Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Baptor 01-24-05, 11:30 AM	Im going to ask some scary questions. But I assure you they are only hypothetical in nature. So please, answer these honestly and to the best of your ability. 1. If you could change anything about the Rogue class, what would it be? Some suggest higher hit dice and lower attack power (ie sneak attack lowered for like 1d8 hit dice). Does the class make sense in its current form? Is it underpowered? Overpowered? Lacking anything? 2. Would you agree or disagree that only 2 magic classes could fill all nessecary roles for magic in a fantasy setting (such as a wizard and a cleric being the only magic classes) or do you feel its nessecary to have so many others (bard, druid etc) and hybrids (paladins)? 3. In a magic system, do you demand overwhelming diversity or could a simpler (perhaps 100 or so spell) system curb your need for magic, often forcing players to find a more mundane solution to thier problems. Some say there are far too many spells to ever use in DnD. Some disagree. Whats your opinon? 4. Would you say a point system or vesuvian (spell slots) system is a better way of not only playing the game but also a better way of representing a "reality" of magic use? 5. This is a big one. Would you say that enhancements (+1 sword etc) are virtually superfluos to a game? That the same game could be accomplished by having monsters with lower ACs and hit points and no weapon enchancements? It always seemed to me a warrior's skill was his own damn attack bonus, not one granted by magical enchancements. That in DnD you must have magical weapons to defeat the overpowered monsters means in the end the magical weapons are less of a reward and more of an inevitability. Now im not referring to things like flaming, shocking or wounding. Such abilites improve against one creature but not others, different players take different approaches to the special abilities of weapons thus making them diverse and non-superflous. Enhancements are like fake levels added onto a warrior, what fighter wouldnt want them? Others might make the appointment that its like getting a better gun in a game, but I disagree. For one, in games where you get guns, you usually have a static level, so its like leveling up to find a gun. Secondly, all guns have advanatages/disadvantages, like different swords in DnD. Some are heavier but stronger and others are lighter but weaker. Also guns have ammo that runs out, forcing you to use the lesser guns again, magical swords dont run out of juice. So I do not see that analogy. Whats your opinon?
The Shaman 01-24-05, 12:14 PM	:gah: Just kidding. I've been looking for an excuse to use that smiley. 1. I'm fine with the RAW (rogue-as-written). 2. Cleric, shaman, wizard, and sorcerer are enough for me. Paladins as "hybrids" are acceptable. Rangers and bards should be magic-free. 3. In most campaigns magic is supposed to have been around for centuries or even millenia, so I find too few spells to be a problem, not too many. 4. I've disliked the Vancian spell-slot system since the first time I played a wizard - dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. Spell-points or skill-and-feat based systems are vastly superior, as are d20 Modern incantations. 5. No, I think enhancements are fine, but I tend to run games in which magic is rare and without tons of monsters, so magic weapons are a nice to have more than a need to have. My games are pretty atypical compared to what the rules postulate, however.
Escef 01-24-05, 12:23 PM	Im going to ask some scary questions. But I assure you they are only hypothetical in nature. So please, answer these honestly and to the best of your ability. 1. If you could change anything about the Rogue class, what would it be? Some suggest higher hit dice and lower attack power (ie sneak attack lowered for like 1d8 hit dice). Does the class make sense in its current form? Is it underpowered? Overpowered? Lacking anything? I'd say the one thing I'd change would be evasion. It's just too powerful a defensive ability. Against a spell that is supposed to always do damage it allows you to take none. Maybe change it taking 1/4 damage on a save. 2. Would you agree or disagree that only 2 magic classes could fill all nessecary roles for magic in a fantasy setting (such as a wizard and a cleric being the only magic classes) or do you feel its nessecary to have so many others (bard, druid etc) and hybrids (paladins)? I think Wizard and Cleric are all you need. However, there are a lot of things I have that I don't need. I don't need a computer, or a TV, or a PS2, or my cat, etc. But I have them because I feel my life is somehow better with them than it is without. So, while I could game without druids and paladins, I would still miss them. 3. In a magic system, do you demand overwhelming diversity or could a simpler (perhaps 100 or so spell) system curb your need for magic, often forcing players to find a more mundane solution to thier problems. Some say there are far too many spells to ever use in DnD. Some disagree. Whats your opinon? A bit of both. I think combat direct damage spells are rather formulaic, so they could largely be replaced by a couple pages of charts and whatnot. However, given the variety of uses magic has (recon, healing, protection, buffs, mind reading, construction, etc) you do need a respectively large spell list to demonstrate what magic can (and can't) do in the system. 4. Would you say a point system or vesuvian (spell slots) system is a better way of not only playing the game but also a better way of representing a "reality" of magic use? I think you mean "Vancian" magic system. I think once meta magic feats are counted in the current system is flexable enough to meet people's needs. A point based system would either still end up being level based (you need so many points to cast a spell of X level) or end up having spells with arbitrary casting costs (why does spell X cost more to cast than the superior spell Y?). 