New tidbit about spells and hit points.

[grimslade]

One the wand has limited charges and takes money or resources to make, buy, and/or find while just having the wizard to it would be for free. See the difference?

So its a question of resources then. Swap out the familiar and a number of Vancian spells known to get a per round spell. There you go resources spent. A Magic User should use magic, not this mundane wood and steel.

I would like to see the per round abilities broken up by school specialty. Abjurers can get a shield per round that scales. Conjurers can get a 10ft Dim Door. Well, maybe not the Dim Door. There is an alternate class feature like that in the PHBII. It gives a little more flavor to the specialists. It would still be a choice of whether to use your per round flash in the pan, an exciting per encounter maneuver or one of the precious once per day Vancian spells. You only have so many actions a round, and a small magic effect once per round is not game or genre breaking.

 

[Woas]

Imagine possibilities for monster design.

Crimson ooze: when reduced to half hit points it splits into 6 lesser oozes.

Magma Golem: when reduced to half HP, lava begins to flow through the cracks in golem's ceramic skin.

Not to be mean, but these are realities of monster design currently. I don't see how giving a character or creature that has lost 50% of their HP a special title is very helpful.

 

[mmu1]

I'm not optimistic about spellcasters being able to use their abilities and never run out for several reasons:

1. The per-encounter mechanics which it seems like 4E will use don't appeal to me. It's trite to say it, but it does remind me of videogames. (Where "special ability" buttons are a necessity because computers can't effectively - or efficiently - model the nuances of table-top play.)

2. The track record of that sort of approach in various RPGs - the great majority of the time, mages who are able to cast at will end up either absurdly powerful, or as limited and boring "blasters". There are always exceptions, but given the emphasis on simplifying the rules and speeding up play, I really don't think 4E is going to end up as one of them.

3. In the changes from 3E to 3.5, magic was adjusted and more rigidly codified in ways that emphasized spell use for combat purposes, which probably made it more balanced, but less fun. I see no reason to think it won't continue down that course.

Of course, a similar thing was done in the 2E to 3E transition, and I'd argue it was badly needed then, but you can have too much of a good thing.

 

[erf_beto]

So its a question of resources then. Swap out the familiar and a number of Vancian spells known to get a per round spell. There you go resources spent. A Magic User should use magic, not this mundane wood and steel.

I would like to see the per round abilities broken up by school specialty. Abjurers can get a shield per round that scales. Conjurers can get a 10ft Dim Door. Well, maybe not the Dim Door. There is an alternate class feature like that in the PHBII. It gives a little more flavor to the specialists. It would still be a choice of whether to use your per round flash in the pan, an exciting per encounter maneuver or one of the precious once per day Vancian spells. You only have so many actions a round, and a small magic effect once per round is not game or genre breaking.

Making things like the Reserve feats would also help: say you get at will 1d4 magic atack per highest level Evocation spell you have available, or AC +1 per highest level Abjuration spell. As long as you dont pull your big guns out, you can use these minor magic effects at will.

another option is creating spells that lasts for one day to allow for these minor effects, say Minor Magic Attack I-IX. You can perform these rituals by morning and blast all day. They could even be gear oriented, using foci: the spell requires a wand (or any other ordinary, not magical, object), and lasts for as long as you have them with you - being disarmed or stolen breaks the effect.

And why not feat-based options? or like the Archmage's class features ('burn' a slot, get a 'at will' ability)?

I dont think we need to revamp every spellcasting class to acomodate these suggestions: each group (or player) can choose wich options to take into his/her play style. I mean, a warmage needs to be able to blast his enemies, but a pacifist wizard professor dont. If you like resource managing, go with RAW; if you don't, you should have options - they'll just cost you something else.

 

[Aloïsius]

3. In the changes from 3E to 3.5, magic was adjusted and more rigidly codified in ways that emphasized spell use for combat purposes, which probably made it more balanced, but less fun. I see no reason to think it won't continue down that course.

Of course, a similar thing was done in the 2E to 3E transition, and I'd argue it was badly needed then, but you can have too much of a good thing.

