An Essay to Wizards of the Coast

[Dannager]

Dude, we have played 4E, you and I know that answer... utility spells. Wizards could do that before, now they need rituals.

Some old edition players who like Wizards dislike 4E just because that power doesn't come from their class anymore, but from rituals.

And that's something I think should be given back to them... (but not their quadratic damage progression).

Are you under the impression that core Wizards in 4e don't receive rituals automatically as part of their class? Because that would be incorrect.

 

[Dannager]

Now, I can be all those things and still be a noble diplomat; but not in the way I'd envisioned for my character. And it isn't the presence of one or two things that change the feel of the game, but the preponderance of them.

I can sort of see what you're getting at now, though the issue doesn't seem to be your ability to have a character that feels like a noble diplomat. I think we can both agree that playing a noble diplomat in both 3.5 and 4e is about equally easy.

The difference that you seem to be pointing to is that it's harder to play a character in 4e who cannot hold his own in combat. Which I will absolutely agree with. There isn't really a way in 4e for you to trade off your ability to participate meaningfully in combat encounters for the ability to excel in non-combat encounters. The system expectation is that each character can excel at both in different ways. Would you say that this is an accurate portrayal of the problem you're talking about?

 

[avin]

Are you under the impression that core Wizards in 4e don't receive rituals automatically as part of their class? Because that would be incorrect.

I'm aware of that but, remember like it was in old editions? A Wizard just write it on their spellbook, like any other spell.

Rituals do not work in this way on 4E: "rituals are complex cerimonies that create magic effects. You don't memorize or prepare a ritual" - PHB296. Thus, no, the Wizard having their own utility spells is not supported on 4E.

It's not a matter of wording, it does not work mechanicaly and this kind of gameplay is not supported anymore.

I'm not saying here this is "horrible" or "awful", in fact, I like it and even some diehard 3.5 fans like 4E rituals, even if they have some restrictions about the way it was implemented.

So let's make things clear here:

1. I like 4E, so it's not a hit on the system (I count eleven 4E books on my shelf while I'm writing this down)
2. I firmly believe the way Wizards worked on previous editions is not supported on 4E, it's a playstyle gone.
3. In the name of unity I think some utility spells should move back to Wizard's grimoires, while more sofisticated stuff should be rituals.

 

[keterys]

I'm not a big fan of how rituals ended up working, but I love the _concept_... I'd happily see a lot of Phantom Steed, Knock, etc stuff move onto a separate system from Fireball. Even if they were still prepared like normal spells, but the wizard got a 2nd track to memorize them with.

 

[Gryph]

I'm aware of that but, remember like it was in old editions? A Wizard just write it on their spellbook, like any other spell.

Rituals do not work in this way on 4E: "rituals are complex cerimonies that create magic effects. You don't memorize or prepare a ritual" - PHB296. Thus, no, the Wizard having their own utility spells is not supported on 4E.

It's not a matter of wording, it does not work mechanicaly and this kind of gameplay is not supported anymore.

I'm not saying here this is "horrible" or "awful", in fact, I like it and even some diehard 3.5 fans like 4E rituals, even if they have some restrictions about the way it was implemented.

So let's make things clear here:

1. I like 4E, so it's not a hit on the system (I count eleven 4E books on my shelf while I'm writing this down)
2. I firmly believe the way Wizards worked on previous editions is not supported on 4E, it's a playstyle gone.
3. In the name of unity I think some utility spells should move back to Wizard's grimoires, while more sofisticated stuff should be rituals.

Like maybe a utility spell picked at 2nd level or maybe 2 choices at 2nd and written into a spellbook. Then the wizard could pick between them given sufficient time to rest?

Then maybe they should get other picks of utilities every so many levels. Yeah that system would be better than what we have in 4e.

 

[mmadsen]

My argument is that, if you know how to run skill challenges (by reading the rulebooks for the games that invented them - the 4e rulebooks on their own aren't enough) then you can run noncombat encounters in 4e that are compelling in both mechanical and narrative terms.

Can you expand on that?

 

[MarkChevallier]

The system expectation is that each character can excel at both in different ways. Would you say that this is an accurate portrayal of the problem you're talking about?

Yes, but not completely. The system provides massive support for excelling in combat, and much, much lesser support for excelling out of combat. In fact, it's very easy NOT to be good out of combat; it's very hard NOT to be good in combat. This is informative as to the system's priorities, which aren't the same as mine.

Also, I would say that the noble diplomat example wasn't mine originally, just so we're clear on that. I agree that in 4E you can make a reasonable effort at pulling together any type of character, provided they are good combatants (I must say, though, you get much less customisation potential than you do with 3E). It's a particular type of noble diplomat that is hard to implement.

I'm not a big fan of how rituals ended up working, but I love the _concept_... I'd happily see a lot of Phantom Steed, Knock, etc stuff move onto a separate system from Fireball. Even if they were still prepared like normal spells, but the wizard got a 2nd track to memorize them with.

I like the idea of rituals too, but I'm against them being in a separate pool from "combat" magic. They can be part of the same pool. What should distinguish them from other spells is extra casting time, and some kind of cost or other impracticality. These elements were often factors in previous editions, but the problematic nature of some spells - Teleport, I'm looking at you - would be solved if these principles were applied to them.

 

[mmadsen]

I think that most PF players don't want to run a game like 4e. That's pretty obvious. But as I posted upthread, I think that is because they object to metagame-heavy mechanics, of which skill challenges are one obvious example (the GM has to metagame the narration of successful and failed checks so as to drive the situation forward - the outcome of checks can't be treated in the same way that is it in 3E or PF as a simple matter of "meeting a DC correlates to a particular event occurring in the fiction").

I'm squarely in the not-so-metagame-heavy-please camp, but I don't see skill challenges as necessarily metagamey at all. They require plenty of adjudication, certainly, but why would you say they're especially metagamey?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmm... not D&D was not my reaction. Very different yes. Remarkably D&D yes. Vieso game. No.
3.x -> 5 concersion YES!
4e -> 5 conversion Also Yes!

and the design goal seems to be also beeing able to upgrade from 1e/2e, OD&D etc.
Taking 3.x and making it like pathfinder... please... no... do it like paizo... also no.
I want a little bit more serious efforts to make it a better game.
I was rather let down by pathfinder and how little it offers above 3.5... and this was actually paizo´s goal... Imrove 3.5, but this edition is beyond repair. It is a good game I really loved to play... but I would never want to create a 3.x character above level 1 anymore, nor would I want to run a campaign for 3.x above level 7. I seriously don´t have time for that.

So by all means. I hope mearls and Monte really achieve what they aim for.

 

[Solauren]

Hello Everyone.

After going to bed last night, it occured to me that if I'm going to be productive, and accurate, in my expression of self, I should re-read the 4E Players Handbook, so I can pin point my issues.

So I did.

And I've located them.

They are
#1 - NO MULTICLASSING.
Big problem with me and my campaign. If you go over the 26+ characters in the multi-year, multi-generation campaign, there is maybe 1 single class character. One.

That was the sore point. I couldn't convert to 4th edition without scrapping my current campaign, or doing some serious retooling to alot of the rules.

#2 - The changes to some spells in 4E that increased the casting time. They lose something in the process.

That's it.

Otherwise, 4E isn't a bad system. QUite frankly, I like the way they cleaned up combat, made it obvious the use of powers and skills and the like, and made FOrtitude, Reflex and Will Defense Scores to be overcome (like Armor Class and Spell REsistance).