This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Lets talk character classes  (Read 6431 times)

Slipshot762

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 480
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #45 on: February 17, 2021, 06:43:34 PM »
Also considering the implications of the spells themselves with regard to class balance; I'm told spell functions in 4e were changed a little in this regard to make them more like a given attack move or maneuver a fighter might use in terms of power, whereas the spells themselves in 3e were the broad spectrum of effect as had been seen in earlier editions, such as cloudkill as an example; that is to say that supposedly 4e magic was less cloudkill and more eldritch blast. I was just looking at 3.0 vs 3.5 spell descriptions and noticed that Fly for example was initially an hour per level duration and 3.5 changed it to a minute per level.

If one set out with an eye toward martial/caster balance one might focus firstly on the scope of the spell effects themselves, or upon the no-cost-but-spell-slots factor of casting itself. In my own case with D6 fantasy, the innate system mechanics will easily enforce some small balance, for example the turn structure staggers actions so that no one will get their second action before everyone gets their first, trimming some cheese off the bat, and limiting in favor of martials the number of foes one can be engaged in oppose roll with for defense before having to rely on the static defense number rather than skill dice could also enforce a measure of balance. Forgetting spell slots entirely and attaching a fatepoint cost would also be a powerful limitation though I'm inclined to do that across the board for the use of anything that might once have been considered a feat, such as whirlwind attack or extend spell.

eta
maybe it was 10 minutes a level on fly before the revision, regardless, point stands that they saw fit to nerf it by 3.5.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 06:49:22 PM by Slipshot762 »

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #46 on: February 17, 2021, 09:09:04 PM »
Right. Most so-called solutions address the casters' combat potential while ignoring their sheer utility. Barring going back to the pre-3e model of design, the only solution I can see is to buff martials' utility and nerf casters' utility. For example, by using both the approaches in Tome of Battle and Spheres of Power.

The main problem is the resistance to such approaches. I don't understand why there is so much resistance.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #47 on: February 17, 2021, 09:34:38 PM »
2e made a mistake folding all spells into a generalist mage list. Even the specialists were only barred from a small percentage of the huge list.

In the 3.5 SRD, there are 40-50 spells per level, for spell levels 1 to 3. In B/X, there are 12. For clerics, it drops to 8. That's more than enough. Mages who specialize should have fewer. Perhaps far fewer.

As a bonus, limited custom spell lists make casters fell genuinely different again.

Slambo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 411
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #48 on: February 17, 2021, 10:03:30 PM »
Right. Most so-called solutions address the casters' combat potential while ignoring their sheer utility. Barring going back to the pre-3e model of design, the only solution I can see is to buff martials' utility and nerf casters' utility. For example, by using both the approaches in Tome of Battle and Spheres of Power.

The main problem is the resistance to such approaches. I don't understand why there is so much resistance.

I see this attitude a lot. I recall reading a review of the black hack where people complained about how fighters did more damage than mages.

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17102
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #49 on: February 17, 2021, 10:07:44 PM »
I'm devout Catholic - but really this old design of Cleric alive through all editions, with full spellcasting but being still armoured warrior but without bladed weapon, due to this fake notion of weapon spilling blood, that was never really a thing, aside of few stories. Give me just good Priest and Champion classes and I'll be fine.

Um, clerics being restricted only to blunt weapons has not been a thing since AD&D, and pretty sure there is either expansions or Dragon articles that open up more weapons. Oriental Adventures is the prime one that comes to mind as the two cleric variant there can use various edged weapons.

2e allowed clerics with bladed weapons depending on deity type. Some examples were
Agro: Bill, Sickle
Hunt: Bows, Spears, Javelins, Darts
Nature: Scimitar, Sickle
War: Battle Axe, Spear, Sword
Legends & Lore had even more and some of the gods like Raven for example allowed their clerics access to ANY weapon.

Also from 2e Skills & Powers opened up the option to allow for example clerics to be able to select wizard spells from one school. And could potentially open up more than one.

3e opened up any simple weapon to clerics and specific deities might have a favoured weapon on top of that. 4e also opened up simple melee with no restriction on blunt.

5e of course opens up all sorts of different allowances depending on the class path.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 11:39:14 PM by Omega »

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #50 on: February 18, 2021, 11:20:11 AM »
The way to fix this is to, putting it reductively, beef martials and nerf casters. For example:
I think it's important to remember that fighters and magic-users were fairly well balanced in OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D1e. Most of the problems in later editions (*cough* 3rd *cough*) were because they stripped away all the features that kept casters in check.
Part of that stripping away though, particularly with adding at-will spells to the mix, wasn’t so much about boosting casters (though that was the effect when things got tweaked without real consideration) as it was adjusting to the market in terms of genre imitation.

