The Campaign Builder's Guild

QuoteNow, if you want to say that the wizard/sorcerer divide is arbitrary and redundant because now you have two glass canons with few differences between them: that argument I understand completely...

Quote from: Epic MeepoSecond, I have to admit that now I'm completely confused about what we're referring to as the arcane/divine divide. Is your objection to the fact that there is more than one spellcasting class?

QuoteI really am confused. What works well as an optional rule? If we're not talking about game mechanics, what exactly is the distinction between arcane and divine that a setting might not want? Wizards are just bookish clerics and clerics are just tough wizards.

Quote

QuoteThis goes back again to my desire for a system that is as simple as possible, and therefore, as flexible and customizable as possible. Every unnecessary addition to a system of mechanics makes statements about a campaign world that uses those mechanics; maybe those statements are things I don't want to say.

We should be able to have, for example, tougher casters that aren't tied to gods, and more fragile-yet-potent casters that aren't tied to book learning. Let the players choose the "flavor direction" of their characters based on their preference, not because they were forced into Flavor Column A or Flavor Column B based on the class they selected.

QuoteAny generic spellcasting class that is supposed to represent both clerics and wizards as a unified whole is either going to restrict player options or be so insanely customizable that no two members of the class will be even remotely similar, at which point it may as well be two different classes.

distinct[/i] types of adventurer vocations, a situation which strikes me as almost comically contrived.

For my money, I prefer a system of classes where each class provide the sort of customization flexibility that players can use to create diverse individuals within each class, and that's the sort of system I tried to create when I did my massive magic system revision. (My "channeler" spellcasting PrC, for example. You could make about a hundred different types of channelers, and they'd be totally distinct from one another. I consider that one of the class's greatest strengths.)

If I absolutely have to use a class that's more of a "character template" than a flexible framework, I want that template to be something I've tailor-made to match my setting's workings, especially when we're talking about magic users. A sword swings pretty much the same way no matter where you are, but magic can work so very drastically differently from one setting to the next that it almost requires setting-specific alterations to the magic system, unless you're willing to overlook a lot of glitches that I, personally, am not willing to overlook.

QuoteNow, if you want to say that the wizard/sorcerer divide is arbitrary and redundant because now you have two glass canons with few differences between them: that argument I understand completely...

I don't have a problem with the fact that there are two different classes there. I think the difference between somebody who's magical because of decade of study, and someone who's magical because they just started to develop weird powers, X-Men style, is a pretty significant one. I don't think WotC handled wizards and sorcerors very well at all, but that's not because I don't think there should be two classes there-- I just think there shouldn't be two versions of the same class, which is essentially what we have.


I remember really liking the system for supernatural stuff that Fuzion System used. They basically gave a list of powers that you could purchase individually with your character creation points: super strength, flight, mental powers, energy blasts, all that sort of thing. You get to pick all the "special effects" freely, like whether your energy blasts, if you have them, are fireballs or waves of radioactivity or whatever.

And that was pretty much the whole superpower system. If you wanted to buy a bunch of mental powers and call yourself a psychic or psionic, that's cool, but you could also call yourself a pointy-hat-wearing mind-wizard, or a Neo-like figure in a Matrix-like world, or Charles Xavier, or Miss Cleo. The actual game mechanics made no assumption about the flavor you get from using them, which was part of why I liked it so much.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWell, part of what people want to do in D&D is be superheroes.    So they need high magic.  A way to put the super back into supernatural is to take it away from the players.  But that can be unsatisfying.  Of course, D&D magic is hack-and-slash magic.  As much as they may try, Wizards makes a majority of spells matter most in combat.  Combine this with an unwillingness of players and DMs to allow mages to do things not covered under the rules, and magic simply becomes a form of very powerful sword.

