# Looking At The Pathfinder 2 Wizard Class



## Xavian Starsider (May 23, 2018)

I always disliked how 3e  put a limit on cantrip use. Looks like Pathfinder is continuing this trend wherein a low level wizard who has cast all his offense spells for the day now gets to be a really bad fighter with lousy attack bonus, lousy damage, lousy ac, and lousy hp. Joy! Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf.  Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!


----------



## Sunseeker (May 23, 2018)

Xavian Starsider said:


> I always disliked how 3e  put a limit on cantrip use. Looks like Pathfinder is continuing this trend wherein a low level wizard who has cast all his offense spells for the day now gets to be a really bad fighter with lousy attack bonus, lousy damage, lousy ac, and lousy hp. Joy! Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf.  Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!




I mean, it's _kinda_ balanced by the fact that they're as powerful as your highest level spell you can cast, but only take up a cantrip slot?

But I think that's missing the point of the magic-user being able to do some "always" magic.  Because as you say, magic is their thing.

It's an easy houserule fix, but really you'd think it'd be packaged in by now.


----------



## Ancalagon (May 23, 2018)

I'm in a low level campaign (we *just* reached level 3) and our druid is heavily casting optimized... but because he has so flew slots, his combat options are very limited.  At high level he'll be a terror but for now...

(he also has reduce shape change due to some template choice) 

In 5e, this wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## thekittenhugs (May 23, 2018)

Xavian Starsider said:


> Looks like Pathfinder is continuing this trend wherein a low level wizard who has cast all his offense spells for the day now gets to be a really bad fighter with lousy attack bonus, lousy damage, lousy ac, and lousy hp!



Pathfinder actually started (or was an early adopter of) the whole "cantrips = at will" thing that 5e has continued, so I think they will give casters _some _decent at-will abilities. Though really, the fact that they're keeping Vancian casting with individual spell preparations shows that for every good lesson they learn, there are three others they completely ignore, so they might just keep it as "oh, you get acid splash, enjoy dealing 1d4 damage every round when you're out of spells."


----------



## Banesfinger (May 23, 2018)

I know it is a sacred cow, but I see that this is more of a problem with the vancian magic system.  All spell casters play to the strength of that system, which is the "15 minute work day".  Use all your spells in a single encounter, then sleep, repeat.  "At-will" cantrips were a band-aid, but not a fix (like telling a fighter that after 2 encounters he has to put away his sword and only use a dagger).


----------



## Staffan (May 23, 2018)

Xavian Starsider said:


> I always disliked how 3e  put a limit on cantrip use. Looks like Pathfinder is continuing this trend wherein a low level wizard who has cast all his offense spells for the day now gets to be a really bad fighter with lousy attack bonus, lousy damage, lousy ac, and lousy hp. Joy! Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf.  Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!



Cantrips will still be at-will abilities. This was explained in the blog post about spellcasting:



			
				Paizo said:
			
		

> In the playtest, cantrips are spells you can cast at will, but they are no longer level 0. Instead, they automatically heighten to the highest spell level you can currently cast. That means if you're 5th level, your ray of frost is 3rd level and deals more damage, and your light cantrip is better at counteracting magical darkness.




They didn't specify how strong cantrips are at their base level or how much they gain from being higher level. So I guess we'll see if we still have low-level wizards spending most of their combats shooting things with their crossbows or if they have some decent magic combat options.


----------



## mellored (May 23, 2018)

So it seems like there is a concentration mechanic.  And it seems to take an action to maintain concentration.

So stacking buffs will slow you down.


----------



## Lylandra (May 23, 2018)

Yeah, I read the cantrips at being prepared, but then used at-will, just like it is in PF1. The only difference is that they automatically scale up to your highest spell level. Hope this means that we'll see more variance in cantrips in PF2.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 23, 2018)

thekittenhugs said:


> Pathfinder actually started (or was an early adopter of) the whole "cantrips = at will" thing that 5e has continued



Pathfinder was indeed an early adpter of it. 4e was actually the system that started it.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 23, 2018)

mellored said:


> So it seems like there is a concentration mechanic.  And it seems to take an action to maintain concentration.
> 
> So stacking buffs will slow you down.



Sounds pretty reasonable. Effectively the same idea as 4e’s Sustain Minor.


----------



## Baumi (May 23, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Pathfinder was indeed an early adpter of it. 4e was actually the system that started it.




If I remember correctly, there were some Feats for 3E (dont Remember the supplement, but it was near the end of 3E) that gave you at-will Attacks if you have certain Spells prepaired.

P.S.: Found it ... "Reserve Feats" from Complete Mage. There were quite a few cool Options (can breath in water, does d6/level of the reserved Spell,..), but as the name says, you only can use them if you have a fitting Spell unused.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 23, 2018)

Xavian Starsider said:


> I always disliked how 3e  put a limit on cantrip use. Looks like Pathfinder is continuing this trend wherein a low level wizard who has cast all his offense spells for the day now gets to be a really bad fighter with lousy attack bonus, lousy damage, lousy ac, and lousy hp. Joy! Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf.  Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!



It gets REALLY problematic if some characters can spew huge amounts of magical fire (acid etc) all day long without ever tiring.

It also means low-level spells quickly become obsolete, which is not what you want.

I realize feeble stick-poking doesn't feel heroic, but the only way to resolve this is to separate casters into two different groups.

Blasters with endless at-will magical damage. Should be treated more like a warrior swinging his axe all day. These classes gain limited or no access to higher levels of magic. Being able to unleash unlimited amounts of fire (acid etc) is treated as significantly better than ordinary axe swings, even if the numerical damage is similar. 

Casters whose cantrips are just that, and who gets no access to at-will magical blasts.


----------



## Jer (May 23, 2018)

Baumi said:


> P.S.: Found it ... "Reserve Feats" from Complete Mage. There were quite a few cool Options (can breath in water, does d6/level of the reserved Spell,..), but as the name says, you only can use them if you have a fitting Spell unused.




Yup.  And one of those "Complete" supplements in 3e introduced the Warlock who had an at-will spellcasting attack as well, which showed that it wasn't really a balance issue that prevented unlimited at-will casting but just a question of how to balance it.


----------



## Caliburn101 (May 23, 2018)

The more I read about Pathfinder 2 and it's innovations, and those already introduced by 5th Edition, the more I want to see a hybrid of the two!


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

Thankfully, the Pathfinder2 cantrips appear to be atwill all day long!

The preparation allows the wizard to swap in different cantrips.

It also allows the wizard to actually write down the cantrip spells in the spellbook.

That sounds sensible.

(Im unsure why 5e doesnt do cantrips that way?)


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

Caliburn101 said:


> The more I read about Pathfinder 2 and it's innovations, and those already introduced by 5th Edition, the more I want to see a hybrid of the two!




Some suggest Pathfinder 2 be like 5e but with more customizability. They call that ‘Advanced D&D’.

I hope Pathfinder 2 makes it easy for players to customize character classes and ancestries, and backgrounds and so on.

Also make it easy for DMs to customize the setting flavor for homebrew settings of various genres. I hope the Golarion setting doesnt get in the way of the rules, by baking in Golarion flavor. I want to use the rules for completely different settings.

If PF2 publishes its core rulebook by explicitly calling it the ‘Guide to Golarion’ with all of its flavor text, but then makes the *setting neutral* core rules accessible online and in a separate SRD document, that would be ok for me. I could use the rules for my setting, while other people would use the Golarion setting that adapts the rules for it.



The cleric class needs to be setting neutral − so nonpolytheistic options are a normal option that a character can choose.
• abstract concept − like love, detachment (buddhism), ethics or alignment (paladin)
• cosmic force − like light (consciousness, energy, positivity), elements (daoism, Darksun)
• animism (every feature of nature has a psionic psychic presence, druid)

And so on.

Really, the Golorion setting itself should have examples of sacred communities with these kinds of impersonal concepts of the sacred. So it should be normal for a cleric to have such options.


----------



## Blue (May 23, 2018)

Xavian Starsider said:


> I always disliked how 3e  put a limit on cantrip use. Looks like Pathfinder is continuing this trend wherein a low level wizard who has cast all his offense spells for the day now gets to be a really bad fighter with lousy attack bonus, lousy damage, lousy ac, and lousy hp. Joy! Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf.  Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!




As a serious question, what are the alternatives?

Let's put forth that a caster spending actions casting damage all day and a weapon wielder spending actions to attack all day should average out to be about the same.  This is grossly unfair - the caster has a lot more flexibility so should really be lower, but let's take this as the absolute best a caster should be doing.

So, if some actions spent by the caster are more powerful than a weapon wielder, then some need to be less powerful.  That's the current balance.  You can't take away the less powerful without throwing the classes well out of balance.

The alternative is to make the caster the same as the weapon wielder.  For things like area of effect that really breaks up the damage tiny - a fireball might do 5-10 points of damage in a 20'r to be on par with one actions worth of melee attack.  And that's generous because it compensates some for a weapon able to focus fire.

Would you prefer PF to move from the first to the second?  Are there other solutions you see?


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

I hope, Pathfinder 2 succeeds at balance, and all options are moreorless equally good choices.


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

Regarding the wizard class.

I hope they use their idea of Mind-Spirit-Body-Matter to divide up the spell list. So a ‘school’ is simply a theme within one of these four. For example, the ‘school of earth-fire’ would be a subset of spells relating to Matter.

Compare the spell list *here* for what I mean about dividing up the spell list.

Generally, I find the traditional spell schools useless. Too many spells belong to more than one school (like abjuration plus an other school) and some schools include too many different kinds of spells without rhyme or reason (like transmutation which can mean almost anything).