5. This is a big one. Would you say that enhancements (+1 sword etc) are virtually superfluos to a game? That the same game could be accomplished by having monsters with lower ACs and hit points and no weapon enchancements? It always seemed to me a warrior's skill was his own damn attack bonus, not one granted by magical enchancements. That in DnD you must have magical weapons to defeat the overpowered monsters means in the end the magical weapons are less of a reward and more of an inevitability. Now im not referring to things like flaming, shocking or wounding. Such abilites improve against one creature but not others, different players take different approaches to the special abilities of weapons thus making them diverse and non-superflous. Enhancements are like fake levels added onto a warrior, what fighter wouldnt want them? Others might make the appointment that its like getting a better gun in a game, but I disagree. For one, in games where you get guns, you usually have a static level, so its like leveling up to find a gun. Secondly, all guns have advanatages/disadvantages, like different swords in DnD. Some are heavier but stronger and others are lighter but weaker. Also guns have ammo that runs out, forcing you to use the lesser guns again, magical swords dont run out of juice. So I do not see that analogy. Whats your opinon? I've found that most players don't care for extra enhancement bonuses on their weapons. At higher levels AC does not offer significant protection against a warrior type's first attack. Since at least one attack is going to hit, and in mobile battles they won't get iterative attacks anyway, I've found most players depend on flaming, frost, shock, etc. weapon properties to add more damage to their hits. I think the presence of elemental damage, in addition to 3.5 damage reduction rules, has basically killed the usefulness of a weapon's enhancement bonus altogether.
Mr_Smiley 01-24-05, 12:29 PM	1. Though I have never played a rogue myself, from what I have seen of them they are well-balanced and don't need to be changed. 2. I disagree about there being only 2 magic classes. In a world with so much magic in it, it makes sense that other classes would have adopted magic to aid them. 3. I agree that the spell list might be a bit too big. There are lots spells that basically do the same thing, but slighty diffently depending on the spell. Spells like Hold Person vs Hold Monster for example. I'm a big fan of psionics, so i'm thinking that the augmentation system could be adopted for a spell like this; Hold Person stays at level 3, but can be memorized in a 5th level slot to work the same as Hold Monster, a 7th level slot to work as Hold Person (Mass), or a 9th level slot to function as Hold Monster (Mass). 4. I believe this depends on the class actually. For Wizards, who must study books and memorize spells, the spell slot makes sense. On the other hand, for a Sorcerer a point-based system makes alot more sense because the sorcerer draws from the magical energy within himself/herself, which obviously isn't organized into slots... 5. While it is true that the game could work by lessening magical items and also decreasing monster power, it would detract greatly from the game because it takes away one of the rewards that comes with the game: loot. As a player, I would not want to go through my entire career with the same set of tools to work with, It just wouln't feel as good as getting huge magic item rewards for my work.
Stuntman 01-24-05, 01:11 PM	I wouldn't change anything about the rogue. Evasion is a good ability, but if you knew you were fighting a rogue, you would use spells that do not have reflex saves. Evasion is useless against Ice Storm, for example. There are also a number of Fort and Will save spells you can use against them as well. I don't think that it is necessary to have a large variety of spellcasting classes. However, I like having so much variety. If you limit spellcasting classes, you can also limit the non-spellcasting classes. The Unearthed Arcana has alternate rules for 3 generic classes that can more or less cover off the variety you want, if you are interested in such a system. I like variety, so I like having access to a large number of spells. It is possible to have a simpler list of spells, but I don't know if it is necessarily better. It's not about casting every possible spell there is. It's about selecting which spells you like and that fits your character or situation. The existing system is fine the way it is. I used to prefer a system where you can cast spells freely without needing to prepare. However, I found that it makes the game more interesting if you need to prepare spells ahead of time. Being able to access any spell in a large list seems to powerful to me. It's like a fighter being able to pull out any magical or mundane item he wants at any given time. A fighter has to choose his equipment. He cannot carry or afford to get every possible piece of equipment he needs at any given time. If he did not bring or acquire the right piece of equipment for the situation, he has to make do with what he has. Likewise, if a spellcaster did not prepare the right spell, he has to make do with what he prepared. I think that the magical enhancements do make a difference. As you go up in levels, you hit better, but you still do the same amount of damage. Magical weapons do more damage than normal weapons. Also, the are required to get past DR. If you simply lower the AC of mid to high level monsters, then you would need to nerf spell effects as well to keep things balanced. I still think that magical weapons are as much of a reward as anything. You still have to accomplish some task in order to get them. You aren't simply handed one once you reach a certain level. One of the appealing things about playing D&D is getting the loot.
