tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.comments2023-10-23T12:04:09.668-07:00The Chamber of Mazarbul: Dungeons and DragonsBrian Slabyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05333048710667620592noreply@blogger.comBlogger195125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-90532775520814512312021-10-05T05:22:19.759-07:002021-10-05T05:22:19.759-07:00My lot average damage for most attacks, but I let ...My lot average damage for most attacks, but I let them roll if they think it's important. That hugely speeds things up.Simon Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05343702370903644355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-50871622660177177192017-12-20T20:03:48.462-08:002017-12-20T20:03:48.462-08:00I disagree that anything as presented in the magic...I disagree that anything as presented in the magic system is equivalent to "at-will" magic. That strain cost is always going to be a burden, and even if you gain enough Advantage to recover it there's still an opportunity cost, because a weapon user would be using that Advantage for something else. Besides, considering many extra effects require Advantage to trigger, strain recovery is not likely to be common.<br /><br />As for my benchmark for whether a blast mage is viable, if it's suffering a cost (i.e. strain, increased difficulty, worse Threat/Despair) then it should edge out a weapon user. How much better very much depends on how steep the cost is. My main problem is that the costs for magic in Genesys are very high, and the results often end up being WORSE than a weapon user who doesn't have to suffer those costs. <br /><br />Flexibility is tough to value. However, in other TTRPGs where some characters have more flexibility than others, it seems like they're largely not punished as much as Genesys mages. <br /><br />In a game where homebrewed talents are available, this will hopefully be mitigated. Brian Slabyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05333048710667620592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-43101788126335624432017-12-20T19:55:31.822-08:002017-12-20T19:55:31.822-08:00I agree that talents could potentially fix a lot o...I agree that talents could potentially fix a lot of the issues in the magic system. I just wish we'd be shown some.<br /><br />However, while so many things are "available" to magic users, many of the options won't be worth using. Based on the math, it's looking like adding fewer effects makes spells more effective, which is counter-intuitive. Talents could easily solve this, but at this point I'm only going off of what was presented directly in the core book. Then there's the fact that the balance between different effects is NOT equal, despite having equal cost. Blast will often do nothing, unless you have enemies with very low soak and/or generated a TON of successes (which makes the Advantage necessary to trigger it less likely).<br /><br />Brian Slabyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05333048710667620592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-86868030588746708962017-12-18T21:23:28.342-08:002017-12-18T21:23:28.342-08:00Looking at the Star Wars system there should be a ...Looking at the Star Wars system there should be a lot of talents to improve the Damage and vicious of the melee character. But the Mage has all those options available to them right from the start, at a cost of increased difficulty.<br /><br />I feel like Magic is made to be difficult but versatile right from the beginning, every single spell with every upgrade is available immediately. But it seems it’s with the full expectation that Talents will reduce the difficulty. There are so many options for custom magic talents it’s quite mind bending. Every effect of every spell could be modified by a Talent.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00157479988334637485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-234931661119737322017-12-13T19:17:55.712-08:002017-12-13T19:17:55.712-08:00Well, I'd argue that there is an "at-will...Well, I'd argue that there is an "at-will" magical attack: Using the "attack" spell unmodified, or with only the bonus(es) granted by your implement.<br /><br />For instance, with a "Deadly" Wand, you would have an attack of:<br />6 or 7 damage, Crit 2, Range Short, Vicious 2, Difficulty 1.<br /><br />If your check is YYGG, you're going to actually be rolling decent damage, and probably such an abundance of Advantage that the stamina "cost" ceases to be. You might even be able to recover some stamina using that. With the solid Crit rating and Vicious quality, that might actually be something better than what D&D mages could reasonably do with their "at-will" magic options.<br /><br />But even compared to other weapons, that's not bad. That's bow damage, or a crossbow that exchanges Pierce 2 for losing Prepare 1. And with ranged weapon accuracy at any range (as long as ranged attack difficulties are the same as star wars - I honestly haven't looked), since you can Extend it to the desired range by adding 1 difficulty per band (the same rate-of-growth as standard ranged attacks). If you compare it to Star Wars options, its in the Blaster Pistol / Heavy Blaster Pistol range. Which is right where it probably should be, given the money spent being comparable.