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

[HeavenShallBurn]

Why are you assuming that this is a low-powered magic variant? I never mentioned anything about spellcasting power levels. My point is merely the following:

Kay, looks like I misinterpreted what you were getting at.

1) It would be nice to ditch the spell slot mechanic. Reserve feats and similar mechanics get you part of the way there; a mechanic for spinning up and using tokens or something else to generate spells each encounter gets you further. For the big booms, there are umpteen ways to base it around a success roll, so why not use that instead of slots? Sure, it's less reliable; so are attacks and skill uses.

Nothing against ditching spell slots here, I did that a long time ago. Using spell points and allowing reserve feats to operate using spell points. Though I think I'm going to see about shifting to a token-based casting system similar to one posted in the HR forum a while back. I actually prefer per-encounter balancing and an effectively unlimited number of most spells to shift from the blast-and-retreat model.

2) For those who want dangerous magic (am I going to need to put in this disclaimer each and every post I make in this thread?), a spellcasting skill check (as in EoM:ME or True Sorcery) would allow you to add that feature by enabling the use of a mishap or the like.

This is where I misinterpreted you. I thought you were saying that as a baseline all magic should be dangerous magic using a rolling to avoid mishap mechanic. I also thought you were applying your restriction in big magic to ALL spells. Now that it's cleared up I rather like most of your ideas. A slightly simplified version of them would be a step forward.

 

[ruleslawyer]

*lets out breath*

Oh thank goodness. Here I managed to tick off *three* posters whose opinions I hold in high regard!

 

[hong]

Group hug!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I agree. It would be a big step in the right direction to replace the current magic system with something similiar to that of the d20 version of Call of Cthulhu.

Oh please no. I don't want my Wiazards going mad because they cast spells. Big turn-off. That works in a game where you die, anyway, within a couple of weeks, but not in D&D.

 

[zoroaster100]

The main change I'd like to see is stronger direct damage spells, but postponement or weakening of resistances, movement abilities like flying, teleport, etherealness, etc. Also, divination should be weakened so that there is always uncertainty and easier ways of concealing the truth. And I think absolute defenses or unstoppable attacks should be avoided. So for examples, spells without saves, or spells that are generally unstoppable by creatures of appropriate CR should be avoided. I don't like the way that relatively early on spells turn medieval adventurers into flying, teleporting superheroes resistant to most environmental hazzards. I prefer more of a sword and sorcery feel which keeps environment and physical skills like climbing, jumping, hiding, etc. relevant in the game.

Spells like true seeing, mind blank and hero's feast which make creatures immune to illusion, enchantment and poison, respectively, should be avoided or weakened so they merely give strong pluses to saves or similar effects.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

The base rules should be as flexible as possible, and more or less flavor free. Let the setting books say dwarves cant me wizards for example, not the players handbook.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

For those who want dangerous magic[/b] (am I going to need to put in this disclaimer each and every post I make in this thread?), a spellcasting skill check (as in EoM:ME or True Sorcery) would allow you to add that feature by enabling the use of a mishap or the like.

Or something like the wilder's current ability. Dont have dangerous magic "always on" but let the player take the risk.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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

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 disagree back.

Restrictions are placed in most situations to prevent abusable combos or to balance extra power. Removing the restriction thus has the effect of allowing the abusable combo or giving a PC extra power. Better to have fewer restrictions and get rid of the abusable combo or extra power in the first place.

 

[apoptosis]

I think that it is pretty obvious that whatever system they make in 4e will suck for some people and others will love it. (do i win a prize for most obvious statement )

I wonder if this means that the magic system should not be standard but maybe have several optional magic systems that can cover the spectrum of options. In this regard maybe the different systems will have different power levels for those who want powerful magic and those who would rather have a game with more limited magic.

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree back.

Restrictions are placed in most situations to prevent abusable combos or to balance extra power. Removing the restriction thus has the effect of allowing the abusable combo or giving a PC extra power. Better to have fewer restrictions and get rid of the abusable combo or extra power in the first place.

Where I'd rather have the powers available for other uses than the broken combo, and just restrict or ban what's broken.

It's probably a philosophical difference. I like (and run, and play) somewhat more chaotic games than I suspect most do, and if it feels at all like I'm wearing a seatbelt it loses some appeal. Example: how lightning bolts and fireballs behave in 3e as opposed to 1e; I far prefer 1e in this case, as the results are less predictable...particularly when the caster needs to roll to aim (which should become a core rule for any spell requiring aim). Yes, you should be able to fumble with magic, just as with anything else...

Part of the fun is finding the broken combo, even if the DM rules against it later.

Lanefan