D&D 4E 4e: Death of the Bildungsroman

[ruleslawyer]

Star Trek is the model here, not Star Wars. Lots of episodic content the sum of which results in a Legendary Team. Not a lone Hero who's single triumph obliterates the old order and everything that came before.

D&D models D&D.

I don't know that I agree. D&D does seem to assume that PCs progress along a heroic path that culminates in radical changes to the status quo; the powers that PCs have in their "endgame" in all editions really do equate to gigantic mythic cosmological shakeups.

That said, I don't really see why heroes can't have a basic level of competence at the start of their stories. Luke can bullseye womprats and shoot stormtroopers at the start of Star Wars, Arthur has the skills of a squire and can hunt, and so on.

"Magic at will" is signaling a different problem that IMO has nothing to do with the heroic journey. Fantasy doesn't really *have* all that many low-level wizards (or PC wizards, for that matter). Magic is generally a plot device, and as such, all this talk of spell slots vs. at will powers, etc. is pretty inapposite to begin with. In stories with PC magic (like, say, Harry Potter), even prentice types do appear to be able to pull off frequent magic use. The one thing I *haven't* seen in these stories is the crossbowman-with-a-few-magic-tricks shtick.

Magic is supposed to be supernatural, not everyday and ordinary.

Unless you're playing something like Conan or Iron Heroes, you're not going to get magic that's other than "everyday and ordinary." (And yes, "Vancian magic" is something that vastly predates 4e. Look at all the d20 variants that referenced it explicitly when devising workarounds for it. Or check out the 2e Spells and Magic Player's Option book.) Unless you restrict magic to high levels or NPCs, it's going to be "everyday." IMO, it's better to allow wizards to really *use* their magic rather than only being able to pull off a limited number of tricks before the wizard's player draws play to a halt so that his PC can rest and re-prepare.

 

[FireLance]

Magic is supposed to be supernatural, not everyday and ordinary.

I don't see how any of the above is inconsistent with the idea that a trained wizard can cast a magic missile every round. Most people are not able to cast a magic missile every round, and rarely, if ever, encounter someone who can.

Unless, of course, you want to create a flavor in your games that magic is not everyday and ordinary even to specially trained wizards.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

"Magic at will" is signaling a different problem that IMO has nothing to do with the heroic journey. Fantasy doesn't really *have* all that many low-level wizards (or PC wizards, for that matter). Magic is generally a plot device, and as such, all this talk of spell slots vs. at will powers, etc. is pretty inapposite to begin with. In stories with PC magic (like, say, Harry Potter), even prentice types do appear to be able to pull off frequent magic use. The one thing I *haven't* seen in these stories is the crossbowman-with-a-few-magic-tricks shtick.
Unless you're playing something like Conan or Iron Heroes, you're not going to get magic that's other than "everyday and ordinary." Unless you restrict magic to high levels or NPCs, it's going to be "everyday." IMO, it's better to allow wizards to really *use* their magic rather than only being able to pull off a limited number of tricks before the wizard's player draws play to a halt so that his PC can rest and re-prepare.

I guess I just feel magic should be inherently dangerous or rare. Really, it wasn't until vaugely modern fantasy that the idea of being able to just belt out magic even entered stories or myth; magic was, by and large, either deus ex machina, or something incredibly rare, dangerous, and valuable.

Despite its flaws, I felt Vancian magic had that in its favor - magic WAS rare, and at lower levels, VERY rare at that. Wizards were in it for the long term, which is why you'd get so few wizards, because most would give up after realizing how long it would be until they could REALLY use some magic. The downside was the horrifying power creep that arcane casters went through, from being useless to rediculously powerful, but I don't think it was balanced correctly here.

(And yes, "Vancian magic" is something that vastly predates 4e. Look at all the d20 variants that referenced it explicitly when devising workarounds for it. Or check out the 2e Spells and Magic Player's Option book.)

Oh, I'm not saying the word didn't exist, I'm just saying that most people never USED it .

 

[Remathilis]

I guess I just feel magic should be inherently dangerous or rare. Really, it wasn't until vaguely modern fantasy that the idea of being able to just belt out magic even entered stories or myth; magic was, by and large, either deus ex machina, or something incredibly rare, dangerous, and valuable.

However, there is nothing inherently dangerous or rare about D&D's. magic. A wizard at first level has always had at least one spell (and as many as 7 in 3e, if specialized+cantrips). There is no official limit on the number of wizards, clerics or spellcasters in the game. The only inherent danger of casting a spell is not having it anymore (akin to making firing an arrow dangerous because your down an arrow). +1 swords have been around in kobold caves since keep on the borderlands, and (barring the occasional cursed magical item) has no innate danger.

(I'm not saying thats true for your game, just the default rules-assumption).

So 4e is doing nothing different here other than turning a couple different spell slots into a constant repeating spell effect. The magic system has never been dangerous nor rare.

 

[Rykaar]

So long as they don't teleport around, the elves aren't an issue because they aren't inherently magical. The issue with dragonborn is that they're too "out there." Honestly, it's the same problem with tieflings. It's not cool, and it's not cool in a twelve year old writing fanfiction sense; it's a grown man who goes to work every day trying to be cool in a twelve year old writing fanfiction sense. It's someone jumping out of an airplane chugging mountain dew and wearing sunglasses while listening to the newest garage punk band. It's too much.

It takes a bit of work to factor dragonborn into the weave of a campaign setting, same as tieflings, but I think I managed pretty well with just the basic conflict between the two races not only serving as a reason why they are a) somewhat rare and b) central to the history of why the PoL model is in place. Don't insult my players for choosing either race or me for allowing the races just because you haven't found a hook for fitting them into your own campaign. Make the world a little less human-centric and you're off to a good start.