e-z0r 01-24-05, 01:39 PM	Well, you see.. AC in D&D includes your armor and natural armors as well, so it makes sense that an enchanted weapon offers a bonus to hit. That is, a more keen, magically enhanced weapon cuts through armor (the AC) better. So it makes sense in the end. As for enemies that don't take damage from regular weapons: A fighter can't live on his skill alone -- In the end, how far will muscle and a piece of metal take you? Not far. There will eventually come stuff that even with an STR of 25 you just can't hit through with a sword, or other weapons of normal nature.
Baptor 01-24-05, 01:40 PM	I appreciate all the imput thus far, but some of you are missing the point. These questions are purely hypothetical. 3. In most campaigns magic is supposed to have been around for centuries or even millenia, so I find too few spells to be a problem, not too many.. A bit of both. I think combat direct damage spells are rather formulaic, so they could largely be replaced by a couple pages of charts and whatnot. However, given the variety of uses magic has (recon, healing, protection, buffs, mind reading, construction, etc) you do need a respectively large spell list to demonstrate what magic can (and can't) do in the system. These quotes suggest you arent thinking outside the box of DnD. If you changed the spell system obviously the world at large would reflect that. Look at Robert Jordan's world. Magic has been there for millineum but its still not that diverse with magic jars and maginificent mansions. As for the second one, I actually need to restate the question. I want to limit the use of magic to solve every problem, so by that token, I ask, do you think wizards should have the power to solve every problem with magic or would you like to see them limited so that a ranger is actually cool because he can find shelter in the wilderness. If a mage makes a mansion, guess not. =/ I've found that most players don't care for extra enhancement bonuses on their weapons. At higher levels AC does not offer significant protection against a warrior type's first attack. Since at least one attack is going to hit, and in mobile battles they won't get iterative attacks anyway, I've found most players depend on flaming, frost, shock, etc. weapon properties to add more damage to their hits. I think the presence of elemental damage, in addition to 3.5 damage reduction rules, has basically killed the usefulness of a weapon's enhancement bonus altogether.. Good, thats exactly what Id hope would happen and an excellent answer to my question :D Weapon Enhancements are boring, flames rock. Simply defined. Please keep em coming I want more imput
Baptor 01-24-05, 01:48 PM	Well, you see.. AC in D&D includes your armor and natural armors as well, so it makes sense that an enchanted weapon offers a bonus to hit. That is, a more keen, magically enhanced weapon cuts through armor (the AC) better. So it makes sense in the end. As for enemies that don't take damage from regular weapons: A fighter can't live on his skill alone -- In the end, how far will muscle and a piece of metal take you? Not far. There will eventually come stuff that even with an STR of 25 you just can't hit through with a sword, or other weapons of normal nature. Sigh....this is not what I wanted. You completley missed the issue. 1. In a game without +1 weapons, I would CHANGE the monsters, less AC, less hp, and no Rings of Protection. I see the SYSTEM as pointless. If you dont have +1 weapons, you dont need Rops, and monsters with high hit points. Its all relative man. Muscle and steel took aragorn to the throne of Gondor in LotR. He had no magical powers or a +5 vorpal keen flaming burst greatsword. Granted Arundil was magical, but thats not nessecarily what took him there, he didnt use the sword that much. The last thing is a sad result of ignorance. If the DM says it can, it can. No you cant fight the monsters in DnD books without magic, but im talking about completley revising everything. No AC 45 DR 15/magic and good monsters. Without that, there is no point to weapon enhancements.
Escef 01-24-05, 01:52 PM	These quotes suggest you arent thinking outside the box of DnD. If you changed the spell system obviously the world at large would reflect that. Look at Robert Jordan's world. Magic has been there for millineum but its still not that diverse with magic jars and maginificent mansions. As for the second one, I actually need to restate the question. I want to limit the use of magic to solve every problem, so by that token, I ask, do you think wizards should have the power to solve every problem with magic or would you like to see them limited so that a ranger is actually cool because he can find shelter in the wilderness. If a mage makes a mansion, guess not. =/ By no means. In fact, if you go into real world folklore magic is more of an enviremental effect than anything else. Magic, in various forms through various belief systems, has rarely taken the form of direct attack magic. And in folklore it is very diverse. It can raise the dead, create the undead, change the weather, make you faster, stronger, etc., give you scrying, the ability to tell the future, become invisible, grant wishes, and many other things. To be honest, most of the magic in D&D is based on folklore, except your massive direct damage magics. saying that you don't need a variety is one thing, but for a cohesive system (be it a game or novel's fantasy setting) you need to know how much power and skill it takes to pull certain tricks.
