Why is it so important?

[Wormwood]

My problem is 25 spell levels. Am I the only one who sees that as a bit excessive?

Actually, I'm predicting there will be 30 spell levels---one for each character level.

It would also be reasonable to assume that an 18th-level spell in 4e is about as powerful as a ninth-level spell was in 3e.

Long overdue, IMHO.

 

[Wormwood]

So, how many people were clamouring for a mage to be able to do more all the time, *before* the relevant details of 4e were released?

I had *no idea* how crappy my television looked until I got an HDTV.

 

[AllisterH]

For me, it's a flavour issue.

I can understand "It will take me X minutes to rest/refocus/meditate/gather my chi" (which is how per-encounter works in IH/SWSE/Bo9S) versus the seemingly arbitary numer of times one can use an ability in a per-day system.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Merlion, that was in all honesty not a threat. Trying to insult people on these forums is considered unacceptable, by the terms and conditions here, etc. I'm not making this stuff up.

I think the best thing I can do in this situation is something I really don't like doing. But, IL it is. :\

I will continue to voice my opinions, yes even in this forum, and even if those opinions should be at odds with the majority, or a vocal minority. But I won't have to do it with that kind of stuff being slung towards me, now.

Because yeah, I forgot about that other option, before.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

A general question -- will a "per-encounter" system lead to PCs retreating from a combat and resting for 1 minute (or whatever is necessary) to reset their per-encounter abilities?

And a specific response to the idea that a wizard's "thing" is casting spells. I thought that 3E went a good way towards designing challenges that fit the wizard's OTHER major role in myth and legend -- the Knower of Things. Wizards' intelligence and problem-solving abilities were called out as assets in the Moldvay red book Basic Set, but were not really quantified until the Knowledge skills came into play. Now, I worry that 4E is going to drop that aspect of a wizards' role in favor of just spell-slinging.

If DMs really enforced Knowledge checks, and tweaked monsters' abilities and weaknesses so that metagaming is impossible, the wizard's Knowledge skills were invaluable. A good 3E campaign made wizard's intelligence and knowledge just as useful as their spells.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hong, you beat me to this! If the only way you can play a class in a particular range of levels is to play against the stereotype you see of that class in books, comics and movies, there is something wrong with it.

Certainly, I agree. However, I think that the Vancian system has allowed this more than you realize.

Overall, in almost any classic fantasy story, wizards do guard their spells and are careful about how much magic they use. How many spells does Gandalf actually cast? In the Earthsea books, we are told that "To light a candle is to produce a shadow" (or words to the same effect) and that magic should be used sparingly. Certainly, in A Wizard of Earthsea, Ged doesn't gain his abilities "per encounter"....the Shadow is able to wear him down slowly by preventing him from resting fully.

I'd be happy to grant that there are all sorts of fantasy novels/films that have appeared, using either (skewed) D&D or computer games as their source of "magical" inspiration, but these resonate far less with me (and I suspect, some others) than the original material from which the genesis of their ideas emerged.

So, we have Harry Potter, who can presumably use any spell he knows any time he likes, but who cannot simply summon the Golden Egg or the Goblet of Fire to him because it would ruin the plot of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.....or for that matter simply summon the Golden Snitch, making Quiddich a short game indeed.

We also have the dark sorcerers of REH, guarding their magics for when they are needed, Gandalf doing likewise, Ged doing likewise, Merlin doing likewise, and most of the magical types of most of the pre-D&D fantasies doing likewise.

I would rather the game emulate the classical fantasy books than Harry Potter. I know that not everyone feels that way, but then neither is everyone going "Woot! I can emulate Harry Potter now!" either.


RC

 

[Dalberon]

"I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such."

I like the idea for several reasons.

Spellcasters become more interesting/fun to play for new players. There are several people I have met that I would love to have in my gaming group. They are interesting, entertaining to talk to, and have a creative streak a mile long...but they either don't get the rules or find that playing a wizard isn't as entertaining when they have to resort to melee. After the 5th miss in combat, its not uncommon to hear new players looking for ways to punish their dice...

