D&D 4E 4e death of creative spell casting?

[Ruin Explorer]

I've played Moldvay D&D, RC D&D, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, Top Secret, Tunnels & Trolls, Champions, Fantasy Hero, Villains & Vigilantes, Golden Heroes, Superworld, Marvel SAGA, Stormbringer, SpaceMaster, Pendragon, Over The Edge, Vampire, Vampire LARP, Mage, Earthdawn, WHFRP, WH40K, BESM, Adventure!, Space: 1889, Traveller, Amber, Call of Cthulhu, Feng Shui, Nobilis, Rifts, SkyRealms of Jorune, James Bond: 007, WEG Star Wars, Dragon Warriors, Maelstrom, SLA Industries, The Fantasy Trip, In Nomine, Everway, Paranoia, Gamma World, 7th Sea and a few homebrewed systems.

I've GMed some of the above plus RuneQuest, Hawkmoon, DC Heroes and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Then how come you don't understand that what D&D is doing is mechanically identical to what was done in Champions, M&M, BESM, Exalted and so on? It's not revolutionary or new to RPGs.

They're just making all classes have "spells/powers", and all classes have abilities they can use when the "spells" are out. It's a very good idea, and as I said, I'm glad you're excited, I am too, because most RPGs don't do it, but it's simply not new. If anything, giving wizard "magic lasers" or whatever to fire is more revolutionary and unusual than giving fighters and rogues "special manuevers" which amount to spells.

Ruleslawyer - I didn't say that at all, though, as your quote clearly shows, if you read the context around the bolding. Perfect balance is a mythical beast - you agree - and chasing it willy-nilly is dangerous, I think you'd concur. Realizing that you won't get perfect balance, and just attempting to have good balance, which tests well, whilst having nicely differentiated classes, is the path of fun, and the one 4E is likely to take, agreed?

 

[apoptosis]

It's this last bit that is of concern to me. It sounds like you still want the wizard to be more powerful than other class options, strictly speaking. Your response to my suggestion to make wizards higher level is a concern about hit points? That seems somewhat insufficient to me, particularly since a high-level wizard is still not going to have all that many hit points (d4 doesn't compare to d10 any day).

I have no problem with mechanics and resource management being different for different classes; but one class being just plain better "because of the aesthetics of the game" is IMHO nonsense. PC classes being better than NPC classes? Fine. One PC class outshining another PC class? Not so much. Just IMHO.

Well I used the word more powerful which is probably a problematic adjective as it can mean so many different things. I believe magic should be capable of outpeforming similar mundane 'equivalents' for it to be otherwise lessens my interest in a general fantasy world. Magic by its nature should trump non-magic (in my view of a fantasy world). I want the wizard to have some sort of drawback but once again that is also an aesthetic issue more than balance (though in this case they are interrelated).

Once again though, the aesthetics of the game is almost EVERYTHING to me. Many times balance helps to add to the aesthetic (keeps a character from being ultimate, but i find ultimate type characters boring), but if balance conflicts with aesthetics (for instance darkness should create darkness, invisibility means invisible and is better than hiding, IMHO) i go with aesthetics everytime (possibly an overgeneralization).

I dont mind playing games where some classes will outshine others and have played the lesser class if it is interesting. I know many people who feel the same (i game with them). i dont mind having a mechanic that can balance the players input into the story (the more powerful characters have less action or scene controlling points or some such) or can limit another players comparative input (powerful magic might make the wizard character ineffectual for the rest of the day, probably not a solution that a ton of people like).

Balance is just not one of my primary concerns when roleplaying though it does connect many times with my concern of aesthetics and interesting stories.

 

[DonTadow]

Back on the Wotc boards I was responding to Chris Thomasson’s last blog, I wanted to post my thoughts here to see what you all think.


When Chris was talking about his home game I came to the realization that 4e will be the final death blow for creative spell casting. You know; good old thinking outside of the box which separated the good casters from the bad. The kind of ideas which would cause the GM’s jaw to drop and turn the tide of a battle.


