D&D 4E What Should 4e magic be like?

[Kae'Yoss]

Awful maybe as compared to Paladuim fantasy but not as compared to 3.5

It seems clear that you don't like the new D&D, and we don't like the old D&D. So we'll simply keep playing the new D&D, you keep playing the old.

But the trend goes away from restrictions, and it's extremely unlikely that they'll do a U-turn and return to the Old Times where the rules made campaign decisions. After all, if people (or campaign settings) want restrictions, they can always put them into place. Like Midnight where good characters can't be legates (simply because the only god available is the Foe) and in Rokugan, Samurai/Shugenja combinations are unheard-of.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'd also like to see the potential for spells to fail or have mishaps. The wayward apprentice who attempts a spell outside his reach is a staple of fantasy. So is someone getting stuck in a polymorph spell, or what have you. Theres little chance of that happening outside of fiat in D&D.

Personally, I don't like that sort of thing. It could work as an optional rule - but not as a rule about magic, but a general rule. If you can mess up magic, there should be a chance to mess up attacks and skill checks, too. Apprentices turn themselves into toads, fighters turn themselves into cripples, and a tumbler tumbles down the stairs.

In essence kill the "D&D day"

After seeing a warlock and two swordsages in action (in addition to all those rogues, fighters, and other characters who don't have to track their powers), I like that idea more and more.

 

[Arkhandus]

Baaah. I disagree that spell slots and Vancian-esque casting is complicated for newbies. It involves less/smaller math too. I've never known a single new D&Der, not even myself, to have had any problem understanding the concept of spell slots for casters. I also don't see the reason for peoples' hate of the arcane/divine divide; I don't know where it's ever been a problem area or made no sense; the gods work in mysterious ways! Hermetic mages do not!

MP systems may be what console and computer games use for simplicity's sake, but that doesn't mean they're better than D&D's style of slot-based magic. I'd prefer D&D magic be made a bit more Vancian rather than less, if we had to choose. I don't want the Indistinguishable 25th Generic Video Game To Tabletop RPG, I want D&D.

Really all you might need for cutting down on the gads of spell slots a high-level caster has, would be to change how many are received. Instead of X 0-level slots, Y 1st-level slots, Z 2nd-level slots, etc., you'd have A primary slots, B secondary slots, C tertiary slots, and maybe D auxillery slots, or whatever. Your caster level in any given class would dictate your number of slots with that class, and how they're divided up. So a wizard of anywhere from 10th to 20th level would probably have the same number of slots and in the same configuration; 4 primary, 4 secondary, 4 tertiary, and 4 auxillery (or not). They'd prepare 16 (or 12) spells per day; 4 of their highest available level, 4 of their next-highest, and 4 lower-level spells (or 4 of the next-next-highest and 4 lower-level). At low levels they'd only have primary and secondary slots (for 1st and 0-level spells); once they gain access to 2nd or 3rd-level spells, they'd get tertiary slots; then once they gain access to some other levels, either 3rd, 4th, or 5th, they'd gain some auxillery slots perhaps.


......of course, I still want Psionics to be in the 4th edition core rules, as a distinctly different system from the magic system. But then, I want it to more closely resemble 2nd Edition psionics with better balance and more refined rules (probably 3-4 tiers of psionic power rather than just devotions and sciences); and made to work easily enough with various flavors of psionic description, be they Eberronic dreamscape-related powers, pseudo-Eastern philosophic manifestations, or psuedo-scientific powers derived from the mind and body alone. I want the book to include two or three different names for each power and discipline, to represent the breadth of philosophies that can give rise to psionics among different cultures, so people don't get misled by thinking it's purely a psuedo-science thing and doesn't belong in their fantasy game.

(.....Of course, I'd like to see magic spells get a similar treatment name-wise, getting at least second set of names representing a more Eastern style of magic, to support Oriental Adventures material being released later and without the bull**** from folks about "OA isn't core! OA sucks! I don't want your ninjas and monks and cr** in my D&D! You suck for liking OA in D&D, and should feel bad!")

And I want power points to be called Psionic Strength Points again. We already have a term that uses PP as its short-hand, platinum pieces, and I'd rather not abbreviate something as 'pp' anyway. And I want psionic powers to require maintenance costs again darnit, just cuz I do and they make sense (since psi isn't magic and wouldn't operate on magic's funky laws that make spells last so long at no extra cost from the caster).

I vastly dislike 3.5's changes to psionics that make it just a wierd and stupid variant magic, with absurd crystal fetishes and powers-that-duplicate-magic-spells-that-really-shouldn't-ever-be-doable-with-psionics. Crystals only fit with psionics as a convenient storage/focusing medium! They should not be the basis of manifestations themselves! Psionics should not be warping reality on any level comparable to Wishes and Miracles! Psionics do not resurrect the dead! Etc. Psychoportation, Clairsentience, and Metapsionics/Metacreativity of the sorts used in 2nd Edition and 3.0E are not much of a stretch, and thus acceptable, believeable as a function of some psionic abilities. 3.5 psionic drek is not.

I'm still on the fence about 'psionic focus' but definitely don't think it appropriate that so many psionic feats and metapsionic abilities now rely exclusively on it. Just stupid.

*shuffles away while grumbling and raving like an angry old codger four times his own age*

 

[Imp]

I've thought for a while that a pretty neat mage could be built out of the warlock and UA's incantation rules. Incantations are neat – but, I don't use them, because it involves me having to make up spells! Hard. Headache-making.

There should be a cap on active buffs. Like, three at a time. The only thing is, this can lead to silliness:

Evil Archmage: "Once I enchant my bruiser minion he will be UNSTOPPABLE! I cast bull's strength on the bruiser."

Good guy's 3rd-level cohort #1: "I cast fox's cunning on the bruiser."

Good guy's 3rd-level cohort #2: "I cast eagle's splendor on the bruiser."

Evil Archmage: "Son of a-"

 

[Kunimatyu]

MP systems may be what console and computer games use for simplicity's sake, but that doesn't mean they're better than D&D's style of slot-based magic.

I'm not making a value judgement on which is better. I'm just saying that MP is simpler and more widely understood - therefore, using MP instead of slots provides the lowest barrier to entry, and gets new people into the hobby. New people means D&D remains profitable and doesn't disappear.

It's really as simple as that. You can even replicate a "Vancian" caster with MP, you just force them to spend all of their MP at the beginning of the day preparing spells, and give them a few more bonus feats/skills to compensate for the loss in flexibility.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Well, going into a direction and actually being there are two very different things. Distance is as important as direction. I prefer choices over restrictions. You could hardly say that classes are purely cosmetical now.

With what WotC has put out so far...I'd say we are a five foot step away.

The thing is: even if every class could do everything right now, it's not just about what you can do, but how good you're at it. So the wizard can only cast so many spells but the warlock can cast his stuff as often as he wants? Sure, but The wizard's stuff is so much more potent. If I have the choice between being blasted by some warlock guy with his 9d6 utterdark blast round after round (until I off him) or that wizard with his 32d6 meteor shower (followed by a quickened 20d6 cone of cold), I'll take (on) the warlock every day of the week.

I don't remember monk being able to swing rapiers or monks having Psionics as a class abilities. When did Wizards say all classes can do everything?

Restrictions are bad.

Next D&D book from WotC: Complete Gestalt, now with no dead levels.

I'd rather say that with restrictions, you have to think about the character in the wrong ways. "I want do X, so I MUST play this class - only available for those races, so the cool dwarven spellhurler I thought of is right out".

one of my favorite characters in AD&D was a monk, but was mot a shaolin martial art monk, rather a Fryer Tuck type of monk. I took the martial Art Monk class, but played it as Fryer tuck. It was a City which was ruled by the Church and he was picked to be a sort of 'secret Police' which is why he was trained in unarmed combat.

Funny thing is, if I where to bring him into 3.5 he would have to be a Monk/Paladin/Cleric to do some of the things he did in AD&D.

Restrictions won't prevent people from powergaming. And a "gestalt fighter/sorcerer with infinite spells per day who power attacks x4 a greatsword with True Strike" wouldn't really a problem of to few restrictions, but of power level. You can have great characters in a restriction-free game, and completely broken ones in a game where you can only play a fighter/spellcaster combo if your character is an elf or female halfling or a guy named ted.

Ever take the time to play Core Classes 20 levels through? Even if its one level up a session, its a wonderful thing.

---Rusty

 

[JohnSnow]

I've thought for a while that a pretty neat mage could be built out of the warlock and UA's incantation rules. Incantations are neat – but, I don't use them, because it involves me having to make up spells! Hard. Headache-making.

I agree. Monte Cook drew a distinction in an article not long ago between disciplines (things the caster could do all the time) and spells (things that should only be usable infrequently). Obviously, one way to to do that is to use at-will abilities and then to have some abilities that are difficult to trigger, limited use, or both.

I've been designing a magic system for use with Iron Heroes with this as my guiding principle.

There should be a cap on active buffs. Like, three at a time. The only thing is, this can lead to silliness:

Evil Archmage: "Once I enchant my bruiser minion he will be UNSTOPPABLE! I cast bull's strength on the bruiser."

Good guy's 3rd-level cohort #1: "I cast fox's cunning on the bruiser."

Good guy's 3rd-level cohort #2: "I cast eagle's splendor on the bruiser."

Evil Archmage: "Son of a-"

That's easily fixed, by adjusting two lines in the description of enhancement spells.

Target: One willing creature
Saving Throw: N/A

That way, any character subject to an enhancement spell may choose to ignore those effects in exchange for keeping a pre-existing one. So the bruiser just chooses not to receive the "benefit" of the spell.

 

[DungeonMaester]

I would like to see all magic done up in a similar manner to a Cleric's Domain Spells.


---Rusty

 

[ruleslawyer]

Personally, I don't like that sort of thing. It could work as an optional rule - but not as a rule about magic, but a general rule. If you can mess up magic, there should be a chance to mess up attacks and skill checks, too. Apprentices turn themselves into toads, fighters turn themselves into cripples, and a tumbler tumbles down the stairs.

There is a chance to mess up a skill check or attack. It's called rolling low.

Now I do agree that spellcasting fumbles are a bit annoying as a core rule, but why not just reduce everything to a spellcasting check? This is one of the things that could really *differentiate* D&D from a CRPG; the thrill of rolling for your spellcasting result is not easily duplicable in a computer-game spellcasting medium.

Personally, I'd love to see something like Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth be the system for 4e, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I've thought for a while that a pretty neat mage could be built out of the warlock and UA's incantation rules. Incantations are neat – but, I don't use them, because it involves me having to make up spells! Hard. Headache-making.

There should be a cap on active buffs. Like, three at a time. The only thing is, this can lead to silliness:

Evil Archmage: "Once I enchant my bruiser minion he will be UNSTOPPABLE! I cast bull's strength on the bruiser."

Good guy's 3rd-level cohort #1: "I cast fox's cunning on the bruiser."

Good guy's 3rd-level cohort #2: "I cast eagle's splendor on the bruiser."

Bruiser: "I dismiss fox's cunning and eagle's splendour."

Evil Archmage: "I cast Fist of Fury"

Bruiser: "Bring me my Long Rubber Glove "