The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - about every edition of D&D

[Man in the Funny Hat]

BD&D (Holmes):
Good: Simple rules, easy to learn and play.

Bad: Perhaps just a little TOO basic since the common usage by DM's was to proceed to make it rather more detailed and complicated. Needed to deal with greater level range of characters.

Ugly: For a game that grew out of miniatures wargaming and which required use of rare (at that time) dice it now seems foolish indeed to have not made both miniatures and dice at least as widely available seperately as the game rules if not moreso.

1E:
Good: More comprehensive rules, better selection of race/class options for players. More firmly established ideas of how to run/play the game. Still fertile ground for DM's to customize rules to suit.

Bad: Even the most important/basic of rules - initiative and combat - are spread everywhere and often so badly explained that to this day they are arguable. Clunky, patchwork rules design. Game begins to break down with increasing character levels.

Ugly: Too many rules of needlessly complex design, badly designed, or of outright questionable inclusion in the first place. For all the added detail still too many gaps which were now needing to be filled in by DM's in addition to reworking other stuff. Rules bloated by hardcover supplements.

2E:
Good: Simplified a lot of 1E's worst offending rules. Great campaign settings. More prominent inclusion (albeit still optional) of a (much-needed) skill system.

Bad: Eliminated classes and races many players liked. Failed to deal at all with a great many things that had long been sources of complaint in 1E. Outrageous rules bloat with supplements. Reduced sophistication due to re-orientation towards children and deplorable bows to Political Correctness

Ugly: Gygax driven out and the eventual sad, wasteful, pathetic destruction of the company producing the game.

3E/3.5E:
Good: The ground-up reconstruction that 2E should have been. d20 system. Better balance among characters at a given level. DM tools for encounter and campaign design. 3.5 revision was generally a further improvement. New and interesting concepts such as feats and finally a skill system built into the game, not a weak structure left to be tacked on. Greater player freedom of choice. Concentration of rules upon tactical miniatures combat.

Bad: Concentration of rules upon tactical miniatures combat. The 3.5 revision not repeated with similar, additional bouts of wholesale restructuring and solidifying of rules despite the even stronger need of it as time went on due to INSANELY out-of-control bloat of optional rules from ALL sources. 3.5 revision made too soon after initial release.

Ugly: All the skills, feats, etc. mean DM prep time drastically increased even at lower levels. Too much focus on rules and unrestricted player choice shifts FAR too much control of the game away from the DM and significantly alters the tone of the game itself from shared adventures to competitive character design. Prestige classes, originally included to be a DM campaign design tool is allowed to be perverted into a munchkinism/powergaming/player entitlement.

4E:
Good: Balanced characters to a very fine degree.

Bad: Even greater focus than 3E upon tactical miniatures combat. Healing surges are a mechanic with potential, but stink from a flavor standpoint - and much other terminology stinks as well. Feels like choice of class is approaching irrelevancy if characters are deemed to have to be THAT closely balanced.

Ugly: Gutted everything I found fun and interesting about playing a spellcaster. Dragonborn and Tieflings as player races. Use of MMO character role terminology if not design. For all its color and detail the art everywhere in the game is less inspiring than ink line drawings or charcoal sketches of decades ago. Assumes use of D&D miniatures which are only available in individual, NON-random means on the secondary market. The whole thing - to ME - feels sterile and over-processed.

 

[Wik]

Oo la la! I love this sort of discussion!

BECMI D&D

The Good: Easy to make a character, loose rules imply DM fiat over "rules-lawyering", very quick and easy to GM on the fly, great classic adventures, and the Rules Cyclopedia.

The Bad: Some would say it lacks depth in terms of character building. Imbalances between party members are common (one guy would roll poorly, another would roll amazingly well, and the guy that played the elf was better than both). Some weird stuff would happen in many of the product runs.

The Ugly: There was a lot of silliness in the "known world". there was a wizard villain named "Bargle". A lot of weird monsters. Like, a lot. Also, "% Liar"...

