Magic : How streamlined do we want it?

[Rakin]

I'd argue that itemized spells=looking stuff up in books=boring.

That said, I can see not wanting a full-on change to free-form spell effects, but it boggles my mind that people really find it "flavorful" to have hundreds of different individual spells to represent a range of ways to deal energy damage, gain numerical bonus to stuff like AC, saves, attacks, etc., or accomplish any number of things that can be achieved by a simple sliding-scale generic mechanism. At the least, it would be nice if standard blasting spells and stuff like mage armor, resistance, protection from spells, etc. could be genericized.

Fair enough. I wasn't talking about the MMO, "how much I can deal damage spells", I guess I just got spoiled reading some of my LA books, which include spells that allow you to turn paper thin, and utter a word and be transported back to a rune you etched 15 minutes ago.

 

[The Human Target]

Your words have the cold, clear logic of a Soviet street map.

Just because the rules should make sense doesn't mean they can't do it with style.

Ha!

I ask you this... did anyone in the Soviet Union ever have to spend as much time finding a street as I've had player's look up spell effects in game?

Leave the flavor up the the GM and players I say. Ranged Magical Attack w/ fire damage can become the player's hand morphing into a red dragon's head and using its "breath attack" without it having to be explained in the book pretty easily.

And realistically, how many spells really do have stylish descriptions now? Less than half?

A flat +Bonus to AC is a flat +Bonus to AC, no matter what you call it.

Streamline spells=simpler spells=boring

I guess it's ok if all you really care for is beating up that bad guy, seeing how strong you can get, and getting all the phat loots(might as well just play an MMO at that point), but interesting and sometimes complex (but only complex and long because people try and find loopholes in spells to cheat and some GM's aren't advanced enough to stop it from happening) spells make for interesting as well as fun and creative ways of dealing with situations adn encounters.

As so often happens when discussing DnD, you're overlapping two topics that have nothing to do with each other at all.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Fair enough. I wasn't talking about the MMO, "how much I can deal damage spells", I guess I just got spoiled reading some of my LA books, which include spells that allow you to turn paper thin, and utter a word and be transported back to a rune you etched 15 minutes ago.

I would see your point better if you hadn't substituted "MMO" for "direct damage." Fireball has been around since 1978 or so, long before MMOs.

Note also that the "flavorful" spells you like can be constructed quite easily under many free-form magic systems. Turning paper thin is an effect, as is triggered teleportation. The only problematic thing about that spell is needing the special case for "turning paper thin," which I would actually argue is a negative rather than a positive in adding to the DM's burden of rules lookup and adjudication.

Not that I think 4e is going anywhere nearly in this direction. But at least direct damage and numerical-effect spells should really just go scalable IMO.

 

[Stalker0]

What I hope they do is go back to the old approach of "1 spell, many things."

One thing they did in 3.5 was take some of the old 3e spells and split them up into multiple spells. I hope in 4e they go the other way. Give casters less spells at a time, but let the spells be more customizable.

They have mentioned the 25 spell levels thing. My guess is it will be similar to psionics now, you have a base effect, and they you can modify it from there. But psiniocs was again way too specialized. There are plenty of psion spells I would never have taken in a million years, when you only have 3 spells known, your not going to pick a spell that does 1 specific thing you might use once a year.

If anyone wants to do it would probably be a fun project to take all of the dnd spells and drop them into their most basic level.

I mean at its core, fireball and lightning bolt are exactly the same thing.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Leave the flavor up the the GM and players I say. Ranged Magical Attack w/ fire damage can become the player's hand morphing into a red dragon's head and using its "breath attack" without it having to be explained in the book pretty easily.

Yeah, I know why you said what you said. Somewhat seriously, I still come down in the "Snilloc's Snowball" camp though, just because I've read systems that use generic naming conventions, and even if the rules are really clear and make sense, the games leave me cold and make it harder for me to get in character and imagine the world he inhabits. Just calling it "Ranged Magic Attack" somehow take the 'magic' out of the game (IMO) ...

I had this problem with Grim Tales.

