The unlimited use, level 0 spells in D&D / PF.
Your caster is never out of spells, now.
Weak in 3.0 / 3.5 / PF 1E.
More powerful in 5E / PF 2E.
In 5E; Cantrips became almost like 1st level spells, but with unlimited castings.
When they debuted back in the Unearthed Arcana, I liked them a lot.
Spell limits were pretty strict back then, and cantrips gave the Magic-Users the opportunity to be a little more free with their magic. (The cantrips in UA were extremely weak, BTW).
As someone who regularly put wands of Magic Missile in adventures for the wizards so they had something to plink with when their one spell slot was expended, I'm fine with more powerful cantrips.
I like them as little flavorful, magics to make the magic-use a bit more useful. I dislike them as almost-first-level-spells because they greatly increase the power of low level magic users.
Can't say I ever found them worth worrying about. (Original D&D/1e AD&D.)
Damaging ones don't really need to exist, but otherwise they're good. If very small utility effects had a cost, no one would ever use them when you could use your resources to survive encounters.
Quote from: Innocent Smith on January 08, 2021, 03:22:25 AM
Damaging ones don't really need to exist, but otherwise they're good. If very small utility effects had a cost, no one would ever use them when you could use your resources to survive encounters.
I have quibbles about some of the damaging ones, but in general, I think they're fine. Having played through lots of magic users just constantly throwing darts and daggers, it's nice to try out having more colorful attacks.
I'd be interested in seeing some alternate classes where magic works in different ways - like where all their magic is usable at will like cantrips. The various flavors of D&D have a lot of variety in some fashions, but magic is still very tied to the Vancian model. There are a lot of different ways that magic can be implemented, and some variety would be interesting.
In 5E, I'm OK with the way they are. Not entirely satisfied, but OK. I'd prefer that the cantrips had a burnout process as the default, with an optional rule to ignore it, getting back to the current 5E rules in the process. I don't mind that cantrips get used a lot. I do mind that the only cost is the opportunity cost of not casting another spell. Of if you hate burnout, then give cantrips a slot count but make it generous--maybe equal to the casting stat. A wizard with 16 cantrip slots is going to still use them a lot but there will at least be a little hesitation at times in favor of letting the martial characters handle things.
From a game design perspective, I dislike the way that D&D cantrips (over multiple editions) are shoehorned into the front of the spell level system as a special thing. Sure, in AD&D, keeping compatibility, there is a good reason for it. By the time the WotC editions came along, if we are going to have some weaker spells at the front of the progression, then monkey with the spell level chart to smooth it out. (There's some work to be done at higher level spells, too, but that's neither here nor there for cantrip discussion.) There's a lot of sharp edges in the design in the pursuit of putting more and more elements into the game while keeping burning hands and magic missile and sleep as 1st level spells.
I like it because, like a fighter never runs out of Attack slots, Cantrips allow a MU to participate in an encounter, albeit in a lesser way, a bit longer than with just the available +Level Spells.
And as long as they keep casting Acid Splash, the DM has a good excuse for them drawing Agro from monsters that would otherwise concentrate on the Melee guys.
OTOH, what are people's opinions on Rituals, where you can cast a +Level Spell (outside of Combat) without spending a Spell Slot, just take 10 minutes to perform the ritual? Do you feel like these cause an imbalance to the Spell Slot economy?
Quote from: Godfather Punk on January 08, 2021, 07:31:44 AM
I like it because, like a fighter never runs out of Attack slots, Cantrips allow a MU to participate in an encounter, albeit in a lesser way, a bit longer than with just the available +Level Spells.
And as long as they keep casting Acid Splash, the DM has a good excuse for them drawing Agro from monsters that would otherwise concentrate on the Melee guys.
OTOH, what are people's opinions on Rituals, where you can cast a +Level Spell (outside of Combat) without spending a Spell Slot, just take 10 minutes to perform the ritual? Do you feel like these cause an imbalance to the Spell Slot economy?
Depends on the spell. Some spells frankly don't need to use spell slots -- they're usually magics that are 'out of combat' effects anyways.
I have a love/hate relationship with unlimited cantrips and orisons. On one hand, it allows casters to contribute after their spell slots are expended. On the other, if their power isn't strictly monitored they can screw things up. A classic example was create water for priests; when it became a 0-level spell, suddenly supply restrictions became a lot less effective.
Regarding Rituals; first I hate the whole Vancian approach to magic in the first place (a mix of at-will and "power points" is my preferred magic system), so I find it a bit hard to judge.
My preference for rituals would be more akin to 4E rituals (or more accurately its martial practices where you spent daily healing surges to power them).
As to at-will cantrips; 4E is my preferred D&D edition (though not my overall favorite game) which is where At-Will "cantrips" really came into their own (3.5e Reserve Feats were the first, flawed, implementation).
In general, cantrips underperform bows and other ranged attacks (unless you're a warlock with the right invocation... but that's been the point of the warlock all the way back to 3e) so the idea that they can be used at least as often as a bow doesn't strike me as unfair; particularly with the much smaller number of high level spells per day are available in 5e (the non-casters just need a few more bigger daily tricks at high levels to compete).
I liked the old 1e cantrips.
For later editions, I dislike the 'at-will' that actually has a specified 'mechanical' effect on the rules..(create water, etc)
No problems with things like prestidigitation.
In 5e, I limit the number of castings between rest periods for the damage causing ones.
I like the 5e rituals, but make them ritual-only
Quote from: Razor 007 on January 08, 2021, 12:41:27 AM
The unlimited use, level 0 spells in D&D / PF.
Your caster is never out of spells, now.
In 5E; Cantrips became almost like 1st level spells, but with unlimited castings.
Well does your conception of how magic works in your setting include the above regardless of system?
If it does, then congrats 5e saved some work for you. If it doesn't then kick it out the door and don't use it in your campaigns. And luckily since d20 had cantrips as open content in a text editable format then some work has been done. Just take the d20 list and tweak the effect until cantrip work how you conceive cantrip working in your setting.
Cantrips expended spell slots in 3e. In Pathfinder they were made into unlimited use.
Quote from: estar on January 08, 2021, 09:43:46 AM
Quote from: Razor 007 on January 08, 2021, 12:41:27 AM
The unlimited use, level 0 spells in D&D / PF.
Your caster is never out of spells, now.
In 5E; Cantrips became almost like 1st level spells, but with unlimited castings.
Well does your conception of how magic works in your setting include the above regardless of system?
If it does, then congrats 5e saved some work for you. If it doesn't then kick it out the door and don't use it in your campaigns. And luckily since d20 had cantrips as open content in a text editable format then some work has been done. Just take the d20 list and tweak the effect until cantrip work how you conceive cantrip working in your setting.