The only thing I miss about 1.0 and 2.0 D&D, spell casters where able to think outside the box when it came to using their spells.


Now with 3.X and coming 4e, spells have become so formulated that the “thinking outside the box” which made playing spell casters so fun in the old additions is pretty much dead…


There just seems to be no more room for creative spell casting. Spells do X, Y, and Z and that’s all.


Example: One of my favorite memories involved creative spell casting happened when I was playing a 2e campaign way back; I was playing a wizard and somehow got separated from the party. I walked into a room and found I was vastly outnumbered 6 to one (Half-Orc Mercenaries we were sent to stop). In an act of desperation I casted a wall of ice on the floor (covering the entire room in a 1” thick slab of Ice, causing everyone to make checks to keep standing) then the following round I cast lightning bolt… into the slab of ice. Needless to say everyone in the room was fried (including myself) Thank god I had a ring of regeneration. (Which in our home game would turn to dust if it ever brought you back from the dead)

If I am correct, there really weren't any rules in any of the editions that talked about how certain spells related to others. What you have there is a creative player and lenient DM. (Considering in real life it probably wouldn't work like u described it).

Unless 4e says this spell can only be used for this DMs do not let your players do anything else with it, creativity is hear to stay.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Well I used the word more powerful which is probably a problematic adjective as it can mean so many different things. I believe magic should be capable of outpeforming similar mundane 'equivalents' for it to be otherwise lessens my interest in a general fantasy world. Magic by its nature should trump non-magic (in my view of a fantasy world). I want the wizard to have some sort of drawback but once again that is also an aesthetic issue more than balance (though in this case they are interrelated).
.
.
.
I dont mind playing games where some classes will outshine others and have played the lesser class if it is interesting. I know many people who feel the same (i game with them). i dont mind having a mechanic that can balance the players input into the story (the more powerful characters have less action or scene controlling points or some such) or can limit another players comparative input (powerful magic might make the wizard character ineffectual for the rest of the day, probably not a solution that a ton of people like).

Interesting points, all! I hear what you're saying, and I think it's an excellent rationale. However, it is not what I would prefer to see in terms of a default playstyle, for several reasons that have borne themselves out for me in playing campaigns through 1st-3rd editions.

First off, making magic "able to trump non-magic" has the undesirable effect of rendering several class abilities (especially skills, which are a core class ability of the rogue and bard) irrelevant at mid- to high-levels. Who needs Open Locks when you have Knock? Or Climb when you've got Fly? This either makes those abilities irrelevant (since "anything you can do, [the mage] can do better") or turns the skill-monkey into a second banana ("Oh, I don't want to waste a 2nd-level spell slot on Knock, so you can go ahead and open the locks"). Worse still, it usually forces the non-magical classes into decking themselves out in magic items in order to stay vaguely competent, which lessens, rather than heightens, the mystique of magic and thus (at least IMO) damages the aesthetics of the campaign.

Second, making magic both more powerful AND more versatile than non-magical powers, as is currently the case in D&D (and gets worse if you go with a liberal interpretation of "creative spellcasting") has the effect of geometrically increasing the mage's power with level, while everyone else improves linearly. Fighters are better off in 3e than in 1e, but even so, they're stuck swinging swords for increased damage while the wizard summons solars, creates demiplanes, and invisibly and undetectably rains down army-slaying spells from hundreds of feet in the air.

Third (and something that the 4e designers thankfully acknowledge), balancing greater power by limited uses per day doesn't really *work* from a balance perspective, because in most cases (especially at higher level, which is where the problems are anyway), the caster can force the party to conform to *his* schedule. The warrior's ability to swing his sword all day, all the time is rendered irrelevant when the wizard can call a halt to replenish his powers when they're exhausted.

