can call on a few times per adventure to do ridiculous bullshit. Your base class has considerably more street level capabilities, and there are themes that are more mechanically structured if you just want to hit things good. My homebrew which shall also be finished at some point definitely goes along a similar track too. Nine skills, three which are Trained, three which are Amateur, and three that remain Untrained to handle most utility stuff, then 5 combat stats using pointbuy. Add a combat role--damage, support, tank--and then pick some combat and utility powers. Every time you level up, stats and skills go up, plus you get a new combat or utility power, plus one extra power, that can be either. So at level 2 you get a utility power, plus either a combat or utility power, your choice. Level 3 is combat and extra, and so on. Works "okay", but needs more content/powers, plus a weird system for "Money, Influence, and Power" to handle rather greedy motivations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Stanley Goodspeed posted:On that note, I've only done cursory reading so sorry if this is outlined somewhere but for perception can you actually do worse by actively looking for something? Like if I have a passive perception of 12 (10 base + 2 attribute bonus) and I announce I am going from "being aware of stuff" to "looking for things" and I end up rolling a 4 (+2) -> 6, did I actually just get worse at seeing because I'm a lovely roller or do I just keep my passive score since it's higher or how does it work? You get "worse" at seeing because you rolled badly, yes. Well, maybe? If you have to roll, then it's something that your passive Perception can't beat, and there aren't any degrees of failure last I checked, so you're not really doing worse by rolling, you're just (still) not succeeding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Okay thanks I guess I didn't realize you couldn't just use passive perception as a permanent "take 10" sort of thing and that some tests require an active check.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Stanley Goodspeed posted:On that note, I've only done cursory reading so sorry if this is outlined somewhere but for perception can you actually do worse by actively looking for something? Like if I have a passive perception of 12 (10 base + 2 attribute bonus) and I announce I am going from "being aware of stuff" to "looking for things" and I end up rolling a 4 (+2) -> 6, did I actually just get worse at seeing because I'm a lovely roller or do I just keep my passive score since it's higher or how does it work? quote:Dungeon adventures can be grindingly slow if the PCs make Search checks to scour every last inch of the place. You can keep things moving along by assuming that, as experienced adventurers, the party searches as it travels unless circumstances dictate otherwise. The searching specialist (usually the rogue) simply takes 10 as the PCs explore the dungeon, which is enough to reveal basic traps, hiding places, and obstacles. But never abuse this arrangement by jacking up the Search DCs of traps and hidden items. If the players start to suspect they are missing things, their characters will just revert to frequent Search checks. Keep high-DC checks for locations where the PCs would expect important things to be well hidden—and well defended. - D&D 3rd Edition: Dungeonscape It's really up to your DM's style as to how it works out, but the general principle is that Passive Perception is for stuff that you'd always be declaring that you're searching for anyway, while rolled Perception is for A. against someone that is actively hiding from you while you're actively searching for them, i.e. an opposed roll against a living subject B. an inanimate object/feature that is hidden, but one where the outcome is something that'll play out in such a way that a failed roll is not "you don't find it, nothing happens, move on"
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:What about if you can decide, when you learn certain skills, if you do it mundanely or by magic. It's still a skill and you still have to make a skill check if the situation calls for one. There are no "wizard spells" that duplicate those skills, it's just that wizards (and sometimes other people) like to do things by magic. AlphaDog posted:Sure. You'd want to give everyone more skills while narrowing the focus of all skills. It should easily fit in the spare space you get when you delete all the noncombat spells. For anyone who doesn't already know, this is pretty much what I did with The Next Project. Everyone has combat stuff and everyone has some skills, and those skills are used to do all the noncombat stuff. You don't have "I-win button" spells to circumvent the mechanics of the game or other such bullshit. There's even a playtest going on right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
The problem I have with passive perception to find stuff like traps & secret doors, is that if they can be spotted by passive then they are basically not hidden, if they can't be spotted by passive then the players feel they have to revert to active searching and pixel hunting so they don't miss anything. It's sort of a catch 22. Passive perception works fine as an opposed roll vs someone sneaking but as an always on binary thing it is basically redundant. I much prefer the "I search the [large area] <roll> I got a 22" Ok you find x and y (but miss c). Move on. Approach.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
The thing is, rolling Perception vs. DC X has the same statistical outcome as rolling 1d20+ [DC X - 10] vs. Passive Perception. Instead of having players roll when they enter or search a room, you can make "how well if this trap actually hidden" rolls in advance and streamline the whole process of exploring. It also avoids a few metagaming issues ("the DM is asking for Perception rolls, so there must be something hidden here"; "Bob didn't find anything with an 8, but my perception mod alone is +9, can I try again?"). (sure, you could just roll Perception in advance for everyone, but I think it's slower. Make 5 perception rolls and compare each to each DC vs. make one roll per DC and compare them to the highest passive perception.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
This might go better in the actual 5E thread, but I'm going to ask it here: How many spells does the condition of the Shield Master feat (you get to add your shield's AC to any Dexterity saving throw that only targets you) are there? It seems like there's Hellish Rebuke and that's it. Everything else seems to be AOE, which would affect more then one person. I haven't checked the new spells in Elemental Evil, to be fair. Edit: Found a list elsewhere. Acid Splash Chain Lightning Cordon of Arrows Disintegrate Grasping Vine Guardian of Faith Hellish Rebuke Light Otiluke's Resilient Sphere Sacred Flame Storm of Vengeance Power Player fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Aug 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Power Player posted:This might go better in the actual 5E thread, but I'm going to ask it here: How many spells does the condition of the Shield Master feat (you get to add your shield's AC to any Dexterity saving throw that only targets you) are there? It seems like there's Hellish Rebuke and that's it. Everything else seems to be AOE, which would affect more then one person. I haven't checked the new spells in Elemental Evil, to be fair. Sacred Flame, Disintegrate, Grasping Vines, possibly Light, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere. I may have missed one but it's certainly not a long list. But it's not just for spells. It also works on four out of ten Beholder eye rays for instance. E: I see you edited in a list. Some of those are somewhat situational. Acid Splash can also target two creatures so that would bypass the feat. Storm of Vengeance is also up to debate whether or not you save against one bolt which targets only you, or whether you save against the storm itself which targets up to six creatures at once. "Up to the DM" I suppose. Sage Genesis fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Aug 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
Create bonfire, the initial attack of immolation, and all the wall spells have a dex save on entering them (blade barrier, wall of fire/ice/thorns, and whirlwind)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 14:58
|
|