Outside of self-referential material the way fantasy treats magic has changed a LOT in the nearly 50 years since D&D came about, in the 30 since 2e came out and even in the 20 since 3e came out.

And I’ll name the elephant in the room; the single most defining system of magic in pop culture for anyone under the age of 40 is Harry Potter and it’s pretty much the opposite of Vancian resource management.

The next most is going to be any of the pop culture series focused on hidden magic people; Buffy, Charmed, the Magicians, Merlin, etc. They’re not Vancian resource management either. For that matter almost no fantasy story outside of The Dying Earth and self-referential D&D tie-ins (and not even all of them) uses D&D’s magic system.

This made D&D a horrible fit for anyone getting into gaming because of their exposure to general fantasy pop culture. You come in with ideas in your head of what you want your character to be like and, frankly, TSR D&D fought you every step of the way.m

And it didn’t just fight the spellcasters; it’s nearly impossible to create a fighter in the image of those seen on film and television, because armor played such a massive role in your ability to survive and hit points took so long to recover that their representing skill and fatigue in avoiding damage fell flat.

Outside of D&D, fantasy heroes do NOT constantly run around in plate or use shields (nor would their real world equivalents; gambesons, lighter mail shirts and brigandine would be what travelers expecting danger would wear). Maybe they get a plate armor upgrade for a big fight, but mostly fantasy heroes are depicted in what would be light or even no armor in D&D terms.

Meanwhile, you expect your starting wizard to fragile compared to a fighter; wizard as glass cannon is a known trope; what they don’t expect is that you get one pretty weak spell and then spend the rest of the adventure hiding or maybe throwing darts. Oh, if anyone hits you while you’re casting (and somehow doesn’t kill you) that one spell automatically fails.

This was another reason why, once I got driven out of D&D by my shit DM, that Palladium’s system just felt right to me. The men-at-arms’ automatic parry and higher base hit points made lighter armor not suicide (it also made spellcasters not quite so fragile).

But this failure at genre emulation is where a lot of 3e’s changes began. Armor got a max Dex bonus so agile heroes would be better off in lighter armor, spellcasters got more spells and getting them off without failure made rarer.

Then Harry Potter exploded and that’s why late 3.5e started getting at-will spell options (reserve feats) and every edition since has baked at-will spells into the classes.

My own approach was beef up fighters (not to wuxia levels, but peak human is possible to build for), and really scale down combat magic. Your default attack spells hit about as hard as a sword or bow used by a strong warrior; making combat magic more akin to an equalizer for the physically weak vs. the limited use fight enders common to D&D.

This also explains why combat magic isn’t universal because it only matches what physical prowess can achieve (particularly when the warrior wields a magic weapon) rather than eclipsing it.

There’s still big magic too, but it’s got casting times of minutes to even hours and so isn’t something you’ll be pulling out in a fight (it might be something you get into a fight to prevent someone completing though).

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2021, 11:37:38 AM »
The way to fix this is to, putting it reductively, beef martials and nerf casters. For example:
I think it's important to remember that fighters and magic-users were fairly well balanced in OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D1e. Most of the problems in later editions (*cough* 3rd *cough*) were because they stripped away all the features that kept casters in check.
Part of that stripping away though, particularly with adding at-will spells to the mix, wasn’t so much about boosting casters (though that was the effect when things got tweaked without real consideration) as it was adjusting to the market in terms of genre imitation.
No, that was just an excuse. If it was really about genre imitation, then they would have adopted the negative aspects of magic in the genre as well. For instance, magic a la Buffy would be mostly ritual, less effective than punching people most of the time, and addictive.

And D&D never resembled the fantasy mainstream, even the sources it used as direct inspiration. It's its own genre, and always has been.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #52 on: February 18, 2021, 12:29:05 PM »
And D&D never resembled the fantasy mainstream, even the sources it used as direct inspiration. It's its own genre, and always has been.
Being it’s own genre is a problem though if you’re trying to recruit from people in the general fantasy genre and hoping for much retention.

Once I escaped into systems that actually could emulate general fantasy instead of being a D&D tautology it took 4E to actually bring me back to playing D&D as my primary game system (and according to a lot of people it wasn’t D&D either).

