Is it time for 5E?

[pemerton]

Here (from memory, apologies for errors) is the list of the 12 spells for 1st level wizards and elves in Moldvay Basic:

Magic Missile
Charm Person
Sleep

Protection from Evil
Shield

Floating Disc
Hold Portal
Light
Ventriloquism

Detect Magic
Read Magic
Read Languages​

I've grouped them roughly as attacks, defences, utility and divination.

In 4e you still have MM and sleep. Charm person is gone from the PHB, but returns in Essentials in two versions - the Suggestion cantrip, which I quite like, and the controversial 2nd level Utility power, which I don't like for the same reason as many others. (For charm person in the PHB, you need to use the Warlock utility Beguiling Voice.)

The defensive spells are still there (protection from evil is now Staff Wizard instead).

The utilities are still there - two as rituals, two as cantrips. It has become harder to cast Hold Portal under time pressure - it now behaves more like wizard lock. I'm not sure how big a loss to the game this is. Prestidigitation plus an Arcana check as part of a skill challenge could probably be used to replicate the old delaying function of hold portal.

The divination spells are still all there, the first two as part of the Arcana skill (in which all wizards are trained) and the last as a ritual. (For what it's worth, the two most-used rituals in my 4e game are Comprehend Languages and Object Reading. But then my players have always liked divination magic when they can get hold of it.)

This doesn't establish anything about the relative balance of combat to non-combat. But the idea that the non-combat elements of the old game have been removed isn't one that I really subscribe to.

 

[pemerton]

Do monsters have anything of value written about them other than combat stats?

I'm one of those who quite liked the non-combat info in the original 4e MM. It has an intro paragraph or three, plus lore entries for each creature, and a list of encounters in which the creature might be found. From that I learned enough about the social organisation of various humanoids, the structure of the planes and the role of planar creatures, and where undead come from to run (what I think is) a pretty good game.

Compared to Rolemaster Creatures and Treasure, the descriptions are pretty rich. And the entry on spiders also told me that Lolth used to be a god of fate, which otherwise can't be learned anywhere in the core books.

I actually find the longer text entries in the MM3 and Monster Vault a bit annoying. But I gather I'm in a minority here. But I don't mind the loss of the tactics sections. I don't think these added much.

Are spell usable in in way outside of combat.

Rituals are. Some utility powers are. And attack powers are. So I think the answer is yes.

Attack powers, you ask? Yes. For example, in my last session the wizard PC used Twist of Space (a level 7 wizard encounter attack that teleports its targets) to free a woman who had been magically trapped inside a mirror. And it's not the first time that spell has been used in this sort of way. (When using it on friendlies, the PC always uses his Expand Spell feat to reduce the damage!)

 

[Tallifer]

Back on topic...

I see no pressing need for a Fifth Edition.

1. Fourth edition still has many players and customers. Dungeons & Dragons Insider keeps this edition's content up-to-date and conveniently available. These customers will probably be unwilling to switch so soon to a new edition, so there is no money to be made in such a move yet.

2. Most of the people who dislike Fourth edition already have the editions that suit them. Many of the wishlists in this thread indicate a desire to return to earlier editions, all of which are amply supported in the marketplace. There are retro-clones, Pathfinder and plenty of old used books to satisfy people who like 0 through 3.

 

[shadzar]

Attack powers, you ask? Yes. For example, in my last session the wizard PC used Twist of Space (a level 7 wizard encounter attack that teleports its targets) to free a woman who had been magically trapped inside a mirror. And it's not the first time that spell has been used in this sort of way. (When using it on friendlies, the PC always uses his Expand Spell feat to reduce the damage!)

I think this is a major key to where the books got it wrong. Calling this an "attack" power when it should have uses outside of combat, when by the very name it screams COMBAT!

When you look at a power with that word and think of using it outside of combat, it sort of sound to me like "I attack the darkness."

Does it require a 5th edition? Probably an apology for the keyword system, and probably a complete redesign of it. Otherwise how can people help but see the most of the powers as things for a miniature combat game?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

They aren't actually called attack powers, as I understand. They're simply "powers" and "utility powers," with the caveat that "powers" tend to be built for combat - no more or less then Magic Missile was built for combat.

Incidentally, awhile back in my 4e game, my psion used Living Missile to grab an enemy, swing it around and use it as a wrecking ball against it's own allies, then throw it off a cliff. It was basically the most fun I've ever had in any D&D game. Living Missile owns.

 

[shadzar]

They aren't actually called attack powers, as I understand. They're simply "powers" and "utility powers," with the caveat that "powers" tend to be built for combat - no more or less then Magic Missile was built for combat.