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.
Quote from: Razor 007 on January 08, 2021, 01:38:02 PM
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.
So why you are not jettisoning it when it doesn't and slotting the subsystem that works the way you think about cantrips.
I have mixed feelings about Cantrips. I used to think they were pointless before 5e (or maybe 4e, but I never got around playing it and don't recall the details), and 5e's feel a bit like a Band-Aid solution to mitigate limited spell slots and the crappy Vancian system. I'm not sure how I feel about unlimited magic without at least a chance of failure or something, but they're not exactly unbalanced and they're better than doing nothing when your low level mage runs out of spells, so I can live with them.
I would probably prefer a more skill-based magic approach, though. Or maybe a mix of skill-based and power points. But unlimited magic with no limits, or even the chance of failure at least, kinda cheapens magic a bit. Though, I get that warriors can swing their swords over and over again without ever tiring (like they would IRL), but I'm not sure that letting magic users do the same thing--but invoking mystical powers from beyond--is necessarily the ideal approach.
I haven't really delved into Rituals, but they seem interesting. Though, I wonder if they can be abused to create unlimited healing and restorative magic.
Personally, I don't like them, but players of spellcasters really seem to.
I don't like the way they break the way magic works otherwise.
It's not just the attack cantrips either - some of the others can be downright annoying in the hands of a clever player (as I proved when I played an arcane trickster).
Even prestigidation is annoying.
"Ok so you crawl out of the sewer, you are are now all covered in filth and and stick"
"I use prestigitation to clean myself up."
"Oooh do me too".
(technically you can't do this - but it's the constant attempt to use it, often trivially, that is annoying about it).
As for attacks. I'd prefer an approach that worked within the existing system a bit more. Here are two alternatives for OSR games:
Wizard Arrows:
Level 1 Spell.
You enchant up to 20 arrows magically. This enchantment lasts for one hour. The arrows hover around and follow you wherever you go. As an attack action you may fling one of these arrows, the target must make a reflex save or take 1d6 damage.
(Basically you could have various variations on this - a normal spell that creates a (very visible) magical effect that allows for a series of attacks rather than just the one.
Another approach is something like this:
Channel Energy.
You may channel the spell energy from a spell you have memorised to make an attack. This spell must use either Fire, Electricity, Cold, or Acid. Depending on the level of the spell you channel you do the following damage. The first number is what I would use for an OSR game - the second one more for 5e.
1: 1d4/1d8
2: 1d6/1d10
3: 1d8/2d6
4: 1d10/2d8
5: 1d12/3d6
When you channel enery you must roll a d12. If the roll is a 1 then the spellslot being channelled is consumed. (Change the die type based on how much chance you want there to be for this).
Some of the other cantrips could be handled in a similar way, eg Mage Hand would require channeling Unseen Servant which you must have memorised.
In our home-brew, we don't have spell-slots, but we do have a resource that allows you to cast spells.
Spells cost mana; a 1st level spell costs 1, a 3rd level spell costs 3. There are some things you can do to potentially regain mana during a fight, but generally you have a relatively small amount (say 10). It's up to you whether to cast 3 3rd level spells, or 2 4th level spells - generally, if fights go long you do worry about 'running out of magical mojo' - but with the ability to get some back with a relatively short rest.
For cantrips, as long as you have at least 1 mana, you can cast them and they don't cost anything. Most of them are not particularly useful (if they were, they'd be 1st level spells). Many of the spells that qualify do things like let you speak with animals or creatures of a particular subtype (ie fire creatures). Primarily, they're intended to give players a chance to 'feel magical', even if they aren't particularly practical.
For example, we have elemental schools (like Air) with the following Cantrips: Amplify Sound, Cooling Aura, Speak with Flyers, Ventriloquism. And if you decide to spend time casting Ventriloquism while you're partying at the inn, it won't make you less effective in the fight that happens after you make the wrong person look like they said the wrong thing.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on January 08, 2021, 05:25:17 PM
In our home-brew, we don't have spell-slots, but we do have a resource that allows you to cast spells.
Spells cost mana; a 1st level spell costs 1, a 3rd level spell costs 3. There are some things you can do to potentially regain mana during a fight, but generally you have a relatively small amount (say 10). It's up to you whether to cast 3 3rd level spells, or 2 4th level spells - generally, if fights go long you do worry about 'running out of magical mojo' - but with the ability to get some back with a relatively short rest.
For cantrips, as long as you have at least 1 mana, you can cast them and they don't cost anything. Most of them are not particularly useful (if they were, they'd be 1st level spells). Many of the spells that qualify do things like let you speak with animals or creatures of a particular subtype (ie fire creatures). Primarily, they're intended to give players a chance to 'feel magical', even if they aren't particularly practical.
For example, we have elemental schools (like Air) with the following Cantrips: Amplify Sound, Cooling Aura, Speak with Flyers, Ventriloquism. And if you decide to spend time casting Ventriloquism while you're partying at the inn, it won't make you less effective in the fight that happens after you make the wrong person look like they said the wrong thing.
That's almost exactly how my Spell Point system works. RAW D&D Spellcasting didn't work.
Modern D&D (5e) is all about being superheroes in fantasyland. With that in mind, it doesn't make sense that the wizards don't always have some magic at hand. If the wizard really needed to keep a crossbow around, I'd expect Cyclops (of the X-men) to carry an assault rifle for similar reasons.
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 08, 2021, 05:53:26 PM
Modern D&D (5e) is all about being superheroes in fantasyland. With that in mind, it doesn't make sense that the wizards don't always have some magic at hand. If the wizard really needed to keep a crossbow around, I'd expect Cyclops (of the X-men) to carry an assault rifle for similar reasons.
That is exactly right. I ran a game for a while for my group, and I was surprised how tough a low level group of adventurers can be. Once they got to 3rd level as a group, I do not think I could have killed them if I tried. (Well, in the adventure they were in there is an encounter with a smaller adult black dragon, and the adventure gave explicit details as to how the dragon fights, and I would not have done that if I were to decide the Dragon's strategy.) I thought it was an out of place encounter given the rest of the dungeon, and the adventure has the dragon fight in such a way it is not as likely to slaughter the group and it flees fairly early to give the players a chance to fight it off. It really felt to me like it cheapened the experience of running into a dragon though.
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 08, 2021, 05:53:26 PM
Modern D&D (5e) is all about being superheroes in fantasyland. With that in mind, it doesn't make sense that the wizards don't always have some magic at hand. If the wizard really needed to keep a crossbow around, I'd expect Cyclops (of the X-men) to carry an assault rifle for similar reasons.
Except there were times Cyclops has had to punch people rather than use his beams for one reason or another.
We've discussed cantrips over and over here but lets go at it again.
