Hexmage-EN
Legend
Fourth Edition had gotten rid of almost all the problems that had been plaguing me during Third Edition. However, there was one new problem that marred my enjoyment of the new game and still bugs me to this day: the removal of utility magic. I had been hoping that Arcane Power would introduce elements that would relieve my discontentment, but after taking some time to look through it in the store tody I found that it did no such thing.
In Third Edition martial characters had a few options: Attack, Full Attack, Charge and Bullrush, Disarm, Trip, Sunder, and a few class features (Rage for the Barbarian, Sneak Attack for the Rogue, etc.). By contrast spellcasters, especially arcane spellcasters, got a few spells at first level with different types of applications. Spellcasters were the "glass cannons" that the martial characters protected at low levels. By the time the party reached high levels the martial characters were merely tag-alongs that followed the unstoppable god-kings that were the spellcasters. Not only did the spellcasters' offensive capabilities render the martial characters nearly useless in combat, but various other spells could render the out-of-combat specialties of non-spellcasters useless. There were various other problems as well, such as the amount of time it would take to resolve the effects of spells.
Come Fourth Edition every class received a similar number of powers. Martial characters finally have more to do during combat and are on even-footing with spellcasters, and that's fanastic. However, I can't help but feel disappointed somewhat. Sure, Third Edition spellcasters were far too powerful compared to their companions in the party, but with Fourth Edition I feel like the designers have gone a smidgen too far in the opposite direction. I feel like their capability in combat is where it should be, but I can't help but miss the types of spells that could be used in creative, novel ways.
I think a big part of the problem I've having stems from the fact that Third Edition suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder. Dungeons and Dragons to me is about teams of fantasy-archetype characters doing battle with the forces of evil. Despite this the game has included types of spells that can be used for applications other than combat. The reason for this is because the game was also meant to be a simulation of fantasy media. In my opinion this may have been an error in terms of game balance: It's strange when a game of team-based combat has certain party members whose capabilities are far greater than his peers. However, it's consistent with fantasy media for spellcasters to have such great power. After all, whom is more impressive: A dark champion of great martial prowess who can defeat thousands of oncoming soldiers by himself, or an archwizard who can stand on top of the tower he had built in a day by bound elementals and cause an entire army to turn to stone with a wish? Which one of these two is more likely to be the villain of a campaign and which is more likely to be his subordinate?
Fourth Edition finally decided to break tradition and focused on the game's core concept: teams of fantasy-archetypes killing monsters and looting treasure. The designers essentially shucked off many of the simulationist elements of Dungeons and Dragons (especially non-combat spells) in order to make a more gamist system. I don't think this is a negative thing: it makes sense that a game, especially one centering on combat, would be designed with a gamist philosophy.
Where does that leave me, though? I miss the unique and creative non-combat spells, but at the same time I recognize that they caused more harm than good to the game as a whole. I'm not sure what I could do to satisfy my craving for more magic, but then again maybe I'm putting too much importance on versatile magic in the first place.
In Third Edition martial characters had a few options: Attack, Full Attack, Charge and Bullrush, Disarm, Trip, Sunder, and a few class features (Rage for the Barbarian, Sneak Attack for the Rogue, etc.). By contrast spellcasters, especially arcane spellcasters, got a few spells at first level with different types of applications. Spellcasters were the "glass cannons" that the martial characters protected at low levels. By the time the party reached high levels the martial characters were merely tag-alongs that followed the unstoppable god-kings that were the spellcasters. Not only did the spellcasters' offensive capabilities render the martial characters nearly useless in combat, but various other spells could render the out-of-combat specialties of non-spellcasters useless. There were various other problems as well, such as the amount of time it would take to resolve the effects of spells.
Come Fourth Edition every class received a similar number of powers. Martial characters finally have more to do during combat and are on even-footing with spellcasters, and that's fanastic. However, I can't help but feel disappointed somewhat. Sure, Third Edition spellcasters were far too powerful compared to their companions in the party, but with Fourth Edition I feel like the designers have gone a smidgen too far in the opposite direction. I feel like their capability in combat is where it should be, but I can't help but miss the types of spells that could be used in creative, novel ways.
I think a big part of the problem I've having stems from the fact that Third Edition suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder. Dungeons and Dragons to me is about teams of fantasy-archetype characters doing battle with the forces of evil. Despite this the game has included types of spells that can be used for applications other than combat. The reason for this is because the game was also meant to be a simulation of fantasy media. In my opinion this may have been an error in terms of game balance: It's strange when a game of team-based combat has certain party members whose capabilities are far greater than his peers. However, it's consistent with fantasy media for spellcasters to have such great power. After all, whom is more impressive: A dark champion of great martial prowess who can defeat thousands of oncoming soldiers by himself, or an archwizard who can stand on top of the tower he had built in a day by bound elementals and cause an entire army to turn to stone with a wish? Which one of these two is more likely to be the villain of a campaign and which is more likely to be his subordinate?
Fourth Edition finally decided to break tradition and focused on the game's core concept: teams of fantasy-archetypes killing monsters and looting treasure. The designers essentially shucked off many of the simulationist elements of Dungeons and Dragons (especially non-combat spells) in order to make a more gamist system. I don't think this is a negative thing: it makes sense that a game, especially one centering on combat, would be designed with a gamist philosophy.
Where does that leave me, though? I miss the unique and creative non-combat spells, but at the same time I recognize that they caused more harm than good to the game as a whole. I'm not sure what I could do to satisfy my craving for more magic, but then again maybe I'm putting too much importance on versatile magic in the first place.
Last edited:
