Why Changes were made in 4e
- Thread starter Majoru Oakheart
- Start date
Detection of Evil and/or Good: "It is important to make a distinction between character alignment and some powerful force of evil or good when this detection function is considered. In general, only a know alignment spell will determine the evil or good a character holds within. It must be a great evil or a strong good to be detected." (Dungeon Masters Guide, 1st edition, page 60)
The alignment scheme in 4e is sort of like that in the original D&D set. That had Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic as the main stances; Anti-Clerics additionally were Evil, and Evil High Priests were Chaotic and Evil (Patriarch-level Clerics being Lawful and non-Evil).
"You, as Dungeon Master, must establish the meanings and boundaries of law and order as opposed to chaos and anarchy, as well as the divisions between right and good as opposed to hurtful and evil." (DMG, 1st ed., p. 24)
As RC noted, the old spell-casting methods did not presume a certain number of encounters per day. "If someone has the ability to cast 3 spells a day, they are unlikely to be able to survive even two battles in a day" is an utterly bizarre notion.
Between what was actually changed in 3e and how people came to mistake their house rules for The Way It Is, a lot of things got a bit askew. That said, I think the "balance" reasoning behind the powers system is pretty clear.
The alignment scheme in 4e is sort of like that in the original D&D set. That had Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic as the main stances; Anti-Clerics additionally were Evil, and Evil High Priests were Chaotic and Evil (Patriarch-level Clerics being Lawful and non-Evil).
"You, as Dungeon Master, must establish the meanings and boundaries of law and order as opposed to chaos and anarchy, as well as the divisions between right and good as opposed to hurtful and evil." (DMG, 1st ed., p. 24)
As RC noted, the old spell-casting methods did not presume a certain number of encounters per day. "If someone has the ability to cast 3 spells a day, they are unlikely to be able to survive even two battles in a day" is an utterly bizarre notion.
Between what was actually changed in 3e and how people came to mistake their house rules for The Way It Is, a lot of things got a bit askew. That said, I think the "balance" reasoning behind the powers system is pretty clear.
Yes, the project apparently was all about producing "a game about" those and other things this set of designers had in mind. That is not to my mind the same as producing a revised edition of the Dungeons & Dragons rules set.
Remathilis
Legend
I really think they made each choice in an attempt to "better" the game.
I think the incompatibility with OGL is, what we'd call, an "fortunate" accident. It allowed them to redefine D&D as "their" game without having to face the OGC clone-games. It also allowed them to release the GSL and sidestep the previous OGL community and "reboot" D&D 3 party support to what it was supposed to be: modules and monster books.
I think Vancian magic could have been done well if it had been more Vancian.
The big problems with vancian magic as done by D&D are
1. If the wizard doesn't have very many spells, he runs out of them way before he runs out of rounds of combat. Then he's got nothing he can do well. He sucks at using a crossbow, and he probably won't invest resources in getting better at it because those resources will be wasted when he reaches higher levels and encounters problem 2.
2. When the wizard has more spells than expected rounds of combat, he can afford to memorize spells to cover just about every contingency with an "I win button" spell. This ironically makes combat even shorter.
This could be fixed by giving wizards something worthwhile to do when not casting spells. And then making that something worthwhile stay worthwhile for their entire careers. You'd also need to reduce the number of spells per day drastically.
The result might look something like a 4e fighter who's daily powers are all magical effects.
I don't know if WotC should have done that. But it would probably work mechanically. They could still do it now, in fact. But they probably won't because in 4e Thou Shalt Not Mix Power Sources.
The big problems with vancian magic as done by D&D are
1. If the wizard doesn't have very many spells, he runs out of them way before he runs out of rounds of combat. Then he's got nothing he can do well. He sucks at using a crossbow, and he probably won't invest resources in getting better at it because those resources will be wasted when he reaches higher levels and encounters problem 2.
2. When the wizard has more spells than expected rounds of combat, he can afford to memorize spells to cover just about every contingency with an "I win button" spell. This ironically makes combat even shorter.
This could be fixed by giving wizards something worthwhile to do when not casting spells. And then making that something worthwhile stay worthwhile for their entire careers. You'd also need to reduce the number of spells per day drastically.
The result might look something like a 4e fighter who's daily powers are all magical effects.
I don't know if WotC should have done that. But it would probably work mechanically. They could still do it now, in fact. But they probably won't because in 4e Thou Shalt Not Mix Power Sources.
Back in the day in various 1E AD&D games I played in, the low level wizards frequently occupied themselves with tasks like: holding a lantern, counting up the number of monsters/badguys, scanning the background for hidden monsters/badguys or traps, etc ... This was especially the case when the DM was not using any miniatures for combat. With respect to spells, the low level wizards frequently saved them for attacks on the big bosses or larger monsters.
LostSoul
Adventurer
I think this has more to do with the gaming culture and how DMs run their games, and not as much about the rules.
Actually the Pelor example feels like something is wrong in the book. They state that Unaligned can have clerics of anything but good must be good, lawful good must be lawful good. Then they take Pelor, a Good aligned god, and say they can be eitehr Good or Unaligned. Which goes against what they just said about Good aligned gods. So either you can be one step removed from your god's alignment or it has to match exactly. Or worship someone unaligned and don't worry about it
When the unwashed masses are all basically unaligned, you have to take a reasonably strong stance in life to even come up as Good or Evil. It seems like normal Evil you have a much better chance of working together with a minimum of backstabbing. Chaotic Evil won't ever work together, unless you have them in enough terror of you I suppose. Lawful good is completely devoted to both law and good, whereas Good will cut some corners that aren't exactly legal if they feel they need to, but they're still mostly good.
