New monte article on Vancian casting. I have to say I am dissapointed on two counts, one it looks like Vancian might not be restored as the primary default system (though it will likely be in there as one among many possibilitities). and two I think it is a mistake for them to give some much weight to poll results on the wizards site itself (which still seems primarily composed of 4e fans). My guess is most people want the classic spell list with the vancian mechanic brought back. Would hate to see them bring it back but reduced and changed to make room for other spell casting options (i just think D&D has never done spell points well and the whole way they did wizards in 4e i have no interest in):

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120227

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517348New monte article on Vancian casting. I have to say I am dissapointed on two counts, one it looks like Vancian might not be restored as the primary default system (though it will likely be in there as one among many possibilitities). and two I think it is a mistake for them to give some much weight to poll results on the wizards site itself (which still seems primarily composed of 4e fans). My guess is most people want the classic spell list with the vancian mechanic brought back. Would hate to see them bring it back but reduced and changed to make room for other spell casting options (i just think D&D has never done spell points well and the whole way they did wizards in 4e i have no interest in):

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120227

I agree on both counts. It also sounds like Monte is talking about feats as really "feats", in the 3rd edition sense, to be included in the very base core of the game. And that is a no-no to me. If I can't turn that shit off, I'm out.

I've changed my mind. I think they're shooting in the dark at this point.

Quote from: Benoist;517351I agree on both counts. It also sounds like Monte is talking about feats as really "feats", in the 3rd edition sense, to be included in the very base core of the game. And that is a no-no to me. If I can't turn that shit off, I'm out.

I've changed my mind. I think they're shooting in the dark at this point.

Feats are a mess, but I can live with those (since so many people seem to love them) but without the classic vancian spell lists it just isn't D&D to me. Maybe I just didn't understand the article or monte was not being clear, but it really sounds like they are going in a more progressive direction to please 4e fans. I dont think they understand how much of a problem 4e magic was for people who left for pathfinder and old school.

Something tells me the toolbox will only be a toolbox i the sense that stuff they decide not to add may eventually be added as an option down the line(and probably in a similarly bad way to how psionics is handled in most editions), not exactly sure why feats are sticking around as a primary rule since if anything they are part of the reason the game got so damn difficult post 2e.

Well, all he says is that the 5e core book is like this: imagine the 3.x PHB with the wizard and the sorcerer class (same spell list, one class is Vancian the other is not), and plus Reserve feats from Complete Mage. Then Vancian magic is 'optional' in that not every party has to contain a wizard.

Reserve feats worked roughly like this: as long as you didn't consume a higher level spell slot, you could use a lower level spell at-will.

Take 'not consuming a higher level spell slot' out of the equation, that's what Monte is talking about. Low-level, relatively harmless stuff that magic users can spam at-will.

Apparently that's what people want in D&D and not Vancian magic.

Or it's just that WotC doesn't know how to handle poll results, because these are phrased poorly, or whatever. I mean, as recent as August 2011 on the Tome podcast, Mearls praises the DDI platform as the tool to give them 'data' to understand what people really want in D&D, and then he says this  (transcribed from tBP):

"Q: Have you noticed a big disparity between what the forums say and the CB [Character Builder] data suggests?
A: Yes. Example: The vampire isn't liked much on the forums but there are a lot of them built with the CB, and are advancing them instead of just making them as a test."

So if there's 5% more people who build vampires on DDI than those who fiddle round and 'advance' their half-orcs, take a wild guess which of the two is in if there's space for one. That's 5e in a nutshell.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517352I dont think they understand how much of a problem 4e magic was for people who left for pathfinder and old school.

At this point I don't think they understand the core experience of the D&D game at all, to be honest. Which totally baffles me considering Monte Cook (whom I know for interacting with him for years now) actually is a pretty smart guy and is (was?) a brilliant game designer. It's just not computing with me how they could have seemingly become these ignoramuses in such a short amount of time.