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

I would move away from ‘slots’, and during the design process think in terms of ‘spell points’, to ensure points are balanced and simple to implement. The slots can ride on top of the spell system that is calibrated for points.


----------



## Koloth (May 23, 2018)

If I read this correctly, a 1st level Wizard can now cast a Magic Missile with 3 missiles by spending two actions on it.  Does seem to up power what were low level spells as long as the party is fighting a static battle.  If you need to move, you have a choice to make.  

For those complaining about the 15 minute work day Wizard, that can be remedied by imposing a "mission must be done by deadline" condition.  If you have 6 days to rescue the Prince and the kidnappers are a 5 day trip away, you can't afford to rest every time your Wizard expends her complete spell load on a random Orc band.


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

Finally, I hate material components.

Maybe have mouth (verbal), empty hand (somatic), and a concentration (!) be the three spell components.



Material components for 15-minute magic rituals is fine, and makes sense to me.

Please, remove all costly gp components. Instead, limit the frequency, such as once per long rest, or once per week or month (lunar cycle). Using frequency instead of wealth is more reliable for gaming balance, and is more setting neutral, working equally well for wealthy aristocratic characters or moneyless nomadic characters.


----------



## dave2008 (May 23, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> It gets REALLY problematic if some characters can spew huge amounts of magical fire (acid etc) all day long without ever tiring.
> 
> It also means low-level spells quickly become obsolete, which is not what you want.
> 
> ...




I recently came to a similar conclusion.   Would have just given XP, but I can't on this thread for some reason.


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

For range, simplify as
• upto 10 feet = melee (adjacent)
• upto 30 feet = close (near)
• upto 100 feet = distant (far)

Other ranges are less important
• upto 300 feet = mid range (bowshot) (city block)
• upto 3000 feet = long range
• sight
• anywhere in same plane = remote


----------



## Aldarc (May 23, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The cleric class needs to be setting neutral − so nonpolytheistic options are a normal option that a character can choose.
> • abstract concept − like love, detachment (buddhism), ethics or alignment (paladin)
> • cosmic force − like light (consciousness, energy, positivity), elements (daoism, Darksun)
> • animism (every feature of nature has a psionic psychic presence, druid)



You are the only person who has this problem; you need to get over this hang-up with the cleric class.


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> You are the only person who has this problem; you need to get over this hang-up with the cleric class.




Heh, the unappealing polytheism makes other people simply refuse to play D&D in the first place.



In any case, this is about 3e that has many different kinds of cleric (such as Darksun cleric that reveres the four elements as sacred, sorta like Daoism, or paladin that upholds the ethics of an alignment), and this is about Pathfinder that strongly supports the player and helps the player to customize the character concept.



Besides, if Pathfinder 2 turns out to be remotely balanced, I find its customizability highly appealing. I will want to use the P2 system for all kinds of settings with all kinds of genres. Especially near future.


----------



## Aldarc (May 23, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Heh, the unappealing polytheism makes other people simply refuse to play D&D in the first place.



You are making an Everest out of this anthill of a "problem." 

Signed, 

A guy who rarely uses D&D-style polytheistic homebrews and who has NEVER encountered this problem with D&D clerics and religion with his players, many of whom in the past consisted of priests, pastors, and religious scholars. 



> Besides, if Pathfinder 2 turns out to be remotely balanced, I find its customizability highly appealing. I will want to use the P2 system for all kinds of settings with all kinds of genres. Especially near future.



I am skeptical that you will make it work, but not because any shortcomings of PF2's design but because of your own self-engineered problems and unperceptiveness to easy answers for said non-problems.


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]

In its day, I used 3e for many different kinds of settings with different kinds of genres.

I see no reason why 
1) Pathfinder should be difficult to use for various genres
2) why designing rules to make setting customizability easy needs to be a problem.

The only reason I stopped using 3e is because I value the relative balance of 4e and 5e.


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

Thinking on it more, I really like the idea in my earlier post.

Make the three spell casting components:
• Verbal
• Somatic (empty hand)
• Concentration!


----------



## Aldarc (May 23, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]
> 
> In its day, I used 3e for many different kinds of settings with different kinds of genres.
> 
> ...



Pathfinder is not 3e. It has become its own brand, and it seeking to strengthen its own brand, and that brand includes Golarion. A large chunk of its fanbase and buyerbase invests in the Golarion-tied APs. That said, I doubt that Pathfinder 2 will be difficult to use for other genres much as Pathfinder 1 is not. PF1, and likely PF2, was indeed highly customizable. It produced a lot of homebrew and 3pp content. You may have to homebrew or tweak the rules a bit for your homebrews, but this has always been standard practice for all D&D and many non-generic TTRPG systems. The polytheism is not an actual problem, certainly no more than assumptions such as "all dwarves love beer" or "elves are a dying people." Most GMs make adjustments as needed and move on with their lives in contentment.


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Pathfinder has become its own brand, and it seeking to strengthen its own brand, and that brand includes Golarion. A large chunk of its fanbase and buyerbase invests in the Golarion-tied APs.




At the same time, the Pathfinder SRD is good for making core rules available in a setting-neutral way.

Pathfinder 2 can write a rulebook that tweaks the rules for the Golarion setting flavor. I would prefer they call it the ‘Golarion Guide’. 

(Similarly, I wish 5e called the Players Handbook, the ‘Forgotten Realms Handbook’, so when other settings come out, there would also be an ‘Eberron Handbook’ and ‘Dark Sun Handbook’. All these books should be able to refer to the same core rules, even if there are tweaks here or there specific to a setting.)

The trick to setting neutrality is to compartmentalize options, so it is easy to swap setting options in or out, like Lego bricks.


----------



## Yaarel (May 23, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> The polytheism is not an actual problem.




Polytheism doesnt have to be a problem. If it is easy to swap it out, then no problem.

Just make the cleric class make sense for various kinds of sacred traditions and various kinds of settings. If the DM makes a setting without polytheism, no problem, or with polytheism, no problem. Same cleric class, same rules. Just remove the Great Wheel from the setting − and done! If the player wants to play an adherent of an abstract sacred tradition, great, or an adherent of polytheism that personifies the concept, that is fine too. (Most Non-Western sacred traditions emphasize abstract sacred concepts, so there are good reallife multicultural benefits to diversifying the cleric class. Only Westerners seem to need to worship a personification.) There neednt be a problem.



Unfortunately, 4e and especially 5e made polytheism a problem. These systems bake polytheistic flavor deeply into the cleric class features, the spells, the races, the monsters, the planes, the setting assumptions, it is hard to find a chapter that avoids saturating the mechanics with the unwanted polytheism flavor. Even sections that mention alternatives to polytheism still push polytheism in the most heavy-handed way possible, like recommending to DMs and players who dislike polytheism that they should use polytheism anyway, or use pantheism worshiping multiple gods at the same time.

I know, because in the attempt to try remove polytheism from the rules in the 5e SRD, and I gave up, having lost interest in the amount of time and energy that it takes to remove it. I am sick of polytheism.

In the 3e, I was neutral about polytheism, because the rules let me be neutral. 4e and 5e made polytheism a problem.



Anyway, keep setting assumptions in separate textboxes. For example, for the cleric class have a sidebar that mentions the most prominent sacred traditions in Golarion, how a cleric character might fit within each one of them. A textbox is easy to blot out (even literally). Oppositely, baking something into all mechanics everywhere is hard to ignore.

Compartmentalize flavor options for the same reason that it is useful to compartmentalize mechanical options.


----------



## dave2008 (May 23, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Finally, I hate material components.
> 
> Maybe have mouth (verbal), empty hand (somatic), and a concentration (!) be the three spell components.
> 
> ...




I really like this idea.  I would give you XP, but I can't on this thread.


----------



## mellored (May 23, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I would move away from ‘slots’, and during the design process think in terms of ‘spell points’, to ensure points are balanced and simple to implement. The slots can ride on top of the spell system that is calibrated for points.



An issue with spell points is that you often end up spamming the "best" spell.  Especially if you take the feats that boost that particular spell.
Slots, while mess to keep track of, force you to do a variety of things.

Maybe some kind of hybrid system.
Like you get spell points, but can only cast each spell once.

Or like the fighter, you can cast any spell at-will, but each time you cast the spell you take a multi-cast penalty (resets at the end of the day).


Or maybe all 4 ideas.  Spell points for psions, slots for wizards, spell points and limited spells for sorcerers, and multi-cast penalty for warlocks.


----------



## mellored (May 23, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Finally, I hate material components.



They mentioned that the majority of spells will only have verbal and somatic.


Also, Magic Missile does not seem to have any GP cost or material implied.  Just that it could use the "Materal Casting action".


----------



## zztong (May 23, 2018)

Xavian Starsider said:


> Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf.  Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!




Whoa there, fella. Gandalf dual wields a staff and a sword. He's not half bad at it either, because at 4th level his BAB is still tracking reasonably close to a Fighter. Plus, he's only fighting goblins and orcs.

You also don't hear Gandalf complaining about Vancian magic because he only needs to cast a juiced up "Light" spell or Summon Eagles, call for a Mount, or use a butterfly as an Animal Messenger about once a day.


----------



## Xavian Starsider (May 23, 2018)

Blue said:


> As a serious question, what are the alternatives?
> 
> Let's put forth that a caster spending actions casting damage all day and a weapon wielder spending actions to attack all day should average out to be about the same.  This is grossly unfair - the caster has a lot more flexibility so should really be lower, but let's take this as the absolute best a caster should be doing.
> 
> ...