<br /><br />If you're looking at whether a "blast" mage is viable, how are you determining that? Does it -have- to be able to deal the most damage, despite the obvious flexibility? If it can, isn't that a problem for whatever other character you were comparing it to? Does it have to measure up to a D&D wizard? Does it have to measure up to the "iconic" D&D wizard powers with only starting XP and gear?<br /><br />The systems are so different that I'm not even sure how you -can- compare them. This isn't a "limited resource" system like D&D, and "powerful" spells being hard to pull off is supposed to be the point. I've seen several people fret about "Fireball" being hard to successfully cast, without really considering that something like that is supposed to be difficult in this system, because it's not limited to "only twice per day". If you can only reasonably pull off an "appropriately powerful" spell 2 or 3 times each day, is that an appropriate power level? What if you can only reasonably do it once per encounter, because of the strain (from double-aiming)?<br /><br />If you want to be able to, essentially, fire (mini)missiles nearly at-will (free Empowered, Blast, and Fire add-ons; difficulty equal to a standard ranged attack at the desired range, upgraded once for the ring), is the price of a Ring (10,000) too high? When compared to the 7,500 credit Missile Tube from Star Wars?<br /><br />I don't know. Like I said, it's such a different system that it feels like it's comparing apples to anchovies when people try to duplicate D&D effects too specifically. Even comparing to Star Wars is hard, since that's a fully fleshed-out system with tons of options, and Genesys is currently a toolkit, at best.<br /><br /><br />Anyways... My impression at the moment is that magic is fine, as a system, for starting characters. It might not be able to be the best of the best at killing things, but it should be able to consistently put out levels of damage that, while not the absolute best, will be respectable, all while leaving a lot of other options open. What's hurting it the most, in my eye, is the lack of outside advancement options (talents, equipment) to support it.Greatfritohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11968498928457686840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-51566208168628500752017-12-13T16:28:54.218-08:002017-12-13T16:28:54.218-08:00The Deadly Wand will crit more often but deal less...The Deadly Wand will crit more often but deal less damage, and it will hit more frequently than the staff (but not as frequently as the greataxe). Honestly, it's probably the better option if you don't care about only targeting things in short range. The reason I chose the staff was because it brought the damage up to being even with the greataxe (and I wanted as direct a comparison as I could get), and because it's the more generally useful implement. What I mean by that is, regardless of what spell you're using the staff will let you increase its range. The deadly wand, however, is only useful with the attack spell, and only if you're trying to crit. <br /><br />I'm comparing the attack spell to a heavy melee weapon to see whether a "blast" mage can be done, as a lot of players who use magic like to deal a lot of damage. <br /><br />Regarding the longbow comparison, it's not all that different from the greataxe. It has the same base damage and crit rating, and while the greataxe has pierce 2 and vicious, the longbow can shoot out to long range and (more importantly), can attack with one purple if you're at short range. <br /><br />Speaking of the longbow, during our playtest this was easily the attack option that was most useful. Thanks to an easily nabbed (tier 1) talent called "Hamstring Shot," the longbow was actually better at "control" than the spellcasters could ever hope to be. A powerful Nemesis NPC was kept at long range by the archer for 3 consecutive rounds, and had the combat gone on longer he probably would have kept doing it. It doesn't require strain to be spent, it doesn't require an increase in difficulty, and it doesn't require Advantage to use. You just hit, halve the damage, and the target is immobilized. <br /><br />Had I decided to compare an Ice spell to a weapon, a longbow would have been a great comparison (and the bow would win over the spell).<br /><br />In D&D the Barbarian definitely does more at-will damage than a mage, but this Genesys comparison isn't comparing at-will damage. That's because spells aren't at-will at all. In D&D terms, I'm doing something closer to comparing an at-will weapon attack to an encounter or daily spell. And the at-will weapon attack is still coming out ahead. It's not the best analogy because the strain cost has no direct analogue in D&D, but spells in Genesys are definitely a limited resource! <br /><br />My point is largely that a limited resource attack should be more effective than an at-will attack.Brian Slabyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05333048710667620592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-14068033478181351542017-12-13T13:15:55.148-08:002017-12-13T13:15:55.148-08:00How do your results change if you switch out the s...How do your results change if you switch out the staff for a Deadly Wand ("Deadly" add-on without increasing difficulty)?