Playtest cantrips were too potent and we luckily got those toned down a little.
5e Cantrips are ok-ish. Just a fraction on the too potent side with the attack ones. But mitigated by the fact that they gained no benefits from stats. Fighters still outstripped them. Even with more things to add in some little bonuses Fighters still outgun a caster in straightup damage dealing due to all the bonuses a fighter can get that others can not. It more or less balances out.
It is best to think of cantrips as essentially an endless repeating crossbow. Or the plethora of darts my old Magic User used to carry around.
They fit for some and very do not for others. In part because some players will try to ruthlessly abuse them to the point a DM hates them. Either ditch the player, preferrable, or ditch the cantrips.
Personally the easiest fix is to just lower all the damage cantrips by one die class. d10s become d8s, d8s become d6s and so on. And/or add in consumed component requirements. Nothing too onerous to get. But something that can be confiscated or depleted and force the caster to work around that problem same as a fighter without their weapon.
Quote from: Omega on January 08, 2021, 08:23:21 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 08, 2021, 05:53:26 PM
Modern D&D (5e) is all about being superheroes in fantasyland. With that in mind, it doesn't make sense that the wizards don't always have some magic at hand. If the wizard really needed to keep a crossbow around, I'd expect Cyclops (of the X-men) to carry an assault rifle for similar reasons.
Except there were times Cyclops has had to punch people rather than use his beams for one reason or another.
And there may be times when a wizard (or cleric) uses a weapon attack even when they have at-will cantrips.
Quote from: Omega on January 08, 2021, 08:23:21 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 08, 2021, 05:53:26 PM
Modern D&D (5e) is all about being superheroes in fantasyland. With that in mind, it doesn't make sense that the wizards don't always have some magic at hand. If the wizard really needed to keep a crossbow around, I'd expect Cyclops (of the X-men) to carry an assault rifle for similar reasons.
Except there were times Cyclops has had to punch people rather than use his beams for one reason or another.
That would have been EXTREMELY rare in the 80's & 90's (I stopped reading then).
As in, "not even once in the average calendar year"-type rare.
Quote from: Two Crows on January 08, 2021, 08:58:03 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 08, 2021, 08:23:21 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 08, 2021, 05:53:26 PM
Modern D&D (5e) is all about being superheroes in fantasyland. With that in mind, it doesn't make sense that the wizards don't always have some magic at hand. If the wizard really needed to keep a crossbow around, I'd expect Cyclops (of the X-men) to carry an assault rifle for similar reasons.
Except there were times Cyclops has had to punch people rather than use his beams for one reason or another.
That would have been EXTREMELY rare in the 80's & 90's (I stopped reading then).
As in, "not even once in the average calendar year"-type rare.
Unless you count all of the brotherly fistfight with Havoc (they were immune to each other's powers).
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 08, 2021, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: Two Crows on January 08, 2021, 08:58:03 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 08, 2021, 08:23:21 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 08, 2021, 05:53:26 PM
Modern D&D (5e) is all about being superheroes in fantasyland. With that in mind, it doesn't make sense that the wizards don't always have some magic at hand. If the wizard really needed to keep a crossbow around, I'd expect Cyclops (of the X-men) to carry an assault rifle for similar reasons.
Except there were times Cyclops has had to punch people rather than use his beams for one reason or another.
That would have been EXTREMELY rare in the 80's & 90's (I stopped reading then).
As in, "not even once in the average calendar year"-type rare.
Unless you count all of the brotherly fistfight with Havoc (they were immune to each other's powers).
True!
Also, if anyone is interested, he fought the whole team more than once.
Lots of Point Blank Optic Blasts straight to his teammates faces.
Lol.
(I'm not sure I ever saw him punch anyone besides Havoc. He did like the Judo throws, though.)
Playing PF2e, homebrew world.
Cantrips work just fine as written in the rules.
They tend to get used less as they level up but it still allows them to use something if they don't want to waste a spell slot on lesser creatures and it still allows them to do something if they are all out of spell slots.
I rather like the way Sine Nomine does things in that regard.
Some characters have a pool of Effort that they can use to fuel some of their more esoteric abilities. Mages have Spells and Arts. Spells are traditional Vancian "prepared casting" and Arts need Effort to use, but are more flexible. They aren't exactly cantrips, but can be seen as the same sort of thing, magical options that give mages more staying power than blowing all their first level wad in one encounter.
Quote from: Worlds Without Number Beta 0.19, p. 63Using Effort requires that it be Committed. The Effort is sunk into fueling the power, but will return automatically once a certain time has passed. There are three durations for which Effort is Committed, and each art indicates in its description how long the Effort must remain Committed to trigger it.
• Commit Effort for the day to trigger powerful arts. One point of Effort is invested in the power and returns the next morning after the mage has had a good night's rest.
• Commit Effort for the scene to trigger more modest abilities. One point of Effort is invested in the power, but returns as soon as the scene is done.
• Commit Effort indefinitely to activate a persistent, lasting ability that keeps active as long as you keep one point of Effort Committed. You can reclaim this Effort at any time as an Instant action, immediately turning off the art. This Effort can remain invested indefinitely even while you're asleep or unconscious provided you have a few minutes to prepare things properly before falling asleep. If you're suddenly struck unconscious or killed any such powers immediately end.
Quote from: TJS on January 08, 2021, 03:36:08 PM
Personally, I don't like them, but players of spellcasters really seem to.
I don't like the way they break the way magic works otherwise.
...
D&D has been slowly moving away from pure vancian magic to something that is not thought through. "This seems more fun!" seems to be the extent of the current design philosophy.
IMHO, it high time the magic system had a true re-design, I would go to a spell/mana/magic point system. No free cantrips!
Gandalf carried around a sword for a reason.
.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 09, 2021, 04:06:31 PM
Quote from: TJS on January 08, 2021, 03:36:08 PM
Personally, I don't like them, but players of spellcasters really seem to.
I don't like the way they break the way magic works otherwise.
...
D&D has been slowly moving away from pure vancian magic to something that is not thought through. "This seems more fun!" seems to be the extent of the current design philosophy.
IMHO, it high time the magic system had a true re-design, I would go to a spell/mana/magic point system. No free cantrips!
Gandalf carried around a sword for a reason.
.
I'm not a fan of Vancian magic either, but it works okay for D&D. And I don't think it's ever going to change. A lot of folks, myself included, think of Vancian magic as one of the defining characteristics of D&D. Take that away, and you might have a good RPG, but it's not D&D anymore. I don't think WotC will take a chance on doing that after 4E ran into trouble for the same reason.
Well... I'm kinda neutral on this one.
Do you want your wizards to shoot enemies with a crossbow or magic missile? The difference is fluff, mostly, unless you're keeping track of encumbrance/arrows, and even then, not that big.
