Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Here's the place to talk about the features you would like to see in a sequel to KotC.

Re: Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Postby Narsham » Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:48 pm

SkeleTony wrote:Now say some sci-fi RPG were to come out in 1972 and, instead of D&D it was a sci-fi game(like Traveller). In that game, being the first RPG ever attempted, the author is a bit perplexed on how to present psionics but he remembers a comic book he once read and enjoyed where psionics were performed by walking like a duck and 'quacking' at different volumes to achieve different feats(telekinesis, telepathy etc.).

So he presents THAT as the psionics system in his sci-fi RPG. Now soon after another couple of guys create a new sci-fi game and they immediately put forth a psionics system that is like that of sci-fi books and movies and does not involve walking like a duck and quacking.

But they are too late. the first RPG, being the first one out of the gate, benefits by the 'McDonald's Factor'(i.e. McDonalds may or may not have the best food of all fast food restaurants but since they were the first, they are ingrained in the public consciousness) and thousands of kids who were introduced to sci-fi through that game think it is perfectly sensible that 95% of all RPGs(computer and otherwise) employ the 'duck-quacking psionics'.

In 2009 a guy named Blue Salamander releases a new sci-fi CRPG wherein psionic agents all walk in circles and quack like ducks to achieve psionic feats.


Do you see the problem I have now?


One would first have to accept that the "spell-slot" system represents something which makes precisely as much sense as "duck-psionics" does.

Slot/spell expending as a gaming option seems entirely viable. The RQ system has had at least three different magic systems operating simultaneously: the MP-based spirit magic system, the MP+skill-based sorcery system, and the divine magic system, which is all about sacrificing POW for points of Rune magic which is cast and forgotten (but can be recovered by some casters).

Rune spells in RQ are "Fire & Forget," but that mechanic works wonderfully (IMO) and hardly encourages the "forget" portion given how precious that divine magic can be for initiates.

The rules mechanics simply model--or abstract--things within a given game-world. Game considerations and RL considerations will often clash (as with the DM who decides that someone holding his hand in a candle-flame should suffer 1 hp damage). Since D&D (and other systems) are first and foremost a game, not RL simulators, the game considerations typically win.

Which doesn't prove that a slot-based spell system (which is what Blue Salamander is using--there's no Vancian "forget that spell" phenomenon in KotC) is or is not preferable to any other. But it can indeed model a particular sort of magical limitation.

If you want to make "sense" out of the slot-based system, I suppose you could look for KotC 2 to permit use of higher-level spell slots for lower-level spells and say that the slot-based system simply models the amount of spell-energy each caster can put forward between rests. Saying a wizard can only cast X spells and that the strain only permits Y spells of a given level seems entirely consistent with alternate models of magic in various media. Many book series offer no coherent theory of magic or explanation of its limitations. If Blue Salamander is modeling a world where this abstraction best represents the limitations on users of magic, where's the problem?
Narsham
Hezrou (CR 11)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Advert
 

Re: Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Postby SkeleTony » Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:08 pm

Narsham wrote:
SkeleTony wrote:Now say some sci-fi RPG were to come out in 1972 and, instead of D&D it was a sci-fi game(like Traveller). In that game, being the first RPG ever attempted, the author is a bit perplexed on how to present psionics but he remembers a comic book he once read and enjoyed where psionics were performed by walking like a duck and 'quacking' at different volumes to achieve different feats(telekinesis, telepathy etc.).

So he presents THAT as the psionics system in his sci-fi RPG. Now soon after another couple of guys create a new sci-fi game and they immediately put forth a psionics system that is like that of sci-fi books and movies and does not involve walking like a duck and quacking.

But they are too late. the first RPG, being the first one out of the gate, benefits by the 'McDonald's Factor'(i.e. McDonalds may or may not have the best food of all fast food restaurants but since they were the first, they are ingrained in the public consciousness) and thousands of kids who were introduced to sci-fi through that game think it is perfectly sensible that 95% of all RPGs(computer and otherwise) employ the 'duck-quacking psionics'.

