Why is it so important?

[Merlion]

Yep. That would be me.

I understand your desire for a more "novel-like" feel to the magic system (or a more folkloric feel, if you're like me!), but I don't share your belief that what we're hearing described in the 4e blogs is it. To me, it is even farther away than the current system.

I certainly accept that this is a matter of opinion, though.


RC

Well, i basically just feel like almost any aproach is more like literature/folklore than the Vancian one.

I dont think the 4e system will fit some concepts very well either, certainly. Each "magical action" will still be a set mechanical package...there will be no making up effects on the fly, or even altering existing spells on the fly. Mostly as I've said it'll do away with the "I know how to do this particular magic, but as soon as I do I cant use it anymore unless I prepare multiple copies" issue. Wizards will have some abilities that they can always or nearly always use. It will be easier, i think, to mentally tweak into a more folkloric mold.

Chances are I will still like the Arcana Evolved system better. I just dont feel that some of the specific fears expressed in this thread are necessarily justified or at least as assured as some seem to think. I think we are missing a lot of pieces.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm just saying in discussion of Wizards Gandalf isnt a particularly great example.

Change that to "D&D Wizards" and we might agree.....

......Though, of course, Merlin was supposed to be the son of a demon, so I guess that means we couldn't use him as an example either......



Anyway, I don't want to bog this thread down with Tolkein (though would be happy to discuss more with you, ravencrowking at hotmail dot com).

If nothing else, 4e is really changing the way I think about game design, both in theory and in practice. The more of this back-and-forth I read, the more amazed I am at Gygax's work, and how often he seemed to intuit both the problems and potential solutions (though not only solutions!) to those problems. Games may well have evolved past OD&D, but it seems that problems we face today are the result of that evolution, and it amazes me how much we seem to be reaching back to the past to find the solutions.......

 

[Merlion]

Change that to "D&D Wizards" and we might agree.....

......Though, of course, Merlin was supposed to be the son of a demon, so I guess that means we couldn't use him as an example either......



Anyway, I don't want to bog this thread down with Tolkein (though would be happy to discuss more with you, ravencrowking at hotmail dot com).

If nothing else, 4e is really changing the way I think about game design, both in theory and in practice. The more of this back-and-forth I read, the more amazed I am at Gygax's work, and how often he seemed to intuit both the problems and potential solutions (though not only solutions!) to those problems. Games may well have evolved past OD&D, but it seems that problems we face today are the result of that evolution, and it amazes me how much we seem to be reaching back to the past to find the solutions.......

Well, the only real issue with Merlin as an example would be narrowing it down to which "Merlin."


For me, its basically this. What I see of the changes so far, which isnt much, I tend to like personally, and think are sound from a design and balance perspective. I understand all of your fears, and share some of them a little, but I think that there will be factors in place to avoid those pittfalls, we just havent been shown them yet.

 

[Imaro]

You know, after getting home from work and reading through most of the posts since I left I have to reiterate what I said in another post(that was quickly drowned out by other 4e posts) check out Monte Cook's world of Darkness game for a magic system that solves the whole, not enough problem and is adaptable enough to have spell lists and free-form magic.

In the game mages have what are called components of which they get a certain amount each level. These components replenish over time and are used as the building blocks for spells. For exampole you purchase area, range, duration and damage for an attack spell. The cost generates your DC with a spellcraft check and determines the amount of fatigue you suffer from the spell(a stacking penalty applied to your spellcraft check until you rest.).

Now a weaker spell generates little or even no fatigue, so you could do the same damage a fighter of the same level does without suffering any fatigue, but when you go for nova type spells your risk and fatigue increase significantly, limiting how many of these types of spells you can cast over extended periods of time as well as your chance of failure.

"spells" or rotes as they are called in the game are specififc magical effects that are so common and practiced so much that they have become easier to cast(bonus to spellcraft check and less fatigue), as long as you cast them as is. If you alter them then they become free form magic as above.

Finally all mages can choose a type like Warlock(damage magic and power magic)...Necromancer(magic dealing with the dead and undead) etc. this type makes certain types of spells easier for you to cast if they fall under your artchetype.

 

[wgreen]

You know, after getting home from work and reading through most of the posts since I left I have to reiterate what I said in another post(that was quickly drowned out by other 4e posts) check out Monte Cook's world of Darkness game for a magic system that solves the whole, not enough problem and is adaptable enough to have spell lists and free-form magic.

In the game mages have what are called components of which they get a certain amount each level. These components replenish over time and are used as the building blocks for spells. For exampole you purchase area, range, duration and damage for an attack spell. The cost generates your DC with a spellcraft check and determines the amount of fatigue you suffer from the spell(a stacking penalty applied to your spellcraft check until you rest.).

