D&D 4E 4e Magic system, speculations?

[mach1.9pants]

ps. when I explained to said gamers that dungeon "level" used to muddy the waters even further ("While in a 6th level dungeon, I was 5th level and cast a 3rd level spell"), they just rolled their eyes.

LOL, those were the days!
EDIT: mis-understanding peoples posts

 

[Cadfan]

I doubt there will be 30 levels of spells because once you get to level 30 and get your awesome, awesome super fantastic kills-everything spell, the game ends.

Spells will probably be available at specific levels, and will probably be categorized in that manner, but "spell level" isn't even a strictly necessary concept. It may be that "25th level spell" is just a term for "spell you may first access at level 25," with no other in-game relevance.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I've long been a hater of the vancian magic system. In fact, that's my one big complaint about 3e.

Given that this has always been a characteristic of D&D, and probably the single biggest element that differentiated D&D from other systems... WHY did you choose D&D over any of the other fantasy RPGs on the market?

For me, Vancian magic is something that I actively enjoy about D&D and a reason I prefer to play it rather than other systems.

 

[JohnSnow]

I agree as well. I have a number of players who have always been confused by the fact that you gain 8th level spells at 15th (or 16th) level.

...

So really what we likely have, is 15 "levels" of power (1, 3, 5, 7...29) but they aren't being called that because for Bahamut's sake we don't need to call everything "level" anymore.

DC

ps. when I explained to said gamers that dungeon "level" used to muddy the waters even further ("While in a 6th level dungeon, I was 5th level and cast a 3rd level spell"), they just rolled their eyes.

*AHEM*

All I can say is "couldn't have put it better myself."

 

[Orius]

Posting that OotS strip was inevitable, I suppose. Is it REALLY that confusing? I never found character and dungeon levels all that confusing myself.

 

[hong]

I remember being confused the first time I was playing D&D. This was back in about 1986 or so. That said, it seems to be something that most people get over fairly quickly, as evidenced by how v*deo g*mes also do it and they're doing pretty well.

 

[Ktulu]

Given that this has always been a characteristic of D&D, and probably the single biggest element that differentiated D&D from other systems... WHY did you choose D&D over any of the other fantasy RPGs on the market?

For me, Vancian magic is something that I actively enjoy about D&D and a reason I prefer to play it rather than other systems.

Damn good question, Mac. I had never played any RPG's and I came across an add for the Core Rules 2.0 cd in my Baldur's Gate box. It looked nifty so my friends and I learned to play. I didn't play another RPG for 5 years. By then, D&D was what I knew, why try something else?

The vancian magic system did it's job at being balanced and simple enough for use, I just never felt it represented "magic" to me. Wasn't bad enough to make me want to play another system, just not as awesome as I wished the magic system could be.

Ktulu

 

[Campbell]

Given that this has always been a characteristic of D&D, and probably the single biggest element that differentiated D&D from other systems... WHY did you choose D&D over any of the other fantasy RPGs on the market?

For me, Vancian magic is something that I actively enjoy about D&D and a reason I prefer to play it rather than other systems.

Here are my reasons

• Vancian magic has one advantage that most other magic systems do not have - specific spells with clearly delineated effects. Most other games have magic systems that require you to build spells via a menu of various effects. I have very little patience for this.
• The magic systems in other role playing games depend on mana pools or endurance checks. These systems involve other trade offs that I don't always like to deal with.
• 3e has a number of other redeeming qualities that make up for the presence of Vancian magic.
• I do in fact prefer to run and play some other games. 4e looks like it might be a version of D&D I can see myself enjoying again. I suspect I'm not alone in this regard. New editions of D&D present an opportunity to bring gamers back into the fold who have wondered away from the game.

 

[Voss]

I imagine it will probably have something to do with the tiers of play. Spells might be organized into "silos" like Heroic spells, Paragon spells, Epic spells. There seems to be an emphasis not so much on more power as you level up, but more options. So that might mean that a 9th level spell isn't necessarily more powerful than a 2nd level spell, but it gives you an option that you don't have at 2nd level. The real power jump might come when you gain access to a new tier.

mmm. I think (based on the smites) that the powers will scale with level, which is a good thing. But looking at those same smites, there isn't really a noticeable power jump. The paragon healing one is a bit weak, and the epic tier smite, while good, has such a short duration that it isn't amazing.

Just to give you some idea what I'm trying to explain, here's a visual (obviously my numbers would not be accurate).
<snip>

I know you just said not accurate, but those per encounter numbers are way too high. So high that you'd never need bother attacking normally, unless combats last an absurdly long time. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it isn't closer to 1 or 2 per encounter abilities per tier. (So, 1 or 2 up to 10th level, 3-4 up to 20th, 5-6 up to 30).

I don't imagine that powers will be dealt out in the same way that SWSE gives out Force powers, because if you're a wizard and all you do is magic, there would never be a reason to use your feats for anything but more spells.

I hope you are right. That system was nothing short of bad.

I'm hoping that if they took anything from SWSE Force powers, it's basing the power of your spells on a specific power related skill, rather than on class level. The fact that magic in 3e was based on class level made multi-classing casters a serious pain in the butt. Basing it on a skill, or even just character level, makes multi-classing a much more viable option. This is especially true now that every class has powers.

Skills are potentially problematic, particularly if skill focus is still wandering around. Even without, we've seen skills that can potentially be at a +10 (or more) bonus at first level. That gets pretty wacky.
Plus, with the smites, again, nothing seems to indicate skills. Character level is more likely, and functional. And more consistent, since you don't have to worry about the presence or absence of +5 for training, +2 for a racial skill, skill focus, other feat bonuses to skills, etc.

 

[Henry]

Posting that OotS strip was inevitable, I suppose. Is it REALLY that confusing? I never found character and dungeon levels all that confusing myself.

According to Gary in the 1st PHB, he was going to use "rank" for characters, "level" for dungeons, "order" for monsters, and "power" for spells (e.g. Your 9th rank character met a 7th order monster on the 9th dungeon level and destroyed it with a 4th power spell).

However, he stuck with "level" because most gamers of the time found it too confusing, so he stuck with "level."