Exactly. Spells like fly or invisibility are a good example.

Short duration are good for combat balance purpose, but they suck when in non combat situation.

Makes me think : what about a "combat effect" upon spells ? If you give those spells a duration of concentration (max 1h/lvl) OR 1round/lvl , then you can have spells with long duration that are quicly exausted when combat begins.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Dont like it.

 

[Cadfan]

Not to be mean, but these are realities of monster design currently. I don't see how giving a character or creature that has lost 50% of their HP a special title is very helpful.

It can be helpful by standardizing the process. This is important if lots of monsters are going to have abilities or defects which trigger at the 50% mark.

It also can be a DM aid in describing monsters current injury level in a way the players can actually understand. That's something I've always struggled with. I won't tell my players actual monster hit points, but when I say that a monster is bloodied but still fighting strong, what does that mean? This gives them some idea, and might even give them specific things to look for to help them identify monsters who are injured and monsters who are not.

 

[Naszir]

Couple of things here:

Vicerious was also causing a lot of headaches over at the Gleemax forums too. I kind of get that he doesn't like the way things are heading for 4e but D&D is a flexible game, if you don't like the current edition of the rules, add house rules to turn it into the way you want to play the game. It's that simple. The thing is you need to make at least the base rules accessible to beginners. Grab their interest and imagination and then they can take it to wherever they want to go. However, if it is too complex to begin with or characters are too easy to kill to start then it can be a turn off.

Now onto Wizards/Mages/Sorcerers/Warlocks etc. and how it might be interesting to have at will powers:

How about instead of at will blasting that mimicks a crossbow bolt why not be more creative and have at will "spells" that don't do damage but still help out the party? For example, Daze may be a good spell to have at will. I'm sure there are other wizardly type spells that would be great in combat or non-combat situations (ie. light, resistance, or dancing lights) and thus would have the wizard still feeling all wizard-like without being a lazer gun.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

A Magic User should use magic, not this mundane wood and steel.

I can understand your point, of course. Reserve feats have grown on me, and when Complete Mage came out I couldn't stand them. Perhaps 4e's solution may grow on me as well.

However, the other side has a legitimate arguement that should be dismissed so easily. Many people grew up on tales of "magic users" who didn't have limited resources. Merlin, for example, is one I grew up on. I grew up on the real stories of merlin - the combination of chemist, metalurgist, druid, etc. To me, it makes sense for magic users to occasionally have to rely on things of this world, not just power from within.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, of course! I am saying that not all people assume that magic users should get a free pass to having to occasionally resort to things of this world.

 

[Stalker0]

I think this is one of those discussions we have to put in a 4e context.

There may no longer be a massive damage save, and save or dies may have decayed, but perhaps resurrection magic has been weakened as well. Heroes are harder to kill, but death is more permanent.

After combat healing may be stronger (unlimited healing like dragon shaman's aura?) but incombat healing may be weaker, making death from hp loss more of a threat.

Bloodied may be a condition, but perhaps like Saga you can take a round or 2 and recover, so its not so much of a death spiral.

Player may be able to spend "action points" to do more insta lethal effects to monsters.

We just don't know, remember this is a new edition, and I hope it is VERY new. I want the mechanics completely rehashed, else what's the point?


All of that said, I think the idea of the bloodied condition is great, provided 2 things:

1) It is the only condition like it, or at most 2. Its not too hard to keep track of 50%, or perhaps when you are at like 10 hitpoints or something. But if they throw in a lot of conditions, it will complicate things.

I like SAGA's condition track, but I don't think it models dnd as well. A single condition bloodied sounds good.

2) In the MM, they put in the monsters half hp number (the bloodied target number). It a small convenience, but if a dm is expected to run more monsters than in 3e, then every convenience is important.


As for save or dies, what they may do is save or die....eventually. For instance, finger of death doesn't kill you instantly, it applies a -5 penalty to all rolls per round for 3 rounds until your dead (unless your healed or something big and powerful). It provides an immediate effect, but the actual death happens later. That way combats can still have some length and epicness to them, but the save or die still has an effect.