Huh. Sounds suspiciously like Donjon!

Carry on.

-Will

 

[Grog]

1. In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle. It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario. We have been told for a very long time, "if it doesn't impact the game, it's better to handwave it."

This assumes that the only reason to have a battle is to consume resources. But there's another, much simpler reason to have battles - because they're fun. And I don't think most gaming groups judge how much fun a battle was by how many per-day resources it consumed. I've been gaming for a long time now, and I've never played in a group that judged how much fun a battle was in that way.

 

[Imaro]

This assumes that the only reason to have a battle is to consume resources. But there's another, much simpler reason to have battles - because they're fun. And I don't think most gaming groups judge how much fun a battle was by how many per-day resources it consumed. I've been gaming for a long time now, and I've never played in a group that judged how much fun a battle was in that way.

I have, in general, seen players more psyched about a battle that was hard and took everything they had to win(especially when they aren't at full power), than a gimme encounter even though they looked cooler in the gimme encounter. There was just more tension, and excitement in the first type, especially if it's for something important. YMMV of course.

 

[Merlion]

I have, in general, seen players more psyched about a battle that was hard and took everything they had to win(especially when they aren't at full power), than a gimme encounter even though they looked cooler in the gimme encounter. There was just more tension, and excitement in the first type, especially if it's for something important. YMMV of course.

Well, it depends on circumstances.


And also lets remember there are more degrees than life or death or "gimme". Theres a wide range in between.

 

[Celebrim]

First off, thats only part of my overall problem, and nextly how exactly is it easily addressed in the system?

By an evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary one. Right now the problem is that all of a wizards magical abilities are linked to 'per day'. But, the current d20 system supports 'at will' powers just fine. Since you are worried about wizards running out of wizardly things to do in combat, simply give them a built in 'wand' which never runs out of charges. No 'per encounter' powers are then needed.

For example, using terms that should be familiar from the current rules set:
1st-5th level: Can use 'ray of frost' (1d3 elemental damage) as an attack action.
6th-10th level: As above, plus can fire a 'magic missile' (1d4+1 force damage) as an attack action.
11th-15th level: As above, plus can fire a scorching ray (4d6 elemental damage) as an attack action.
16-20th level: As above, plus can use a lightning bolt (5d6 elemental damage, reflex for half) as an attack action.

There, I've fixed the problem. A full write up would probably take a page or two. A slightly more flexible system might allow you to substitute out certain non-blaster type spells, and basically any minor variation on the warlock class features would work here.

No need for 'per encounter', major revisions of the vancian system, or an approach that would render translation from the prior editions versions of a 'Wizard' to 4e difficult.

The biggest complaint I think you'd see with something like the above is that except at 1st 2nd, or 3rd level, the fall back spell option I described would be used very rarely in most peoples games. At latter levels, you'd almost always have better options. So, simple as it is, its a lot of complexity in the class description for the simple goal that it achieves.

And many already reduce magic items in their existing games.

Even hard core 'grim and gritty' types like myself who look at magic shops as if they were steaming dog turds tend to classify limited use magic items like potions, scrolls, and wands quite differently than magic items in general. After reading this discussion, I think you can probably guess why.

And more importantly, many consider it bad design for magic items to be needed to fill gaps in character abilities.

Even wizards? This is going to sound snarky, but if a wizard doesn't have magic potions, scrolls, wands, or staffs and assorted wizardly trappings, then he's doesn't strike me as being very 'wizardly'. The ability to make and use these items is very wizardly indeed, and quite rightly has _always_ been considered part of a wizards character abilities.

Besides which, we aren't talking about gaps in the character abilities. We are talking about allowing the wizard to act wizardly all the time. That's the goal right? You don't think a wizard needs his magic wand to be wizardly far more than a fighter needs a magic sword?

 

[Grog]

I have, in general, seen players more psyched about a battle that was hard and took everything they had to win(especially when they aren't at full power), than a gimme encounter even though they looked cooler in the gimme encounter. There was just more tension, and excitement in the first type, especially if it's for something important. YMMV of course.

Oh, I agree that difficult encounters tend to be more fun than easy ones (though that definitely depends on why an encounter is difficult - my experiences as a DM have told me that there's often a fine line between "difficult" and "frustrating"). I'm just saying that, in all my years of gaming, I've never seen an exchange like this one:

DM: So, how was that fight? Was it fun for you guys?
Player: Wait, let me check my character sheet to see how many spells I cast.... Yeah, it was fun.

And also, I see no reason that it won't be entirely possible for 4E PCs to have a fun encounter where they expend only a little or even none of their per-day resources.