-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Why Changes were made in 4e
- Thread starter Majoru Oakheart
- Start date
Detection of Evil and/or Good: "It is important to make a distinction between character alignment and some powerful force of evil or good when this detection function is considered. In general, only a know alignment spell will determine the evil or good a character holds within. It must be a great evil or a strong good to be detected." (Dungeon Masters Guide, 1st edition, page 60)
The alignment scheme in 4e is sort of like that in the original D&D set. That had Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic as the main stances; Anti-Clerics additionally were Evil, and Evil High Priests were Chaotic and Evil (Patriarch-level Clerics being Lawful and non-Evil).
"You, as Dungeon Master, must establish the meanings and boundaries of law and order as opposed to chaos and anarchy, as well as the divisions between right and good as opposed to hurtful and evil." (DMG, 1st ed., p. 24)
As RC noted, the old spell-casting methods did not presume a certain number of encounters per day. "If someone has the ability to cast 3 spells a day, they are unlikely to be able to survive even two battles in a day" is an utterly bizarre notion.
Between what was actually changed in 3e and how people came to mistake their house rules for The Way It Is, a lot of things got a bit askew. That said, I think the "balance" reasoning behind the powers system is pretty clear.
The alignment scheme in 4e is sort of like that in the original D&D set. That had Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic as the main stances; Anti-Clerics additionally were Evil, and Evil High Priests were Chaotic and Evil (Patriarch-level Clerics being Lawful and non-Evil).
"You, as Dungeon Master, must establish the meanings and boundaries of law and order as opposed to chaos and anarchy, as well as the divisions between right and good as opposed to hurtful and evil." (DMG, 1st ed., p. 24)
As RC noted, the old spell-casting methods did not presume a certain number of encounters per day. "If someone has the ability to cast 3 spells a day, they are unlikely to be able to survive even two battles in a day" is an utterly bizarre notion.
Between what was actually changed in 3e and how people came to mistake their house rules for The Way It Is, a lot of things got a bit askew. That said, I think the "balance" reasoning behind the powers system is pretty clear.
Yes, the project apparently was all about producing "a game about" those and other things this set of designers had in mind. That is not to my mind the same as producing a revised edition of the Dungeons & Dragons rules set.
Remathilis
Legend
I really think they made each choice in an attempt to "better" the game.
I think the incompatibility with OGL is, what we'd call, an "fortunate" accident. It allowed them to redefine D&D as "their" game without having to face the OGC clone-games. It also allowed them to release the GSL and sidestep the previous OGL community and "reboot" D&D 3 party support to what it was supposed to be: modules and monster books.
I think Vancian magic could have been done well if it had been more Vancian.
The big problems with vancian magic as done by D&D are
1. If the wizard doesn't have very many spells, he runs out of them way before he runs out of rounds of combat. Then he's got nothing he can do well. He sucks at using a crossbow, and he probably won't invest resources in getting better at it because those resources will be wasted when he reaches higher levels and encounters problem 2.
2. When the wizard has more spells than expected rounds of combat, he can afford to memorize spells to cover just about every contingency with an "I win button" spell. This ironically makes combat even shorter.
This could be fixed by giving wizards something worthwhile to do when not casting spells. And then making that something worthwhile stay worthwhile for their entire careers. You'd also need to reduce the number of spells per day drastically.
The result might look something like a 4e fighter who's daily powers are all magical effects.
I don't know if WotC should have done that. But it would probably work mechanically. They could still do it now, in fact. But they probably won't because in 4e Thou Shalt Not Mix Power Sources.
The big problems with vancian magic as done by D&D are
1. If the wizard doesn't have very many spells, he runs out of them way before he runs out of rounds of combat. Then he's got nothing he can do well. He sucks at using a crossbow, and he probably won't invest resources in getting better at it because those resources will be wasted when he reaches higher levels and encounters problem 2.
2. When the wizard has more spells than expected rounds of combat, he can afford to memorize spells to cover just about every contingency with an "I win button" spell. This ironically makes combat even shorter.
This could be fixed by giving wizards something worthwhile to do when not casting spells. And then making that something worthwhile stay worthwhile for their entire careers. You'd also need to reduce the number of spells per day drastically.
The result might look something like a 4e fighter who's daily powers are all magical effects.
I don't know if WotC should have done that. But it would probably work mechanically. They could still do it now, in fact. But they probably won't because in 4e Thou Shalt Not Mix Power Sources.
Back in the day in various 1E AD&D games I played in, the low level wizards frequently occupied themselves with tasks like: holding a lantern, counting up the number of monsters/badguys, scanning the background for hidden monsters/badguys or traps, etc ... This was especially the case when the DM was not using any miniatures for combat. With respect to spells, the low level wizards frequently saved them for attacks on the big bosses or larger monsters.
LostSoul
Adventurer
I think this has more to do with the gaming culture and how DMs run their games, and not as much about the rules.
Actually the Pelor example feels like something is wrong in the book. They state that Unaligned can have clerics of anything but good must be good, lawful good must be lawful good. Then they take Pelor, a Good aligned god, and say they can be eitehr Good or Unaligned. Which goes against what they just said about Good aligned gods. So either you can be one step removed from your god's alignment or it has to match exactly. Or worship someone unaligned and don't worry about it
When the unwashed masses are all basically unaligned, you have to take a reasonably strong stance in life to even come up as Good or Evil. It seems like normal Evil you have a much better chance of working together with a minimum of backstabbing. Chaotic Evil won't ever work together, unless you have them in enough terror of you I suppose. Lawful good is completely devoted to both law and good, whereas Good will cut some corners that aren't exactly legal if they feel they need to, but they're still mostly good.
EATherrian
First Post
Whenever I played a Magic User I always went in with dagger or staff when the spells were dry. Darts if I felt it was too much danger to get in close. I never really felt useless, but I seem to be in the minority.
A
amerigoV
Guest
This also led to having spells at each level that were clearly more powerful than the others. From a combat perspective, everyone had MM, Sleep, Web, Invisibility, Haste (etc). In early editions, the wizard did not have that many slots, thus these Power Spells were critical.
Even into 3.x, these spells were still the best in class at their levels and you saw very similiar spell selection by players (DMs could use different combos as the Sorcerer/Wizard had a life expectancy of 1 encounter).
Similar Threads