In 2009 a guy named Blue Salamander releases a new sci-fi CRPG wherein psionic agents all walk in circles and quack like ducks to achieve psionic feats.


Do you see the problem I have now?


One would first have to accept that the "spell-slot" system represents something which makes precisely as much sense as "duck-psionics" does.


"Precisely" is an unnecessary( and loaded) qualifier here. I think the two ARE equally nonsensical in terms of accurately representing their genres but all that is required for the analogy to be valid is that the Vancian system not make sense and not accurately represent the genre.

Slot/spell expending as a gaming option seems entirely viable.



How so? Not only does not even remotely resemble magic use from heroic fantasy but it is also unnecessarily complicated, difficult to balance around, etc.


The RQ system has had at least three different magic systems operating simultaneously: the MP-based spirit magic system, the MP+skill-based sorcery system, and the divine magic system, which is all about sacrificing POW for points of Rune magic which is cast and forgotten (but can be recovered by some casters).


D&D has clerical "realms" and/or "domains" and mages use a different thing(akin to "schools"). D&D uses AC based system to determine if you are hit by a thrown axe or something and the ludicrous "save throws" to (partially) avoid fireball/breath damage.

RQ's system makes sense and is easy to use. Simply identifying that it employs slightly varying means for achieving magical effects in order to portray it as cumbersome is just plain dishonest(at least as dishonest as my above comparison of D&D's different systems). It makes no sense for clerics to be casting "spells" in the same way as wizards(though I would grant that convenience if all else about the system were well done). If we pretended for a moment that 'faith healers' like Benny Hinn for actually achieving the feats they claim and portray then they would not be casting spells like a wizard. They would be using deity-granted powers that ALWAYS require a sacrifice similar to the RQ POW sacrifice.

And the same goes for RQ's spirit magic(shamanic/Voodoo type magic mostly used by less civilized folk) and Sorcery. Like it or not THAT is how these magic systems are depicted in the genre itself(the creator of RQ had like a Master's degree in folklore and mythology).

Rune spells in RQ are "Fire & Forget," but that mechanic works wonderfully (IMO) and hardly encourages the "forget" portion given how precious that divine magic can be for initiates.


False. No priest or initiate has to memorize spells IN RQ and then forget them as they are cast. That is just nonsense. They are granted limited usages of divine powers for an appropriate sacrifice.I would have NO objection at all to D&D going with something like that for it's clerics(but you and I both know full well the hordes of D&D's 'Don't change anything for any reason!' fans WOULD object wildly!).

The rules mechanics simply model--or abstract--things within a given game-world. Game considerations and RL considerations will often clash (as with the DM who decides that someone holding his hand in a candle-flame should suffer 1 hp damage).



?! How does your candle flame analogy support the position you are employing it for? If there is a problem here it is D&D's equally nonsensical "Hitpoints gained with experience" system but that is another matter...


Since D&D (and other systems) are first and foremost a game, not RL simulators, the game considerations typically win.


Agreed but you are attacking a straw man here. No one is arguing that ANY game should mimic real life. I am arguing that a generic fantasy RPG should emulate the genre of heroic fantasy, in the same way that a RPG that is supposed to be about Hong Kock action flicks should emulate those horribly unrealistic conventions as depicted in the films(not real life). That would include dodging bullets, dropping from a chandelier onto a skateboard adn taking out 20 armed gunmen before kicking the board into a stack of canisters of flammable liquids then pulling the cigar out of the mouth of a thug and tossing it onto the floor before diving out the window.

Realistic? No. Evocative of the genre? yes.

Which doesn't prove that a slot-based spell system (which is what Blue Salamander is using--there's no Vancian "forget that spell" phenomenon in KotC) is or is not preferable to any other. But it can indeed model a particular sort of magical limitation.