So it depends on the setting, I'd say.
Bad in Middle-earth or Westeros, good in Ravnica or maybe Planescape.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 09, 2021, 09:59:55 PM
Bad in Middle-earth or Westeros, good in Ravnica or maybe Planescape.
And mandatory in Thundarr the Barbarian or He-Man (though simultaneously not much stronger than a warrior's sword either).
Personally, I like at-will magic as an equalizer. If attack spells were objectively better than weapons, then the best warriors would be spellcasters, which means all the rulers would be spellcasters. But if the best combat magic is only on par with weapon attacks, it becomes a path for those who want to fight but lack the physical stats for weapons without overshadowing weapon skill.
Yeah, spellcasting is often considered rare in many settings, but then so are warriors with skill on par with a fighter (about 1-in-100 for professional, 1-in-1000 or less for A starting fighter).
Quote from: Mishihari on January 09, 2021, 09:55:31 PM
I'm not a fan of Vancian magic either, but it works okay for D&D. And I don't think it's ever going to change. A lot of folks, myself included, think of Vancian magic as one of the defining characteristics of D&D. Take that away, and you might have a good RPG, but it's not D&D anymore. I don't think WotC will take a chance on doing that after 4E ran into trouble for the same reason.
Well, IMHO it's not really vancian magic anymore though as you no longer have to select your spells ahead of time...
The "spell Slot" is just a 1:1 spell point system under another name. With the 'cantrip' as a patch so casters can feel magical and special all the time.
As Rob mentioned...
My setting dictates the degree of both the necessity and power of magic. Not the rules in the book, they just describe how we're gonna do those magical things if they exist.
As for cantrips in how I like my "D&D fantasy" - I preferred the original UA. But that's because I want my magic to be rare and powerful. Just being a spellcaster in my games has some intrinsic meaning (like all classes) rather than just being a "magic-user level <X>". As such I don't mind my spellcasters doing neat little utilitarian effects to give them some flavor and role-playing fodder. Just like I don't mind even a 1-point damage spell they could fire off to zerk a pest without necessarily killing it. or whatever.
One of the greatest issues I have with the D&D is the sliding or non-existent context of these things we're engaging with. I find it's usually at the root of a lot of these questions. And to the OP I'm not taking a shot at you or anything, I'm merely posting my opinion based on the game. I perfectly understand why you'd ask that question. My aim is to bring you to our side and get you to answer it for yourself. (there is no right answer). ;)
QuotePersonally, I like at-will magic as an equalizer. If attack spells were objectively better than weapons, then the best warriors would be spellcasters, which means all the rulers would be spellcasters.
I don't see a reason for such result necessary. Especially since sure maybe attack spell is better than weapon, but how about overall survivalibity of wizard, and fact that its way harder to become wizard than warrior?
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 13, 2021, 08:17:45 AM
QuotePersonally, I like at-will magic as an equalizer. If attack spells were objectively better than weapons, then the best warriors would be spellcasters, which means all the rulers would be spellcasters.
I don't see a reason for such result necessary. Especially since sure maybe attack spell is better than weapon, but how about overall survivalibity of wizard, and fact that its way harder to become wizard than warrior?
I dont think thats actually true. Fighters are supposed to be the best of the best not your average run of the mill warrior, and people with the aptitude to be the best of the best at anything are rare. I think the real issue in this is most of the time the fighter won't feel like they're really the best of the best because imo Fighter dont really feel like they're that good at fighting in many systems.
Quote from: tenbones on January 12, 2021, 02:57:16 PM
As Rob mentioned...
My setting dictates the degree of both the necessity and power of magic. Not the rules in the book, they just describe how we're gonna do those magical things if they exist.
As for cantrips in how I like my "D&D fantasy" - I preferred the original UA. But that's because I want my magic to be rare and powerful. Just being a spellcaster in my games has some intrinsic meaning (like all classes) rather than just being a "magic-user level <X>". As such I don't mind my spellcasters doing neat little utilitarian effects to give them some flavor and role-playing fodder. Just like I don't mind even a 1-point damage spell they could fire off to zerk a pest without necessarily killing it. or whatever.
One of the greatest issues I have with the D&D is the sliding or non-existent context of these things we're engaging with. I find it's usually at the root of a lot of these questions. And to the OP I'm not taking a shot at you or anything, I'm merely posting my opinion based on the game. I perfectly understand why you'd ask that question. My aim is to bring you to our side and get you to answer it for yourself. (there is no right answer). ;)
A 1 point damage spell could dispatch a weak minion, or perhaps end the suffering of a dying comrade, or set off the trigger of a trap from a safe distance. It's still very useful.
Quote from: Slambo on January 13, 2021, 10:44:09 AM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 13, 2021, 08:17:45 AM
QuotePersonally, I like at-will magic as an equalizer. If attack spells were objectively better than weapons, then the best warriors would be spellcasters, which means all the rulers would be spellcasters.
I don't see a reason for such result necessary. Especially since sure maybe attack spell is better than weapon, but how about overall survivalibity of wizard, and fact that its way harder to become wizard than warrior?
I dont think thats actually true. Fighters are supposed to be the best of the best not your average run of the mill warrior, and people with the aptitude to be the best of the best at anything are rare. I think the real issue in this is most of the time the fighter won't feel like they're really the best of the best because imo Fighter dont really feel like they're that good at fighting in many systems.
Then perhaps Fighters should always do double damage in Melee?
Quote from: Razor 007 on January 13, 2021, 10:50:11 AM
Then perhaps Fighters should always do double damage in Melee?
Or mooks need to be appropriately scaled. 0-level and sub-1HD creatures existed in AD&D for a reason. A 1st level fighter was already superior to a 0-level warrior and got significantly better from there (a 4th level fighter probably had 5x the hit points, a much better THACO, 4 attacks per round against <1HD opponents, etc.).
By contrast, WotC editions all make a default NPCs equal or better than a 1st level fighter.
Consider that in 1e a Fighter began with the title of veteran. You have seen some action, and fight better than a default soldier. In 5e a default guard has the same hp as a starting fighter with a +1 Con, about the same AC and only slightly behind on hitting and damage. Meanwhile a veteran in 5e is defined as a 9HD (58 hp) opponent who can attack up to three times per round (CR 3, so a challenge for a whole party of third level PCs by himself).
PCs by default aren't much better than mooks to start in 5e... a 1d10 damage cantrip can't even drop a single average guard in one hit outside of a critical hit and +5 vs. AC 16 means it'll miss half the time. Needing probably 3-4 attacks to drop a single default guard isn't earth-shaking by any means. Against a 5e veteran they'd be virtually useless.