Fourth, I don't really think that the current model of the wizard fits the portrayal of such a character in most fantasy literature, etc. The D&D wizard isn't even Vancian except by a very loose definition of the term. Most fantasy wizards stay on the sidelines dispensing wisdom and advice; they use their powers very rarely, such powers are usually not of the "teleport anywhere in the universe" or "lay down tactical-nuclear blasts" or the like, and wizardly powers are more tightly focused and rarely step on the toes of the skill monkeys and the fighters. IMHO, several d20 rulesets do a better job of modeling the "classic" wizard than D&D does (or has) (I think of Monte's WoD, Elements of Magic, or Black Company/True Sorcery, for example), and it is my impression that 4e will be moving closer to this picture, rather than away from it.

 

[ptolemy18]

For me the aesthetics of the game trump balance every time. Now incredible imbalance can impact the aesthetics, so that is the worry, not the balance in of itself.

I think it really delves into how much you want D&D to be a game and how much you want it to be an world/roleplaying immersion and how much the two conflict (with some people not at all, with others a lot).

Wizards being more powerful than fighters doesnt bother me in the least; as a matter of fact i would far and away prefer this, it coincides with my aesthetics of a fantasy world which is what i hope a game I run can translate well.

I agree 100%.

 

[ptolemy18]

Once again though, the aesthetics of the game is almost EVERYTHING to me. Many times balance helps to add to the aesthetic (keeps a character from being ultimate, but i find ultimate type characters boring), but if balance conflicts with aesthetics (for instance darkness should create darkness, invisibility means invisible and is better than hiding, IMHO) i go with aesthetics everytime (possibly an overgeneralization).

I dont mind playing games where some classes will outshine others and have played the lesser class if it is interesting. I know many people who feel the same (i game with them). i dont mind having a mechanic that can balance the players input into the story (the more powerful characters have less action or scene controlling points or some such) or can limit another players comparative input (powerful magic might make the wizard character ineffectual for the rest of the day, probably not a solution that a ton of people like).

Millions and zillions of agrees. Balance is important, but give me immersion and style over balance any day.

About the much-hated Vancian spellcasting... the whole thing about the spellcasters "making the party conform to their schedule", the 15-minute adventuring day, is a legitimate complaint, but it's also kind of a rules-lawyer complaint. It doesn't take into account the larger game world and the fact that there's plenty of ways for the DM to ensure that people don't do this too often. Such as:

* players have to do things on a certain timeline ("crap, I'm out of spells, but we have to make it to the castle before sundown! We must continue!") This has happened TONS of times in games I've been in. This is what the whole "narrative storytelling" aspect is all about.
* the players can't rest; monsters or enemies will attack the players if they camp for the night in a certain region, so they have to keep moving (sure, why not. It's realistic. I've played in several games where we were awakened in the middle of the night, with no spells, by monsters attacking us. Danger = drama = fun.) The old "wake up, go to the next room in the dungeon, kill the monsters, bar the doors, camp for the night, repeat" is just silly. That's just bad DMing. And if the characters are so high-level that the wizard Teleports the party out of the dungeon back to their comfortable pad for the night, then it's up to the DM to come up with some way this won't always work (Teleport-proof dungeon), or some other challenges to keep things fresh.

So these are both ways to ensure that non-spellcasters get their time to lord it over spellcasters who are out of spells. If your response is "But that's not fun for the spellcasters", well, I must say that, speaking as someone who played spellcasters for 9 out of 10 of my last characters: actually, it *is* fun. It's the necessary flip side of having a lot of fun spells to cast during other times of gameplay, and I'm totally cool with that.

