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

[Stalker0]

I personally dislike mana points, for the reason that time is hard to track in a tabletop game. Computers handle minutes and hours much better.

Per encounter is something I would like to see more. I think B09S does this very well, its just better than regular fighters now. But if the system is designed around it, it can be a lot cleaner.

The other advantage of this is like iron heroes (which is similar to B09S in that it provides per encounter ways to beef up heroes, aka skill tricks and tokens) is that it would require less reliance on magic items.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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

Sorry, I'm just so used to people getting the wrong end of some tongue-in-cheek, or kind of deadpan things I occasionally post, that I sometimes get the wrong end of people not doing so. Heh. I should probably do something about that, one of these days.

 

[Droogie]

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

Or the halfling. Two small races enter....one small race leaves

 

[Hjorimir]

Sorry, I'm just so used to people getting the wrong end of some tongue-in-cheek, or kind of deadpan things I occasionally post, that I sometimes get the wrong end of people not doing so. Heh. I should probably do something about that, one of these days.

It's all good, Aus.

 

[mmadsen]

If I were to do it, I'd divide magic into Powers and Incantations (to make up two cool categories).

Powers are your Booms and Buffs - the stuff you use in combat. They are balanced "Per Encounter."

Incantations are all your quirky utility spells, like Knock and Tenser's Floating Disc. They have some other balancing mechanism, like costly material components (like 20 pieces of silver, which can add up, and you have to have the money on you), minor XP costs (1 XP/spell level), subdual HP damage (aka, a Mage's life force), or the old per day schtick. Or something else.

I've long thought that the per-day limit is exactly the wrong time-frame. Either a character/creature should have a magical ability it can perform more or less at will (e.g. it can fly), or it should make a great effort to cast a spell at the right time, in the right place, while paying the price, etc.

S. John Ross's alternative magic rules for GURPS, known as Unlimited Mana introduced a few useful ideas. First, instead of having a small reserve a spell points and recovering them quickly, mages get a huge reserve and recover them very slowly. Second, instead of having a hard limit, mages could easily spend more spell points than they had -- and risk a roll on the calamity table.

From the intro:

Standard GURPS magic is "tactical;" mages can create dozens of small effects in a given day -- but very few (if any) world-shattering miracles. Manipulations of mana, the force behind spells, leaves sorcerers drained and weak. Thus, GURPS wizards are limited by their knowledge (which determines their flexibility) and their physical stamina. "Powerful" wizards are wizards that know more spells at higher levels than others.

Absent from this basic structure is the concept of Raw Power - wizards that can crack a castle in half or drown an army in flames.

Fantasy novels that feature such levels of power rarely have mages that get ``tired out'' by magic. Instead, extreme effects threaten the fabric of the universe, creating a situation in which wizards can create true miracles in times of need, but do not use their powers frivolously. When their companions ask for more magic, they will drone cryptically "To draw too deeply on my Gift can lead to madness and death. Do not demand of me what you do not comprehend."

Fantasy writers need character balance as much as GMs do. While it's exiting to establish that a sorcerer can wreak serious havoc when needed, it's boring to let him overshadow the rest of the characters. That cryptic doubletalk exists as a handy plot device, no less than the wizard himself.

This approach to magic has been left untouched in gaming, and for good reason. It's easy for a writer to create a wizard that will be prudent with his arcane wisdom. Trying to get an ambitious fantasy gamer (even a well-meaning one) to do the same is risky at best. GURPS has no such bounds, however. The magic system is flexible enough to permit Unlimited Mana that will balance in ANY fantasy campaign, even the lowest of "low fantasy!"​

 

[mmadsen]

I personally dislike mana points, for the reason that time is hard to track in a tabletop game. Computers handle minutes and hours much better.

Mana points don't have to recover minute by minute.

 

[Vermonter]

Per Encounter Hit Points

Of course, I'm doubting Hit Points are balanced "Per Encounter" ....

Actually, from what I have seen, I think they will be. Sort of.