The dead don't talk?  Animals don't talk?  Inanimate objects don't talk?  That's not the fault of the system, that's the fault of all these DMs who get too wrapped-up in trying not to be "corny" or something like that.  Animals talk in the Chronicals of Narnia, and its the best part.  I, personally, think that people shouldn't limit themselves when they create worlds.  If you want talking X, have talking X, and to HELL with what anyone else thinks.

beejaz does have a point that the magic of D&D doesn't fit its core feel of Medievil Europe.  Magic items galore, classes with magical abilities out the wazoo, magical monsters, etc.  Even when worlds like Eberron they only go half-far enough.  Eberron has a few moments where it really picks up the high-magic thing and runs with it: there is an item in City of Towers that lets one scribe non-magical tatoos magically.  No useful game function!  But it sounds cool!  I actually don't expect the people who make D&D stuff to do that anytime soon, so it's up to us to realize the tiny details of a magical world.

My own personal peeve is that magic made mysterious or rare can get boring if it doesn't do anything.  Mages toil away for years seraching out rare components and the esoteric knowledge needed to create a spell to doâ,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦what?  Invariably the "long and difficult" process only holds our interest if at the end is a big explosion or something similarly dangerous or something spectacular.  I prefer my magic to do something like clean the house, which isn't allowed in a "magic is hard" setting.  beejazz moans that magic has become a tool, but in my estimation if you don't want magic to be a tool than don't let anyone get a hold of it, PC or NPC.  "Magic should bring about wonder" I agree with, but my wonder takes into account that I am a person living in this world: if animals talk then there is no reason they can't live among humans and do all sorts of jobs that only they could do.

(Sorry, sometimes you just have to rant.)

QuoteWell, character-point-buy systems are skill-based systems, not class-and-level systems, so you'll never see D&D do that. D&D is the grandfather of all class-and-level systems, so I doubt that any designer will ever make an official D&D product that doesn't use a class-and-level system as its default mechanic; it would be contrary to the roots of D&D, like putting a modern engine in a classic car instead of rebuilding the original, authentic one.

QuoteI consider the roots of a game to be the first 3 or 4 years of its existence, meaning that both Basic and Advanced D&D are the roots of present-day D&D. (And no, I don't count Chainmail.)

QuoteIf you want a skill-based system, use a skill-based system. Don't trash D&D in an effort to reinvent the wheel!

QuoteSo if D&D can't transform into a skill-based system when half of its players and the designers are pushing a move towards a skill-based system, it will never transform into a skill-based system.

QuoteAnd if it did, who would play it anyway? If skill-based roleplaying is your thing, then you should already be playing GURPS or Storyteller or any number of other skill-based systems. Compared to them, some late-comer wannabe skill-based system that isn't even true to its own history is just lame, no matter how famous its name.

Quote@Epic Meepo and Luminous Crayon: What's all this going on? If you want to rant at each other, us PMs.

Quote from: http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?13080Off Topic Rant[/url] thread.

Quote@Epic Meepo: So are you against any changes to D&D magic?  Or am I reading you wrong?

I am not saying that the magic system should remain unchanged. I would merely claim that the magic system as-is reflects some of the character that makes the D&D game what it is. Personally, I would try to rely less on completely new mechanics and more on minor changes that can be made to the existing system.

I agree with previous suggestions that changes to spell lists can do a surprising amount to change the feel of the magic system without greatly altering game mechanics, as can mixing in psionic powers as though they were spells. Creating arcane versions of divine classes and vice versa can change things. So can restricting some spells to casters who meet certain prerequisites (such as ranks in a related skill).

In my mind, when we're talking D&D, all of the above tweaking can produce a surprising amount of variety without needing to tear the rules apart and start again from ground zero. On the other hand, there's also nothing wrong with building your own magic system from scratch, or using existing spells but none of the existing mechanics for casting those spells.

My only caution about redesigning the magic system from scratch would be this: if someone invites me to play a session of D&D, I have certain expectations about the upcoming game. Learning a magic system radically different from anything in an official D&D product isn't one of those expectations.

(Incidentally, that was the point of my off-topic rant. The name "Dungeons and Dragons" has certain expectations attached to it. So long as those expectations exist, calling something that does not come close to those expectations "Dungeons and Dragons" can lead to confusion. Some amount of standardization of terminology is necessary to maintain meaningful discourse.)