Likewise, you deny the influence of pop culture magic by citing how if it were interested in emulating the fantasy genre it would be emulating how magic worked in early seasons of Buffy (did you even watch the later seasons once Willow had fully developed her magic and she could skin people alive with a gesture), while completely ignoring my primary example and THE pop culture zeitgeist that was Harry Potter (with at-will attack spells released with one or two words)... or Charmed or Merlin, etc. where it’s NOT slow ritual based magic (except for really big spells).

I get that OSR is the thing on this site, but don’t mistake the bubble for the reality. Last time I looked you could take all the campaigns using every TSR and OSR systems combined on sites like Roll20 and they don’t add up to the number of 4E ones, much less 3.5e, PF or 5e campaigns.

D&D that is shaped like itself is a niche and even in the early days of WotC D&D they knew that and were trying to adapt to the changing genre (its no accident 3e’s art style pulled heavily from the Lord of the Rings films that were exploding interest in the fantasy genre among the general public at the time).

Gripe about how WotC-era D&D doesn’t feel like D&D all you want, but the adoption of much more general fantasy tropes and concepts (ex. at-will cantrips) instead of being a tautology is what has kept D&D from falling into obscurity. The effort to get there was sloppy, but was definitely a major factor in the changes throughout the WotC-era (3e was basically in a war with itself over keeping the D&D tautology and infusing broader fantasy elements into it... 4E over-corrected in the direction of broader fantasy tropes and modern game design... 5e seems to have found the right balance).

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #53 on: February 18, 2021, 12:43:02 PM »
2e made a mistake folding all spells into a generalist mage list. Even the specialists were only barred from a small percentage of the huge list.

In the 3.5 SRD, there are 40-50 spells per level, for spell levels 1 to 3. In B/X, there are 12. For clerics, it drops to 8. That's more than enough. Mages who specialize should have fewer. Perhaps far fewer.

As a bonus, limited custom spell lists make casters fell genuinely different again.

A related issue I noticed is that in the transition, spell levels are no longer a reliable indicator of a spell's power. Originally clerics only went up to rank 7 spells, but in 3e their spell list was stretched to cover up to rank 9 and thus there is a distinct difference in parameters like damage compared to wizard spells of the same level. This is particularly noticeable for spells unique to the ranger or paladin, as they are limited to reach up to rank 4 and so their spells are significantly more powerful than those of other classes. At least if I remember correctly.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #54 on: February 18, 2021, 01:49:21 PM »
Part of that stripping away though, particularly with adding at-will spells to the mix, wasn’t so much about boosting casters (though that was the effect when things got tweaked without real consideration) as it was adjusting to the market in terms of genre imitation.

No, that was just an excuse. If it was really about genre imitation, then they would have adopted the negative aspects of magic in the genre as well. For instance, magic a la Buffy would be mostly ritual, less effective than punching people most of the time, and addictive.

And D&D never resembled the fantasy mainstream, even the sources it used as direct inspiration. It's its own genre, and always has been.

Even though D&D is it's own genre - that doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect the mainstream tastes of the time. The public's tastes in fantasy had changed between the mid 1970s and the late 1990s.

The influences on 1970s D&D was mostly wargames and novels. In 1st edition AD&D, stat generation was quick and there were few options in classes - but character creation was still laborious mostly because of equipment buying and tracking. That sort of menu buying options was more part of the aesthetic of games at the time, and reflected fantasy that was bigger on atmosphere and look than on iconic heroes and magic.

In the 1990s, fantasy was becoming more mainstream - as evidenced by the success of the Lord of the Rings films. Influences included YA fiction like Harry Potter, but also the boom of video games and card games like Magic: The Gathering. This can be seen in the boom of other RPGs of the 1990s like the World of Darkness games and Shadowrun. There was less interest in equipment buying and world-building, and more on magical abilities. Game play was also faster paced. I don't think your point about Buffy shows much, since Buffy wasn't a direct influence. At best, Buffy and D&D3 reflected similar influences.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #55 on: February 18, 2021, 02:10:39 PM »
Likewise, you deny the influence of pop culture magic by citing how if it were interested in emulating the fantasy genre it would be emulating how magic worked in early seasons of Buffy (did you even watch the later seasons once Willow had fully developed her magic and she could skin people alive with a gesture), while completely ignoring my primary example and THE pop culture zeitgeist that was Harry Potter (with at-will attack spells released with one or two words)... or Charmed or Merlin, etc. where it’s NOT slow ritual based magic (except for really big spells).
First of all, I didn't deny the influence of pop culture magic. That's not even related to what I said.

