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

[hong]

So play a wargame,

D00d, I'm not the one who compared D&D to Advanced Squad Leader with elves.

and let me keep my weird-ass, Wand of Wonder, illusions-and-polymorphs, Major & Minor Creation, Fly, Teleport, customizable, occasionally-DM-adjudication-requiring crazy fantasy elements in D&D.

You can keep these things just fine, until and unless the WotC game police break in your door and force you to change the way you're playing.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I agree with Hong entirely (as usual). The quest for balance is a good and desirable thing and it does not necessarily lead to identical PCs. For sure, it's not an easy goal to achieve, but that's why I pay game designers to do it for me.

For example, one could certainly balance medium-high level core 3e better by increasing the power of fighters, bards, rangers and barbarians, while reducing that of wizards, clerics and druids. It's just a matter of changing the numbers.

D&D 3e is probably the most balanced rpg out there, one of the reasons it's the best imo. But it could be even better in this respect as it's claimed 4e will be.

 

[Rakin]

D00d, I'm not the one who compared D&D to Advanced Squad Leader with elves.



You can keep these things just fine, until and unless the WotC game police break in your door and force you to change the way you're playing.

I heard they all just got tasers.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The internet kills creativity. As soon as someone discovers a hole in the rules or does something clever, it's going to be posted on the internet. Players reading the boards think 'Wow, cool, I'll try that!' and you've got the beginning of the end.

Interesting point.

 

[Rakin]

Interesting point.

Ugh, it's been killing good gaming for years, even more so for MMO's and video games.

(which is funny because you need the internet to play MMO's, I guess you could just lan though for a multiparty RPG though. )

 

[TwoSix]

... No sane DM ever allowed destroy water to kill people...

Sure, but plenty of players have tried. Better to codify these things ahead of time. I know this may be a surprise to many RBDMs, but plenty of DMs don't enjoy having to say "No" all the time, especially if you're gaming with a pushy player.

 

[Ceresco]

If a player wants to use a spell in a non-standard way there is a mechanic already in place to adjudicate. I just set a DC for what they want to do, the more "creative" the higher the DC, and have them roll a Spellcraft check. Make the check, you're able to manipulate the spell to do something new. Fail, well lets just say that very strange things happen when you try to force magic to do something new and unusual. Now I get a chance to be creative.

Respectfully,

Edward Kopp: Arcaniac at Large

 

[Jer]

plenty of DMs don't enjoy having to say "No" all the time, especially if you're gaming with a pushy player.

QFT.

I'm now old enough that I handle this the easy way - I limit the people who I invite to play at my table to people I know want to play the same kind of game that I want to run. "Masters of the Rules Loophole" can find someone else's house to go to for a game. But I know that's not an option for everyone.

My take on balance is this - I expect the game designers to strive for balance in their games. That's what I'm paying them for - to provide me a consistent rules set that makes for a fun game where I don't have to debate the meaning of every word in a spell description or the meaning of a particular verbiage used to describe a feat. The words they use for these things should be clear and should mean what the designers intended them to mean - I shouldn't have to, as a random example, come up on the fly with a ruling as to whether the slickness conjured by a "grease" spell is just magical frictionlessness or real grease that the spellcaster can set on fire with a torch. The designers have an intent behind the pieces they create, and that intent should be clearly telegraphed in the description of the rule, not obscured by "flavor text".

Having said that, once I know what the underlying intent of a particular rule is, I'm free to ignore it at my table and adjudicate it using table rules. If my players and I want the grease spell to conjure up a flammable oily substance, we're gonna do it. If we want darkvision to work in a particular way that differs from the "RAW", we're gonna do that too. But knowing the intent of the designers in creating the particular rules piece helps me watch out for potential game-breaking situations when I change those rules - I want to walk into something with my eyes open for potential problems, not get blindsided by it weeks or months down the road.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think there is a possibility that 4e might open things up to even more creative spell casting. If they change things so that there is more flexibility to take spells that are not direct combat oriented spells, players may find themselves with a larger selection of spells to try and use creatively. Sure, they'll likely have combat spells they can throw around, so some players will just go for the "boom," but others like myself would probably enjoy the chance to have some fun with odd spell uses in combat situations, and not have to feel like they are giving up the ability to fight with magic if needed.

If they try to change the spells themselves to reduce their ability to be used creatively, then the players are just going to have to be more creative than the designers. You know what they say about making something foolproof. Players will just have to become better fools.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Players get Hero Points to break the rules in AE. (I DM a lot of AE.) One way that I allow myself to break the rules is that I give myself Villain Points right at the table. I show the players, and only give myself one or two. Strangely, it seems to remove the animosity when a villain gets out of a tight spot with one.

I think there is a possibility that 4e might open things up to even more creative spell casting. If they change things so that there is more flexibility to take spells that are not direct combat oriented spells, players may find themselves with a larger selection of spells to try and use creatively.

I agree. Now, they need to have options to use them creatively instead of damage dealing spells. The biggest sticking point in D&D is still the fact that doing hit point damage to your opponent is the best way to remove them from play.