By contrast, an at-will attack cantrip that did 1d6 on a hit with a range of 3" in 1e would be quite useful to borderline overpowered depending on the hit mechanics (ex. if it used THACO and Dex mod as a ranged attack, it'd be slightly better than a dart or hurled dagger for a wizard... using a fighter's THACO for the attack or treating Int as a mod to hit and damage could be near broken in 1e).
Basically, we can't really judge at-will cantrips without the larger context of the edition they're found in.
Quote from: Razor 007 on January 13, 2021, 10:50:11 AM
Quote from: Slambo on January 13, 2021, 10:44:09 AM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 13, 2021, 08:17:45 AM
QuotePersonally, I like at-will magic as an equalizer. If attack spells were objectively better than weapons, then the best warriors would be spellcasters, which means all the rulers would be spellcasters.
I don't see a reason for such result necessary. Especially since sure maybe attack spell is better than weapon, but how about overall survivalibity of wizard, and fact that its way harder to become wizard than warrior?
I dont think thats actually true. Fighters are supposed to be the best of the best not your average run of the mill warrior, and people with the aptitude to be the best of the best at anything are rare. I think the real issue in this is most of the time the fighter won't feel like they're really the best of the best because imo Fighter dont really feel like they're that good at fighting in many systems.
Then perhaps Fighters should always do double damage in Melee?
It doesnt need to double...but for me the Deed die in DCC really makes fighters stand out.
Quote from: Slambo on January 13, 2021, 12:43:06 PM
Quote from: Razor 007 on January 13, 2021, 10:50:11 AM
Quote from: Slambo on January 13, 2021, 10:44:09 AM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 13, 2021, 08:17:45 AM
QuotePersonally, I like at-will magic as an equalizer. If attack spells were objectively better than weapons, then the best warriors would be spellcasters, which means all the rulers would be spellcasters.
I don't see a reason for such result necessary. Especially since sure maybe attack spell is better than weapon, but how about overall survivalibity of wizard, and fact that its way harder to become wizard than warrior?
I dont think thats actually true. Fighters are supposed to be the best of the best not your average run of the mill warrior, and people with the aptitude to be the best of the best at anything are rare. I think the real issue in this is most of the time the fighter won't feel like they're really the best of the best because imo Fighter dont really feel like they're that good at fighting in many systems.
Then perhaps Fighters should always do double damage in Melee?
It doesnt need to double...but for me the Deed die in DCC really makes fighters stand out.
Yes, DCC is a good source of inspiration. Bonuses to Hit, and to cause Damage for Fighters of levels 1 through 10, per round could be:
d3, d4, d5, d6, d7, d8, d10, d10+1, d10+2, d10+3
Quote from: Razor 007 on January 13, 2021, 03:58:11 PM
d3, d4, d5, d6, d7, d8, d10, d10+1, d10+2, d10+3
Damage is only a part of the equation. Accuracy (percent hit) and durability (opponent hit points) matter, too.
Obviously, increasing the damage for the Fighter (and not other characters) means they're doing more damage, but it is not clear to what effect. Getting an extra d6 per round (3.5 damage on a hit) doesn't necessarily change how long it takes to drop a 10 hp creature or a 20 hp creature, depending on the rest of the damage.
Ie, a Fighter doing 1d10+10 is going to drop a 10-hp opponent with one hit without another +1d6 damage. The odds of dropping a 20 hp foe in a single hit increase from 10% (rolling a 10 on damage) to 45% (rolling a combination of d10+d6 that totals 10 or better or 27/60). But against an opponent that had 30 hit points, the extra d6 wouldn't matter unless the fighter had poor damage rolls.
A lot of game design is like that - someone thinks giving someone a benefit is going to solve some perceived problem, but once you dig in, it might not be the solution that you expected it to be. It's my take that a lot of people try to fix something like the fighters by giving them a damage bonus, but the that becomes the excuse for why they can't provide something else. Ie, if we 'already fixed the fighter', then you don't need to do another fix. But a little extra damage probably doesn't solve the problem.
Take a fighter (any edition) and a troll (any edition) and you'll see that adding more damage is probably not going to give the fighter anything resembling a fighting chance. Unfortunately, D&D (and clones) don't typically give fighters tactical options like impaling a troll on a boar spear and holding them at bay. Ultimately, there's a disconnect between the fiction and the game mechanics - fighters fight with intelligent using terrain, tools and tactics against monsters who are stronger, tougher and have bigger weapons. You can make a Fighter who has an AC, hit points, and damage equal to a dragon, but most people don't REALLY think that's the right level of balance.
Quote from: Razor 007 on January 13, 2021, 03:58:11 PM
Quote from: Slambo on January 13, 2021, 12:43:06 PM
Quote from: Razor 007 on January 13, 2021, 10:50:11 AM
Quote from: Slambo on January 13, 2021, 10:44:09 AM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 13, 2021, 08:17:45 AM
QuotePersonally, I like at-will magic as an equalizer. If attack spells were objectively better than weapons, then the best warriors would be spellcasters, which means all the rulers would be spellcasters.
I don't see a reason for such result necessary. Especially since sure maybe attack spell is better than weapon, but how about overall survivalibity of wizard, and fact that its way harder to become wizard than warrior?
I dont think thats actually true. Fighters are supposed to be the best of the best not your average run of the mill warrior, and people with the aptitude to be the best of the best at anything are rare. I think the real issue in this is most of the time the fighter won't feel like they're really the best of the best because imo Fighter dont really feel like they're that good at fighting in many systems.
Then perhaps Fighters should always do double damage in Melee?
It doesnt need to double...but for me the Deed die in DCC really makes fighters stand out.
Yes, DCC is a good source of inspiration. Bonuses to Hit, and to cause Damage for Fighters of levels 1 through 10, per round could be:
d3, d4, d5, d6, d7, d8, d10, d10+1, d10+2, d10+3
Yeah, and the mighty deeds of arms too.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on January 13, 2021, 07:55:15 PM
You can make a Fighter who has an AC, hit points, and damage equal to a dragon, but most people don't REALLY think that's the right level of balance.
That is how D&D tends to balance things with the HP inflation by level.
I think it is a bad option, and has always caused a scaling issue in every edition of D&D.
But the D&D base is too wedded to the Zero to Hero play paradigm for it to change.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on January 13, 2021, 07:55:15 PM
...
Take a fighter (any edition) and a troll (any edition) and you'll see that adding more damage is probably not going to give the fighter anything resembling a fighting chance. Unfortunately, D&D (and clones) don't typically give fighters tactical options like impaling a troll on a boar spear and holding them at bay. Ultimately, there's a disconnect between the fiction and the game mechanics - fighters fight with intelligent using terrain, tools and tactics against monsters who are stronger, tougher and have bigger weapons.