Well the  obvious answer is look at 5e. A wizard can throw 1d10 fire bolts until the cows come home but that barbarian might be wielding a 1d12 greataxe and +4 strength damage. And then he rages. And we must remember classes are balanced in more than offense. Wizards are squishy high profile targets. Barbarians and fighters not as much.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 23, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Finally, I hate material components.
> 
> Maybe have mouth (verbal), empty hand (somatic), and a concentration (!) be the three spell components.
> 
> ...




I thought people hated time based cool downs because they were video gamey?


----------



## TwoSix (May 23, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> I thought people hated time based cool downs because they were video gamey?



You name a mechanic, there's a vocal contingent that hates it.


----------



## mellored (May 23, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> I thought people hated time based cool downs because they were video gamey?



Just because a video game uses it, doesn't mean it's bad.

And really, what else is D&D magic if not on a cooldown?


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Polytheism doesnt have to be a problem. If it is easy to swap it out, then no problem.
> 
> Just make the cleric class make sense for various kinds of sacred traditions and various kinds of settings. If the DM makes a setting without polytheism, no problem, or with polytheism, no problem. Same cleric class, same rules. Just remove the Great Wheel from the setting − and done! If the player wants to play an adherent of an abstract sacred tradition, great, or an adherent of polytheism that personifies the concept, that is fine too. (Most Non-Western sacred traditions emphasize abstract sacred concepts, so there are good reallife multicultural benefits to diversifying the cleric class. Only Westerners seem to need to worship a personification.) There neednt be a problem.
> 
> ...



Personally speaking, I am a strict Monotheist, but I hardly see any problem with the D&D setup, nor do I feel any of the editions mentioned make it at all difficult to reflavor as needed. I fail to see anywhere in the 5E rules that make polytheism necessary.


----------



## Ancalagon (May 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Personally speaking, I am a strict Monotheist, but I hardly see any problem with the D&D setup, nor do I feel any of the editions mentioned make it at all difficult to reflavor as needed. I fail to see anywhere in the 5E rules that make polytheism necessary.



I concur. I'm startled by the notion that polytheism is so hard to remove that it ruined the game for him. It's as if someone said they refused play warhammer because they hate crossbows...


----------



## Staffan (May 23, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I know, because in the attempt to try remove polytheism from the rules in the 5e SRD, and I gave up, having lost interest in the amount of time and energy that it takes to remove it. I am sick of polytheism.




"Clerics in this setting are attuned to fundamental cosmic forces, represented by the various domains available. This is a learned skill, unlike that of a sorcerer, but at the same time it is based on a deep emotional understanding rather than factual knowledge (which is why cleric magic is based on Wisdom rather than Intelligence or Charisma)." That's 2-3 sentences, and IMO decouple the cleric class fairly strongly from the theism (both mono-, poly-, and heno-)

That's basically the idea I have rolling around in my head for my homebrew. In my version, there are still religions, but they are mostly orthogonal to the concept of clerical magic. Some clerics of War will follow Kord or Bane and preach their values, but so will some fighters and barbarians. And many who are clerics of War do not recognize the existence of deities, or they consider war gods to be an imperfect understanding of the Truth beheind the concept, or whatever.

As for Pathfinder, it is very unlikely that you'll see Paizo acknowledging the idea that clerics don't need deities, particularly for the more Golarion-focused 2nd edition. James Jacobs (Pathfinder creative director) is on record as saying that clerics need a deity, and if you want to play a divine caster that doesn't worship a particular god, you should play an oracle instead.


----------



## Emerikol (May 24, 2018)

Honestly I wish they'd have an option not to have at-will wizard casting.  I like magic to be a limited resource and not a video game style blaster.   Obviously, it just has to be an option.  I missed this earlier.  A negative.


----------



## Yaarel (May 24, 2018)

Emerikol said:


> Honestly I wish they'd have an option not to have at-will wizard casting.  I like magic to be a limited resource and not a video game style blaster.   Obviously, it just has to be an option.  I missed this earlier.  A negative.




The wizard rules can easily let the player choose between a cantrip and a weapon proficiency. I feel wizards who master cantrips have no business knowing how to wield weapons.


----------



## Shasarak (May 24, 2018)

Xavian Starsider said:


> I always disliked how 3e  put a limit on cantrip use. Looks like Pathfinder is continuing this trend wherein a low level wizard who has cast all his offense spells for the day now gets to be a really bad fighter with lousy attack bonus, lousy damage, lousy ac, and lousy hp. Joy! Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf.  Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!




To be honest I would much rather play a Wizard that conserves his spells and fulls back on his Crossbow then one that can shoot an infinite amount of fire bolts.  Because after all Gandalf was not constantly spamming fire attacks.

But I understand that you have to adapt to the video game generation.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> Just because a video game uses it, doesn't mean it's bad.
> 
> And really, what else is D&D magic if not on a cooldown?



Sounds like a person who wasn't here during the Edition Wars.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 24, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> Sounds like a person who wasn't here during the Edition Wars.



Mellored was a very prominent poster on the WotC forums during the 5e playtest, so I think it’s safe to assume they are well familiar with the Edition Wars.



Shasarak said:


> To be honest I would much rather play a Wizard that conserves his spells and fulls back on his Crossbow then one that can shoot an infinite amount of fire bolts.  Because after all Gandalf was not constantly spamming fire attacks.
> 
> But I understand that you have to adapt to the video game generation.



D&D and its ilk haven’t been Lord of the Rings for a long time, and I don’t think video games are to blame. At least not solely to blame. Tolkien’s fingerprints will always be there on the genre, but it didn’t take long for people to start craving a world that was more fantastical, where magic played a big part in everyday life. For as long as there have been people roleplaying as wizards, there have been people wishing that they could be doing magic instead of using weapons badly. Doing magic is, after all, the primary appeal of being a wizard. And honestly, what’s the big deal if the ~4.5 damage per turn the wizard can do without expending a resource comes from a 1d8 crossbow or a 1d8 magic beam? If the damage type is that big of a concern, charge a small tax on the die size for it. But let the players who want to be the guy who casts spells actually cast spells.


----------



## Aldarc (May 24, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> To be honest I would much rather play a Wizard that conserves his spells and fulls back on his Crossbow then one that can shoot an infinite amount of fire bolts.  Because after all Gandalf was not constantly spamming fire attacks.



He also wasn't spamming crossbow bolts either. (I also think that Gandalf is more Druid than Wizard.) 



> But I understand that you have to adapt to the video game generation.



 This sentiment is a bit condescending, if not inaccurate. 

This is less about video games and more about changing prevailing norms and tastes. For example, even outside of the spell conservation, the d4 HD wizard is gone. I don't think video games are to blame for that. Cantrips have increasingly become more basic combat functional across D&D editions so it is not surprising to see Pathfinder 2 follow suit. Sure Gandalf doesn't constantly spam spells, but other fantasy wizards and mages in literature do. "Hello, Wheel of Time" to name an obvious example. And D&D's power fantasy vastly outpaces anything out of Middle Earth.


----------



## houser2112 (May 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> MichaelSomething said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree with your first sentence. However, magical or supernatural abilities that say "You must wait X before using this again", where X is a specific length of time, are pretty rare, if they exist at all. All of the abilities I can think of reset after explicitly resting for a certain period of time (spells), at a certain time of day after X uses (most SLAs), or randomly (dragon breath).


----------



## Yaarel (May 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> An issue with spell points is that you often end up spamming the "best" spell.  Especially if you take the feats that boost that particular spell.




If using spell points results in spamming a particular spell to a degree that is disruptive to the game, then it usually means the spell was undervalued and needs to cost more points. Oppositely, if a spell rarely finds use, then its cost is probably too expensive. For certain spells, the spell might do better with a redesign.

Using spell points − especially during the design process − improves quality control.



You mention a ‘hybrid system’. In the context of 5e, the designers decided to treat spell levels 1 to 5 separately from spell levels 6 to 9. So in this context, there can be one spell point pool for the lower tier spells, and a separate spell point pool for the upper tier spells.



Spell points can work well in the 3e system, as the psion class demonstrates.



There is an even simpler way to handle spells. Instead of having lots of points/slots that refresh per long rest, it is possible to have fewer points/slots that refresh per short rest.

For example, a wizard only has upto four slots. Only one of these slots can cast the highest spell level available, the remaining three can only cast the next highest spell level. The slots automatically heighten lower spell levels if possible. These slots refresh per short rest.

Calibrating around short rests helps fighters and wizards keep better pace with each other in terms of expending resources during the day.



Even if going for the simpler per-15-minute-rest slots, it still helps to think in terms of spell points when designing spells, to more accurately evaluate the worth of a spell.


----------



## Yaarel (May 24, 2018)

For what it is worth, Gandalf is a paladin who prefers Dex over Str.


----------



## houser2112 (May 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> An issue with spell points is that you often end up spamming the "best" spell.




How is this unique to spell points? A spontaneous caster can use up all of their slots on _magic missile_, if they so desire. A prepared caster can likewise prepare _magic missile_ in all of their slots if they so desire.


----------



## Yaarel (May 24, 2018)

If a wizard character spent their youth learning how to cast cantrips reliably, then they didnt spend it learning how to swing a sword competently. Or a staff.

Treat cantrips like proficiencies.

Along these lines, I think it is fine if a player wants a wizard that knows how to wield a sword − or even wear armor.

A spell like Mage Armor ( ≈ chain tunic) could be designed as an always-on cantrip.

So, it would be a balanced choice between mundane armor proficiency versus magical armor cantrip.

For me, the magic is always the cooler choice, so I would go for all magic all the time. But if other players want a more ‘worldly’ wizard concept, I see no problem. Just make sure options are moreorless mechanically balanced with each other so the choices are fair to player preferences.