And realistically, how many spells really do have stylish descriptions now? Less than half?

Sadly, you are correct.

But that doesn't make it right!

Happily, Mastering Iron Heroes (by 4e lead developer Mike Mearls) has some really well-named abilities that are thematically correct for the its class and have clear rules. I can't remember all the details, but there was one ability for this "Evil Drill Sergeant" type villain class whose shtick was that he always had lots of mooks around to do his bidding, that made me laugh when I first read it and (more importantly) made me want to play the game. IIRC, it was a per encounter ability that allowed him, after seeing the results of a damage roll against him, to duck behind one of underlings, letting the unlucky minion take the brunt of the attack. The name of the ability: Meat Shield.

So I have some hope ...

 

[The Human Target]

I would see your point better if you hadn't substituted "MMO" for "direct damage." Fireball has been around since 1978 or so, long before MMOs.

Note also that the "flavorful" spells you like can be constructed quite easily under many free-form magic systems. Turning paper thin is an effect, as is triggered teleportation. The only problematic thing about that spell is needing the special case for "turning paper thin," which I would actually argue is a negative rather than a positive in adding to the DM's burden of rules lookup and adjudication.

Not that I think 4e is going anywhere nearly in this direction. But at least direct damage and numerical-effect spells should really just go scalable IMO.

Its not that hard if you're willing to squint a bit, as it were.

If you're turning paper thing to make yourself harder to hit, the spell is just flavor text for the generic power of "Magic Armor." If you're making yourself paper thing to fit under doors and the like, it just becomes flavor text for "Pass" or "Intangibility" or something to that effect. If you want to have both effects, cast both spells.

 

[The Human Target]

Yeah, I know why you said what you said. Somewhat seriously, I still come down in the "Snilloc's Snowball" camp though, just because I've read systems that use generic naming conventions, and even if the rules are really clear and make sense, the games leave me cold and make it harder for me to get in character and imagine the world he inhabits. Just calling it "Ranged Magic Attack" somehow take the 'magic' out of the game (IMO) ...

I had this problem with Grim Tales.

Sadly, you are correct.

But that doesn't make it right!

Happily, Mastering Iron Heroes (by 4e lead developer Mike Mearls) has some really well-named abilities that are thematically correct for the its class and have clear rules. I can't remember all the details, but there was one ability for this "Evil Drill Sergeant" type villain class whose shtick was that he always had lots of mooks around to do his bidding, that made me laugh when I first read it and (more importantly) made me want to play the game. IIRC, it was a per encounter ability that allowed him, after seeing the results of a damage roll against him, to duck behind one of underlings, letting the unlucky minion take the brunt of the attack. The name of the ability: Meat Shield.

So I have some hope ...

Oh yeah, I'm actually in agreement with you on the second bit. The game terminology doesn't have to be all sterile and stark. Something like Meat Shield is funny and descriptive. Its just with something like Ranged Magical Attack, that really is a very broad concept, calling it Irda's Brilliant Beam is just way too specific sounding.

 

[jasin]

I would like to see metamagic built into the spell description itself, with scaling options.

Sounds a bit like Wheel of Time d20. IIRC, there you'd have something like a "lightning" spell that would work as shocking grasp if you cast it in a 1st-level slot, a lightning bolt if you cast it in a 3rd-level slot, chain lightning if you used a 6th-level slot and chain lightning which also stuns if you use an 8th-level slot.

 

[jasin]

What I hope they do is go back to the old approach of "1 spell, many things."

Yes.

And rather by mechanical similarity, group the effects by thematic similarity.

Rather than having energy ray which can be used as a fire ray or a cold ray like in psionics, have a cold ray which can either deal 1d6/level cold damage or freeze 1 5-ft. square/level; and a ray of burning light which can either deal 1d6/level fire damage or blind an enemy for 1 round/level.

 

[wedgeski]

Flavor text is not needed in the spells section.

I could not disagree more. Flavorful spell descriptions are a staple of D&D that *must* stay for the game to still be D&D (and are still in 4e, thankfully). There's plenty of room for streamlining the system without going to this extreme.