It's the same system whether he goes into detail re-explaining how it works in D&D or not. Calling it "slot based" does not help your case here as it is still equally nonsensical. If a mage can cast 4 first level spells and two second level spells, why can't he just cast one 3rd level spell for the same(or nearly) expenditure of energy? Same goes for the mage who has already cast all of his 1st level spells but still has a single 5th level spell. Why is he now able to cast that fireball or whatever it is but not able to cast more magic missiles?!

If you want to make "sense" out of the slot-based system, I suppose you could look for KotC 2 to permit use of higher-level spell slots for lower-level spells and say that the slot-based system simply models the amount of spell-energy each caster can put forward between rests.



That would be an improvement. Not optimal but an acceptable compromise at least. But if one is going to do that I can only wonder why not just go with a spell point based system to begin with?! It achieves the same effect(and much more) with a lot less trouble!


Saying a wizard can only cast X spells and that the strain only permits Y spells of a given level seems entirely consistent with alternate models of magic in various media.



?! How so? What "various media" are you talking about?


Many book series offer no coherent theory of magic or explanation of its limitations. If Blue Salamander is modeling a world where this abstraction best represents the limitations on users of magic, where's the problem?


I do not see the relevance of whether there are books which do not explain the limitations of magic?! As lomng as NONE of them are using anything remotely similar to the "fire and forget" system then THAT is the problem!
User avatar
SkeleTony
Vrock (CR 9)
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:17 am

Re: Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Postby Narsham » Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:06 am

SkeleTony wrote:"Precisely" is an unnecessary( and loaded) qualifier here. I think the two ARE equally nonsensical in terms of accurately representing their genres but all that is required for the analogy to be valid is that the Vancian system not make sense and not accurately represent the genre.


Are you arguing that the fantasy genre has anything even vaguely approaching a coherent magic system with unified rules? Most books of fantasy do not explicitly detail ANY limitations on their spellcasters. Gandalf rarely uses magic but there's no indication that he couldn't use it all day if he wanted to. Eddings' characters are limited by their willpower. Cook and Erikson's magic systems are nearly impossible to quantify. I'd respond to you that NO magic system will properly "represent the genre."

SkeleTony wrote:
The RQ system has had at least three different magic systems operating simultaneously: the MP-based spirit magic system, the MP+skill-based sorcery system, and the divine magic system, which is all about sacrificing POW for points of Rune magic which is cast and forgotten (but can be recovered by some casters).


D&D has clerical "realms" and/or "domains" and mages use a different thing(akin to "schools"). D&D uses AC based system to determine if you are hit by a thrown axe or something and the ludicrous "save throws" to (partially) avoid fireball/breath damage.

RQ's system makes sense and is easy to use. Simply identifying that it employs slightly varying means for achieving magical effects in order to portray it as cumbersome is just plain dishonest(at least as dishonest as my above comparison of D&D's different systems). It makes no sense for clerics to be casting "spells" in the same way as wizards(though I would grant that convenience if all else about the system were well done). If we pretended for a moment that 'faith healers' like Benny Hinn for actually achieving the feats they claim and portray then they would not be casting spells like a wizard. They would be using deity-granted powers that ALWAYS require a sacrifice similar to the RQ POW sacrifice.


I was prepared to have a debate on this topic, but perhaps you're not interested in actually reading a response from someone who disagrees with you? Where precisely do I "dishonestly" indicate that RQ has a cumbersome system? I think the RQ system works quite well, thank you, and I ran a 3rd edition RQ campaign for years. My point is that the RQ system is partly slot-based. In other words, a system you put forward as superior to the slot-based system actually INCLUDES the slot-based mechanic as part of its operation.

Claiming that "clerics" and "wizards" should cast spells differently relies upon some objective definition of "cleric" and "wizard" which is not intrinsic to the idea of magic. I could simply state that in MY campaign, wizards receive their spells from the Magic god and are thus simply a special case of cleric, or that no deities ACTUALLY grant any magic at all and all magic is wizardry. A distinction can be intrinsic or it can be artificially imposed.