<br /><br />Why are you comparing the magic attack spell to a heavy melee weapon? Wouldn't a comparison to the Longbow be more apt?<br /><br />If a D&D barbarian does more damage, more often, more regularly with their basic "at-will" attacks than a D&D mage (I really don't know - I haven't played D&D since they moved to 5th), does that mean that similar results in Genesys are acceptable?<br /><br />I guess I'm just not really sure what your comparisons are really showing, either in this case, or in your previous examples comparing to Star Wars Ranged (heavy) weapons.Greatfritohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11968498928457686840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-51083564979900844892017-12-09T15:20:16.129-08:002017-12-09T15:20:16.129-08:00Yes, I did think of this exact thing while I was w...Yes, I did think of this exact thing while I was walking the dog earlier. It's hard to justify the Strain cost, and more importantly the nastier Threat/Despair table, based on this comparison. Granted as I said on the podcast last night I'm NOT in favor of removing the Strain cost from magic (with the exception of a talent that removes it for lower difficulty, cantrip-like attacks). <br /><br />I think magic just needs to be stronger. My ideal magic user doesn't do as much "at-will" as a weapon user, but they can bust out a powerful effect every so often. Admittedly it's probably harder to balance that without turning magic into a harder resource management game. I don't think I'm necessarily opposed to that, but it's hard to make that fit into Genesys.<br /><br />I was also thinking that if I ran a mage in Genesys, I might prefer to tweak the Force powers from Star Wars to get more of what I want. While I don't think the Force does the "nova mage" thing as well as D&D, another aspect of magic that appeals to me is when effects are more or less guaranteed. In D&D a cure spell always works, and Fireball will deal half damage even if the targets pass a Reflex save. Likewise, if you're willing to use dark side pips a Force power typically just happens, and those that don't use normal difficulties (i.e. Move), and not inflated difficulties like Genesys magic.Brian Slabyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05333048710667620592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-2410281389742983992017-12-09T10:17:48.598-08:002017-12-09T10:17:48.598-08:00While I can't comment on whether the methods a...While I can't comment on whether the methods are solidly put together, I have reviewed your data and would like to point out some left out and interesting Items.<br /><br />The first I would like to point out is the number of successful checks made on either side. There is a record 62 successful magic attacks, and 80 successful melee attacks. Of the attacks that hit, the magic attack averaged 10.3 damage, while the melee attack averaged 10.6 damage. Of attacks that missed, the magic attack averaged 0.6 advantage, while the melee attack averaged 2.4 (this data appeared less useful that originally anticipated). <br /><br />The first two pieces of data relate to the ideas of low accuracy, high damage attacks. Your data shows that the magic attack hit less frequently, and of those hits did on average less damage than the melee attack comparison.Alex Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769982627120100756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-12234791135390592652017-12-06T16:37:32.325-08:002017-12-06T16:37:32.325-08:00The relative power of starting vs 500 XP character...The relative power of starting vs 500 XP characters is not the point, it's the comparison between magic users and weapon users. Is a higher XP magic user more powerful than a starting character? Of course! But so is a high XP weapon user.<br /><br />Yes, a magic user with higher XP will have an easier time hitting those higher difficulties, and is better able to add additional effects to their spells. But your weapons users are gaining XP right alongside your magic users. I've seen 500+ XP characters in action in Star Wars. Your Sharpshooters and Marauders have HUGE dice pools, but they're still rolling against lower difficulty checks. They succeed more often than starting characters too, and they'll succeed more often than high XP magic users. And you know what else they'll be doing? Generating more net successes, on average, which means they'll be dishing out more damage. And since they don't have to spend strain every time they attack, they'll also be more able to use high tier talents that cost strain and/or maneuvers.<br /><br />Another point to consider is that higher XP characters will generally face more powerful enemies with more ranks in the Adversary talent. Why is this important? Because higher XP characters will typically be rolling more Despairs. No matter how stellar your roll is otherwise, the Despair never gets cancelled out. Thanks to the harsher Threat/Despair table that magic users get, Despairs are worse for them. The first suggestion on the table is that for 1 Despair, the magic user can't cast spells again for the rest of the encounter. For two Despairs you're completely destroying your expensive Implement, swapping bodies with someone for the rest of the day, getting turned into a squirrel, or accidentally summoning the freakin' devil (and he's pissed!).