2e

The Good: Um, only a little campaign setting called DARK SUN. Or, JAKANDOR. Or, hell, even PLANESCAPE. Really, made some of the best settings both within and without the D&D franchise. Also, the books had a great tone to them, on how to play the game - it suggested an "ignore the rules if they get in the way" approach, and also had a belief that the campaign world was more important than the rules system in the majority of the books. Many world-building books would regularly suggest you only take small portions from all the splats, to "pick and choose" a focused campaign world, as opposed to the "kitchen sink" model that is suggested nowadays. The art was generally my favourite from all the editions.

The Bad: A lot of the designers seem to forget the actual rules, so you'd have some animals with an int of 1, some with an int of 3, and some with an int of 7, all depending on who designed the critter. Ditto with morale for undead (there were some fearless skeletons who, apparently, would run in a fight). Also, the system that killed TSR.

The Ugly: The sheer scale of splatbooks. The implied sense of superiority in many of the books, when in reality, 2e was one of the poorer-designed games on the market at the time. the original blue & black colouration of the PHB and DMG. Character Kits.

3e

The Good: I could, if I so chose, make a Half-Elven, Half-Dragon Barbarian/Wizard that was an expert in the use of the Double Flail, instead of just playing a lowly human fighter.

The Bad: Far too many Half-Elven, Half-Dragon Barbarian/Wizards that were experts in the use Double Flails.

The Ugly: Apparently, there were no human fighters!

4e

The Good: It's relatively easy to GM. Has a fairly easy, codified set of rules. A bit easier to mess with the implied mechanics than 3e was. Easy to write new stuff for as a GM. Character Builder can make PC Generation easier.

The Bad: Character creation is the same regardless of character class. There is a certain way to "build" characters, such that if you don't deliberately focus on two or three stats in building your character, you will create a poor character. The game is decidedly "Gamist", so much so that it can be very hard to run a game that is "simulationist".

The Ugly: SKill Challenges. The math is wonky at places, and wotc issues fixes not as errata, but as new "feat taxes". Also, adds yet one more edition to war over.

 

[jmucchiello]

This (and the other boxed set post) are very well written. I've lamented the lack of a boxed-set that has a rule book that is needed by "advanced" players since before 3.5.

Circle One Supplements

Soon after the release of the core products, I would release my first circle of supplements. This would consist of somewhere between 2 and 6 hardback books that put back the 'missing' elements of the core.

Circle Three Supplements

This would be everything setting-specific. It would also include pre-generated adventures.

I wonder if it would be "better" to combine these "circles". By putting "all" the missing bits into Circle one you force a specific style of play that setting-specific supplements have to work against. I'm not sure exactly how to do this cleanly but it would be a cool way to go.

Of course I'm thinking more along the lines of setting diversity found between for example Greyhawk vs Dark Sun vs Al Quadim vs KaraTur, not Greyhawk vs Forgotten Realms vs Eberron. This way you could have "Oriental Adventures" without having to explain how to integrate the Bard into it.

Levels

Good breakdown though I might go 1-4 for beginner.

The Core Rulebook would include only the first two tiers: Beginner and Expert. Rules for Commander and Master play would be deferred until later.

That would be VERY big in the boxset. Keeping that down to 250 pages would be hard depending on how much "How to play/DM the game" is included.

Characters gain a talent at every level, chosen from any of the trees to which they have access. Characters gain access to trees due to race, class, and (optionally) alignment(s). Additionally, there would be a feat granting access to a new talent of the player's choice. (There would also be 'prestige trees', available only to higher-level characters. These would replace the 3e "Prestige Classes".) When the character increases in level, the player may select a new talent from any of the trees to which he has access, regardless of what class he has just gained the level in.

This is awesome. I wanted to start writing (and writing for and playing in) this system as soon as I read this. Are you working on it?

Would you "convert" vancian magic to a talent tree? It would allow mages to select when they advance in level versus when they learn more spells. I could see there being 9 talent trees for spells (each opening at a fixed level) and each tree level gives more and spell access at that level: First tier of the tree gives you access to 1 spell, 2nd tier 2, 3rd tier 3, etc. So do you take one 3rd level spell at 6th level or 3 2nd level spells? It's up to you.

Of course switching to/combining with an Arcana Unearther/Evolved style of spell system would also be good.

Multiple attacks (both from high BAB and other sources) would be gone. Instead, characters would get extra dice of damage in their pool, and would be able to assign that damage to a target or targets as they wish (splitting would be less efficient).