Just as it looks like a wizard will always have some sort of eldritch blast or magic missile to fall back on, they have said a healer will never be penalized for healing. My read on that is that a cleric will probably have an action where they can heal say 1d6 damage with an action all day long. Fighter might also have 'self healing' abilities (much like one of the psionic disciplines whose name escapes me) that they can use. The net result may well be hit points on pretty much a per encounter basis.

Someone also mentioned that they couldn't see how WotC would do this without reducing either the power or flexibility of wizards. It has been stated that higher level wizards are too powerful, so expect to see this. Wizards will get more options low level and less power escalation at high level. It's pretty obvious to me this is a good thing.

As to the whole "defining Per Encounter" debate, I'm confused as to why it is a big deal. It is probably whatever the DM defines it as. Example:
They've said encounter balance will be by XP, so say a 'typically difficult encounter' for a party is 5,000 XP of challenges (monsters, traps, terrain obstacles).
As DM, you want to set up a tough ending to an adventure, so you decide a 8,000 XP encounter is appropriate.
You also want it to be an encounter where the party enters combat, and suddenly the BBG bursts in to take them on, just as they think they have things under control. If you set up a 5,000 XP combat, then burst in with an 8,000 XP BBG and don't allow reasonable reset of the 'per encounter' abilities you are clearly screwing the players. On the other hand, you could have them face a 4,000 XP encounter, then bring in the BBG for another 4,000 XP and you are fine.
WotC has a whole DMG to explain how to run this fairly and effectivley as a DM.

You may disagree with the intent of the system (I happen to like it), but confusion about how it would work shouldn't be a major factor.

My hope is that a typical 1st level character should have 2-3 viable options in a given situation always available that perform at about 70% of potential. 1-2 'special features' that give a bonus in the right circumstances (like a rogue sneak attack) to get to 90% potential, 1-2 per encounter abilities that give a bonus similar to the special features (may or may not overlap, if combined get to 100% of potential), and 3-5 per day abilities that have a special effect, but are not so crucial that having used them a player feels compelled to stop adventuring.

As characters go up in levels these options should mostly improve in power, but the total number of viable choices (7-12) shouldn't change a lot. Of course different sort of encounters (combat, diplomacy, search/research?, terrain/sneaking/traps) rely on different skills, so a player may have more than 7-12 abilities, just spread over dealing with these different sorts of obstacles.

 

[Stalker0]

We have to remember that if per encounter does become the default, WOTC will likely include a little more detail on what "per encounter" should mean.

 

[Dire Bare]

So from one of the previews, it was said that D&D 4E will have "new power sources" and "new resource management".

Is it just me, or does this sound a heck of a lot like a Mana-based system (i.e., spells cost points which are subtracted from a pool). This has always been one of the most difficult aspects of the D&D system for computer games... And a mana-based system could certainly reduce the size of stat-blocks and streamline spell management.

What do you think? Are spell-levels a sacred cow?

While exactly how the new magic system will work still remains a mystery, what I think they are referring to as "power sources" is simply the arcane/divine split.

In 3e, there really isn't any difference between an arcane powered spell and a divine powered spell, other than the individual who is casting it. If a Wizard is casting the spell, it's arcane, if a Cleric is casting the spell, it's divine.

Even psionics wasn't really all that different than arcane/divine spells.

It seems they are making the "power source" of the spell actually mean something concrete within the game system. Arcane spells, divine spells, psionic powers, incarnum abilities, binder abilities, warlock invocations, auras, truenamer utterances will all be more clearly defined and different (not that we are gonna get all of that stuff right away of course).

Having said that, we have seen quotes that the magic system will be changing significantly and only retaining aspects of the Vancian system . . . . how exactly this will work remains to be seen . . .

 

[blargney the second]

For those of you who have yet to run a D&D game with per-encounter mechanics, let me tell you just this: it's really unbelievably obvious when an encounter is over. Trust me, you're smart enough to notice.
-blarg