Reinforcements 01-24-05, 03:43 PM	The one thing I would really like to see (in 4th Edition or whatever) would be the removal of the Vancian magic system. It's always seemed very counter-intuitive to me, and spell points, or magic points, or mana just make more sense. Now, classes that prepare spells would still do so - I don't have any problem with the wizard memorizing spells from a spellbook. It's okay that the wizard says, "Today I can cast magic missile," what doesn't make sense is when he says, "Today I can cast magic missile twice and mage armor once." (and likewise for other preparing casters) Of course, Unearthed Arcana (bless that book) provides a spell point system, but I'd like to see the entire magic system built with spell points in mind. And by the way, Aragorn's sword is Anduril.
Habronicus 01-24-05, 04:27 PM	1. If you could change anything about the Rogue class, what would it be? Some suggest higher hit dice and lower attack power (ie sneak attack lowered for like 1d8 hit dice). Does the class make sense in its current form? Is it underpowered? Overpowered? Lacking anything? I think the Rogue is fine, simply because the old class (Thief) was pretty worthless as a solo class. You were basically the party's Tools for the doors they encountered. If I were to nerf something, it would be their ability with magic and magical items, since that should be exclusive to magic-users, IMO. 2. Would you agree or disagree that only 2 magic classes could fill all nessecary roles for magic in a fantasy setting (such as a wizard and a cleric being the only magic classes) or do you feel its nessecary to have so many others (bard, druid etc) and hybrids (paladins)? I agree that there should only be 2 kinds of magic, yes. However, Druid, Bard and Paladin should be Prestige Classes since they're basically a cross between other classes (A Paladin is a Cleric meets Fighter, a Bard is Rogue meets Wizard, a Druid is a Cleric meets Ranger). 3. In a magic system, do you demand overwhelming diversity or could a simpler (perhaps 100 or so spell) system curb your need for magic, often forcing players to find a more mundane solution to thier problems. Some say there are far too many spells to ever use in DnD. Some disagree. Whats your opinon? Magic should have no limits. It's a powerful force and diversity is the least you could expect from it. If there are fewer spells, then they should be more powerful, which would definitely unbalance the game portion of an RPG. 4. Would you say a point system or vesuvian (spell slots) system is a better way of not only playing the game but also a better way of representing a "reality" of magic use? Point-system, definitely. I know I should give strong reasons for it, but the only thing I can think of right now is that it's the only one that makes sense to me. "Slots" in your brain is just too weird for me... always has been. 5. Would you say that enhancements (+1 sword etc) are virtually superfluos to a game? That the same game could be accomplished by having monsters with lower ACs and hit points and no weapon enchancements? It always seemed to me a warrior's skill was his own damn attack bonus, not one granted by magical enchancements. That in DnD you must have magical weapons to defeat the overpowered monsters means in the end the magical weapons are less of a reward and more of an inevitability. Now im not referring to things like flaming, shocking or wounding. Such abilites improve against one creature but not others, different players take different approaches to the special abilities of weapons thus making them diverse and non-superflous. Enhancements are like fake levels added onto a warrior, what fighter wouldnt want them? Others might make the appointment that its like getting a better gun in a game, but I disagree. For one, in games where you get guns, you usually have a static level, so its like leveling up to find a gun. Secondly, all guns have advanatages/disadvantages, like different swords in DnD. Some are heavier but stronger and others are lighter but weaker. Also guns have ammo that runs out, forcing you to use the lesser guns again, magical swords dont run out of juice. So I do not see that analogy. Whats your opinon? I'm not sure where you're trying to get to here but, superfluous? I don't think so. Magic equipment is a bonus that helps the characters do things that they otherwise couldn't. Much like a silver weapon is needed to kill a werewolf, it's logical that a magical weapon is needed to defeat some magical creatures. I probably misunderstood the question... :embarrass