I see several possibilities that would explain it:

(1) I changed, not them. My appreciation of the D&D game is different than it was when I was playing 3rd ed and Arcana Evolved and Ptolus and all that. -- I think it's true to some extent, but not nearly as true as it might seem on the surface.

(2) All the L&L columns are total PR bullshit and it really doesn't matter what the polls say in the end. There's a "master plan" behind the scenes, and that's what it's really about. -- I honestly don't think WotC is smart enough to come up with that one.

(3) The "D&D Next" Playtest rules are really just a draft of a draft of a draft that already ceased to exist in the minds of Monte and Co. They're already past that stage and the ideas have gone wrong ever since. -- I think this might be somewhat true.

(4) The D&D brand is in such trouble that what they actually believe or think about the game is neither here nor there. Basically the brand is fucked and they are attempting the impossible to make everyone happy by organizing the biggest design by committee clusterfuck ever done in D&D's history. -- I think this is the most likely possibility.

I put my bet on (4), and the reprinting of AD&D and (maybe, if rumors are true) 3.5 are here to provide some cashflow for the D&D department while the next move is being decided.

I'm starting to believe that D&D is truly fucked this time.

Doesn't matter to my hobby: I have my OGL games and the old editions of the game to back that up. I'll be cool and be able to share my stuff if I want to. But still... it's a bummer to see the D&D brand end like this, potentially.

Quote from: Windjammer;517360Well, all he says is that the 5e core book is like this: imagine the 3.x PHB with the wizard and the sorcerer class (same spell list, one class is Vancian the other is not), and plus Reserve feats from Complete Mage. Then Vancian magic is 'optional' in that not every party has to contain a wizard.

Reserve feats worked roughly like this: as long as you didn't consume a higher level spell slot, you could use a lower level spell at-will.

Take 'not consuming a higher level spell slot' out of the equation, that's what Monte is talking about. Low-level, relatively harmless stuff that magic users can spam at-will.

Apparently that's what people want in D&D and not Vancian magic.

Or it's just that WotC doesn't know how to handle poll results, because these are phrased poorly, or whatever. I mean, as recent as August 2011 on the Tome podcast, Mearls praises the DDI platform as the tool to give them 'data' to understand what people really want in D&D, and then he says this  (transcribed from tBP):

"Q: Have you noticed a big disparity between what the forums say and the CB [Character Builder] data suggests?
A: Yes. Example: The vampire isn't liked much on the forums but there are a lot of them built with the CB, and are advancing them instead of just making them as a test."

So if there's 5% more people who build vampires on DDI than those who fiddle round and 'advance' their half-orcs, take a wild guess which of the two is in if there's space for one. That's 5e in a nutshell.

To me it reads like he is contemplating putting in this feat magic as a way of getting some 4e style casting. I just dont see vancian and 4e powers co existing well (especially through feats) in the core system. I also wonder howmuch of the classic spell list will be lost or changed after reading this.

On the polling data, i dont get why they are leaning so heavy on ddi and their website polls. Not that those arent getting useful data, but the pool is pretty much limited to 4e players. If their aim is to bring back the people who left because of 4e, then that seems like a bad way to gather information.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;517365I just dont see vancian and 4e powers co existing well (especially through feats) in the core system.

As I said, this has been tried and tested before, and lots of 3.5 groups played with Reserve Feats. I really don't get why that's particularly hard to wrap one's head around it.

Mechanically it's fine. The issue is rather that Vancian magic and at-will spamming are not design decisions in a vacuum - these respectively belong to different understandings of what constitutes a conflict, an encounter, etc. in D&D. The guy with 3 spells a day and the guy with 3 spells to fire every 18 seconds are looking for different things.

Strangely enough, once we replace 'spells to fire' with 'arrows to attempt' it seems fine. But that's for good reasons. 4E should have shown WotC that people expect more out of magic than non-magical arrows with magic theme songs tacked on.

