More magic? Oh-oh...

[Winterthorn]

I found this posted in Ashockney's article: "Increase of magic across the board in all aspects of the game." Whoa!

I wonder what this really means, for if I take this at face value then I am very, very disappointed!

Many, many people here and elsewhere have flailed against high magic games - enough for me to guess about at least a quarter of D&D fans feel this way if not more - and many have sought ways to tone down magic in their games. Geez, there are gobs of threads here and elsewhere on this very subject in one form or another. How many have asked for, designed, sought, and/or bought low-magic rules and settings? (Iron Heroes was published for a reason!) I, as a DM, favour keeping magic rare, special and intriguing. That's a challenge with 3E already!

Now 4E is - at least the statement above implies it - going to ramp up magic everywhere! If this is the case then 4E is going to be a very hard sell for me. I bet a host of folks feel the same, and I wonder if this may become an issue with those who are eager for 4E but not realizing this is coming?

It is still early and so I will give this all a chance to develop. But an increase in magic across all aspects of the game sounds just awful for me! :sicksmilie: Aren't there any others who a wary of this "news"?

-W

PS: I should add that I am still a tad flat-footed by the end of Dragon and Dungeon and then followed by the announcement of 4E; I was genuinely of the belief that 4E would be announced in 2008 as the handwriting was on the wall anyways and I never ever thought our hardcopy mags would disappear I would like to see the final product, and maybe I'll buy it. If the 4E SRD is good I may just stick with that. In the meantime I'll wrap-up my Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign this fall.

 

[Hammer_of_Tyr]

I have a feeling that 4E is going to be D&D turned up to 11.

EEEXTREEEME D&D to coin a phrase.

They mentioned how the R4nger killed the scout and took his stuff, I'm im4gining th4t they integrated 4ll of the Scouts 4bilities into the r4ngers progression. They mentioned the R4nger being a "Striker" someone who moves quickly 4round the battlefield and delivers large 4mounts of damage. I can only 4ssume that means R4ngers will get a similar 4bility to "Skirmish"

4lthough they h4ven't s4id 4nything I have 4 sne4king suspicion the wiz4rd killed the W4rlock 4nd stole his stuff. I wouldnt be surprised to see wiz4rds getting an "Eldrich bl4st" 4bility, m4ybe c4lled "M4gic missle" 4s 4n 4t will 4bility. I 4lso thing that 4LL the wiz4rds c4ntrips will be 4n "4t will" 4bility. Probably given new "cooler" wow-ish n4mes.

-3.5 Alive
Grognards unite!!

 

[Winterthorn]

^I'm betting you're close to the mark about the Ranger turning into a R4nger

But I'll deign to keep a open mind for the time being WotC is still putting the final touches to 4E before printing, so I'll wager they are launching trial balloons up to see what pops and requires last minute changes. I hope they'll offer the DM a means to keep magic under control, but what was said sounds too intrinsic to the new 4E rules for that to be possible.

I'm not encouraged, but I'm willing to wait and see the final opus.

 

[outsider]

To be honest, that quote scared me too. Now that I think about it though, it more confuses me than scares me. We know the "christmas tree" effect is going away, and that was explained as less reliance on magic items and magic buffs. We also know that there's going to be a "martial power source" now, so in theory that should also lead to less reliance on magic. I'm not really sure what to think "more magic accross the board" means.

 

[Korgoth]

To be honest, that quote scared me too. Now that I think about it though, it more confuses me than scares me. We know the "christmas tree" effect is going away, and that was explained as less reliance on magic items and magic buffs. We also know that there's going to be a "martial power source" now, so in theory that should also lead to less reliance on magic. I'm not really sure what to think "more magic accross the board" means.

"Per encounter balancing for spellcasters"?

It's a pretty vague quotation... I suppose it remains to be seen. I can think of lots of ways that it could mean something really unappealing, but I have no idea.

 

[Branduil]

I took it to refer to the fact that it will be harder for spellcasters to run out of spells.

 

[WayneLigon]

My initial reaction is that if you want magic to be rare and special, D&D - any edition - is probably not the game you want to be playing.

At this early stage, from what I've seen elsewhere, I think what the phrase really means that the characters will have more inherent magic and not have to rely on magic items to reach their goals. I think that it might also really mean 'cool stuff you can do', such as the martial maneuvers hinted at for the non-spell-casters.

At this point, I don't think we know enough to say one way or another.

 

[outsider]

I can think of lots of ways that it could mean something really unappealing, but I have no idea.

I think the "accross the board" part is what makes it seem scary. That doesn't seem to suggest it's something limitted to casters. It is really vague though, so it's likely not something to get worked up over.

 

[Victim]

My opinion is that high end martial source tricks are being counted as semi-magical as far as the increased level of magic goes.

 

[Citan]

I really like some idead I've read so far on 4th edition but the "More Magic"-thing bothers me, too, especially if you consider that it mostly comes from character abilities. If my wizard can sling around fireballs and stuff all the time and the cleric can heal while scoring critical hits, I see some problems of compatibility with a low magic game. In 3E it worked fine just to reduce the amount of spell slots or the distribution of magic items, but in 4E you'll probably have to change class abilities and rework the wohle way the classes function...
I'm very interested in seeing how they adress the problem of groups wanting to play a low magic game.
BTW: Some things I've read of 4th Edition lets me think it would be easier to run, but less flexible because they've made up a lot of choices beforehand like how to use specific monsters or what to do as a cleric or wizard. I don't like the Idea that my sorcerer now hast to be a "blaster" or something like that. I really liked the idea of multiclassed rogue / sorcerers with supplementary spells instead of damage spells. But it's too early to make realistic assumptions of these things.