I think alot of the discussions that have been taking place on these boards have been with how these changes affect the PCs and their downtime. I am not sure if people are actually considering how these changes affect combat for the adversaries. With combat becoming more lethal (supposedly you would be able to dish out more damage), I think the chance for more life threatening encounters happen from start to finish...not at just X encounter of the day. I really liked the battle at Helm's Deep in the LotR movies...I can see that kind of massive and fast paced combat taking place with the revision to the rules.

Regardless of what 4e will bring to us, those that don't like the changes will still have a viable and established game system in 3.5 Ed. I wouldn't be surprised if there were still folks playing 2nd Ed or the Basic Box Set.

 

[gizmo33]

I'm not following how this is supposed to work. If you remove daily resources then any encounter that is not a measurable threat to the PCs will be completely meaningless. At least in 3E an encounter that didn't threaten the lives the PCs could at least threaten their daily resources. Daily spells, hitpoints, and healing magic were the approximators of "fatigue" in 3E. And if there are daily resources of some kind, and the difficulty of individual encounters are increasing, then isn't the calculation of resting for the day still the same as it was before?

 

[Rykion]

Hm.

So, how many people were clamouring for a mage to be able to do more all the time, *before* the relevant details of 4e were released? Or has 4e suddenly shown just about everyone (or perhaps, nearly everyone who is "vocal" in this forum, for example) something they didn't realise about the horrors of playing a mage in 3e, 2e, 1e, BECMI, B/X and OD&D (and the rest). . .?

My current group has never used by the book Vancian magic. The first change we made was to quit forcing memorization. Casters still had limited spells per day and had to rest to recover them, but they could cast any combination of spells they knew. We also gave wizards a relatively weak ray attack that didn't use up any slots, so they're never completely out of magic. Most of my players still prefer the magic systems from other RPGs.

 

[Merlion]

Certainly, I agree. However, I think that the Vancian system has allowed this more than you realize.

Overall, in almost any classic fantasy story, wizards do guard their spells and are careful about how much magic they use. How many spells does Gandalf actually cast? In the Earthsea books, we are told that "To light a candle is to produce a shadow" (or words to the same effect) and that magic should be used sparingly. Certainly, in A Wizard of Earthsea, Ged doesn't gain his abilities "per encounter"....the Shadow is able to wear him down slowly by preventing him from resting fully.

I'd be happy to grant that there are all sorts of fantasy novels/films that have appeared, using either (skewed) D&D or computer games as their source of "magical" inspiration, but these resonate far less with me (and I suspect, some others) than the original material from which the genesis of their ideas emerged.

So, we have Harry Potter, who can presumably use any spell he knows any time he likes, but who cannot simply summon the Golden Egg or the Goblet of Fire to him because it would ruin the plot of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.....or for that matter simply summon the Golden Snitch, making Quiddich a short game indeed.

We also have the dark sorcerers of REH, guarding their magics for when they are needed, Gandalf doing likewise, Ged doing likewise, Merlin doing likewise, and most of the magical types of most of the pre-D&D fantasies doing likewise.

I would rather the game emulate the classical fantasy books than Harry Potter. I know that not everyone feels that way, but then neither is everyone going "Woot! I can emulate Harry Potter now!" either.


RC

Yes, in more or less all fantasy mages guard/hoard their power to varying degrees. Almost always because they have a finite amount of "energy" and/or it tires them physically or mentally. And there is often also (as in the case of Gandalf, who isnt really a wizard, and in Earthsea) of their use being limited on more philosophical/later ramifications grounds.


However, I dont really feel that the Vancian deal of "forgetting" a spell when its cast, and having to have multiple "copies" of a given spell "prepared" in order to create a given effect more than once fits with this very well.

I think there are pitfalls in what they are suggesting definitely. I still think I will like the Arcana Evolved base magic system better. And for people to like the Vancian system is fine, but I dont really think it reflects the source material that well (the issue of wanting to conserve magic is going to exist to some extent in any balanced system), and I dont think its much of a shakes mechanically either.