You are trying to make an argument grounded in "genre," without really articulating what you see as the fantasy genre. Myth? Joseph Campbell? Tolkien? Is Susanna Clarke fantasy? Saberhagen's Sword series? Any of Zelazny's stuff? Are you including or excluding medieval and Renaissance models of magic (which were also many and varied, fiction or "real")? On what grounds can you reject the many books in the genre which were written AFTER Vance's stuff (and D&D) and which uses similar systems? Do Warhammer novels not count as fantasy? Harry Potter?

For that matter, how precisely can you prove that Gandalf "ran out of spell points" at some point? Or Granny Weatherwax? When did Merlin blow his last point? Belgarath? The Lady? Dumbledore?

Seems like what you really want is for KotC 2 to be a different game system--not D&D. So I strongly suspect this whole thread is moot, anyway. Why play KotC if you hate the D&D system? It is, after all, a D20-based game. Argue that KotC 2 shouldn't be D20 based if you like, but that's Blue Salamander's call.

As far as I can see, Blue Salamander set out to create a game based on the D20 system. Not on the "fantasy genre." Even if you are correct that the D20 system does not "accurately reflect" the conventions of the genre, so what? Blue Salamander didn't set out to duplicate the genre, but the game. (There's no Stafford-level RP background in KotC 1...)

How will the changes you propose (and BTW, you haven't said "use this system," you have only attacked the current one) make KotC 2 a better game? Perhaps more to the point, what exactly are your positive suggestions?
Narsham
Hezrou (CR 11)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Postby BlueSalamander » Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:51 pm

Does it matter that the system is "realistic"? In my opinion, no. It only matters that the game is entertaining to the player. I quite like the slot-based system, and most players are familiar with it; good enough for me.

I think D&D 3.5 allows to cast any spell of a given level using a slot of a higher level (TOEE allows that), so the incoherence of not being able to cast any more magic missiles despite having available fireball slots does not exist with the original rules. You can then see the process of losing slots as the wizard getting increasingly exhausted with the use of magic.

In KotC 2, Psionicists will use power points.
'Say there is a chunk of meat. Pirates will have a banquet and eat it! But heroes will share it with other people. I want all the meat!!' - Luffy in One Piece
User avatar
BlueSalamander
Master Conjuror
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Postby Archangel » Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:56 pm

In PnP I always found needing to use Highten spell feat a needles tax on spellcaster. Personally I would allow spells to have that as their feature. If a player is going to using a higher lvl spell slot to cast a weaker spell at least he can get higher DC out of it.

In Arcana Evolved you can exchange one spell slot for 2 one lvl lower level slots. You can also exchange 3 slots for 1 one lvl higher level slot.
Archangel
Marilith (CR 17)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:38 pm

Re: Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Postby SkeleTony » Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:52 am

Narsham wrote:
SkeleTony wrote:"Precisely" is an unnecessary( and loaded) qualifier here. I think the two ARE equally nonsensical in terms of accurately representing their genres but all that is required for the analogy to be valid is that the Vancian system not make sense and not accurately represent the genre.


Are you arguing that the fantasy genre has anything even vaguely approaching a coherent magic system with unified rules?



You seem to be aiming for a straw man here. Let's try and stay on point. MIne being that the fantasy genre as a whiole, as far as magic is concerned, almost universally resembles a spell-point and/or 'fatigue' system and NOT AT ALL the Vancian nonsense.



Most books of fantasy do not explicitly detail ANY limitations on their spellcasters.



True but an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. RPG rules are abstractions. Ideally they are supposed to, as closely as possible resemble how things work within the genre they are supposed to represent. So while no Conan book states "Conan operates by the GURPS system where he has a ST score of 19...", we judge the GURPS system(or the HERO or the D20 or the D6 or the RQ system...) by how well or poorly it is able to resemble such quantification within the game. In this light some games are exceptional and some are poor and most fall somewhere in between.


