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

[Draxo]

Unlike many people here, i love the sorcerer. I want it to stay and get some attention, they have been neglected for a long time with a blank class table with nothing given on level up. Its immature to not like something and want it gone, think on others who like it for a change. I hate wizards and wizard casting, thats not how i like my magic. I like innate magic, not scrolls and beards and pointy hats. Getting rid of the sorcerer would kill D&D for me, and ive played since 2e, Sorcerers were like a breath of air tat actually made me want to play an arcane magic using class..! Before this i just played Druids.

That being said, i would like to move to an MP system, one that serves its intended purpose. If i remember correctly, one i saw, i think on the SRD gave wizards almost as much as sorcerers, which was very wrong and silly. Wizards are already over the top, with free feats and more skill points. I would like to see an MP system that works well.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Unlike many people here, i love the sorcerer. I want it to stay and get some attention, they have been neglected for a long time with a blank class table with nothing given on level up. Its immature to not like something and want it gone, think on others who like it for a change. I hate wizards and wizard casting, thats not how i like my magic. I like innate magic, not scrolls and beards and pointy hats. Getting rid of the sorcerer would kill D&D for me, and ive played since 2e, Sorcerers were like a breath of air tat actually made me want to play an arcane magic using class..! Before this i just played Druids.

That being said, i would like to move to an MP system, one that serves its intended purpose. If i remember correctly, one i saw, i think on the SRD gave wizards almost as much as sorcerers, which was very wrong and silly. Wizards are already over the top, with free feats and more skill points. I would like to see an MP system that works well.

Actually I think the two classes should be merged back into a true Arcanist like 2e Netheril. That's what a caster should be. The books, scrolls, wands, staves, are just tools. The caster should be able to learn spells like a wizard and cast spontaneously with no penalty for losing a spellbook.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

No, by far, Gary Gygax is the most overrated designer of any game I've actually played. Hell, its my understanding that even HE doesnt play AD&D anymore. When the creator has forsaken the system, perhaps its time to consider other options than slavish devotion? If you're going to innovate, innovate. Dont regress to whats already been done. Theres plenty of older edition rules (that you admit you dont even use) for those who want no progress over 30+ years.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

You could do it when casting a spell that exceeds your spell level. Wilders have a similar ability/potential mishap when they overload themselves. If you want to play it safe, you can. If you're feeling gutsy, you can push yourself beyond your limit. Thats when potential mishaps come in (which would be the equivalent of an apprentice accidentally turning themself intoa toad).

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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-"

Willing target, problem solved.

 

[Ahrimon]

I would like to see wizards use more of an AU system. Where they spontaneously cast a number of spells per day from a limited list of spells prepared per day. So for example, (number made up) a wizard could cast 4 1st level spells from the 3 he was prepared from the 15 he knows.

For sorcerers I would like to see bonus feats in the form of reserve feats. Expand the list out and make some nifty new reserve feats. You could reduce the number of spells per day and give them a lot more reserve feats. This would essentially give them the equivilant of a bunch of spell like abilities usable as long as they don't throw their big spells for the day.

This makes the wizard more flexible while retaining the large number of known spells and gives the sorcerer more all day every day type feel.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Whatever happens, I'd like the magic system to be completely orthogonal. e.g. all spellcasting classes work from levels 0 to 9.

I don't mind too much if paladins only get some magic, but I can totally see things like that being moved to the realm of multiclassing or feats. A ranger would take a couple of druid levels. Or there's feats to get some spellcasting (Midnight works like that, and the Book of 9 Swords allows you to get some manoeuvres via feats)

Someone mentioned about not wanting more restrictions, and that it's easy to put restrictions back: I disagree.

I don't see it: Chances are that the restrictions are part of the balancing (after all, arbitrary restrictions in a ruleset rather than a campaign setting are bad design), so you'll have to change other things if you take away restrictions like that.

It's far easier on all concerned to *remove* restrictions in a given game than it is to impose them. Just ask any DM who's tried... :\

I did. Had no problems with it. Not that I want many restrictions. I think they're bad. They're crutches for those who don't want to think about their campaign's cultures and taboos. Choices are better. Choices - and consequences. Instead of saying "dwarves cannot be wizards because the rules say so", I say "dwarves aren't very fond of arcane magic, and those who practise the Art are often ostracised, or at least never chosen for more prestidious or influential positions.

On the other hand, I had anal DMs who would insist on the restrictions imposed by the game even if they made no sense, they couldn't explain why they are in their world, and the whole thing would mess up the character concept I had in mind.