EATherrian
First Post
Whenever I played a Magic User I always went in with dagger or staff when the spells were dry. Darts if I felt it was too much danger to get in close. I never really felt useless, but I seem to be in the minority.
A
amerigoV
Guest
This also led to having spells at each level that were clearly more powerful than the others. From a combat perspective, everyone had MM, Sleep, Web, Invisibility, Haste (etc). In early editions, the wizard did not have that many slots, thus these Power Spells were critical.
Even into 3.x, these spells were still the best in class at their levels and you saw very similiar spell selection by players (DMs could use different combos as the Sorcerer/Wizard had a life expectancy of 1 encounter).
Raven Crowking
First Post
So, do you think that the annoyingname monsters were accidentally different from the OGL names as well?
Raven Crowking
First Post
BTW, this is simply incorrect. The intentions of the OGL were clearly stated at the time of release, and it was not to have third party support be merely modules and monster books. Indeed, it was stated directly that part of the intent was to proliferate d20-based games so that the core mechanics would be familiar to a greater number of potential players, because, to paraphrase, "All roads lead to D&D".
If anything, the GSL is an attempt to reboot third parties to something different than was intended with the OGL. What 3pp did with the OGL was exactly what WotC told them to do, in no uncertain terms.
RC
I dunno. In 2e I usually started campaigns playing a thief, started to feel useless about 7th level or so (fighters were much more effective in melee; wizards were better at stealth), lost my character sheet over summer break (I was in college at the time), and built a wizard.
In 3.x, a low-level wizard with a decent dex can be reasonably effective with a crossbow when he's out of spells, but that's not particularly wizard-esque, and he'll only drop feats on point-blank shot and precise shot (which you need for decent missile combat skill in the long run) if he's planning on doing a lot with ray spells, and I did do some of that.
I think they intentionally added adjectives to everything because they learned a lesson from Magic the Gathering about naming conventions in an environment in which you need multiple specific versions of the same general type of monster.So, do you think that the annoyingname monsters were accidentally different from the OGL names as well?
The Little Raven
First Post
I view 4e as a kinda of "Greatest Hits of D&D" or an Ultimate Marvel take on D&D and its long and convoluted stories. There were elements in previous editions I didn't care for, but with the way they redid them in 4e, I really do like them. Like the distinction between demons and devils... previously, it was just a matter of Law and Chaos clashing, and Law/Chaos is not something that I personally vibe with. Now, with devils being the angelic betrayers and demons being elementals turned entropic, I find them much more flavorful and interesting, and have been using them extensively in my games.
Voadam
Legend
I like the condensing of the skill lists and the ease to become good at a non archetypal skill.
3e skills were very fiddly with cross class skills being double cost with half the class skill maximums. The lists were long and there were specific rewards for using points to get one rank to access certain skills, five ranks for synergies, enough to hit certain DCs (concentration for defensive casting and tumble to avoid AoOs), enough to hit certain prereqs (prcs), or maxing out certain ones (opposed role such as spot and listen versus hide and move silent). Skill points were few while the lists are long and the math gets messy if you multiclass. Choices had to be made at every level and strategies figured out to achieve minor mechanical issues.
4e does a good job of simplifying the system while still allowing easy customization.
3e skills were very fiddly with cross class skills being double cost with half the class skill maximums. The lists were long and there were specific rewards for using points to get one rank to access certain skills, five ranks for synergies, enough to hit certain DCs (concentration for defensive casting and tumble to avoid AoOs), enough to hit certain prereqs (prcs), or maxing out certain ones (opposed role such as spot and listen versus hide and move silent). Skill points were few while the lists are long and the math gets messy if you multiclass. Choices had to be made at every level and strategies figured out to achieve minor mechanical issues.
4e does a good job of simplifying the system while still allowing easy customization.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Having just finished the book, I strongly disagree.
People talk about Vance's system like it was mostly about memorization of spells.
From my read, it was not. It was mostly about KILLING ANYTHING WITH MAGIC. Vance spells, 75% of the time in the book, either kill you outright (or the equivalent) or are avoided or blocked outright. Almost no wiggle room. Almost no utility. Vancian magic was mostly save or die.
In Vance's Dying Earth books, a wizard could essentially cast a handfull of death spells per day. And it was never dozens and dozens of spells...always a handfull at best, and usually only 3-4. Most were various gruesome ways of killing someone (teleporting them miles below into the earth, filling them with holes from multiple laser shots, etc...). A few were utility, like flight or invisibility (Phandaal's Mantle of Stealth) or time stop (Spell of the Slow Hour) or endurance (The Charm of Untiring Nourishment). Some others seemed like utility were actually similar to auto-kill, like summon something to fly a person across the planet (which in D&D would be nearly the equivalent of death, if a character is separated by a planet's width of space from the party and having no way to return).
So no, we do not want a system MORE like Vance's system. Vancian wizards are godlike beings that could slay any Fighter on a whim with a single spell if that Fighter does not have protection from magic.
Last edited:
Voadam
Legend
The alignment system reminds me of WFRP 1e where the continuum was:
Chaos->Evil->Neutral->Good->Law.
Didn't like it then, don't like it now.
Still leaves open issues such as whether something is LG or G or CE or E or should be unaligned. You can still play the game of aligning fiction characters (is Voldemort E or CE)
The decoupling of alignment from mechanical effects however is IMO fantastic and makes the still existing alignment definition issues largely irrelevant.
Chaos->Evil->Neutral->Good->Law.
Didn't like it then, don't like it now.
Still leaves open issues such as whether something is LG or G or CE or E or should be unaligned. You can still play the game of aligning fiction characters (is Voldemort E or CE)
The decoupling of alignment from mechanical effects however is IMO fantastic and makes the still existing alignment definition issues largely irrelevant.