I can also think of another couple ways to balance out spellcaster powers, other than the Vancian system:

* spells cause HP damage/subdual damage/ability damage to the caster (this is how it is in Skull & Bones, and with the super-high-rank spells in the Book of Vile Darkness)
* spells stun or stagger the wizard for a round or two after casting. This is a pretty big disadvantage which will pretty much require wizards to work in conjunction with other classes ("FIREBALL!... Ooh... I'm so tired... *collapse*)
* spells take more than one round to prepare, like the existing full-round spells, perhaps more so (though unfortunately, I doubt WotC will go this route since some people will probably whine that then the caster "can't do something every round" @_@)
* spells require more than one caster to work in conjunction to cast them (perhaps each caster donates a certain number of actions based on their level)
* spells require XP (sure, why not? I used lots of XP-costing spells when I was playing my various spellcasters) or material components which cost lots of gold and/or are theoretically "hard to get" in the game world

 

[Stormtalon]

Sigh. Too bad my personal fave non-trad spell got all the fun tweaked outta it already in 3rd -- ye olde Tenser's Floating Disc. Used to be, you could move it by concentration, could cast it under something and have it pop up to its normal 3' altitude -- now, all it does is follow you and it starts at 3', no matter what.

Never was the sort to abuse it with green slime or that sorta thing; but it sure saved my mage's backside after a nighttime ambush. Wall of Thorns cast on a sleeping party is a bad, bad thing. A sneaky rogue moving in to slit caster throats is an even worse thing. A quick check with the DM to make sure that I'd be able to get a quick first-level spell off if I took a full round to ensure I didn't poke myself on the thorns -- an absolute lifesaver. Poor sneaky feller found himself in a bad situation, with a disc popping him up 3' (jabbing him with thorns), and then proceeding to move in a tight circle -- with him on it.

As long as I (or my players) can use utility spells in their as-described manner but for odd purposes, I'll be happy.

I just wish they'd give us back our old Floating Disc....

 

[Cadfan]

It doesn't take into account the larger game world and the fact that there's plenty of ways for the DM to ensure that people don't do this too often. Such as:... etc

These ideas work just fine, except that if your goal is to protect immersion, spending all kinds of effort 1) writing plot lines that with time constraints, 2) having random monsters that attack when the party sleeps at times you don't want them to sleep, and 3) finding ways to counter the spells and magic items that protect the party from random monsters finding them while they rest, is counter productive. Immersion will be destroyed anyways.

 

[ptolemy18]

These ideas work just fine, except that if your goal is to protect immersion, spending all kinds of effort 1) writing plot lines that with time constraints, 2) having random monsters that attack when the party sleeps at times you don't want them to sleep, and 3) finding ways to counter the spells and magic items that protect the party from random monsters finding them while they rest, is counter productive. Immersion will be destroyed anyways.

Well, it's all a question of... dare I say... balance.

As a DM, at some times, you let the players do all the imaginable cool things with their characters, and at other times, you come up with plot twists and surprises to exploit their weaknesses. Obviously *sometimes* spellcasters should be allowed to get some sleep and replenish their darn spells, but at other times, the DM pulls the rug out from under them.

In any case, this kind of "balance" isn't something that can go in the rules; it's up to the DM to implement, based on the strengths and weaknesses and play style of the party, and the DM's desire to give every player a chance to shine. (Such as fighters when the mage is out of spells and exhausted, or rogues when the party is imprisoned and has to break free, or has to sneak into a building stealthy-like, or has to face some skill-based challenge, etc. etc.)

 

[apoptosis]

Interesting points, all! I hear what you're saying, and I think it's an excellent rationale. However, it is not what I would prefer to see in terms of a default playstyle, for several reasons that have borne themselves out for me in playing campaigns through 1st-3rd editions........
.

I think in general your points are very valid. Because of my gamign style and such they tend not to be problematic to me specifically.

I would probably actually prefer a risk-based or harm-based system versus a resource managment style for magic or some combination of the two.

I agree that the wizard's player should not in all scenario's outshine the other players. On the other hand it is important to me that magic be very magical and the most powerful resource in the game. There are ways to handle this, some are more palatable to some people than others are.

I dont mind if the wizards spells can unlock a door better than the thiefs skills can or can slay a horde of giants where the fighter has difficulty with one. I do want the wizard to pay for using this ability somehow though and the more powerful the wizard the greater the cost (i dont like magic to simply be a tool, i prefer it to be dangerous).

On the other hand I know the implications of this type of game design and can be disastrous with the wrong groups and such.