So far, the wizard gets four cantrip slots. Swap out cantrip slots for weapon and armor and helmet proficiencies.

Make staff a good weapon choice, maybe if used two-handed, finesse, grants AC bonus (being useful for deflecting), and can deny one opportunity attack. The staff is an archetypal weapon so some plot protection is ok. But also let the wizard choose a sword, why not? The fighter has features to excel when dealing sword damage. But a wizard who is simply proficient, no big deal.

It occurs to me, grappling (unarmed mixed martial arts) probably deserves to require a proficiency. And that is something even I might want to swap a cantrip for, tho it is a painful choice, since normally the wizard wants to be as far away from melee as possible. But the body is part of a magical being, and for the ‘jock wizard’ archetype, I would want it.

Maybe connect grappling proficiency with maintaining spell concentration when attacked. That would make it more useful for a wizard. And maybe if a target is successfully grappled, then it becomes possible to sunder an item from the target, such as disarming a sword, removing a wand, or whatever. Grappling can be an appealing choice for wizard, especially as one four cantrip slots.


----------



## zztong (May 24, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> I concur. I'm startled by the notion that polytheism is so hard to remove that it ruined the game for him. It's as if someone said they refused play warhammer because they hate crossbows...




If I had to make an argument for his frustrations, it would be that Pathfinder is so complex that folks need to use Hero Lab. But once you embrace Hero Lab your ability to implement a custom setting becomes difficult because Hero Lab won't enforce your setting's rules.

For instance, my home-brew setting has three deities, all neutral. I had to define all of the Golarion deities as "aspects/avatars" of those three deities so that players could make Clerics using Hero Lab. I can ignore mechanics like alignment easily, but realigning the various Clerical Domains in Hero Lab represents much more effort than I have available. I had to resort to half-heartedly supporting Golarion deities.


----------



## Parmandur (May 24, 2018)

zztong said:


> If I had to make an argument for his frustrations, it would be that Pathfinder is so complex that folks need to use Hero Lab. But once you embrace Hero Lab your ability to implement a custom setting becomes difficult because Hero Lab won't enforce your setting's rules.
> 
> For instance, my home-brew setting has three deities, all neutral. I had to define all of the Golarion deities as "aspects/avatars" of those three deities so that players could make Clerics using Hero Lab. I can ignore mechanics like alignment easily, but realigning the various Clerical Domains in Hero Lab represents much more effort than I have available. I had to resort to half-heartedly supporting Golarion deities.



That's a fair point, hadn't considered that. Doesn't really seem to apply to 5E, though?


----------



## zztong (May 24, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> That's a fair point, hadn't considered that. Doesn't really seem to apply to 5E, though?




I don't know about 5E. Sorry, I must have missed some part of the conversation. I've not played it since the playtest.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 24, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> How is this unique to spell points? A spontaneous caster can use up all of their slots on _magic missile_, if they so desire. A prepared caster can likewise prepare _magic missile_ in all of their slots if they so desire.




Not to mention, why _wouldn't_ you take that approach?

"No, this time I think I'll use this totally ineffective spell because I'm required to have about a half dozen spells on my list I never actually use."


----------



## Parmandur (May 24, 2018)

zztong said:


> I don't know about 5E. Sorry, I must have missed some part of the conversation. I've not played it since the playtest.[/QUOTE [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] had stated that it was impossible to remove polytheism from 5E. Now, 5E hardly requires a tool to track stats, so it is fairly easy to reflavor, no harm, no goul.


----------



## Shasarak (May 25, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> D&D and its ilk haven’t been Lord of the Rings for a long time, and I don’t think video games are to blame. At least not solely to blame. Tolkien’s fingerprints will always be there on the genre, but it didn’t take long for people to start craving a world that was more fantastical, where magic played a big part in everyday life. For as long as there have been people roleplaying as wizards, there have been people wishing that they could be doing magic instead of using weapons badly. Doing magic is, after all, the primary appeal of being a wizard. And honestly, what’s the big deal if the ~4.5 damage per turn the wizard can do without expending a resource comes from a 1d8 crossbow or a 1d8 magic beam? If the damage type is that big of a concern, charge a small tax on the die size for it. But let the players who want to be the guy who casts spells actually cast spells.




I think that if spamming firebolt over and over is your idea of magic then it looks like you are going to be in luck with the Pathfinder playtest.  Because as you said what is the difference if your 4.5 damage per round comes from a crossbow bolt or shooting "magic".


----------



## Shasarak (May 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> He also wasn't spamming crossbow bolts either. (I also think that Gandalf is more Druid than Wizard.)




I agree, I always put him at about a 5th level Druid using the DnD rules.



> This sentiment is a bit condescending, if not inaccurate.




Neither condescending nor inaccurate I am afraid.



> This is less about video games and more about changing prevailing norms and tastes. For example, even outside of the spell conservation, the d4 HD wizard is gone. I don't think video games are to blame for that. Cantrips have increasingly become more basic combat functional across D&D editions so it is not surprising to see Pathfinder 2 follow suit. Sure Gandalf doesn't constantly spam spells, but other fantasy wizards and mages in literature do. "Hello, Wheel of Time" to name an obvious example. And D&D's power fantasy vastly outpaces anything out of Middle Earth.




Wheel of Time probably has the worst magic system if you have a problem with OP magic and if you want to include an even more popular fantasy wizard like Harry Potter, you would struggle to accurately model either using DnD rules.

But in any case I can not see how increasing the hit dice of Wizards relates to spamming magic attack cantrips as it does seems to be more about not wanting your character to die when a random house cat jumps out at you.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 25, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I think that if spamming firebolt over and over is your idea of magic then it looks like you are going to be in luck with the Pathfinder playtest.  Because as you said what is the difference if your 4.5 damage per round comes from a crossbow bolt or shooting "magic".



I’m pretty sure making fire appear spontaneously out of thin air is magic by just about any definition, but go ahead and No True Scotsman miraculous phemona that flip the bird to the laws of thermodynamics if that’s what floats your boat, I guess.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 25, 2018)

If you think Pathfinder - and indeed the whole of Dungeons & Dragons - isn't a highly specific genre, you really haven played many rpgs...


----------



## zztong (May 25, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> If you think Pathfinder - and indeed the whole of Dungeons & Dragons - isn't a highly specific genre, you really haven played many rpgs...




Oh yeh, D&D/PF is its own brand of fantasy that I fondly equate to Sharknado. Not everyone wants to use those rules for that genre, which is a significant source of friction when debating proposed rules. I'd appreciate it PF2 supported a few different forms of magic, but that would chew up page space and only appeal to a few people. You can always "house-rule" alternatives, but when the game requires automation to manage/maintain a character, that automation is going to support the written rules.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (May 25, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Doing magic is, after all, the primary appeal of being a wizard. And honestly, what’s the big deal if the ~4.5 damage per turn the wizard can do without expending a resource comes from a 1d8 crossbow or a 1d8 magic beam?



It changes the tone of the world thematically, because magic goes from something that most people will probably never witness, to something that they very probably will. If an AD&D wizard walks into town, then even if they announce themselves as a wizard, it's something that the townsfolk pretty much have to take on faith; they're still just some weirdo, who might know some interesting things, but the likelihood of them doing anything magical is remote. It makes the world feel more like a realistic Medieval European setting, where people also believed in magic even if they never saw it, and which nevertheless continued to operate as though magic was not actually real. (Granted, of course, that is _entirely_ a matter of taste; but it's a taste which AD&D catered to better than PF does.)

Mechanically, at-will magic gives a spellcaster even _more_ incentive to focus on the one stat that they already care about, at the expense of something else. With at-will magic, a wizard with Int 20 and Strength 8 is just _better_ than a wizard with Int 18 and Strength 14; where, without at-will magic, the stronger wizard might actually get some mileage out of their less-than-optimal abilities.

There's also an issue which was extremely apparent in 4E, and which could potentially reappear in PF2, where everyone has the same bonus to whatever one thing they do. If the fighter has Strength 20 and a +3 sword and weapon focus: sword, and the wizard has Int 20 and a +3 wand and spell focus: evocation, then they both end up with exactly +10 on everything they do every round (which further contributes to the same-y-ness). When a wizard has to rely on a different stat for their basic attacks, you get a much wider variety of competence. If the fighter is at +10 to hit all-day every-day, but the wizard is sometimes at +7, then it's extremely obvious that the fighter is better in those specific circumstances.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 25, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> It changes the tone of the world thematically, because magic goes from something that most people will probably never witness, to something that they very probably will.




3.5 already changed that with its leveled character demographics.  Every town had some spell casters in it.  

If your the type who home brews, then that depends on how your world works.  Though, admittedly, I bet most don't think about  the percentage of their population who are spell casters, or have decent access to them.


----------



## Ancalagon (May 25, 2018)

zztong said:


> If I had to make an argument for his frustrations, it would be that Pathfinder is so complex that folks need to use Hero Lab. But once you embrace Hero Lab your ability to implement a custom setting becomes difficult because Hero Lab won't enforce your setting's rules.
> 
> For instance, my home-brew setting has three deities, all neutral. I had to define all of the Golarion deities as "aspects/avatars" of those three deities so that players could make Clerics using Hero Lab. I can ignore mechanics like alignment easily, but realigning the various Clerical Domains in Hero Lab represents much more effort than I have available. I had to resort to half-heartedly supporting Golarion deities.




That is a *really* good point about Hero-lab and customization.  Well said

... but he said that polytheism was a big problem *particularly* in 5e, not Pathfinder...


----------



## The Crimson Binome (May 25, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> 3.5 already changed that with its leveled character demographics.  Every town had some spell casters in it.