IMHO that has always been a knock against most D&D systems. The lack of viable basic tactical moves in the combat system that anyone can do. 5e always seemed to boil down to people doing the most optimal attack from their character sheet that they could.
It wouldn't be that hard at all to implement, but I think hit point inflation is the main reason most options would be useless in actual play.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 14, 2021, 02:30:04 PM
That is how D&D tends to balance things with the HP inflation by level.
I think it is a bad option, and has always caused a scaling issue in every edition of D&D.
But the D&D base is too wedded to the Zero to Hero play paradigm for it to change.
...
IMHO that has always been a knock against most D&D systems. The lack of viable basic tactical moves in the combat system that anyone can do. 5e always seemed to boil down to people doing the most optimal attack from their character sheet that they could.
It wouldn't be that hard at all to implement, but I think hit point inflation is the main reason most options would be useless in actual play.
I do not have a firm grasp on the details of the distinction I'm about to make, but here goes a stab: I think the inflated hit points is a key part of what makes D&D. To a certain extent it is thus necessary. That also cuts out
some tactical and other options. However, I also think there are degrees of hit point inflation such scaling it back would help considerably.
It's really a kind of diminishing returns. N amount of hit point inflation gives you the bulk of the D&D feel along with a list of some positive and negative aspects to that. When you go to N+10, you may pick up a few additional positive things with the new negatives, but mostly what you get is more negatives. Also, the positives that gets picked up as N increases are not nearly as critical as the ones you got earlier.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 14, 2021, 02:30:04 PM
But the D&D base is too wedded to the Zero to Hero play paradigm for it to change.
The current D&D base is wedded to the Superhero to Godlike Being paradigm.
HP inflation wasn't really any problem in the earlier editions of D&D.
Your average 10th level Magic-User had a whopping 23 HP.
The 10th level Cleric had 42 HP, and the Fighter 61 HP (presuming a +1/lvl from a CON of 15+).
Most campaigns took a LONG time to reach 10th level.
Also, classes advanced at different rates. At equal XP, the Fighter would generally be a level or so higher.
In general, counting these things when one-on-one, Magic-User's crap AC, Fighters multiple attacks/round, and casting times impact on initiative, spell disruption if hit ... it was basically this: If the Fighter makes his Saving Throw/gets into melee, the Magic User is dead. If the Fighter fails his Saving Throw, Magic-User wins.
More or less.
For myself personally, I don't have a problem with high level characters being able to survive a direct blast of fire from a dragon's mouth. In cinema, the hero would leap aside or take cover in a barrel of water, but D&D doesn't offer 'cinematic escapes'. If you have to make a dodge roll and the moment you fail, you're dead (game over), that's not good design either. So in my mind, D&D characters generally use Action Hero logic - getting shot once or twice or a bunch doesn't matter, as long as you're not shot in a VULNERABLE place. In real life, even a shot to the arm or shoulder can be deadly, but we're used to suspending disbelief in Die Hard, so I'm fine with doing it in the game, too.
So in movies, the hero parries and dodges every thrust against him and every thrust of his sword fells an opponent. In D&D, every attack against the hero does a small amount of damage, and if he's outnumbered eventually he'll fall. Death by a thousand cuts. Hit points are a useful abstraction to support the fiction - for our game we do track two types of damage - one that is plentiful, easy to heal, and represents all those 'near misses', and one that is small, you take penalties if you lose ANY, and if you run out, you die. So if you shoot someone for 1d10+5 points of damage, it comes off the first category and doesn't REALLY count as a hit; if you roll a critical or they're out of the first category of hit points, they take a wound and might die.
You know, that is another reason why some people love the OSR.
It wasn't action-movie in genre, rather closer to horror film or war biopic.
Also, discussing this has reminded me how powerful magic was pre-3e.
Take the stock Fireball: a 5th level MU was going to average a damage roll of 17 HP BUT it was going to hit everything in a 40'(?) diameter. Even if the target made their Save (and Saves Vs. Magic were really hard), they were going to take 8 HP ... which meant instant death for a large room of 20 orcs, no other action needed.
So on an average damage roll, with the targets making that ~20% chance to Save, they just inflicted 160 HP with a single spell.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 14, 2021, 02:30:04 PM
That is how D&D tends to balance things with the HP inflation by level.
I think it is a bad option, and has always caused a scaling issue in every edition of D&D.
But the D&D base is too wedded to the Zero to Hero play paradigm for it to change.
I always like how it was done in Arduin Grimoire, you got HP based on your CON and then a bonus based on your class and a smaller bonus as you leveled up. It made starting characters much more survivable.
GURPS went with basing it off your Health.
You could take advantages and whatnot, but it really did not inflate.
HackMaster just gave a 20(?) HP bonus at 1st level, regardless of Class.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 14, 2021, 02:30:04 PM
IMHO that has always been a knock against most D&D systems. The lack of viable basic tactical moves in the combat system that anyone can do. 5e always seemed to boil down to people doing the most optimal attack from their character sheet that they could.
It wouldn't be that hard at all to implement, but I think hit point inflation is the main reason most options would be useless in actual play.
Heck, that's been one of the fighter's biggest problems since 3E. The feat system was a good idea, but they buried combat maneuvers in them when those should have been innate to the fighter class.
QuoteYou know, that is another reason why some people love the OSR.
It wasn't action-movie in genre, rather closer to horror film or war biopic.
That is compelling notion overall, but I think many elements in D&D was always bit too abstract like HP to get proper feeling.
I'd prefer for OSR like game something like Warhammer, with large tables of possible wounds and their results, some stress and peril counters and so on - like from Darkest Dungeon, and magic that is quite dark and risky - and you can fuck yourself if you use too much of it.
QuoteHeck, that's been one of the fighter's biggest problems since 3E. The feat system was a good idea, but they buried combat maneuvers in them when those should have been innate to the fighter class.
TBH I'd make basic maneuvres avaliable for anyone with fighter getting bonus. But then my barbarian at 7 level is very good grappler without any feats, and turned into afflicted weretiger nowadays he can snatch invisible levitating spellcasters from the air by massive jumps. So it can be done.
Talented Fighter for Pathfinder I think by 3pp Rogue Games was neat as it just take all archetypes, all fighter feats, all special options and make a level table when you could cherry pick them
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 15, 2021, 06:41:08 PM, and magic that is quite dark and risky - and you can fuck yourself if you use too much of it.
I don't believe you. I mean, I believe that you want to
believe that using magic is dangerous, but in reality, you want it to only be a mild inconvenience. If your character fails to cast
magic missile and instead summons Orcus leading an army of undead-demons, that would be 'dark and risky' but it would also end the campaign. A lot of the fun of D&D comes from thinking that bad things
could happen, but it usually isn't actually fun when it
does happen.