So AD&D can keep its stuck-up DMs and restrictions.

I don't know about that. In the interests of making magic *different*, I can see having a system in which one has to take serious risks to get astounding results.

Why make magic different? For differece's sake? What applies to magic, with great results for great risks, can work for everything else, too. Monks can try to walk on hot embers even though they haven't practised long enough to make it safely, fighters can use difficult weapons and fighting styles they only saw, rogues can try to do a stunt that should be beyond them....

One of the things about game design is. If you want to do something differently, ask yourself why you want to do that. If the anwser is just "because", ditch the idea.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against the idea of risky magic. I'm just agains the idea that only magic can be risky.

I just wish magic was creepier and more atmospheric. All too often, magic is just too video game-y. I think it has become that way to help new people get into the game but I think magic loses something when it becomes a numbers game.

It's not easy to do it, unless you base the whole game around magic.

And I don't know about creepy. It's okay for some worlds, but not for all.

Unfortunately I don't think I'll ever get my wish.

Not in D&D. D&D has to work for many, many worlds. So the components should be fairly standard. Vanilla. Things like that would have to be done in campaign settings.

 

[Kaodi]

Merge the sorcerer and the warlock into one class, called the sorcerer. The new sorcerer uses most of the mechanics of the warlock, but most of their spells/invocations are similar or identical to lower level wizard spells in form and flavour, except of course that the sorcerer can use them unlimited times a day. Their non-spell abilities would be completely different from the warlock, no damage reduction or healing, and no fooling magic items.

Of course, if you wanted to take that a step further, allow them to use spell books (individual spells inside would each have their own caster level) to use different spells than their own, albeit more limited than their own. So, if you want to use the " explosion " spell, maybe it has a caster level of 10, while your own is 15, so when reading out of the spellbook (also a 1 round action), you only do damage as a 10th level sorcerer instead of 15th.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Unlike many people here, i love the sorcerer. I want it to stay and get some attention, they have been neglected for a long time with a blank class table with nothing given on level up.

That's its problem: It's basically just a variant wizard. A beta version. They can keep the concept of spontaneous caster that has some supernatural ancestry, but the mechanical concept - wizard who casts spontaneously with cha, loses the bonus feats and has a different spell list (and knows a couple of extra weapons) - should just be forgotten.

They had a good idea, but the execution sucked. Fortunately, we have better incarnations even now:

The Warlock evolves around a fiendish pact or supernatural ancestry, and you woulnd't confuse him with a wizard even on a murky day.

The Warmage does a better job of the spontaneous casting, and it also got some very useful class abilities.

The Beguiler is another variation on the theme, and also is more than just a wizard with one or two things changed.

The third variant is the Dread Necromancer.

Its immature to not like something and want it gone, think on others who like it for a change.

You misunderstand me: I love the sorcerer. I don't want it (the concept) gone. I (like you it seems) just want to forget this wizard variant (or must make it a sidebar for the wizard class, "you can use this also as a "ancestral wizard" - you get *these* spells known and spells per day, and use cha instead of Int for your magic.

Like you, I want the sorcerer's concept to be a real class. I don't care too much whether it will be called sorcerer, warlock, or be turned into a number of different classes (warmage, beguiler, thaumaturge, dread necromancer)

 

[ruleslawyer]

Why make magic different? For differece's sake? What applies to magic, with great results for great risks, can work for everything else, too. Monks can try to walk on hot embers even though they haven't practised long enough to make it safely, fighters can use difficult weapons and fighting styles they only saw, rogues can try to do a stunt that should be beyond them....

One of the things about game design is. If you want to do something differently, ask yourself why you want to do that. If the anwser is just "because", ditch the idea.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against the idea of risky magic. I'm just agains the idea that only magic can be risky.

Simple reason: Because why else have magic instead of just limiting characters to swinging swords and using skills?

IMHO, there is no point to having a distinct set of mechanics (in this case, magic) unless it is *different* from other game mechanics. I fully understand that it's easy enough to balance spellcasting with melee combat or skill uses simply by making its mechanics identical, but then why bother having magic at all?

So, one way to make magic different from other mechanics if you don't want to differentiate it using the current route (big booms limited times per day) is to give it a unique feel of unpredictability and danger (big booms with potentially hazardous consequences). This has the side advantage of feeding potential game flavor (making magic creepy and dangerous to be around) and of allowing designers to give mages decent combat abilities/survivability without worrying that it'll unbalance them, since they may *need* a reliable attack/defense mechanic to fall back on.