"Kill the Sacred Cow!"

[jmucchiello]

I can understand their reasoning. However, I'm not a huge fan of the switch. Maybe it's because I've read Neuromancer a million times, but I like how the decker was something seperate from the rest of the group - it feels "right".

But, if Neuromancer had been a 2006 novel (introducing the world to cyberpunk now rather than 20+years ago) and it lacked wireless decking wouldn't you scratch your head? Today, the idea of being online without being attached to a wall is everywhere. I don't read cyberpunk fiction but I'm sure it's moved on from decking requiring a jack.

 

[Tarek]

The real reason behind the "Vancian" magic system is because Magic-Users were artillery, and later on, air superiority, and at the end of their progression, they were also the nuclear arsenal.

If you didn't limit the amount of ammunition they had, they'd quickly dominate the game. If you reduced the effect of their ammunition, they no longer fit the role, becoming a poor subclass of infantry.

"Vancian magic" wasn't designed to model the wizards of fantasy novels, not even (oddly enough) those in the Dying Earth setting.

Playing a wizard means you're playing a resource management game in original, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition D&D... It looks like 4e is going to get rid of that, with the inevitable corrolary that wizards are going to have to be depowered.

 

[Wik]

But, if Neuromancer had been a 2006 novel (introducing the world to cyberpunk now rather than 20+years ago) and it lacked wireless decking wouldn't you scratch your head? Today, the idea of being online without being attached to a wall is everywhere. I don't read cyberpunk fiction but I'm sure it's moved on from decking requiring a jack.

Yeah, but if it were in a wireless age, the hacker would still be a distance away from the enemy. In 4e shadowrun, if you want to hack into a mainframe, if it's protected, you have to be there. It's a way to keep the party together, which is something that isn't really required in cyberpunk (wasn't then, and it still doesn't apply).

But that's neither here nor there.

 

[Thunderfoot]

You know, it's really interesting to see the opinions of everyone that has replied so far. Unlike previous edition discussions, I really can;t find more than an ounce or two of vitriol in the whole batch, which is really good. Is this a sign of this generation of gamers maturing, or just an attitude of acceptance as a whole?

As someone who has played since '78, it always irks me when a new edition or change is touted and trotted out; but eventually, I get on board and see why these changes were made and how it advances the hobby as a whole. I think 3rd edition (and 3.5) was the natural progression in the line but 4th is going to be a compromise of getting back to our roots (less rules/rules lighter (not light)) and moving forward with progressive ideas (Vancian magic being face-lifted for example.)

There are very few 'things' that make D&D what it is, but those that do, need to stay. AC, XP and HP or the big ones, I've played with defensive bonuses and life points and stamina and frankly, it just not as fun as my ol' HP/AC combo. and levels and XP, they are what makes D&D's archaic goodness. Outdated, yeah, but still usable. I haven't agreed with every change and often changes were made to better the game that failed miserably (CRs anyone?) but then the 'Player's Option' build rules (2E.7) weren't exactly my favorite either.

I could easily sit here and complain, but really, what good would it do? 4th edition is on its way and like its predecessors, 3.x will be forgotten by manufacturer's and clung to like a security blanket by a handful of fans. The system was a good attempt, but the changes that failed, well, its time to dump them. Change is inevitable, viva la revolution!

 

[SSquirrel]

AC, XP, the 6 stats, killing stuff and taking its loot in a fantasy genre. Preferably with spells and sneaky rogues and warriors in plate. Oh yeah, and of course, going into some dungeons and killing some dragons How you get there beyond taht can shuffle around a lot.

I was a proponent of ditching Vancian magic in 3E, so I'm definitely in favor of changes happening to it in 4E. Alignment can go too. If things like alignment and vancian magic are part of what is keeping D&D from a wider audience and it will also provide a more flexible and enjoyable system for everyone who plays, how can we lose?

 

[mmadsen]

If you didn't limit the amount of ammunition they had, they'd quickly dominate the game. If you reduced the effect of their ammunition, they no longer fit the role, becoming a poor subclass of infantry.

There are more ways to limit magic than N uses per day or a straight cut in power. The unlimited mana alternative for GURPS is just one example.

 

[Thunderfoot]

There are more ways to limit magic than N uses per day or a straight cut in power. The unlimited mana alternative for GURPS is just one example.

Yeah, but GURPS blows chunks...

 

[mmadsen]

Yeah, but GURPS blows chunks...

Perhaps, but read the unlimited mana alternative rules, which aren't typical of GURPS at all, and tell us what you think of them.

 

[Tarek]

That's a very Terry Pratchett sort of approach to magic.

Yes, there's other ways of balancing magic than depowering it, but we're not talking GURPS and we're not talking Discworld and we're not talking Shadowrun here.

We're talking D&D, and a design philosophy behind 4e which says "the character shall not be 'punished' for being a wizard."

So, the choices are to depower the magic, or to put some other limitation in place. They've chosen to remove the limitations, which leaves only the depowering option. I fully expect Wish to be moved to a 30th level spell effect. I expect Magic Missile will be removed from the game. I expect that Sleep will be reduced to affecting a lesser number of targets. I expect Fireball and Lightning bolt, and any other spell that currently has "scalable" damage to be changed to do fixed amounts of damage.

The designers have already hinted at some of this, like the Fireball no longer doing 1d6/level.

 

[mmadsen]

We're talking D&D, and a design philosophy behind 4e which says "the character shall not be 'punished' for being a wizard."

So, the choices are to depower the magic, or to put some other limitation in place. They've chosen to remove the limitations, which leaves only the depowering option.

Yes, that appears to be what they've done. My point was that it wasn't the only way to handle things, and I think there's plenty of room for much more interesting alternatives to dialing down the power knob.