D&D 4.0 - What the?

[Dark Jezter]

Everyone's so down on Vancian Magic. What in particular is the problem you guys have?

My theory is that years of playing CRPGs, which usually use mana for spellcasters rather than preparing spells in advance, has caused many people to see vancian magic as an "outdated" concept.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Larcen:
My feeling is that no matter what it takes it would be worth it in the long run. At the very least there wouldn't be a lot of errata put out shortly after the books are printed. So far we've had 3.0, 3.0 errata, 3.0 second printing, 3.5, 3.5 errata. I for one don't want to go thru that again in 4E. How much of that could have been prevented by more extensive and wide ranging playtesting I wonder.

Heh... boy, you have no idea how much the game evolved (for the better) over the playtest period from it's early drafts. And when you got a new crudely laid out playtest draft with no index or ToC, you had to go over it word for word IIRC to see what changes there were. I forget now how long the playtest period was - a year maybe, and they had all the feedback they could handle.

Also, I am hoping that someone somewhere at WOTC would realize that "mountains of feedback" are a GOOD thing.

Not if you can't manage it in the period of time you have to develop it. You only have so much time for product development and people/leases/expenses have to be paid while the books are in unpublished limbo. Sure, another 6 months of playtesting would have been great, but it was time they didn't have.

Originally posted by Shawnsse:
So I would like to see tougher 1st level character class in D&D v4.0.

That should have been my Point #8... I wholeheartedly agree.


Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by RangerWicket:

Everyone's so down on Vancian Magic. What in particular is the problem you guys have?

The system is just so rigid and intractable and there are better and more flexible ways to handle it. I hated having to suss out daily spell allotments for NPC spellcasters, it just seemed like a such a waste of time.

Reduce the top end power and increase the flexibility in play I say!

A'koss.

 

[Orius]

I'll add agreement to the proposal for really solid magic creation guidelines.

I know what Monte and Skip have said about the rules as they stand now, or at least as they stood in 3.0. It sounds fine in theory, but in practice it's a huge pain. I know for a fact, because I've tried converting old 2e items to 3e stats. Sometimes it's pretty easy, but other times, it's a pain in the ass. The really trickiest part is determining price. The recommendation is to "find something in the DMG that's similar and give it a similar price", but thatdoesn't really cut it. Does anyone else out there realize exactly how creative some items can get? There's a hell of a lot of stuff out there that doesn't resemble anything in the DMG. And the price is pretty important, because it determines how much XPs the character has to use to make the item, and also determines the relative power of the item.

I don't really have a problem with seeing the D&D mini line being marketed as a stripped-down board game, like the old Hero Quest game or something. It makes it more accessible to novices, and plus when they move up to the more advanced stuff, they'll have a nice mini collection already. Marketing the minis could possibly be a good way for WotC to make money without having to print new rules revisions (or maybe not).

I definitely would not like to see a 4th edition too soon. D&D campaigns can last for years. It's not a fast game like M:tG, or the classic board games. You crank out new editions too close together, the players can't really explore the rules to their fullest.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Just a point to make.
D&D is about making characters into Heroes (or Villians).
the "stupid" Hobbit (forget the name) can damage a big spider single handedly.

The "stupid" hobbit was Pippin, and had nothing to do with spiders.

The one who took out the spider was Sam. Sam is the most philosophical of the hobbits, the bravest strongest and most capable.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Charwoman Gene:

The one who took out the spider was Sam. Sam is the most philosophical of the hobbits, the bravest strongest and most capable.

And probably around 1st level.

A'koss!

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Everyone's so down on Vancian Magic. What in particular is the problem you guys have?

For me, a few reasons:

1) It slows down the game, as wizards/clerics/etc. have to decide which spells to take, which to change, and so on.
2) Vancian magic makes these spellcasters more difficult for new players. These players have little, if any, information on which to base their choice of spells. So what ends up happening is that the GM or another, more experienced, player tells them what to memorize - which smacks too much of telling these players how to play their character.
3) This just isn't how magic works in 99% of fantasy stories. I've read exactly one story using this type of magic system (the powerful wizard in that story struggled to memorize three whole spells!) For players wanting to mimic their favorite characters and concepts, vancian magic just doesn't fit.
4) I didn't like it in 1977, I don't like it now.

I would much prefer toning down the raw power of most magic, and removing the memorization requirement (or at least providing optional rules for doing so).

 

[Bloodsparrow]

2) Vancian magic makes these spellcasters more difficult for new players. These players have little, if any, information on which to base their choice of spells. So what ends up happening is that the GM or another, more experienced, player tells them what to memorize - which smacks too much of telling these players how to play their character.

As opposed to overwhelming them in the heat of battle with every spell at their disposal at which point the GM or another, more experienced, player tells them what to cast? Or worse, everybody discusses what should be cast, bringing play to a grinding halt. (This would be why I usually suggest fighters or rogues for new players.) New players will always want/need advice from more experienced players, that's just the way it goes. And, when you give advice, you can either say, "Take this, this, and this. Then cast them under these conditions.", or you can ask, "What sorts of things to you want to do with your spells? If you are most conserned with this, then these spells are good for that. And these other spells are good for this sort of thing..." I favor the latter type of advice, but any way you slice it, how more experienced players give advice is a more personal sort of thing that won't be changed no matter what the mechanic for casting your spells is.

I don't know about anybody else, but the whole having to pray/memorize thing only comes into play when we decide who takes which watch.

In my opinion, having to select which spells you're going to be able to cast that day is a fine trade off for a more powerful and varied selection of spells.

As far as I can tell, the changes mentioned above are already in play with the core Sorcerer, the core Bard, and the "Favored Soul" class in the miniatures handbook. (Which is a spontaneously casting cleric.)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The one who took out the spider was Sam. Sam is the most philosophical of the hobbits, the bravest strongest and most capable.

More than that, he is the one and only character to complete the Hero's Journey.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The Vancian Magic is so inflexible that it has caused massive mechanical difficulties with multiclassed spellcasters in all editions of AD&D (1e/2e, 3.0/3.5). Just look at the weird PrCs they had to create to bandaid over the problem (Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster).

This sacred cow is already half dead with the appearance of sorcerors, psionics, and other spontaneous casting options. The stake is poised over its heart. Get ready to take off the head and stuff holy wafers in its mouth. (Well, I can hope...)