Second, you're clearly not that familiar with Buffy, or Willow's transformation, because I explicitly mentioned addiction as the last of the limitations, and that's entirely from her character arc. If you look at what I said, it accurately reflects the different limitations as magic evolved in the series.

And I didn't have anything to say about Harry Potter, because I've never read any of the books. If you want to talk about the limitations, then it's up to you.

I get that OSR is the thing on this site, but don’t mistake the bubble for the reality. Last time I looked you could take all the campaigns using every TSR and OSR systems combined on sites like Roll20 and they don’t add up to the number of 4E ones, much less 3.5e, PF or 5e campaigns.
Oh, you're one of those. Everything is partisan politics to you.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #56 on: February 18, 2021, 02:22:46 PM »
2e made a mistake folding all spells into a generalist mage list. Even the specialists were only barred from a small percentage of the huge list.

In the 3.5 SRD, there are 40-50 spells per level, for spell levels 1 to 3. In B/X, there are 12. For clerics, it drops to 8. That's more than enough. Mages who specialize should have fewer. Perhaps far fewer.

As a bonus, limited custom spell lists make casters fell genuinely different again.

A related issue I noticed is that in the transition, spell levels are no longer a reliable indicator of a spell's power. Originally clerics only went up to rank 7 spells, but in 3e their spell list was stretched to cover up to rank 9 and thus there is a distinct difference in parameters like damage compared to wizard spells of the same level. This is particularly noticeable for spells unique to the ranger or paladin, as they are limited to reach up to rank 4 and so their spells are significantly more powerful than those of other classes. At least if I remember correctly.
It was the second stretch, because the original spells (in the brown/white box) went up to magic-user 6, and cleric 5. There was a pretty clear progression in power, with levels 5/6 clearly intended as capstone spells (raise dead, control the entire battlefield with weather effects, etc.).

Then Supplement I: Greyhawk expanded the list to magic-user 9 and cleric 7. The progression was no longer as clear -- there's more of a difference between 3rd and 5th level spells than between 6th and 8th, for instance. And a lot of the new spells felt gimmicky, or were slightly amped up versions of earlier spells, or were more defined in terms of game mechanics than adding anything new. Though that's only really true for the new interim levels -- the new capstone spells at 7th/9th level are probably the biggest jump in spell power since the 2nd/3rd level break (wish, gate, time stop, shapechange, etc.).

So that's why stretching the priestly spell list out to 9 levels makes it feel so attenuated. Instead of being spread over 9 levels, too many important spell effects are clustered in the first half. Raise dead should be at least 7th level, for instance.

Wicked Woodpecker of West
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • ?
  • Posts: 299
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #57 on: February 18, 2021, 02:55:01 PM »
Quote
The main problem is the resistance to such approaches. I don't understand why there is so much resistance.

Lot's of people wants to play uber-powerful casters with very safe and predictable magic.
See that's why I like magic of Warhammer or WoD, I like magic to be risky endavour not basic element of every battle strategy. But then that's also not exactly D&D attitude or ever been.


Quote
In the 3.5 SRD, there are 40-50 spells per level, for spell levels 1 to 3. In B/X, there are 12. For clerics, it drops to 8. That's more than enough. Mages who specialize should have fewer. Perhaps far fewer.

As a bonus, limited custom spell lists make casters fell genuinely different again.


I sort of like idea of wide array of spells - matter is to limit access - with wizard it's easy - you need to learn them, GM can limit presence of scrolls and books in your world.
For clerics and druid though - well I'd probably go with some ritualistic access in your temple for cleric, some sort of ordination, for druid - necessity to get a teacher - I think druid/shaman style would work well with master/apprentice position - wizard too, but let's say he get sort of intelectual bookish archetype.

Quote
And I’ll name the elephant in the room; the single most defining system of magic in pop culture for anyone under the age of 40 is Harry Potter and it’s pretty much the opposite of Vancian resource management.

As much as I have a lot of sentiment for Harry Potter, I very much reject idea of calling what's presented in this book as "system of magic".

Quote
The next most is going to be any of the pop culture series focused on hidden magic people; Buffy, Charmed, the Magicians, Merlin, etc. They’re not Vancian resource management either. For that matter almost no fantasy story outside of The Dying Earth and self-referential D&D tie-ins (and not even all of them) uses D&D’s magic system.

Let's say it clear Vancian magic is weird and offputting for most people who have not read Vance.

