D&D 4E 4E: New power sources, new resource management

[Wormwood]

http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm

And the mage and barbarian might get along a little better thanks to revamped spell recovery rules that won’t do away with the need to rest to replenish spells, but will give players more options to recover spells and in-game incentives to do something other than call nappy-time every two encounters.

 

[Hjorimir]

Did I say it was a bad thing?

Hey, I'm the one who very recently posted my ideal 4e as featuring Mike Mearls as the main Game Design credit type dude in the 4e PHB, with not a lot else in terms of details. Heh, and guess what just happened, most likely. . .

I wasn't implying that you said it was a bad thing as all, Aus. I'm just saying, good!

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Maybe they'll have Tokens like Iron Heroes? Possible, I guess, though I'd rather they didn't.

Every time I see IH's token systems, I think of the PCs punching bricks multiple times to load up on them.

I know it's wrong, but I just can't help it.

Brad

 

[Abisashi]

How about the previous sentance!

'While there are changes in play (such as incorporating "epic-level play," with 30 levels instead of 20), they are described as "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary."'

!

That is cool. Excitement++.

 

[KingCrab]

Fascinating articles indeed. I hope it's the gnome that bites it...

 

[Zaruthustran]

I think a magic point system would be too much bookkeeping. It goes against the "make it more accessible" design guideline for 4E.

Rather, I think we'll see something like what we've got for Warlocks (an ability that just works, but few such abilities) or reserve feats (an ability you can count on, until you unleash your big boom).

 

[johnnype]

These new power source/resource management rules have come up for several reasons no doubt. First because there are so many who have such a strong dislike for the Vancian magic system but also because TBo9S presented a way to do things differently without changing the feel of the game that much.

Lastly I think (I hope, I PRAY) the new rules may be the answer to the limitations of psionics as they exist in 3.5. In 3.5 a party half way through the days adventure is bound to get their clock cleaned by a new and fresh psionic wielding monster (too many power points to spend on a single encounter and no reason to hold back). These new rules may be just what the doctor ordered. I couldn't be happier.

 

[GreatLemur]

Encounter-based systems eliminate difficulties for low-level players, but the distinction seems incredibly arbitrary and stifling when one considers that some runs may have no encounters, and the definition of an 'encounter' can become even more abstract than AC and strictly-RAW hitpoints. My feelings are mixed on that.

I think the problem is that the term "per encounter" suggests to people that it's the start of an encounter (whatever that is) that refreshes a character's resources. That doesn't really make any sense, however. The way I'd look at it, such a paradigm would mean that it's something that the character can't do during combat (resting for a few minutes, praying, meditating, excercising, etc.) that refreshes the resources. So you can call running into a locked door an "encounter", but as long as the wizard has time to sit down with his spell book and meditate, he should be able to queue up knock to get through it. (This, of course, is a very good demonstration of why the per encounter paradigm, prepared casting, and skill-replacement spells do not mix.)

 

[Celebrim]

1) I loathe 'per encounter'. What does that mean anyway? How often is 'per encounter'? Do the guys that design 'per encounter' assume that everything is a distinct set peice engagement? Heck, what does 'per encounter' mean to a video game?
2) I don't really loathe MP systems, but I've never found any that felt well-balanced to me that didn't also have spell levels and other limiting factors. This would be a 'wait and see' for me. I like some things about say the GURPS system in theory, but in practice D&D has been the easiest approach.
3) I loathe the 'in order to balance all the classes, we have to give them all spells' trick of Diablo, Bo9S, or Iron Heroes. I really hope we aren't going that way (although if I was a betting man I'd say we are), although in all fairness, the IH token system was one of the most elegant magic systems I'd seen and probably plays well at lower levels.

Is it me, or is the D&D design seeming to move from Fallout-like (early 3.0 ediition) to Diablo-like (current direction of the game)?

 

[Celebrim]

(This, of course, is a very good demonstration of why the per encounter paradigm, prepared casting, and skill-replacement spells do not mix.)

QFT.

I don't see how they can go in that direction without vastly reducing either the power or the versitility of spellcasters.