Gandalf rarely uses magic but there's no indication that he couldn't use it all day if he wanted to.



I would contest that but this is another irrelevant conclusion anyway. Gandfalf is not even a human wizard. According to Tolkien he is one of the "Istari" and his "magic" is not a learned craft but rather a hereditary power(like breathing or memorization or some such for us). If Wizards in D&D were like Gandalf no one would play any other class(race actually) because the wizards would be all powerful.


Eddings' characters are limited by their willpower. Cook and Erikson's magic systems are nearly impossible to quantify. I'd respond to you that NO magic system will properly "represent the genre."


Wrong. As I have continually said, sure there are 'alternatives' within the genre adn sure there should ideally be alternatives that GMs are free to use for unique game settings. But that does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority DO have certain commonalities including the limitation that they cannot just cast spells indefinitely without becoming drained or fatigued. I don't know how many countless times I have read a book or watched a movie where a wizard must summon up his last remaining vestiges of power to cast one final spell to defeat a dragon or evil overlord or some such and NEVER do tehy just "forget" the spell the need because they cast it earlier or memorized the wrong spell or some such.

Just admit it guy, the Vancian system is ridiculous. You are in an impossible position here.

SkeleTony wrote:
The RQ system has had at least three different magic systems operating simultaneously: the MP-based spirit magic system, the MP+skill-based sorcery system, and the divine magic system, which is all about sacrificing POW for points of Rune magic which is cast and forgotten (but can be recovered by some casters).


D&D has clerical "realms" and/or "domains" and mages use a different thing(akin to "schools"). D&D uses AC based system to determine if you are hit by a thrown axe or something and the ludicrous "save throws" to (partially) avoid fireball/breath damage.

RQ's system makes sense and is easy to use. Simply identifying that it employs slightly varying means for achieving magical effects in order to portray it as cumbersome is just plain dishonest(at least as dishonest as my above comparison of D&D's different systems). It makes no sense for clerics to be casting "spells" in the same way as wizards(though I would grant that convenience if all else about the system were well done). If we pretended for a moment that 'faith healers' like Benny Hinn for actually achieving the feats they claim and portray then they would not be casting spells like a wizard. They would be using deity-granted powers that ALWAYS require a sacrifice similar to the RQ POW sacrifice.


I was prepared to have a debate on this topic, but perhaps you're not interested in actually reading a response from someone who disagrees with you? Where precisely do I "dishonestly" indicate that RQ has a cumbersome system?



I quote:

"The RQ system has had at least three different magic systems operating simultaneously: the MP-based spirit magic system, the MP+skill-based sorcery system, and the divine magic system, which is all about sacrificing POW for points of Rune magic which is cast and forgotten (but can be recovered by some casters)"

Now go back and read the point that this was offered in response to. If you were NOT implying that RQ was cumbersome or too complex or some such then your statement makes no sense at all.



I think the RQ system works quite well, thank you, and I ran a 3rd edition RQ campaign for years. My point is that the RQ system is partly slot-based.



False. As I already refuted before. It is not "slot based" by any stretch.


In other words, a system you put forward as superior to the slot-based system actually INCLUDES the slot-based mechanic as part of its operation.


False. Divine magic in RQ resembles mythological divine magic of folklore and legends on earth in that priests get their spells, not from books or by having to memorize them the night before or some such but by sacrificing to their deities. Many of these spells, especially for lowly initiates are limited or one-use castings/powers. None of this resembles the "fire and forget" system.

Claiming that "clerics" and "wizards" should cast spells differently relies upon some objective definition of "cleric" and "wizard" which is not intrinsic to the idea of magic.


That is a pretty bold assertion there. Folklore and fiction both disagree with you.


I could simply state that in MY campaign, wizards receive their spells from the Magic god and are thus simply a special case of cleric, or that no deities ACTUALLY grant any magic at all and all magic is wizardry. A distinction can be intrinsic or it can be artificially imposed.


