Detect Magic is Dead

[ForbidenMaster]

This is so totally easy to explain.

1. Paladins are unbalanced top heavy because their brain is full up with one sided all how to do good all the time stuff. They can ride horses because well, so many people get so annoyed with the constant goody goodyness that they exclaim "Screw you and the horse you rode in on!" no horse... paradox, world would implode. Thus... horse skill.

2. Fighter smash! duh...

3. Because the stone coble might actually be magic... and only wizards can detect magic.

This = full of win

 

[MindWanderer]

That's actually quite an interesting comparison, one that lends itself to the 4e method of thinking actually.

Pretend you've never seen an iPod. Suddenly you're given an iPod with earbuds. You clearly recognize the "Menu" label at the top so you press it. The screen lights up and displays runes you've never seen, but one of them (||) is also on the bottom of the control panel (the play/pause button). You hit that button and noise begins to come from the earbuds - you'd probably hear something even if you didn't have them in your ears. So within a minute you've discovered that the earbuds are supposed to go into your ears, the iPod plays music, and you know how to start and stop the music. Another couple minutes of experimenting and I'm betting you've got 90% of the iPod's controls under your grasp.

I wouldn't understand the digital-to-analog conversion, the power source, or in what form the MP3s are stored, but I'd know how to use the item for its intended effect. And that's all you have to know for usage.

Ironically... I'm a technophile, to an extent. I've owned 2 MP3 players, 3 digital cameras, and 4 cell phones. I rarely read manuals. I put my computers together from individual parts. I programmed games on my TI-81 in high school. And yet I've fiddled around with an iPod in a store for at least 5 minutes and couldn't get it to do anything but play one song.

...which is probably about as difficult as getting the fire on the sword to turn on. Of course, the sword also has a daily power which works only on a hit, and maybe I couldn't figure out how to turn the fire off, but still....

 

[baberg]

Ironically... I'm a technophile, to an extent. I've owned 2 MP3 players, 3 digital cameras, and 4 cell phones. I rarely read manuals. I put my computers together from individual parts. I programmed games on my TI-81 in high school. And yet I've fiddled around with an iPod in a store for at least 5 minutes and couldn't get it to do anything but play one song.

Ah, the hidden assumption rears its ugly head - who says that the iPod in the store had more than one song?

But yes, I get what you're saying. I guess I just feel that in the 4e universe (and in the universe that I would create) magical items have some sort of instruction on usage, either by carved runes, an intuitive command word, or a small booklet included with each magical item written in English, French, Spanish, and Japanese describing how to use it with large pictures and a few keywords.

I can't imagine there's much of a market for a flaming sword that only activates when the user stands on her head and screams "Blabbering Blabberscythe" while pinching another person's bottom.

 

[Sojorn]

I can't imagine there's much of a market for a flaming sword that only activates when the user stands on her head and screams "Blabbering Blabberscythe" while pinching another person's bottom.

We don't talk about that smith.

 

[malraux]

Thank goodness that the somantic component of magic missile wasn't the wizard standing on his head and howling like a randy baboon to unleash the crackling energy.

The verbal component in my games is a nasally spoken "Magic Missile". But yeah, the whole identify concept is crazy stupid. I certainly agree that plot based magic items should be immune to easy identification. That said, I really don't want to spend every game session taking up time with "I put a drop of the potion in my mouth, does it heal that spot where I bit it?" or "I wave the wand in my left hand while making fart armpit sounds with my right, do I get a stinking cloud?". If only a few items are hard to id, then that'll serve as meta-knowledge that the item is worth thinking about, and I think thats a very good thing.

 

[Rex Blunder]

I don't see what's wrong with the old way. See if potions stack and then just identify one of them; try to engrave on the floor with wands; if you have multiple rings of the same type, drop one down the sink. Or you can just try to sell your items to the local shopkeeper. Multiply his asking price by 5 and you have the book value and level of the item!

 

[Sojorn]

I don't see what's wrong with the old way. See if potions stack and then just identify one of them; try to engrave on the floor with wands; if you have multiple rings of the same type, drop one down the sink. Or you can just try to sell your items to the local shopkeeper. Multiply his asking price by 5 and you have the book value and level of the item!

Wouldn't have gotten this a couple months ago.

 

[Will]

It'd be nice to skip the whole 100 gp surcharge on most items in the campaign.

Though we were a lot happier when we finally noticed that potions in 3.5e can be identified with a simple Spellcraft check. (doh)

 

[JVisgaitis]

Okay, first you'll have to provide an actual definition for "dumbed down". In my experience, it is usually used to mean "simplified, but in a way I don't like".

As it pertains to this, my definition is somewhat complicated. For me, 4e is going into two different directions. First, is the simplification with rules and making the system easier to play and understand. That's a good thing. I'm really happy with almost all of the mechanical changes.

The other direction is with the fluff which is also getting the much simpler treatment. If you look at the PDF on orcs, it basically tells you they are bloodthirsty marauders that worship Gruumsh and love combat. That, I don't like.

The philosophy of 4e is to have a game that plays faster and easier, but in pursuit of that goal their ripping the the heart out of the game to get there (i.e. all of the fluff that makes D&D so special). Sometimes, we have a marriage where fluff and rules meet like the article on magic items. Now I like items that are more than just plusses, I just don't like how all of the mystery and lore and "magic" is taken out of the game and anyone with 5 minutes can figure out any magic item.

Yeah, all of that is easy to put back in, but that's not the point. When I was little, I used to stare at the books for hours and read about all of the monsters, races, and everything else. Now I haven't seen the core books, but I have a feeling that if I was that same little kid, I wouldn't be so taken with the 4e books as they are just going to be brief descriptions and a lot of statistics.

I'm starting to see why some people think that 4e is more like a miniature game because a lot of the substance behind it is gone. Even with these flaws, for my purposes 4e will be great for me. Those things I don't like I can easily fix. The rules that I've seen are tight and easy to understand and the products that we release for 4e under Violet Dawn will have all of the flavor and story that I crave.

But a part of me worries about 4e and how it will affect its new audience and I wonder if Wizards will be looking back at this edition with disfavor and asking themselves what they wrought 5 years from now.

 

[DandD]

The other direction is with the fluff which is also getting the much simpler treatment. If you look at the PDF on orcs, it basically tells you they are bloodthirsty marauders that worship Gruumsh and love combat. That, I don't like.

But what more do you need to know about D&D-Orcs (who are far far different from Warhammer Orcs, differ once more from The Dark Eye-Orcs, Lord of the Rings-Orcs, Warhammer-Orcs, WarCraft-Orcs, and all those other orcs)?
It's not the purpose of the Monster Manual to include campaign-consistent background lore. That's what campaign books are for. Eberron-Orcs differ background-lore-wise from plain Forgotten Realms-Orcs, for example.