Theoretically, if you were using those guidelines, then sure. You could also just _not_ use those guidelines, though. 

Altering class mechanics to remove at-will magic requires significantly more-invasive home-brewing than simply creating a new setting, not least in that it has a direct impact on class balance. For example, every class in 4E was balanced around the assumption of having one primary stat and two or three dump stats, so forcing spellcasters to occasionally rely on weapons would be a significant penalty; with the assumption that everyone would always be using their best stat every time, being forced to use anything else meant you were definitely going to miss.



MichaelSomething said:


> If your the type who home brews, then that depends on how your world  works.  Though, admittedly, I bet most don't think about  the percentage  of their population who are spell casters, or have decent access to  them.



For the kind of DM who goes around inventing entire settings, I'm pretty sure that most _do _think about that sort of thing. For many, they may choose to run with whatever default assumptions they can speculate from the existing guidelines, of course, but "how do magic and spellcasters fit into this world?" is basically the first question you ask when creating a new fantasy setting.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 26, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> It changes the tone of the world thematically, because magic goes from something that most people will probably never witness, to something that they very probably will. If an AD&D wizard walks into town, then even if they announce themselves as a wizard, it's something that the townsfolk pretty much have to take on faith; they're still just some weirdo, who might know some interesting things, but the likelihood of them doing anything magical is remote. It makes the world feel more like a realistic Medieval European setting, where people also believed in magic even if they never saw it, and which nevertheless continued to operate as though magic was not actually real. (Granted, of course, that is _entirely_ a matter of taste; but it's a taste which AD&D catered to better than PF does.)



Right, that was my point. In my experience, most people who want to roleplay as wizards want to do so because they want to use magic. A setting where a wizard is expected to not use magic most of the time (like lord of the rings) is not satisfying to those people. Granted, there's an audience for both, but D&D and its ilk haven't been that tolkienesque Medieval European setting for a long time. Not having at-will magic is at this point pretty much just a holdover from a style D&D has long since moved on from.



Saelorn said:


> Mechanically, at-will magic gives a spellcaster even _more_ incentive to focus on the one stat that they already care about, at the expense of something else. With at-will magic, a wizard with Int 20 and Strength 8 is just _better_ than a wizard with Int 18 and Strength 14; where, without at-will magic, the stronger wizard might actually get some mileage out of their less-than-optimal abilities.



I'm not of the opinion that diversifying ability scores is a particularly important goal, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Saelorn said:


> There's also an issue which was extremely apparent in 4E, and which could potentially reappear in PF2, where everyone has the same bonus to whatever one thing they do. If the fighter has Strength 20 and a +3 sword and weapon focus: sword, and the wizard has Int 20 and a +3 wand and spell focus: evocation, then they both end up with exactly +10 on everything they do every round (which further contributes to the same-y-ness). When a wizard has to rely on a different stat for their basic attacks, you get a much wider variety of competence. If the fighter is at +10 to hit all-day every-day, but the wizard is sometimes at +7, then it's extremely obvious that the fighter is better in those specific circumstances.



"Issue" is an interesting word for everyone at the table being able to reliably perform with the same degree of competence. I'd call it, "good game design." Call me "the video game generation" if you will, but I'd rather characters be differentiated by _what they can do_, not what bonus they get to their rolls.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (May 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> "Issue" is an interesting word for everyone at the table being able to reliably perform with the same degree of competence. I'd call it, "good game design." Call me "the video game generation" if you will, but I'd rather characters be differentiated by _what they can do_, not what bonus they get to their rolls.



Unless you're suggesting that some characters not _attack_ ever, there are going to be periods where everyone is just doing that. When the fighter swings their sword at +10, and the wizard shoots their fire bolt at +10, it has a very same-y feel. The characters feel interchangeable, because they have the same net effect on the situation. (That one of them is technically magic is just a cosmetic issue, and you've already said that you don't care about magic being rare or special.)

When the fighter swings their sword at +10, and the wizard swings their staff at +7, there's more of a mechanical difference involved. The fighter is in their element - they can do this all day - while the wizard is clearly _not_. (Later, the wizard will fireball ten orcs at once, and the tables will be briefly turned.) It gives a _reason_ to have different characters, with different strengths and weakness, instead of it simply not mattering because they all contribute identically in every situation.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 26, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Unless you're suggesting that some characters not _attack_ ever, there are going to be periods where everyone is just doing that. When the fighter swings their sword at +10, and the wizard shoots their fire bolt at +10, it has a very same-y feel.



More same-y than the fighter swinging a sword at +10 and the wizard swinging a sword at +7? Sorry, I just don't agree with that. Again, _what_ the characters do contributes more to how they feel to me than how high their numbers are does.



Saelorn said:


> The characters feel interchangeable, because they have the same net effect on the situation. (That one of them is technically magic is just a cosmetic issue, and you've already said that you don't care about magic being rare or special.)



Sure. An at-will spell that has no functional mechanical difference from shooting a crossbow is boring. But that's an issue with the spell design, not with at-will magic in general. I'd much rather the crossbow and the fire bolt be differentiated in other ways than how likely the characters using them are to hit. Maybe the crossbow does more initial damage and the fire bolt causes some ongoing burn damage or something. Point is, hit bonus is a poor way to make characters feel different from each other.



Saelorn said:


> When the fighter swings their sword at +10, and the wizard swings their staff at +7, there's more of a mechanical difference involved. The fighter is in their element - they can do this all day - while the wizard is clearly _not_. (Later, the wizard will fireball ten orcs at once, and the tables will be briefly turned.) It gives a _reason_ to have different characters, with different strengths and weakness, instead of it simply not mattering because they all contribute identically in every situation.



Where we disagree is on two points:
a. +10 vs. +7 to hit creating a meaningful difference in play feel
b. both characters having +10 to hit necessarily meaning they must contribute identically in every situation. What _happens_ when each of those attacks hit, both in narration and in mechanical effect, matters significantly more to me than how likely each of those attacks is to succeed.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 26, 2018)

I think the general idea is that Saelorn wants the fighter and wizard to be different.  The Fighter should be playing a beat'em up while the Wizard should be playing a resource management game.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 26, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Blasters with endless at-will magical damage. Should be treated more like a warrior swinging his axe all day. These classes gain limited or no access to higher levels of magic. Being able to unleash unlimited amounts of fire (acid etc) is treated as significantly better than ordinary axe swings, even if the numerical damage is similar.



 That's the logic, and it'd be amusing to see it applied to casters like that, for real.  

What that logic pointedly & persistently overlooks is that there's rarely a need to spew fire or swing axes /all day/.  Maybe if you're engaging in slash-and-burn agriculture.  
But combats, even in a busy adventuring day, don't add up to all that many rounds, let alone minutes.  



Koloth said:


> For those complaining about the 15 minute work day Wizard, that can be remedied by imposing a "mission must be done by deadline" condition.



 Yes, both the complaint and the run-only-one-type-of-adventure solution are well known.



Yaarel said:


> Besides, if Pathfinder 2 turns out to be remotely balanced,



 It will be a sure sign of the coming Apocalypse.



Aldarc said:


> Pathfinder is not 3e. It has become its own brand, and it seeking to strengthen its own brand, and that brand includes Golarion. A large chunk of its fanbase and buyerbase invests in the Golarion-tied APs.



 Heck, Pathfinder was a brand before it was a 3.5 clone, and could be the same kind of brand, again - selling d20 APs &c set in Golarion for use with D&D.



MichaelSomething said:


> Sounds like a person who wasn't here during the Edition Wars.



 mellored was around for the wars, I think the point is that the objection is invalid, now, just as it was, then.



Charlaquin said:


> "Issue" is an interesting word for everyone at the table being able to reliably perform with the same degree of competence. I'd call it, "good game design." Call me "the video game generation" if you will, but I'd rather characters be differentiated by _what they can do_, not what bonus they get to their rolls.



 Hey, I'm over 50, the last video game I played was Asteroids, and we're on the same page as far as that goes...


----------



## Ancalagon (May 26, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> I think the general idea is that Saelorn wants the fighter and wizard to be different.  The Fighter should be playing a beat'em up while the Wizard should be playing a resource management game.




I can assure you that even with decent "at will attack cantrips" in 5e, the casters still have to carefully manage their slots.  Sure you can send a bolt of fire that's better (for you... a skilled crossbowman will be more dangerous than your firebolt) than a crossbow bolt any time you want... but the really important stuff - the dispell magics, the area controls, the fireballs, the hold person, the "omg I need to get out of here" - all that needs slots.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (May 27, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> I think the general idea is that Saelorn wants the fighter and wizard to be different.  The Fighter should be playing a beat'em up while the Wizard should be playing a resource management game.



Not exactly, but close. I actually like the AEDU structure, and the way that everyone has similar resources to manage over a time period. I think it's good that both fighters and wizards have special limited-use powers which they can bring out during important moments. (And it can get boring for the fighter, if they don't have any resources to manage.)

It's more that, by giving wizards an at-will ability that keys from Int rather than Strength or Dex, they're both operating at the same efficiency _regardless_ of whether they're using an at-will or a daily. _That_ curve, where fighters are always in top form regardless of what they're doing, and wizards _feel_ less effective because they're forced to rely on a tertiary stat at that moment, is what I was talking about.

But again, that's a secondary complaint which some people had about 4E and 5E. My primary complaint is still that at-will magic makes magic feel boring, and I would prefer if casting a spell was a rare exception rather than the rule. (Which is entirely a matter of preference, etc.)


----------



## CapnZapp (May 27, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Not exactly, but close. I actually like the AEDU structure, and the way that everyone has similar resources to manage over a time period. I think it's good that both fighters and wizards have special limited-use powers which they can bring out during important moments. (And it can get boring for the fighter, if they don't have any resources to manage.)