In a novel or a movie, the heroes win in the end. In D&D there is no author to ensure the right outcome is achieved, but the GM is trying to set up a scenario that is difficult but winnable - get the balance right and it's fun - you need to believe that failure was always possible, but if that's what
usually happens, I doubt you'd be pulling up to the table week after week.
Players and their characters have to make the story happen, and for that to have meaning failure has to be
possible but it doesn't have to be probable. The fact is, low probability events happen all the time - if you do double Nat 20 = instant kill, we'll, odds are good that a PC will bit it over the course of 10 encounters with 5 or more enemies lasting 3-4 rounds - approaching 50%. Knowing it could happen does make combat feel dangerous, but having your 20th level character taken out by a 1st level scullery maid throwing a frying pan is the antithesis of heroic escapist fantasy.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on January 15, 2021, 07:21:21 PM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 15, 2021, 06:41:08 PM, and magic that is quite dark and risky - and you can fuck yourself if you use too much of it.
I don't believe you. I mean, I believe that you want to believe that using magic is dangerous, but in reality, you want it to only be a mild inconvenience. If your character fails to cast magic missile and instead summons Orcus leading an army of undead-demons, that would be 'dark and risky' but it would also end the campaign. A lot of the fun of D&D comes from thinking that bad things could happen, but it usually isn't actually fun when it does happen.
In a novel or a movie, the heroes win in the end. In D&D there is no author to ensure the right outcome is achieved, but the GM is trying to set up a scenario that is difficult but winnable - get the balance right and it's fun - you need to believe that failure was always possible, but if that's what usually happens, I doubt you'd be pulling up to the table week after week.
Players and their characters have to make the story happen, and for that to have meaning failure has to be possible but it doesn't have to be probable. The fact is, low probability events happen all the time - if you do double Nat 20 = instant kill, we'll, odds are good that a PC will bit it over the course of 10 encounters with 5 or more enemies lasting 3-4 rounds - approaching 50%. Knowing it could happen does make combat feel dangerous, but having your 20th level character taken out by a 1st level scullery maid throwing a frying pan is the antithesis of heroic escapist fantasy.
Are you familiar with WFRP? It's fairly popular, and it features both high chances of character failure (including death and permanent maiming) along with a magic system that can have some horrendous miscast results. It's not really for those that only want "mild inconvenience" from their failures.
QuoteI don't believe you. I mean, I believe that you want to believe that using magic is dangerous, but in reality, you want it to only be a mild inconvenience. If your character fails to cast magic missile and instead summons Orcus leading an army of undead-demons, that would be 'dark and risky' but it would also end the campaign. A lot of the fun of D&D comes from thinking that bad things could happen, but it usually isn't actually fun when it does happen.
But in D&D it's not mildly incovinient - it's totally relatable unless you purposefuly point spell in a wrong place :P
How I see things - it's like you have d100(0) table of Minor Mispells, with various effects from purely cosmetic, to somehow annoying - and then if you roll over dunno 93 you get to another table, and so on - and in table 4 you have catastrophic events and so on, and of course there are some Corrupting effects so it's chance one per million to summon Orcus as W1, but more mishaps happen, the risk of big failures is bigger. As in Warhammer it's balancing on the edge - chance to kill yourself right away are slim, but slowly and slowly getting in more problems, that's how it goes.
QuoteIn a novel or a movie, the heroes win in the end. In D&D there is no author to ensure the right outcome is achieved, but the GM is trying to set up a scenario that is difficult but winnable - get the balance right and it's fun - you need to believe that failure was always possible, but if that's what usually happens, I doubt you'd be pulling up to the table week after week.
QuoteKnowing it could happen does make combat feel dangerous, but having your 20th level character taken out by a 1st level scullery maid throwing a frying pan is the antithesis of heroic escapist fantasy.
Dude, I was answering to guy talking about why OSR is popular - and how OSR is not heroic escapist fantasy like later D&D's but more horror/war movie escapism and you loose a lot of PC characters, it's dangerous. Look I also play more heroic usually (because due to my group I play Pathfinder/D&D 3,5 - but I totally get why high letality game is fun where you make five PC's up front to not waste time later, because they will be WASTED, and I really as we go up and up start to dislike this abstract HP bags aspect of mechanics.
QuoteSo in movies, the hero parries and dodges every thrust against him and every thrust of his sword fells an opponent. In D&D, every attack against the hero does a small amount of damage, and if he's outnumbered eventually he'll fall. Death by a thousand cuts. Hit points are a useful abstraction to support the fiction - for our game we do track two types of damage - one that is plentiful, easy to heal, and represents all those 'near misses', and one that is small, you take penalties if you lose ANY, and if you run out, you die. So if you shoot someone for 1d10+5 points of damage, it comes off the first category and doesn't REALLY count as a hit; if you roll a critical or they're out of the first category of hit points, they take a wound and might die.
The problem is to extent how HP is trying to be both abstract and real indicator of characters help - depending on various aspect of mechanics.
So I'd rather see how with each level you are harder to hit - lot of active defences, and AC reduced to DR (still very important with right balance) and no HP inflation.
High level character should be hard to hit, but each hit happening should be painful, in optimal design.
But we've got what we've got.
QuoteAre you familiar with WFRP? It's fairly popular, and it features both high chances of character failure (including death and permanent maiming) along with a magic system that can have some horrendous miscast results. It's not really for those that only want "mild inconvenience" from their failures.
Yes. Though it also varies between editions - for instance in 1 edition you can up your Endurance and Hit Points in a way that makes plate armour knight softer than you - so it's not always as letal as it seems. But yeah that what I was pointing to.
I ended long campaign in WHF 1e - as a wizard - it was 1 e so unfortunately no miscasts yet, just mana points management - still it was quite deadly for some time, until wonkiness of system made us into superheroes ;)
But in first few adventures my wizard apprentice was twice almost butchered and beared very nasty scars, and once a piece of shrapnel in back put him in recovery for weeks. So this letality was very tangible - one bad shot and our leading knight very tough guys almost bled out of leg artery - with only save or die chance won by our surgeon.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on January 15, 2021, 07:21:21 PM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 15, 2021, 06:41:08 PM, and magic that is quite dark and risky - and you can fuck yourself if you use too much of it.
I don't believe you. I mean, I believe that you want to believe that using magic is dangerous, but in reality, you want it to only be a mild inconvenience. If your character fails to cast magic missile and instead summons Orcus leading an army of undead-demons, that would be 'dark and risky' but it would also end the campaign. A lot of the fun of D&D comes from thinking that bad things could happen, but it usually isn't actually fun when it does happen.
