>>18858354

I was actually a fan of his Iron Kingdom's book...

Rob Schwalb my man! Coming through in the clutch.

(the sound of villagers rejoicing everywhere)

>>18858354

>My decision is one based on differences of opinion with the company. However, I want to take this time to stress that my differences were not with my fellow designers, Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell.
Huh.

>>18858450
MEARLS!

THE IVORY TOWER HAS FALLEN

5TH EDITION IS SAVED

>>18858450
company wants more gimmicky extra things, designs that forces you to buy more books, more paraphernalia, more" FFG."

>>18858434
Tch.

THANK YOU.
You have no idea how happy I am to hear that. No offense to Monte, but I don't ever want to see your game design ideas near games that I want to play again. You ruined D&D for me.

Heh, like D&D ever been good.

Wizards, ironically, told Monte to stop making wizards horribly overpowered. Monte whined about why they should be. Wizards called him a faggot. Monte picked up his toys and went home.

>>18858510

I haven't followed all of the discussion on /tg/. Why did nobody want Cook on the project?

Rumor is that he is joining the 13th age development team.

Does anyone have the playtest pdf for 13th age? Can't find it anywhere.

>>1885585
MUNDO NOW DEVELOPER OF DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS 5TH EDITION.

>>18858535

I think it's mostly a case of Monte Cook being a talentless hack.

>>18858535
He wanks over wizards and ignores everything else.

>>18858535
Cook was responsible for much of the stuff that made 3.5 as messy as it was. Whether you enjoyed the product or not, the design decisions that led to most of the broken interactions as well drudging boredom were largely on him.

>>18858548
You linked to a post in the future.

>>18858548

>>18858562
MUNDO LINK TO WHAT POST HE PLEASES.

>>18858474
>>18858450
Indeed.

>>18858562
Maybe he's just from the future.

>>18858535
He was responsible for 3E's Ivory Tower game design, and by virtue of that, 3E's terrible terrible imbalances that half of that generation of gamers took as how D&D was supposed to be.

3E doesn't play out like AD&D did, not at all. Huge, huge differences between the two, but people believe that 3E is the definitive edition of D&D.

>>18858548
WHEN ROLL COME UP TWENTY, YOU SUCCEED AT ANYTHING
IF DM TELL YOU IT NOT, THROW BOOK AT HIM AND BECOME NEW DM

So who's working on it now?

5TH EDITION IS SAVED.

>My birthday
>Monte Cooke is leaving WoTC again
This is the best birthday present ever.

I'm glad Mearls is leading now. The guy seems like a bro, and from all the panels and interviews it's clear he knows what's wrong with 4e and how to make 5e better.

>>18858562
That depends on where its missing digit goes. It's only 7 numbers, should be 8.

>>18858583
This would have been the most epic post on /tg/ in a while if it was just two posts later.

Mundo is how I chaotic neutral.

>>18858586
Jim Profit was permabanned by Moot himself on my birthday.

What's Monte leaving WotC got on that?

/tg/ news means sticky?

we /co/ now?

THANK YOU BASED MEARLS!

>>18858611
It's not just news. It's big news.

>>18858399

>I was actually a fan of his Iron Kingdom's book...

That wasn't really his. That was Tweet and Williams preventing his shit from ruining their shit.

>>18858611
There's going to be five million threads about it, might as well get it up there.

This was one hell of a quick sticky.

And the most delightful of news, too!

>>18858608
You just ruined my birthday.
Thanks a lot.
Jerk.

HOLY SHIT POSTING IN A STICKY!

>>18858450
That difference being
Monte wanted to make every class that isn't his pet favorite suck ass and Wizards didn't.

The reason he left is the same reason he left before.

>>18858643
pressed submit to early
also dont let the door hit you on the ass on your way out asshole

>>18858354
Well, so much for any hope for 5th edition.

>>18858611

>my thread gets stickied

That's new!

Awesome news. There is much joy in the kingdom!

God, I was psyched for 5E before.

This is going to be awesome.

Oh sticky, you so sticky.

>>18858664
Go back to 3.5 and masturbating over your precious spellcasters.
There's hope for 5e now.

Corporate non-disclosure agreements, a businesses way of preventing the public from instantly turning against them until its been long enough for the public as a whole to not care.

>>18858664
really? Really?

. . . really?

>>18858664
Behold, a controversial opinion!
Please elaborate.

Stickies? On /tg/? Well, I never.

Also, pic fucking related.

FUCK YES. MONTE COOK IS GONE. SUCK ON THAT.

Glorious news!

>>18858676

In short: the opposite.

While WRARRDO has notoriously shitty fluff and relatively decent crunch, Monte Cook wrote some pretty nifty adventures, but was basically the main reason 3.5 was such a shitfestival.

>>18858664
Get out Monte.

How come I've never heard of this Monte Cook guy? Why is /tg/ so happy? It's not like MW of 40k got fired. What is this guy responsible for? 4e I assume?

FUCK YES.

Okay. I am sorry Monte, but FUCK YES.

YES.

OH GOD YES.

THANK GOD.

THANK YOU SO FUCKING MUCH.

YES.

BISONYES.GIF

>>18858707

> It's not like MW of 40k got fired.

Actually, it is.

>>18858676
He is responsible for 3rd edition D&D
Normally, he's attributed with a lot of the poor decisions in 3rd edition. The numerous trap options, the fact that interclass balance simply wasn't a thing, and other such things.

>>18858676
Yes.

Half of the D&D playerbase hates him because of their feelings towards 3E's problems, which COOK DIRECTLY CAUSED AND ADMITTED TO CAUSING.

Fighter will be viable! Huzah!

Lets not forget that Monte is the reason Fighters only got feats and is the reason Sorcerers sucked complete ass.

His throwing a shit fit over Wizards trying to fix sorcerers is one of the reasons he left originally; and Wizards didn't even do it.

>>18858546
Google '7chan 13th age download'. It's good, so I hope Monte doesn't join it.

>>18858705
Okay...

>>18858720
If we let Ward do all the crunch and Monte all the fluff, it might actually work.

>>18858720

>Monte Cook on fluff
>Mward on crunch

Dream team is correct

Flip that around, though...

>He's citing the same reasons he left WotC in the first place back in 3e. I'm guessing he thought whatever his problems with the company had been were gone, and whoops no they weren't.

>>18858719

Don't forget feats that intentionally sucked just because he felt like being an ass to new players who didn't know their shit.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/322139-monte-cook-leaves-wizards-coast-no-longer-working-d-d-next.
html

>Enworld forums confirmed for retarded

>>18858727
Sorcs were actually still retardedly strong and outclassed all of the non-full casters. It's just that, well, they have delayed spellcasting, no class features, and spontaneous casting having poor compatability with metamagic due to it upping spellcasting times to a full round action.

>>18858738
You'd basically have to make them operate in isolation.

>>18858747
Feats?
Try entire classes.

The people who complain about Monte Cook really need to calm down and stop exaggerating.

His style might be different from your own, but he's still a solid designer with interesting ideas, which is more than you can say about 99% of game designers.

Saging a sticky.

Thank fuck. So far, I don't think I heard a decent sentence uttered by the Cook.

"And then the DJ hardened to the paper plates" makes more sense.

>>18858755

Yeah no shit, but Monte was the reason sorcerers had no class features and threw a tantrum when people actually wanted them to be not shit.

>>18858781

>but he's still a solid designer with interesting ideas

Where?

The only mildly good thing with his name on it is Iron Heroes.

And that's just because he produced it. Mearls was the guy who actually... ya know... did the rules and shit.

>>18858781
His "interesting ideas" ruined an entire edition of Dungeons and Dragons for those who didn't subscribe to the idea that magic was BESTEST THING EVAR XDDD

>>18858762
And we get a decent fantasy table top with the possibilty of reaching ridiculous heights of badass and a good magic system, because otherwise Cook will flay Ward.

>>18858781
>The people who complain about Monte Cook really need to calm down and stop exaggerating.
I'm not exaggerating.

His design decisions and 3E's omnipresence in the hobby literally ruined D&D for me. I haven't enjoyed the game for years.

>>18858781
No, he isn't. He's shit. Like he's better than the guys who make truly atrocious systems that just don't work like The Returners or Cthulhutech or whatever the fuck, but as a designer compared to other decent professional designers he's awful.

>>18858776
I know but Monte made Toughness the way it was intentionally as his own personal way to troll.

I mean, what an asshole.

>A new sticky thread on /tg/

Surprise!

>>18858718
>>18858719
Wow, I never would have guessed this guy did 3e. Shoot, I grew up on Vidya that was 2e/3e like Icewind Dale, and got into D&D with 3e.

In fact I had the 3.5e PHB but only the 3e DM guide. I didn't realize this until way later, telling friends what page number to go to.

So this Monte Cook man is responsible for quite a lot of my youthful nights spent reading D&D books on my bed.

You say he's done good adventures, though?

>>18858730

Tried that, all links are down.

This is genuinely the best news I've had in a while. Monte's a tool who keeps writing love letters to OGL d20 design, which he doesn't even do well. So I am glad he's gone.