<br /><br />So yes, I maintain that relative power level between mages and weapon users probably won't change much as you earn XP.Brian Slabyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05333048710667620592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-65506344312887193122017-12-05T13:09:38.199-08:002017-12-05T13:09:38.199-08:00"I've read the magic rules, but have not ..."I've read the magic rules, but have not actually played Genesys yet. So take everything I've said with a grain of salt. That said, the numbers on the paper are pretty telling"<br /><br />You should recheck your calculations. Starting level characters are starting level characters. If you want to see stuff which is comparable to D&D level 10 wizard or higher, give Genesys character over 500 xp and then see how powerfull his/her magic is. I bet you it's more powerfull than at starting level. And if you want you game to be higher power level than starting level (i.e. first level characters in D&D), give them XP.Jukka Vuorinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01279937183671574344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-58859400640076493042017-12-05T13:00:10.926-08:002017-12-05T13:00:10.926-08:00Can D&D 1st level character cast fireball? Are...Can D&D 1st level character cast fireball? Are 1st level D&D characters ultimate mages? No they arent'. Same goes with genesys starting characters.Jukka Vuorinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01279937183671574344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-71284648706905571052017-12-03T14:14:39.119-08:002017-12-03T14:14:39.119-08:00Just for fun, I thought I'd dig a little deepe...Just for fun, I thought I'd dig a little deeper into some of the additional effects for the Attack spell.<br /><br />Blast: add 1 purple, and gain Blast equal to your ranks in Knowledge. Umm...cool, that's going to be max 2 for a starting character, which means it most likely will NEVER penetrate soak. Not only useless, but actively harmful because it increases your difficulty for no gain.<br /><br />Fire: add one purple die to gain a Burn rating equal to your ranks in Knowledge. Hot diggety! So if I have a magic staff I can cast out to medium range for free, and add +4 to my base damage. So I can have an average check that fires out to medium, and with two advantage I can cause my enemy to take 7 damage (assuming my spell characteristic is 3) for two turns after my attack? Or if I have an orb I can make due with 6 damage, but target two enemies for free (albeit at short range). <br /><br />If I want to make it a 4 purple check (probably not the best idea for starting characters) the base damage will be 10 with a staff (or 9 with an orb, vs. two targets). Ok, starting to see how magic users can be useful in combat. If they use fire. How on earth is this supposed to be equivalent to the aforementioned Blast effect?<br /><br />FWIW Fire looks like it's hands down the most useful effect. But let's look at one more.<br /><br />Lightning: add 1 purple, gain Stun equal to ranks in Knowledge, and gain autofire. So really, you're effectively adding 2 purples because you're going to want to use autofire if you pick this. That means you've got a minimum of a hard check, even if you're at short range. You'll probably want to use a staff, so you can be at medium and to maximize the damage of each subsequent shot. If you get enough advantage to trigger autofire. Don't even bother trying to Empower this, because you'll be rolling against 5 purples. <br /><br />Ummm....never mind, just give me a light repeating blaster rifle jury rigged to autofire with 1 advantage. Doesn't cost me strain to use, is easier to hit even at long range, I can use that extra strain I saved to aim (or True Aim, lol), it does more damage, and I can trigger more extra hits. <br /><br />Ultimate cosmic power my ass. Brian Slabyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05333048710667620592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-32616343572871307362017-04-27T19:51:02.133-07:002017-04-27T19:51:02.133-07:00The W is for weapon specific effects.The W is for weapon specific effects.Brian Slabyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05333048710667620592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-43810861908011798632017-02-21T02:57:25.921-08:002017-02-21T02:57:25.921-08:00What is the "W" on the chart? ThanksWhat is the "W" on the chart? ThanksD E Tobinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04580998951093893536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-43745175400095582732016-05-12T02:40:34.595-07:002016-05-12T02:40:34.595-07:00Have you considered averaging damage? Have you considered averaging damage? Eliah Ballardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16421641768575082354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-74971735755441456472015-05-26T09:52:07.465-07:002015-05-26T09:52:07.465-07:00While the original site which hosted the rules has...While the original site which hosted the rules has gone down, I was able to find the rules scattered here and there online and compiled them into a single page PDF.