I think different classes having different resource games I'd crucial to making them look and feel different when you play.

4e was horrible in that regard: every class felt and played much the same. While this made fighters very fun to play, it meant that playing Wizards felt very bland and... unfantastical.

The best solution to boredom when playing a fighter is... to not play a fighter. 

Fighters being whack-a-mole is entirely alright in a game with Paladins, Rangers, Warlock and others. (Or, in 5e, play a EK or BM)


----------



## Charlaquin (May 27, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I think different classes having different resource games I'd crucial to making them look and feel different when you play.



I agree with you on this, which is why I prefer Essentials over traditional 4e.



CapnZapp said:


> 4e was horrible in that regard: every class felt and played much the same.



Ish. Each class in 4e actually played quite differently - while every pre-Essentials class had the same resources to work with, what each could do with those resources did produce very different results, especially between classes of different combat roles. However, resource management has a big impact on how a class feels to play, and while the classes may have objectively behaved differently in combat, for many people (myself included), they still felt subjectively same-y. At least until the PHB 3, where they introduced the Psionic power source, which actually had a different resource game despite using the AEDU scaffolding. Essentials further expanded on that and gave each power source a different resource game.



CapnZapp said:


> While this made fighters very fun to play, it meant that playing Wizards felt very bland and... unfantastical.



Yeah, lots of folks felt that way.



CapnZapp said:


> The best solution to boredom when playing a fighter is... to not play a fighter.



I disagree. Call me an optimist, but I believe it is possible to design classes in such a way that different classes use different resources, but are well-balanced and are all engaging to play.



CapnZapp said:


> Fighters being whack-a-mole is entirely alright in a game with Paladins, Rangers, Warlock and others. (Or, in 5e, play a EK or BM)



Acceptable, sure, but should the designers settle for acceptable, or strive for exceptional?


----------



## Sunseeker (May 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Acceptable, sure, but should the designers settle for acceptable, or strive for exceptional?




Not to mention, it begs the question of why include "boring" classes?

If we all agree the fighter is boring, and that there are much more fun, more exciting "Fighter Plus" classes, why do we include the fighter at all?

Like, "Soldier" in the Mass Effect series is arguably one of the most fun classes to play.  Sure, you don't shoot "magic" or hack stuff, but when you hit things, it stays hit.  You get to run around the battlefield yelling "I'm the Juggernaut *****!"

Why can't _that_ be the Fighter's thing?


----------



## Charlaquin (May 27, 2018)

shidaku said:


> Not to mention, it begs the question of why include "boring" classes?
> 
> If we all agree the fighter is boring, and that there are much more fun, more exciting "Fighter Plus" classes, why do we include the fighter at all?
> 
> ...



Precisely. We _know_ how to do fun martial characters, we’ve seen plenty of them in PF1 and other systems, there is no excuse for the fighter to remain boring when we have the design technology to make him interesting.

fortunately, they seem to be doing just that in PF2 - after the additional fighter details from the mox gauntlet charity event, it’s looking like the Fighter will be picking up some elements from the Brawler, which sounds very cool to me. Stances worked great for me in Essentials, and Opening and Closing moves seem interesting, though I don’t think I have enough of the picture to fully understand them yet. But one way or another, the fighter is actually looking interesting for a change.


----------



## Parmandur (May 28, 2018)

shidaku said:


> If we all agree the fighter is boring...




I certainly wouldn't agree, the Champion Fighter in 5E is hugely fun.


----------



## Shasarak (May 28, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The best solution to boredom when playing a fighter is... to not play a fighter.




I think that is a good point.  Having different classes play different ways to suit different players seems like a much better way to design.


----------



## heretic888 (May 28, 2018)

So, am I the only one that's going to point out that a Fighter and Wizard in 4E *don't* have the same bonus to their respective specialties (weapon attacks vs magical attacks)? Fighters typically have +3 to +4 more than Wizard.

This feels like a You're Not Even Wrong situation...


----------



## The Crimson Binome (May 28, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> So, am I the only one that's going to point out that a Fighter and Wizard in 4E *don't* have the same bonus to their respective specialties (weapon attacks vs magical attacks)? Fighters typically have +3 to +4 more than Wizard.



If you're talking about the weapon accuracy bonus, then that's balanced by AC being ~3 points higher than the other defenses. Both fighter and wizard are still adding their primary stat + half level + weapon/focus bonus to their attack rolls, and all of those numbers will be virtually identical for everyone in the party.

It's somewhat more apparent in 5E, where spell attacks are made against AC, and there will be huge stretches where everyone is at +7 to hit.


----------



## heretic888 (May 28, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> If you're talking about the weapon accuracy bonus, then that's balanced by AC being ~3 points higher than the other defenses. Both fighter and wizard are still adding their primary stat + half level + weapon/focus bonus to their attack rolls, and all of those numbers will be virtually identical for everyone in the party.
> 
> It's somewhat more apparent in 5E, where spell attacks are made against AC, and there will be huge stretches where everyone is at +7 to hit.




Weapon accuracy bonus *and* fighter weapon talent class feature *and* the occasional bonus from charging or using weapon powers that target NADS. In other words, asserting the Fighter and Wizard have the same attack bonus is not accurate at all and a misrepresentation of how 4E actually works.

Then again, this is an online criticism of 4E so I guess inaccurate misrepresentations are pretty much just business as usual, neh?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (May 28, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> Weapon accuracy bonus *and* fighter weapon talent class feature *and* the occasional bonus from charging or using weapon powers that target NADS. In other words, asserting the Fighter and Wizard have the same attack bonus is not accurate at all and a misrepresentation of how 4E actually works.



The wizard can also have minor situational bonuses, and combat advantage. Another reason why the similarity is more apparent in 5E is that minor situational bonuses are replaced with Advantage, which doesn't change the number involved.

Even if the fighter tends to be at +1 over the wizard, due to weapon talent, they still have the same primary stat + half level + enhancement bonus. There's never a point where someone is attacking with anything other than their main stat, unless you're doing something wrong.



heretic888 said:


> Then again, this is an online criticism of 4E so I guess inaccurate misrepresentations are pretty much just business as usual, neh?



Don't look for enemies where none exist. This is a criticism of Pathfinder 2E, based on a superficial similarity to 4E. The fundamental flaws which make 4E inherently unplayable in any meaningful capacity have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.


----------



## barasawa (May 28, 2018)

Xavian Starsider said:


> I always disliked how 3e  put a limit on cantrip use. Looks like Pathfinder is continuing this trend wherein a low level wizard who has cast all his offense spells for the day now gets to be a really bad fighter with lousy attack bonus, lousy damage, lousy ac, and lousy hp. Joy! Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf.  Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!




LoL  Gandalf was far better than that, he's fought with a staff in one hand, and a sword in the other. Lets see any D&D mage/wizard that can pull that off! 

Also he kept up with the warriors like that, so he also has better to hits, and all that than the D&D spellchucker.


----------



## Michael Hale (May 29, 2018)

*If only more players actually knew how to play a Wizard*



Xavian Starsider said:


> I always disliked how 3e  put a limit on cantrip use. Looks like Pathfinder is continuing this trend wherein a low level wizard who has cast all his offense spells for the day now gets to be a really bad fighter with lousy attack bonus, lousy damage, lousy ac, and lousy hp. Joy! Swing that quarterstaff, Gandalf.  Because stick fighting is what being a wizard is really about!




Wizards aren't about blasting a spell every round. If you are a straight Wizard and you use more than 3 or 4 spells a combat (other than at high level where you have spells to burn), you aren't playing your Wizard right. It's all about battlefield control and buffing. You may be really excited when your Wizard makes 5th level and can crank out a fireball, but the damage you can get out of a fireball is pathetic compared to Haste! 5 of your buddies getting an extra attack every round and running fast enough to catch anything that runs away is TONS more effective than a fireball and you don't have to cast it every round. So get a crossbow if you just have to do something every round. Otherwise, Haste, Wall of Fire, or the insanely powerful if used right illusions should be all you need, and you can always toss a bull's strength on the barbarian for good measure.


----------



## zztong (May 29, 2018)

shidaku said:


> Not to mention, it begs the question of why include "boring" classes?
> 
> If we all agree the fighter is boring, and that there are much more fun, more exciting "Fighter Plus" classes, why do we include the fighter at all?




I wouldn't say the Fighter is boring. I'd say its straight-forward, and its one of the current classes that I find appealing. (I'd much sooner throw the Gunslinger onto the scrap heap.) There's so much that's different from table to table and player to player. There are some local players that stick with the straight-forward classes. Those players had trouble with things like Daily and Encounter abilities. (Though much of that had to do with the way the Daily and Encounter abilities were defined. "Marked" /shudder.)

My preference is that certain core classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric) have a straight-forward option and that players can select options that either keep the class straight-forward or allow for something more elaborate that you might find to be less boring. In this way, certain tables with less involved players can keep those players. Another benefit to that approach is that a DM who needs to "bot" an NPC (like a Cleric) can fall back to a straight-forward build.


----------



## Shasarak (May 30, 2018)

I think it would be a mistake to generalise the fact that some people find the Fighter to be boring to mean that the Fighter is boring.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 1, 2018)

There needs to be at least two warrior classes. Maybe make one the straightforward ‘fighter’, and the other the more complex ‘knight’.

The knight works best as a chassis for:
• paladin (white knight)
• eldritch knight (wizard)
• black knight (necromancer)
• faerie knight (green knight, druid)
• cavalier (nonmagic, ‘champion’)
• scoundrel (nonmagic, roguish, villain-ish knight)

And so on. The knight concept emphasizes Intelligence for tactics and Charisma for morale, diplomacy, and intimidation. The flavor features formal military education, urban, and elite. Some of these knights are spell casters, some are martial.