Now maybe 5th edition will be playable...
[spoiler]Maybe[/spoiler]

>>18858834
Even the fucking Russian mafia site? Christ. I can't help you then man.

>>18858845

What?

the number of posts agreeing with each other in this thread makes me think that perhaps the ratio of Users to Posts is smaller than 1:1.

can anyone else further explain why this guy's departure will single-handedly save 5e? i mean, everyone likes to single out one presumed "auteur" on which to heap ze scorn, but can you guys talk a little about what exactly he was responsible for?

>>18858833
Yup.

Monte was responsible for Dead Gods way back when, which was an excellent module. He might've been responsible for The Great Modron March, too.

Also, the 3E D&D vidya games aren't all that bad.

>>18858859
He did this.
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfxdAvBxge8

>>18858816
>I mean, what an asshole.
Wait a minute, are you telling me that Monte Cook is the Assholetep of RPG designers?

>>18858859
As it's been pointed out, the imbalances in 3e were put there BECAUSE of Monte. He's continually put casters ahead of other classes, and indeed, made motions that he wanted 5e this way. People who didn't enjoy 3.5, or people who didn't want another 3.5 are happy.

There are a lot of those people.

>>18858859
He's the guy who decided that spellcasters should be able to just laugh their way out of any situation, ever, and if you want to play ANY martial class? Congratulations on being a third world citizen.

3.5 and Pathfinder are my games of choice, but I am very much looking forward to 5E.

>MFW this news.

>>18858859
I don't agree that it'll save 5E.
But, as I said...
He's responsible for Ivory Tower game design, which included trap classes, feats, and extremely situational abilities with the same resource cost it takes to get bread-and-butter abilities. Coincidentally - or not - his favorite class is the Wizard, and the edition of D&D he was behind had the Wizard as the strongest class.

GLORIOUS DAY!

His awful habit of treating awful ideas as good ideas has finally bitten him in the ass. He probably thinks he's walking away from a sinking ship, but he was just enough dead weight tossed overboard to help it float again!

The healing can begin now.. We can be hopeful for 5e again!

>>18858859
>the number of posts agreeing with each other in this thread makes me think that perhaps the ratio of Users to Posts is smaller than 1:1.
Yeah, it's almost like people are having a discussion, talking back and forth.

>>18858827
where the fuck is that from?!

>>18858859

Monte Cooke made a really stupid blog post about "Ivory Tower Game Design" where he basically explained the concept of putting timmy cards (IE: Cards that're only there as traps for people who tournament play magic the gathering) into D&D.

As you can understand this is a horrible idea. He literally said he made the game imbalanced with trap character options so that the people who "knew how to play the system" would be the best players.

He's also gone on record saying wizards are his favourite class.

>>18858859
He's responsible for many of the problems in 3e. Uh... go look up his attitude when he got called in to write Legends and Lore. His first article was about how to fix a part of the system... except his solution was already in the system. He didn't even know the rules he was supposed to be commenting on.

He's the guy that thinks system mastery and considerable rules inequalities should be in an RPG. That the Fighter should be skill- and social- crippled and 100% combat, but not as good as the wizard because the wizard 'rewards good play' and gets options that bypass anything other classes can do. He's the guy who's been writing d20 since 3e, including terrible, misfitting shit like the d20 WoD game.

He's not a good designer, and he'd been touting a lot of familiar ideas in the runup to D&DNext, so I'm seriously fucking glad he's not touching it anymore.

>ratio of Users to Posts is smaller than 1:1.
Probably. It is in most threads on /tg/.

"although I may provide occasional consultation in the future."
I wonder how often is "occasional"

>>18858688
>>18858687
>>18858682
Hell, I stopped playing long before 4th came out. The game started to go in directions that annoyed me, and then 4th took the things I didn't like and ran with them.

Trying to make every class equal to each other at every level was bullshit, and that was my opinion of 3.5 trying to hammer in new brands of 'balance' toward the end.
Also adding feats in to 'allow' characters to do shit I'd been allowing for years, taunting, tactical 'feats', throwing people, shit that you'd always been able to do, but now they had feats for DMs/players that weren't bright enough to allow shit.
Though that is probably due in part to WotC trying to stretch shit out to sell additional books with more 'features'. The 'you can only do what the book says' mindset was something they would encourage and follow up with 'here is another book buy it!'. A mindset which is the leading theory behind Cook's leaving Wizards of the Hasbro as well, they wanted to tweak things for monetization and stretching out the books, where he preferred a single rulebook and less rule 'add-ons' to sell later.

>>18858916
>Trying to make every class equal to each other at every level was bullshit
Then why the fuck do levels exist. They're a measure of relative power, Christ.

>The 'you can only do what the book says' mindset was something they would encourage and follow up with 'here is another book buy it!'
Pretty much the only edition of D&D you find this attitude prevalent in is 3e/3.5e. In OD&D, AD&D and 4e, people tend to be more understanding of the idea the rules don't cover everything.

Personally, I'd like to know what differences over company policy caused his departure.

I'm no fan of Monte, but I've heard that WotC's company policies are somewhat draconian.

>>18858915
When Wizards of the Coast wants advice on how to suck harder, they'll contact him.

>He's the guy that thinks system mastery and considerable rules inequalities should be in an RPG.

All you people whining about system mastery and ivory tower design don't seem to have understood that it was Monte himself who explained this concept, acknowledged it was flawed, and decided not to do it again. He wouldn't have done it in 4E or 5E for that matter, so all the people declaring that "5E is saved!" are just about 8 years out of date.

Monte Cook did superb work on Planescape, but I doubt most of his critics even know what that is.

>>18858953
>Monte himself who explained this concept, acknowledged it was flawed, and decided not to do it again. He wouldn't have done it in 4E or 5E for that matter, so all the people declaring that "5E is saved!" are just about 8 years out of date
The problem with that is he went on to put it in every single game he worked on or released independently.

>>18858945

>I've heard that WotC's company policies are somewhat draconian.
>draconian

>>18858916
>'you can only do what the book says'
Oh. Hi GURPS. This is a D&D thread, please leave.

>>18858933
Honestly, while 4e may seem a bit bland due to the way it was balanced, it's fucking balanced. While I hope that 5e has classes that actually feel like they're playing differently, I would still rather use a 4.5e ruleset then go back to the bullshit that was 3.5's caster classes vs martial classes/third world citizens

>>18858933
>Then why the fuck do levels exist. They're a measure of relative power, Christ.
Because it makes advancing a character much easier. You have 20 levels per class, that can only follow one another, instead of a mass of hundreds or thousands of abilities of various power.

>>18858977

> the bullshit that was 3.5's caster classes vs martial classes/third world citizens

Hehe

>>18858916
To break it down:
I'm concerned that Hasbro will dick us over to make more books that we will 'have' to buy.

I'm not a fan of crazy balancing, but that really doesn't have much to do with my concerns. Though I was rather hoping that 5th would turn into a functional version of d20 Modern's class layout than 3.x or 4th.

>>18858916
>Trying to make every class equal to each other at every level was bullshit
You know that this was the idea behind AD&D's level advancement setup once you got over the low level hurdle with mages and thieves, right?

Why is 3E 'doing it wrong' when it's trying to do exactly what its predecessor did for the meat of the game?

>>18858827
If i cared for Avatar i would be so angry right now

>>18858979
If a tenth level fighter and a tenth level wizard aren't roughly equivalent in power, the guy who wants to play a tough, strong guy who lives by his wits and his blade ends up getting hosed for wanting to play something that's not LOL I BEND REALITY.

That's no fun for anyone except the faggot who is playing the wizard.

>>18858611
It's that or we get a billion threads about it shitting up /tg/, that and to the D&D crowd that makes up a significant portion of /tg/, this is pretty important news.

>>18858953
I know what planescape is.
Monte is great at fluff.
But mechanics? OH SWEET FUCKING GOD DO NOT LET COOKE WITHIN A MILE OF MECHANICS.

5th Edition is Saved.

>>18859015
He was joking you newfag.

I think there was definitely inequality in 3.5, so its good he's out from being able to have that happen again.

However, Wizards needs to look back in time and realize all the extra supplements(admittedly, the different campaign worlds vs anything else) was the downfall of TSR.

I don't know man, more inclusive rulebooks is awesome, and I like vanician magic as one available type. But Fighters being awesome is awesome and all feats being viable is awesome.

>>18858979
Class levels are supposed to offer a concrete track of escalating rewards and bonuses that should roughly balance out between classes.

It's not just to keep all the abilities and shit all neat and tidy, like you so erroneously believe, it's to offer different paths of progression.

As it stand snow, 20 levels of wizard may as well be a rocket car that takes you to the furthest reaches of space where lusty green women fight over who gets to suck your cock next while they shower you in gold and booze.

20 levels of fighter is a rickety cart pulled by a sick mule that takes you slightly further down the road than where you started.

>>18858827
HOREE SHEET

You hear that Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell?

You guys are gonna be the next duo to hate when 5E comes out and /tg/ doesn't like it for one reason or another.

I'm scared. I hate Monte Cook's designing, and I hate Wizards' corporate policies. If there was such a volatile conflagration of the two during the design of 5e, I'm half shitting myself in fear.

>>18858953
>Monte Cook did superb work on Planescape, but I doubt most of his critics even know what that is.

We do, and I for one fucking loved most of his adventures for it. He's good at the fluff side.

As for the rest, it was easy to see from the articles about 5e they put out the last month or so that he was bringing back the same idiotic game design. The reports from the playtests were even more foreboding. Of course we can't be sure, since we haven't seen much concrete, but it takes a far more generous reading to think it was going well, than it takes a mean reading to see it as going to the shitter again.

>Failu cUported

Well, on the other hand, lack of Monte doesn't mean 5e will automatically be great. After all, they're making 5e because 4e didn't meet expectations, and Monte didn't make 4e.

>>18859015
I believe he understands the meaning of the word, and was simply commenting on the unintended pun.
Dungeons & Dragons, draconian. Quite similar, you see.

>>18858933
>>Trying to make every class equal to each other at every level was bullshit
>Then why the fuck do levels exist. They're a measure of relative power, Christ.
Mainly to measure the relative power of that class. They should never have done away with the old different XP charts for different classes.

>>The 'you can only do what the book says' mindset was something they would encourage and follow up with 'here is another book buy it!'
>Pretty much the only edition of D&D you find this attitude prevalent in is 3e/3.5e. In OD&D, AD&D and 4e, people tend to be more understanding of the idea the rules don't cover everything.
Thus I stopped playing D&D during 3.5, though when it first came out it wasn't as blatant about that as it was later.

>>18859018
Gygax had something to say about how the game was intended to play out from before AD&D even existed, actually.

>Magic-use was thereby to be powerful enough to enable its followers to compete with any other type of player-character, and yet the use of magic would not be so great as to make those using it overshadow all others. This was the conception, but in practice it did not work out as planned. Primarily at fault is the game itself which does not carefully explain the reasoning behind the magic system. Also, the various magic items for employment by magic-users tend to make them too powerful in relation to other classes (although the GREYHAWK supplement took steps to correct this somewhat).

>The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from anything else. Fighters have their strength, weapons, and armor to aid them in their competition. Magic-users must rely upon their spells, as they have virtually no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. The new class, thieves, have the basic advantage of stealthful actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D & D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or the referee is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate what he has created by way of player-characters. It is the opinion of this writer that the most desirable game is one in which the various character types are able to compete with each other as relative equals.

>>18859015
>Deleting your post because you're dumb as shit
I SHIGGY DIGGY DOO WOP BOP

All these people complaining about 3e should just go back and play 2e. Problems solved.

I personaly like the fact that each edition of D&D is it's own seperate thing and not just an "upgrade". Probably my favourite thing about the D&D franchise to be honest.

>>18859018
Yeah. Hell, if you don't like having wizards who are so powerful they use black holes as garbage disposals, just cap/orient the max level of fighter so it's equivalent to the same-power wizard, and allow wizards of more power than that to hit levels a fighter never can. That way wizards are balanced with fighters, but can also have their reality-bending wankery if they still want it.

Just a thought.

>>18859060
I see these Gygax snippets which basically directly contradict the 'Will of Gygax' grognard-types and I'm amazed. That dude knew how to run a goddamn game.

>>18859067
> Probably my favourite thing about the D&D franchise to be honest.
The design idea is similar to Final Fantasy: Any Final Fantasy will sell enough to float, so they can do whatever the fuck they like with setting, mechanics, and gameplay.

At this point I don't really care about who's at the helm of 5e. If they can make a good game out of it, more power to them.

Personally, if 5e isn't as big a success as WotC really hopes for it to be, Hasbro may simply pull the plug on it and just decide to sit on the IP. D&D would cease to exist as anything more than the name of an intellectual property, meaning that what we know as D&D would become replaced by Pathfinder, 13th Age and other similar D&D-derivatives.

>>18859065
He's clearly from Reddit.

>>18859018
No, actually a lot of people had fun playing monks, barbarians or fighters in 3.x games. Even with casters in the party.

I personally think that while wizards, clerics and druids have it too easy in 3.5, magic that isn't more useful than mundane means is no fun. Magic should somewhat fantastic. And restricted too, that even if everyone can use magic through items, not everyone has personal magical powers.

>>18859107
I figure Monte is going to announce he's joining either the PF or 13th Age design team now, actually.

>>18859067
>All these people complaining about 3e should just go back and play 2e
You know, I'd do that...
...if 3E hadn't been so omnipresent, and if people hadn't somehow gotten the idea that 3E is exactly how D&D is supposed to be.
>>18859085
Gygax is an odd man. He often said some things that look stupid until you examine what he said more closely; the man's prose was TERRIBLE to read.

But that?

He pointed out EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED in 3E twenty four years before the game ever released.

>>18859130
My favourite is this one where someone is writing in about how there have to be rules for everything and combat isn't lethal enough or complex enough and...

Gygax basically just replies with 'If you want lethal combat, join the fucking army. D&D is meant to be HEROIC'.

>>18859127
I hope it's PF, because 13th Age actually looks like it might be pretty cool. Pathfinder's mechanics are already a mess so there's no damage to be done there by Monte.

>Monte Cook fucks himself and gets fired, again.
>Adam Sessler quits G4

Made my week.

>>18859085
Lots of people just like to be douchebags about oD&D. At the end of the day, oD&D was modular and 'whatever you want it to be.' Gygax was awesome because he provided both the game and the core assumptions behind the game to the players to do with what they want. Caster balance was relatively level up until WotC took over, however, primarily due to the lack of "personal power" mechanics: Martial classes leveled up into armies, not really powerful single combatants (although they were also that).

>>18859083
...That doesn't make any sense at all.

Let me see if I'm reading this correctly

1) Give fighters a level cap
2) Allow wizards to go beyond this level cap

>>18859118
As have I. But the wizard in my group had never played D&D before, and just used blasting spells, which meant that nobody was really playing anything that was hilariously broken.

I'm just saying that a wizard shouldn't have to stick solely to his worst options to not be hilariously ridiculous, and a martial player character shouldn't have to minmax his brains out to not be useless most of the time.

>>18859150
In a small design team I'm pretty sure he would be less of a problem, especially working with people like Tweet and Heinsoo. But PF is probably more likely.

Also 13th Age *is* cool, but there's still some issues there. If skills have become basic buy-ins representing the sum knowledge of your background/experiences, why the fuck are fighters still getting less points to spend on them?

So my question is, what happens next with Cook gone for stuff like Pathfinder

>>18859083
That doesn't work at all. More levels for a fighter just means bigger numbers - and that's not the problem with casters. The problem with casters is more options, and options which circumvent the numbers. So giving the fighter more levels will just break the maths - the fighter and wizard cannot challenge the same types of monsters anymore, because the wizards simply doesn't have the raw numbers to deal with it. It will also mean the poor guy playing a wizard won't level for like ten sessions, while the fighter does it five times, which can get terribly boring. And lastly it means that multiclassing doesn't work.

So no, that doesn't fix 3.5, if that's what you meant to do. It worked in 2e, sort of, as it was already built for that.

>>18859156
Yup. That way fighters and wizards can still be balanced, but asshat wizards who want to make dragon zombies that breath cloudkill can still make characters. There's no feasible level a fighter can be to match this versatility without becomign 3.5 again, so the wizard uses a higher max level and can at least compete with other wizards and uber monsters or something.

I never said it was a good idea, but it'd at least fix the "Magic can to do anything" vs "All I have is a sword" dichotomy in 3.5

>>18859085
>That dude knew how to run a goddamn game.

Indeed he did, he was just a ball buster

>>18859118
Every time I hear something like this, I'm reminded of how our last D&D 3.5 game ended. At level 18, our Fighter had romanced the princess, defeated an evil empire, reawakened a dead god, and spent most of the final battle being sat on by a Dracolich.

At the same level, our Druid did most of that and fought the entire battle basically solo using a small army of summoned huge dire bears. His turn took over an hour. Our fighter's took two minutes.

If 5e goes back to THAT kind of discrepancy, I'm going to wait until 6th.

>>18859151
A FLURRY OF KICKS FROM DAIGO

>>18859168
Probably nothing? Pathfinder seems to be doing what it likes on its own.

>>18859195
>>18859181
Oh, I completely misunderstood you, then. Pardon.

Partly that's because your suggestion makes little to no sense, but well.

Don't let the Fighter hit you on your way out, Monte.

I've never heard of 13th age.

>>18859222
Best post in the thread.

>>18859203
I hope Paizo does a second edition of Pathfinder sometime in the future. Not any time soon though.

You see, I like Pathfinder, but at the same time I realize that you can't really build a balanced game around an inherently flawed core, which 3.5 obviously is.

I'd be very interested in seeing what Pathfinder 2nd edition would look like, with an even more cleaned-up system, maybe with an even closer look at balance and how different things in the system interact with each other.

>>18859195
But that's absolutely no fun for anyone, again, except the wizard.

Why should a wizard be allowed to just laugh at the rules of existence and causality after doing the same amount of adventuring as a warrior who has gained great martial strength and ability... except all he can do now is attack a few extra times, more accurately than he could when he first started off?

When it ends up "Okay, Fighter, you can't level anymore. But it's okay! Mr. Wizard here has another 15 levels he can gain, so you'll stand in front of him and take hits while he channels spells that will unmake reality, okay?" that Fighter is just as well served giving his character to the Wizard as a familiar and going to play something on his phone.

>>18859242
I'd be okay with that.

I'm definitely having more fun playing PF than I did playing 3.5, but some redesign (hopefully) couldn't hurt.

>>18859218
It's batshit retarded, but it's the only way I can think of to parse "infinite cosmic power" and three feet of steel on the same level system without eliminating either. The 2e sliding xp scale might work, but I don't know enough about 2e to comment on it one way or another.

Man, if only Wizards had to go on fantastic adventures and slay horrible creatures just to get the scrolls/reagents/gp to perform a single one of these high level universe-bending spells.

OHWAIT.

>>18859240
Toasting in an epic bread, indeed.

>>18859254
At least then it's honest about blatantly favoring wizards over fighters, so the fighter player can say "eff you" and do something else.

3e did that and pretended that the classes were balanced.

>>18859273

Sliding scale worked great for our 2 year campaign. I joined a year late and picked thief, the fastest leveling class. By the end of it I had caught up to them all.

Our second campaign I rolled very good stats and made a Paladin, who was always about a level below everyone else, but still very good in all regards. His lowest stat was a 13 in INT though, but I strongly believe even with more average stats he woudl have been a contender regardless.

>>18859282
Don't shit up the sticky with the bullshit that I have proved you wrong about literally every time you post it.

Don't.

I'd honestly just like to see the mechanical depth of older systems combined with the fun of 4E.

Is that so much to ask?

>>18859285
I suppose.

As you can tell, I'm one of the people who likes playing martial classes, and I just don't like being weak simply because I don't want to wiggle my fingers to fix problems.

>>18859282
Looks like someone's never actually read the actual rules of the game.

>>18859343

>Eschew Material Components

THANK YOU BASED HASBRO.

>>18859353
And some of us who like playing casters do not necessarily like being better than, and obsoleting, all the non-casters simply because of our class choices.

I don't like feeling like other people at the table are my supporting cast. I doubt that's a rare feeling.

So does this mean they are scrapping Vanician magic in 5th edition?

I feel like I was just offered a ride on a bicycle made of dreams and friendship.

Problem with AD&D is that some things fly in the face of common sense, when I was learning it I had to make this AC/THAC0 chart and use that until I could do the math in my head. Took me a bit to realize that lower = better in the three most important numbers.

I do wonder though, why the fuck was it done like THAT?

>>18859409

Oh God I hope so, shit is retarded.

>>18859418
I know, right?
Universe confirmed for just and loving god.

>>18859409
Doubt it.

But they may listen a bit more to that poll where everyone and their dog preferred non-Vancian to Vancian, instead of just plain ignoring its existence.

>>18859396
And there are lots of guys like me who appreciate that.

But sadly that can't be said for everyone.

>>18859409
I doubt it. Hopefully they do follow up with the option for different kinds of rules for magic (modularity and all that) though.

>>18859409
No, but the odds that Vancian casting is in D&D 5 are now no longer certain.

>>18859421
I believe it was because the Chainmail AC rules were adapted from a naval combat game. No idea why they didn't reverse it, but it's not really the biggest problem AD&D had.

>>18859427

How is it retarded?

It's a far better system than mana, given the power of the spells we're tossing around.

Take, for example, Final Fantasy 1.

Casters were pretty powerful even when it was using Vancian.

In the update, when it switched to mana... hoo boy.

>>18859421
I'm getting into 2nd edition right now and despite your terrible taste in colors I thank you for this chart. I'm not very good with numbers.

>>18859461

Thats just it, caster faggotry needs to get cut down a notch.

AND I SAY THIS TO YOU TONIGHT
LET US NOT FORGET
THERE IS HOPE

>>18859461
>In the update, when it switched to mana... hoo boy.
That's a problem with spell power, not the resource system. Don't conflate the two.

3.5 psionics is an example of it being an equivalent, if not better system; Vancian magic needed HUGE, HUGE restrictions on it in AD&D to prevent it from blowing the game wide open and Gygax even said as much. Guess what happened when 90% of those were removed?

>>18859482
>>18859505

Precisely what I was saying. Vancian magic isn't the problem; the fact that spells allow you to STOP GODDAMN TIME and SUMMON TWENTY SATANS are the problem.

>>18858354

And now, WoTC will have nobody to blame for the shit sandwich that will be 5E.

But still, well played.

>>18859505

The restrictions weren't so much removed as they were... relaxed.

>>18859505
Give a spellcaster a situation where he has two minutes to live in 2nd edition and he is pretty much fucked without the right spells.

Meanwhile the 3rd edition caster has a dozen tries to get out of that pickle. Maybe more.

>>18859514
To be fair, I think Time Stop is the coolest thing ever.

That episode of Community, man. My fucking face.

>>18859273
>>18859273

2e had a different design philosophy: levels weren't meant to be equal across classes, they were measures of improvement. So a thief would advance faster but cap off sooner, while wizards advanced much more slowly but capped off higher. Character balance was based more on XP total than numerical level.

Secondly, there was a definite mechanical assumption that certain classes would gain story power over personal power. Wizards could do all sorts of powerful shit, but they usually ended up with their tower, some artifacts, and maybe an apprentice or two. High level fighters were explicitly assumed to become kings and warlords. Setting up your stronghold and ruling your domain was part of the game.

Spellcasting itself was way less powerful. Spells per day were way fewer, and memorizing spells was way more stringent. Finding spell scrolls was also much more in the hands of the DM. Any spells the DM didn't want you to find, all he had to do was make sure you never found any scrolls or books containing it. Casting speed also screwed you up: a 2e Mage could be easily locked down by a kobold with a slightly pointy stick.

Finally, the fighter's key ability, multiple attacks, was POWERFUL in 2e. Remember: all your attacks were at full attack bonus, and firing off a full sequence of attacks didn't hinder movement. That and warriors had sole access to the best gear: Vorpal Swords, full plate, heroic strength. . . things like that.

>>18859514
To be fair I feel pretty enthusiastic about a spell that lets you SUMMON TWENTY SATANS, why has this never been in D&D?

WE'RE FREE

FREE AT LAST OH LORD FREE AT LAST

>>18859514

Honestly I think the lower level spells are more problem than the higher level ones. Fly at level 5? Invisibility at 3? Teleportation and scry readily availible at level 9 and 7 respectively. To be spammed as much as you want, with only a slight chance of failure/mishap.

All these feats makes casters incredibly versentile. They should not be easy-cast or low level, in my opinion

>>18859514
Vancian magic is just a frustrating, overcomplicated system in general; mana systems are more intuitive and easier to manage on the fly.

The problem with Vancian magic is totally separate from the spell power.

>>18859532
Let monks stop time instead due to INNER WILLPOWER or something then. Fix two problems at once.

>>18859543

>To be fair I feel pretty enthusiastic about a spell that lets you SUMMON TWENTY SATANS

In that case, this image will please you.

>>18859567

> mana systems are more intuitive and easier to manage on the fly.

Sure I guess if you like bigger numbers

I'd prefer a mana system with dice pools to be honest.

tl;dr:
5e'll be bad for a different reason than 3.x was.

>>18859505

The problem I think, is that casters having god level power (and lets be clear, vulgar reality alteration = god level power) has been deemed acceptable for far too long. It needs to stop. I actually really liked 4E for fixing that, if nothing else.

Look at Gandalf from the Lord of the Rings, pretty much THE iconic wizard in fantasy; do you see him God Sueing his way through every obstacle like it's nothing? Hell no. He has limitations, his body is mortal, he requires, REQUIRES his arcane focus.

Fact is casters in D&D have gotten away with entirely too much bullshit for entirely too long, and they don't even suffer any drawbacks/run any risks in doing so (see: Magic in Warhammer, World of Darkness). It hurts the depth of the system, it makes challenging a high level wizard nearly impossible, and it makes the poor bastard who wants to play a fighter wonder why he even shows up on Saturday.

>>18859573
Yeah it was the first thing I thought of.

I'm not even imagining the Satans are there for combat. Like maybe the Mage thinks they are, but he summons them and they just wander about, drink all his pussy, ruin his sofa and call him a pussy.

>>18859597
Good enough for me!

>>18859604
>I'm not even imagining the Satans are there for combat. Like maybe the Mage thinks they are, but he summons them and they just wander about, drink all his pussy, ruin his sofa and call him a pussy.
>drink all his pussy

Dammit, I hate it when Satans drink all my pussy.

>>18859604

>drink all his pussy

>>18859604
>drink all his pussy
Uh, booze. God that's an embarrassing slip-up.

>>18859602
Gandalf is powerful as fuck, he was ordered to not help using his powers.

>>18859604

>drink all his pussy

>>18859602
I don't mind god level wizards as long as there are also god level fighters. I'm okay with wizards being able to stop time and summon twenty satans so long as my fighter of equal level can cleave through 10 satans in one round and redirect rivers to clean out the Aegean stables and shatter time and space with his fists.

I loved his supplementary material for 3.X and Arcana Evolved, but he ruined the core game. Thank goodness he's out.

>I'm still okay with Vancian casting, but it should be the Wizard's thing, since his magic is Intelligence-based
>Every other caster should be a spontaneous/power point/magic point/ritual caster

>>18859644

That's partly because he's not technically a Wizard.

He's a Solar with several SLAs who's ditched his greatsword and longbow.

>>18859643
Everyone gets thirsty sometimes.

>>18859604
> drink all his pussy

Thread derailed by Satans drinking pussy.

I started in 3.5 as a kid and liked it fine. My first chracter was a druid. Everyone around me was basically "i cast mele8e basic" In 4e i play bard and felt a bit under powered. But i like 4e i dont know why everyone is always so pissy.

> Teleportation and scry readily availible at level 9 and 7 respectively. To be spammed as much as you want

As much as you want, as long as you only want to once a day?

>>18858781
> which is more than you can say about 99% of game designers.

>>18858354
This is the face of history's greatest monster.

>>18859604

>drink all his pussy

It is undenyable fact that Monte is the man behind a almost every good new adventure to come out of WotC. That said, he's shit with actual games.

Dohohohoho

Before reading Monte'sblog entry, I am going to guess that he will cite his reason for leaving as...

....creative differences. In other words, he got his ass hauled because he was unable to compromise on anything.

>>18859604

Here you go.

>>18859768
Well differences of opinion. Same thing. I'll say that I was right on the money.

>>18859699
I started with 2E.

3E's changes pissed me off once I realized what they actually meant at the table. Do you know what it feels like to have a class that was solid for the entire game in 2E end up being pigeonholed into being a retard that's mediocre at best at fighting despite being called the Fighter? Do you know what it feels like to be showed up in melee by a class' animal companion?

>>18859602
In my mind that's why vancian casting was actually a pretty good thing. It wasn't the *best* solution, but it was a shitton better than the 3.x system. That combined with the higher XP requirements made sure that mages needed martial characters around for quite a while in 2e.

>>18858781

He made Monte Cook's World of Darkness. I exaggerate nothing.

>>18859604
>Drink all his pussy

This image is startlingly appropriate.

>>18859801

The 3.X system was, also, Vancian casting.

Do you even know what Vancian casting is? It's the spellbomb system, created by Jack Vance in the Dying Earth novels decades ago, where the wizard would have to memorize a spell and then release it, unable to cast that spell until he has memorized it again.

>>18859801

Not to mention that some spells COST xp. This slowed wizard progression as well.

I liked the idea of vancian casting as ONLY a thing wizards as a class have to deal with.

TIME TO CELEBRATE /tg/

>>18859833

Some spells in 3.X cost XP too. Not enough in my opinion.

>>18859835
Clerics've always don it too.

But I'd rather see Wizards having the Vancian spellbomb.
And Clerics/Warlocks/Sorcerers (casters who's power comes from something other than studying books) have something more akin to Star Wars Saga Edition's force powers system.

>>18859853

Which in part was the wizard wank that was 3E.

"Oh, I hate having to pay exp to cast stuff. Let's cut that down a lot."

infinitecosmicpower.jpg

As someone who's clearly not a fan of the man's work, I must say I'm a bit weary. I did not care tat he worked on D&D, a game I won't be playing in the near future - whatever the incarnation.

But him leaving the project means he could now be spoiling something else.

>>18859824
Yes I do, but while the spells themselves were vancian there were plenty of "notspells" that worked exactly like spells that weren't vancian. The feats and powers completely killed any idea that magic was vancian--more a certain subsection of magic was.

>>18859891

>RIFTS 2E

D&D needs to rip the magic system from the Dresden Files off. That would fix the problems.

>>18859886

One of the big problems with that system, which is also a problem I have with people wanting varied XP tables back, is that they force the GM to calculate XP for their group, which is something that many GM's including myself abandoned a long time ago. Having systems in place that are balanced around exact XP values throw a massive wrench in many people's playstyles, which is something that should definitely be avoided.

>>18858781
The issue is that Cook was designing what was meant to be an ongoing collaborative player experience as if it was a competitive one-off game. Having certain options being weak is excusable in a card game tournament where you play a deck once or twice and then redesign it to improve it. Having players be screwed for the entirety of a campaign due to decisions at level 1 is bullshit.

>>18859853
problem with spells that cost xp: they were too few, too far between, and too easily ignorable (especially for GMs who just were like "Screw EXP bookkeeping! All y'alls gain a level now!")

>>18859421
You learn PeMdAs in fucking gradeschool

THAC0 - d20 = AC hit
BAB + d20 = AC hit

THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME MATH!!!!!

>>18859910

What? How is that difficult? Just add the ammount of xp from the monster killed, damsels rescued and loot recovered and divide by the number of players that played the adventure.

Some will be of different level than other, but they all will have more or less the same ammount of xp.

>>18859936
Because instead of adding 800 from the thingy and 600 for the zipdoo and 1000 from the quest I can just say "Okay you're all level 2" whenever I like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaOCCihiu3g

>>18859699
>But i like 4e i dont know why everyone is always so pissy.

The short version: no matter which other edition you started with or associated with what DnD was "supposed" to feel like, 4e felt different. Frankly, I'm willing to bet money 4e would be loved by most everyone *if* it had been released without a connection to Dungeons and Dragons, because it's got a very different feel to it.

>>18859923

Walking backwards is pretty easy, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to walk backwards instead of forwards everywhere you go.

>>18859936

Again, the issue with this is that many GMs prefer to level up when it seems thematically appropriate, not when some arbitrary number tells them to. Bringing back systems that force you to use XP when you've ignored it for 10-12 years is just ridiculous, especially in a game where "modularity" and "playing your way" is supposedly held above all else.

>>18859957
>>18859936
When I DM I tend to do this too, i don't work with XP I just decide when my players have achieved enough to level up

>>18859936
A lot of people can't be assed to bother with XP. It's a lot of boring bookkeeping for no real purpose. I'm with them - we level when it feels appropriate.

Foreign roleplayer here. Don't know shit about DnD except a little bit of Forgotten Realms.

Why did he leave?

Why is it a good thing?

What did that guy do?

>>18859957

You being lazy =/= problem system.

As an anecdote, if I ever did that my players would have me by the throat demanding xp, not asking for my permission to level up.

>>18859981
But then all editions of D&D have felt different from each other. 2e and 3e are very far apart.

>>18859957
>>18859991
You guys are doing it right.

XP based design would be good if the levels were more even; as it is with 3.5 and 4th it's a real pain in the ass if there's a level of diference between two characters, even if they are the same class. Nevermind balancing encounters and shit like that...

>>18860001

>Why did he leave?

Because he's a bitch.

>Why is it a good thing?

Because he was a bitch.

>What did that guy do?

Act like a bitch.

>>18860002

>not dealing with pointless bookkeeping is lazy

>>18860002
>Deciding when my players level up instead of the system doing so is lazy

I'm sorry I don't aim to emulate diablo.

>>18859421
>why was it done like that
It was a simple way to account for the numbers on a d20 and was based off of Chainmail

>>18859981

That, and skill challenges. Class abilities/moves were also not given any interface for out of combat scenarios.

I'm hope Ivory tower design gets struck down, with an emphasis on the 2e design philosophy that was posted a while back.

Thing is, people want much more diversity in their games noways, rather than playing the Warlord, the cloistered wizard, and the ragabond thief. Special Snowflakism smothers the classic feel of the fantasy genre.

>>18860026

I don't find it pointless, because my players like it and adds to the fun. Five minutes at the end of an adventure calculating XP is not bothersome. I would find it bothersome if the DM decided when I can level up.

I think miniature combat is boring and pointless, but I do not go arround telling people that 4e is bad and they should feel bad. The system is just not for me.

So Monte Cook leaving because of design issues...

Maybe 5e actually has a lot of influence from OD&D and won't be a pile of shit like 4e was

>>18860068

being too lazy to set up miniatures =/= boring and pointless

See what I did there?

>>18860022

Well...thanks.

How to fix D&D Vancian magic: you don't just "memorize" a spell and have it magically wiped from your mind, for each casting, you have to research a variation which has never been used before, THEN memorize it, and the act of casting it permanently burns out the potential of that same variant ever being used again by anyone.

The memorization time is still quite short, and researched spells can be written on scrolls for convenient memorization later, but the research difficulty grows with the spell level. Cantrips can be improvised on the spot. First level spells need at least fifteen minutes, some scratch paper, and divination cantrips. Second level spells take at least an hour and require reference materials. Third level spells take the better part of a day and require specialized implements. Fourth level spells take multiple days and require a small library and lab.

The single casting of one ninth level spell may be the product of years or decades of research, assisted by a small army of magical servants.

Adventurers don't have time for this shit, and nobody has a big selection of scrolls on hand to sell. You take what you can get as the opportunity arises.

Spells: powerful as all fuck, hard to get your hands on.

Honestly, I much preferred the "ritual" system that was being tossed around for those spells that used to cost XP: instead of burning XP points, you have to invest time and energy questing for material components and finding the Altar of Jehosephat and things like that.

>>18860062
That's not even 2E's design philosophy.

It's OD&D's design philosophy. That's right; every edition of D&D EXCEPT FOR 3E tried to have each member of a party contribute equally to all of the others.

>>18859985

I was too young to remember if this was just a house rule or not, but when I played AD&D our DM would only let us level up once we had enough xp and when it made sense. For a Wizard you would have to spend time studying or working under a higher level wizard or something.

Although I do remember something in the rules about my Paladin reaching 4th level that prevented him from actualy leveling up as we were in the middle of an important story arc. It required him to do an epic quest or something either to level or just to get his epic mount, or maybe both. It's been a long time.

>>18860062

>That, and skill challenges. Class abilities/moves were also not given any interface for out of combat scenarios.

But they don't need it. My Warlock can burn through the wall of an ice fortress, my fighter can open four bottles of wine at the same time at a princess's wedding, and my Monk can leap up to an awning to proclaim his love in person using powers JUST FINE.

>>18860083

He explicitly said that he found it book keeping, which is another way to say that he found it tedious and boring. For me and my players it is no.

The reason I don't like miniatures is because nothing detracts more of the imagination than looking at a shitty plastic fig for an hour while people are counting squares and meta gaming to get the best out of their powers.

Different strokes for different folks and all that, the point I was trying to get across is that the differing XP system works very well if you use it.

If you decide to circumvent a whole very important mechanic and then complain about it you are a retard.

>>18858827
I hate you.

>>18860149
>meta gaming to get the best out of their powers.

>Tactical decisions are metagaming

Because no one should ever try to maximize the power of their abilities, no sir!

>>18860018
And 3.x gets a running ton of hate because it doesn't feel like oDnD, but in a way that's also a generational thing.

Look, you had oDnD for a generation, and then 3.x for the better part of a generation. People who got introduced to DnD with each of these had their own views of how DnD should be.

4e comes out, and it doesn't match up with *either* of these group's ideas, which doesn't make it a bad game, just that it's different enough that people aren't comfortable with it being DnD.

Also, truth be told--3.x, even if you don't like it (which I don't) still does feel like DnD. To me it feels like nothing more than an oDnD Monty Haul high-level weeaboo campaign (so bad oDnD, but still DnD). Hell, if you paid attention to the brown books you could make just as retardedly powerful characters in 2e (I remember one guy in my group showed up with basically a ninja that at 4th level had 8 attacks/round. I think he was only misinterpretting one rule for that too. Anyway, this is all 100% opinion. If you like the 3.x/4e, more power to you.

>>18858827
>>18858827
>>18858827
>>18858827
HOLY SHIT OMG WTF
WTF
I
I
But
Why? WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU DO THAT IN A STICKY?!

>>18860113

Yeah, rule of cool functions well, but it's also good to have a base to work from. Mechanics can be both smothering, and helpful.

Whatever 5e does, I hope it creates interesting combat options, but also openly addresses roleplaying, and the 'feel' the authors of the game are attempting to accomplish with their out of combat rules.

5e, the out of combat rules felt too streamlined and moved out of the way, for monster fighting. Am I missing something? Is that all D&D was ever about? Or is all of the out of combat stuff facilitated with rule of cool and open roleplay.

I guess it depends on your group. Maybe they felt in 4e that it would be presumptuous of them to create strong out of combat mechanics.

>>18859957

And people who didn't realize exp was a balancing mechanic as well as an advancement one like this gave us wiz3rd edition, because math was hard, yo.

>>18860111
4th level was an important level for pallys--that was when you quested for your mount.

Also his way was an optional way. The DMG talked about various ways you could level up, and one of the options was requiring training to actually make the next level. You could also do the "you go to bed and wake up a new level"-- most of the time in my group, xp was never assigned until after an adventure anyway, when we were back in town or some such.

>>18860158
It's a dream sequence.

>>18860216
Naw, they felt they were unnecessary. You don't need rules to roleplay. You NEED them for combat to resemble anything approaching fairness or risk.

>>18860223
What

I hate the shit out of 3e

because it requires me to keep track of exp because of all the mechanics around spending it for wizards.

ITT: lots of talking with 0 opinions being influenced

>wants to avoid drama
>creates drama

>>18860223
That's a bad mechanic though. Seriously. Levels are supposed to be... well, levels. How the fuck are you supposed to know how strong a "lvl3 party" is if 3 lvl3 wizards and 3 lvl3 fighters are worlds apart?

>>18860087
Fixing the magic is trivially easy by making it suck (compared to 3.5 editions that is) for most of the time.

Weak magic missiles and few common support spells are easy enough to throw around and form the basis of the characters combat potential. Any bigger spell requires either a ritual on the spot or during memorization/preparation. The rituals and enchantments would allow the mage to work as a supporter and the limited heavy nukes would allow him to annihilate few attackers but after those run out his bare combat potential and toughness would be weaker than the martial classes and soloing infeasible.

>>18860264

>Some feats and weapons are just better so how can you tell which level 3 fighter is better if each one is different?

>>18860264

They do work though, a level 4 wizard is more powerful than a level 1 wizard.

>>18860223

No, Wizards that got more powerful options while the options they already got became more powerful, combined with the fact that many options were already overpowered, gave us Wiz3rd Edition. Unifying XP tables had nothing to do with it and you'd have to be clinically retarded the think otherwise.

>>18860223
>exp was a balancing mechanic
It was supposed to be, but it never worked as one, particularly since mages got XP bonuses for casting spells.

>>18860264
Because the level three wizard wasn't particularly much stronger than the fighter, at least from what I read.

But if the fighter was forced to stop at 15, and the wizard could go to 20, that level 20 wizard sure as hell was stronger than a level 15 fighter.

>>18859273
Whatever happened to the notion that magic is a difficult thing to use?

My experience with magic in fiction is that it takes years of study to be able to reliably make a fireball come out of nowhere. Shit, it makes SENSE that it should, and yet here are these twenty somethings warping reality at the snap of a finger.

Those players you talk about have no sense of proportion and they're spoiled rotten. You can keep the versatility and quirkiness associated with magic without having to power it way the fuck up. It's called being creative.

>>18860264
You expect the DM to know the capabilities of a party.

It really wasn't that hard to keep track of.

>>18860303

And fighters got xp for HD of monster defeated (HD*10*Level of the fighter), and thiefs got xp for stealing and priests got xp for casting spells and turning undead.

It was there to reward certain behaviour, and the role it plays fades as the party rises in levels.

>>18860249

Right. Which were castrated versions of the exp-burning limiters (and high costs to level up to boot) that helped keep a wizard in check relative to his party.They went from being a serious check to piddling annoyances that people just chucked out, as they no longer even served their intended purposes.

Why? Because ultimate cosmic power, that's why. Each level a wizard picked up was a bigger and bigger step up the chart, until hey! It's time to fuck with reality cause it's my bitch. The wizard SHOULD be lower level than the rest of the party assuming they're all getting the same amount of exp. He gets more out of leveling up than nearly anyone else.

>>18860295
One of the problems with Ivory tower/game mastery design?

>>18860291
Or, you know, enforce spell components.
Do you really, really want to be throwing around a spell that burns up a 1,000GP ruby every time you cast it?

>>18860087
>How to fix D&D Vancian magic:

That doesn't fix anything, it just gives it an awkward refluff. Here, let me fix your fixing:

Vancian wizards must spend an hour with their spellbooks to charge a sigil, which hovers around their aura all day until discharged.

There. But it still doesn't do anything about the real problems with Vancian, that being "Hey guise, I just used my best spell in that last encounter. Can we spend the rest of the day in this room, sleep here overnight, and then open the next door in the morning after my study hour?"

Mechanically, I think that can be addressed with wands and 4e rituals.

>>18860328
Not to mention they were limited by the maximum number of spells that they could cast in one day.

One of the problems, vancian or not, is that everything was based on levels. Every time you gained a level, you got more spells, and every spell you had got more powerful, lasted longer, had greater range, was harder to dispel, and so on. Atop this you could cast more per day. Meanwhile the fighter every few levels got an extra +1 to damage, and eventually a handful of extra attacks.

3.x/PF psionics fixed this to a degree by ensuring that beyond the baseline, at least SOME of the power required actually pumping in additional resource, instead of it staying just as cheap and naturally becoming more powerful.

Hackmaster's mages take this one step further, ALL scaling on a spell requires additional power input, and the baselines themselves were adjusted so that the mage is very handy, and yes quite powerful at higher levels, but not so much that he can truly invalidate the fighter types or skill monkeys.

Pretty genuinely happy to hear this. I feel much less pressure to give 5e a try now. To those of you are still butthurt over caster addition or the idea that the mechanics of a game should have a learning curve. I sincerely hope you enjoy 5e.

I have a dream that one day this edition will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these rules to be self-evident, that all classes are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the mountains of Moria, the sons of 4e players and the sons of 3.5e will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the Wizards of the Coast, a corporation sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering in the heat of the Ivory Tower, will be transformed into an oasis of player initiative and group enjoyment.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the edition of their rules but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in basements, with its vicious rules lawyers, with its GMs having his lips dripping with the words of "rape" and "roll for anal circumference" -- one day right there in the basements little 3.5 players will be able to join hands with little 4e players, as brothers and sisters in 5e.

I have a dream today!

>>18860397
...huh?

>>18860343
>enforce spell components
Shut up.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellComponentPouch

>>18860402
You're awesome, guy.

>>18860415
He loves dongs and completely invalidating the rest of his party.

>>18860402

All you nostalgic fans make 2e sound like a really awesome edition.
The problem is, I really want to play it, but it's not produced anymore. Do you guys have any solutions?

>>18860343

Yep. Another example of balancing mechanics being given the finger for "Hey, too complex LOLOLOLOL."

If you take a system and deliberately kick all the limiters off it, then complain that "X class is OP"...the fault is your own. Wizards were supposed to compensate for their uber powers in multiple ways. They're fragile. They're limited in spells per day. Big spells suck away experience and cost in treasure for components (which means less money for other stuff, like magic items and training). It takes more exp relative to others to level up.

3e and onwards did wonders at chopping as much of those limiters away from the game, and lazy DM's just pulled more of it off to boot. Result: Pic related.

>>18860223
Exactly.
3+ fucked up a key balance mechanic taking that out.

>>18860437
>except for those components that have a specific cost
1000g rubies not included in 5g spell component pouches.

>>18860454

Go get the books from ebay. Avoid the retroclone Myth and Magic like the plague, it's a poor attemp at recreating 2e, but turns it into a horrible hybridized game with 0 flavor.

3E was my first introduction to roleplaying, and a great deal of why I refused to come back to the table for a long long time.
It might be nice to get to do more than sit on my hands and wait for the magic users power hour to wrap up.

>>18860454

I think purple worm or something has all the rules online. There's an SRD or something, I know that for sure I just don't have a link.

>>18860437
>Spell Component Pouch
A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.
>except for those components that have a specific cost
Point?

Although that this item exists is bullshit. If you're going to just handwave 99% of something, just get rid of it entirely and state directly "yeah, this one spell requires a diamond the size of a stormgiant testicle" for the 1% of the time that you need it.

>>18860454

Hunt down the original version of Hackmaster. It's got it's tongue-in-cheek parts, but it's the spiritual successor to D&D that 3rd wasn't.

>>18860454
2E isn't awesome, in my opinion, it's just more competently designed than 3E's core was; the supplemental material for 3E is by far and away more balanced than 2E itself is. There are serious flaws to how the game works out because of the difficulty of getting two parts of a balanced party off of the ground.
>>18860482
Only a fraction of broken spells have a costly spell component and the ones that DO are instant win spells like Forcecage.

>>18860437
>except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

Eschew Materials is only for 1gp or less materials also.

>>18860522
Yes. You can dominate the game just fine with those spells.

>>18860518
I'm just saying that the spell component pouch isn't a catch-all for ignoring spell components.

Hell, the DM can just say spell component pouches just don't fucking exist, if he likes.

>>18860492
Most of the material components were jokes, anyway. Like fireball requiring bat guano and charcoal or lightning bolt requiring some wool and a piece of amber.

>>18860454

TSR released a fucking fantastic program that will handle almost everything you needed for AD&D. I can dig up a link if you want. If you use windows 7 (maybe xp too) you'll need to download something from microsoft that re-enables the old windows style help files the program uses.

Just let me know, I dig up the links for it in nearly every 2e thread but nobody ever mentions it past "I'll check it out" so I stopped putting in the effort when it's not wanted.

>>18860573

My favorite was in Unearthed Arcana.

Courage requires a pint of beer and the brain of a newt.

>>18860547

He'd be better off just saying casters don't exist.

>>18860587
Maybe it would be better.

I heard a story about a party of five fighters in PF that sounded like they had the fucking time of their lives.

>>18860291
>Fixing the magic is trivially easy by making it suck
The point of my suggestion was to preserve the sense of mages being different and playing very differently, and to preserve the sense that magic is this incredibly powerful reality-bending force, so great wizards are practically godlike, without having adventurer mages completely overshadow the other characters.

See, in my model adventuring mages don't have the time or resources to be proper wizards (although they have the potential to become so if they retire after a big payday). They might have the skills to wield the forces of creation, but the power isn't just handed to them for being skillful.

If they do get their hands on a bunch of powerful scrolls, they still can't afford to cast them casually. The party mage is special, but he's still dependent on the rest of the party.

Even a "proper wizard" can't afford to just walk around shooting lightning out of his fingers. That gives them good reasons to contract with adventurers to perform tasks, and even to parley with the adventurers when they come into conflict.

You still get to have earth-shaking magic, and wizards with godlike power, and the chance of a mage PC wielding it, but it has real costs and the DM has control over how much is available, so he can keep one player from overshadowing the others.

2e online:

http://www.purpleworm.org/rules/index.htm?p=PHB/DD01779.htm&t=Holding%20Your%20Breath%20%28Playe
r%27s%20Handbook

>>18860574
Hell, I'm not him and I'd love that.

Also, spell components were a failure on the design side. If you're going to include something to handwave 99% of them, then don't include the mechanic at all and just say for the 1% of the time you need a diamond the size of a storm giant's testicle. Other than that, the components should have had a legitimate cost to them, ideally based off of the power of the spell.

>>18860454
Used to be, Purpleworm.org was a good choice.
There's also the Core Rules 2.0 [and all its later updates,etc that folks did for the thing] which had all the stuff we love, and certainly there are batch torrents around for the books and even boxsets.

>>18860601
My friends' first D&D 2e campaign consisted of five fighters and a wizard.

They had no healers, no rogue, but they didn't care because they smashed any locks they came across and killed everything they fought so fast that they didn't need a cleric.

>>18860583
Stinking cloud's component is a rotten egg.

The "spell" is just you throwing a rotten egg at people.

This is the best news I've heard since Profit got b&.

>>18860574
Wait, what is this? It's like a program that has all the 2e rules?

>>18860454
Play PFRPG, the original AD&D spin-off.
Even introduced races with class levels

No, not Pathfinder, Palladium Fantasy. Got your tiered Exp Charts for different classes, and XP isn't earned primarily from killing stuff.

Huh, I guess that means 4th edition will have more influence in 5th than I had hoped.

>>18860678
> telling me to play Palladium.
Did I offend you in some way? Did I fuck your sister or hit your mom with a car or something? Those are the only reasons why I can ever comprehend someone telling me to do THAT.

>>18860629
I think the biggest difference wasn't so much the edition, but the people playing it and our ideas of what a "hero" was. There's nothing heroic about crushing the hell out of anyone coming across your path or otherwise always being the most powerful being in the room--but the little guy going up against great and powerful enemies?
>FUCK YEAH

>>18860689
Not necessarily, it just means at least one terrible designer won't be involved.

>>18860694
You drank all his pussy.

>>18860402
Nobody capped this yet? Y'all are slippin'.

3E/PF fanboy here. I'm glad he's gone. 3rd edition was fun but it would've been funner if it were balanced properly.

Hey, one good thing you can say about him: he left future RPG designers a shining example of "how *not* to do it".

>>18860746
Nope, because it leaves out the grognards.

>>18860689
Cook was at least as toxic to 2e design as 4e.

If you were hoping for some elements of Ivory Tower design, well, I hear they have pills for that now.

Sorry for the delay. BEHOLD:

http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/4413708/AD_amp_D_Core_Rules_2.0___Expansion

And this should be the right file for vista+ users:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/917607

>>18860658
Fireball's material components are a bottle of lamp oil, a rag, and a glowing ember.

>>18860786
Thanks anon.

>>18860814
Magic missile is a rock. More than one rock at higher levels.

>>18858354
OH GOD IS THIS THE EMOTION YOU CALL JOY

>>18860776
The ones who drink all your pussy?

>>18860826
To cast timestop you need to sneak into a room, hang up a clock, wind the clock back five minutes, and point dramatically at it when you cast the spell.

>>18860865
Wish requires giving a 50,000g diamond to a powerful wizard to duplicate wizard spells, or to a powerful cleric to duplicate cleric spells.

>>18860865

That'd be way too much fun for DnD.

May do it in some FATE based system though.

>>18860909
When you are a wizard you have complete mastery of time.

>>18860603
That actually sounds a lot in keeping with classic literature.

I mean if you think about it, Gandalf didn't go throwing spells around left and right; he used his magic pretty sparingly. He cast a bubble to block the Balrog, he conjured a blinding light when charging the Uruk-Hai, he exorcised the spirit possessing Theoden. But for the most part during combat, he wasn't flying around spamming fireballs and summoning Forcecages. No, he just took his staff and his sword and beat the shit out of Orcs old-fashioned style. Aside from his little staff-flashlight trick, he didn't use magic except when he really meant fucking business.

That's the way it should be, I think. Makes magic feel more exciting and, well, magical.

This gives me a slight hope that they'll not use the shitpissstom that was 3e as a model for 5e.

>>18859409

Oh god, i hope Vancian casting actually makes it to D&D Next.

Seriously, I find it better than giving the wizard a pool of MP

>>18860454

Most of my friends in Seattle play Castles and Crusades, a modified 2E system. I don't particularly like it. I don't require vidya level instant gratification but those "old school" games all make you toil over months to level and you're supposed to be psyched you got a half dozen extra hp. I like more bits and pieces to play, but that's just what I like. My friends all love it, so I feel confident in the recommendation, anon.

>>18860888
The spell component for casting Alter Self is a disguise kit.

>>18860909

There is an entire sub-genre for that.

Low-mid fantasy. My personal favourite kind, but High Fantasy isn't badwrongfun either.

>>18860826
Rocks unerringly hit whatever you throw them at?

>>18860954
Sure. It takes years of study after all.

>>18860934
It's just that if wizards can undo reality, why can't a fighter at least throw fucking trees or punch through castle walls?

>>18860930

I think that Vancian and SP are both good. It's just a matter of how you want to fluff things. I think using both can add a lot of flavor to spellcasting classes. Vancian works best for wizards, SP for clerics and sorcs who have external power sources, with some mix working well for druids.

Joyous news!

I hope he doesn't spoil Pathfinder with his Monte "Creepshoulder" Cook style.

Pic related.

Alright, this is how it's going down.
You don't play a wizard. You're an apprentice. You're shit. Just like that fucking farmboy over there who just picked up a sword and attacked those bushes like they were kobolds. Sneaky kobolds.
And you're going to stay an apprentice until you reach level 10, where you'll actually start learning some real spells, compared to the cantrips and illusions you've been playing with up until now.
And when, and if, you finally reach that last 20th level, you'll get a great, phallic-shaped white tower dropped on your head. And you can never leave. Ever.

>>18860786
Or just view everything online, for free.
http://www.purpleworm.org/rules/

My attempt at fixing wizards:

-They can only prepare a given spell once at a time.
-Make any spells that were previously powerful weaker. No more absolute win spells. Flying and Invisibility would have real catches and would have concrete "counters".
-Bigger spell failure risk, with real consequences.
+Preparing spells is now easier and quicker, meaning it's easier for a Wizard to adapt to his surroundings on-the-fly (though he still needs SOME downtime).

The Wizard is now the veritable jack-of-all-trades, but master of none.

That said, the real problem was never the Wizard. Both Clerics and Druids are more powerful in 3.5e

>>18860986
THat's actually a second head that whispers bad game design in his ear.

>>18860518

2nd ed was broken in different ways.Usually erratically because the designers had never expected that people would numbers crunch and make parties of multi-classed demi-human [Scratch that Elves and Dwarves nobody played anything else] fully anticipating the game never making it past 7th level

The stupid stuff in that ed happens all over the place but theres still useless classes and dominating ones

>>18861012
If they change it so that Cleric buffs don't stack/can't be kept on all day long, the Cleric can't outfighter the fighter.

If they change wild shape so that you can either be a caster or a very powerful shapeshifter, but not both, together, they become less ridiculous.

So pretty much what they did to them in Pathfinder. They're strong but not unreasonable.

>>18860934
If it's done somewhat intelligently, I'll agree, but too often high fantasy turns into wish fulfillment, which admittedly can be fun, but it's infinitely more shallow of an experience.

I told my D&D group just now
I've never seen them so happy

>>18861012
Wizards are stronger than either of those at max op levels once you get out of core. Clerics and Druids are serious gamebreakers with almost no weaknesses, though, and are definitely worse in core.
>>18861050
Shapeshift variant Druids are still broken, just not as broken.

>>18860454

[tghasnospoilers]torrents[/tghasnospoilers]

I will only say, there is a way to work out the percentages given on the attribute tables, try converting them to d20 numbers so players don't feel overwhelmed by the different mechanics (specially if they've played 3.x - 4th before)

Also, there is a method for NWP that's pretty neat, let players decide their PC background, and come up with the NWP they would have based on that background, once you know them all, try to make them useful in the campaign.

2e was a great edition, it had it's flaws of course, but when you get to play it with the right table...christ, you'll remember why the hell you started playing D&D in the first place.

I'm really biased, btw. Hope it's not too evident.

>>18860930
Why not a hybrid system? You have limited amount of spell slots. However on the side you can cast from a small but renewable mana pool. 1:1 basis for spell level. This represents a wizards innate understanding of low level magic. Years studying the basics, had to imprint some ability to retain spells in his mind longer.

Sorcerers would just get a spell pool, as it come naturally. However limit the spells per bloodline, so they're able to cast more often and no two sorcerers should manifest the same way.

>>18861079
I will agree that no fighter should even be outfightered by an even-leveled party member's animal companion.

>>18861040

I play humans all the time. I tend to avoid multiclassing.

Our games usually reach 12/14 level before dropping them.

My experience with the system is different than yours.

>>18860195

Well I didn't notice it until you pointed it out.

Thanks double-douche.

>>18861133
That's a dream sequence. Aang is DEAD.

Wait, isn't the elephant in the room the spells themselves and not necessarily the way casters have access to them?
Hell, even if you make an I Win Button spell take a year to cast, once it's cast it's still an I Win Button.

>>18861040
>2nd ed was broken in different ways.

Psionics vacillated between broken and brokedy broke broke broken holy shit.
Any attempt to port over 1e assassins ended poorly.
Some of the races in CBO Humanoids.
Wild Magic. Chronomancy.
There was near-zero support for actual trades. Sages and Specialists was too much of a hash-up to be useful as a regular roleplaying tool.
The repeated papering-over of the proficiency system.

YEEEEESSSSSSS

THIS PLEASES ANON

>>18861209
So, core rulebooks, using the more vague of the career type systems was virtually perfect.

Go it.

>>18860934
Uh... "low fantasy" is set in the real world with fantastic elements added. "High fantasy" is set in some other world with fantastic elements built in (possibly accessible from, or concealed within the real world).

That's the whole difference. There's no such thing as "mid-low fantasy".

>>18861209
>Psionics vacillated between broken and brokedy broke broke broken holy shit.
They were fixed by using revised psionics but throwing out MAC and just using Saving Throws.

>>18861192
No, they don't actually have I WIN BUTTONS.

If a Wizard could ONLY fly, or ONLY be Invisible, they wouldn't be worth shit.

Hell if they could ONLY cast Disintegrate or any other high level spell they still wouldn't be worth shit.

It's that they have soooo many powerful spells to choose from and can ready practically any number of them that they want and that they can cast them at will like it's the easier fucking thing in the world. Seriously, it's easier for a wizard to cast a world-altering spell than for a Fighter to hit a training dummy.

Make all spells a little less powerful, make them not be able to prepare them any way they want and make them at least a little hesitant before using a spell. That's my recipe for balance.

>>18861192
>Wait, isn't the elephant in the room the spells themselves and not necessarily the way casters have access to them?
No, the elephant in the room is that magic is fast, extremely powerful, and has pretty much no consequences.

The fact that Wizards/Clerics/Druids have access to a staggeringly huge amount of options to tailor themselves as they see fit is just icing on the cake of caster supremacy.

>>18861209
>Chronomancy.
Also, this was never intended to be used in a vanilla campaign and the book explicitly says so. Its like saying Council of Wyrms "broke" 2e.

>>18861250
>Uh... "low fantasy" is set in the real world
No, that's not necessarily so at all. It MIGHT be. But High Fantasy can ALSO be set in the real world.

You're dead wrong.

>>18860909
Gandalf wasn't a wizard. He was a demigod/angel constrained from using his full power.

There were no true arcane casters in Tolkien's mythology; magic was divided into innate power [that supernatural entities possessed a limited, un-replenishable stock of] and lore [alchemy, "enchanted" items, pyrotechnics, herbology, uber-forging techniques, and other science of the natural world].

>>18861250
I was reffering to low and mid fantasy as two seperate settings. as in Low through Mid fantasy.

>>18861233
Not really. Thief had the same "oh my god, I am terrible at low levels" schtick that the Wizard does, but it never becomes strong to balance it out; they just become reliable at the job they should have been doing from the beginning and fall off a cliff later. Still more playable than a 3E Monk or Fighter.

Why 3.x had the same XP chart for all classes:

1> Old D&D suggested giving out XP in different amounts. For using specific skills, or for gold acquired. This led to an "unfair" disbursement of XP due to adventure design and item placement (or random magic item rolls). This led to players fighting with DMs about why Jimmy was getting more XP than they were. This is why everyone gets the same XP.

2> Leveling up requires player choices (skills, feats, whatever) and die rolls. 3rd edition had many more level-up options than prior editions. A lot of groups like to level up their characters together to make group decisions. These also take play-time as they might require DM permission/assistance. Therefore, it is much easier if everyone in the party is leveling at the same time. This is why everyone has the same XP chart.

Make fucking sense? Good.