e-z0r 01-24-05, 05:07 PM	Sigh....this is not what I wanted. You completley missed the issue. 1. In a game without +1 weapons, I would CHANGE the monsters, less AC, less hp, and no Rings of Protection. I see the SYSTEM as pointless. If you dont have +1 weapons, you dont need Rops, and monsters with high hit points. Its all relative man. Muscle and steel took aragorn to the throne of Gondor in LotR. He had no magical powers or a +5 vorpal keen flaming burst greatsword. Granted Arundil was magical, but thats not nessecarily what took him there, he didnt use the sword that much. The last thing is a sad result of ignorance. If the DM says it can, it can. No you cant fight the monsters in DnD books without magic, but im talking about completley revising everything. No AC 45 DR 15/magic and good monsters. Without that, there is no point to weapon enhancements. Muscle and steel didn't take Aragorn to the throne of Gondor, you said it yourself. A lot of other things did. Sure, in a couple of fights he killed a lot of orcs and trolls with muscle and steel, but I don't think those were what brought Aragorn to the throne. Nevertheless, Aragorn anyway just basically chopped at orcs, uruk-hai and trolls. An orc is a CR 1 (or is it ½?) monster who doesn't have any DR at all. It is quite probable that uruk-hai don't, either. Trolls don't, but the "trolls only die from fire" issue didn't come from Tolkien. My point is, Aragorn and his friends killed pretty mundane enemies. Then there were the ringwraiths. Guess what: A sword doesn't do a thing against them in the hands of Aragorn. The ringwraiths actually didn't get slain at all - except for the witch king of Angmar, whose death was a fate-woven thing, with Merri and Eowyn finally getting him. So NYAH! And by the way, it's Anduril. It gets kind of boring to hit the same sorts of enemies every time 'round, doesn't it? I mean, the mechanics don't change at all if you use a different monster which is toned down to less AC, no DR etc. If the group is happy with imagining that it's a different monster, then okay - A DM could do that. Now, imagine a world were magic exists as it does in D&D. If you're capable of forging weapons that add +1 to a sword, you likely will, as in war, any edge is looked for. Well, if you're capable of forging a +1 sword, soon you'll figure you need +1 armor as well. Then you go and make some. And so on and so forth. It's the same as if you would step up and say "Hey, why use assault rifles? We could use the same M1 carbines from WWI and phone the terrorists and tell them not to use the kevlar vests. I just don't see why we should be building these assault rifles if the effect is the same as reducing the AC of the enemy!"
GSHamster 01-24-05, 05:39 PM	1. I think the Rogue is fine as written. 2. Why two classes? Why not one, or three? Personally, I think that the magic system could be more modular and flexible. For example, suppose spells were divided up into 30 schools, and a wizard chooses any 8 schools to have access to. This way you can have many types of spellcasters under one class. But then again, the current system is fine, and the wizard/cleric/druid are pretty different from each other. 3. The more spells, the merrier. However, I do think there are a bit too many combat spells, and not enough layers of non-combat spells. 4. The main problem with a spell-point system is that the added flexibility increases a caster's power level. So then you have to reduce the amount of spells a caster can cast in order to keep the power level the same. Check out the Midnight campaign setting for an explicit description of this trade-off. In Midnight, most casters are spell-point, but Wizard is a prestige class where you can memorize spells ahead of time, but can cast more spells. 5. You could do this, and it would probably work. But how would you represent a sword who's only power was that it was sharper, lighter, and just made its wielder better in combat? The easiest way to represent this is pluses to attack.
Baptor 01-24-05, 07:27 PM	1. I think the Rogue is fine as written. 2. Why two classes? Why not one, or three? Personally, I think that the magic system could be more modular and flexible. For example, suppose spells were divided up into 30 schools, and a wizard chooses any 8 schools to have access to. This way you can have many types of spellcasters under one class. But then again, the current system is fine, and the wizard/cleric/druid are pretty different from each other. 3. The more spells, the merrier. However, I do think there are a bit too many combat spells, and not enough layers of non-combat spells. 4. The main problem with a spell-point system is that the added flexibility increases a caster's power level. So then you have to reduce the amount of spells a caster can cast in order to keep the power level the same. Check out the Midnight campaign setting for an explicit description of this trade-off. In Midnight, most casters are spell-point, but Wizard is a prestige class where you can memorize spells ahead of time, but can cast more spells. 5. You could do this, and it would probably work. But how would you represent a sword who's only power was that it was sharper, lighter, and just made its wielder better in combat? The easiest way to represent this is pluses to attack. :clap: You win. I like your post, not that it said what I wanted it do, but I see all of your views. You managed to understand all my questions and answer them intelligently. Not that I agree with all your points, but then again I barely had an opinon going into this. Mostly these were cloud thoughts in my head, hypotheticals I wanted to pose to the community, although sadly most were misunderstood and some thought I was attacking the game. (most of those were from another forum, I posted this on far away sites as well) I didnt know that about midnight, thats very interesting....