<br /><br />You can download the rules to All Outta Bubblegum here: <br />http://bit.ly/1LFSlgOAlex Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769982627120100756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-1684134547329841302014-12-13T19:56:23.099-08:002014-12-13T19:56:23.099-08:00My campaign is currently at Champion level. I'...My campaign is currently at Champion level. I've found happiness around 1.5 strength encounters as well.Nefarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17268378383045353430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-66907910604833111482014-09-07T12:04:06.004-07:002014-09-07T12:04:06.004-07:00It was pretty hit or miss (mostly miss), but this ...It was pretty hit or miss (mostly miss), but this was mostly because the GM isn't all that comfortable utilizing Icon rolls even when he's running 13th Age (which he admittedly hasn't done that much). He just gets overwhelmed by all of the rolls and ends up having us roll every 2-3 sessions because that's the rate at which he uses them. Which is interesting, because as a 13th Age player he's had some really creative uses of his OWN Icon rolls.<br /><br />The other major hindrance was that in our 6 person party, 3 of the players have never played 13th Age. They never really got a handle on how Icons work from the player side of things, and I think it was made worse by the fact that we weren't rolling every session and so fewer Icon results in general were being utilized. Two of said players are actually the type that tend not to be terribly engaged at the table (one falls asleep half the time and the other plays Hearthstone on his computer pretty much every week for the whole session). <br /><br />Honestly, that whole campaign had more than its fair share of problems, most of them with the group as much as the overly-crunchy rules. Things like boring fights that last a whole session (I calculated the average round length at TWENTY SIX minutes one night) were bad, but the lack of engagement and a LOT of party infighting were worse. Honestly, looking back at it this game was probably the most dysfunctional game to be lucky enough to last to its conclusion (just over a year), and sometimes I can't believe that I actually stuck with it to the end. Though there were several sessions that I missed just because I didn't feel like dealing with it. <br /><br />So yeah, I'd consider the whole experiment a failure, but more due to "bad data" as opposed to an unsound concept. I don't see any reason why Icons couldn't work in a Pathfinder game with a GM adept at running both systems and engaged players.<br /><br />Oh, and for the record the OUT's mostly worked out really well (everyone's got at least a little bit of spotlight time). It's certainly a more intuitive concept than Icons for someone unfamiliar with 13th Age. Likewise the Escalation Die worked really well (and contrary to the original post, the GM ended up not capping the ED at 4). The only slight tweak we had to make was that the ED applied to save DCs for spellcasters, as that was the only way that they could benefit. Brian Slabyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05333048710667620592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-40834690631603832282014-09-07T02:37:42.814-07:002014-09-07T02:37:42.814-07:00How did the use of Icons ultimately work out in PF...How did the use of Icons ultimately work out in PF rules? I was considering adopting a version of it, and wanted a opinion on it. It seemed like one of the most central changes you guys experimented with.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11839987848991615151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-13395600302051877942014-09-03T16:32:40.248-07:002014-09-03T16:32:40.248-07:00I like this idea.I like this idea.Darcy Dettmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17873441822689536755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-137149084135386622014-04-17T01:45:25.837-07:002014-04-17T01:45:25.837-07:00I think you should take a look at 7th Sea from AEG...I think you should take a look at 7th Sea from AEG (out of print right now, but the PDF should be avaible), it has some pretty good Chase rules.Woodclawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06427215237760474498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-36404547181023532262014-02-26T06:12:13.824-08:002014-02-26T06:12:13.824-08:00"Maybe in *YOUR* game.... This is far from un..."Maybe in *YOUR* game.... This is far from universally true, and is why Vancian style casting has remained popular enough with people that WotC said they were intent on bringing it back."<br /><br />I'd be very hesitant to use popularity as a metric for good design. The designers for a big corporation like WotC/Hasbro are often forced to work within parameters dictated by those higher up trying to maximize profit. Hence Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet finally making "the game we want for ourselves" in 13th Age. WotC isn't in the business of taking risks, especially after the backlash that 4E caused.