Quote
And it didn’t just fight the spellcasters; it’s nearly impossible to create a fighter in the image of those seen on film and television, because armor played such a massive role in your ability to survive and hit points took so long to recover that their representing skill and fatigue in avoiding damage fell flat.

Well cannot agree more. Also let's add hit points which are at once abstract resource but somehow also restored by spell meant to "cure wounds" and we have certain problem between in-verse and out-verse.

Quote
No, that was just an excuse. If it was really about genre imitation, then they would have adopted the negative aspects of magic in the genre as well. For instance, magic a la Buffy would be mostly ritual, less effective than punching people most of the time, and addictive.

And D&D never resembled the fantasy mainstream, even the sources it used as direct inspiration. It's its own genre, and always has been.

It is its own genre and it's not. That's the point. It's hodgepodgey mix of ideas both from overall fantasy and more and more own lore, eating own tail.
But indeed I doubt Buffy was really source of wizard in 3.5 but multiple wizards of multiple fantasy series with much more agile and versatile magic indeed - they were.
Mistake - probably born from overt glass-cannoney nature of previous itterations was making magic too easy and too powerful.

It should be either middle-level X-men powers which would do what Chris proposes, or something quite powerful but risky and unsure.


Slipshot762

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 480
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #58 on: February 18, 2021, 03:10:18 PM »
It strikes me there is a difference between Merlin in for example the Guantlet remake throwing firebolts, lightning strokes, teleporting a short distance and such, versus Merlin performing a multi hour ritual out of combat that creates a small squadron of animated armor guardians that can later be summoned in battle, D&D just straight mixes these altogether and separates them by spell level. To me one is "using magic" while the other is "casting a spell". Looking at real world historical lore concerning the practice of magic it is almost always things you could never do in combat; you draw a funky circle invoke assorted spirits burn some newt testicle in a brazier and then after that you can call upon the power to affect the weather for a number of days. What D&D calls spell prep/memorization history calls the casting, and what D&D calls the casting history cites as the use of the already cast spell.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Lets talk character classes
« Reply #59 on: February 18, 2021, 03:22:27 PM »
Part of that stripping away though, particularly with adding at-will spells to the mix, wasn’t so much about boosting casters (though that was the effect when things got tweaked without real consideration) as it was adjusting to the market in terms of genre imitation.

No, that was just an excuse. If it was really about genre imitation, then they would have adopted the negative aspects of magic in the genre as well. For instance, magic a la Buffy would be mostly ritual, less effective than punching people most of the time, and addictive.

And D&D never resembled the fantasy mainstream, even the sources it used as direct inspiration. It's its own genre, and always has been.

Even though D&D is it's own genre - that doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect the mainstream tastes of the time. The public's tastes in fantasy had changed between the mid 1970s and the late 1990s.

The influences on 1970s D&D was mostly wargames and novels. In 1st edition AD&D, stat generation was quick and there were few options in classes - but character creation was still laborious mostly because of equipment buying and tracking. That sort of menu buying options was more part of the aesthetic of games at the time, and reflected fantasy that was bigger on atmosphere and look than on iconic heroes and magic.

In the 1990s, fantasy was becoming more mainstream - as evidenced by the success of the Lord of the Rings films. Influences included YA fiction like Harry Potter, but also the boom of video games and card games like Magic: The Gathering. This can be seen in the boom of other RPGs of the 1990s like the World of Darkness games and Shadowrun. There was less interest in equipment buying and world-building, and more on magical abilities. Game play was also faster paced. I don't think your point about Buffy shows much, since Buffy wasn't a direct influence. At best, Buffy and D&D3 reflected similar influences.
Happened sooner than that. Perhaps the biggest and most sudden cultural shift in the history of D&D happened when it outgrew it's wargaming origins, and became a pop culture phenomenon in the 1980s. Most of the influences on OD&D came from military and medieval history (the wargaming component), and weird sword & sorcery fiction. It was niche, and adult. But the 60s and 70s were the decades when Lord of the Rings turned from just another fantasy book, into a book that most of the younger generations read. And Tolkien didn't just pull fantasy into the mainstream, he also changed it's very nature from gritty antiheroes and base motives, to high fantasy and grand quests. The generation of kids who led to a D&D knockoff appearing in the highest grossing movie to date (E.T. passed Star Wars in 1983) had radically different backgrounds than the grognards who preceded them, and thus had completely different expectations.

There were certainly shifts in taste later, but I don't think they were as dramatic.