Yes you could and I would be the LAST guy to say a word in contention with you doing your own unique thing in your own unique campaign/game. But your unique ideas should not be the basis for a generic fantasy RPG system.

You are trying to make an argument grounded in "genre," without really articulating what you see as the fantasy genre. Myth? Joseph Campbell? Tolkien? Is Susanna Clarke fantasy? Saberhagen's Sword series? Any of Zelazny's stuff? Are you including or excluding medieval and Renaissance models of magic (which were also many and varied, fiction or "real")? On what grounds can you reject the many books in the genre which were written AFTER Vance's stuff (and D&D) and which uses similar systems?


AGAIN, such as...? Are you talking about the Dragonlance/Forgotten Realms books?! Because you should be able to answer your own question here if so.

And I am taking the whole of the heroic fantasy genre(beginning roughly with the pulp offerings of the 1920s and 30s until NOW) for the most part but also taking the precursory mythology and folklore of the last few thousand years into account also. You know...like D&D supposedly does. Zelazny, Moorcock, Saberhagen's "Book of Swords", Silverberg's fantasy stuff, Howard's Conan, Lieber's Newhon/Lankmahr books, Tolkien, etc.


Do Warhammer novels not count as fantasy?



This is going to sound strange to you I am guessing but, though they are based on the Warhammer GAME, that game DOES represent the genre far better than D&D, even with all it's flaws so I would include them also because of this fact. Now if Warhammer used some bizarre system wherein cast seplls required you to count backwards from 69 or somerthing then no, the novels based on such a system would not count here.


Harry Potter?


Nope. Children's contemporary fantasy is not what D&D or any other sword & sorcery RPG is based upon. If you are really THIS confused about what the genre is and is not then why are you even trying to debate me on this point?!

For that matter, how precisely can you prove that Gandalf "ran out of spell points" at some point?


You can't. Why are you asking inane and loaded questions? Go take a look at the Middle Earth Role Playing game system then look at D&D and you tell me which seems closer to the genre. I know that Gandalf became drained/fatigued through his contests of sorcery(read his recounting of the fight with the Balrog for example) but I do not recall Gandalf EVER saying "I am sorry Hobbits...I did not memorize the "Summon Eagle spell so we are S.O.L I am afraid. I could have zapped the ring wraiths with a lightning bolt but I cast that spell and forgot it earlier..."



Seems like what you really want is for KotC 2 to be a different game system--not D&D.



Is D&D Online a "Different game system" because they use a spell point system? What about Unearthed Arcana(for 3rd edition)?


So I strongly suspect this whole thread is moot, anyway. Why play KotC if you hate the D&D system?


I don't play it and that is why. But let's not drag out anymore straw men here such as "if you hate (the whole) system...". I hate the magic system. The rest of the system could be designed a LOT better but it is acceptable.





How will the changes you propose (and BTW, you haven't said "use this system," you have only attacked the current one) make KotC 2 a better game? Perhaps more to the point, what exactly are your positive suggestions?



What possible good could come from me suggesting anything positive here?! If THIS is the reaction I get by saying that a nonsensical system is in fact nonsensical(something even D&D's designers have been saying for years, let alone the rest of the industry) then what sort of reaction would you expect if I went even further to start suggesting specific changes(beyond what I HAVE already stated which you seem to ignore when convenient for you)?
User avatar
SkeleTony
Vrock (CR 9)
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:17 am

Re: Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Postby SkeleTony » Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:21 am

BlueSalamander wrote:Does it matter that the system is "realistic"? In my opinion, no.



I do not even like the WORD "realistic" being dragged into these debates because it always leads to confusion and some kid wandering in and going "Hey elves and magic themselves are 'UNREALISTIC' so..."(obviously missing the point). "Logically consistent" would be a better term and ALL games should be logically consistent by design. D&D has gotten better by leaps and bounds in recent years but the fact that it is STILL behind systems that were designed 30 years ago is not a good thing.
RPGs are a lot like sex: when they are good they are GREAT but when they are bad...they are still pretty good. So it may surprise some to find out that I find enjoyment in even the WORST game systems(including AD&D 1st and 2nd edition) and can find plenty of GOOD things to say about even those.

