Increased magic across the board?

[Azgulor]

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?

 

[Hjorimir]

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?

Yeah, the two statements seem in direct conflict with one another to me as well. My guess is that the caster classes will always have at least some magic to work with (ala reserve feats or a similar mechanic).

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.

 

[Azgulor]

As do I. If the martial characters are influenced by Mearls' Iron Heroes mojo (as it seems encounters/scenes have been), it will be easier to swallow. If all classes are going to have magical abilities, I might as well play Earthdawn.

 

[pawsplay]

I also like to keep magical streetlamps largely to the more magical or cosmpolitan cities in my games. And ditto the Earthdawn/any number of JCRPGs thing.

 

[marune]

I also like to keep magical streetlamps largely to the more magical or cosmpolitan cities in my games.

I don't think that by more magic they meant something like it, more probably that more classes (maybe even Fighters) will have access to "magical powers".

 

[pawsplay]

I don't think that by more magic they meant something like it, more probably that more classes (maybe even Fighters) will have access to "magical powers".

I don't like that either, for much the same reason.

 

[EricNoah]

You know what, though, from the DM's side of the screen I have been doing this a lot lately. I love spell-stiched undead. I love cultists and shamans and other minor spellcasters. It gives me as DM a little surprising bag of tricks to pull from during an encounter.

What I probably should do is study the combat chapters of the game more and try to figure out what fun non-magical combat options I could pull out more often (tripping, grappling, overrunning, etc.).

 

[Branduil]

I hope it's mainly referring to spellcasters not running out of magic.

And less dependence on magic items can only be a good thing, in any case. I'd prefer it if magic items were extremely rare things and most characters only have one or two at most, instead of making it necessary for characters to be walking magic shops.

 

[Ry]

What I probably should do is study the combat chapters of the game more and try to figure out what fun non-magical combat options I could pull out more often (tripping, grappling, overrunning, etc.).

I think you'll have more fun (and get better results) if you stick with your groove for, say... the next 8 months, and maybe then look at those chapters. It'll be like you're learning all-new combat subsystems either way, why not do it with 4E where those rules are being rewritten for ease of play?

 

[howandwhy99]

As long as I can turn up or down magic better than I can turn up or down suggested wealth levels, I'll be happy.