Incidentally, awhile back in my 4e game, my psion used Living Missile to grab an enemy, swing it around and use it as a wrecking ball against it's own allies, then throw it off a cliff. It was basically the most fun I've ever had in any D&D game. Living Missile owns.

So they changed them?

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Powers)

The first line of a power description gives the name of the power, the class it’s associated with, the kind of power it is (attack or utility), and the power’s level (or the fact that it’s a class feature). In the above example, acid wave is an attack power that a wizard can choose at 19th level.

Seems that attack and utility is the only type of powers...or was last I saw.

 

[Raven Crowking]

They aren't actually called attack powers, as I understand. They're simply "powers" and "utility powers," with the caveat that "powers" tend to be built for combat - no more or less then Magic Missile was built for combat.

Ah, yes. And swords are built for combat, so clearly every edition includes predominantly equipment geared for combat, and nothing else. 'Cause they got swords, you know.

How many pages of combat rules do you think there are in the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook? Just over 30, roughly 1/3 of the book. As there is a Complete book for every race and class, you can imagine how little space there is, relatively, between (say) combat rules and character kits. And kits, as we all know based on loads of InterWeb nerd rage, are not balanced along combat lines.

Funny that.

Saying that all editions are primarily focused on combat is rather like saying that nothing in 4e is not focused on combat. Both statements are simply untrue. As a result, any argument that relies on either statement is a non-starter.

YMMV, of course. I have found that facts on the InterWeb have far less traction than clever turns of phrase.



RC

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Ah, yes. And swords are built for combat, so clearly every edition includes predominantly equipment geared for combat, and nothing else. 'Cause they got swords, you know.

For starters, I was wrong! The powers are labeled as being "attack," so yep, my bad.

...But beyond that, uh, that's not the point I was trying to make, so...?

How many pages of combat rules do you think there are in the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook? Just over 30, roughly 1/3 of the book. As there is a Complete book for every race and class, you can imagine how little space there is, relatively, between (say) combat rules and character kits. And kits, as we all know based on loads of InterWeb nerd rage, are not balanced along combat lines.

You're right, kits aren't balanced around combat lines. But they're still based in combat. You uh, you can be based around combat and not be balanced for it. It's a thing that happened quite a lot.

You're right though, the new rules on combat only take up a 1/3rd of the book. When you don't include kits, or the new lists of weapons, or the new lists of armor, or the methods with which you can create weapons and armor.

Saying that all editions are primarily focused on combat is rather like saying that nothing in 4e is not focused on combat. Both statements are simply untrue. As a result, any argument that relies on either statement is a non-starter.

Making a blank statement about blank statements being wrong is a pretty interesting path to take, I suppose.

I do agree that your double negative is false, though!

 

[shadzar]

For starters, I was wrong! The powers are labeled as being "attack," so yep, my bad.

So then, would you say the presentation can lead to people not being able to see the forest for the trees?

Again I use that way someone might think "I attack the darkness", and see if you don't have a properly listed target, then being out of combat, the powers are presented in a manner that would make you think you cannot use them otherwise. Consider this especially so for Attack/ Encounter powers, when you are not in an encounter.

So while the DMG may correct this, it fails to be addressed to the players, so players don't try to step off the line of using powers as they aren't really told anything form the mystical Page 42 that appears in the DMG.

In regards to 5th edition, doesn't mean it has to be, just the failure of keywording present in all WotC games needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

When you place a "keyword" on something, odds are people view that as defining, rather than suggesting, otherwise why bother taking the time to assign that keyword to it?

Really to me I could see people thinking this keyworded power gets palced on the "stack" per Magic the Gathering, where after you do an attack, you have to check states of everything to see if anything can respond to the attack before it is complete, such as optional actions or triggered effects from the "attack" being initiated.

But not trying to related 4th to CCGs with that, I could to that MANY other ways, just saying the presentation is in need of fixing but not requiring a new edition to do so, unless these "power types" are so ingrained into the system.

 

[Raven Crowking]

For starters, I was wrong! The powers are labeled as being "attack," so yep, my bad.

I know you were wrong.

...But beyond that, uh, that's not the point I was trying to make, so...?

I know that wasn't the point you wanted to make. But both points use the same logic, and both lead to equally wrong conclusions.

You're right, kits aren't balanced around combat lines. But they're still based in combat.

Sure, there are some kits that are based in combat. And many more that are not. Shall we make some lists and compare?

Or is this another one of those things where magic missile appearing on the spell lists means all spells are about combat?



RC