<br /><br />No one group's experience carries more weight than others, but in any case the point of this post wasn't to say Vancian isn't/shouldn't be popular. It was also specific to 3.5 style Vancian, which is to say that improvements to the general concept can be made to make it work. I'm happy with the pseudo-Vancian casting in 13th Age, where your "daily" resources are actually "per full heal up" which occurs after about 4 battles regardless of how much time has passed. Besides that, the game is more "mixed-Vancian," where spellcasters get daily, at-will, 1/battle, and recharge options, and non-spellcasters get some of those options in varying degrees as well. <br /><br />In any case, I've outlined my problems with 3.5 style Vancian casting (that is to say, without the "patches" of 4E or 13th Age). I'd be happy to hear a counter-argument for why you feel Vancian casting is good for the game from a design standpoint (i.e. outside of "tradition!"). <br /><br /><br />"And right there is where you seem to miss the entire point. *EVERYTHING* is the DM's job... If you want something prefabbed, made to order, where you don't ever have to actually use your brain, let alone your imagination, to be able play, may I suggest chutes and ladders?"<br /><br />No need to resort to a straw man here. And as far as "EVERYTHING" being the GM's job, well that goes a lot more smoothly when the GM doesn't have to fight the system. As a GM I'd rather be more focused on the story, providing interesting and engaging scenarios and description, and making fair rulings. As a player, I'd rather my GM be like that as well. Having to constantly force elements that keeping the 5 minute work day in check, keeping an eye on game imbalances that might need houseruling, etc. can distract a GM from the game.<br /><br />It's worth keeping in mind that we're not only talking about your group or my group here, because I assume we're both relatively experienced GMs. Players that know the history of D&D can, to paraphrase Wil Wheaton, "not be a dick" and abuse the rules, but what about gamers brand-new to the hobby? Those gamers whose money the industry needs to stay alive? Shouldn't the most popular TTRPG on the market provide as smooth an experience as possible for them? Brian Slabyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05333048710667620592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-86191276302344033592014-02-25T21:00:00.337-08:002014-02-25T21:00:00.337-08:00"Vancian spellcasting is supposed to facilita..."Vancian spellcasting is supposed to facilitate a playstyle based on resource management, but in practice this often won't happen."<br /><br />Actually, I find in practice that is *exactly* what happens.<br /><br />"The casters use all of their big-guns in the first fight of the day, and then force the party to rest so that they can re-gain all of their spells (either by retreating, or using Rope Trick, Mordenkainen's Mansion, etc)."<br /><br />Maybe in *YOUR* game.... This is far from universally true, and is why Vancian style casting has remained popular enough with people that WotC said they were intent on bringing it back.<br /><br />I can understand that it's not everyone's preferred style, but it's hardly the detriment that you describe it to be.<br /><br />"it's not the DM's job to work around imbalances, it's the job of the designers to ensure that they don't exist in the first place"<br /><br />And right there is where you seem to miss the entire point. *EVERYTHING* is the DM's job... If you want something prefabbed, made to order, where you don't ever have to actually use your brain, let alone your imagination, to be able play, may I suggest chutes and ladders?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12694619046185799461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-37549455216846587932014-02-10T09:43:06.732-08:002014-02-10T09:43:06.732-08:00Hi Brian,
Great post, it got me thinking. I'v...Hi Brian,<br /><br />Great post, it got me thinking. I've personally felt there is something slightly mechanically off about icon rolls - they are a great idea, but I've always felt there should be a mechanically more satisfying way of implementing them. I'm just not that taken with fishing on the d6, However I haven't found a solution I think is more elegant.<br /><br />I like the theory of the one roll "what icon this week" roll; but still it's not quite there (for the reason you mentioned above). Perhaps using a larger dice (d% even) and weighting it based on icons but include other icons.<br /><br />Still the idea I plan to use is the core rulebook, but with an additional tweak: If you generate no icon results (1 to 4 on all dice) randomly determine an icon you have no relationship with: you count as having scored a "5" on a conflicted relationship with this icon.<br /><br />Obviously this wouldn't draw a character into a story - but it would serv to bring unexpected bumps into a story; the elf-queen's agent staggers round the corner covered in blood and thrusts a package into your hands etc. The effects of it could open up reasons for any new Icon relationships taken at a later point (from feats etc.). What do you think?James Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17641631955886268418noreply@blogger.com