Quote from: Benoist;517364At this point I don't think they understand the core experience of the D&D game at all, to be honest. Which totally baffles me considering Monte Cook (whom I know for interacting with him for years now) actually is a pretty smart guy and is (was?) a brilliant game designer. It's just not computing with me how they could have seemingly become these ignoramuses in such a short amount of time.

One thing to consider is this: he has been hired by WOTC as the design lead, but Mearls is his boss and Mearls himself has bosses. So we don't know what kind of instructions they are being given. i can only use my limited knowledge from runnning bedrock games (and what work I have done as a freelancer) as a point of reference. But when I hire someone, they are brought in to complete Bedrock Game's vision of a good RPG not their own. Cook probably has parameters he isnworking inside of.

Quote from: Windjammer;517368As I said, this has been tried and tested before, and lots of 3.5 groups played with Reserve Feats. I really don't get why that's particularly hard to wrap one's head around it.

Mechanically it's fine. The issue is rather that Vancian magic and at-will spamming are not design decisions in a vacuum - these respectively belong to different understandings of what constitutes a conflict, an encounter, etc. in D&D. The guy with 3 spells a day and the guy with 3 spells to fire every 18 seconds are looking for different things.

Strangely enough, once we replace 'spells to fire' with 'arrows to attempt' it seems fine. But that's for good reasons. 4E should have shown WotC that people expect more out of magic than non-magical arrows with magic theme songs tacked on.

But reserve feats , at least in my opinion, are enormously problematic in terms of balance. I also found them strange to stack ontop of vacnian in terms of flavor (to me it creates too much of a hodge podge ofwizard styles). The vancian system requires the mage be careful with his resources and the GM can balance things around what happens in a day. Was never a fan of these (splat books are another thing I would like to see dissapear in 5e).

I think the real problem isn't that they're trying to appeal to all the audiences of D&D, I didn't word my previous post correctly I think. The real problem to me is that they seem to want to make everyone happy with the core-sans-modules, from the get-go, rather than the core+this-or-that-module. That's the mistake I'm seeing. I hope I misunderstand Monte's post here.

Feats should be part of a module. Non-Vancian magic should be part of a module. Etc. Only the core of the D&D game should be the core of the system sans modules.

Quote from: Benoist;517377I think the real problem isn't that they're trying to appeal to all the audiences of D&D, I didn't word my previous post correctly I think. The real problem to me is that they seem to want to make everyone happy with the core-sans-modules, from the get-go, rather than the core+this-or-that-module. That's the mistake I'm seeing. I hope I misunderstand Monte's post here.

I think you hit it on the head.

Yeah. And if I'm right this is what Monte is saying here, then we're fucked. If these guys can't figure out what is the truest, simplest expression of the D&D game for the core-sans-modules, all the rest will suck. It is "the" component of the game they should not botch.

Quote from: Benoist;517382Yeah. And if I'm right this is what Monte is saying here, then we're fucked. If these guys can't figure out what is the truest, simplest expression of the D&D game for the core-sans-modules, all the rest will suck. It is "the" component of the game they should not botch.

This is also the only way I can see them building a modular system that would unite te base".

Ultimately, this article is the third or fourth time we've seen a clear indication of the prisoner's dilemma WotC is in:

(1) Make the game more like pre-2008 D&D? Win back a slightly higher percentage of the 3.5 and Pathfinder gamers you lost.

(2) Make the game less like 4th Edition? Lose a higher percentage of your existing 4th Edition gamers.

But there's really no clear way to determine what percentage of each you're talking about. And no way to win the game. WotC will almost certainly end up trying to hit a "sweet spot" in the middle... which will actually just alienate both sides and quite possibly leave them with an even smaller slice of the pie.

(I'm not including the OSR grognards in here because I don't see any way for WotC to appeal to any significant percentage of them except by reprinting whatever their favorite edition happens to be. Very little of the OSR is actually driven by any interest in actual principle: Most of it remains nostalgia and conservatism.)