Increased magic across the board?

[jasin]

I'm optomistic about fighters and rogues (etc.) having special abilities that they can tap into per encounter/day/whatever, but I hope they are not magical in nature. I want my fighters to be fighters, not fighter/mages.

Yes.

To use a Bo9S example, Iron Heart (disarming, whirlwinding, parrying, breaking people's weapons) is good. Desert Wind (bolts of fire, flaming swords, fire resistance, floating on columns of superheated air)... not so good.

Not as the default, at least. I don't mind the concept, and I think D&D should be able to cater to it, but I'd much prefer if the explicitly magical effects for non-spellcasters required some sort of additional investment to acquire (feats, PrCs) rather than just being available for anyone to pick up on the side.

 

[Mercule]

While I was pleasantly surprised to hear 4e will (supposedly) move away from the "You are your magic items" motif that's plagued D&D, I was immediately discouraged to hear "magic is increased across the board" (or something along those lines). Am I the only one who thinks the last thing D&D needs is more magic saturating the game?

Quite.

For the last couple years, I've been really bummed that there are only three classes (barbarian, fighter, rogue) that don't have magic powers. I've been wanting to strip out magic from, say ranger, and maybe soften the supernatural feel of monk some, too.

I really like the idea of fighters, and even rogues, picking up some combat styles and maneuvers. I do hope, though, that the more magical things out of ToB are omitted. Pretty much the entirety of the Desert Wind and Shadow Hand annoy me and are not what I want to see martial classes doing. I want my martial characters to be cool and dangerous because they don't need magic, not because they are somehow casting magic with their attacks.

That's the sort of design point that is either going to make me pick up 4E and use it for my next game or is going to have me passing on the whole thing. I don't really see me ever warming to the idea of fighters who can summon a flaming weapon.

 

[Drowbane]

To use a Bo9S example, Iron Heart (disarming, whirlwinding, parrying, breaking people's weapons) is good. Desert Wind (bolts of fire, flaming swords, fire resistance, floating on columns of superheated air)... not so good.

Naw, both good.

 

[BryonD]

Based on the limited anount of info, I don't see the two statements as in conflict.

I think that more magic across the board means that there will be more implicit character abilities. This is compatible with the idea that magic gadgets will be reduced in importance.

I'm not so sure I want a fighter to have "magic" abilities. But I've always been comfortable with the idea that high level characters become super human and a really high level fighter or rogue can do things that transcend just being "the best of the best" and into supernatural. For example, I think it would be great for a L25 barbarian to be able to hold his breath for days ala Beowulf.

So if low level fighters and rogues, etc start getting a lot of extrodinary abilities that start to transition into supernatural abiltities in the teens, then that could be very cool. I wouldn't read to much into the term "magic" at this point in the context here because clearly they are being vague and making a lot of very general statements.

This could be a really good thing.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

While I was pleasantly surprised to hear 4e will (supposedly) move away from the "You are your magic items" motif that's plagued D&D, I was immediately discouraged to hear "magic is increased across the board" (or something along those lines). Am I the only one who thinks the last thing D&D needs is more magic saturating the game?

Agree completely. I like that there are non-magic characters in the game, and wish there were more (ranger, I'm looking at you!).

I think you can tweak mechanics to enable that, give lots of options, and not have it be a "magic-based" source of power -- skill tricks and battle maneuvers would be a way to do that. But we'll see.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Maybe we'll be lucky and semi-magical classes will have talents that can give magic. For instance, if rangers had several talents, a few of which gave spells, I'd be happy. I could skip the magical talents if I felt like it.

 

[Ry]

I'm really hoping that if you had a world where everyone was level 1 to 10 that's a low-magic world. I think that's my make or break criteria for 4E.

 

[Virel]

More magic will work in the game, if the feats, plethora of classes, and excessive skills are simplified and reduced. Those things tend to make up a good bit of the power in 3e, if they are reduced and magic added back to the game, you can still have a reasonablely balanced game with a good bit of magic in it. It's a trade off.

 

[jasin]

As far as I gather, most people worried about the increased magic comment don't have a problem with the power level, but with the atmosphere.

An ability that adds +1d6 fire damage for one attack is no more powerful than an ability that adds +1d6 physical damage for on attack. In fact, it's less, since it's easier to protect yourself from fire.

But many people (myself included) feel that the latter is a much more appropriate power for a low level fighter, mostly as a matter of taste.

 

[HatWearingFool]

Whoops, really sorry about that. That post had nothing to do with this topic or forum at all. Sorry for bringing my preaching to a completed unrelated topic.