Especially the nonmagic cavalier knight can be the fighter that has a more complex design.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 1, 2018)

I like playing wizards. I like magical flavor. And once I tasted cantrips. I will never go back to a crossbow again. Ever. I would rather not play a game that tries to force my wizard to be nonmagical. I appreciate that some other players prefer a different flavor. So I want there to be options. Choose magic cantrips or mundane weapons. But I will never use the nonmagic option. Ever.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 1, 2018)

barasawa said:


> LoL  Gandalf was far better than that, he's fought with a staff in one hand, and a sword in the other. Lets see any D&D mage/wizard that can pull that off!



 If you're using the Staff as an Implement in your off-hand, and the Sword as a primary-hand weapon, that worked fine in 4e, and 5e went ahead and made the staff a one-handed weapon...  



CapnZapp said:


> I think different classes having different resource games I'd crucial to making them look and feel different when you play.
> 
> 4e was horrible in that regard: every class felt and played much the same.



 Having the same number/power-level of resources doesn't make classes play the same.  Just look at the Cleric & Wizard (or, heck, magic-user back in the day), same spell progressions, but they play differently - different spell lists (not even 100% different, as they were in 4e), different class features.



> While this made fighters very fun to play, it meant that playing Wizards felt very bland and... unfantastical.



 I think that sums it up.  If they're 'playing the same,' how is one fun and the other bland?  What you're describing isn't playing the same, it's class balance, and, yes, it was a lot more fun to play a balanced fighter in 4e than a marginalized one in any other edition, and a lot less 'fun' (if your 0-sum definition of fun requires dominating play) to play a balanced wizard than an OP one.



Sunseeker said:


> Not to mention, it begs the question of why include "boring" classes?
> If we all agree the fighter is boring, and that there are much more fun, more exciting "Fighter Plus" classes, why do we include the fighter at all?



 As a baseline for other classes to be better than.  It's like Syndrome in the Incredibles:  if everyone is 'fun' or 'exciting,' then no one is.  

(If that sounds reasonable, remind yourself that you're nodding and agreeing with a sociopathic villain.)



Yaarel said:


> I like playing wizards. I like magical flavor. And once I tasted cantrips. I will never go back to a crossbow again. Ever. I would rather not play a game that tries to force my wizard to be nonmagical. I appreciate that some other players prefer a different flavor. So I want there to be options. Choose magic cantrips or mundane weapons. But I will never use the nonmagic option. Ever.



  I think part of the disconnect is the distinction between 'feeling magical' in the sense of representing something supernatural - you shoot fire from your outstretched hand! magic! - and something being exceptionally powerful - you automatically kill every orc in a 20' radius! (but only once/slot) magic!  

You're happy with the first definition of magic - a 4e scorching burst (attack REF for 1d6+INTmod) is as magical as a 1e Fireball (6d6, save for half damage & die anyway, orcs); Reign of Steel (auto damage to all adjacent enemies every round) + Come & Get It (attack WILL to pull enemies adjacent) is just as non-magical as a 1e battleax (attack AC for 1d8+STRmod).  

For others, magic isn't magic unless it's strictly, overwhelmingly, superior (and nominally rare/limited in some routinely manageable way) - to them, Come & Get It (goading enemies to charge you) is magical and Scorching Burst (conjuring fire from nothing) is not.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 1, 2018)

Want to make magic rare?  Fine.  Every time you make a charater, roll a d100.  If you get a 100, your character can become a Wizard.  Done.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 2, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> Want to make magic rare?  Fine.  Every time you make a charater, roll a d100.  If you get a 100, your character can become a Wizard.  Done.




You laugh... but in warhammer you don't choose your starting career (i.e., "class").  Most parties have *no* spellcasters at all.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 3, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> You laugh... but in warhammer you don't choose your starting career (i.e., "class").  Most parties have *no* spellcasters at all.




Does that make magic feel rare though?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 4, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> Want to make magic rare?  Fine.  Every time you make a charater, roll a d100.  If you get a 100, your character can become a Wizard.  Done.



So, like 1e Psionics, then?    I remember how 'rare' that was...


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 4, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's like Syndrome in the Incredibles:  if everyone is 'fun' or 'exciting,' then no one is.
> 
> (If that sounds reasonable, remind yourself that you're nodding and agreeing with a sociopathic villain.)



Remind yourself that the context of the line is said sociopathic villain _planning to make everyone 'fun' and 'exciting'_. Maybe not the best choice of example here?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 4, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Remind yourself that the context of the line is said sociopathic villain _planning to make everyone 'fun' and 'exciting'_.



 Everyone in the world, yeah.  It wouldn't've done what the villain wanted, but it would've screwed the world over pretty hard...


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 4, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Everyone in the world, yeah.  It wouldn't've done what the villain wanted, but it would've screwed the world over pretty hard...



Ergo, not everyone in the world should have 4E class features. Q.E.D.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 4, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Ergo, not everyone in the world should have 4E class features. Q.E.D.




Not everyone in the world (of 4e) does have 4e class features. Only characters with classes have them, which in the world of 4e is a rare and exceptional thing.

Anyway, we’ve long since passed the point where this metaphor has broken down. The point was meant to be that, much like “when everyone is super, no one will be,” when every character has cool, interesting things to do, no one does. Which is just silly. . All of the main characters of the film are super, and that doesn’t cheapen their superpowers, even if we ignore the non-superpowered characters, because all of their powers are different. Likewise, the fact that all PCs in 5e have interesting things to do, doesn’t cheapen the interesting things other characters have to do, because they do different interesting things.

Also, Syndrome’s quote, while a punchy soundbite, is demonstrably wrong. Just as Mr. Incredible being strong doesn’t make invisible girl’s invisibility less cool, everyone being super wouldn’t make superpowers not super. For a good example of a setting that examines the implications of a world where everyone (or almost everyone) has some kind of superpower, look at My Hero Academia. Even if you take the superness of super powers as a zero sum game, some powers are just inherently better than others.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 4, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Not everyone in the world (of 4e) does have 4e class features. Only characters with classes have them, which in the world of 4e is a rare and exceptional thing.



If they're so exceptional, how come everyone in every random group of misfits thrown together by happenstance just so happens to have them?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 4, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> If they're so exceptional, how come everyone in every random group of misfits thrown together by happenstance just so happens to have them?




4e is not a game about groups of random misfits. It is a game about heroes.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2018)

I think it's a mistake to look at PC generation as a type of random sampling process.

In DL, the ex-girlfriend of one of the main protagonists happens to be a principal antagonist. That doesn't mean that if you randomly sample a bunch of warrior types, or wizards of high sorcery, they're all going to be related to the villains, be destined to discover the most powerful of lost spellbooks, etc.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 5, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> If they're so exceptional, how come everyone in every random group of misfits thrown together by happenstance just so happens to have them?



Remember how in all those fantasy novels you've read the main character gets killed by a random arrow in Chapter 7, and then the book ends?  I sure love those books.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 5, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Remember how in all those fantasy novels you've read the main character gets killed by a random arrow in Chapter 7, and then the book ends?  I sure love those books.



Ah! Another George R. R. Martin fan!


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 5, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> 4e is not a game about groups of random misfits. It is a game about heroes.



Tomayto, tomahto.


----------



## zztong (Jun 5, 2018)

Just a couple of observations.

Sometimes when a GM wants magic to be rare, they're assigning some special significance to it in the lore of the setting. There have been times when I've wanted to restrict magic to NPCs where it could be loosely defined and used as a plot device.

Its been forever since I played D&D 4e (and we didn't play it for more than a couple of months) but what I recall was the feeling among myself and my friends was that the character class didn't mean anything. All characters felt the same because their daily/encounter/anytime powers all had the same effects. It felt like everyone had a damage ability, everyone had a damage and move ability, everyone had a damage and mark ability, everyone could heal themselves, etc. Of course, a real analysis would prove that generalization wasn't entirely true, but it felt like it was true 80% of the time.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2018)

zztong said:


> Its been forever since I played D&D 4e (and we didn't play it for more than a couple of months) but what I recall was the feeling among myself and my friends was that the character class didn't mean anything. All characters felt the same because their daily/encounter/anytime powers all had the same effects. It felt like everyone had a damage ability, everyone had a damage and move ability, everyone had a damage and mark ability, everyone could heal themselves, etc. Of course, a real analysis would prove that generalization wasn't entirely true, but it felt like it was true 80% of the time.



I've played a fair bit of 4e. Your generalisation isn't remotely true. What mark ability did your wizard, cleric, ranger, rogue, warlock, invoker, or sorcerer have? What forced movement powers was your ranger using? How was your rogue healing him-/herself?

I'm having trouble working out what sort of PC builds you're referring to.


----------



## zztong (Jun 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I've played a fair bit of 4e. Your generalisation isn't remotely true. What mark ability did your wizard, cleric, ranger, rogue, warlock, invoker, or sorcerer have? What forced movement powers was your ranger using? How was your rogue healing him-/herself?
> 
> I'm having trouble working out what sort of PC builds you're referring to.




I regret I cannot be specific. Its been too long. Everyone had healing surges. Many classes seemed to have some power that led us to put a little ring around a target for a round, such that the mini's often had 2-3 color rings on them.

Really, my point was that at the time, and at the table I played at, we generally felt that the classes weren't very different from one another. Fighters felt like Wizards, etc. Or, that mechanics can make a difference to how players feel, even though by all rights the "special effect" of a power should be the real determination as to if something is "magic" or not.