But my point in all of this is that there is no good reason, aside from nostalgia familiarity for NOT improving a system when it can be improved. If your first RPG had been Tunnels & Trolls and THAT game had taken off to become the #1 RPG then you would be using a copy of THAT system and defending that against criticism right now. Same goes for every single RPG system out there. D&D is only most familiar and popular because it was first out the gate. Not because it was well designed.


It only matters that the game is entertaining to the player. I quite like the slot-based system, and most players are familiar with it; good enough for me.

I think D&D 3.5 allows to cast any spell of a given level using a slot of a higher level (TOEE allows that), so the incoherence of not being able to cast any more magic missiles despite having available fireball slots does not exist with the original rules. You can then see the process of losing slots as the wizard getting increasingly exhausted with the use of magic.

In KotC 2, Psionicists will use power points.



This is exactly the point I am getting at. You are(and the WoTC designers themselves) in essence trying to force the D&D system to work as a spell-point based system while retaining the overly complicated "slot based"/fire and forget system" when you could achieve all of this and much more with a much simpler spell point based system? Why?! And then adding in different rules for Psionicists only makes matters worse! You are in effect introducing a new magic system that IS point based as an addendum to the non-point-based system which is a lot like how 1st edition Thieves used percentile system for their skills while Dwarves used a weird d6 roll to spot traps and such underground and other characters used a precursor to the D20 system with "proficiencies" etc.
User avatar
SkeleTony
Vrock (CR 9)
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:17 am

Re: Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Postby SkeleTony » Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:24 am

Archangel wrote:In PnP I always found needing to use Highten spell feat a needles tax on spellcaster. Personally I would allow spells to have that as their feature. If a player is going to using a higher lvl spell slot to cast a weaker spell at least he can get higher DC out of it.

In Arcana Evolved you can exchange one spell slot for 2 one lvl lower level slots. You can also exchange 3 slots for 1 one lvl higher level slot.



This is a BIG improvement over the prior system to be sure and one that I could probably live with(I do after all play many D&D based CRPGs such as TOEE and IWD II and the goldbox games) but it still begs teh question of why they don't just go with a spell point based system in the first place? I understand they fear boycotts from the vocal fans but come on...
User avatar
SkeleTony
Vrock (CR 9)
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:17 am

Re: Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Postby erkper » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:46 am

You know SkeleTony, after reading all through this thread, I only have one question: If the magic system sucks as much as you claim it does, why would you spend even 5 minutes on this game or it's potential sequels in the first place?

I also have one suggestion: If you think you know a better way to make the game, you could always do it yourself instead of trying to (unsuccessfully) convince BlueSalamander to do it your way.
erkper
Stone Giant (CR 8)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:09 am

Re: Let's have a better magic system(than D&D's "Fire & Forget")

Postby Archangel » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:53 am

SkeleTony wrote:
Archangel wrote:In PnP I always found needing to use Highten spell feat a needles tax on spellcaster. Personally I would allow spells to have that as their feature. If a player is going to using a higher lvl spell slot to cast a weaker spell at least he can get higher DC out of it.

In Arcana Evolved you can exchange one spell slot for 2 one lvl lower level slots. You can also exchange 3 slots for 1 one lvl higher level slot.



This is a BIG improvement over the prior system to be sure and one that I could probably live with(I do after all play many D&D based CRPGs such as TOEE and IWD II and the goldbox games) but it still begs teh question of why they don't just go with a spell point based system in the first place? I understand they fear boycotts from the vocal fans but come on...

I think you need to ask Monte Cook that, instead of making wild guesses like you did in all of your posts. Claiming stuff like nobody likes it, or that all designers hate vancian casting is just you talking out of your $#!@.
Archangel
Marilith (CR 17)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ideas for KotC 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron