Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Wizard 5th edition - possible in IE?

2»

Comments

  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 958
    edited April 2016
    @Woolie_Wool , this is kind of an aside, but the TnB version of Armored Casting is directly based on the system within 5E, which says that a character can cast spells with somatic components while wearing armor, provided they are proficient in that armor. By default, Mages and Sorcerers do not have armor proficiency, but you can get proficiency through races like Dwarf or through multi-classing.

    Although I believe that the current iteration refrains from giving multiclassed or dualclassed mages Armored Casting, even though they would receive it in 5th edition. The only classes that explicitly make use of Armored Casting in Tome and Blood currently are the Magus (who the Armored Casting component was designed for), bards (personal design preference), and Oracles (which are getting phased out and converted to Incarnates for the Faith and Powers mod).

  • kotekokoteko Member Posts: 178
    @Aquadrizzt cool that you have a spell generator, or that dialogue would be HUGE to do manually :D

    On the higher level side, wouldn't your approach make a spell-swapping Sorcerer only, without anything related to scroll scribing? That's slightly more unbalanced than my proposal (since it will be able to access any existing spell without cost), but I can see that it's more practical, since you have the infrastructure of the spell selection down.

  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 958
    I mean, you could always add an additional check to the logic to say that you must also have a scroll of the relevant spell in order to add it to your spellbook...

    Wait this sounds like it might actually be balanced then... hmmmm...

    Also
    koteko said:

    @Aquadrizzt cool that you have a spell generator, or that dialogue would be HUGE to do manually :D

    Before I knew how to use Weidu to do it, I DID code it manually... *shudders* I can confirm that it did take forever.

  • kotekokoteko Member Posts: 178
    So would that require a new scroll every time you want to change the prepared spells?

  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 958
    koteko said:

    So would that require a new scroll every time you want to change the prepared spells?

    It could. All a matter of finding a balance...

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,463
    koteko said:

    So would that require a new scroll every time you want to change the prepared spells?

    That's what I suggest - the flexibility to trade spells in and out, but it comes with a (literal) cost.

    jackjack
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    edited April 2016

    AC is really kind of dumb. Does 5E still use AC? I hope not.

    AC is fine. And yes, 5E uses AC. The system itself is perfectly fine. The way that 2E uses it is completely backwards compared to what 3E and onwards do, however; that's also true of everything in 2E though. In 3E to 5E, AC works as an increasing positive number. So, 13-17AC in those rules is the AC for a starting character. Classes with heavy armor and/or shields are likely to have 18-20AC when they buy/find some decent armor. Then, an attack roll has to beat the AC of the character being attacked. It's more straight forward in 5E.

    koteko said:

    So would that require a new scroll every time you want to change the prepared spells?

    That's what I suggest - the flexibility to trade spells in and out, but it comes with a (literal) cost.
    This makes sense, and shouldn’t be too much of a pain to do. Be careful with the logic though; don’t miss anything, lol.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,463
    edited April 2016
    (post hidden so as to not to start an off-topic flame war.)
    [spoiler]

    The way that 2E uses it is completely backwards compared to what 3E and onwards do, however; that's also true of everything in 2E though.

    Sigh. Let's please not perpetuate this nonsense. There's nothing backwards about AC. OD&D, BECMI, AD&D 1E and AD&D 2E all use a very simple system to determine hits. It's especially simple because it only involves addition:
    to-hit roll + modifiers + target's AC
    Look up your character's thac0 on a chart, and compare the above value: if the value is higher than your thac0, it's a successful hit!

    There's really nothing complicated or "backwards" about that. A bit of simple addition, and a "higher is better" rule.

    3E refined the process a bit, so that not only was it simple to apply the rule while actually attacking, but it was also a bit simpler for newer/younger players to see how good your stats are from a quick glance at the character sheet. (Not for nothing, 3E was the beginning of the descent into muchkin fanaticism where people constantly worry "how powerful am I? Need to be moar powerful!!1!") But it was a simple refinement, not a 180-degree turn. The 3E system itself would not have made any sense if it wasn't building on the 2E system. [/spoiler]

    Post edited by subtledoctor on
    jackjack
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    edited April 2016

    The way that 2E uses it is completely backwards compared to what 3E and onwards do, however; that's also true of everything in 2E though.

    Sigh. Let's please not perpetuate this nonsense
    I think you misunderstand. And you're overthinking it. You're correct, but that's not the vein I was going in the first place. In 2E, -1AC rating is better than 18AC rating. In 3E and onwards, 18AC rating is better than 15AC rating. Is the math essentially the same, behind the scenes? Of course.

    But it simplifies it for the player if they don't have to consider negative numbers, because the idea of 18AC being "more" is something innately understandable. By contrast, -1AC being "more" is kind of confusing until you get the hang of it. It's not different in application, just in HOW it is presented.

  • kotekokoteko Member Posts: 178
    I think that who said that "AC is horrible" didn't mean the negative number weirdness of 2E, probably.

    There are alternative systems that divide the "AC" in two steps: a check to avoid the hit at all (based on your skills, buffs, shield) and a damage reduction based on your armour and maybe some physical characteristics (plus magic).

    It's a bit more realistic but also a bit more complex, so I understand why D&D sticks to AC. Which I'm happy with, especially in 5E (I'm really loving this edition).

    rapsam2003
  • DarkersunDarkersun Member Posts: 398
    edited April 2016
    How about the Arcanist would behave like a normal Mage, but with -1 slot.
    Then you have a number of spells you can cast per day, like the sorcerer.
    When casting a memorized spell it is check against the number of spells per day. If it is greater than 0 the spell is restored.

    for example. I have a Arcanist with 3 lvl 1 spells memorized (Armor, Magic Missile, Sleep)
    and 4 spells(slots) per day. When I cast Armor the spells per day is checked 4>0 and thr spell is restored.

    also if the spell per day is 0 every spell that would be cast should fail.

    But I have no idea if this can be done in the engine (no BG modding exp).

    @Woolie_Wool btw there are some mods that change Armor and AC. Full Plate And Packing Steel or Item Revision.

  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 958
    @Darkersun , unfortunately, I do not believe that it is possible to give spells this kind of functionality, but there are a lot of undocumented engine changes in 2.0 so I'll look into it at some point.

  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    edited April 2016

    @Darkersun , unfortunately, I do not believe that it is possible to give spells this kind of functionality, but there are a lot of undocumented engine changes in 2.0 so I'll look into it at some point.

    Yeah, I don't think there are any new Script triggers that would allow that. And what @Darkersun mentioned would have to be a script, because it would need to happen on the fly.

  • DarkersunDarkersun Member Posts: 398
    Too bad, I just though it is possible to check against a number.
    Also I thought it would make sense because there is already a function that restore spells.

    Like I said no BG modding exp. :( need top change this some day when work and other things stop fulling my free tine ;)

Sign In or Register to comment.