A Meandering Thought about Design Philosophies

[Hussar]

No Con bonuses to HP? Why not? Everyone got up to +2/hit die. Fighter types got up to +4.

 

[RigaMortus2]

What design decision had the largest impact on 3e?

Removal of THAC0.

Introduction of feats (finally, a player could flesh out exactly how they saw their character, and feats help with that).

Streamlining the skills.

Making the d20 more important/used for more things.

Consolidating saving throws.

Those are the ones that spring to mind for me...

 

[FourthBear]

No Con bonuses to HP? Why not? Everyone got up to +2/hit die. Fighter types got up to +4.

Sorry, that was incorrectly phrased. Since magic-users were limited in hit point bonuses to +2/level, bonuses for Constitution didn't kick in until 15 and hit dice stopped being calculated past level 11, magic-user hit point totals were relatively even lower in 1e and 2e.

As I recall, the primary magic-user saving grace in 1e and 2e was Stoneskin, which let you ignore attacks regardless of damage total.

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry, that was incorrectly phrased. Since magic-users were limited in hit point bonuses to +2/level, bonuses for Constitution didn't kick in until 15 and hit dice stopped being calculated past level 11, magic-user hit point totals were relatively even lower in 1e and 2e.

Which acted as a bit of a balance...the MU needed some tough guys around for protection, so there was always a place for a tank or two.

As I recall, the primary magic-user saving grace in 1e and 2e was Stoneskin, which let you ignore attacks regardless of damage total.

In 1e it only stopped the first attack, and then only if it was physical rather than magical. 2e improved it to the point of broken-ness.

Lanefan

 

[HP Dreadnought]

I disagree that Vancian casting is at the root of spellcaster dominance in later levels.

The reason spellcasters dominate so much at high levels is because magic is too powerful.

It can make you too well defended.
It can eliminate opponents at a range in one shot regardless of hit points or AC.
It can severely damage hordes of opponents that would take the fighter many rounds to replicate.
It can render some other classes almost completely superflouous.

Consider this. Imagine if we waved our magic wand and did away with Vancian casting. In its place, we said that a spellcaster could cast any five spells up to his normal spell level during a given encounter, but after that he would be done.

Would the spellcaster dominate the game any less?

No. The fact is of that 100 spells the high level caster knows, only a few really impact the game much. Simply paring the spellcaster's list down to the key spells reduces bookkeeping, but does nothing to reign in higher level casters.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad to see vancian casting go. But its a mistake to think that it will correct the spellcaster imbalance. If they give us essentially the same set of spells with some new casting system, spellcasters will STILL dominate the game at higher levels.

Vancian casting should be eliminated because it is a cumbersome, records intensive, and illogical spellcasting system. But if 4E is going to correct the over-powered spellcaster problem, its going to have to be done at a fundamental level with a careful re-write of spells and outright elimination of several.

I think the 4E designers understand this, but realize that if they simply brought magic in line with the capabilities of non-spellcasting classes, it would never be accepted by the community and there would be widespread refusal to adopt the major "nerf" that had been applied to spellcasters.

So, while I'm sure they will tone down the spellcasters somewhat, they are also introducing "new sources of power" that will allow them to ramp up the capabilities of the other classes - effectively turning the non-spellcasters into spellcasters, whatever the fluff description of what the "non-spellcasters" abilities happens to be.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I disagree that Vancian casting is at the root of spellcaster dominance in later levels.

The reason spellcasters dominate so much at high levels is because magic is too powerful.

It can make you too well defended.
It can eliminate opponents at a range in one shot regardless of hit points or AC.
It can severely damage hordes of opponents that would take the fighter many rounds to replicate.
It can render some other classes almost completely superflouous.

Consider this. Imagine if we waved our magic wand and did away with Vancian casting. In its place, we said that a spellcaster could cast any five spells up to his normal spell level during a given encounter, but after that he would be done.

Would the spellcaster dominate the game any less?

No. The fact is of that 100 spells the high level caster knows, only a few really impact the game much. Simply paring the spellcaster's list down to the key spells reduces bookkeeping, but does nothing to reign in higher level casters.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad to see vancian casting go. But its a mistake to think that it will correct the spellcaster imbalance. If they give us essentially the same set of spells with some new casting system, spellcasters will STILL dominate the game at higher levels.

Let me see it this way: Vancian Magic was supposed to be balanced by being Vancian. This means you had high powered spells, but since you could only cast them so few times per day, you had to use them sparingly.
This worked okay if you followed the encounter guidelines closely enough, but if you didn't (have a single encounter per day, or dozens of encounters in one day), this no longer worked so great.

I think the theory wasn't that bad (from a purely balance point of view), but several aspects were unaccounted for - or later added that made things worse.
1) It depends a lot on the adventure whether characters are forced to follow the encounter guideline. If they are not forced, nothing is holding the caster back.
2) Some DMs and adventures overcompensated the "nova" spellcaster and introduced more encounters with EL = PL +2 or higher, meaning that spellcasters _had_ to nova to allow the group to survive.
3) From a player perspective, not casting spells when playing a spellcaster isn't exactly exciting, at least not in the context of a combat encounter.
4) Magical Healing becaming extraordinarily cheap thanks to Wands of Cure Light Wounds. So cheap in fact, that the only member in the group requesting rest would be the spellcaster.
5) 3.0 edition had a Haste Spell, which made casters overextending their resources too easy.
6) 3.5 later added "swift" spells into the mix. They were balanced well in so far as you had to pay for the lessened casting time by a weaker spell, but it also means casters could extend their spells even easier. It seems to me as if this balance component was missed during the design of these spells.

Casters "bleeding" spells or novaing could be compensated if casting times for the powerful spells are extended. So, to cast a Save or Die spell like Finger of Death, a caster would need to cast 3 rounds. The rest of the group would need to defend him till he finished casting. The whole action might be even be more interactive - maybe each round the caster casts his spell, the enemy makes a save, and once the 3rd save is failed, it dies.
Some spells can't be balanced that well with this method - Teleport for example, and should be balanced differently (for example, requiring you to have placed a teleportation mark at the target location, or being invited by the inhabitant of the location - if a house or room - or by targeting a teleportation portal/pad)

Anyway, I suspect that the new approach to spells will scale back the powers of many spells. This is a necessity for the whole non-vancian part of the casting system to work well with the rest.