An excellent compromise to the actions per turn issue versus the "I wants to rolls many dices like the mage does"

 

[Wik]

Hey, JM. If you wait a few weeks, the RPG design contest is about to start, and you can take a stab at a first draft for that new system. It starts in, um, less than three weeks.

 

[Ariosto]

OD&D Other than its historical position, I can't really think of anything about this game that I'd call a good point. ... Really; it barely qualifies as a roleplaying game at all by today's standards.

3e Too many D&Disms retained.

No comment on 4e. I don't know enough about it to speak intelligently here.

There might still be "too many D&Disms" for you -- at any rate, the name Dungeons & Dragons is still on the covers.

][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][

As to "an "alternate Dungeons & Dragons" rules set that combines the best of every edition", I would suggest that it is a personal thing! Dave Hargrave's The Arduin Grimoire is different from Chis Gonnerman's Basic Fantasy Role Playing Game is different from Matthew Finch's Swords & Wizardry is different from the Troll Lords' Castles & Crusades is different from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved is different from Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes is different from Erik Mona's Pathfinder ...

So, I think the first The Good would be:

It is YOUR game! The scope is limited only by your imagination, and any "rule" is just an example of what made sense to someone sometime.

Trying to be all things to everyone is likely to rack up more The Bad the more you follow the path of tight coupling and front-loading as in WotC's games. Everyone does not like everything, so, "Here's the stew; pick out whatever it is that gives you hives" is not so great.

It would sort of hard simultaneously to emulate the 3E "throw out your old material and start all over" and the 4E "throw out your old material and start all over", wouldn't it? The essence of each is to make the old "obsolete".

The only way I think you can really combine the significantly different games is the way it was done originally: with a simple base set and supplements of optional components without a lot of interdependencies. Think modular, not monolithic!

The temptation from a commercial standpoint is to make each supplement a "must buy" for as many players as possible. Unless you're WotC or Paizo, though, I don't think you're looking at much money in this.

If you put the players' interests first, then more narrowly targeted, and probably smaller, supplements seem meet.

When you get into mixing and matching for your base set, you'll need to sort out some fundamental concepts. For instance ... You know the saying that 3E breaks down at high levels? Well, so do 2E and 1E. The Original set had magic-user spells only up to 6th level (vs. 9th), only 5th (vs. 7th) for clerics; the combat table topped out around 16th level, the saving throws at 13th for clerics and fighters; data on experience points, hit dice and spell casting likewise petered out. Magic weapons and armor were pretty much limited to +3 -- albeit in a context in which a top-level fighter had only +12 versus a first-level character (and AC did not likewise change, so hits became very frequent indeed, keeping high-hit-point fights from dragging on too long).

Now, here's an interesting point: The high-level stuff added in Supplement I was meant mainly to provide NPCs able (even single-handedly) to take on PC parties, villains with powers appropriate to world-shaking threats. Top PCs in the Greyhawk campaign at the time were, I believe, just at "name level".

The Moldvay Basic - Cook / Marsh Expert combo goes up to level 14, and adds some spells, but sticks with the original ranges of spell levels. The Mentzer revision goes up to 36th, "stretching" some aspects (such as thief abilities) a lot and others (such as spells) not so much. In 4E, things are set up for a lot of "leveling up" (30 levels), with small increments of added power. One might in similar fashion stretch the 14 levels of BX into about twice as many, spreading the spells and other benefits among level-specific lists -- so, e.g., a 10th-level cleric casts 10th-level spells.

 

[Runestar]

I liked that 3e actually made an attempt to make monster races playable as PCs, never mind that sucked and tend to result in monster PCs being too weak for their ECLs.

In hindsight, the savage progressions concept is quite primitive and unwieldy, but a bold first step nonetheless, IMO.

 

[Mercurius]

Thanks for all of the replies--this is some really great stuff and I'm sad that I've been so busy that I haven't been able to participate (beyond starting the thread!). I will try within the next day or so.

 

[delericho]

I wonder if it would be "better" to combine these "circles". By putting "all" the missing bits into Circle one you force a specific style of play that setting-specific supplements have to work against. I'm not sure exactly how to do this cleanly but it would be a cool way to go.

I can see strong arguments both ways. Certainly, I think Dark Sun (for example) would probably work better with a dedicated Dark Sun Player's Handbook (with Psionics in but Paladins out), rather than have to work against an existing PHB.

On the other hand, I would be wary of putting out many re-skinned PHBs, as they would likely end up competing against one another. Or people would object to buying the same material over and over again. Or something. (Plus, I do think there is value in there being a baseline game broadly used in all settings, and I suspect a single Core Rulebook is probably a bit limited in scope to provide that.)

On the other other hand, I would be very strong tempted to do at least a "young adult" version of the game, drawing influence from the likes of Eragon, Harry Potter, Pokemon and the like, rather than the Conan, Lankhmar and Lord of the Rings of 'classic' D&D.

Good breakdown though I might go 1-4 for beginner.

That would be VERY big in the boxset. Keeping that down to 250 pages would be hard depending on how much "How to play/DM the game" is included.

I'm hopeful it could be done - both "Star Wars Saga Edition" and the "Wheel of Time" d20 RPG managed a one-book version of the game with more than 4 classes and more than 20 levels. Of course, it would require that an awful lot of options be deferred, which is unfortunate.

I don't think going for levels 1-4 would really work, because I think it's probably really important that the boxed set use the same core rulebook as the 'real' game, and I suspect the player base would revolt if the initial offering was that limited. Based on the example of 4e, it looks like parsing out "the core" will generate a lot of protest, but will eventually be accepted... but I would guess there is a fairly hard limit on how far you can take that.

This is awesome. I wanted to start writing (and writing for and playing in) this system as soon as I read this. Are you working on it?

Sadly, no. I'm never going to have the time for something like that, and even if I did I think there are other things I would much rather do (even just in the RPG area). Besides, throwing together a few ideas for the core of a system is probably quite easy - the difficult bit is probably in filling in all the detail, keeping it balanced, play-testing...

Would you "convert" vancian magic to a talent tree? It would allow mages to select when they advance in level versus when they learn more spells. I could see there being 9 talent trees for spells (each opening at a fixed level) and each tree level gives more and spell access at that level: First tier of the tree gives you access to 1 spell, 2nd tier 2, 3rd tier 3, etc. So do you take one 3rd level spell at 6th level or 3 2nd level spells? It's up to you.

My initial thought would be that at 1st level, Wizards would gain access to the "Wizardry" talent tree, the base talent of which allows them to cast spells in a 'Wizard' style, and gives access to 0-level and 1st level spells (and a fixed set of spells known). Advanced talents in this tree would probably by specialist powers, metamagic powers, or perhaps bonded item/familiar powers.

The 2nd-level talent tree for Wizards would be the "Additional Spells" talent, that automatically adds a bunch of new spells to the spellbook (with a fixed set for the base talent, but after that they could basically choose a number of spells of any level they can cast).

And then the 3rd-level talent tree would be "Advanced Spellcasting", which is the one that allows them to cast higher-level spells.

So, as you surmised, the player would be able to choose when to gain access to new spell levels, whether to expand his repetoire of spells, or whether to advance his knowledge in other areas.

As regards spellcasting itself: Firstly, I would be inclined to introduce a Mana pool used whenever any character wants to "do something impossible". So, that same pool would be used when casting a spell, when the Barbarian enters a rage, when the Fighter uses a magic item, or when the Monk wants to dodge crossbow bolts in a Neo-like manner. I know this is an almost heretical notion in D&D, but I haven't been able to come up with a better mechanic.With a "short rest", the pool would reset to half the character's maximum. In an encounter, the PC can take a special action to increase the pool.

For Wizard-style spellcasting, at each "short rest" the character memorises any 6* spells. These can then be used on a per-encounter basis (subject to spending mana). (Again, I would include an action to regain an expended spell.)

* Obviously, that number 6 is subject to change. However, my understanding from reading "Tales of the Dying Earth" is that that is actually quite true to the source material - Vance's most powerful Wizards only ever had a handful of spells memorised at a time, rather than the dozens of a 20th level D&D Wizard. Also, I don't recall it ever being mentioned how long Vance's Wizards actually took to memorise new spells, so I think that works.

For Sorcerer-style spellcasting, the character would not have to memorise spells, and could cast them all at-will. However, the Sorcerer would both have far fewer spells than the Wizard and also gain slower access to higher-level spells (via pre-requisites on the talents).

I'm not sure of the best way to handle Cleric-style spellcasting. Is it better to have a vastly cut down spell-list, and give the Cleric access to all of them (as in BD&D), or to have a longer spell-list but have them learn and memorise spells like a Wizard, of have that longer spell-list but have them know only a small subset like the Sorcerer? (I am certain, however, that the 3e model of "massive spell-list and the Cleric can use them all" is a bad idea. Too many options, and an ever-expanding list of options, make running a Cleric as anything other than a heal-bot very challenging, and nigh-impossible for a new player.)

(Speaking of Clerics and healing: I would be inclined to remove the healing spells entirely, and instead make that class function a separate talent in its own right. Or something.)

A couple of my more controversial thoughts regarding spells and spell-casting:

I would be inclined to bring all of the quick-casting and combat spells forward into the first 5-7 spell levels, and make all the slow-casting and non-combat spells into rituals. (The rituals would then probably be found in the "1st Circle" supplements, rather than the Core Rulebook, with one exception.) So, things like summoning spells, long-term enchantments, most illusions, scrying, and the like would become rituals, while even the most powerful destructive spells (meteor swarm or elemental storm) would be reduced in level or eliminated.

Secondly, I would have several 'families' of spells that can be cast at any level. Basically, you could cast a 1st level globe of flame, a 3rd level fireball or a 7th level thermonuclear annihilation as essentially the same spell. (This is probably key in a mana-based system - the Wizard might need a spell and only have a few mana to play with, or he might want to wait, marshall his reserves, and then unleash hell.)

Thirdly, every spell should either require an attack roll (vs full AC) to take effect, or should grant a saving throw. (Alternately, I might steal the 'defences' from SWSE or 4e. I'm torn on that matter.) Oh, and "save or die" should probably be removed.

Fourth, I'd be inclined to rule that a character can only have a single spell effect active on him at a time. Thus, at a stroke we eliminate the nightmare that is caused by hitting a high-level character with dispel magic, and also a large part of the nightmare of stacking. (A character under a 'positive' effect who then receives another 'positive' effect could choose which to keep. Otherwise, the highest level effect takes precedence. Which means that a high-level heroes feast or similar would provide protection against a low-level bane, but I don't think that's too much of a problem really.)

With magic items, I would basically have four categories, broadly being: trinkets, standard items, signature items, artefacts.

Trinkets would be things like potions, scrolls and wands. These are basically single- (or limited-) use items that let the character do something they probably couldn't do otherwise. Pick them up, spend the mana, and use them.

Standard items would basically be familiar to existing D&D players, and would basically be similar to most 4e magic items: a nice boost to the character, but probably nothing special. The only slight wrinkly I would introduce is that an item would need to be 'claimed' before it could be used. (Claiming an item would be a trivial ritual, and the only one in the Core Rulebook, that basically consists of announcing "and the staff is mine!") So, here we have our swords +1, slippers of spider climbing, and the like.

Signature items would be similar to Weapons of Legacy - items that grow along with the character, and are considered almost a part of the character. These would basically be immune to being lost/stolen/destroyed, either because of an outright immunity to such things, because they "always somehow find their way back", or because the character just happens to call whatever sword he's using by that same name (like the Grey Mouser). These are actually probably best handled with talent trees, being innate to the character rather than the item. (Obviously, this category would include Aragorn's Anduril, Sturm's sword and armour, Hank the Ranger's bow, and so forth.)

Finally, there are the artefacts, which I would actually expand to include all items that are both unique and wondrous, rather than just the very powerful items. These are handled very well in 4e, so I'd probably just ape much of that. Although I might be inclined to suggest that all artefacts should have an ego and intelligence of some sort.

(Hmm, perhaps artefacts should have one or two powers that anyone can use, and then a number of more powerful powers that can only be used once they're 'claimed'. And so, we have items like The One Ring, that are always there, always begging to be claimed...)

Or at least, those are the ideas I've been bouncing around for spells and magic for this theoretical system I'm definitely not working on.

 

[jmucchiello]

I can see strong arguments both ways. Certainly, I think Dark Sun (for example) would probably work better with a dedicated Dark Sun Player's Handbook (with Psionics in but Paladins out), rather than have to work against an existing PHB.

Remember the boxset will cover combat and skills. Maybe a smaller core PHB containing advanced combat, skills, feats, adventuring, mass combat rules etc. And a "tome of magic" contain just spells and magic item. And a then a DMG/MM combo

There are so many ways to slice it.

On the other hand, I would be wary of putting out many re-skinned PHBs, as they would likely end up competing against one another. Or people would object to buying the same material over and over again.

Obviously the goal would be to split stuff up so that overlapping requirements is minimized.

On the other other hand, I would be very strong tempted to do at least a "young adult" version of the game, drawing influence from the likes of Eragon, Harry Potter, Pokemon and the like, rather than the Conan, Lankhmar and Lord of the Rings of 'classic' D&D.

Interesting as a base....

I'm hopeful it could be done - both "Star Wars Saga Edition" and the "Wheel of Time" d20 RPG managed a one-book version of the game with more than 4 classes and more than 20 levels. Of course, it would require that an awful lot of options be deferred, which is unfortunate.

That's for material people are already (supposedly) familiar with. And they did not have a lot of magic abilities. Through 3rd edition the wizard/cleric/etc spell list has always be 1/2 the PHB.

the difficult bit is probably in filling in all the detail, keeping it balanced, play-testing...

That's what open design is for.

Wizards

Do you own/have access to Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved? That magic system is so nice.

Mana pool (combined with Action Points combined with 4e style rests)

That's an interesting mishmash you have there. Did you realize that you had folded action points into your mana pool?

I'm not sure of the best way to handle Cleric-style spellcasting.

2e did this the right way but people weren't ready for it in 1990. They are ready for it now I think. Monte's AU/AE closed the circle and showed how to do it going forward.

In case you haven't seen it, there are the normal 0-9th level spells. There is a single list of spells shared by all casters. Spells belong to (i forget the term) groups like fire, water, psionic, nature, etc. Spells are further divided by "complexity" into 3 groups: simple, complex and unique. To have a spell "on your available spells list" you need a class ability or feat granting access. For example, you might give druid access to all simple and complex nature spells and simple access to fire spells. If they want more they can take feats to gain all simple of certain kind or one complex spell or one unique spell.

I would be inclined to bring all of the quick-casting and combat spells forward into the first 5-7 spell levels, and make all the slow-casting and non-combat spells into rituals.

Not a big fan of this. I like utility spells taking up spaces that could be used for combat because I like seeing someone use a utility spell during combat in an innovative way. As for moving spells down, I actually think it is damage that needs to be cranked up. 5d6 fireballs are the suck at 5th level when folks have so many hit points. In 1e that 13 average damage kills most 5th level wizards, 50% of 5th level thieves and a decent number of clerics. Today, targets just adjust their hit points and keep fighting as if a raging inferno of flame didn't just surround them.

Secondly, I would have several 'families' of spells that can be cast at any level. Basically, you could cast a 1st level globe of flame, a 3rd level fireball or a 7th level thermonuclear annihilation as essentially the same spell.

The mechanics of this depend entirely on how you make management of the mana pool work. After all, if there are no spell slots by level then the level of the spell shouldn't really manner if you pump mana into the spell freely.

One way to mitigate this is by saying you can feed any amount of mana into a spell but the level of spell is a choke against the speed in which you can do so. So a first level direct damage spell can do 200d6 damage if you spend 200 rounds pumping. A 5th level spell only takes 40 rounds to reach that same ridiculous level of damage. (And there's a skill check of some kind to gather mana for more rounds than you CON score or something like that so that someone isn't gather mana all the time and all fights start with 2000d6 attacks.)

Thirdly, every spell should either require an attack roll (vs full AC) to take effect, or should grant a saving throw. (Alternately, I might steal the 'defences' from SWSE or 4e. I'm torn on that matter.) Oh, and "save or die" should probably be removed.

As long as you don't intend to remove all "save or cry" effects. I think the removing every single save or die effect makes the magic system wishy-washy. Magic should be able to disable opponents is one shot. That's why it's called magic. (On the flip side, a sword should be able to disable opponents in one shot, too. But changing that changes the game completely.)

Fourth, I'd be inclined to rule that a character can only have a single spell effect active on him at a time.

Simpler, certainly. But I prefer my game more complicated than that. Arguably magic item imbue spell effects so already you make magic useless if the person has a powerful magic item. There are ways to reduce the problems of ongoing effects without nerfing magic so much.

With magic items, I would basically have four categories, broadly being: trinkets, standard items, signature items, artefacts.

Not bad.

Or at least, those are the ideas I've been bouncing around for spells and magic for this theoretical system I'm definitely not working on.

Me neither.

 

[delericho]

Do you own/have access to Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved? That magic system is so nice.

I do. It's been a very long time since I read it, though.

That's an interesting mishmash you have there. Did you realize that you had folded action points into your mana pool?

The thought had occurred to me. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not: on one hand, it allows the game to use one mechanic where two would have sufficed; on the other it 'overloads' a single mechanic to do multiple things, which might not be ideal.

Not a big fan of this. I like utility spells taking up spaces that could be used for combat because I like seeing someone use a utility spell during combat in an innovative way.

Sure. I didn't mean to turn all 'utility' spells into rituals. However, there are quite a lot of the existing spells that would be better suited for life as rituals, because they have very long casting times, they more traditionally involve collaborative casting, or they simply don't have any combat application (meaning that the adventuring Wizard will either have a scroll to hand, or the party will have to stop and rest for a day so that the Wizard can prepare the spell to cast).

This is distinct from utility spells that might be of use in combat, with a creative player. Those I would leave as spells.

(However, I do understand that greatly reducing the number of slots the Wizard has will have the effect of causing them to prepare only the 'obvious' combat spells, which is an issue. On the other hand, in 3e I have very rarely seen Wizards preparing or casting those utility spells in a creative way anyway - they have typically had enough slots that they can stick with the 'obvious' spells throughout, and when they run out the party rests anyway.)

As for moving spells down, I actually think it is damage that needs to be cranked up. 5d6 fireballs are the suck at 5th level when folks have so many hit points. In 1e that 13 average damage kills most 5th level wizards, 50% of 5th level thieves and a decent number of clerics. Today, targets just adjust their hit points and keep fighting as if a raging inferno of flame didn't just surround them.

Certainly, a Wizard using his most powerful spell in its most maximised form should often be an encounter-ender. Of course, I was planning on sneakily setting up the system so that that "big gun" doesn't become the automatic choice for starting every encounter as well.

As long as you don't intend to remove all "save or cry" effects. I think the removing every single save or die effect makes the magic system wishy-washy. Magic should be able to disable opponents is one shot. That's why it's called magic.

Ah, part two of my genius scheme for handling save-or-dies:

Most spells of this sort would automatically apply some condition to the character (for example, flesh to stone would automatically apply a slow effect). Additionally, the spell would do damage to the character's mana pool (with the save reducing this by half - and some spells would do the damage in one shot, while others would do so over time). If the character is reduced to 0 mana, they suffer the full effect of the spell (petrification, death, whatever).

Some other spells, such as hold person would instead apply their condition to the character with the "save ends" qualifier.

There are two weaknesses with this approach that I can see: one is that it overloads the mana pool mechanic with yet another application - in addition to being used to "do impossible things" (and, as you said, Action Points) it also represents the character's resistance to arcane attacks. The second is that it means that a character who over-exerts himself magically is suddenly much more vulnerable to arcane attack himself (this is the same problem that Jedi faced in the first version of d20 Star Wars).

Still, I do think it deals with the big problems of save-or-dies (and also save-or-sucks): there would be no more "all or nothing" spells of this type, characters aren't simply eliminated from the game by a single dice roll (at the very least it's two - save and damage - which is equivalent to melee). Also, it means that these spells can remain a part of the game, and still have powerful effects.

Simpler, certainly. But I prefer my game more complicated than that. Arguably magic item imbue spell effects so already you make magic useless if the person has a powerful magic item. There are ways to reduce the problems of ongoing effects without nerfing magic so much.

You're probably right here. Certainly, in the case of magic items, my intent was that they would either provide a permanent modifier to the character (and so not be considered as the one ongoing effect), or they require activation and provide a temporary ongoing effect (exactly as a spell). Still, it's obviously an area where more thought would be required.