I'm not trying to rag on 4e. I'm pointing out what we felt locally about class definitions that used similar mechanics.


----------



## zztong (Jun 5, 2018)

I feel I need to show my own inconsistency.

For many years I played and wrote for Hero Games, and the Champions game. "Special Effect" is king in that system. A "magic" superhero might call his 12d6 Energy Blast and "Arcane Bolt" while a energy user might call his 12d6 Energy Blast his "Magnum Electric Distruption Ray." That worked for Champions. I guess folks playing that game could embrace the differences entirely on special effect. Maybe it was because they had a gazillion options for building their character.

Yet, for a D&D (or D&D-like) game, I have not always been able to embrace a "special effect" difference. Maybe it relates to how much it happens. Maybe just because there's a grognard/curmudgeon bias in me related to what makes D&D, D&D.

Whatever the difference, I must admit its not rational. Yet it colors my feelings, my choices, my opinions.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 5, 2018)

Anyone here play the DDCRPG? The magic user class is totally different!  Every time you cast a spell, you roll on a chart to see what the spell does!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2018)

zztong said:


> Many classes seemed to have some power that led us to put a little ring around a target for a round, such that the mini's often had 2-3 color rings on them.



If the claim is that the classes are all the same because fighters can daze with a hard blow, rogues blind by throwing mud in a foe's eyes, etc, well I guess all I can say is that I don't get it.

Back in 1990 I started playing RM rather than AD&D in part because warriors in that system could inflict effects (stuns, debuffs, and the like) with successful attacks. The idea that you need to use magic to burden an opponent's actions strikes me as quite strange. In the real world there is no magic, and yet many people find themselves dazed, slowed, blinded etc in combat.


----------



## zztong (Jun 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If the claim is that the classes are all the same because fighters can daze with a hard blow, rogues blind by throwing mud in a foe's eyes, etc, well I guess all I can say is that I don't get it.




Well that isn't what I'm struggling to convey with my admittedly vague notions and memories. I probably shouldn't have even commented given my inadequacy at being able to make a strong reference. Alas, another try.

If the Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue all have a class mechanic that does 2d8 damage and moves the opponent back two squares, why have four classes? Is the different special effect enough of a reason?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2018)

zztong said:


> If the Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue all have a class mechanic that does 2d8 damage and moves the opponent back two squares, why have four classes? Is the different special effect enough of a reason?



But the fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue don't all have that ability. Which is why I asked what class builds and powers you had in mind.

In all versions of D&D, every class has the ability to declare an action in combat (typically either a weapon attack, a device use, or a spell cast) which then typically (not always) requires a d20 throw to determine if it takes effect (either a to hit roll by one party, or a saving throw by another) and which, it it takes effect, inflicts damage and/or a condition.

I've never heard anyone suggest that this makes the difference between fighters, clerics, MUs, etc pointless.

4e puts those abilities into a common suit for recovery purposes. That's a change. And it allows non-spell users to impose conditions. That's also a change (although some D&D variants anticipated it, eg OA martial arts). But the basic idea that the typical combat action is a d20 roll to impose damage and/or conditions is not a change.

EDIT: To try and swing back a bit closer to the thread topic, one could ask what is necessary for a class to "feel like" a D&D/PF wizard:

* Should trigger saving throws rather than use attack rolls;

* Should have superior access to condition infliction compared to "martial" types;

* Should have a mechanically distinctive resource suite.​
5e D&D seem to hit at least the first two, and tends towards the third. Obviously 4e departed from the first and third, and had less of the second as well.


----------



## zztong (Jun 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But the fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue don't all have that ability. Which is why I asked what class builds and powers you had in mind.




Yeh, I'm going to have to just withdraw my point. It was based on vague memories of a game system played too long ago. Sorry for wasting folks time.



pemerton said:


> To try and swing back a bit closer to the thread topic, one could ask what is necessary for a class to "feel like" a D&D/PF wizard:




I might add:

* Mechanical Areas of Effect.
* Walls or Barriers with larger areas of effect.
* Management of a spell book and management of limited casting ability.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jun 6, 2018)

zztong said:


> I regret I cannot be specific. Its been too long. Everyone had healing surges. Many classes seemed to have some power that led us to put a little ring around a target for a round, such that the mini's often had 2-3 color rings on them.



Generally speaking, powers in 4E deal damage and either move someone around or apply a condition. Almost every character should have a way of applying a condition of one sort or another, unless you specifically went out of your way to avoid it.

One of the issues with 4E is that they completely divorced the mechanics from the underlying reality which those mechanics were intended to reflect, so if you applied the Blinded condition to someone, it didn't _necessarily_ mean that you _actually_ blinded them within the narrative. Literally, one of the selling points of the edition was that you could describe anything in any way you felt like, as long as the mechanics didn't change.

The up-shot to that was your characters weren't _actually_ doing different things. They were all just dealing damage and applying conditions, most of which would be removed after a saving throw or at the end of combat. There's no underlying reality which grants significance to those distinctions; the _true_ shape of that reality is just damage and conditions, and everything else is superficial. If the difference between the Wizard class and the Rogue class is that Wizards are better at applying Slow effects and Rogues are better at applying Bleed effects, then that doesn't actually mean anything within the world, because Slow and Bleed are just status conditions rather than representative of any particular reality.


----------



## zztong (Jun 7, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> One of the issues with 4E is that they completely divorced the mechanics from the underlying reality which those mechanics were intended to reflect, so if you applied the Blinded condition to someone, it didn't _necessarily_ mean that you _actually_ blinded them within the narrative. Literally, one of the selling points of the edition was that you could describe anything in any way you felt like, as long as the mechanics didn't change.




For some reason that I cannot figure out, the separation of "special effect" and mechanic was pleasing to me with Champions, but not with 4e. Maybe because Champions (aka the Hero System) was classless, so the players got to build their powers. Maybe because it was super heroes and pretty much any special effect fit in, where as D&D is some degree of medieval fantasy where no two people ever quite manage to share the same vision.

I dunno.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jun 7, 2018)

zztong said:


> For some reason that I cannot figure out, the separation of "special effect" and mechanic was pleasing to me with Champions, but not with 4e. Maybe because Champions (aka the Hero System) was classless, so the players got to build their powers. Maybe because it was super heroes and pretty much any special effect fit in, where as D&D is some degree of medieval fantasy where no two people ever quite manage to share the same vision.
> 
> I dunno.



When you played Champions, did you design powers by going from cause to effect? Or did you do as in 4E, where effect precedes (and supersedes) cause?

I've never played Champions, but I have played a lot of GURPS, and I always designed things by starting out with the in-game reality I was trying to model _and then_ moving on to figure what the correct and most-accurate way of modeling it would be. If I wanted to build a lightning power, I would start with imagining what it looks like in order to determine its area, and then I would apply the additional effects which seemed appropriate for lightning. It's the same way I would have invented a new spell in AD&D. I definitely _didn't_ start by thinking about how much damage I wanted it to deal, and with which effects, and then work backwards to try and justify what sort of ability would do that.


----------



## zztong (Jun 7, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> When you played Champions, did you design powers by going from cause to effect? Or did you do as in 4E, where effect precedes (and supersedes) cause?
> 
> I've never played Champions, but I have played a lot of GURPS, and I always designed things by starting out with the in-game reality I was trying to model _and then_ moving on to figure what the correct and most-accurate way of modeling it would be. If I wanted to build a lightning power, I would start with imagining what it looks like in order to determine its area, and then I would apply the additional effects which seemed appropriate for lightning. It's the same way I would have invented a new spell in AD&D. I definitely _didn't_ start by thinking about how much damage I wanted it to deal, and with which effects, and then work backwards to try and justify what sort of ability would do that.




Ideally, you think of the effect and then model it using the various powers, advantages, and limitations. Practically, a veteran player knew they needed certain investments of points to make a power that was likely to hurt an opponent, so you took the ideal and scaled it.

So, building a lightning power you might select "Energy Blast" as the base power. You might say that it isn't as effective against opponents that are underwater. You would likely say it needed to be a total of 12d6 of damage to be a mainline power. So, you'd probably buy 6d6 Energy Blast and an additional 6d6 of Energy Blast that didn't work against opponents that are underwater. Finally, you'd declare the special effect to be Lightning. Thus, you have a 12d6 Lightning Energy Blast that only does 6d6 against opponents that are underwater. Then you'd move on to whatever other powers you needed for your character conception.

Another guy might buy a Force Field and say it doesn't stop Lightning. He's going to have a bad day if he meets the first guy. Alternatively, he could buy extra Force Field that ONLY stops Lightning. It would be really inexpensive since it would rarely apply.

In Champs (and Gurps) you would build the complete character conception. In all D&D, you pick classes off the rack and try to make them fit your conception, or limit your conception to them.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2018)

It's a bit of a tangent relative to the thread topic, but the idea that in 4e there is no connection between mechanics and fiction is simply not true.

In combat there is a strong connection between the mechanics around movement, positioning etc and the fiction as to the location of the characters and monsters.

Difficult terrain is a mechanical phenomenon that corresponds to fictional states of affairs: eg if the DT is due to mud, then a flying PC is not going to be hampered by it. If it's due to strong winds, then a crawling PC is probably not going to be hampered by it. Etc.

Many keywords correlate power effects to the fiction. If the keyword is "fire" then, in the fiction, it involves heat and can set things alight. If the keyword is "cold", then, in the fiction, it involves ice and the like. A wizard can use Icy Terrain to freeze a puddle. A fighter can't use Come and Get It to freeze a puddle. This is because the former, but not the latter, has the Cold keyword.


----------