By making magic too prolific, you cheapen it. Magic isn't as amazing when your standard level one wizard can just pump out magic nonstop without any need to rest. When the laws of physics are broken at level one, it makes levels 2-29 less awe inspiring.

There isn't much amazing about a spell that effectively allows a wizard to ping things from a distance about as well as an archer might, and for about the same damage. I think perhaps you're getting the spell confused with the old version that was generally the only spell a wizard memorized at low level because it was horribly overpowered until far, far too many levels into the wizard's career. Auto-hit, multi-target, long-range force-based damage is a far cry from the new at-will ability.

Yes, the wizard can cast the spell every round now. But combats don't last that many rounds, and by the time they do, the wizard will actually BE relatively powerful and not tossing around "cheap" magic at all.

At any rate, this has been an engaging thread, and while I can sympathize with the OP regarding the "death of the self-made hero" I don't agree with it's basic assertions. First level characters are noobs, largely untrained and relying, for the most part, on their raw powers that just a bit of training allowed them to fully apprehend that they possessed. There are so many things in the world that would destroy them in seconds, and they have not yet begun to acquire the skills they'll need to stand up to the Big Bads they will one day face. That they have more hit points is simply a means of ensuring that Chapter 1 of the first book of their exploits isn't wasted focusing on a bystander, but on the person who will one day be great. Yes, people should be able to die from a single spear thrust, but the people of the books you have interest in reading DON'T. That doesn't imply they don't have a long journey ahead.

From a mechanical standpoint, to get back to the wizard for a moment, it also allows the starting, lowbie wizard to actually contribute to a battle instead of hiding, powerless, after killing one target with his auto-guided magic missile. Now he throws some low power magic around, and misses a lot, but sometimes lands a lucky shot. Give him some slack though, he's just learning

 

[Wormwood]

I'm not saying Vancian system was the best (and honestly, did anyone here really use the word Vancian before the 4e arguments started?), but magic NEEDS to have limits. Otherwise, it's not magic.

If Hermione Granger can say Leviosa all day, every day, I have no problem with my 1st level wizard doing the same.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

How on earth is cheap bad?

Cheap is fantastic! When I get to turn on my light once a day for an hour I get frustrated and unhappy. When I get to use my light to turn day into night, read when I like, and protect my house from intruders the light has become cheap but my use of the light has become far more valuable.

Cheap magic makes for valuable and awesome magicians.

And, yeah, on a basic level DnD is not the tale of the Bildungsroman.

DnD is now and has always been a story of the group where the Bildungsroman is the story of an individual ego.

DnD is also a Mennippean Satire genre where pieces are borrowed from everywhere so it can hunt the Bildungsroman down, kill it, and take its stuff but there's plenty of gear that Bildungsroman has equipped which DnD could never use very well.

Where I to incorporate Bildungsroman into a game I would make the young hero the ward of the characters. His destiny is to be Authur, their destiny is to be the first generation of the Knights of the Round Table.

 

[Rykaar]

There are so many things in the world that would destroy them in seconds, and they have not yet begun to acquire the skills they'll need to stand up to the Big Bads they will one day face.

Yes, I'm quoting myself here

I wanted to add that part of the 4e recalibration process is this little literary adventure trope that now has a chance of success in a campaign without appearing entirely artificial:

The "heroes" can now run away with a reasonable degree of success once they see they're over their heads, and a stray attack of opportunity or arrow in the back might not actually kill them. Their hp is their ticket to safety, so to speak.

In just about every pre 4e module scenario I've seen and almost every encounter I designed, the party was intended to "win" not "flee" and players assume this to be true. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of DM's out there that have tons of exceptions to that assertion. But how often can you pull it off against a very low level party without accidentally killing someone or "rolling" an implausible number of misses?

Trade in one literary prop if you must think that the heroes aren't lowly, but look for some new possibilities too.

 

[Stalker0]

This issue doesn't bother me too much (because I never liked 1st level play) but I completely understand it.

Dnd should appeal to as wide a range as possible. Some people want heroes that almost cannot die, and alter the universe. That's what epic levels are for, and I can choose not to play them if I don't want to. Some people want frailer characters that start from nothing and build their way into being an adventurer. That's what 1st level should be for. I don't have to play it if I don't want to, but it should be there.

Even if 1st level is the gimp level and the power ramps up after that, I do believe there should have been at least 1 level for more "non-heroic" starting characters.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I guess I just feel magic should be inherently dangerous or rare. Really, it wasn't until vaugely modern fantasy that the idea of being able to just belt out magic even entered stories or myth; magic was, by and large, either deus ex machina, or something incredibly rare, dangerous, and valuable.

I agree, which is why I play Iron Heroes and have developed my own magic system. In my games, serious magic is really in the hands of certain (rare) NPCs and plot items/locations, with the PC wizard being able to channel certain kinds of power along very limited lines. BUT, I don't think that D&D has ever encompassed this kind of flavor.

Despite its flaws, I felt Vancian magic had that in its favor - magic WAS rare, and at lower levels, VERY rare at that. Wizards were in it for the long term, which is why you'd get so few wizards, because most would give up after realizing how long it would be until they could REALLY use some magic. The downside was the horrifying power creep that arcane casters went through, from being useless to rediculously powerful, but I don't think it was balanced correctly here.

See, it has *never* been my experience that limited spell slots have led to magic feeling at all "rare." YMMV, of course!

Oh, I'm not saying the word didn't exist, I'm just saying that most people never USED it .

You might want to do a board search. It'll be... interesting.