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

[Doug McCrae]

Sure, the DM can balance it. But he shouldn't have to. The system should be balanced already. It shouldn't force me to contort my game just so the fighters can, not surpass, but keep parity with the mages.

 

[apoptosis]

Sure, the DM can balance it. But he shouldn't have to. The system should be balanced already. It shouldn't force me to contort my game just so the fighters can, not surpass, but keep parity with the mages.

I think one of the biggest points is that the magic system of 4e will not universally be liked (not really a surprise as nothing is). I believe it will probably go in a direction that would make me disinterested in it at best.

For others they will enjoy it and really like the changes, which is good. There are always other games for me to play.

While i have a definite interest in the design of 4e from a curiousity standpoint, I actually doubt i will end up playing it as from what I believe presently it is going in a direction I am not particularly interested in (But you never know, it could really surpriseme or i could change my approach to RPGs etc.)

 

[Fifth Element]

Some interesting points made here, but going back to the OP, I don't think we can yet say that 4E will kill any kind of creativity based on a few snippets of information and some random comments by a few people, regardless of how in-the-know they may be.

Can we play the game first before deciding whether or not it sucks?

 

[ptolemy18]

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.

Yes -- I don't think that every class has to be literally equally powerful, as long as every class has some specific thing that only they can do and which can't be exactly duplicated by any other class. (As it stands, spellcasters do step on the toes of rogues a bit, if they choose to go that route... but even the most roguish spellcaster is hampered by their "spells per day" restrictions. It's a question of having two available routes to do the same thing -- either playing a rogue-like spellcaster OR a just plain rogue.) Like in the boardgame Cosmic Encounter, how every alien has one thing that they can do that no other alien can do... even though some aliens' powers are much stronger than other aliens' powers when you actually compare them side-by-side.

Or like prestige classes. It's clear that from the moment prestige classes were introduced, some of them completely kicked ass (sometimes to excess -- like the 3.0 Geomancer, give me a break!) while others were just "meh, 3.0 King of the Wild... well this might be good for statting out that NPC, I guess." Making all the prestige classes of equal power is as pointless as making the "NPC classes" from the DMG of equal power with the PC classes. They're there for a purpose and that purpose is roleplaying and creating interesting characters (and, perhaps, statting NPCs). The core PC classes are way more balanced than the prestige classes and NPC classes but the basic principle, I think, should be that versatility and options are the #1 thing when designing classes.

Incidentally, this conversation reminds me that I really need to buy a copy of the old Warhammer FRPG (to read, not to play), where the classes at level 1 included things like a Gravedigger, a Ratcatcher, a Fighter or a Wizard. There's a pretty clear-cut difference in power betwen a Gravedigger and a Fighter or Wizard... but if you wanna play a Gravedigger for roleplaying purposes or whatever, then you can. I doubt that the Warhammer creators were besieged by emails saying "Gravediggers should be more powerful! It's not balanced! Fighters and wizards are too good!" @_@

I do love me a good 5x5 grid combat, but it's the overwhelmingly, oppressively tactical emphasis of D&D which makes some people insist that all types of character choices should be of equal power, as if the game was something to be "won", as if everything should depend on hard-edged tactical choices and minmaxing rather than luck or character-acting, and when your character gets to 30th level you earn a space on the Honor Roll of All-Time Most Powerful D&D Characters, rather than being a game in which the focus is on immersion and roleplaying and in which low-fantasy (gravedigger), mid-fantasy (typical D&D party) and high-fantasy (overpowered archmage wizard and unbelievably awesome heroic fighter) are all viable options.

 

[ptolemy18]

Can we play the game first before deciding whether or not it sucks?

It's just 'cause I can't wait that I spend my time kvetching and moaning. ^_^

 

[Doug McCrae]

If you like magic to be the greatest power in the universe for flavour reasons what would you think of this game?

Class based, like D&D. All PCs are wizards. You get warrior wizards, healer wizards, blaster wizards and so forth. All the powers - invisibility, fireball, flight, polymorph, heal, raise dead, teleport, plane shift, etc - are divided up so that each class is very close to being equal in power, both at low and high level.

A possible division might be:
Warrior wizard - buffs such as bull's strength, invisibility, haste. Deals best single target damage.
Portal wizard - summoning and movement spells such as flight and teleport
Healer wizard
Blaster wizard - long range and area effect damage

 

[Doug McCrae]

Ars Magica took a different approach, combining PC balance with wizard as most powerful character. Each player had three PCs, a grog, companion and mage. It was expected that each session everyone would play the same type so balance was retained.

D&D as it currently stands needs to be played that way too. Either everyone plays fighters, rangers and bards (the grogs) or everyone plays the power classes - wizard, cleric and druid.

 

[apoptosis]

Ars Magica took a different approach, combining PC balance with wizard as most powerful character. Each player had three PCs, a grog, companion and mage. It was expected that each session everyone would play the same type so balance was retained.

D&D as it currently stands needs to be played that way too. Either everyone plays fighters, rangers and bards (the grogs) or everyone plays the power classes - wizard, cleric and druid.

I love Ars Magica. Actually when we played we rarely played the same type. Usually one player maybe two played a Mage and the rest played a grog or companion.

One guy almost never played his mage and almost always played his grog or companion, they were more fun for him.

I played my mage and grog and almost never my companion (though the Grog was less powered than the companion, he was more fun, my companion was a bit bland)

 

[apoptosis]

If you like magic to be the greatest power in the universe for flavour reasons what would you think of this game?

Class based, like D&D. All PCs are wizards. You get warrior wizards, healer wizards, blaster wizards and so forth. All the powers - invisibility, fireball, flight, polymorph, heal, raise dead, teleport, plane shift, etc - are divided up so that each class is very close to being equal in power, both at low and high level.

A possible division might be:
Warrior wizard - buffs such as bull's strength, invisibility, haste. Deals best single target damage.
Portal wizard - summoning and movement spells such as flight and teleport
Healer wizard
Blaster wizard - long range and area effect damage

That is like Ars Magica. Though I am not so big into Niche protection. I could have a party of 5 wizards that can do roughly the same thing mechanically and be fine. Usually one would end up being slightly or more than slightly better (or better prepared) for some type of challenge vs another.

We have had all players play normal wizards with access to many of the same spells (pre 3E) and it was a lot of fun.

PS..while it might appear that I am throwing up counterarguments at most your lasts posts, that is not my intention as I am just giving gaming styles that i have in the past several years enjoyed. I am well aware that people have very different gaming styles (and different gaming styles thoughout their life based on experience, time available to play, what they last read or saw in a moview etc.)

 

[sidonunspa]

Some interesting points made here, but going back to the OP, I don't think we can yet say that 4E will kill any kind of creativity based on a few snippets of information and some random comments by a few people, regardless of how in-the-know they may be.

Can we play the game first before deciding whether or not it sucks?

I never said I hated 4e... its just as time passes and I read more and more... It kind of feels like they are “sterilizing” the game by formulating spells and skills to restrict creative “out of the box” thinking...

Tactical out of the box thinking becomes a quick math equation where instead of seeing fighters using the same feat combos all the time as we do now, we will see casters fall into the same rut.

Look at the playtest “Tomb Under the Tor”... The wizard used the same ability over and over… why didn’t he drop a Color Spray? Grease? Something to take the wolves out of the fight for a few rounds? It kind if felt like the wizard was being restricted to a staple ability. Maybe I was reading more into it then I should have been?

Stories like the floating disk use above (very cool by the way) will fall by the wayside and be replaced by… “I use wizard strike and force him back into the thorns” don’t know about you, but the disk story is a LOT cooler.