Some people genuinely do want magic to be dark and risky - but yeah, it would look very different from traditional D&D. For example, I've been playing in a weekly Call of Cthulhu campaign for most of a year, and just yesterday was the first time that a PC cast a spell. Overwhelmingly, spells seemed like things that we didn't want - like creating a zombie by torturing someone to death.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on January 15, 2021, 07:21:21 PM
Players and their characters have to make the story happen, and for that to have meaning failure has to be possible but it doesn't have to be probable. The fact is, low probability events happen all the time - if you do double Nat 20 = instant kill, we'll, odds are good that a PC will bit it over the course of 10 encounters with 5 or more enemies lasting 3-4 rounds - approaching 50%. Knowing it could happen does make combat feel dangerous, but having your 20th level character taken out by a 1st level scullery maid throwing a frying pan is the antithesis of heroic escapist fantasy.
Agreed, but not everyone plays for heroic escapist fantasy. Notably, last session I also got my PC killed after over 30 sessions of play. He died as we tried to assault a cave with a bunch of cultists. I tried to throw some dynamite, and rolled a 00. The dynamite landed in the middle of our group, and I jumped on it and died to save the group. Everyone agreed that it was a great death, but... I mean, I blew myself up.
The Cantriips in D&D 5E would function well enough to be leveled spells in a lower magic setting.
Eldritch Blast could be extremely powerful in some settings.
QuoteSome people genuinely do want magic to be dark and risky - but yeah, it would look very different from traditional D&D. For example, I've been playing in a weekly Call of Cthulhu campaign for most of a year, and just yesterday was the first time that a PC cast a spell. Overwhelmingly, spells seemed like things that we didn't want - like creating a zombie by torturing someone to death.
Indeed horror games are also fine example.
But even closer to D&D - original D&D was roguish/mercenary game, not heroic one necessarily - so Warhammer seems to emulate this fine.
QuoteAgreed, but not everyone plays for heroic escapist fantasy. Notably, last session I also got my PC killed after over 30 sessions of play. He died as we tried to assault a cave with a bunch of cultists. I tried to throw some dynamite, and rolled a 00. The dynamite landed in the middle of our group, and I jumped on it and died to save the group. Everyone agreed that it was a great death, but... I mean, I blew myself up.
Well my Catholic Priest PC in CoC after mere 5 sessions (but it was short story - kamikaze'd himself into shoggoth with bag of granades) - my choice after he rolled critical failure on Sanity when seeing shoggoth - my GM said - ok it's bad, very bad - I let you choose how bad.
I'd prefer that 5e Clerics didn't get attack cantrips, but otherwise no issue.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 15, 2021, 06:41:08 PM
...
TBH I'd make basic maneuvres avaliable for anyone with fighter getting bonus. But then my barbarian at 7 level is very good grappler without any feats, and turned into afflicted weretiger nowadays he can snatch invisible levitating spellcasters from the air by massive jumps. So it can be done.
This!
D&D would only need 4-6 viable options in combat other than
"I attack with my most optimal attack" to spice things up nicely.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on January 15, 2021, 07:21:21 PM...
I don't believe you. I mean, I believe that you want to believe that using magic is dangerous, but in reality, you want it to only be a mild inconvenience. If your character fails to cast magic missile and instead summons Orcus leading an army of undead-demons, that would be 'dark and risky' but it would also end the campaign. A lot of the fun of D&D comes from thinking that bad things could happen, but it usually isn't actually fun when it does happen. ...
That is an extreme example. There is a middle ground here.
Spell failure consequences do not have to = Campaign ending incident. Or: Ha,ha you lose.
You can lose you spell slot/points. Cause yourself some harm, cause your friends harm, cause your enemies harm on top of both. Or summon something that causes problems, but is an escalation, not an extermination.
There are many ways to have consequences for failed spells/magic that are real but also do not end the world.
.
Collateral damage as the result of spell failure works in many cases. As stressed at the shooting range, look past your target as well as at it.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 18, 2021, 04:23:23 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking on January 15, 2021, 07:21:21 PM...
I don't believe you. I mean, I believe that you want to believe that using magic is dangerous, but in reality, you want it to only be a mild inconvenience. If your character fails to cast magic missile and instead summons Orcus leading an army of undead-demons, that would be 'dark and risky' but it would also end the campaign. A lot of the fun of D&D comes from thinking that bad things could happen, but it usually isn't actually fun when it does happen. ...
That is an extreme example. There is a middle ground here.
Spell failure consequences do not have to = Campaign ending incident. Or: Ha,ha you lose.
You can lose you spell slot/points. Cause yourself some harm, cause your friends harm, cause your enemies harm on top of both. Or summon something that causes problems, but is an escalation, not an extermination.
There are many ways to have consequences for failed spells/magic that are real but also do not end the world.
.
Not only that, but there are kinds of consequences that don't result in spell failure. You can cast your magic missile just fine, but now, because of your roll on the effects table, you fail your next saving throw. Or you catch the attention of a demonic force, that puts an obstacle in your way. Not only does it not have to be world-ending, it doesn't even have to relate to the effects of that spell...
Quote from: Two Crows on January 08, 2021, 01:30:24 AM
When they debuted back in the Unearthed Arcana, I liked them a lot.
Our group was disappointed that there was a Belch cantrip, but no Fart cantrip.
So one of our players noticing this omission spent time and money developing such a cantrip and open sourced it to the world.
There was never a dull moment after that.
Quote from: DocJones on January 19, 2021, 05:40:18 PM
Quote from: Two Crows on January 08, 2021, 01:30:24 AM
When they debuted back in the Unearthed Arcana, I liked them a lot.
Our group was disappointed that there was a Belch cantrip, but no Fart cantrip.
So one of our players noticing this omission spent time and money developing such a cantrip and open sourced it to the world.
There was never a dull moment after that.
That sounds about right.
Quote from: deadDMwalking on January 14, 2021, 05:20:11 PM
For myself personally, I don't have a problem with high level characters being able to survive a direct blast of fire from a dragon's mouth. ...
And this is the type of thing that I find absolutely immersion breaking.
The hit point bloat in D&D throws me every time.
It's not that hard for D&D/d20 to adjucate these type of situations.
You just make shields worth something more than a + to AC.
PC's gat to make a save vs. arrow/breath weapons if you have a med shield 1/2 damage - if you have a large shield you can duck behind, minimum damage.
Or something similar.
Things for d20/D&D get a whole lot more manageable if you fix HP at a low level. Yes you have to scale other parts of the system back, but then you also don't run into the scaling issues that HP bloat brings.
For nostalgia reason you can't really do that with D&D.
But sticking blindly to the HP bloat paradigm is one of the reasons why so many d20 based games got a reputation for not properly emulating the genre/IP they were being made for.